[DRAFT 9][FINAL] Allergen Labelling Standards

[Australian rePublic]

"What people choose not to eat and what people are physically incapable of eating are two very different things. The goal of this proposal is to protect the unfortunate, not pander to picky eaters."

And why can't one label do both? And as a religious person myself, I take umbrage to being called a pixky eater. Lent is not fun

[Araraukar]

"What people choose not to eat and what people are physically incapable of eating are two very different things."

OOC: Actually, you're physically able to many things that will kill you if you're allergic enough. That's the whole problem with food-based allergens.

[Whovian Tardisia]

And why can't one label do both?

"Because one is a matter of life or death, and the other is a personal choice, which you are free to, but is nowhere near as large of a concern. Religious and other beliefs are not covered by this, and that is final."

]OOC: Actually, you're physically able to many things that will kill you if you're allergic enough. That's the whole problem with food-based allergens.

You know what I meant.

[Jarish Inyo]

"Why? It's not like the WA gnomes will get fired if you don't give them new duties on top of what they're already doing."

"For the same reason WAFDRA exists in the first place, Miss Leveret. Oversight. What's the point of regulations if there's no way to ensure nations are following them? WAFDRA currently ensures quality standards are being met through assessment of companies; this would simply be another few boxes for the gnomes to tick. As for the Imperium's concern, there are many, many nations containing individuals with food tolerance complications. A single international system indicating the presence or absence of potentially harmful ingredients makes tourists and immigrants much safer in foreign lands, especially if the labels make more use of symbols than words."

Actually, the WAFDRA isn't providing oversight or assessment of companies. It only inspects national inspection facilities if they exist. Nor is this an actual international issue. It's not the nation's, companies or vendors responsibility to make sure someone doesn't eat what they're not suppose to.

[Araraukar]

It's not the nation's, companies or vendors responsibility to make sure someone doesn't eat what they're not suppose to.

"Especially if it's actually already mentioned in the ingredients list."

[Australian rePublic]

And why can't one label do both?

"Because one is a matter of life or death, and the other is a personal choice, which you are free to, but is nowhere near as large of a concern. Religious and other beliefs are not covered by this, and that is final."

And why not?

[Australian rePublic]

It's not the nation's, companies or vendors responsibility to make sure someone doesn't eat what they're not suppose to.

"Especially if it's actually already mentioned in the ingredients list."

No one's gonna sit there reading an ingrediants list. Why we can't we have an avoid for whatever reason list?

[Araraukar]

No one's gonna sit there reading an ingrediants list.

OOC: I do, when I'm buying something for the first time. You mean you don't? I don't even have any deathly allergies, I just kinda like to know what I'm actually eating.

[Australian rePublic]

No one's gonna sit there reading an ingrediants list.

OOC: I do, when I'm buying something for the first time. You mean you don't? I don't even have any deathly allergies, I just kinda like to know what I'm actually eating.

OOC: No, because unlike the USA, Australia's strict food labbeling and food safety laws don't allow food manufacturers to poison her citizens. Our food laws are so strict that I don't need to

[Araraukar]

OOC: No, because unlike the USA, Australia's strict food labbeling and food safety laws don't allow food manufacturers to poison her citizens. Our food laws are so strict that I don't need to

OOC: You do realize I live in Finland, yes? EU directives and Nordic food quality control and national legislation...

But's it's not about poisoning, or allergies, it's just actually wanting to know what I eat. A lot of "no sugar added" things, for example, use artificial sweeteners, and while I'm not allergic, one of them is pretty much a laxative and they generally leave a nasty aftertaste. And at least here the ingredients are listed in the order that they're most abundant in the product by weight, so that gives you a better idea of the healthiness, than any kind of advertizing or product packaging.

[Australian rePublic]

OOC: No, because unlike the USA, Australia's strict food labbeling and food safety laws don't allow food manufacturers to poison her citizens. Our food laws are so strict that I don't need to

OOC: You do realize I live in Finland, yes? EU directives and Nordic food quality control and national legislation...

