[DRAFT 9][FINAL] Allergen Labelling Standards

[Aclion]

"As long as you mandate that nations give the WA the data collected in Clause 1, then I don't see any other problems. However, you may want to check on the resolution currently at vote, as it may impact your topic. Either way, you may want to make sure this resolution is legal with World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact in place, or wait until a repeal for it to submit this."

"It would be nice if the resolution could be written in such a way that if there is a WA entity collecting the information already the WAFDRA can simply get it from them, while if there is not they can require Member nations to supply it. I'm at a loss as to how that could be worded; Something like "collect from member states or appropriate WA entities" I suppose."

The WA's authority is only that which the individual nations grant it. After all the WA has no way to enforce any of the resolutions other then the goodwill of the nations.

"If your nation not going to comply with WA resolutions anyway then why should this assembly pay any attention to your objections? Your presence in the debate halls is little more then a distraction."

[Essu Beti]

"This proposal interests me, but it really doesn't do enough. There are a lot of things my people can't eat, and there are an awful lot of restaurants and such in other nations that don't list the ingredients in their sauces, soups, meatloaf, or seasonings, or whatever. I mean, garlic is one of the most common things you humans use, and it doesn't take eating a whole lot of it to do horrible things to our blood. But the thing is, those aren't allergies. It's not like we go into anaphylactic shock. Our biology just can't handle it.

So what I'm getting at is I'm against this unless it requires nations appropriately label anything that is biologically poisonous to non-human sapients, as well as basic allergens."

[Whovian Tardisia]

"As long as you mandate that nations give the WA the data collected in Clause 1, then I don't see any other problems. However, you may want to check on the resolution currently at vote, as it may impact your topic. Either way, you may want to make sure this resolution is legal with World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact in place, or wait until a repeal for it to submit this."

"I will have to examine it more closely, but at the moment, I feel that WACMDC's impact on this is minimal."

"It would be nice if the resolution could be written in such a way that if there is a WA entity collecting the information already the WAFDRA can simply get it from them, while if there is not they can require Member nations to supply it. I'm at a loss as to how that could be worded; Something like "collect from member states or appropriate WA entities" I suppose."

"Again, I shall have to explore WACMDC more, but this will be mulled over it is applicable."

"This proposal interests me, but it really doesn't do enough. There are a lot of things my people can't eat, and there are an awful lot of restaurants and such in other nations that don't list the ingredients in their sauces, soups, meatloaf, or seasonings, or whatever. I mean, garlic is one of the most common things you humans use, and it doesn't take eating a whole lot of it to do horrible things to our blood. But the thing is, those aren't allergies. It's not like we go into anaphylactic shock. Our biology just can't handle it.

So what I'm getting at is I'm against this unless it requires nations appropriately label anything that is biologically poisonous to non-human sapients, as well as basic allergens."

UNDERSTANDING that many individuals suffer from allergies or intolerances to certain foodstuffs, henceforth referred to as “food tolerance complications”,

"I would think that the stuff being poisonous would qualify as an intolerance. Also, one would hope a food company would avoid poisoning it's customers. But this will be noted and considered for the next draft."

[Jarish Inyo]

Not a distraction. Pointing out that the WA authority is not as great and powerful as you think it is, is not a distraction. After all, I did point out there is a loophole in the proposal that means no one has to follow this resolution if passed and still be in compliance. Did not and will not tell you what it is. But it should be obvious

[Essu Beti]

"Are you talking about how it mandates collecting data on food complications, but doesn't actually mandate turning that data over to the agency?"

[Draconae]

"Are you talking about how it mandates collecting data on food complications, but doesn't actually mandate turning that data over to the agency?"

"I would assume so, yes."

[Jarish Inyo]

As I'm opposed to this proposal, I'm not one to point out the loopholes. But, we'll go with that one.

[Uan aa Boa]

The Ambassador rises slightly nervously, shuffling papers, acutely conscious of making her nation's first contribution.

