DITCHED: Reduce Food Waste

[Triangle And Square]

Noticing that many organisations, such as hotels, motels, pubs, RSL clubs, league's clubs, country clubs, taverns, bars, religious organisations, restaurants, supermarkets, flea markets, butchers, chicken shops, fish shops, bakeries, cake shops, fast food restaurants, quick dine restaurants, grocers, green grocers, megamarkets, take away shops, airlines, events, food stalls, food carts, vending machines, street food retailers, etc. who sell food have lots of wastage because they intentionally or unintentionally order too much food, causing the excessive foodto go to waste, often in a perfectly edible state, or a lack of proper stock rotation causes food to accidently expire.

Too long. I'd shorten it to just "Noticing that many organisations who sell food produce lots of wastage. This is due to them intentionally or unintentionally ordering too much food, causing the excessive and perfectly edible food to go to waste, or they do not have much proper stock rotation causes food to accidentally expire.

Horrified of the fact that food wastage is bad for many, many reasons. Some of these include:

This can be a separate clause.

[Bears Armed]

I don't believe you can explicitly refer to outside sources.

OOC
That's right, you can't do so.

[Pan-Asiatic States]

The Pan-Asiatic States is in full support of this initiative. I would however, suggest changing the preamble of this proposal.

[Tegel]

Tfergrgeferfee

[Kenmoria]

"There should be a space between “food” and “to” in the seventh line of the first clause."

[Zone 71]

When's the next update, and will you take suggestions on changes to the preamble?

[Australian rePublic]

Thanks for your help everyone. The next post is up

[Kenmoria]

"There's still no blank line between the last clause of clause 3 and the first clause of clause 4,"

[Zone 71]

OOC: I'll write my comments and concerns when I get onto my computer.

In short, here are my impressions on the latest draft:
The new draft is certainly better from the former, but proper formatting such as lists are neglected, the preamble is too excessive in length, and the pacing and style of the proposal needs improvements.

[Kenmoria]

"There is a missing space after “food” and before “to” in the preamble clause, ambassador."

[Zone 71]

Noticing that many organisations, who grow, prepare, sell and/or distribute food have lots of wastage because they intentionally or unintentionally order too much food, causing the excessive foodto go to waste, often in a perfectly edible state, or a lack of proper stock rotation causes food to accidently expire. Horrified of the fact that food wastage is bad for many, many reasons. Some of these include:

a. Detrimental to the environment. Food which ends up in landfill is determental to the environment, as some, but not all, of the problems include producing methane, wasting fresh water which was used to create it, and wasting arable land is amongst many environmental issues with wasting food
(Source)
b. It robs the poor of the ability to eat perfectly edible food which goes into the bin. Perfectly edible refers to food which meets the health and safety standards, and DOES NOT refer to food which has expired, rotted, moulded, is half eaten or is otherwise inedible
c. Food production is very labour-intensive task, which is in vein if the food is not eaten
This proposal suggests that food hygiene, food safety and quarantine should take precedence, but in the situations where food is found to be perfectly edible, this proposal aims to reduce the prevalence of food wastage by:

The first clause of your preamble should typically rope readers into your proposal and introduce them to the problem at hand. It should short and sweet. I would recommend you started with a clause like "appalled by the excessive quantities of food that regularly goes to waste."

While the list of reasons why food wastage is detrimental to the environment, they are, with all due respect, written a bit poorly, and seem to have been overlooked as they seem to have been kept almost entirely the same since the first draft. Additionally, you cannot refer to outside sources. I recommend you remove these now or in your next draft.

You cannot refer to your proposal as "this proposal..." and this clause should be replaced with a simple "hereby."

As Kenmoria pointed out, there also are a number of unaddressed grammatical and formatting mistakes. Kenmoria specifically put attention to the absence of a blank line between mandates 3 and 4, and of a space between "food" and "to" in the first clause. There also should be a blank line between the "noticing" and "horrified" phrases in the clause.

I urge you to improve your preamble in the next draft. I would also appreciate if you added more to the mandates, because it only consists of my suggestions, and no work of your own.

[Kenmoria]

"I would also delete the repetition of “Many” in the preamble clause."

[New Keam]

"After viewing the published proposal, I would like to ask for rule clarification on this subsection:

4. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organization to:Establish food banks and charities in member nations with their permission;

Is this legal, since it makes the subsection voluntary, and makes the subsection exist with one foot in and one foot out of full compliance? Proposals must written as laws: IE state exactly what is required of member states"

[Wallenburg]

"After viewing the published proposal, I would like to ask for rule clarification on this subsection:

4. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organization to:Establish food banks and charities in member nations with their permission;

Is this legal, since it makes the subsection voluntary, and makes the subsection exist with one foot in and one foot out of full compliance? Proposals must written as laws: IE state exactly what is required of member states"

This is legal. You can have optional clauses within a resolution, as long as it has some mandate or another. That's my understanding of the rules, although GenSec is liable to interpret them differently.

