SAFE SEED Act: An Immediate ban on all GMO and Gain of Function Research

Health
1

Because ecosystems are essential for life, providing clean air, water, food, and biodiversity necessary for human and environmental health;

Because the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gain-of-function research on pathogens risk destabilizing these systems, potentially leading to invasive species, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse;

Because such disruptions threaten vital ecosystem services, climate stability, and the resilience of natural systems for future generations;

Therefore, it is the duty of Congress to enact a moratorium on gain-of-function research and GMO releases to safeguard our environment, public health, and ecological balance.

SAFE SEED Act – Safeguarding Against Fatal Experimentation in Scientific Engineering and Environmental Development

Section 1: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the “SAFE SEED Act.”

Section 2: Findings and Purpose

(a) Findings
Congress finds the following:

  1. Ecosystems are foundational to human health and environmental stability, and disrupting them risks irreversible harm.
  2. Gain-of-function research and GMO releases carry significant risks, including unintended effects on biodiversity and ecosystem balance.
  3. A precautionary approach is essential to protect public health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience.

(b) Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to impose a temporary suspension on gain-of-function research and GMO releases to safeguard ecosystems and public health while allowing for thorough evaluation.

Section 3: Definitions

  1. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO): Any organism whose genetic makeup has been altered through genetic engineering.
  2. Gain-of-Function Research: Research that aims to increase the pathogenicity, transmissibility, or infectiousness of organisms.

Section 4: Moratorium Provisions

(a) Prohibition of GMO Releases
No individual or entity may release GMOs into the environment for a period of 10 years.

(b) Prohibition of Gain-of-Function Research
No federal funding shall be used for gain-of-function research on pathogens during this 10-year period.

Section 5: Review and Oversight

(a) Establishment of a Review Commission
A commission of scientists, bioethicists, and environmental experts shall be established to evaluate the risks and benefits of gain-of-function and GMO research.

(b) Reporting Requirements
The commission shall issue an annual report to Congress on its findings and any recommendations regarding the continuation or lifting of the moratorium.

Section 6: Enforcement and Penalties

(a) Penalties
Any violation of this Act will be subject to fines up to $50,000,000 and potential suspension of research licenses.

Section 7: Effective Date and Duration

This Act shall take effect 90 days after enactment and shall remain in force for 10 years from that date, unless modified by Congress.

24 Likes
2

There are situations where GMO are necessary. The production of a number of medications, and the materials they are made from, as example.

For food, absolutely. But people would have to be prepared for what that means.
Pumpkins don’t actually grow into the big multi-gallon size spherical orange things they expect. They are lopsided things that don’t get much larger than your two fists together.
Most of what we grow has been modified to appear more uniform and stylized.

The seed term for non-GMO, is Heritage. And heritage seeds are actually banned in several states.
They consider the natural seeds that grow a plant that produces seeds you can then grow another of the same plant from… a threat to health, somehow.

It is an example of regulatory agencies acting against their purpose, and in favor of the things they were supposed to regulate.
In this case, they were supposed to be regulating the companies that were modifying plants to prevent them doing harm.
Instead, they regulated away the people’s ability to continue eating safe food, by mandating they eat the modified garbage.

And before anyone claims GMO is perfectly safe and healhy, I challenge.
How do you know something that hasn’t been tested or proven?
Because GMO hasn’t been around for a generation yet, so the generational risks can’t be known yet.
We do know that morbid obesity has skyrocketed, but that also coincides with corn subsidies pushing corn syrup into being used in nearly everything in the store… so who knows?

5 Likes
3

What we should be betting is those bands on the Heritage seats but there’s a war by a company you know the one that makes the Plants that make round up in them that sues everybody who starts the conversation about heritage seeds and bringing them back to the United States again

3 Likes
4

There are studies and they are not safe!

2 Likes
5

Banning things shouldn’t be the government’s job. If we ask Trump to ban things we don’t like, that will set a precedent for the government to do that in the future, possibly taking away resources we would like to choose.

Also, we don’t want to make the mistake we made of banning nuclear power. The solution to something harmful may be to moderate it, not ban it.

The government’s role should be to inform and incentivize. We the people should have the FREEDOM to make informed decisions.

2 Likes
6

@ Catherine:

If merely the experimentation with GoF viruses and GMO plants can destroy ecologies, and harm our health, why should we allow that?

I like the idea government should be just big enough to protect us one from another. Do you reject that premise?

7

I simply think that proposing to ban an entire technology is a bad idea. Moderation is better. The nuclear power industry is a prime example of people banning something that should have been moderated instead.

A 100% ban on something such as GMOs would be not only bad, but confusing. GMOs doesn’t necessarily mean “grown in a lab”. Humans have been genetically modifying organisms by selectively growing the strongest crop or mixing breeds for centuries. We’ve seen this with dogs, and mutts tend to be healthier than purebred. Letting people improve things is good, so long as it is done to improve health, not profits.

Personally, I think GoF is pretty stupid. Like, why would we want diseases that are more dangerous. But, maybe I am not aware of the 2% of good use cases. I’d like the government to moderate 98% of these industries, but have the flexibility of making analytical decisions on 2%.

8

Would this commission be established by and only report to Congress? Or would it be established under Agriculture or HHS?