[Draft] On Sugar

[The New Nordic Union]

(OOC: I think just saying something along the lines of, “Defines ‘sugar’ as fructose, sucrose and/or glucose,” would be acceptable, since other sugars such as maltose, galactose and cellobiose aren’t used in foods.)

OOC: Exactly. RL definitions are something like that, the EU for example defines it as 'all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols' in the Regulation on the provision of food information to consumers.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I think just saying something along the lines of, “Defines ‘sugar’ as fructose, sucrose and/or glucose,” would be acceptable, since other sugars such as maltose, galactose and cellobiose aren’t used in foods.)

OOC

Defines 'sugar', for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning ', fructose, glucose, sucrose, and/or maltose;"

?

(OOC: That looks good, although you do have uneven speech marks around the names of the sugars.)

[Wallenburg]

OOC
Deoxyribose (the 'D' in 'DNA') and Ribose (the 'R' in 'RNA') are both sugars, so technically anything containing DNA &/or RNA "contains sugar".

No reasonable nation will adopt that interpretation. This complaint is bullshit.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There is no reason to define sugar because it's a common term already. I'll pull out more UN cards.

[Kenmoria]

There is no reason to define sugar because it's a common term already. I'll pull out more UN cards.

(OOC: Yes, but it has other meanings which are reasonable. A sugar is, in biological terms, is a crystallised carbohydrate that dissolves in water, which is fulfilled by a lot of substances that either aren’t found in foods, or are completely harmless.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

RNT is not that there exists a reasonable interpretation in the language. RNT is whether it is an interpretation that a nation would in fact take. If you mean that matrons will label the DNA on everything, that's not a reasonable interpretation of what a nation trying to enforce legislation in good faith would in fact do.

[Giant Bats]

"What is sugar and why is it a problem?" asked Ikiti, a carnivore unable to taste sweetness, and who preferred to eat only freshly-killed prey.

- Ikiti Tikilikrr, Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation mother of two

[Falcania]

"What is sugar and why is it a problem?" asked Ikiti, a carnivore unable to taste sweetness, and who preferred to eat only freshly-killed prey.

- Ikiti Tikilikrr, Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation mother of two

It's a fundamental nutrient essential for carbon based life. However the concern is that overconsumption of it makes those people unhealthy.

Seeing as the WA has a precedent for not criminalising suicide I don't see why this needs legislation.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

"This is a waste of the time and resources of the WA. Legislation of sugars is entirely unnecessary and should be left to sovereign nations or their individual citizens. Sugars are far too universal to be regulated and the amount it would cost out of the WA Budget (defined to be based on donations) is astoundingly high to enforce all of the provisions. Our delegation is most glad that this does not seek to ban them, but sees to many errors with the proposal regardless as well as flaw in concept."

This proposal does not seek to regulate sugar. It mandates that consumers be made aware.

"Of that our Delegation is aware - if you read through our statement carefully you will see we wrote 'Our delegation is most glad that this does not seek to ban them [sugars]'. We just do not believe this is a worthwhile issue or that this pertains to any other species than human beings. Our Delegation remains opposed on principal."

OOC
Deoxyribose (the 'D' in 'DNA') and Ribose (the 'R' in 'RNA') are both sugars, so technically anything containing DNA &/or RNA "contains sugar".

No reasonable nation will adopt that interpretation. This complaint is bullshit.

Just like how our nation interprets "terminating a pregnancy" (from Reproductive Freedoms) means to attempt to induce a birth in the mother faster than naturally rather than the slagughter of a baby. The point is that someone will interpret it that way.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is lactose not a sugar? Also, there already is a way that food industry uses to get around such things, since "no added sugar" is an advertizement buzzword; just add fruit puree and refrain from mentioning that the puree is so processed and concentrated that it's basically pure sugar. Still, as per regulations, you're adding fruit, so you don't have to declare it as sugar and can additionally advertize it as having fruit.

Better than focusing on added sugar, you should focus on total sugar, because the body doesn't care if it's processed or natural. I mean, pure crystalline sugar has "no added sugar". Requiring breakdown of content per 100 grams or millilitres, including the total amount of carbohydrates and then separating the amount of sugars from them.