[Kenmoria]

"The (source) thing still needs to be removed."

[Bears Armed]

"After viewing the published proposal, I would like to ask for rule clarification on this subsection:

4. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organization to:Establish food banks and charities in member nations with their permission;

Is this legal, since it makes the subsection voluntary, and makes the subsection exist with one foot in and one foot out of full compliance? Proposals must written as laws: IE state exactly what is required of member states"

This is legal. You can have optional clauses within a resolution, as long as it has some mandate or another. That's my understanding of the rules, although GenSec is liable to interpret them differently.

Agreed, this is legal.

[Kenmoria]

"The subclauses under 3 should be labelled."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is not an international issue in any way. Opposed."

[New Keam]

"This is not an international issue in any way. Opposed."

"You are correct"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I honestly don't care whether this is an international issue or not. Its defensibility is really what I care about, and I think it would be best to produce accessible incentives to promote the behaviour that you seek.

[Kenmoria]

"I don't believe this is Social Justice, as it doesn't include a rise in income equality via welfare."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I don't believe this is Social Justice, as it doesn't include a rise in income equality via welfare."

First, would not reducing food waste lead to redistribution of food, which has value, from people who currently have it to people who do not? That would increase their effective income. Welfare doesn't need to be coordinated solely by the state. One could also look at it from the perspective of the claim that the category description makes vis-à-vis decreasing economic freedom. Forcing people to do something does that.

Second, not addressing you, but more broadly about the category:

Social Justice - A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare. Healthcare and healthcare spending are not covered by Social Justice. Use the "Health" category.
Examples - Mild: GA#44 – Reduction of Abortion Act

• Significant: GA#21 – Living Wage Act
• Strong: GA#52 – Food Welfare Act

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. "Social Justice" increases government spending on welfare and targets living standards. Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all WA member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all WA member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

The bolded sections aren't . . . true statements. In fact, they are fundamentally contradictory. However that is, I don't think it's clear yet whether SJ is in fact the negation of Free trade or something separate which increases welfare in some sense. Those aren't opposite things. Free trade doesn't mean lower welfare payments. But increasing welfare also does not trade off with economic freedom. You can have high economic freedom and high welfare (Sweden, Norway, and Denmark come to mind).

That's to ignore Free trade and how we're used it as practically a catch-all for things that are not free or have to directly do with trade. Since we're doing Category reform right now, I think it's best that this be looked into. I think a dichotomous split of economic freedoms and the level of government transfers would be better than the status quo. But then one obviously gets into the swamp of 'this proposal does a combination of things' and 'which one is it really'. Because I could easily see certain Secretariat members running around with no (or poor) knowledge of the actual likely public policy effects proclaiming untrue consequences of policy changes.

[Zone 71]

OOC: I already sent a message like this via telegram, but upon your request, I will post my message in the GA thread, but I will add a little more elaboration to my claims as they were rather short an vague. They may have also seemed blunt and rude, and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

As the co-author, at the risk of sounding entitled and overdemanding, I feel I have some say over the state of this proposal. I strongly question the decision to submit the proposal, especially with no notice given. I also find the decision to be imprudent, as this proposal was nowhere near finished. This proposal was sorely lacking in proper formatting, and you overlooked several helpful comments on constructive criticism (including useful tips from the God of Grammar himself) that would have substantially improved this proposal. I could name several examples of this such as the inclusion of "(Source)" under part a of the preamble, with no link or any other purpose - even though adding an external source would be illegal. Another example is forgetting a "Hereby" line. Instead, in its place is the unnecessary, lengthy "This proposal suggests that food hygiene, food safety and quarantine should take precedence, but in the situations where food is found to be perfectly edible, this proposal aims to reduce the prevalence of food wastage by:" I also believe that I deserve some recognition for my part, as my work comprises the entirety of the mandates section, with a simple "Co-authored by Zone 71." The sense of neglect and carelessness in the drafting and submission of this proposal is genuinely concerning, and in my opinion, would set a bad impression on the international community, making it far more difficult to pass this bill in the future. Again, I strongly urge you to withdraw this proposal.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If this has been submitted, change the tag from [DRAFT] to [SUBMITTED]. However, I concur with Zone 71 that this is not ready for submission due to formatting issues and other problems. Likewise, withdrawing this proposal could be a good idea so that it can be worked on some more.)

[Australian rePublic]

Sorry about this. I recieved the telegram at 3 in the morning. It has now been submitted and ready to be worked on some more