[DRAFT 9][FINAL] Allergen Labelling Standards

[Aclion]

(OOC: Isn't that how it is in real life? Any international sharing of medical files isn't, to my knowledge, very common. That's why medical tourists take physical copies of their files with them.)

(OOC: from what I'm reading they would need permission from the emperor to share their medical information at all.

[Araraukar]

I didn't have time to prowl through the passed resolutions until now. Sorry for delay, though I have to wonder why Mr. Pink didn't catch this during his research...

GA #29, Patient's Rights Act, clause (VI) seems to address Celice's concerns about patient treatment abroad as well as cover at least the part of "medical records" mentioned in clause 2 a, as long as all personal info is stripped from them for the purposes of this proposal. However, doing that for particular citizens without their permission, for clause 2 b, would likely run afoul of GA #29.

And clause 2 a seems to imply that the data itself counts as "analyses", instead of analysis being the process of examining the data for whatever is the aim of the analysis, in this case presumably to find out the prevalence of food allergies in the national population.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what clause 2 b seeks to accomplish in any case. Is it trying to mandate allergy tests for everyone who hasn't been tested yet?

And why should member nations not be allowed to "collect the results" (whatever that means - it seems to imply that doctors should send allergy test results directly to the WA committee, which would be contradictory with GA #29) of their own population? Also, what happens if, according to clause 3 e, there is no national authority the committee trusts to be competent? And how is competence measured?

Clause 4's structure makes it look like WAFDRA was creating regulations for its food industry, since "their" can be singular too. Also I suggest an addition of "unless similar national system is already in place" or "additional labeling required by national laws is allowed", so that nations that already place all the information on the labels shouldn't switch to a new system that does the same (but possibly with different label imagery or wording).

And why exactly would you need to label things as allergens? Wouldn't "may contain trace amounts of nuts" be good enough for a chocolate bar, so that people who are allergic to nuts can avoid them. That would also bypass the issue with clause 5, since "contains beef (15%), pork (10%)" would not only be accurate food labeling but would also let people who avoid beef for religious reasons to avoid eating the product.

My general point is that you should require detailed labeling of contents, rather than require detailed labeling of allergens. You could require at the minimum a list of allergens, but recommend that all contents be labeled. New allergies can appear, especially when new additives are discovered and put to use. Then it would be good for consumers to know exactly what the product contains.

OOC: Spell out the full name of WAFDRA and put the shorthand into parentheses after it, before you use the shorthand later in the text.

I suggest that in clause 6 you swap WAFDRA for member nations, to make it one more nation-related clause, as you're a bit short on those, considering you're putting most of the work on the committee.

[Draconae]

What people are allergic to is personal information. And the Empire will not share that information with the WA. Nor will we let it run test and collect data on our food supply or citizens. Nor do or will we ever use the WA labeling format or system.

"So, in other words, even though you do not share any personal information with the WA, the WA is not going to be running the tests on citizens, and you could create an office to create the labeling system instead of the WA, you are not in favor with this resolution." Ambassador Valorus rubs his chin mock-seriously.

"... I see."

[Araraukar]

and you could create an office to create the labeling system instead of the WA

Not according to the current wording of the proposal.

[Draconae]

and you could create an office to create the labeling system instead of the WA

Not according to the current wording of the proposal.

"Okay, I was slightly wrong on that. If the "WAFDRA is confident in [the] competence" of an organization in the government, then that organization can determine which labeling is necessary, which takes the sting out of many of the other Ambassador's problems with the resolution. However, the WA still does create the labeling system."

[Araraukar]

"Okay, I was slightly wrong on that. If the "WAFDRA is confident in [the] competence" of an organization in the government, then that organization can determine which labeling is necessary

Still nope. The proposal very explicitly says "4. REQUIRES that member states adopt and enforce the system WAFDRA creates in their own food industry". This was part of my critique. I know what 3.e. says, but that currently clashes with clause 4, which doesn't mention anything about adopting whatever a national institution, competent or not, might be doing, only what WAFDRA says.

[Draconae]

"Okay, I was slightly wrong on that. If the "WAFDRA is confident in [the] competence" of an organization in the government, then that organization can determine which labeling is necessary

Still nope. The proposal very explicitly says "4. REQUIRES that member states adopt and enforce the system WAFDRA creates in their own food industry". This was part of my critique. I know what 3.e. says, but that currently clashes with clause 4, which doesn't mention anything about adopting whatever a national institution, competent or not, might be doing, only what WAFDRA says.

"However, the system is what is created in 3c, not what is in 3d, meaning that nations only have to adopt the system of labeling but may be able to decide what to label themselves."

[Aclion]

GA #29, Patient's Rights Act, clause (VI) seems to address Celice's concerns about patient treatment abroad as well as cover at least the part of "medical records" mentioned in clause 2 a, as long as all personal info is stripped from them for the purposes of this proposal. However, doing that for particular citizens without their permission, for clause 2 b, would likely run afoul of GA #29.