[Bananaistan]

....
Mandates that all manufactured products containing sugar be labeled on the back with an identifier that states, “This product contains sugar, which is addictive”, the text of which must take up at least 15% of the packaging of the product. This warning must be printed in the language local to the intended marketplace;

Requires that manufactured products containing sugar must be labelled on the front with an identifier which states, “This product contains sugar, which is known to cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other serious health problems", the text of which must take up at least 15% of the packaging of the product. This warning must be printed in the language local to the intended marketplace;
...

"Why is it that all these bleeding heart "won't someone think of the children" proposals about labels never even give at least a hand wave towards the environmental problems likely to be created by forcing everyone to stick labels on everything? Don't assume everything is supplied in unnecessary packaging."

[Arasi Luvasa]

I believe that has been somewhat addressed.

OOC: Is lactose not a sugar? Also, there already is a way that food industry uses to get around such things, since "no added sugar" is an advertizement buzzword; just add fruit puree and refrain from mentioning that the puree is so processed and concentrated that it's basically pure sugar. Still, as per regulations, you're adding fruit, so you don't have to declare it as sugar and can additionally advertize it as having fruit.

Better than focusing on added sugar, you should focus on total sugar, because the body doesn't care if it's processed or natural. I mean, pure crystalline sugar has "no added sugar". Requiring breakdown of content per 100 grams or millilitres, including the total amount of carbohydrates and then separating the amount of sugars from them.

This. I mentioned that the 10% should not the total sugar content, from all ingredients, before because companies will try and find scummy ways around the regulation.

[Giant Bats]

It's a fundamental nutrient essential for carbon based life. However the concern is that overconsumption of it makes those people unhealthy.

"Then why is not salt regulated the same way? Or water?" The question itself was as absurd to Ikiti as the answer on sugar had been, because she got all her nutrients and water from her prey animals. Only sick Tikrr would consume water in larger quantities than what grooming rain-moistened fur would give. "They, too, are essential to life and overconsumption can make you sick. And what exactly in the proposal is aimed at preventing overconsumption?"

- Ikiti Tikilikrr, Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation mother of two

[Araraukar]

OOC: Also, sugar doesn't cause cancer.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Deoxyribose (the 'D' in 'DNA') and Ribose (the 'R' in 'RNA') are both sugars, so technically anything containing DNA &/or RNA "contains sugar".

No reasonable nation will adopt that interpretation. This complaint is bullshit.

OOC
Governments influenced (or bribed) by the sugar industry could "reasonably" use that argument to get labels stuck on all food products (except salt, and some mineral supplements), instead of just on those that this proposal's author intends, which would make the products that actually contain sugar in the intended sense slightly harder for customers to identify than was intended by the author and would probably make people more inclined to ignore the labels altogether. If you start seeing those labels on packages of foods such as [e.g.] meat, flour, and tea, aren't you less likely to pay attention to the fact that they're on foods such as [e.g.] honey and marmalade?

[Falcania]

OOC: Also, sugar doesn't cause cancer.

((And tobacco doesn't cause type 2 diabetes mellitus))

[Araraukar]

((And tobacco doesn't cause type 2 diabetes mellitus))

OOC: I don't think anyone has claimed that? This draft however lists cancer as one of sugar's evils.

[Wallenburg]

No reasonable nation will adopt that interpretation. This complaint is bullshit.

OOC
Governments influenced (or bribed) by the sugar industry could "reasonably" use that argument to get labels stuck on all food products (except salt, and some mineral supplements), instead of just on those that this proposal's author intends, which would make the products that actually contain sugar in the intended sense slightly harder for customers to identify than was intended by the author and would probably make people more inclined to ignore the labels altogether. If you start seeing those labels on packages of foods such as [e.g.] meat, flour, and tea, aren't you less likely to pay attention to the fact that they're on foods such as [e.g.] honey and marmalade?

That's still bullshit, since plenty of foods contain no added sugars, no matter how you try to stretch the definition. Furthermore, I'm not exactly interested in entertaining member states that wear their bad-faith interpretive efforts on their sleeves.

OOC: Also, sugar doesn't cause cancer.

Excessive sugar intake leads to health issues that cause cancer.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Also, sugar doesn't cause cancer.

Excessive sugar intake leads to health issues that cause cancer.

OOC: But the cancer danger is caused by obesity, not by whatever you've eaten to become obese. So it's a factual falsehood to claim that sugar caused cancer. And enough to get people to label this whole thing nonsense, which would be a shame. So if you want this to pass, you should be helping to make it as factual as possible so that its opponents won't have easy ways to ridicule it.

