This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
M233 - GM Feed Labelling, PhysicsKid MP

GM Feed Labelling

This House calls upon the government to make it a legal requirement for all dairy, meat or fish products sold in the UK derived from GM fed livestock (or any products containing any of these as ingredients) to bear a recognisable label identifying them as such. This would close down the loophole that GM food must be labelled but not ingredients produced using GM food e.g. milk.

0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Aye, but abbreviations without an explanation in legislation are a terrible practice.
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Aye, seems sensible.
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Life_peer)
Aye, but abbreviations without an explanation in legislation are a terrible practice.
First of all, this is a motion and not a bill. If it was the latter, I might be inclined to agree with you, but is this pedantry really necessary or helpful?
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Sure.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Endless Blue)
First of all, this is a motion and not a bill. If it was the latter, I might be inclined to agree with you, but is this pedantry really necessary or helpful?
It was not necessary, it could be helpful. It was mostly a short remark attached to an otherwise affirmative expression so I am surprised it has caught your attention and made you react. I do not have the reputation of wandering around and nitpicking either so…
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Life_peer)
It was not necessary, it could be helpful. It was mostly a short remark attached to an otherwise affirmative expression so I am surprised it has caught your attention and made you react. I do not have the reputation of wandering around and nitpicking either so…
Well, my objection stemmed from the use of the word "legislation". Is a motion officially legislation? That is not my understanding (although I will accept evidence to the contrary). I apologise for appearing to be snappy, but it seemed to me to be unfair to criticise the use of abbreviations in legislation in something that actually wasn't legislation in the first place. It was supposed to be an innocuous comment, so sorry again if any offence has been taken.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Endless Blue)
Well, my objection stemmed from the use of the word "legislation". Is a motion officially legislation? That is not my understanding (although I will accept evidence to the contrary). I apologise for appearing to be snappy, but it seemed to me to be unfair to criticise the use of abbreviations in legislation in something that actually wasn't legislation in the first place. It was supposed to be an innocuous comment, so sorry again if any offence has been taken.
Not at all, no offence taken and it was not my intention to attack either.

As to the formal classification, according to Wikipedia a motion is a formal proposal by a member of a deliberative assembly that the assembly take certain action […] In a parliament, this is also called a parliamentary motion and includes legislative motions […] while the term parliamentary motion has different meanings in different legislatures and may refer to: bill (proposed law), motion (parliamentary procedure), or private member's bill.

Therefore I consider this to be a legislative motion, formally proposing that the MHoC take action in the form of enacting further laws. Legislation is laws collectively or the process of making and enacting laws (according to OED), hence I believe my usage of the word was correct, which would not be true if I was referring to the specific piece rather than the process.

Finally, if this was a formal motion to be received by MPs, it would need to be clear too so the use of abbreviations without their explanation remains questionable nevertheless.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Seems fair enough, aye.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Meh, not really an issue at all. Abstain.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
aye
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Life_peer)
Aye, but abbreviations without an explanation in legislation are a terrible practice.
What the e.g.? Am I required to insert an exhaustive list- there's no definitions part like a bill?
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
Aye

Although agree with earlier comment, perhaps would this be better as a bill?
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Aye

Although agree with earlier comment, perhaps would this be better as a bill?
Do you think so?
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by PhysicsKid)
Do you think so?
I think so - it's very specific for a motion.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by nebelbon)
Meh, not really an issue at all. Abstain.
Why not? Numerous consumers are concerned by GM, yet don't legally need to be warned of potential exposure to it because of an almost laughable loophole.
0
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by PhysicsKid)
Why not? Numerous consumers are concerned by GM, yet don't legally need to be warned of potential exposure to it because of an almost laughable loophole.
Why should the Government get involved? If there is a genuine desire from customers to know that food is GM free, then companies will advertise as such. If not, nobody is being harmed.

I'd propose that we remove the requirement for GM food to be labelled as such until it can be shown that such food has detrimental health effects. By all means set a standard for 'GM free' labeling which includes the proposed requirements on feeding, but stop treating GM like a hazard with no evidence, as it only serves to lend weight to luddite scare-mongering.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Why should the Government get involved? If there is a genuine desire from customers to know that food is GM free, then companies will advertise as such. If not, nobody is being harmed.

I'd propose that we remove the requirement for GM food to be labelled as such until it can be shown that such food has detrimental health effects. By all means set a standard for 'GM free' labeling which includes the proposed requirements on feeding, but stop treating GM like a hazard with no evidence, as it only serves to lend weight to luddite scare-mongering.
It is not proven that vegetarian or vegan products are safer or superior in terms of nutrition, yet they are still labelled. Consumers need to be suitably informed before making the right choice for them- and you seem happy to deny, and in fact relinquish, that right.
0
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by PhysicsKid)
It is not proven that vegetarian or vegan products are safer or superior in terms of nutrition, yet they are still labelled. Consumers need to be suitably informed before making the right choice for them- and you seem happy to deny, and in fact relinquish, that right.
They are labelled voluntarily, as I propose the GM free food would be. The current position is rather like requiring MEAT to be printed on all non-vegetarian food. The companies label non-meat containing food as vegetarian because they want to, not because they have to.

I'm actually proposing that people who don't want to eat GM be treated exactly like vegetarians, vegans or people who only eat organic food. There should be a protected marking with certain requirements which indicates that food is properly GM-free, so that people who choose to eat only GM-free food can do so.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
They are labelled voluntarily, as I propose the GM free food would be. The current position is rather like requiring MEAT to be printed on all non-vegetarian food. The companies label non-meat containing food as vegetarian because they want to, not because they have to.

I'm actually proposing that people who don't want to eat GM be treated exactly like vegetarians, vegans or people who only eat organic food. There should be a protected marking with certain requirements which indicates that food is properly GM-free, so that people who choose to eat only GM-free food can do so.
I'm hopeful that there'd be more products without GM than those containing it
How exactly does that differ from a consumer confidence label like the one I'm suggesting?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (208)
33.44%
No (414)
66.56%

Watched Threads

View All