[Draft] Create Legal Protections for Efforts to Fight Hunger

[The Great Boom]

This is the first resolution I have proposed. I used half a dozen successful resolutions from the WA as formatting stencils, and I hope I have achieved something close to the format expected. As this is my first submission, please feel free to be frank with constructive criticism, and feel free to send me a direct telegram if you would rather chat on the issue. I learned English in an academic setting - it was not my first language, so if there are mistakes, please don't hesitate to correct them.

In my home, food security is a pervasive issue. Yet, when I traveled to a wealthy, developed nation this summer, I was horrified to see the amount of food waste in commercial kitchens and restaurants. After researching the issue, I have found that many countries in the real world are establishing good samaritan legal standards to fight apathy and support domestic and international donations. The nation I studied also had a ban on donating food that was said to have "expired," yet the same nation had no regulatory body certifying the validity of these dates. I understand the comfort of throwing out your milk based on a date you see on the package, but not all expired food is useless, and the decision to redistribute it should be made by the nation or body receiving the food, not the body wasting it.

Thank you for your feedback, and hopefully, your support.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create Legal Protections for Efforts to Fight Hunger
A resolution to promote the safe and legal redistribution of unconsumed food and drink.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Democratic States of The Great Boom
The World Assembly,

Concerned that in many nations, citizens and corporations are logistically prevented from donating unconsumed food due to the legal liability entailed,

Noting that the health and security benefits of a well-fed populace are worth the international effort required, and in condemnation of the global climate regarding legal liability towards philanthropic redistributors of foods, and in recognition of the need to overcome legitimate logistical issues in international philanthropic law, this resolution calls for a good faith approach towards the efforts made to distribute unconsumed food rather than waste it,

Hoping to encourage goodwill and cooperation between the member nations to ensure adequate nutrition to every permanent resident of the World Assembly nations, and to minimize the necessity of WA direct intervention in fighting food insecurity,

Hereby,

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation
A: unconsumed food as a specific category of food that poses lower disease risk and is highly valuable to any consumer of food, and consists of food that a reasonable person would not believe to have been consumed partially or fully,
B: food donation as the voluntary redistribution of unconsumed food at no cost to the recipient,
C: a sell-by date as a label indicating a day of the year at which point food is no longer safe for consumption, per the opinion of the seller, and this label is displayed on food, food packaging, or accessory-to-food,

2) ESTABLISHES an international good faith legal standard that protects donators of unused food, albeit a standard which is not legally impervious to claims of fraud or gross negligence resulting in significant and associated harm but for the consumption of said food, and would protect donators of food with strong records of safe donation and would specifically protect those shown to be donating in good faith,

3) MANDATES that all member nations waive the taxes and tariffs on unconsumed food when it is exported or imported by a non-profit organization with the intent of minimizing food loss by distributing the foodstuffs to the poor and needy at no cost, whereas any unconsumed food redistributed for sale of any kind would possibly be subjected to taxes and tariffs, at the discretion of the nation to whom the taxes and tariffs belong,

4) RECOGNISES that sell-by dates are generally an arbitrary corporate designation intended to drive sales and minimize legal liability, and should not be considered hard deadlines for the distribution of edible food, and that the nature of such dates vary from nation to nation in legal status, or even their very existence, and as such, provide only marginal value to efforts to the regulation of unconsumed food,

5) CALLS UPON existing philanthropic leaders, as well as the International Food Welfare Organization, as well as other domestic regulatory bodies in nations receiving international food donations, as well as any capable regulatory body on the receiving end of a donation – foreign or domestic, to be the determiner of the consumable nature of the food donated, and whether or not a potential harm was born from donated food, and to what consequence should result,

6) WHEREAS the current power to regulate and perpetuate food donation largely lies in corporate or state producers of unconsumed food waste, or in national legislative bodies which have failed to act, thus creating incentives to waste rather than redistribute,