[Wallenburg]

Excessive sugar intake leads to health issues that cause cancer.

OOC: But the cancer danger is caused by obesity, not by whatever you've eaten to become obese. So it's a factual falsehood to claim that sugar caused cancer. And enough to get people to label this whole thing nonsense, which would be a shame. So if you want this to pass, you should be helping to make it as factual as possible so that its opponents won't have easy ways to ridicule it.

OOC: I mean, in the same sense that it's a factual falsehood that stabbing people kills them. It's not really the knife that causes death, it's the loss of blood and the failure of damaged organs.

[Kenmoria]

OOC
Governments influenced (or bribed) by the sugar industry could "reasonably" use that argument to get labels stuck on all food products (except salt, and some mineral supplements), instead of just on those that this proposal's author intends, which would make the products that actually contain sugar in the intended sense slightly harder for customers to identify than was intended by the author and would probably make people more inclined to ignore the labels altogether. If you start seeing those labels on packages of foods such as [e.g.] meat, flour, and tea, aren't you less likely to pay attention to the fact that they're on foods such as [e.g.] honey and marmalade?

That's still bullshit, since plenty of foods contain no added sugars, no matter how you try to stretch the definition. Furthermore, I'm not exactly interested in entertaining member states that wear their bad-faith interpretive efforts on their sleeves.

(OOC: The proposal doesn’t mention added sugar, instead it refers to manufactured products that contain sugar, which, by the way, is something the author should probably change. Seeing as sugars are just any soluble carbohydrate that takes a crystalline form, as is defined in various online resources, it isn’t a stretch to say that anything with any DNA contains sugar, since the ‘D’ stands for deoxyribose, which is a sugar.)

[Maowi]

Is this more palatable?

Observing the widespread recreational consumption of manufactured products containing added sugar, especially among minors;

Recognizing the addictive nature of sugar;

Noting the adverse health effects associated with high consumption of sugar and further noting the high tax-revenue cost associated with treating these health effects in nations with government funded health care;

The World Assembly hereby:

Mandates that all manufactured products containing added sugar sold in World Assembly member nations be prominently labeled with a disclosure stating "This product contains added sugar" in the primary language of
the intended consumer demographic, the text of which must cover at least 10% of the packaging;

Requires, in the absence of packaging, that manufactured products containing added sugar include a good faith effort to inform customers at the point of sale that the product includes added sugar;

Mandates that member nations include, in existing general health education curriculum or programs for youth, information on the dangerous health effects of excess sugar consumption and the importance of moderating sugar consumption;

Exempts from these regulations products which contain only naturally occurring sugar;

Encourages member nations to take further action to prevent and discourage immoderate sugar consumption, especially among minors.

This is the most recent draft, although I had to hunt back to find it. It would be more convenient if edited into the OP.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Fedele, do you intend to count starch as sugar like Wally thinks you do?

[Arasi Luvasa]

Excessive sugar intake leads to health issues that cause cancer.

OOC: But the cancer danger is caused by obesity, not by whatever you've eaten to become obese. So it's a factual falsehood to claim that sugar caused cancer. And enough to get people to label this whole thing nonsense, which would be a shame. So if you want this to pass, you should be helping to make it as factual as possible so that its opponents won't have easy ways to ridicule it.

So I won't develop cancer from sugar intake as long as I avoid obesity (not that hard for me irl)? Even with my tendency to have a sweet tooth and thus eat and drink lots of sugary stuff (I don't gain weight easily, even when eating like a horse with no regard for sugar content)?

[Wallenburg]

That's still bullshit, since plenty of foods contain no added sugars, no matter how you try to stretch the definition. Furthermore, I'm not exactly interested in entertaining member states that wear their bad-faith interpretive efforts on their sleeves.

(OOC: The proposal doesn’t mention added sugar, instead it refers to manufactured products that contain sugar, which, by the way, is something the author should probably change. Seeing as sugars are just any soluble carbohydrate that takes a crystalline form, as is defined in various online resources, it isn’t a stretch to say that anything with any DNA contains sugar, since the ‘D’ stands for deoxyribose, which is a sugar.)

Exempts from these regulations agricultural products which contain naturally occurring sugar without having sugar added.

Come again?