[PASSED] Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Approve here.

Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"
Category: Repeal

---

Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,

Concerned that these restrictions place an unnecessary technological constraint on food production that increases the chance of famine as populations grow faster than food output,

Noting that the target resolution does not ban the domestic for-proft production of these seeds whilst burdening governments with unnecessary restrictions that compromise competitiveness, technological advantages, trade secrets, and national autonomies, and

Believing that 249 GA's ban on a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile' would make it significantly harder to protect native species from the accidental spread of transgenic organisms without prohibitively expensive administrative protocols,

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Objects to the ban on 'government funding [of] any for-profit entity that is engaged in GURT or [its] research', as nations should be able to fund those emergent technologies they believe are necessary to maintain their competitiveness in the global economy;
   
   
2. Protests the fact that private companies must disclose trade secrets developed after significant investment to a world agency without any guarantee that their investments will be protected, opening the door for foreign corporate espionage;
   
   
3. Disapproves of the ban on 'transport across a national border, without preapproval from WAFDRA, of any plant or seed that has been modified using GURT' as national governments are quite able to regulate their own foodstuffs without the pre-approval of an inefficient international committee;
   
   
4. Hopes for replacement legislation that corrects these issues without the collateral damage noted to the environment, national competitiveness, technological advantages, trade secrets, and national autonomies;
   
   
5. Repeals 249 GA 'Stopping Suicide Seeds'.

OOC: This, admittedly, is quite the uphill battle. The title is absolutely fantastic.

Replacement.

Drafted to assist Knootoss in pursuing their 2015 targets.

[John Turner]

Support! Support! Support! *takes shoe off and bangs it on desk* SUPPORT!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support! Support! Support! *takes shoe off and bangs it on desk* SUPPORT!

Parsons: (joins in the banging) Thank you!

[Separatist Peoples]

"We take strong objection with clauses 1 and 3. Clause 1 suggests that the short-term monetary outlook of government-supported research is somehow more important that safeguarding the global agricultural foodstuff supply from cross-contamination and death. Regardless of what is best for a nation's economic self-interests, the concerns of the world as a whole need to be considered. Indeed, there is no way to safeguard national sovereignty from foreign interference if nations can funnel money into such business interests and create a product with significant danger to domestic agriculture.

"Clause 3 is misguided. If nations were capable of regulating their own transportation in the manner you assume they can, this would never be a risk. The international transportation of dangerous material is absolutely within the purview of the World Assembly, especially if the transportation is managed by the same government that puts profit over the well-being of the rest of the world, and is inclined to cut costs at many corners. The risks involved with genetically modified agricultural products with suicide genes is great enough to warrant additional protection, and the benefits from such oversight pays itself a thousandfold when considering the potential damage."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clause 1 suggests that the short-term monetary outlook of government-supported research is somehow more important that safeguarding the global agricultural foodstuff supply from cross-contamination and death. Regardless of what is best for a nation's economic self-interests, the concerns of the world as a whole need to be considered. Indeed, there is no way to safeguard national sovereignty from foreign interference if nations can funnel money into such business interests and create a product with significant danger to domestic agriculture.

Would not prevention of cross-contamination require the use of more of these suicide seeds lest genetically modified organisms were to out-compete native crops? (OOC: Oh, and that is a really good clause to add...)

"Clause 3 is misguided. If nations were capable of regulating their own transportation in the manner you assume they can, this would never be a risk. The international transportation of dangerous material is absolutely within the purview of the World Assembly, especially if the transportation is managed by the same government that puts profit over the well-being of the rest of the world, and is inclined to cut costs at many corners. The risks involved with genetically modified agricultural products with suicide genes is great enough to warrant additional protection, and the benefits from such oversight pays itself a thousandfold when considering the potential damage."

How about in cases where populations require more effective crops which are able to more effectively and efficiently grow the food necessary to sustain the population without endangering native species? Furthermore, is it not possible for nations to conduct such regulation by themselves?

[Separatist Peoples]

Would not prevention of cross-contamination require the use of more of these suicide seeds lest genetically modified organisms were to out-compete native crops? (OOC: Oh, and that is a really good clause to add...)

"No. Prevention of cross-contamination requires stringent environmental regulation and the most careful of transportation standards. Suicide seeds are designed to terminate after a particular number of germination, not necessarily after a single germination, which leaves the possibility for cross-contamination from bees, butterflies, and other creatures. The use of additional seeds with these genetic modifications is not necessarily required."

OOC: That was a difficult sentence to parse out, IA. Did I translate correctly?

How about in cases where populations require more effective crops which are able to more effectively and efficiently grow the food necessary to sustain the population without endangering native species? Furthermore, is it not possible for nations to conduct such regulation by themselves?

