At Vote:[GA] Against Suicide Seeds [Complete]

Mousebumples

Mousebumples

TNPer
Against Suicide Seeds
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Agriculture
Proposed by: Christian Democrats

Description: The General Assembly,

Understanding that genetic use restriction technology (GURT), or suicide seed technology, is a set of genetic modification (GM), or genetic engineering (GE), techniques that threatens the integrity of non-GM plants as well as the independence of low-income farmers who save seeds -- if one farmer plants suicide seeds, his suicide plants can contaminate the fields of neighboring farmers, whose non-GM plants, in turn, become sterile, thus making it necessary for all of them to purchase new seeds the following year,

Realizing that Resolution 249, Stopping Suicide Seeds, was repealed by Resolution 366 on false pretenses, namely the untruthful claim that Resolution 249 imposed "an outright ban" on suicide seeds,

Recognizing that proponents of the repeal resolution made assurances that replacement legislation would be forthcoming, a promise that was never (intended to be) fulfilled,

Resolved, therefore, to reinstate basic regulatory protections for the environment and for the world's subsistence and small farmers against the exploitation of multinational biotech corporations that are bent on sterilizing non-GM crops (environmental destruction) and, by this means, on making the millennia-old practice of seed saving obsolete (monopolization),

1. Defines, for use in this resolution, the following types of GURT:

Variety genetic use restriction technology (V-GURT): a GM technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile;

Trait genetic use restriction technology (T-GURT): a GM technique that leads to plants whose seeds are fertile; but those seeds must be treated with a special chemical (or chemicals), usually one that is produced only by a certain company, so that they will grow properly or so that the plants grown from them will (more) fully express their genetic traits;

2. Requires that all member states ban or strictly regulate V-GURT and T-GURT;

3. Mandates that all companies, corporations, and other such entities that are engaged in GURT and in international commerce within the jurisdiction of this Assembly disclose to the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) all relevant information regarding their activities related to GURT;

4. Forbids private, for-profit entities from using government funding to engage in GURT or GURT research subject to the provisions of this resolution and other active resolutions enacted by this Assembly;

5. Prohibits the transport across a national border, without preapproval from WAFDRA, of any plant or seed that has been modified using GURT subject to the provisions of this resolution and other active resolutions enacted by this Assembly;

6. Calls upon member states, in their foreign policies (especially their trade policies) and in their laws regulating the biotechnology industry, to discourage misuse of GURT in other member states and in nonmember states; and

7. Clarifies that GURT, with proper regulatory oversight, may have some legitimate scientific uses and also that this resolution shall not be construed as international disapproval of other GM techniques.
Click to expand...

Please vote For, Against, Abstain, or Present.
 
General FYI, this is a resubmission of a proposal that had been repealed this spring. I'm guessing that TNP will be against this one since you were very much in favor of the repeal, but we'll see how things turn out, I guess. :)
 
Against. Mainly cuz its very sloppy in execution.

The first paragraph contradicts itself. How would a plant that can't reproduce spread and reproduce with unmodified plants in another field. It has the scientific logic behind it that worrying that a meteor hitting moon will kill all the bees in North America. It sounds like it could under weird circumstances be plausible but at the same time being utterly ridiculous.

I would also like to point out that GURT actually have viable and legitimate uses. For instance in highly mechanized, large scale farming. Where one of the biggest things you have to do is crop rotation to stop soil erosion. One of the biggest obstacles of crop rotation is Volunteer Plants that grow from previous harvest. Barring GURT means that the other option for crop rotation is to blanket the field with heavy chemical herbicides to kill off all seeds from the previous harvest. Otherwise the soil degrades and you end up with a dust bowl.
 
Mousebumples:
General FYI, this is a resubmission of a proposal that had been repealed this spring. I'm guessing that TNP will be against this one since you were very much in favor of the repeal, but we'll see how things turn out, I guess. :)
Click to expand...
As part of the GA moderation team that issued the ruling shafting me (so much so that the rules were changed immediately afterwards), you should know as well as anyone that the repeal resolution was a total lie.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=29533467#p29533467

Lord Lore:
Against. Mainly cuz its very sloppy in execution.

The first paragraph contradicts itself. How would a plant that can't reproduce spread and reproduce with unmodified plants in another field.
Click to expand...
The pollen of a suicide plant sterilizes the seeds of non-suicide plants, thus preventing seed saving.

Lord Lore:
It has the scientific logic behind it that worrying that a meteor hitting moon will kill all the bees in North America. It sounds like it could under weird circumstances be plausible but at the same time being utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's utterly ridiculous to legislate against suicide seeds. In the real world, Brazil and India have banned them, the UN has condemned them, and peer-reviewed journals have spotlighted their dangers to people in the developing world.
 
Lord Lore:
The first paragraph contradicts itself. How would a plant that can't reproduce spread and reproduce with unmodified plants in another field. It has the scientific logic behind it that worrying that a meteor hitting moon will kill all the bees in North America. It sounds like it could under weird circumstances be plausible but at the same time being utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
If you think about it, the plant needs to be pollinated to even *make* the suicide seeds. Every plant has a part that produces pollen, and a part that produces seeds. The part that makes the seed unable to reproduce is in the pollen, so if neighboring fields that *are not* producing suicide seeds are pollenated by the "suicide pollen", then their plants could either be sterilized, or it could produce an unregulated hybrid, thus rendering it unsellable.

I work for a seed research company in the summers hand-pollinating corn so that that sort of thing does not happen, because there are fields nearby of hybrid corn that they are experimenting with that have not been government-regulated. If non-regulated corn accidentally contaminates another field with its pollen, they could get in a heap of trouble.
 
Christian Democrats:
Lord Lore:
Against. Mainly cuz its very sloppy in execution.

The first paragraph contradicts itself. How would a plant that can't reproduce spread and reproduce with unmodified plants in another field.
Click to expand...
The pollen of a suicide plant sterilizes the seeds of non-suicide plants, thus preventing seed saving.

Lord Lore:
It has the scientific logic behind it that worrying that a meteor hitting moon will kill all the bees in North America. It sounds like it could under weird circumstances be plausible but at the same time being utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's utterly ridiculous to legislate against suicide seeds. In the real world, Brazil and India have banned them, the UN has condemned them, and peer-reviewed journals have spotlighted their dangers to people in the developing world.
Click to expand...
What you are saying seems more appropriate for a regulation on them or a relief program for those who had been adversely affected by that or to contain accidental exposure or spreading. But not such a harsh proposal with such harsh implications and wording. A complete freeze on government funding, tight border regulations, and etc.

And what I said after those snips still stand which you choose not to answer for. Outside of "Developing" countries that you mentioned in Industrialized economies it has not just limited "scientific uses" but commercial uses that help everyone. Because they can be used in a commercial setting to actively protect against soil erosion due to heavily mechanized large scale, high yield farms. Not uncommon in Industrial and Post-Industrial Countries.

In other words, it can be used in countries that often produce the most food to increase productivity, safe guard against the degradation of arable land, and help the countries increase their food supply and export more food to countries that do not either have the arable land, or the productivity to sustain their populations.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top