[DRAFT] Welfare in Seed Trade

[John Turner]

Actually what people call "welfare" is actually social assistance. While that would fall under the umbrella of social justice, that is not actually what the welfare section of the category is eluding to.

The "welfare" the category is eluding to is the overall wellbeing of the population. This proposal does not ensure that, because even if seed prices go down, there is no regulation on what the farmers can sell their product for, thus transferring the monopolistic gains this seeks to prevent from the seed companies to the farmers, as they will now become richer off the backs of the general population. Thus it is still a category violation no matter how many times IA tries to twist the meaning of his interpretation.

You cannot get economic profits in a near-perfect market.

And you cannot really get gold from a leprechaun. Now since neither actually exist, your argument falls on it's face yet again.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Sorry to join the UFoC front, but I don't see it as SJ either. Since it concerns agriculture and applies restrictions on seed-sellers/makers, would Environmental: Agriculture work? True, it doesn't touch the farmers' practices, but seed-producing companies count as agricultural ones, don't they? I mean, seeds don't normally appear out of thin air, rather they have to actually farm plants that then produce those seeds...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...and considering a large part of the RL motivation for producing genetically modified crops in the first place stems from the desire to sell enough pesticide and herbicide that farmers can basically drown 'em in it without lowering crop yields, I'd say that fits.

[A Humanist Science]

Welfare in Seed Trade
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild

---

Convinced that transgenic crops increase yield per acre and assist in solving issues related to world hunger and food scarcity,

Believing that infertile crops can help prevent accidental cross-contamination of native ecosystems with transgenic crops without the prohibitively expensive costs associated with stringent environmental regulations,

Concerned about how infertile crops could lead to corporate exploitation of farmers, but

Confident that simple economic regulations will prevent economic exploitation whilst preserving the utility of transgenic crops for preventing accidental cross-contamination,

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines genetic use restriction technology (GURT) as a technology used to modify a crop genome such to render it infertile or unexpressive of desired traits without the application of specialty chemicals and

2. Requires that when GURT-breeds are sold,

1. a breed which does not use such technologies is available and
   
   
2. such GURT-breeds are priced at the same price as the non-GURT breed, excluding those development costs necessary for the implementation of GURT traits.

"We understand that this proposal requires that when use restricted cultivars are sold, a non-use restricted variety of the same GMO cultivar must also be made available. Is this not problematic because this requirement will completely undermine biological intellectual property and so remove an effective means for GMO researchers and manufacturers to recuperate their R&D expenses?

"This is a problem, since the most likely result is a huge reduction in the research and manufacture of more blight-resistant and nutritious crops. Which has obvious and dire consequences for farmers and consumers alike. Requiring biotech manufacturers to crash their own markets does little to help 'increase yield per acre and assist in solving issues related to world hunger and food scarcity.'

"We wonder if you could also clarify the intent of the final clause:

such GURT-breeds are priced at the same price as the non-GURT breed, excluding those development costs necessary for the implementation of GURT traits.

"Again, if we understand correctly, the requirements of this clause will forbid including the cost of the development of use restriction technologies in the cost of use restricted GMO cultivars. Does this not ultimately constitute a de facto ban on use restriction technologies? If researchers and manufactures are effectively prevented from recuperating the cost of developing a technology, they will not develop that technology. This will have at least a couple of possible effects:

"1) The development of GMO cultivars without inherent means of protecting native ecosystems through more directly controlled or prevented fertility, and/or

"2) The large-scale abandonment of GMO development, and so the large scale abandonment of research aimed at producing heartier and healthier sources of nutrition, as biotech abandons a market collapsed by an extremely severe price cap."

[Araraukar]

...and considering a large part of the RL motivation for producing genetically modified crops in the first place stems from the desire to sell enough pesticide and herbicide that farmers can basically drown 'em in it without lowering crop yields, I'd say that fits.

UFoC already said it:

So how does this increase basic welfare again?

*snip*

It is a category violation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I just thought of something - posting a new post rather than editing my previous so that the author knows something was added - how would this proposal fit crops plants that aren't planted as seeds? Think of potatoes; you never plant the actual seeds, but the tubers.

[Imperium Anglorum]

such GURT-breeds are priced at the same price as the non-GURT breed, excluding those development costs necessary for the implementation of GURT traits.

