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: Chemicals in Agriculture Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Nationalist Alliance
Status[?]: passed
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: July 3219
Description[?]:
| A bill to standardise the use and control of pesticides and other chemcials in the national food chain, ensuring consistent standards and public information, enabling consumers to buy in confidence. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: Local governments may choose to regulate pesticides certification programs.
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 | 00:45:30, November 25, 2011 CET | From |  New Nationalist Alliance | To | Debating the Chemicals in Agriculture Bill |
| Message | Under current regulations, each state can and does prescribe it's own standards with regards to what chemcials and pesticides farmers who operate in that state may or may not use. However food travels from state to state. What is produced by a farmer in Fuwan may be bought by a consumer in Orame. But how does the consumer in Orame buy in confidence, how do they know what chemcials have been used by the farmer in Fuwan? Simple answer is they don't. In order to ensure consistent standards across the nation and give consumers confidence that wherever in the country their food comes from it is safe, we must have a single body regulating what is sprayed on the crops in our fields. I commend this proposal to the Senate. |
| Date | 02:10:05, November 25, 2011 CET | From | United Liberal Caucus | To | Debating the Chemicals in Agriculture Bill |
| Message | The NNA has thoughtfully articulated a great policy change. Following their flawless logic we whole heartedly support this change. |
| Date | 02:56:38, November 25, 2011 CET | From | Federal Republic Progressionist Party | To | Debating the Chemicals in Agriculture Bill |
| Message | We support. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 269 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 91 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "I have opinions of my own - strong opinions. But I don't always agree with them." - George W. Bush |