Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] Abolition of Deceptive Food Labelling

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:31 am
by Gorbastan
(New) Draft 3.0
Abolition Of Deceptive Food Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers.
a. More specifically worried about, the intentional mislabeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not a product in which they are purchasing has certain false pieces of information on the label, that may influence that consumers decision.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulate false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed by potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,

1.Mandates member-nations to screen products deemed as having blatantly misleading labels.
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief that improves the chances of that consumer of purchasing said product.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

2.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels in WA member-nations.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 25% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing member-nations to only permit official FLRC sanctioned scientific and species names on meat, fish, seafood, and other alternatives.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


Prevention Abolishment Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels.
c. Charges FLRC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.

2.Stipulating member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 20% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing nations to only permit official FLRC permitted names on fish and seafood.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.
b. Further authorizing FLRC to fine wide-scale fish and seafood manufacturers who practice this deceptive marketing.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


SO, I revised it to include the 'de minimis' clause as its own full-on clause and put another clause in for fish and seafood. As fish is the hardest food product to label. Anyways, I'll take in a lot more feedback before proposing this. Though, I'll get my telegrams out.


Prevention Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Vetting Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a.Further empowers the WAFDRA-FLVC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b.Authorizes WAFDRA-FLVC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels.
c.Charges WAFDRA-FLVC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.

2.Calls on member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the WAFDA-FLVC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from WAFDRA-FLVC approval.

Requests member-nations create new legislation to defend consumers from deceptive labels in any way.

Would like to ask for any revisions or feedback for my WA proposal.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:15 pm
by Karteria
•I like the idea you're going for, however, 1c ("Charges WAFDRA-FLVC the power...") seems a bit extreme and would likely heavily opposed. Something to keep in mind.
•That reminds me – you should probably change your acronym usage; instead of saying WAFDRA-FLVC, just say FLVC.
•The second clause makes it seem like the FLVC relies on member-states being encouraged to present potentially misleading labels (at least, that's what "calls on" means to me – should probably be more specific), which concerns me with enforcement.
•I would be more specific when it comes to what your definition is of "de minimis" – what products are considered trivial? And what amounts of said products? You don't have to get super in-detail, but at least establish some guidelines.

This isn't an issue I remember seeing in a previous resolution, so nice topic. With some tweaking, I would be likely to approve this as a delegate.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:31 pm
by Gorbastan
Karteria wrote:•I like the idea you're going for, however, 1c ("Charges WAFDRA-FLVC the power...") seems a bit extreme and would likely heavily opposed. Something to keep in mind.
•That reminds me – you should probably change your acronym usage; instead of saying WAFDRA-FLVC, just say FLVC.
•The second clause makes it seem like the FLVC relies on member-states being encouraged to present potentially misleading labels (at least, that's what "calls on" means to me – should probably be more specific), which concerns me with enforcement.
•I would be more specific when it comes to what your definition is of "de minimis" – what products are considered trivial? And what amounts of said products? You don't have to get super in-detail, but at least establish some guidelines.

This isn't an issue I remember seeing in a previous resolution, so nice topic. With some tweaking, I would be likely to approve this as a delegate.




As for my choice of words for the Operative Clauses, I was afraid to take a more ‘aggressive’ stance. But, I guess it should be mandatory to screen them. While at the bottom, as an extra, I suggest member-nations to create their own national legislation as an extra.

The biggest problem I suppose is fish, as the mishandling and labeling of it is used very often in the industry. I will have to do a tad bit of research.

Thank You for the response.
The de minimis idea was to prevent over-beaureacuracy for small vendors or such. I supposed that it would be fairly important to clearly define it.

Clause 1.c. is a bit extreme after talking with several individuals.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:34 am
by Gorbastan
Prevention Abolishment Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels.
c. Charges FLRC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.

2.Stipulating member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 20% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing nations to only permit official FLRC permitted names on fish and seafood.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.
b. Further authorizing FLRC to fine wide-scale fish and seafood manufacturers who practice this deceptive marketing.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


SO, I revised it to include the 'de minimis' clause as its own full-on clause and put another clause in for fish and seafood. As fish is the hardest food product to label. Anyways, I'll take in a lot more feedback before proposing this. Though, I'll get my telegrams out.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:51 am
by Karteria
Gorbastan wrote:
Prevention Abolishment Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels.
c. Charges FLRC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.

2.Stipulating member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 20% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing nations to only permit official FLRC permitted names on fish and seafood.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.
b. Further authorizing FLRC to fine wide-scale fish and seafood manufacturers who practice this deceptive marketing.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


SO, I revised it to include the 'de minimis' clause as its own full-on clause and put another clause in for fish and seafood. As fish is the hardest food product to label. Anyways, I'll take in a lot more feedback before proposing this. Though, I'll get my telegrams out.