But's it's not about poisoning, or allergies, it's just actually wanting to know what I eat. A lot of "no sugar added" things, for example, use artificial sweeteners, and while I'm not allergic, one of them is pretty much a laxative and they generally leave a nasty aftertaste. And at least here the ingredients are listed in the order that they're most abundant in the product by weight, so that gives you a better idea of the healthiness, than any kind of advertizing or product packaging.

Yes, well not every country in the same manner

[Whovian Tardisia]

With a whistle from Ambassador Pink's sonic device, the document on the projector changed.
"Alright, the seventh version of this proposal is here. A lot of changes have been made, outlined on those cards K-9 is distributing, to quell some ambassador's concerns. Again, constructive criticism is appreciated."

• Stripped back Clause 3 and heavily reworked Clause 4 to decrease reliance on WAFDRA, and put more responsibilities on member states.
• Made manufacturers liable for noncompliance.
• Made several small wording changes to allay several concerns and correct grammar.
• Added Clause 7 to ensure all current and future exemptions to WAFDRA regulations apply.
• Removed what was Clause 6a, incorporating it into what was Clause 6 proper, and switched the order of Clauses 5 and 6, for formatting reasons.

[Araraukar]

OOC: A quick look at the newest draft.

Clause 1: WAFDRA-dependent.
Clause 2: Definitions for clause 1. (Why are they in this order?)
Clause 3: WAFDRA
Clause 4 a-d: WAFDRA-dependent.
Clause 4 e: Partially intependent from committee but not really a Health-Healthcare clause.
Clause 5: WAFDRA-dependent.
Clauses 6-7: Definitions.

So where exactly is the bit where you've tried to wean this from being a committee-only? Even clause 4 e refers to the system being set up by WAFDRA (the food labeling scheme).

Also, I'm having a hard time seeing how something that regulates industry for the welfare of the population fits in Health-Healthcare. How does this raise Healthcare spending?

EDIT: Could you please, just for the sake of brain exercise, TRY to do a rewrite that didn't include WAFDRA at all? You don't have to make it an official draft, but just remove anything committee-related and make the nations do what the committee would do.

Yes, well not every country in the same manner

OOC: Yes, which is exactly why I specifically mentioned how it's done here. If you believe the advertizing and never read ingredients lists, you're probably "poisoning" yourself just fine.

[Australian rePublic]

Can this be extended to pets?

[Araraukar]

Can this be extended to pets?

OOC: I'm fairly sure that if you're going to use pets as food ingredients, they probably should be labeled per their species, not just as "pets"...

[Aclion]

OOC: I suggest that the requirements in clause 1 be split into two separate sub-clauses. One, to collect the data, and the other to submit it to the WA. It might save a headache in the future.

Can this be extended to pets?

Celic: There are so many different species of pets that it would make creating labels that were legible but still fit on the package nearly impossible.
Adrianne: Indeed, our records show that just for catfish, over a hundred different species are kept as pets.
Celic: We have records for that?
Adiranne: From our pet import rules.

[Australian rePublic]

OOC: I suggest that the requirements in clause 1 be split into two separate sub-clauses. One, to collect the data, and the other to submit it to the WA. It might save a headache in the future.

Can this be extended to pets?

Celic: There are so many different species of pets that it would make creating labels that were legible but still fit on the package nearly impossible.
Adrianne: Indeed, our records show that just for catfish, over a hundred different species are kept as pets.
Celic: We have records for that?
Adiranne: From our pet import rules.

No. I meant for pet food. Like dog food would contain allergin advice for dogs

[United Massachusetts]

WAFDRA needs to be introduced as the proper acronym, as you use it during the resolutions.

[Araraukar]

No. I meant for pet food. Like dog food would contain allergin advice for dogs

OOC: That would be outside the scope of this proposal, though.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Celic: There are so many different species of pets that it would make creating labels that were legible but still fit on the package nearly impossible.
Adrianne: Indeed, our records show that just for catfish, over a hundred different species are kept as pets.
Celic: We have records for that?
Adiranne: From our pet import rules.