"Comrade Ambassadors, the understandable concerns regarding Clauses 1 and 2 involving confidential medical information being given to the WA are surely easily allayed. Why is it necessary for Clause 2 to mention medical records? Surely what is needed to make the resolution effective is statistical information on the prevalence of food tolerance complications in each nation. These should be no more confidential than an article in a medical journal. Why not remove any reference to medical records?

Secondly, the reference in Clause 1 to regular collection is problematic. If data were next collected in 2117 and then once a century, that would be extremely regular.

Thirdly, is it solely the responsibility of the individual to avoid foods they're allergic to? It's true that people have managed for hundreds of years, but that was mainly at a time when their diet was based on far fewer foods that were far less processed and more likely to be prepared in the home, making it far easier to know what was in it. In my nation we promote the eating of fresh, non-processed food through our system of community canteens, but for citizens in less enlightened places it is indeed far harder than it used to be to avoid allergens.

Most importantly, how can we be assured that this resolution will prevent the abuse companies perpetrate on the good intentions of many labelling systems by simply stating that everything "may contain" allergens, whether or not there is any reasonable likelihood of that? This serves to protect the manufacturer from litigation in the event of accidental contamination, but it provides no useful information to a person with an allergy.

My nations remains uncertain whether it would in principal support a resolution such as this or whether it would be in all respects wiser to encourage the avoidance of processed foods, to the benefit of health and the environment."

[Whovian Tardisia]

The Ambassador rises slightly nervously, shuffling papers, acutely conscious of making her nation's first contribution.

"Comrade Ambassadors, the understandable concerns regarding Clauses 1 and 2 involving confidential medical information being given to the WA are surely easily allayed. Why is it necessary for Clause 2 to mention medical records? Surely what is needed to make the resolution effective is statistical information on the prevalence of food tolerance complications in each nation. These should be no more confidential than an article in a medical journal. Why not remove any reference to medical records?

"We are considering this. Thank you for the reminder."

Secondly, the reference in Clause 1 to regular collection is problematic. If data were next collected in 2117 and then once a century, that would be extremely regular.

"Agreed, but due to irregularities in how member states measure time, declaring a specific period would be problematic. It could be specified that collection also had to be frequent, so we shall note that."

Thirdly, is it solely the responsibility of the individual to avoid foods they're allergic to? It's true that people have managed for hundreds of years, but that was mainly at a time when their diet was based on far fewer foods that were far less processed and more likely to be prepared in the home, making it far easier to know what was in it. In my nation we promote the eating of fresh, non-processed food through our system of community canteens, but for citizens in less enlightened places it is indeed far harder than it used to be to avoid allergens.

"Indeed. We believe that food manufacturers have a responsibility to ensure their product is safe for consumption by their customers, and that the proposed resolution will make that responsibility more clear."

Most importantly, how can we be assured that this resolution will prevent the abuse companies perpetrate on the good intentions of many labelling systems by simply stating that everything "may contain" allergens, whether or not there is any reasonable likelihood of that? This serves to protect the manufacturer from litigation in the event of accidental contamination, but it provides no useful information to a person with an allergy.

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will add a clause addressing it."

My nations remains uncertain whether it would in principal support a resolution such as this or whether it would be in all respects wiser to encourage the avoidance of processed foods, to the benefit of health and the environment."

"Hopefully the next draft can convince you. Processed goods becoming safer is still good progress."

[Aclion]

Someone mentioned restaurants earlier, We are not opposed to requiring restaurants to list the ingredients in there foods provided it is done in a practical manner, however it should be noted that unlike a food manufacture restaurants will be using the same equipment to make a variety of foods, so cross contamination becomes a more serious concern. It may be better to leave the matter to a later proposal.

[Uan aa Boa]

Secondly, the reference in Clause 1 to regular collection is problematic. If data were next collected in 2117 and then once a century, that would be extremely regular.

"Agreed, but due to irregularities in how member states measure time, declaring a specific period would be problematic. It could be specified that collection also had to be frequent, so we shall note that."

