Advertisement
by Essu Beti » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:44 pm
National News Radio: A large-scale infrastructure project will soon be underway. During this time, for safety reasons, the island will be closed to tourists and foreign news agents. We do expect a minor loss in revenue due to this, but this will be greatly offset by both the long and short-term benefits of the infrastructure project. If your job is negatively impacted by the island closure, please send a letter or verbal message via courier to the Council so that we can add you to the list of beneficiaries of foreign aid.
by States of Glory WA Office » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:07 am
Essu Beti wrote:OOC: Also, States of Glory? Canned laughter is a thing. It's another term for the laughtrack used in sitcoms.
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:18 pm
Essu Beti wrote:and this fruit mix stuff that has, among other things, what might possibly be considered cherries if they only tasted anything like cherries.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Uan aa Boa » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:57 am
Whovian Tardisia wrote:Draconae wrote:"Perhaps you could add 'unless contamination of a food with said ingredient is likely'?"
"That would be the simplest way around it, but the lack of utility the label holds is still a concern. We feel a Contamination Risk scale would be more useful for the consumer, allowing those with severe food tolerance complications to be better informed of a food's risk, or lack thereof, to their health."
by Uan aa Boa » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:03 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:I don't have to do either. But I'll give you a hint. You are assuming something. And that something determines if a nation has to anything more then a survey. Assuming the citizens will even answer the survey to begin with. I can't be the only one that sees the flaw.
by Whovian Tardisia » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:21 pm
Uan aa Boa wrote:Jarish Inyo wrote:I don't have to do either. But I'll give you a hint. You are assuming something. And that something determines if a nation has to anything more then a survey. Assuming the citizens will even answer the survey to begin with. I can't be the only one that sees the flaw.
Presumably you're referring to the requirement that member nations integrate the WADFRA system into their own labelling system, with the assumption being that there is such a system. If so, you'd be contending that a nation that currently has no legislation on labelling would have no obligations under the proposal because there's no instruction to create a system if it doesn't exist.
by Draconae » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:29 pm
Whovian Tardisia wrote:Draconae wrote:"Perhaps you could add 'unless contamination of a food with said ingredient is likely'?"
"That would be the simplest way around it, but the lack of utility the label holds is still a concern. We feel a Contamination Risk scale would be more useful for the consumer, allowing those with severe food tolerance complications to be better informed of a food's risk, or lack thereof, to their health."
by Whovian Tardisia » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:19 pm
by Jarish Inyo » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:52 pm
by Whovian Tardisia » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:50 pm
by The Egyptian Pharocracial Suzerainty » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:30 am
Whovian Tardisia wrote:Allergen Labeling Standards
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare | Author: Whovian Tardisia
The World Assembly:
UNDERSTANDING that many individuals suffer from allergies or intolerances to certain foodstuffs, henceforth referred to as “food tolerance complications”,
CONSCIOUS of the fact that many food tolerance complications can be severe, and sometimes fatal, to those who possess them.
HOPING to improve the lives of individuals who suffer from food tolerance complications, by introducing tools to help prevent them from coming into contact with foods that may harm them,
HEREBY:
[list=1][*]REQUIRES member states to collect data at reasonable intervals on common food tolerance complications in their populations, and submit this data to the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency,
[*]CLARIFIES that “data” in this case includes:
*snip!* yata yata yata...
by Herby » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:32 am
by Australian rePublic » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:37 am
by Araraukar » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:48 am
Whovian Tardisia wrote:If you see something that may invalidate the entire proposal, please, I beg you, tell me what it is.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Australian rePublic » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:02 am
by Tzorsland » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:41 am
Australian Republic wrote:Clause 1 is ridiculous. There may be some alien species out there which is allergic to water, yet, my modern tech only nation, strictly inhabit ted by humans only, would have to write: Allergine advice: may contain water (which is pretty much every real life product as it is)
by Araraukar » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:36 pm
Australian Republic wrote:Clause 6 could lead to many law suits
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Australian rePublic » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:56 pm
by Aclion » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:47 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:51 pm
Aclion wrote:Any competent court would find that a reasonable person would expect packaged nuts to contain nuts and does not need to be warned.
by Aclion » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:19 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Aclion wrote:Any competent court would find that a reasonable person would expect packaged nuts to contain nuts and does not need to be warned.
"A competent court could also find that, where an item does not clearly contain nuts, an ordinary reasonable person would not know it contains nuts and therefore be unaware of the allergen. A competent court would also recognize the danger of allowing a loophole for those things which are "obvious," as that is a subjective assessment rather than an objective one. It would also recognize that carving out explicit loopholes would be more difficult than a universal labeling scheme.
"I'm beginning to wonder if you have any legal experience whatsoever, ambassador."
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm beginning to wonder if you have any legal experience whatsoever, ambassador."
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:24 pm
Aclion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"A competent court could also find that, where an item does not clearly contain nuts, an ordinary reasonable person would not know it contains nuts and therefore be unaware of the allergen. A competent court would also recognize the danger of allowing a loophole for those things which are "obvious," as that is a subjective assessment rather than an objective one. It would also recognize that carving out explicit loopholes would be more difficult than a universal labeling scheme.
"I'm beginning to wonder if you have any legal experience whatsoever, ambassador."
I'd like an example of a package of nuts that an ordinary reasonable person would not expect to contain nuts.
by Aclion » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:33 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Aclion wrote:I'd like an example of a package of nuts that an ordinary reasonable person would not expect to contain nuts.
"Peanut oils a component of literally anything fried, be it fresh or preserved. Almond oils in baked goods. Pistachios or walnuts in Baklava. Ground nuts in pie crust."
by Australian rePublic » Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:42 pm
Aclion wrote:Any competent court would find that a reasonable person would expect packaged nuts to contain nuts and does not need to be warned.
by Whovian Tardisia » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:10 am
Australian Republic wrote:So I can't write: May contain, wheat, nuts, pork or milk. I have to categorise pork seperately or not at all? Does it matter why you can't eat it? You can't eat it, the reason why is irrelevant. Oppose this proposal for that reason
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement