NationStates

Reducing Unnecessary Food Wastage
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Kenmoria

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that many organisations that grow, prepare, sell or distribute food unnecessarily waste their product because a greater amount of stock is ordered than is sold, causing the excess food to go to waste,

Further acknowledging that retailers and wholesalers may refuse to purchase fruit and vegetables if they are considered aesthetically unpleasing, regardless of their actual quality or nutritional value,

Worried for the many negative effects of the aforementioned food wastage on WA member states and their populations, including:

1. harming the environment, due to the production of the greenhouse gas methane, the wastage of the fresh water that was used to create discarded products and the attraction of pestilence and vermin to rotting food,
2. forcing a rise in the prices of food, because of a lack of supply caused by wastage between initial production and final sale, resulting in serious negative consequences for the price of living,
3. robbing poorer citizens of member nations of the possibility to eat the perfectly edible food, safe for sapient consumption, that is thrown away unnecessarily,
4. squandering the energy used to store and distribute the discarded food, thus increasing power demand unnecessarily, and
5. wasting the labour that was used to create said food products, which could otherwise have been allocated towards goods and services that would have ultimately been used for the betterment of member nations,

Concerned over the quantities of food that unintentionally expire due to improper or incorrect stock rotation, and

Regretting that action has not been taken by this august assembly to reduce unnecessary food wastage, and thus lend assistance to both the environments and citizens of member nations who are hurt by the discarding of edible food,

Hereby,

1. Strongly encourages member nations to create local initiatives that seek to prevent the overproduction and disposal of viable and edible food, including but not limited to food banks and charities;

2. Commands member nations to inform their citizens about how to properly save and store leftovers for future consumption;

3. Obliges food producers and transporters with minimising the amount of food that, having been produced or brought, is thrown away without a compelling health or safety purpose, as far as is reasonably possible;

4. Mandates member nations to repurpose a reasonable amount of food surpluses into appropriate environmentally, socially or economically viable programs, such as: diverting food scraps to animal feed, composting inedible food to create nutrient-rich soil, or using waste oils from food for fuel conversion in order to recover lost energy in industry;

5. Orders member states to divert a reasonable proportion of their wasted food, if assuredly edible and safe for sapient consumption, to feeding those who are unable to procure food for themselves or their family, either internally or in the form of foreign aid. This may be accomplished directly or via reputable charities;

6. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organisation to include:

1. researching into: the causes of food wastage, the reduction of this waste, the ways in which uneaten food can be reused, and the points at which foodstuffs become unsafe for sapient consumption,
2. publishing this data for the benefit of member nations’ governments, food producers and businesses, food charities such as foodbanks, and the general citizens of member states’ populations,
3. lending aid, in the form of donations from the World Assembly General Fund as well as research, to food charities that have proven virtuous conduct and use techniques of strong efficacy to minimise wastage and maximise reuse, and
4. likewise giving monetary aid to member nations - this shall be used only accomplish the reduction of unnecessary foodwastage, either directly or indirectly;

7. Requires all businesses in member nations to take every reasonable step to reduce the amount of safely-consumable food and drink that is discarded, and implement stock rotation techniques that minimise product expiry, if not already in use; and

8. Compels member nations to implement techniques that minimise food wastage, based on the research published by the International Food Wastage Organisation, where doing so would not be harmful to sapient health, objectively inferior to current methods, extremely expensive, or excessively difficult to accomplish in a reasonable time frame;

1. where a member state is unable to implement techniques within a reasonable time frame from the IFWO solely due to resource or technology constraints, it must implement them as soon as it is able to do so.

Coauthored by Australian rePublic and Dmitry II.

Kenmoria wrote: if they are considered aesthetically in pleasing,

The New Nordic Union wrote:

Kenmoria wrote: if they are considered aesthetically in pleasing,

'Ambassador, we believe this should read "unpleasing".'

Maowi wrote:

The New Nordic Union wrote:
'Ambassador, we believe this should read "unpleasing".'

'Funny; it may be regional dialect but we were under the impression it should read 'displeasing', or 'unpleasant'.

Marxist Germany wrote:"Is Kenmoria finally joining the WA?"

Araraukar wrote:OOC: I suggest looking up the previous two or three threads on this, which were all drafted fairly far before hitting a wall (either in resolution text or the author's RL getting in the way), as it's likely that the same arguments will be popping up.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I will have a look through now, but most of the critique seemed to be on execution rather than the actual concept.)

Araraukar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I will have a look through now, but most of the critique seemed to be on execution rather than the actual concept.)

OOC: ...well, yeah? Isn't that how proposals are critiqued?

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That came out wrong; it would have been clearer to say that there were no glaring issues, and a lot of the problems in two of the proposals came from the author’s approach rather than the actual text.)

Araraukar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That came out wrong; it would have been clearer to say that there were no glaring issues, and a lot of the problems in two of the proposals came from the author’s approach rather than the actual text.)

OOC: Was one of them mine? I think mine ran into the issue of "but wouldn't this leftover food being cheaper/free undermine the domestic food markets and put producers out of business" and then Real Life got mean at me and I didn't have the energy to work through it.

Kenmoria wrote:5. Mandates the establishment, if one is not already existent, of at least one agency, department or office within each member nation to assess the causes of excess food wastage and research ways in which this can be reduced;

6. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organisation to include researching the most practical and environmentally-friendly methods of food decomposition and publishing these finding, as well as supporting local charities and initiatives in member nations that aim to reduce food wastage.