I would suggest something like "at reasonable intervals." The word reasonable can do a lot of work here and allow for individual circumstances to be taken into account, with the WA committee mentioned in the resolution being the arbiter, if one were needed, of what is reasonable. Clearly my example of doing it once a century would not be reasonable.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Someone mentioned restaurants earlier, We are not opposed to requiring restaurants to list the ingredients in there foods provided it is done in a practical manner, however it should be noted that unlike a food manufacture restaurants will be using the same equipment to make a variety of foods, so cross contamination becomes a more serious concern. It may be better to leave the matter to a later proposal.

"We believe that restaurants are outside the scope of this proposal, and for the reason of cross-contamination, would be much harder to legislate and enforce. Someone else can have a crack at it if they want..."

I would suggest something like "at reasonable intervals." The word reasonable can do a lot of work here and allow for individual circumstances to be taken into account, with the WA committee mentioned in the resolution being the arbiter, if one were needed, of what is reasonable. Clearly my example of doing it once a century would not be reasonable.

"Agreed and noted."

[Whovian Tardisia]

Clarified that testing cannot be forced
Removed WAFDRA’s authority to determine the competency of government agencies, instead requiring them to cooperate with each other.
Closed loophole that nations aren’t actually required to give WAFDRA the data.
Reworked Clause 2 to focus on survey data, thus removing any reference to medical records, as well as requiring surveys at reasonable intervals.
Added a request to avoid "may contain" labels to Clause 6
Fixed inconsistency with spelling ("labelling" changed to match title's "labeling")

[Jarish Inyo]

One loophole closed, but still doesn't close them all.

[Uan aa Boa]

"Ambassador Pink, I must thank you for the alacrity and positive spirit with which you have taken my comments into account."

[Whovian Tardisia]

"Ambassador Pink, I must thank you for the alacrity and positive spirit with which you have taken my comments into account."

"Your points were well made, sir!" Pink responds, after snapping out of an odd, trance-like state. He looks at his watch, and is slightly taken aback. "Right. I think I shall have one last call for questions and edits. After that, the proposal shall be prepared for submission. I hope someone more eagle-eyed than me can find whatever loopholes remain..."

[Draconae]

"Ambassador Pink, I must thank you for the alacrity and positive spirit with which you have taken my comments into account."

"Your points were well made, sir!" Pink responds, after snapping out of an odd, trance-like state. He looks at his watch, and is slightly taken aback. "Right. I think I shall have one last call for questions and edits. After that, the proposal shall be prepared for submission. I hope someone more eagle-eyed than me can find whatever loopholes remain..."

"Speaking of edits, in clause 2a the resolution specifies surveys of food tolerance complications. It would probably be a good idea to clarify that those surveys need to be representative of the population. Also, is it possible to include any protection against misleading answers to the surveys? In clause 2b, it would be good to clarify what deems the testing necessary: the WAFDRA or something else? In clauses 3b and 3c, you have two different formulations of 'using the data collected.' Is there any way you could combine 3b and 3c, so you don't have to say the same thing several times? If not, I believe you should use the same wording in each clause. In clause 4, it might be beneficial to use 'accurately integrate' instead of just 'integrate'. Otherwise, nations could integrate the WAFDRA's system incorrectly. I'm not sure why they would want to do so, but some nations might anyway. Finally, you tend to use the '&' symbol to denote 'and'. Unless it is required for the name of the agency, I believe it would be clearer to write out 'and.' But that's just minor."

"Other than that, I don't see any problems. Great work."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why is it the case that Food and Drug Standards does not already cover this?

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it's terrible work. And flawed. Why should nations be forced to create a labeling system for something that isn't a problem? Why should nations be forced to spend money on surveys on food allergies? Good thing no one actually has to follow this.

[Whovian Tardisia]

"Speaking of edits, in clause 2a the resolution specifies surveys of food tolerance complications. It would probably be a good idea to clarify that those surveys need to be representative of the population. Also, is it possible to include any protection against misleading answers to the surveys? In clause 2b, it would be good to clarify what deems the testing necessary: the WAFDRA or something else?

"WAFDRA is creating the system, so it would make sense that they decide what data is enough. As for the protections to ensure the survey is accurate, could you provide some examples? I'm not the best with gathering statistics."

In clauses 3b and 3c, you have two different formulations of 'using the data collected.' Is there any way you could combine 3b and 3c, so you don't have to say the same thing several times? If not, I believe you should use the same wording in each clause.

