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: Labelling Act (Part 2)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Paleofederalist Party
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: April 2910
Description[?]:
| To follow up with our GM bill. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Listing of controversial ingredients, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (if food labelling is applied).
Old value:: Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing must be listed. There is no requirement to disclose GM ingredients.
Current: Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing, and any GM ingredients must be listed.
Proposed: There is no requirement to disclose GM ingredients, or chemicals used in agrigulture or processing.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:21:05, March 17, 2010 CET | From | The Liberal Intellectualism Front | To | Debating the Labelling Act (Part 2) |
| Message | Information asymmetry can cause market failure. It is important that such information is disclosed so the consumer possesses such information and can then make a rational judgement based on the utility they would then derive from the goods. Without this information, consumers are thus more likely to pick 'worse' or 'bad' products leading to allocative inefficiency (Price has the function of signalling. Without information, consumers are more likely to pick the cheaper product which incidentally also has the cheapest ingredients or chemicals utilised. Such cheap products may be detrimental to health in many ways). Besides this, it would also quite a moral hazard for any Government to allow the consumer to not possess the knowledge to make their own free choice as to whether to consume such chemicals or GM or not. Especially as chemicals can prove to be a physical hazard as well. |
| Date | 03:55:04, March 18, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the Labelling Act (Part 2) |
| Message | Chemicals used in the processing are not part of the final product and therefore should not be listed as an ingredient. Chemicals that result in dangerous foods would already be banned as illegal substances. Uneccessary labelling only increases costs for the producer and consumer. If a company wishes to produce "GM free" or 'no chemicals used in processing" foods, they are free to do so and adverstise as such to help the consumers make a choice. This type of marketing is used by companies that make hotdogs of the Kosher variety. |
| Date | 16:35:07, March 18, 2010 CET | From | Christian Party | To | Debating the Labelling Act (Part 2) |
| Message | You want to poison our citizens? Jesus wouldn't like that. |
| Date | 01:29:20, March 19, 2010 CET | From | The Liberal Intellectualism Front | To | Debating the Labelling Act (Part 2) |
| Message | There is often a fine line between dangerous substances and substances that are dangerous but not dangerous enough to warrant a ban. Consumers should be given this information freely so can therefore decide whether they really wish to consume a product with a chemical they may disapprove of. The extra costs involved in labelling would be off set by increased allocative efficiency and firms would be driven to innovate more in order to reduce costs of compeitition. Hence, prices in the long-run are driven down and there is more compeitition due to freely avaliable information. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 81 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 112 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 17 |
| Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer. |
| Random quote: "I'm not a leftist; I'm where the righteous ought to be." - M.M. Coady |