This draft is much more fleshed out and has made a lot of improvements. My only suggestion right now is to put this draft in the first post using a [spoiler] so people can find it better.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:56 am
by Kenmoria
“I’ve put some feedback on the proposal in red.”
Prevention Abolishment Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling This is one word, not two with a hyphen. of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits. The second sentence here isn’t a sentence, but a sentence fragment. You need to either make it a subordinate clause to the first, or add something like ‘More specifically worried about’.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false. This seems somewhat awkward, in that it appears to sugges the consumer has a right to know whether they’re being sold a product, even if that product is blatantly false. Also, the use of ‘you’ is somewhat unprofessional in the GA; ‘them’ would be a better alternative.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and ‘Unregulated’ should be ‘unregulate’ as you are using the verbal form here.

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing. One is not ‘disturbed of’, but instead ‘disturbed by’. Thus, the ‘of’ in this clause should be a ‘by’.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels. I would add ‘in WA member nations’ after ‘businesses’ to make it clear that the FLRC should only fine enterprise in the WA.
c. Charges FLRC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.There should be a ‘with’ after ‘Charges’ as that is how the verb works.

2.Stipulating member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading This should be ‘stipulates’, to fit in with the rest of the clauses. In fact, I’m quite certain there are better word choices than that in the first place. How about ‘Mandates’ instead?
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief. Why just food?
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels. This entire section 2 should come before section 1, as definitions should be the first of the active clauses.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 20% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing nations to only permit official FLRC permitted names on fish and seafood.Why just fish? Also, this appears to suggest companies have to pick from a list of FLRC names, which would quite quickly run out given the sheer size of the WA.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.
b. Further authorizing FLRC to fine wide-scale fish and seafood manufacturers who practice this deceptive marketing. This was already done in section 1, you don’t need to duplicate your clauses.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:31 am
by Gorbastan
Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve put some feedback on the proposal in red.”
Prevention Abolishment Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling This is one word, not two with a hyphen. of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits. The second sentence here isn’t a sentence, but a sentence fragment. You need to either make it a subordinate clause to the first, or add something like ‘More specifically worried about’.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false. This seems somewhat awkward, in that it appears to sugges the consumer has a right to know whether they’re being sold a product, even if that product is blatantly false. Also, the use of ‘you’ is somewhat unprofessional in the GA; ‘them’ would be a better alternative.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and ‘Unregulated’ should be ‘unregulate’ as you are using the verbal form here.

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing. One is not ‘disturbed of’, but instead ‘disturbed by’. Thus, the ‘of’ in this clause should be a ‘by’.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels. I would add ‘in WA member nations’ after ‘businesses’ to make it clear that the FLRC should only fine enterprise in the WA.
c. Charges FLRC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.There should be a ‘with’ after ‘Charges’ as that is how the verb works.

2.Stipulating member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading This should be ‘stipulates’, to fit in with the rest of the clauses. In fact, I’m quite certain there are better word choices than that in the first place. How about ‘Mandates’ instead?
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief. Why just food?
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels. This entire section 2 should come before section 1, as definitions should be the first of the active clauses.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 20% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing nations to only permit official FLRC permitted names on fish and seafood.Why just fish? Also, this appears to suggest companies have to pick from a list of FLRC names, which would quite quickly run out given the sheer size of the WA.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.
b. Further authorizing FLRC to fine wide-scale fish and seafood manufacturers who practice this deceptive marketing. This was already done in section 1, you don’t need to duplicate your clauses.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


Your response is fantastic! Having this as my first resolution, it really brings a smile when somebody takes their time Andy effort to help correct my mistakes.

It does appear that deceptive labeling appears on other product store other than food, but I was worried that some people find it too vague.

Now for the fish, I didn’t mean individual names for each fish. Rather the type of fish, as some Bass fish may not even be bass fish at all. That is the main point. However, if you think that that clause is too open for interpretation, I’m more than happy to change it.
Quick question on this, what if I expand it to other forms of food similar with this case. Such as meat?

I get clause 1.b. is already stated, I will change that. So as swapping clause 1 with 2.

I’d also like to thank you for pointing out my grammatical and other such mistakes.

I will wait a few more hours for any other responses to fill in, so I can make draft 3.0

Once again, thank you for giving specific insight into this.
P.S. it looks like a few clauses that were removed from the first draft was left in. Especially clause 1.c. Which is too extreme after conducting a small collection of opinions.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:35 pm
by Kenmoria
(OOC:
Gorbastan wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve put some feedback on the proposal in red.”