"Those situations require international aid, not the agricultural equivalent of eating your dairy cow. In those cases, alternative options to reducing protections are necessary. Having World Assembly oversight ensures that there are no corners cut, nor precautions overlooked. Which is necessary, since we're talking about the welfare of worldwide agriculture."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would not prevention of cross-contamination require the use of more of these suicide seeds lest genetically modified organisms were to out-compete native crops? (OOC: Oh, and that is a really good clause to add...)

"No. Prevention of cross-contamination requires stringent environmental regulation and the most careful of transportation standards. Suicide seeds are designed to terminate after a particular number of germination, not necessarily after a single germination, which leaves the possibility for cross-contamination from bees, butterflies, and other creatures. The use of additional seeds with these genetic modifications is not necessarily required."

'Nor are they required in the current resolution. Repealing it would allow for legislation that would do what you suggested to be proposed whilst also dealing with the issues that are currently in this resolution.'

OOC: That was a difficult sentence to parse out, IA. Did I translate correctly?

OOC: I believe so. Also, with a background in these affairs (if I remember correctly), you would make a very nice prospective author for a replacement. Economics is my home field, not biology, which is why this is approached from a primarily economic lens.

How about in cases where populations require more effective crops which are able to more effectively and efficiently grow the food necessary to sustain the population without endangering native species? Furthermore, is it not possible for nations to conduct such regulation by themselves?

"Those situations require international aid, not the agricultural equivalent of eating your dairy cow. In those cases, alternative options to reducing protections are necessary. Having World Assembly oversight ensures that there are no corners cut, nor precautions overlooked. Which is necessary, since we're talking about the welfare of worldwide agriculture."

'Yes, but international aid and possible dependancy thereof is never a solution for indigenous self-sustainability. If you are a farmer receiving food for free, you have no need to farm and may as well shut down. Quite simply, farmers are forced to close by large-scale food aid. A more permanent solution would be to grow strains of crops which are engineered to be more resistant to blights and other issues.'

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I heard Imperial Anglorim and John Turner were banging in here.
*takes the copy handed to her*
Oh... heavily support.

[Separatist Peoples]

'Nor are they required in the current resolution. Repealing it would allow for legislation that would do what you suggested to be proposed whilst also dealing with the issues that are currently in this resolution.'

"No, but repealing this resolution with the reasoning you've chosen places the desire for profit well over the requirements for safety. I'm not claiming the original resolution was perfect, but that your line of reasoning is unacceptable."

OOC: That was a difficult sentence to parse out, IA. Did I translate correctly?

OOC: I believe so. Also, with a background in these affairs (if I remember correctly), you would make a very nice prospective author for a replacement. Economics is my home field, not biology, which is why this is approached from a primarily economic lens.

OOC: Oh, hey, my background is in stuff bigger than a thumbtack, not smaller...

'Yes, but international aid and possible dependancy thereof is never a solution for indigenous self-sustainability. If you are a farmer receiving food for free, you have no need to farm and may as well shut down. Quite simply, farmers are forced to close by large-scale food aid. A more permanent solution would be to grow strains of crops which are engineered to be more resistant to blights and other issues.'

"Which can absolutely be done while aid keeps the locals from starving to death. This is still not justification for allowing the risk of cross-contamination. I literally cannot stress enough how very dangerous that event would be."

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Given that we, The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, have such an unconventional view on such subjects, namely, that assisted suicide is not only humane and--

AHUME: NO! (He whispers intently into Ari's ear.)

ARI: Oh. Oh, that one! Yes, you know, this resolution really steams my drawers. What a terrible misnomer. And... okay, Ahume, what the fuck is this resolution about anyway? (more whispering; Ari reads the proposal as Ahume continues to whisper.) Okay, look, Farmer Bill, why don't you just speak up so everyone can hear you, hmmm?

AHUME: (looks around nervously; reads the repeal, closes his eyes) Okay. Clause 1. No. GAR#158 has been repealed. Nothing wrong with GMOs. And. Cause 5. No. No replacement needed. Er. That's all for now.

ARI: There. Was that so difficult? Anyway. Yes, we would like to see a repeal, but this argument needs work.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I believe so. Also, with a background in these affairs (if I remember correctly), you would make a very nice prospective author for a replacement. Economics is my home field, not biology, which is why this is approached from a primarily economic lens.

OOC: Oh, hey, my background is in stuff bigger than a thumbtack, not smaller...

I've added a clause to hope for replacement legislation (which I lack the expertise to write without an exceptionally long review queue).

'Yes, but international aid and possible dependancy thereof is never a solution for indigenous self-sustainability. If you are a farmer receiving food for free, you have no need to farm and may as well shut down. Quite simply, farmers are forced to close by large-scale food aid. A more permanent solution would be to grow strains of crops which are engineered to be more resistant to blights and other issues.'

"Which can absolutely be done while aid keeps the locals from starving to death. This is still not justification for allowing the risk of cross-contamination. I literally cannot stress enough how very dangerous that event would be."

