Middle School Model Congress 2012
House Natural Resources
Co-Chair: Sarah Bjerklie
Co-Chair: Lauren Glasse
Topic 2 Background:
The topic of this bill is shark finning, a topic that has gained much awareness in recent years.
Legislation regarding the practice has surfaced in several different states, with most recently
New York proposing a statewide ban on the sale of shark fins, and Illinois proposing to ban sale,
possession, trade or distribution of shark fins. California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington are
the four states to have outright banned shark fin imports. Shark finning involves solely cutting
off the fins of live sharks, then throwing the sharks back into the ocean only to die. Shark fins are
harvested primarily for their usage in shark fin soup, a delicacy in Chinese cultures. 88 to 100
million sharks are finned each year, and the species risks extinction.
Topic 2 Bill Summary:
This bill is about shark finning, and institutes a ban on the cruel practice. This bill enacts a ban
on the importation, sale, consumpition, possession and distribution of shark fins in the United
States. Shark fin soup is a traditional Chinese banquet dish and is a symbol of wealth and class.
The dish is served for the most part at weddings and other special celebrations. People argue that
a ban on shark fins would upset the people who celebrate their Chinese culture and want to honor
the tradition. There are many advocates against the practice, including many Chinese people,
who argue that shark finning is wrong and has many negative environmental consequences.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/nyregion/bill-in-albany-would-ban-sale-of-sharkfins.html?_r=0
http://dsc.discovery.com/sharks/shark-finning.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/illinois-shark-fin-ban-bi_n_1247125.html
http://www.sharkwater.com/education.htm
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-10/world/pip.shark.finning_1_shark-fin-shark-populations-toppredator?_s=PM:WORLD
MIDDLE SCHOOL MODEL CONGRESS
Department: House Natural Resources
Principal Authors: Sarah Bjerklie
Bill No: HNR-10-22-12
Co-Authors: Lauren Glasse
Title of Bill: An Act to Prevent Shark Extinction
BE IT ENACTED BY THE MIDDLE SCHOOL MODEL CONGRESS ASSEMBLED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
PREAMBLE: Whereas the atrocity of sharkfinning occurs primarily in order to make shark
fin soup. Whereas shark fin soup is a Chinese delicacy. In order to make the soup, millions
of sharks are finned. Around 88 million-100 million sharks die by means of finning each
year. Whereas the cruel practice of shark finning involves only cutting off the fins of sharks.
Many sharks are still alive after being finned, and are thrown back into the ocean afterwards
only to bleed to death and die. Whereas shark fins are not very flavorful and only add
texture to the soup. Taking the fins out of shark fin soup would hardly alter the soup. Shark
fins are arbitrarily added to the soup for novelty and as a symbol of status. Whereas
according to the New York Times, “large glass bottles of desiccated shark fins grace the
upper shelves of nearly every convenience store and grocery in Chinatown.” Whereas there
is not a huge market for shark fins becayse they are so expensive (around $100 to $500 per
pound). Banning shark fins would hardly hurt business economically.Whereas sharks have
been around for more than 400 million years. Now, over 100 out of around 400 species of
sharks are listed as endangered. Additionally, since sharks are at the top of the food chain
and have virtually no predators, they reproduce very slowly. If shark finning persists at the
current rate, humans will wipe out sharks entirely in 10-20 years. Whereas contrary to
popular belief, shark fins have no medicanal or nutritional value. Whereas sharks are apex
predators, which means that they play an essential role in keeping the food chain balanced.
If sharks were to die out, it would cause a major imbalance in the food chain, causing
population surges in some species of fish and mammals, which would therefore result in
huge declines in the populations of these fishes’ prey. Whereas the practice of shark finning
has been banned in some states such as California and New York, but is not federally
banned. The purchase, consumption, sale and import of shark fins is also not federally
banned.
SECTION 1: Shark finning will be banned on all U.S. terriotory.
SECTION 2: The import of shark fins to the United States will be banned.
SECTION 3: The sale, consumption, possession and distrubution of shark fins will be
banned.
SECTION 4: This bill will go into effect 90 days after its passage.
Water Fluoridation Brief
Fact Sheet
The American Dental Association calls water fluoridation "unquestionably one of the safest and
most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some
cases reversing, tooth decay.";
The National Cancer Institute states that “water fluoridation is the process of adding fluoride to
the water supply so the level reaches approximately 0.7 ppm, or 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per
liter of water; this is the optimal level for preventing tooth decay.”;
Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director and co-author of the book, The Case Against
Fluoride says, "Since fluoride's benefits are topical, it makes no sense to swallow fluoride and
makes even less sense to put fluoride into drinking water when fluoridated toothpaste is available
to everyone.";
Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory
mass medication. These argue that consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can
water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor
monitor their response;
A warning on Proctor & Gamble Crest toothpaste (in which 0.243% of Sodium fluoride is listed
as the active ingredient) states “if more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get
medical help or contact Poison Control Center right away.” Indicating that ingesting more than a
tiny dosage can be dangerous in young children, the toothpaste container also states, “to
minimize swallowing use a pea-sized amount in children under 6”;
Sulfuryl fluoride is used as a pesticide and fumigant on agricultural crops. In 2010, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency proposed to withdraw the use of sulfuryl fluoride on
food;
The objective of this bill is to ask debaters - is supposed benefit to dental
health worth forcing internal health risk on a mass population?
Sources
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2011-01-07-too-much-fluoride_N.htm
http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurylfluoride/casedef.asp
THE CIVICS & GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE
Committee: House Natural Resources
Principal Authors: Lauren Glasse
Resolution No: 001
Co-Authors: Sarah Bjerklie
Title of Bill: An Act to Ban the Adding of Fluoride to Municipal Drinking Water
BE IT ENACTED BY THE CIVICS & GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE OF CONGRESS ASSEMBLED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
PREAMBLE: Whereas former United States Environmental Protection Agency scientist
Robert Carton claimed that "fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this
century."; Whereas 41% of adolescents ages 12-15 have dental fluorosis, or discolored
teeth, an outwardly visible sign of fluoride toxicity; Whereas Fluoridation chemicals, often
purchased from Mexico, China, and Japan are hazardous waste by-products of the
phosphate fertilizer industry that are contaminated with trace levels of arsenic, lead and
radionuclides. These industrial-grade chemicals were never tested for safety in humans or
animals, and never received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration;
Whereas New Jersey legislation to fluoridate public water was introduced without notifying
or requesting comments from those opposing fluoridation. More than 4,000 professionals
(including 331 dentists and 518 MD's) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific
evidence that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and has serious health
risks The bill which was due for an official vote by either or both full Senate and Assembly
on March 15th was postponed until "the earliest mid-May" according to NJ Legislative
Services;
Be it hereby enacted by the Middle School Model Congress:
Section 1: That fluoridation of public water be banned.
Section 2: That current legislation regarding the fluoridation of water be declared void.
Section 3: That extensive research is done on fluoride’s effects on internal health, oral
health and the environment.
Section 4: That the US Federal Government allocate money and resources to the removal of
existing fluoride in public water.
Section 5: This bill will take effect 90 days after its passage.