7) CLARIFIES that this resolution should apply to donated drink as well as food, and that all sections generally apply to drink when appropriate,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changelog:
10-9-17 - Original Post. The first draft of the resolution is shown here:

Enhance Legal Protections for Efforts to Fight Hunger
A resolution to promote the safe and legal redistribution of unconsumed food and drink.
Category: Health
Strength: Moderate
Proposed by: The Democratic States of The Great Boom

Description: In observation of a global food security crisis that goes largely ignored by national governments and this body, and noting that the health and security benefits of a well-fed populace are worth the international effort required, and in condemnation of the global climate regarding legal liability towards philanthropic redistributors of foods, and in recognition of the need to overcome legitimate logistical issues in international philanthropic law, this resolution calls for a good samaritan approach towards the efforts made to end world hunger.

The World Assembly therefore,

1) ESTABLISHES an international good samaritan legal standard that protects donators of unused food, though the proposed standard is not legally impervious to claims of fraud or gross negligence resulting in significant and associated harm but for the consumption of said food, and would protect donators of food with strong records of safe donation and would specifically protect those shown to be donating in good faith,

2) MANDATES that all member nations end counterproductive legal restrictions on used food donations which intend to enforce expiration dates or limit legal protection to would-be donators,

3) RECOGNISES that expiration dates are generally an arbitrary corporate designation designed to drive sales and minimize legal liability, and should not be considered hard deadlines for the distribution of edible food, and that the nature of such dates vary from nation to nation in legal status, or even their very existence, and as such, provide only marginal value to efforts to fight world hunger,

4) CALLS UPON existing philanthropic leaders, such as the International Food Welfare Organization, as well as other domestic regulatory bodies in nations receiving international food donations, as well as any capable regulatory body on the receiving end of a donation – foreign or domestic, to be the determiner of the consumable nature of the food donated, and whether or not a potential harm was born from donated food, and to what consequence should result,

5) WHEREAS the current power to regulate and perpetuate food donation largely lies in corporate or state producers of unconsumed food waste, or in national legislative bodies which have failed to act, thus creating incentives to waste rather than redistribute,

6) DEFINES unconsumed food as a specific category of food that poses lower disease risk and is highly valuable to any consumer of food, and consists of food that a reasonable person would not believe to have been consumed partially or fully,

7) CLARIFIES that this resolution should apply to donated drink as well as food, and that all sections generally apply to drink when appropriate,

Changelog:
10-10-17 - First revision
Updated title (Enhance replaced by Create)
Changed category from Health to Social Justice
Changed strength from Moderate (invalid) to Significant
Defined "food donation"
Defined "expiration date"
Added changelog
Hid opening request for feedback in a spoiler

Changelog:
10/12/17 - Incorporation of Araraukar's draft, as well as other feedback. Revision 2.
Completely rewrote the preamble to emphasize the resolutions goal of lifting legal restrictions on donators of unconsumed food, and to add clarity to the differences between this resolution and the Food Welfare Act.
Moved definition clauses to the front of the bill to clarify key terms.
Replaced "expiration date" with "sell-by date" throughout the resolution.
Replaced "good samaritan" with "good faith" throughout the resolution in order to avoid biblical references that were unpopular with some contributors.
Added an entire actionable clauses (3) - banning tariffs and taxes on unconsumed food if it is imported or exported for the explicit purpose of philanthropic donation at no cost to the recipient.
Modified the language in actionable clause (4) to better reflect the intention of the resolution away from ending world hunger and towards making donation more viable.

If you skipped the spoilers, thank you for your feedback and your support if I have it. If you have further objections or feedback, please share them even if I have already made changes to the contrary, or feel free to telegram them to me. Thanks again.

[The Atlae Isles]

Please define "expiration dates," "food donations," and put the definitions before the operating clause.

"A resolution to promote the safe and legal redistribution of unconsumed food and drink" is not a thing used in any resolution. It's given for each category.

