OOC post because I'm too much in a hurry to do IC. (EDIT: If you don't chop this into pieces to reply, for the sake of all that's holy, spoiler the quote!!!)
Barfleur wrote:Limiting Animal Pathogens
Reading this made me go "didn't you try this already?" before the text clued me in on you actually doing some limiting of scope this time, so maybe change the title to something more in tune with the contents? Like "Limiting Zoonosis Occurrence in Trade" or something similar?
Category: Health | Area of Effect: ?
The applicability of this remains to be seen. Could well be Environmental: Agriculture as well. Depends very much on wording, but you should try to pick a category and write to the category, not the other way round.
Aware of the numerous species of sapient and nonsapient beings alike in existence in the multiverse, not limited to the territory subject to the jurisdiction of this august body, and the various dangers posed to such species;
Considering the emergence of animal-borne diseases to be a major threat to the life and wellbeing of all living things, and to their populations as a whole,
These have nothing to do with anything, and look more applicable to what you were trying to do before, rather than this attempt. Also, semicolon or comma, pick one and stick to it.
Definitions.
Personally I see no point to these headers. If you're defining something, then define it with active clauses.
In this Resolution:
Random capitalization of Word. You're not writing in German where Nouns are capitalized. Also, rather than "is" in the following, you should have "refers to", for more professional language. Which could be avoided simply by using "Defines for this resolution" as the main clause and then replacing "is" with "as" in the subclauses.
the "WHA" is the World Health Authority;
Given that you never use "WHA" without also "the", you might as well include it inside the quotes.
a "zoonotic disease" is any pathogen which is capable of being transmitted from a nonsapient being to a sapient being; and
"...which can be transmitted from animals to people" would narrow the scope to what you presumably intend this to be, and also simplify the language. Though, does this also apply to universally applicable things that also exist on humans (many skin and gut bacteria species are shared in animals and humans, just not the particular strains of them).
a "wet market" is any marketplace which:
So if it does only one of those things or does something more than those things, it doesn't count as a wet market? "Which does any or all of the following" would make it an and/or list, which is more inclusive. Depending on the grammar hawks' opinion, it might even be just "any of the following".
keeps and offers live nonsapient beings for sale to the general public;
So that's anything that sells any non-cooked produce. Including plants and fungi. Hence suggestions earlier to change language from "nonsapient" to "animal". Although it'd still apply to pet stores and bait stores selling live bait.
keeps and offers for sale to the general public nonsapient beings to be killed at or immediately before or after sale; or
Isn't that one or same in terms of zoonoses? You could compress this and the above to use "offers live animals for sale to the general public, whether the animal is meant to be killed and processed when being sold or not". At least I can't think of any feasibility of the animal being killed right after it's been sold but rather if the killing of the animal is part of what the buyer expects to happen (so as not needing to do it themselves), then it is a service that is part of the sale of the animal. Would also still apply to pet stores that sell, say, live crickets that you mean to feed to your insectivorous or omnivorous pet right after sale.
resells wares obtained as described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii).
So every single instance that sells anything derived from animals, including grocery stores (even if the point was raw meat, that still applies), some restaurants (think live lobsters being killed in a restaurant for properly fresh food), and, if processing is not excluded, food vendors and anyone selling any leather or wool or silk products. Oh and eggs. Which are usually alive until cooked. Same thing for plants and fungi.
Testing.
Same thing about these headers as above. You could have the main clause as "Every animal sold or kept blah blah blah shall be tested" so the subclauses could avoid repetition. The "every animal sold or kept" makes no difference for whether it's being/been killed.
Every animal sold or kept for sale at a wet market in a member nation shall be tested for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population, given the species of that animal as well as any additional factors relating to a particular animal. Any animal which tests positive for such a disease may not be sold or offered for sale until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.
As others have already pointed out, this is unfeasible or even impossible. How are you going to test every egg? Or every clam, crab, sardine or shrimp pulled out of the sea? Not to mention crickets and maggots and other things like them. And before you protest eggs being just a collection of cells uncapable of turning into a chick, fertilized eggs are still sold by smallscale and subsistence farmers. Also I'm fairly sure the eggs meant for
balut count.
Perhaps require randomized testing, and also more intensive testing for vendors of whom any health complaints have been made to the authorities.
Every animal killed and intended to be sold for sapient consumption shall be tested post-mortem for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population, given the species of that animal as well as any additional factors relating to a particular animal. Any animal carcass which is so detected to carry a zoonotic disease of that kind shall be destroyed and not sold in any manner.
Same unfeasibility here for every single thing. The bit about "given the species of that animal blah blah" is also unnecessary, given the previous wording of "may reasonably be expected to carry".
Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease which such person may reasonably be expected to acquire and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient populations. If a person tests positive, then every other worker at that or other wet markets who may reasonably have been exposed to the same zoonotic diseases shall be tested for each zoonotic disease which the individual worker has tested positive for. Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.
...so, none, if common sense of hygiene is expected of such workers? Also, what about diseases you can get from animals but not other people? Like diseases caused by many parasites? Even if a mosquito transmits malaria between two people, you still get the parasite from the mosquito, not the other person. I get that we live in COVID19 world, but your wording applies to malaria as well as any virus.
Each member nation shall determine who will administer the tests required by this section, provided such persons are qualified by training to do so, and such tests shall be provided and paid for by the WHA using money drawn from the General Fund.
And the General Fund acquires its money from ALL the WA nations, including ones that don't have wet markets of any kind (unless you really want to include plants and fungi in the definition and unless fresh clams sold in supermarkets count). Maybe just allow the nations to
apply for WHA funding, if provenly unable to?