Your response is fantastic! Having this as my first resolution, it really brings a smile when somebody takes their time Andy effort to help correct my mistakes.
No problem. This is very good for a first proposal; a lot of newer players just submit their draft straight away, and normally don’t even post on the forum.

It does appear that deceptive labeling appears on other product store other than food, but I was worried that some people find it too vague.
I wouldn’t say that specifically banning just mislabelling on food products was bad by itself, just that there should be some justification for this elsewhere in the proposal. If you want to just target food, which is a valid choice, then I recommend altering the title to make this clear, and refocusing some laments of the preamble.

Now for the fish, I didn’t mean individual names for each fish. Rather the type of fish, as some Bass fish may not even be bass fish at all. That is the main point. However, if you think that that clause is too open for interpretation, I’m more than happy to change it.
The clause is, in my reading of it, too open for interpretation. Although I can now see the intended purpose, I believe most people will reach the conclusion I did. A bit of re-jigging should make that clearer.

Quick question on this, what if I expand it to other forms of food similar with this case. Such as meat?
In this case, I do encourage expansion into other food products, as fish seems a strangely specific facet of food to specifically target.[/quote]

I get clause 1.b. is already stated, I will change that. So as swapping clause 1 with 2.

I’d also like to thank you for pointing out my grammatical and other such mistakes.

I will wait a few more hours for any other responses to fill in, so I can make draft 3.0

Once again, thank you for giving specific insight into this.

Thank you for being so receptive, it’s a lot more enjoyable to take feedback when others actually listen.
P.S. it looks like a few clauses that were removed from the first draft was left in. Especially clause 1.c. Which is too extreme after conducting a small collection of opinions.
That’s a common mistake to make. On another point, it is GA convention to always have the current draft in the first post of the topic, as Karteria wrote, so I strongly suggest doing that.)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:06 pm
by Gorbastan
Abolition Of Deceptive Food Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers.
a. More specifically worried about, the intentional mislabeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not a product in which they are purchasing has certain false pieces of information on the label, that may influence that consumers decision.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulate false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed by potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,

1.Mandates member-nations to screen products deemed as having blatantly misleading labels.
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief that improves the chances of that consumer of purchasing said product.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

2.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels in WA member-nations.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 25% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing member-nations to only permit official FLRC sanctioned scientific and species names on meat, fish, seafood, and other alternatives.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


Draft 3.0!

Decided to mainly use this as a food labeling issue instead of a label issue of every single product. Anyways, thanks Kenmoria for your wonderful feedback, I'll stay tuned for any other revisions that may be needed as the time comes. I'll be preparing campaign telegrams in the meantime.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:01 am
by Araraukar
OOC: I suggest gathering all definitions together, at the start of the mandates part. Makes things tidier.

EDIT: Also, leave only the current (newest) draft visible in the first post.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:15 am
by Nateboussad
The ACCC’s market surveillance aims to identify businesses that may not be complying with the food labelling laws.

“We have people on the ground to carry out these inspections and will initially focus on fresh or short shelf products sold by supermarkets, both large and small. We will raise concerns with businesses where we believe there is an issue with country of origin labelling. As always, we are able to escalate cases which warrant stronger action,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.

“Some consumers are willing to pay extra for products grown, produced or made in Australia, and producers and importers should be aware that any claim which is likely to mislead consumers will also be a breach of the law. We just want to ensure that consumers can make informed choices and businesses have a level playing field to compete fairly in relation to these claims.”



Bluestacks Kodi Lucky Patcher

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:35 pm
by Araraukar
OOC: I think that in the preamble (that's the bit that comes before the mandates) you shouldn't worry about consumer choices, but rather on the exact reason you see wrongly labeled food as a big issue. Like, are you concerned about people possibly having allergic reactions (like, you're labeling something to contain pumpkin seeds, when it actually contains peanuts), or of basically financial fraud (selling an inexpensive fish species as an expensive one), and stick to that approach.

Also, you need to specify who's really responsible. If a restaurant serves you a meal it says contains food item X, but it turns out (maybe after you have an allergic reaction) to be Y instead. Are they to blame, if they bought the food item from bulk selling company, already labeled X? And is the bulk selling company to blame, if it got the product from the manufacturer, sold to them as food X (just getting the bulk seller's labels)? And is the manufacturer to blame if they bought the raw product from producers, who told them it was foodstuff X?

And what if the producer didn't know either? There are plenty of species of plants or animals (especially fish and molluscs) that look so much like one another that without DNA testing, you can't say for sure. Should every fish fished or fruit picked, be DNA tested to make sure it's the species you're going to market it as? Or should the proposal only focus on intentional mislabeling? Who decides what's intentional? If everyone along the production chain claims they had no idea, who do you fine?