And clause 2 a seems to imply that the data itself counts as "analyses", instead of analysis being the process of examining the data for whatever is the aim of the analysis, in this case presumably to find out the prevalence of food allergies in the national population.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what clause 2 b seeks to accomplish in any case. Is it trying to mandate allergy tests for everyone who hasn't been tested yet?

"Agreed."

I suggest that in clause 6 you swap WAFDRA for member nations, to make it one more nation-related clause, as you're a bit short on those, considering you're putting most of the work on the committee.

That would require a rewrite to avoid contradiction with clause 4, yes?

[Bakhton]

"This proposal is heading in the right direction," states Lara Qzu."We will support the proposal in its current form and upon reasonable revision."

[Jarish Inyo]

The Empire is opposed to this overreach in WA power. We have never, nor will we, use any format the WA decides most be used.

[Aclion]

The Empire is opposed to this overreach in WA power. We have never, nor will we, use any format the WA decides most be used.

"Your government seems to be opposed to all world assembly activities. Given your position I think you ought to ask your leadership to consider whether continued membership is right for Jarish Inyo"

[Jarish Inyo]

Not all, just the ones that are better left to the individual nations to decide. Granted, all of the current proposals are that way. In the beginning it wasn't that way. And someday, hopefully, it will return to that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not all, just the ones that are better left to the individual nations to decide.

It is conducive to a good-quality debate that actual reasons be laid out for why one believes that subsidiarity solves the problem more effectively, with some backing for independent ability and action for political subdivisions to take the relevant action. Lack thereof seems more like blind dogmatism rather than any kind of nuanced and intelligent exploration of the topic.

[Jarish Inyo]

It's blind dogmatism rather than any kind of nuanced and intelligent exploration of the topic. The WA isn't the right organization to be creating labeling standards for individual nations. After all, it has some 11,000 nations. It can not effectively do such a thing. Nor is it the WA's or individual nation's job to ensure that an individual doesn't eat something that they're allergic too. It's the individual's job to do so.

[Calladan]

It's blind dogmatism rather than any kind of nuanced and intelligent exploration of the topic. The WA isn't the right organization to be creating labeling standards for individual nations. After all, it has some 11,000 nations. It can not effectively do such a thing. Nor is it the WA's or individual nation's job to ensure that an individual doesn't eat something that they're allergic too. It's the individual's job to do so.

No, but isn't it (at least) the individual nation's job to label something so that the individual knows whats in it? Otherwise how do they know that it contains something to which they are allergic?

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it's not the job of the government job to label things. People have and will continue to live without having things labeled. It's the individual's place to ensure they don't eat things they're allergic too. Not the government's, companies or restaurant's. If an individual is unsure, they don't have to buy it or eat it. Its that simple.

As for this proposal, it forces nations to force medical professionals to access medical files without consent of its citizens and give that medical information to the WA, again, without consent. Then forces nations to use whatever format the WA decides without input of that nation. This is almost as bad as the WA passport or international adoption resolutions.

[Calladan]

Actually, it's not the job of the government job to label things. People have and will continue to live without having things labeled. It's the individual's place to ensure they don't eat things they're allergic too. Not the government's, companies or restaurant's.

As for this proposal, it forces nations to force medical professionals to access medical files without consent of its citizens and give that medical information to the WA, again, without consent. Then forces nations to use whatever format the WA decides without input of that nation. This is almost as bad as the WA passport or international adoption resolutions.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. I wasn't really talking about this proposal - just in general. If I am allergic to say...... milk, then isn't it the job of the government to at least ensure that products will milk in say somewhere on the packaging that they have milk in them? Because while big white cartons are fairly obvious, you would be amazed at how much stuff has the tiniest trace elements of milk in that would still make me sick (if not deathly ill) - stuff that you would look at and go "How could that contain milk? That's really unlikely". (I know - I could do my own research, but that would require companies to put all the ingredients for everything they sell online, and that seems really excessive - isn't it far cheaper to put them on the actual packaging?).

I am not saying that the actual government has to do the actual labelling - My Tri-Arch doesn't, obviously. But they, I think, have a duty to ensure that when a company makes a product, it is labelled with all the ingredients, including common allergens.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it's not the job of the government job to label things. People have and will continue to live without having things labeled. It's the individual's place to ensure they don't eat things they're allergic too. Not the government's, companies or restaurant's.

