[DRAFT 9][FINAL] Allergen Labelling Standards

[Essu Beti]

OOC: Canned fruit in my pantry right now: pineapple, mandarin oranges, peaches, and this fruit mix stuff that has, among other things, what might possibly be considered cherries if they only tasted anything like cherries.

Also canned pears are friggin' delicious whereas with real pears I tend to get impatient and take a bite when they're not quite ripe yet.

Also, States of Glory? Canned laughter is a thing. It's another term for the laughtrack used in sitcoms.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Also, States of Glory? Canned laughter is a thing. It's another term for the laughtrack used in sitcoms.

OOC: Yes, I know that canned laughter is a thing. That was the joke.

[Araraukar]

and this fruit mix stuff that has, among other things, what might possibly be considered cherries if they only tasted anything like cherries.

OOC: The non-cherry-tasting cherries are pretty good, though. I eat that fruit mix too.

[Uan aa Boa]

"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."

I suspect that, for the reasons of litigation avoidance already discussed, you might find manufacturers seeking to increase rather than decrease their risk rating, perhaps by bringing allergens closer to the production process than they actually need to be.

Nonetheless, this would provide some objective information to consumers and the alternative approach would be strongly anti-business measures that would probably be unpalatable to the Assembly as a whole. We would therefore support something of this nature as a compromise.

I still stress that if manufacturers are able to evade providing meaningful information by declaring that any product "might" contain any allergen, sufferers will be left with the choice between taking a leap in the dark and avoiding all manufactured foods. It would therefore be exactly as if the legislation didn't exist. Deleting the clause would completely disable the proposal.

[Uan aa Boa]

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.

[Whovian Tardisia]

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.

"Ahh. An astute observation. One I wish had been made sooner. This will be addressed with an edit to the relevant clause."

[Draconae]

OOC: What exactly did you change between your forth and fifth drafts? I can't really see much.

You didn't request much. Simply the wording changes in the subclauses of Clause 3 and replacing every ampersand with the word "and".

True. Although I did mention "However, I think the requirement that the surveys must be representative of the population would be enough. The WAFDRA can figure out the rest," which I meant for possible inclusion, if you would like to do so.

"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."

"Yes, it probably would be a better solution, if you could create an accurate system."

[Whovian Tardisia]

Ambassador Pink re-entered the chamber, bearing a small energy sidearm. This was unusual for him, but his intent was not to harm. He fired the weapon at the ceiling; it made a loud zapping noise, followed immediately by the hum of the weapons nullifiers turning the laser projectile into a large stick of red licorice. It was loud enough to grab the attention of all but the most oblivious in the room.

"Sorry if that frightened anyone. Didn't want to be a hypocrite." He stated to the gathered Ambassadors, grabbing the licorice that had fallen from above. "Seeing as my schedule has freed up recently, I thought I'd give this one another go. I've integrated the suggested changes from the last session, by way of removing Clause 6b, expanding Clause 3b, and adding a new subclause, 4a." At this, he fired up the projector again, displaying the new draft on the wall above and behind him. "And please do remember:" he added, "If you see something that may invalidate the entire proposal, please, I beg you, tell me what it is." Pinks eyes narrowed slightly in the direction of one, now empty, desk, before sitting behind the podium, legs crossed, and beginning to snack on the newly created licorice.

[Jarish Inyo]

Still opposed. But there is still ways to be compliant and not have to do most of what is required by this proposal.

Though 4a might contradict WAR 64. Particularly, the section that exempts producers and vendors from the WAFDRA regulations as long as they post notifications that their products do not meet international standards.

[Whovian Tardisia]

"A very small contradiction, perhaps. On the verge of splitting hairs. I will consider changes, but it will be tricky to clarify the intent to keep the exemption without blocking future regulations or referencing GA64. Any more complaints?"

[The Egyptian Pharocracial Suzerainty]

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...

We prefer to merely remove all of the warning labels and let Darwin sort it out.

Opposed.

[Herby]

Ehhhhh who's Darwin?

[Australian rePublic]

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

[Araraukar]

If you see something that may invalidate the entire proposal, please, I beg you, tell me what it is.

OOC: To apply Banana's strict reading of the committee-only violation, yours currently falls flat with the same problem.

[Australian rePublic]

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)
Clause 6 could lead to many law suits

[Tzorsland]

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)

Doesn't clause 1 state, "in their populations?" If your population consists of aliens allergic to water you better damn well have that listed. Otherwise you don't since it only applies to "in their populations."

[Araraukar]

Clause 6 could lead to many law suits

OOC: Only in sue-happy nations, because if you're buying a packet of nuts, you really shouldn't be warned that it may contain nuts...

[Australian rePublic]

Clause 6 could lead to many law suits

OOC: Only in sue-happy nations, because if you're buying a packet of nuts, you really shouldn't be warned that it may contain nuts...

Yes, wellfor most people tjat's true, but labels have to cater to the lowest common demoninator...

[Aclion]

Any competent court would find that a reasonable person would expect packaged nuts to contain nuts and does not need to be warned.

[Separatist Peoples]

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."

[Aclion]

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."

"I'd like an example of a package of nuts covered under 6 that an ordinary reasonable person would not expect to contain nuts."

"I'm beginning to wonder if you have any legal experience whatsoever, ambassador."

"You might consider that you are not who I was talking about when I referred to a reasonable person."

[Separatist Peoples]

"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.

"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."

[Aclion]

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."

Celice: "I suggest you read clause 6 again... Very carefully. You will notice that it does not permit absence of allergen labeling on products that contain nuts. It simply does not require unnecessary labeling on products consisting entirely of an ingredient-. Labeling will still be required in baklava containing nuts and food fried in nut oil. This is why I don't consider you a reasonable person."
Adrianne: "And why she had that wine cooler installed under her desk.
Celice: Now that's not true."

[Australian rePublic]

Any competent court would find that a reasonable person would expect packaged nuts to contain nuts and does not need to be warned.

Once again, lowest common denominator (that means the really stupid people). Or the really cunning people looking for a quick buck. Sure, the company would probably win a law suite, but why in the hell would they want to put themselves in that position either way?

[Whovian Tardisia]

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

"If a high number of people in your nation were allergic/intolerant to pork, it would need to be listed as a possible contaminant. If not, it would likely fall under an ingredients list, if those are on your nation's packaging."

If you see something that may invalidate the entire proposal, please, I beg you, tell me what it is.

OOC: To apply Banana's strict reading of the committee-only violation, yours currently falls flat with the same problem.

I will examine the proposal in due course to verify. Thank you.