No. I meant for pet food. Like dog food would contain allergin advice for dogs

"While allergies in creatures commonly kept as pets do exist, they are not quite as concerning to sapient life as allergies in sapient life. We feel that this is outside this proposal's scope."

WAFDRA needs to be introduced as the proper acronym, as you use it during the resolutions.

"Noted. Can't believe I didn't catch that earlier."

Also, I'm having a hard time seeing how something that regulates industry for the welfare of the population fits in Health-Healthcare. How does this raise Healthcare spending?

I've been beginning to feel this sliding out of category for the past few drafts. I'll look at my options.

EDIT: Could you please, just for the sake of brain exercise, TRY to do a rewrite that didn't include WAFDRA at all? You don't have to make it an official draft, but just remove anything committee-related and make the nations do what the committee would do.

Considering this. It may prove valuable. Thank you for your continued encouragement.

[Whovian Tardisia]

The Ambassador Pink that had been presiding over the proposal thus far had left the chamber with urgency some time ago. A seemingly different, but somehow familiar man now took his place. "Before anyone says anything, no, the good Ambassador has not been replaced. I am him. He was me. I am Ambassador Pink now. No time to explain it, just accept. Now, the proposal has gone through some edits after some discussion outside the chamber." A crack in the wall behind him that nobody had noticed before widened, just a little. "And due to that discussion, the proposal has been recategorized. As this is not really the concern of healthcare professionals, it has been placed under Social Justice, as it has more effect on manufacturing. Again, constructive criticism is welcome. Have at it!" The new Pink concluded, finally having the presence of mind to actually change the document shown on the projector.

[Araraukar]

OOC: At a quick glance it looks good, especially the way you decreased WAFDRA's part in this.

I would suggest changing "requests" in clause 5 to "encourages" or similar word, due to the controversy previously on that word. You'll at least dodge one derailing argument if you make the change.

7 CLARIFIES that these requirements are subject to any exemptions granted by WAFDRA to certain types of producers, in past or future resolutions.

Also, I'd remove the "or future", since that would kind of defeat the point of having this, if the WA can, without illegally amending this, amend this.

[Whovian Tardisia]

OOC: At a quick glance it looks good, especially the way you decreased WAFDRA's part in this.

I would suggest changing "requests" in clause 5 to "encourages" or similar word, due to the controversy previously on that word. You'll at least dodge one derailing argument if you make the change.

I'll hope SoG doesn't notice for now, but will also keep this in mind.

7 CLARIFIES that these requirements are subject to any exemptions granted by WAFDRA to certain types of producers, in past or future resolutions.

Also, I'd remove the "or future", since that would kind of defeat the point of having this, if the WA can, without illegally amending this, amend this.

Point taken, will be fixed next draft.

Ambassador Pink, absentmindedly testing functions on his sonic device, accidentally set off the fire alarm. "Well of course." He grumbled, shutting it off and praying nobody from the OBM noticed. "Sorry about that. Any more concerns?"

[Bruke]

*Nega rises* "I am Ambassador Dessalegne Nega of the Royal Republic of Bruke. Our Government would like clarification on the purpose of Clause 5. If this resolution is intended to help those who have food allergies, why not encourage states to label foods that are composed of one or more allergens?"

[Whovian Tardisia]

*Nega rises* "I am Ambassador Dessalegne Nega of the Royal Republic of Bruke. Our Government would like clarification on the purpose of Clause 5. If this resolution is intended to help those who have food allergies, why not encourage states to label foods that are composed of one or more allergens?"

"The clause exists because it is usually extremely obvious when a product consists entirely of a substance. Take one of the provided examples, nuts. A bag of nuts will usually have what kind of nut it contains printed on it, and if one is allergic to nuts, they will probably not purchase a bag of nuts. Thus, it seems silly to waste ink, and therefore money, printing 'contains nuts' on the bag."