It is impossible for one to provide free food whilst also having the market incentives to produce more food without mass subsidisation. If a nation has the resources to pursue mass subsidies, it is probably also rich enough to not be eligible for mass food aid anyway, so the only scenario in which one could do both is a scenario that cannot happen.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is impossible for one to provide free food whilst also having the market incentives to produce more food without mass subsidisation. If a nation has the resources to pursue mass subsidies, it is probably also rich enough to not be eligible for mass food aid anyway, so the only scenario in which one could do both is a scenario that cannot happen.

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is still not reason enough to risk the entire world's agricultural sectors."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay. Clause 1. No. GAR#158 has been repealed. Nothing wrong with GMOs.

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Parsons: We are sure that those cases exist.

And. Cause 5. No. No replacement needed. Er. That's all for now.

Parsons: We believe that a replacement to regulate cross-contamination and safety is probably a good thing. It is in there so that we are on the safe side.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It is impossible for one to provide free food whilst also having the market incentives to produce more food without mass subsidisation. If a nation has the resources to pursue mass subsidies, it is probably also rich enough to not be eligible for mass food aid anyway, so the only scenario in which one could do both is a scenario that cannot happen.

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is still not reason enough to risk the entire world's agricultural sectors."

Which it won't, because nations are able to regulate things themselves.

[Separatist Peoples]

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is still not reason enough to risk the entire world's agricultural sectors."

Which it won't, because nations are able to regulate things themselves.

"You have a lot of faith that nations will not cut corners on those regulations to benefit themselves. After all, you are taking the position that the freedom to pursue economic profit is worth more than the risk of the suicide gene spreading to native agriculture."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Which it won't, because nations are able to regulate things themselves.

"You have a lot of faith that nations will not cut corners on those regulations to benefit themselves. After all, you are taking the position that the freedom to pursue economic profit is worth more than the risk of the suicide gene spreading to native agriculture."

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

[John Turner]

ARI: Oh. Oh, that one! Yes, you know, this resolution really steams my drawers. What a terrible misnomer.

Precisely. The title itself is self-righteous at best, and self-deluded at worst.

[Imperium Anglorum]

ARI: Oh. Oh, that one! Yes, you know, this resolution really steams my drawers. What a terrible misnomer.

Precisely. The title itself is self-righteous at best, and self-deluded at worst.

Could make the subject of prefatory clause.

[John Turner]

Precisely. The title itself is self-righteous at best, and self-deluded at worst.

Could make the subject of prefatory clause.

I would. I challenged the original resolution on the grounds that the title itself was inflammatory, and was completely misleading to the resolution at hand. The mods didn't agree....

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We will categorically oppose any codification into World Assembly law of any statement the likes of Clause 2a; and if the menacing threat of the non-member hordes of 2b isn't enough to dictate the way WA members conduct warfare and target our nuclear weapons, then it's sure as hell not enough to dictate our mere economics. We tend to stand opposed to repealing this one on general principles, but not vehemently; a good argument might convince us; except for that vile Clause 2."

OOC: 2a is perilously close to legislating in a repeal anyway, regardless of how my IC id feels about it

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We will categorically oppose any codification into World Assembly law of any statement the likes of Clause 2a; and if the menacing threat of the non-member hordes of 2b isn't enough to dictate the way WA members conduct warfare and target our nuclear weapons, then it's sure as hell not enough to dictate our mere economics. We tend to stand opposed to repealing this one on general principles, but not vehemently; a good argument might convince us; except for that vile Clause 2."

Changed it to 'should be'. Always happy to hear further recommendations on 2(a). Will consult later on 2(b). For the sake of avoiding gridlock, can we put that aside until 2(a) is completed?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Proofread and edits done to 2(a). 2(b) eliminated.

Or, in another way of saying it, the changes proposed by Sierra Lyricalia have been accepted.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Okay. Clause 1. No. GAR#158 has been repealed. Nothing wrong with GMOs.

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Parsons: We are sure that those cases exist.

AHUME: Yes. But. That. That clause implies it's... true for all... ummm... (His voice trails off.)

ARI: Yes, what he's saying is, it needs to be reworded in that case. Try this instead:

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, that are able to out-compete....

ARI: There now. Instead of saying, "we need to protect them from all GMOs because in some cases they can out-compete", you're saying, "we need to protect them from those GMOs that can out-compete". Are we making sense, Ambassador?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Parsons: We are sure that those cases exist.

AHUME: Yes. But. That. That clause implies it's... true for all... ummm... (His voice trails off.)

ARI: Yes, what he's saying is, it needs to be reworded in that case. Try this instead:

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, that are able to out-compete....

ARI: There now. Instead of saying, "we need to protect them from all GMOs because in some cases they can out-compete", you're saying, "we need to protect them from those GMOs that can out-compete". Are we making sense, Ambassador?

OOC: Change applied.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We will be submitting this in three days.