Health, the one you proposed, is "A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare." Your proposal does not fit in that. It fits in Social Justice, or "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

Additionally, "Moderate" is not a valid Strength. Most likely, it is significant.

Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant. Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specific the area of policy affected from a pre-populated list of options. These options do have a statistical effect and strength.

Will post up a thorough review later, unless someone beats me to it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Health, the one you proposed, is "A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare." Your proposal does not fit in that. It fits in Social Justice, or "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

Additionally, "Moderate" is not a valid Strength. Most likely, it is significant.

I'd call it mild. (Edited back in the context of this statement, which concerns the Social Justice category, not the Health one.)

@OP: I think legislation on a front such as this would certainly be a domestic issue and fall well outside the realm of an international one.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Combatting food wasting is something that is a good cause, but hardly an international crisis, especially as I suspect most NS nations have been modeled after "first world" RL nations and thus probably don't have the issue domestically. And not everyone cares what happens in some far-away country they have nothing to do with. And in NS, since not all WA nations are even in the same universe, not to mention the same planet, putting in words like "global" aren't going to mean much, and will likely get you being told "it's not a problem on my planet". That's a roleplaying thing you really can't have much of an effect on.

As for the vast majority of WA voters, they don't care about forum roleplay and are likely to vote based on their Real Life circumstances, and as I seem to recall that the majority of NS players are from USA and Australia (and to a lesser degree, UK and other EU nations), they are also likely to see it as "not my problem". A catchy title and good preamble (that's the bits that come before the active clauses) can help you there, but relying on that alone isn't recommended.

The World Assembly has already legislated on food-related things, though, which you should check out, to make sure you're neither majorly duplicating or contradicting any of their active clauses, as that would render your proposal "illegal" (which means "against the proposal rules"). The ones that first came to mind are GA #52, Food Welfare Act and GA #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act. The first one pretty much tries to combat food hoarding in a famine situation, and improve crop insecurity on an international level, while the second one requires WA nations to already guarantee "a minimum standard of living to all inhabitants" of their nation, and food (and water, clothing, housing, sanitation and such) is one of those minimum standards. There are further protections for the disabled and children.

As for actual food safety, you may have problems with the expiration dates, when they're set for actually marking the food safe to eat, due to GA #64, Food and Drug Standards. And yes, I know in real life some foodstuffs (like, say, sugar or flour) only have them because they're legally required to have them, and many are overly cautious because of possible or past law suits or similar, but that's not necessarily the case in NS, or even in RL; over here (Finland) at least many food products have both a sell-by-date and a use-by-date, after which the product isn't necessarily safe to eat anymore, and thus anyone eating it is doing so at their own risk.

So... good luck, but I don't think this has much of a chance to pass. Still, if you want to try, I can later on give you detailed feedback on it. I just thought to let you know about your actual problems and the hurdles you must get over to have any chance of with this.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Limiting liability reduces the recourse of those needy folks who are inadvertently poisoned by food gone bad. Why do you hate the needy's legal rights, ambassador?"

[Wrapper]

Additionally, "Moderate" is not a valid Strength. Most likely, it is significant.

I'd call it mild.

OOC: The Health category has no strength; it has areas of effect (Healthcare, International Aid, Research, Bioethics).

[The Great Boom]

Thanks for the feedback, this resolution clearly needs improvement. Based on what you've all said, I'll be making the following changes:
Changing the category to social justice
Changing the strength to significant (I didn't know how the strength bit worked honestly, I thought it was just subjective)
I will add clauses to define expiration dates and food donations

I will consider reworking the title and the preamble to sound more appealing and look at recently passed bills to see what works there. I'll also take suggestions here or via telegram on this.

I will not be removing my clause to ignore expiration dates as far as it relates to the legal standard. First, because GA#64, Food and Drug Standards, never mentions expiration dates and doesn't conflict with this clause or any other in my resolution, as best I can tell. But second, because I am not calling for an end of expiration dates. I even admit that they do have marginal use. What the clause calls for is for them not to be used as a means of determining the safety of donated food, and for the regulatory body receiving the food to make that decision on their own. In RL and NS, governments are constantly receiving food that was donated prior to the date, but has been received near or after, and throwing it out. In many cases governments or corporations are choosing to waste such food rather than donate it all.