Member nations are encouraged to prosecute individuals who knowingly manufacture or provide false or defective tests under this section at least as harshly as individuals who knowingly traffic in other counterfeit products.
...this is a random unrelated jump to something that needs much more thorough legislation and should not be included in this one. Also, as an example, COVID19 home tests give almost 50% false negatives (their positives are almost 100% correct, though), so would they count as "defective", if you get the same result from tossing a coin?
Regulation of wet markets.
Unnecessary once more.
store one species of animal in physical proximity to animals of a different species without a barrier in place capable of preventing the exchange of pathogens from one species of animals to another;
Define "barrier". Not in proposal text, define it to me in your answer. Because I'm fairly sure you don't mean having each animal species in Level 4 biosafety lab kind of conditions.
retaliate against any person for reporting any violations of this Resolution or any other applicable laws governing wet markets; or
Again, random capitalization of Word. And why should this only apply to the wet markets? Wouldn't it make more sense to be a general clause of no instance, including the state, from being able to retaliate against whistle-blowers?
falsify any information concerning the quality of its livestock for the purpose of encouraging sales; and
The wet market doesn't usually own the livestock (also, "livestock" usually doesn't refer to wild animals being sold at such places) and it's usually the animal sellers who do such falsifying. The system keeping the wet market in operation usually gets paid by the vendors for a spot in said market and so couldn't give a shit about whether the animals get sold as long as the vendors keep wanting to come back. In that way it could be argued the wet market doesn't
want the animals to be sold to force vendors to come back to try to sell them another day.
must offer every worker and prospective customer of such wet market personal protective equipment which is capable of substantially limiting the ability of harmful zoonotic diseases to infect the person wearing such equipment, which equipment shall be provided and paid for by the WHA using money drawn from the general fund and which may be reusable.
What the actual fuck? The GF is not a bottomless pit of money, and why should the wet market provide any such protective stuff, given the existing resolution about work safety (unless it was repealed when I wasn't around) that requires the employers to provide safey gear to their employees. Also, seriously, forcing market-goers to wear protective equipment???? Do you ever think these things through as how they might apply to
you if you visited such place? Even if you didn't buy anything?
Regulation of animal marketplaces generally.
Again, unnecessary.
Any marketplace in a member nation which sells animals, whether living or dead, may not:
Again, grocery stores.
store the carcasses of animals of one species in close physical proximity to carcasses of animals of a different species, unless a barrier is in place capable of preventing the exchange of zoonotic diseases and other pathogens between the species of carcasses;
...apply this to a grocery store's fresh fish display counter and have a re-think?
store the carcasses of animals in a manner of condition which is likely to cause or allow for the deterioration of such carcasses, or the exposure of the same to zoonotic diseases; or
So,
no way in any universe that has any kind of entropy. Also, what is "exposure of the same"? Storage spaces are rarely capable of contracting diseases.
label or market animals, or carcasses of animals, of one species, as being of a different species.
Do you know the difficulty of telling clam species from one another? It took genetic testing by RL biologists to figure such out, because many are either indistinguishable from one another, or the population variance within a species is so great that they were thought to be different species based on morphology? This will likely fit also grubs and maggots (not synonyms!) and some other arthropods, whether aquatic or not. And why should this apply to the marketplace (which likely does none of the things in this entire clause, unless it's specifically applied to grocery stores) instead of the people selling the animals? Apply it to the right people and make it "knowingly". Because if you buy an animal carcass that's been butchered and skinned and such, from a producer, and sell it forward, it's often very hard to know what animal it came from. Much of game meat does not actually come from the species it's claimed to be, but the final vendor may or may not be aware of it.
Import and export.
You know this by now.
test any animal intended to be imported to exported from that nation for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population;
So why should Araraukarians (human population) test for a disease that in some other universe may be hazardous to sapient mantis people, if they're not selling the animals to the mantis people and in fact have nothing to do with said mantis people's universe?
deny entry or exit to, treat, or isolate, any animal which tests positive for any such disease until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease;
Throughout this thing, you should be talking of pathogens, not diseases. If the animal is not sick, it does not have a disease, though it may still well be the carrier or vector for a disease-causing organism or virus. You even have pathogen in your proposal name, but keep talking of diseases. Which reminds me, your zoonotic disease definition makes no sense because of this same issue. And even if you argue that the definition makes them mean the same thing, then you using "pathogen" in two clauses makes no sense.
take measures to ensure the health of individuals engaged in the business of transporting animals internationally, including measures to monitor and prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases among such individuals.
...monitor the spread of diseases that you are required to prevent from happening? How does that work? Also "in the business of" is unnecessary. And how do you "ensure the health" of people, if their health is bad due to other factors, like, say, untreated diabetes (that they can refuse to treat as it's not communicable) or any untreatable chronic condition? And why exactly does this matter at all, if the people are not capable of transmitting the pathogen to other people or to the animals under their care? It would make more sense to require "hygienic standards of suitable efficacy to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases" or similar wording.
Further measures.
You're aware. Stop it.
The World Assembly may further legislate on standards for animal storage, sale, and testing, provided such legislation is consistent with this Resolution.
Capitalization of Word. The "provided such legislation blah blah" is unnecessary given the inclusion of "further" and the actual proposal rule against contradiction.
Member nations are encouraged to enact legislation on the national level to further limit the spread of zoonotic diseases.
Don't you mean "
further legislation"? Since the resolution applies on the national level and nations are required to enact it.
As written, I don't really see this to do enough for any AoE in Health, to apply to it, given AoEs in that category should have minimum effect of Significant (unless that rule was changed when I wasn't looking). If you applied the preventions of spread of zoonotic pathogens to wildlife and not just people (you need to rewrite some clauses to fit), you could put it in Environmental, either Agriculture or All Businesses: Mild.