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: GM Crops Act 4815
Details
Submitted by[?]: Nova Partia Libertati Seluciae (NPLS)
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: March 4817
Description[?]:
Almost all reputable scientists who have looked into the issue have determined that the objections to GMOs are as baseless as the anti-vax mythology. Just as we would not force companies to disclose what specific mix of chemicals went into the glue of a book binding, or the source of the metal used in the harvesting machines used on a field, we should also not force disclosure of an equally irrelevant detail. OOC: I've written up a more detailed defense of GM technology, but it referenced too many out-of-game facts and organizations, so it needs to go in an OOC note which will take up the rest of this description: There are many real arguments against unnecessary reliance on genetic modification. Several studies have suggested the possibility of a link between genetically modified food and cancer. Scientists injected small concentrations of glyphosate, a pesticide commonly used in conjunction with GMOs, into a cell culture taken from a human breast, and produced tumors. This was correctly seen as worrying, and immediately published. However, these results are doubly invalid. Firstly, glyphosate is a pesticide, neither a GMO or produced using GMOs. It is widely used in conjunction with certain GMOs, and that is all. Perhaps this is a minor distinction, and does not, by itself, invalidate the results, but it certainly invalidates the use to which they have been put. Secondly and more significantly, the cell culture used in the experiment was grown in a laboratory from already cancerous cells. This does completely and inarguably invalidate the results of the experiment. In addition, GMOs could promote increased use of pesticides by giving valuable crops resistance while allowing the weeds to die, possibly causing enough to be sprayed to poison humans. This worrying idea, while theoretical so far, may bear investigation. Despite these reasonable and often intelligently argued points, a wealth of good can be achieved using this technology. Any disease in the world, such as leukemia, HIV, bubonic plague, or coronavirus, but regrettably not government, can be cured by taking a sample of the relevant DNA and converting it into an antigenic protein, before modifying some common crop - corn, for instance - to produce the protein in its edible part. Once the crop is eaten, the protein would stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies for the relevant disease before the recipient actually grows sick, giving them a huge advantage while fighting off the disease. Furthermore, GMOs can be used to create insulin, a key protein the absence of which causes diabetes. Before this technology existed, every individual diabetic required a separate cow for every single dose of insulin needed, since it was only available by “borrowing” it from the pancreas of cows and swine, which was fatal to the animal. However, now that genetic modification has started to gain prominence, insulin can be grown in E. coli cells and used as needed without killing the bacteria, making it much easier and cheaper to produce insulin, thus making life much easier for some 34.2 million diabetics in the US alone, not to mention millions of cows. Great as these medical applications are, the humanitarian ones are perhaps even greater. Genetic modification could be used to solve problems of malnutrition and famine worldwide. This is a fairly simple logical leap from previously mentioned arguments about potential cures for diseases. Scientists can take genes coding for, for example, vitamin A production from broccoli, which, besides being utterly disgusting, is also relatively difficult to grow in tropical areas and expensive, and insert them into rice, which is relatively palatable, cheap, easily grown in tropical climates where most famines seem to occur, already used as a staple crop by many cultures, and contains most nutrients apart from vitamin A. Then, the resulting crop can be distributed to developing countries. As of 2013, 250 million children in developing countries suffer from vitamin A deficiency, up to five hundred thousand preschoolers go blind as a result of this every year, and a quarter million of them die. All this could be stopped using genetic modification. Last and most important, GMOs can actually help fight climate change. Already mangroves, unlike most plants, absorb significantly more CO2 than they produce. According to President Obama’s former energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, other plants could be engineered to produce much more oxygen and/or store much more CO2 in various ways, such as by producing grass with deeper roots, which would store carbon in the roots and thus trap it underground upon decomposition. Genetic modification is a technology that carries countless possibilities for the future. As stated previously, plants could be modified to store more carbon and trap it underground, thus producing significant positive effects in the battle against climate change. Another possible application of genetic modification against climate change is somewhat different. Although current biofuels are rendered highly inefficient by the fact that plants are mostly cellulose, which we cannot currently convert to ethanol or butanol, the basis of most biofuels, it is “considered likely that we will be able to bioengineer microorganisms to convert cellulose directly to ethanol or other alcohols," according to Professor Richard Muller, thus removing a major technological problem along the road to a relatively sustainable civilization. Further, others have speculated that this technology could actually be used to remove toxic compounds from plants, opening up literally thousands of potential new food sources. If it's possible to make famine even more unlikely by changing one law, then we should do it. Partial list of sources: Encyclopedia Britannica, Royal Society, Purdue Agricultural College |
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, and any GM ingredients must be listed.
Current: Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing, and any GM ingredients must be listed.
Proposed: Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing must be listed. There is no requirement to disclose GM ingredients.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:45:10, September 14, 2020 CET | From | Factio Republicana Socialistica | To | Debating the GM Crops Act 4815 |
| Message | Quirites, The government supports this proposal. Eupraxia Laurentia Iuno Quaestor of Food and Agriculture |
| Date | 11:22:35, September 14, 2020 CET | From | Clara Aurora - COSIRA | To | Debating the GM Crops Act 4815 |
| Message | Quirites, COSIRA strongly supports this proposal, and thanks the NPLS for bringing the issue to the People's Assembly Pyrgopolynices Auspex General Secretary of COSIRA |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 750 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "It would be nice if the poor were to get even half of the money that is spent in studying them." - Bill Vaughan |