I also am not convinced that this is a domestic issue based on the feedback, and I don't think I would budge on this unless an incredibly strong argument was made. The issue is that domestic laws very from nation to nation and often even within nations on a state-by-state or city-by-city basis. By passing an international legal standard, nations or cities with different laws wouldn't feel that they couldn't donate based on the recipient or the donor's restrictions - they would all know how the rules work and would feel safe (legally and health wise) to donate.

For what it's worth, I had read all the bills mentioned in this article prior to writing, I did a skim of the entire passed bills thread and read all the ones that sounded even nearly relevant. Most, including #64, were pretty much dead ends. The Food Welfare Act was quite relevant though.

These won't be the last changes I make, so if you have more criticism or suggestions, please don't hold back. Even if you want to argue with one of the things I mentioned here, feel free.

[The Great Boom]

"Limiting liability reduces the recourse of those needy folks who are inadvertently poisoned by food gone bad. Why do you hate the needy's legal rights, ambassador?"

"The number of lives saved by the increase in donation spurred by this will outnumber such incidents 1000 to 1. The resolution also specifically exempts claims of fraud or gross negligence, allowing all reasonable legal recourse to the needy. Beyond that, it gives the authority to the government or other entity receiving the food to sort out spoiled food, which would make it more clear who was at fault, which is the greatest obstacle to recourse for the needy. Besides, the likelihood of being successfully sued by a recipient of an unused food donation is practically zero. I don't think they're likely to have legal representation."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The number of lives saved by the increase in donation spurred by this will outnumber such incidents 1000 to 1.

"I'd like to see your calculations for that claim, ambassador."

The resolution also specifically exempts claims of fraud or gross negligence, allowing all reasonable legal recourse to the needy.

"But not regular negligence, clearly, or you wouldn't have included the term 'gross'. It also doesn't allow for criminal penalties or statutory causes of action."

Beyond that, it gives the authority to the government or other entity receiving the food to sort out spoiled food, which would make it more clear who was at fault, which is the greatest obstacle to recourse for the needy.

"That assumes that collectors are qualified in any way to assess quality off food. Often, merely assessing something visually is insufficient. Who was at fault is a question of proximate and factual cause, and ought be assessed by a jury."

Besides, the likelihood of being successfully sued by a recipient of an unused food donation is practically zero. I don't think they're likely to have legal representation."

"Perhaps not in your nation, but the C.D.S.P. has a robust mandatory pro bono program for members of it's legal bar."

[Araraukar]

The resolution also specifically exempts claims of fraud or gross negligence, allowing all reasonable legal recourse to the needy.

OOC: Reason I linked the resolution about protections for children, is that there are specific clauses there about causing a child harm, either directly or through negligence, that you cannot excempt people from obeying in your proposal.

Also, considering that nations are already required to provide food for their inhabitants, the "fight hunger" part of this whole thing should already have been dealt with, and if a nation is willfully ignoring the previous resolution, they likely wouldn't obey this one either.

So you're really only properly left with combatting food wasting by manufacturers, grocery stores and restaurants. And that's Social Justice, if it's done to, for example, make food cheaper overall. The strength will depend on what your active clauses make nations and people actually do. If you go for "less food wasted means less food produced and thus it's good for the environment" instead, then the category is Environmental and area of effect either Alll Businesses or Manufacturing, or possibly Agricultural, it depends on how you word it.

"I don't think they're likely to have legal representation."

Actually there's a resolution that requires nations to provide such, if the person or persons can't.

---

legal bar

OOC: I can never read those words and not think of an actual bar, and in here specifically the Strangers' Bar...

[Grays Harbor]

In observation of a global food security crisis that goes largely ignored by national governments and this body

What crisis? Did we miss a memo?

