We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Centre and Unionists
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2454
Description[?]:
| This policy will, if passed and is designed to, allow the government to intervene, regulate and approve all chemicals being used on the crops of our proud nation. This is designed to decrease the chances of a health scare. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Current: There is no government oversight or regulation of pesticides.
Proposed: The government approves and regulates agricultural chemical use.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:04:32, September 08, 2007 CET | From |  New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the Government policy concerning the use of pesticides. |
| Message | We, the UPD have noted that current law ensures that all farmers must list the chemicals, pesticides and fungicides being used on their crops. Though we can appreciate the value of this policy, we note that listing a chemical does not prohibit it's use or contribute to the reduction of it's damage. Therefore we propose this bill; to allow the government to manage, approve and regulate agricultural chemical use. |
| Date | 04:07:14, September 08, 2007 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Government policy concerning the use of pesticides. |
| Message | I oppose this bill for a few reasons. These reasons based primarily on the free market... First of all, the current law ensures that farmers label any pesticides they use on their crops when they ship their products to be sold in various places. Due to several other labeling laws enforced and made mandatory by the federal government, farmers must clearly label their products - or whoever they enable the vending of their products must label them. This way, the consumer is well informed of what they are buying. As long as farmers must comply with labeling laws that inform consumers what they are buying, I see no problem in the current system. Secondly, that leads me to my point about the free market. Should farmers be forced to label what they are selling, this creates a safety net for consumers so they may be disease free. This also creates a more vibrant economcy based on reasoning of a larger and broader market. By having farmers compete with each other to grow and raise crops, this creates a more in-depth selection of products. For example, farmers may compete over who's crop is more natural and healthier. This creates a stronger market for farmers that grow organic crops who can advertise their product as the natural and chemical-free crop all Solentians should eat. Farmers that utilize pesticides must prove why their product is equally as healthy or good quality, which in turn creates more jobs and more competition to provide what is best for consumers. These are the main reasons why I do not support this legislation. I ask fellow Federal Independents and other party Senators to come to the same conclusion I have made. FIP Ranking Senator Thomas Genchyki |
| Date | 13:20:01, September 08, 2007 CET | From | New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the Government policy concerning the use of pesticides. |
| Message | Unfortunatly senator Genchyki, The UPD and many other Solentian parties favour healthy citizens over a healthy market of consumers. If the government does not regulate the amount of pesticides and the types of pesticides being used; citizens who are not scientifically aware may buy products of significant danger to their health. Labelling a product does not mean that illiterate or science-sceptic citizens would not buy a dangerous product; the fact it is on the shelves is a danger and should be one that we are tackling. The Free market will not suffer a significant amount if we control the use of pesticides; it will simply mean that farmers need to use health-friendly substances and that citizens will not suffer long-term damage to their health. We must look in the long term...what are we looking for? A bigger Free Market now...or citizens who are healthy in the future? UPD Shadow Health and Social Services Secretary: Sandrine de Bergerac. |
| Date | 18:56:13, September 08, 2007 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Government policy concerning the use of pesticides. |
| Message | I should very much doubt that the illiteracy rate is anything below 99%. Seeing how we have a mandatory universal education system, no one should be illiterate. This system of free education for every Solentian has been in place for over fifty years, so the only people who may be illiterate are the elderly, which I still doubt to be the case. If citizens are unsure of the effects of a pesticide, they may look them up. There is a public library system in Solentia and the internet is a vibrant source of information. If they are truly concerned about the side-effects any pesticides may withold, they will take the time to research them. If this is not the case, they can then buy organic crops. Besides, the media is a source that never ceases to report about situations like these and what these chemicals may or may not do. Many citizens tune into news stations and are better informed than they have ever been before. And if a citizen is "science-skeptic", then it is their choice to be so. If they believe that there are no side-effects to these chemicals, then that is their right. What now, are we to start banning cigarettes because they are unhealthy? Citizens are informed of what they are buying and chemicals used are listed on labels, but some refuse to acknowledge the side-effects that may occur by smoking. It all comes down to allowing the citizen to make their own choices for themselves and ensuring the government doesn't destroy a simple and basic right to make a choice. The federal government can only inform citizens of the health effects, it cannot force people to do what it wants them to do in situations like this. It is the same for obesity. Citizens being obese is overall unproductive and negatively effects this country with rising health costs. But the federal government doesn't do anything to prevent this, does it? It's not our right to force them to be "healthy". It is not cheap to grow crops organically. It requires much more intensive labor and commitment to ensure that crops are not damaged or eaten by animals or insects. This in turn raises selling prices. And while my wife buys organic crops, it is because we can afford them. Not all people who are on a smaller budget can afford more expensive crops when compared to a cheaper crop. That is why crops with pesticides on them are sold in such high quantity. FIP Senator Thomas Genchyki |
| Date | 20:24:56, September 09, 2007 CET | From | Labour Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Government policy concerning the use of pesticides. |
| Message | We feel this is a sensible change, improving the health of our nation- if works correctly. Trudie Reynolds, Labour Agriculture Minister |
| Date | 20:33:35, September 09, 2007 CET | From | New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the Government policy concerning the use of pesticides. |
| Message | We thank the Labour party for taking the health of our citizens seriously. To the FIP; The point is that labels and the money we make out of the free market is not an excuse to be bandished about for the danger that pesticides and other chemicals are to the health of Solentia. The increase in the intensive labour; would then ensure that jobs are created in agriulture; those on lower incomes would now have the chance to work on the farms and gain a better income; l thus being able to afford the organic crops. We are not suggesting a ban on pesticides senator; we simply wish to outlaw the more dangerous and intense ones. Greggory Hancock; UPD shadow secretary for food and agriculture. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 83 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 233 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 109 |
| Random fact: Submitting a bill without any proposals in it will not attract or detract voters. It will not raise your visibility or change your political position. |
| Random quote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - Thomas Paine |