"Again, if we understand correctly, the requirements of this clause will forbid including the cost of the development of use restriction technologies in the cost of use restricted GMO cultivars. Does this not ultimately constitute a de facto ban on use restriction technologies? If researchers and manufactures are effectively prevented from recuperating the cost of developing a technology, they will not develop that technology.

Look at what I bolded.

---

We will also have a Moderation query regarding category up later today as well. To reference Yes, Minister, since it's been officially announced, I've got to do it now!

[Araraukar]

We will also have a Moderation query regarding category up later today as well. To reference Yes, Minister, since it's been officially announced, I've got to do it now!

OOC: Good, because I still don't see it as SJ.

But since you're now replying to things again, howabout replying to my last post?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't use the word seed and thereby sidesteps that problem.

[Araraukar]

It doesn't use the word seed and thereby sidesteps that problem.

It does mention infertility, though.

Just so that we're all on the same page with this, let's say there's a plant species A. It is predated on by a bug. GMO techniques are used to make it poisonous to the bug, but because it is closely related with plant species B, which is a weed, they make it infertile in the way that it doesn't produce pollen, to avoid crosspollination with species B.

Would your proposal require that GMO-A can be sold as long as they also sell normal A, or that they have to also make a GMO-A with pollen?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't use the word seed and thereby sidesteps that problem.

It does mention infertility, though.

It also mentions or unexpressive. Now, for potatoes and seedless bananas, all that needs to be done is that if you engineer an infertile version of those plants — sell it at the same price as a non-infertile version of those plants (excluding development costs).

---

It doesn't use the word seed and thereby sidesteps that problem.

It does mention infertility, though.

Just so that we're all on the same page with this, let's say there's a plant species A. It is predated on by a bug. GMO techniques are used to make it poisonous to the bug, but because it is closely related with plant species B, which is a weed, they make it infertile in the way that it doesn't produce pollen, to avoid crosspollination with species B.

Would your proposal require that GMO-A can be sold as long as they also sell normal A, or that they have to also make a GMO-A with pollen?

Both are reasonable interpretations of the proposal as it currently stands.

[Araraukar]

I did see your original post here. If you'd like me to take it down off the spoiler here, then I'll do so.

OOC: Please do, I had a re-read and re-think and decided that wasn't what I wanted to post. See my updated previous post, it addresses my concerns better.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Addressed query.

[Araraukar]

Would your proposal require that GMO-A can be sold as long as they also sell normal A, or that they have to also make a GMO-A with pollen?

Both are reasonable interpretations of the proposal as it currently stands.

...what? You're either arguing for option 1 or for option 2, not both.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Both are reasonable interpretations of the proposal as it currently stands.

...what? You're either arguing for option 1 or for option 2, not both.

I would say that both are reasonable interpretations of the proposal as it currently stands and that national implementation thereof will, naturally, be different. So far as that is true, nations will be required to create laws something of the like. One option or the other solves the issue for different plants better than for other plants and it would be stupid of to mandate that it must be done one way or the other.

[Araraukar]

One option or the other solves the issue for different plants better than for other plants and it would be stupid of to mandate that it must be done one way or the other.

So basically you don't actually want this to do anything, should it pass?

[Imperium Anglorum]

One option or the other solves the issue for different plants better than for other plants and it would be stupid of to mandate that it must be done one way or the other.

So basically you don't actually want this to do anything, should it pass?

In some cases, the transgenic-A is going to be the same as normal A, just with GURT. Thus, that isn't a problem. In others, the transgenic-GURT-A is a modification of transgenic-A. This leaves open both possibilities so that the best option can be chosen. However it is, both the original and the developed product must be sold.

[Araraukar]

However it is, both the original and the developed product must be sold.

Ok, this was the thing I was trying to get out of you.

One more question; does the same business have to sell both? If seed producer AA sells the unaltered seeds, but GM business BB creates and sells the GURT seeds. Does BB now have to sell the unaltered seeds too?

[Imperium Anglorum]

However it is, both the original and the developed product must be sold.

One more question; does the same business have to sell both? If seed producer AA sells the unaltered seeds, but GM business BB creates and sells the GURT seeds. Does BB now have to sell the unaltered seeds too?

That's up for states to implement. I would say that both are acceptable methods of dealing with the issue so long as regulatory oversight is utilised to maintain price stability.