[The Great Boom]

In observation of a global food security crisis that goes largely ignored by national governments and this body

What crisis? Did we miss a memo?

"The existence of hunger in nations across the world is a crisis. If you missed the memo, consider this resolution your wake-up call."

[The Great Boom]

Changelog:
10-10-17 - First revision
Updated title (Enhance replaced by Create)
Changed category from Health to Social Justice
Changed strength from Moderate (invalid) to Significant
Defined "food donation"
Defined "expiration date"
Added changelog
Hid opening request for feedback in a spoiler

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I think this looks good. I will revert with suggestions in a few days if not sooner. I encourage the author to stay in the fight for this one.

IC: "The People's Republic of Bananaistan offers it full support for this fine humanitarian proposal."

- Ted

[Araraukar]

What crisis? Did we miss a memo?

"The existence of hunger in nations across the world is a crisis. If you missed the memo, consider this resolution your wake-up call."

"If your nation's compliant with the existing resolutions, there shouldn't be "hunger" or, more professionally, famine. The existing resolutions require your nation to maintain food security, and if it is absolutely unable to do that, the WA will assist; and your nation is required to provide minimum sustenance to its inhabitants. Those two taken together ensure that the inhabitants of compliant WA nations do not suffer from hunger.

As for non-member nations, you can't mandate them to do anything anyway, and I know for a fact that many, if not most, member nations would strongly object to using WA funds - which come from the member nations - to fund the hungry of non-WA nations. Furthermore, trying to export food that is past expiration date, would likely be turned down by the receiving nation, due to the inherent danger of letting people eat spoiled foodstuffs."

OOC: We're all trying to tell you that "world hunger" isn't something as solid and real in NationStates as it is in Real Life, and that the existing resolutions already mandate member nations to provide food to all of their inhabitants. So you really need to change your approach.

---

OOC: Is "good samaritan", whether or not capitalized, a RL reference?

[Essu Beti]

OOC: Is "good samaritan", whether or not capitalized, a RL reference?

((OOC: I think it is, as a reference to an Earth- wow okay I totally did not know that Samaritans are a current ethnic group.))

[The Great Boom]

OOC: Is "good samaritan", whether or not capitalized, a RL reference?

((OOC: I think it is, as a reference to an Earth- wow okay I totally did not know that Samaritans are a current ethnic group.))

It may be born out of a real life reference, but in context, it's a codified legal term referring to standards which protect people acting in good faith. For that reason, it transcends it's original meaning, and it's also why I didn't capitalize it anywhere in the resolution.

[This City of Ours]

It may be born out of a real life reference, but in context, it's a codified legal term referring to standards which protect people acting in good faith. For that reason, it transcends it's original meaning, and it's also why I didn't capitalize it anywhere in the resolution.

((OOC: It would still have my ambassador asking "what's a samaritan and why do we need a good one specifically?"

EDIT: Hi! I'm Essu Beti and I forgot to re-log in to the right account. And to be fair the ambassador of this account would say the same thing.))

[The Great Boom]

"The existence of hunger in nations across the world is a crisis. If you missed the memo, consider this resolution your wake-up call."

"If your nation's compliant with the existing resolutions, there shouldn't be "hunger" or, more professionally, famine. The existing resolutions require your nation to maintain food security, and if it is absolutely unable to do that, the WA will assist; and your nation is required to provide minimum sustenance to its inhabitants. Those two taken together ensure that the inhabitants of compliant WA nations do not suffer from hunger.

As for non-member nations, you can't mandate them to do anything anyway, and I know for a fact that many, if not most, member nations would strongly object to using WA funds - which come from the member nations - to fund the hungry of non-WA nations. Furthermore, trying to export food that is past expiration date, would likely be turned down by the receiving nation, due to the inherent danger of letting people eat spoiled foodstuffs."