"We shall take a closer look at this. I'm not sure about merging the clauses, but we'll look into the wording."

In clause 4, it might be beneficial to use 'accurately integrate' instead of just 'integrate'. Otherwise, nations could integrate the WAFDRA's system incorrectly. I'm not sure why they would want to do so, but some nations might anyway.

"Noted. Will likely implement."

Finally, you tend to use the '&' symbol to denote 'and'. Unless it is required for the name of the agency, I believe it would be clearer to write out 'and.' But that's just minor."

Ambassador Pink shrugs. "I just like using ampersands. I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe I'm just scared about being longwinded. But I'm sure a few extra characters won't hurt."

"Other than that, I don't see any problems. Great work."

"Thank you. We look forward to your continued support."

Why is it the case that Food and Drug Standards does not already cover this?

"The wording throughout GA64 alludes to the overall quality and safety of food to average members of the public. It does not mention abnormal reasons for foods being unsafe to certain groups, such as those with allergies or intolerances."

Actually, it's terrible work. And flawed. Why should nations be forced to create a labeling system for something that isn't a problem? Why should nations be forced to spend money on surveys on food allergies? Good thing no one actually has to follow this.

"Citizens not being able to eat the same foods as most citizens can counts as a problem in my book. Otherwise I would not have bothered with this. And in regards to the fact that you are under the impression this entire proposal is invalid: I recommend you cease mentioning it unless you plan to tell me how you came to that conclusion, as nobody else seems to see it."

Ignore cannon has been primed. I would prefer not to fire it.

[Jarish Inyo]

I'm not required to tell you the loopholes that you have put into this proposal that make it invalid. And people not being able to certain foods is not an issue, not to mention an international issue.

What will the WAFDA do when a nation's citizens refuse to answer the surveys and refuses release their confidential medical records?

[Aclion]

What will the WAFDA do when a nation's citizens refuse to answer the surveys and refuses release their confidential medical records?

"The majority of people in any survey don't respond. Researchers have means of detecting an correcting for non-reponse bias."
OOC: though it would be more fun to just use the results from people who did respond(which are likely people who and interest to because they have more food allergies) so countries like yours that choose to be a pain for no reason have to label more allergens then they otherwise would.

[Jarish Inyo]

My nation wouldn't have to place more allergies on our labels. After all, the WAFDA makes the labeling for each individual nation according to the information the nation gives them.

So, again, if the citizens do not consent to the surveys and releasing of their medical records, what will the WAFDA do?

[Draconae]

"Speaking of edits, in clause 2a the resolution specifies surveys of food tolerance complications. It would probably be a good idea to clarify that those surveys need to be representative of the population. Also, is it possible to include any protection against misleading answers to the surveys? In clause 2b, it would be good to clarify what deems the testing necessary: the WAFDRA or something else?

"WAFDRA is creating the system, so it would make sense that they decide what data is enough. As for the protections to ensure the survey is accurate, could you provide some examples? I'm not the best with gathering statistics."

"I'm sorry, but I am also unsure. You could possibly correlate data between nations with the same species to make sure massive amounts of people were not giving you incorrect information, but that would only correct large discrepancies. You could also include questions that are the opposite of each other, so that if the participant responds 'yes' or 'no' to both the question and the opposite of the question their responses could be thrown out. However, I think the requirement that the surveys must be representative of the population would be enough. The WAFDRA can figure out the rest."

I'm not a statistician, but Wikipedia is where I got my second suggestion and may be a resource to find more.

I'm not required to tell you the loopholes that you have put into this proposal that make it invalid.

"You are quite correct, Ambassador Nameless. However, I feel like you are not being helpful nor introducing any new arguments or dimensions to your arguments. We aren't getting anywhere. So, if you want to do one of those things, please do so. Otherwise, please leave. Thank you." Valorus gives Ambassador Nameless a smile that is cutting enough to make most quail.

[Whovian Tardisia]

"The honorable Ambassador from Draconae's suggestions have been implemented. If there are any final objections, speak now or forever hold your peace."