As for this proposal, it forces nations to force medical professionals to access medical files without consent of its citizens and give that medical information to the WA, again, without consent. Then forces nations to use whatever format the WA decides without input of that nation. This is almost as bad as the WA passport or international adoption resolutions.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. I wasn't really talking about this proposal - just in general. If I am allergic to say...... milk, then isn't it the job of the government to at least ensure that products will milk in say somewhere on the packaging that they have milk in them? Because while big white cartons are fairly obvious, you would be amazed at how much stuff has the tiniest trace elements of milk in that would still make me sick (if not deathly ill) - stuff that you would look at and go "How could that contain milk? That's really unlikely". (I know - I could do my own research, but that would require companies to put all the ingredients for everything they sell online, and that seems really excessive - isn't it far cheaper to put them on the actual packaging?).

I am not saying that the actual government has to do the actual labelling - My Tri-Arch doesn't, obviously. But they, I think, have a duty to ensure that when a company makes a product, it is labelled with all the ingredients, including common allergens.

Again, no it's not the job of the government to ensure that products are labeled. It's the individual place to ensure that they are not allergic to what they eat.. The individual is responsible for their own health and what they buy. And it isn't cheaper for companies to place it on labels rather then online. Labels cost each time it is printed. Placing ingredients online is a one time thing and doesn't add any additional cost to the site.

[Aclion]

It's blind dogmatism rather than any kind of nuanced and intelligent exploration of the topic. The WA isn't the right organization to be creating labeling standards for individual nations. After all, it has some 11,000 nations. It can not effectively do such a thing.

Fortunately the author has had the foresight not to prescribe a single labeling scheme, but give the WAFDRA discretion to require labels only as necessary.

Nor is it the WA's or individual nation's job to ensure that an individual doesn't eat something that they're allergic too. It's the individual's job to do so.

And the individual will be able to do so when products are clearly labeled.

Again, no it's not the job of the government to ensure that products are labeled. It's the individual place to ensure that they are not allergic to what they eat.. The individual is responsible for their own health and what they buy. And it isn't cheaper for companies to place it on labels rather then online. Labels cost each time it is printed. Placing ingredients online is a one time thing and doesn't add any additional cost to the site.

It is impossible for individuals to avoid harmful ingredients if they aren't labeled. The cost of adding these labels to existing packaging is negligible. Not only does labeling improve food safety, reducing costs to public healthcare, but international cooperation in labeling will have effects outside of safety; promoting international trade in foodstuffs, tourism and cultural exchange throughout the WA membership.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, they can and have avoided harmful ingredients if they aren't labeled. They have for centuries and can continue to do so. Food allergies, or allergies all together, are not new. People have survived and have avoided their allergies. There is no reason to believe that they can not continue doing so. It doesn't improve food safety or reduce costs to public healthcare. Labeling doesn't prevent tainted foodstuff from going to markets. Public healthcare doesn't get reduced from labeling either. Nor has international cooperation in labeling had effects outside of safety. It doesn't promote international trade in foodstuffs, tourism or cultural exchange throughout the WA membership. Labeling doesn't actually mean that foods from any nation is safe to eat. People don't go to other nations because of food items that they can buy in their local stores. Nor does labeling have anything to do with cultural exchange in anyway.

[Araraukar]

"However, the system is what is created in 3c, not what is in 3d, meaning that nations only have to adopt the system of labeling but may be able to decide what to label themselves."

No, the WAFDRA decides what is or isn't necessary "on a member state-by-member state and product-by-product basis". Which, now that I think about it, is a huge effort... especially as we don't really need WAFDRA here at all, as nations could just be required to gather the data, do the analyses and require labelling as necessary.

People have survived and have avoided their allergies.

And many have also died. And many have suffered without knowing what's wrong, because of food allergies. People have also verifiably survived before the invention of medicines that actually work, yet I doubt even your nation would be willing to throw your modern medicine out the window just because it wasn't done a thousand years ago.

Labeling doesn't prevent tainted foodstuff from going to markets.

That should already have been prevented if you're compliant with GA #64. And yes, it involves labeling.

[Jarish Inyo]

WA 64 doesn't prevent tainted food from going to markets. No matter be test every piece of foodstuff. And plus WA allows for things to not to be labeled as long as the producer and vendor phas a sign that informs people that they sale things that are not internationally compliant. Every producer and vendor in the Empire has such a sign.

And in the Empire, we don't use a lot of modern medicine. We do not have the common pain, allergies, or common cold medicines. And you can't get anything else unless you are a patient in a hospital.

[Araraukar]

And in the Empire, we don't use a lot of modern medicine. We do not have the common pain, allergies, or common cold medicines. And you can't get anything else unless you are a patient in a hospital.

I feel sorry for your people, honestly. And I think that last bit might be breaking a few resolutions all on its own...

[Jarish Inyo]

There is no resolution stating that people should not be in a hospital to receive highly addictive medications. The citizens of the Empire are not enslaved to pharmaceutical companies. If an individual feels that they need to go to the hospital, they can. A medical professional will see them free of charge.

[Araraukar]

There is no resolution stating that people should not be in a hospital to receive highly addictive medications.

Never yet heard of anyone getting addicted to aspirin or chamomile...