OOC: We're all trying to tell you that "world hunger" isn't something as solid and real in NationStates as it is in Real Life, and that the existing resolutions already mandate member nations to provide food to all of their inhabitants. So you really need to change your approach.

---

OOC: Is "good samaritan", whether or not capitalized, a RL reference?

I appreciate this line of criticism and I think I need to change the language in the preamble to make clear that the goal of this resolution isn't to end world hunger. The goal of this resolution is to reduce food waste and to encourage food donation. That said, the existence of previous resolutions doesn't entirely end world hunger in WA member nations, since the WA isn't capable of perfectly monitoring compliance from nations, nations aren't perfect at assessing where hunger exists, and famines can arise suddenly due to a variety of causes, necessitating sudden action from the relevant government, the WA, as well as the philanthropic community.

All that being said, even if world hunger were completely non-existent in WA nations, this bill would still be necessary. The clauses of this bill may regulate food donation from WA members, but WA members may donate to non-WA nations, and those donations would still be protected from prosecution under this resolution.

In addition, previous resolutions call for governments to feed citizens who can't feed themselves. This resolution helps accomplish that. When the the government in Bigtopia is appropriating food to feed the needy (as mandated in the previous resolution), a pizzeria in the Great Boom might decide to donate 1000 fresh pizzas to that effort. This regulation protects them and enables them to do so without fear of legal backlash.

[The Great Boom]

OOC: I think this looks good. I will revert with suggestions in a few days if not sooner. I encourage the author to stay in the fight for this one.

IC: "The People's Republic of Bananaistan offers it full support for this fine humanitarian proposal."

- Ted

I'm glad to have your support. When you review it later, don't hold back just because you support the resolution. It should be challenged as much as possible in order to make it passable.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is "good samaritan", whether or not capitalized, a RL reference?

It may be born out of a real life reference, but in context, it's a codified legal term referring to standards which protect people acting in good faith. For that reason, it transcends it's original meaning, and it's also why I didn't capitalize it anywhere in the resolution.

OOC: Well, I was really throwing the question out to the GenSec members - previously things like the names of diseases that have the discoverer's name in them, have been deemed illegal as RL references. Just because you don't capitalize Samaritan, doesn't mean it didn't refer to a RL group of people (and possibly a location, I can't remember if it's both). If you called it "good mexican" instead, would you still think it's not a RL reference just because it's not capitalized?

Besides, you don't need it. Good Samaritan laws are more about "the kindness of the passerby", like in the story, not general goodwill.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Whoa, wait a minute. Are you saying we have to help nonmembers? Including Bigtopia? Like hell will we help those damn pirates. They can starve."

[Araraukar]

"Whoa, wait a minute. Are you saying we have to help nonmembers? Including Bigtopia? Like hell will we help those damn pirates. They can starve."

"Thank you for being my Exhibit A again, Ben."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Whoa, wait a minute. Are you saying we have to help nonmembers? Including Bigtopia? Like hell will we help those damn pirates. They can starve."

"Thank you for being my Exhibit A again, Ben."

"Bigtopians are fucking pirates. This is a fact. The bandits routinely hijack C.D.S.P. commercial vessels, and we have to rout their informal flotillas every couple years. They are pirates. And we don't help pirates."

Ooc: the C.D.S.P. is very nautically focused. Piracy is on par with treason.

[Araraukar]

"Thank you for being my Exhibit A again, Ben."

"Bigtopians are fucking pirates. This is a fact. The bandits routinely hijack C.D.S.P. commercial vessels, and we have to rout their informal flotillas every couple years. They are pirates. And we don't help pirates."

"Still, mister Exhibit A, I'm going to get you a drink that I had imported from a place I kind of heard about from someone who knows someone whose cousin was helping to set up this drinking party there... It should be interesting, and besides, since the stupid treaty with the hivemind was named after me, I've now got some extra funds to use on "diplomatic necessities", and I bloody well count buying a drink to a friend a necessity," she said with a grin.

OOC: A random new thing I learned today.