Switzar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:5. Mandates the establishment, if one is not already existent, of at least one agency, department or office within each member nation to assess the causes of excess food wastage and research ways in which this can be reduced;

6. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organisation to include researching the most practical and environmentally-friendly methods of food decomposition and publishing these finding, as well as supporting local charities and initiatives in member nations that aim to reduce food wastage.

Why mandate governments to research if the WA will do it for them? While I completely support this draft, I do believe that it needs to be one or the other. I see no reason for both the individual nation and the WA to do the same job.

Marxist Germany wrote:"I believe that in your noting clause, you should use 'which' instead of 'who'."

OOC:Looks good otherwise.

Araraukar wrote:"Why on earth would a food welfare organisation research composting of all things? In fact, why is the committee needed at all? Also, clause five doesn't actually require the methods of food waste reduction to be used, merely researched. The only other clause that actually does something - the rest is just urging and encouraging and committee stuff - is clause four, which seems to assume that all businesses are stores that keep stocks that are expirable foodstuffs. Tell me, how much food does your average hardware store throw away normally? And in the preamble, how exactly do you lose arable land if you have to throw some mouldy bread away?"

Kenmoria wrote:1. Strongly encourages member nations to create local initiatives that seek to prevent the overproduction and disposal of viable and edible food, including but not limited to: food banks and charities;

3. Obligates member nations to repurpose food surpluses into appropriate environmentally, socially or economically viable programs, such as: diverting food scraps to animal feed, composting inedible food to create nutrient-rich soil, or using waste oils from food for fuel conversion in order to recover lost energy in industrial processes;

7. Compels member nations to implement techniques that minimise food wastage, based on the findings from their internal office or the research published by the International Food Wastage Organisation, where doing so would not be harmful to sapient health or would be excessively impractical.[/box]

Araraukar wrote:"If surplus food is such a grand issue that it needs international legislation to fix, then perhaps you should be targeting the food producers, not just end users. After all, you won't end up with surplus food if you only produce what will be used. That said, however, if a nation produces foodstuffs for exporting, and for some reason - a war breaking out or a bumper crop elsewhere - cannot do so, then that is hardly their fault or bad planning. Additionally, arable land is not "used up", as long as one adheres to proper farmland care practices."

Maowi wrote:OOC:

Kenmoria wrote:1. Strongly encourages member nations to create local initiatives that seek to prevent the overproduction and disposal of viable and edible food, including but not limited to: food banks and charities;

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'viable' food; would it be possible for clarification on this? Maybe you mean 'viably edible food'?

3. Obligates member nations to repurpose food surpluses into appropriate environmentally, socially or economically viable programs, such as: diverting food scraps to animal feed, composting inedible food to create nutrient-rich soil, or using waste oils from food for fuel conversion in order to recover lost energy in industrial processes;

Are you trying to mandate the repurposing of as much of the surplus as possible? I'd argue that, as written, a (just about) good faith interpretation could justify the repurposing of a relatively small quantity of food. (That's how I read it, but I could of course be wrong.

7. Compels member nations to implement techniques that minimise food wastage, based on the findings from their internal office or the research published by the International Food Wastage Organisation, where doing so would not be harmful to sapient health or would be excessively impractical.

I'd change it to '... or excessively impractical' (getting rid of 'would be'). It currently reads as though these techniques must be implemented if they're excessively impractical.

Looks good though. These things aside, and if you address Ara's concerns as your ambassador stated above, I'll gladly support this

Kenmoria wrote:“The food producers are indeed a problem and will be targeted somehow in the next draft; any ideas on how to do so? If a nation legitimately cannot export food, then I think it would fall under being ‘excessively impractical’ to avoid food wastage, as it would be almost impossible. I can however clarify this in other clauses. Lastly, I understand that arable land doesn’t go away when one uses it for wasted purposes, but that means it can’t be used for other purposes and all the effort to grow crops is wasted.”

Araraukar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“The food producers are indeed a problem and will be targeted somehow in the next draft; any ideas on how to do so? If a nation legitimately cannot export food, then I think it would fall under being ‘excessively impractical’ to avoid food wastage, as it would be almost impossible. I can however clarify this in other clauses. Lastly, I understand that arable land doesn’t go away when one uses it for wasted purposes, but that means it can’t be used for other purposes and all the effort to grow crops is wasted.”

"Exactly what other purposes would you use arable land? Well, I guess you could encourage farmers, in a definite food surplus situation, to switch over to growing something that would be used for biofuel production, but please be aware that that won't be possible in all climates. Still, reducing food production creates risks of food security failures in case of a bad harvest due to some natural occurrence such as drought. It is also not always easy to convert land between food production and pastureland, not to mention that encouraging grazing animal farming is an excellent means of raising the levels of greenhouse gases. The main issue with any kind of reduction of production is that often the farmers are not the ones who get the largest slice of the pie that is the price of the consumable to the end user. For them the case in non-government-controlled systems is often that they have to keep up the volume, if they want to make a living out of farming. Without being subsidized for leaving fields to go fallow, it is simply not profitable for them to not produce as much as they can. And no, I'm not suggesting the WA give them money to do just that. I'm simply pointing out that without total control by the government over agribusiness, it may be an impossible thing to resolve in a single resolution."