Can you say how many species of mussels there are in this picture? Not even experts can, without testing their DNA. We find new species every day, and practically every time you test similar-looking animal species, you're also going to find that ones you thought were different species, turn out to be different populations/variations of a single one, instead. Using an actual scientific (in RL Latin) name on the label on a can is at best a guess.

Also, scientific names don't often say a lot to people. You might know that Thunnus thynnus is a species of tuna, but do you know what a Rastrelliger faughni is? About 30 (or about 15 if one source is using SI and the other Imperial) times more of its wild population is fished in tonnes annually, than of the wild population of Thunnus thynnus.

You also shouldn't make the WA committee do most of the important work - make the member nations do everything that happens domestically, and only bother a committee if the fraud charges are international between two or more member nations.

Additionally, 4.b. suggests to me a labeling mistake causing possibly quite massive losses of perfectly edible food. Haven't you ever seen food products that have had an extra label glued on the first one, saying something about a labeling error and that this label contains the real contents. That sounds like a much smarter way of handling it, than requiring edible food being thrown away. (For a delicious example, our RL local chocolate factory sells "mistake batches" cheaper at the factory's store, with the mistake being clearly explained on a sticker on the package, so you buy it knowing it contains or doesn't contain what the sticker says. It's still perfectly edible. And yummy.)

Possible draft edit artefact is using "meat, fish, seafood, and other alternatives" in clause 4 main clause, while its subclause uses "fish or seafood". Also I would think that omitting plants is a dangerous mistake to make, considering how bad allergies they can cause.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:38 am
by Kenmoria
(OOC: The formatting of this would look a lot better with [list] code and, while it isn’t mandatory, I strong suggest using it.
Abolition Of Deceptive Food Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers.

Specifically worried about, the intentional mislabeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not a product in which they are purchasing has certain false pieces of information on the label, that may influence that consumers decision.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulate false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed by potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,

1. Mandates member-nations to screen products deemed as having blatantly misleading labels.
  1. Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief that improves the chances of that consumer of purchasing said product.
  2. Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

2. Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
  1. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
  2. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels in WA member-nations.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
  1. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 25% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing member-nations to only permit official FLRC sanctioned scientific and species names on meat, fish, seafood, and other alternatives.
  1. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics; more specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.
Code: Select all
[size=200][b]Abolition Of Deceptive Food Labeling[/b][/size]
[i]A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.[/i]
[b]Category[/b]: Regulation | [b]Area of Effect[/b]: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

[i]Expressing concern[/i] on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers.

[i]Specifically worried about,[/i] the intentional mislabeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

[i]Believing[/i] a consumer has the right to know whether or not a product in which they are purchasing has certain false pieces of information on the label, that may influence that consumers decision.

[i]Highlighting[/i] the fact that some member-nations completely unregulate false advertising on labels and

[i]Deeply disturbed[/i] by potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,

1. [i]Mandates[/i] member-nations to screen products deemed as having blatantly misleading labels.
[list=a][*][i]Defines[/i] a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this  case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief that improves the chances of that consumer of purchasing said product.
[*][i]Demands[/i] that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.[/list]

2. [i]Establishes[/i] the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
[list=a][*][i]Further[/i] empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.[*][i]Authorizes[/i] FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels in WA member-nations.[/list]

3.[i]Takes note of[/i] small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
[list=a][*][i]Defines[/i] ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 25% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. [i]Instructing[/i] member-nations to only permit official FLRC sanctioned scientific and species names on meat, fish, seafood, and other alternatives.
[list=a][*][i]Prohibits[/i] member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.[/list]

5. [i]Urges upon[/i] member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics; more specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.
)

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:23 am
by Bears Armed
OOC
Under this proposal as currently worded it would actually be legal for shops to sell completely unlabelled goods, with buyers having to depend on the shopkeepers for information and with no obligation (under this proposal) for that information to be non-deceptive.

^_^

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:52 am
by Wallenburg
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Under this proposal as currently worded it would actually be legal for shops to sell completely unlabelled goods, with buyers having to depend on the shopkeepers for information and with no obligation (under this proposal) for that information to be non-deceptive.

^_^

Damn, that's an excellent marketing strategy.

FOOD! It fills your stomach! Calories included!

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:00 am
by Blueflarst
Gorbastan wrote:(New) Draft 3.0
Abolition Of Deceptive Food Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers.
a. More specifically worried about, the intentional mislabeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not a product in which they are purchasing has certain false pieces of information on the label, that may influence that consumers decision.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulate false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed by potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,

1.Mandates member-nations to screen products deemed as having blatantly misleading labels.
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief that improves the chances of that consumer of purchasing said product.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

2.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels in WA member-nations.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 25% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing member-nations to only permit official FLRC sanctioned scientific and species names on meat, fish, seafood, and other alternatives.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


Prevention Abolishment Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Regulatory Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a. Further empowers the FLRC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b. Authorizes FLRC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels.
c. Charges FLRC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.

2.Stipulating member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the FLRC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

3.Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from FLRC approval.
a. Defines ‘de minimis’ as a product whereas the manufacturer only receives the annual sales of 20% or lower of the food industry standard.

4. Instructing nations to only permit official FLRC permitted names on fish and seafood.
a. Prohibits member-nations from allowing mislabeled fish or seafood as a purchasable good in the market.
b. Further authorizing FLRC to fine wide-scale fish and seafood manufacturers who practice this deceptive marketing.

5. Urges upon member-nations to add extra safeguards against deceptive marketing tactics. More specifically, the intentional mislabeling of food products.


SO, I revised it to include the 'de minimis' clause as its own full-on clause and put another clause in for fish and seafood. As fish is the hardest food product to label. Anyways, I'll take in a lot more feedback before proposing this. Though, I'll get my telegrams out.


Prevention Of Deceptive Labeling
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Expressing concern on deceptive marketing practices performed by wide-scale food manufacturers. More specifically, the intentional miss-labeling of food products to encourage or otherwise trick one to purchase said food products for its potential benefits.

Believing a consumer has the right to know whether or not they’re being sold a product that proposes to aid you, despite it being blatantly false.

Highlighting the fact that some member-nations completely unregulated false advertising on labels and

Deeply disturbed of potential long or short-term health risks one may contract due to this deceptive marketing.

Hereby,
1.Establishes the Food Label Vetting Committee within the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) as founded by GA#64.
a.Further empowers the WAFDRA-FLVC to judge whether or not a label is misleading.
b.Authorizes WAFDRA-FLVC to demand fines to businesses that practice false advertising on their labels.
c.Charges WAFDRA-FLVC the power to instruct the closure of businesses that repeat their offenses.

2.Calls on member-nations to screen products deemed blatantly misleading
a.Defines a ‘misleading label’ as an informational segment on a product (in this case, food) that lies or uses words that trick the consumer into a false belief.
b.Demands that these misleading labels be sent to the WAFDA-FLVC for judgment regarding false truths on labels.

Takes note of small-scale local food operations/vendors and others selling de minimis amount of product, whereas these small businesses are exempted from WAFDRA-FLVC approval.

Requests member-nations create new legislation to defend consumers from deceptive labels in any way.

Would like to ask for any revisions or feedback for my WA proposal.

It is a good initiative Blueflarst will support

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:49 am
by Gorbastan
Thanks guys for supporting this baby resolution!

I've been away from NS for a few days and I'll be back later this week, delivering Draft 4.0 (hopefully the last draft).

Again, thank you guys so much for supporting my resolution! It's my first one and really helps to see something I made have a chance within the community.

(Fill in any last remarks over for revisions in the next draft.)

Until next time.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:20 am
by Falcania
I'd like to talk about international trade.

Section one mandates that all member-states establish a regulatory apparatus by which food labels can be judged to be misleading or not. I assume the process is that if a nation's screening apparatus (state regulator, private certification board, etc) deems a food label to be misleading, they can apply sanctions as appropriate by national law, and the manufacturer can dispute it by elevating the case to the WA regulatory committee, who will arbitrate the matter and fine accordingly as stipulated in 2.b.

This applies largely to the domestic market - for example, this delegation posits that a Falcanian corporation "A", producing a Falcanian food product, would have to have its labelling approved by a Falcanian regulatory company "B" as empowered by the government of the Free Kingdom.

Suppose the following example: Corporation A have a product's label approved by B, and then subsequently that foodstuff is exported to a foreign member state.

Is the national regulatory screening body of the importing nation (as mandated in section 1) mandated to screen imported foodstuffs in the same way as their domestic foodstuffs?

Are national regulators mandated to screen all imported foodstuffs or only those from WA member states?

Are national regulators mandated to screen imported foodstuffs that are exported to other nations and not available for domestic purchase?

In the event of a dispute, is the FLRC empowered to levy fines on the manufacturing company of the foodstuff only, or may they also levy fines on regulatory bodies that have approved a food label tha has been subsequently ruled to be misleading? Or on the regulators of other nations that the foodstuff has been exported through?