NationStates

Fedele wrote:Added awareness is what this proposal is about. It doesn't ban added sugar.

OOC: It just requires tobacco-style warning labels about it. Which is absurd.

Sugar, through obesity, heart disease, cancer, and all sorts of other awful health problems, kills by far enough people IRL for it to be comparable to tobacco. If we're passing regulations to print the health hazards of cigarettes onto their packaging, I don't see why sugar should get a pass.

Wallenburg wrote:Sugar, through obesity, heart disease, cancer, and all sorts of other awful health problems, kills by far enough people IRL for it to be comparable to tobacco. If we're passing regulations to print the health hazards of cigarettes onto their packaging, I don't see why sugar should get a pass.

"The only problem with your statement is the fact that not the fact that sugar is consumed is the problem, it is the fact that too much sugar is consumed. The source of the sugar is irrelevant in that regard - there is no difference between refined sugar and natural sugar once it reaches the small intestine. Whether it becomes fat or glucose depends on your blood sugar level. It is hence a bit misleading to claim that the substance is at fault, especially when a species actually needs it to fuction properly, when in reality it is the sheer amount. Health education might be a better idea in that case."

Greifenburg wrote:"The only problem with your statement is the fact that not the fact that sugar is consumed is the problem, it is the fact that too much sugar is consumed. The source of the sugar is irrelevant in that regard - there is no difference between refined sugar and natural sugar once it reaches the small intestine. Whether it becomes fat or glucose depends on your blood sugar level. It is hence a bit misleading to claim that the substance is at fault, especially when a species actually needs it to fuction properly, when in reality it is the sheer amount. Health education might be a better idea in that case."

OOC: ^This. If you wanted to have a real health effect through labeling, it'd be to ban the practice used at least in USA where you can for instance label sugar as syrup (which is nothing but sugar sludge) to make it appear that there's less sugar in the product.

Also, what do you count as sugar? What counts as natural sugar? What counts as refined sugar? What counts as added sugar? Is starch a sugar? Potatos (chips and crisps especially, as they give you the unholy alliance of fat, starch and salt) are very fattening if you eat enough of them, because they're almost pure starch, yet most people wouldn't equate starch with sugar.

And it's not even just added sugar that you need to worry about. Fruits have massive amounts of sugar in them, which is why non-diet soda and fruit juice can have similar amounts of sugar per desilitre, but I have yet to see any diet soda being marketed as healthier than fruit juice.

It all really does come down to "how much you eat", not "what you eat", and making a difference between "natural" and "refined" sugar is just marketing buzzwords. It doesn't have any dietary effect.

OOC
As currently written, illegal for PLAGIARISM of the proposed resolution 'On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes' which is currently at vote.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
As currently written, illegal for PLAGIARISM of the proposed resolution 'On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes' which is currently at vote.

OOC: Not so:

Fedele wrote:You'll notice some common language between this proposal and Cosmo's. That's not a coincidence and I got his blessing on it.

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
As currently written, illegal for PLAGIARISM of the proposed resolution 'On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes' which is currently at vote.

OOC: Not so:

Fedele wrote:You'll notice some common language between this proposal and Cosmo's. That's not a coincidence and I got his blessing on it.

Oops! Still, that "blessing" needs to be posted somewhere that the Mods (if not the rest of us) can see it in order to confirm the fact.

Bears Armed wrote:Oops! Still, that "blessing" needs to be posted somewhere that the Mods (if not the rest of us) can see it in order to confirm the fact.

OOC: True, but just wanted to point out that they were trying to go about it legally.

"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."

“If you do want this to work, you need to refocus the draft such that this addresses a response proportionate to the dangers of sugar. Copying the language from the current proposal at vote won’t work since tobacco and sugar are completely different in the ways that they operate. Although the numbers of deaths caused by them, at least in Kenmoria, are on the same order of magnitude, every single citizen has sugar and only some smoke cigarettes.

I recommend reworking most of the clauses so that they are proportionate to sugar and not based on the effects of tobacco.”

Kenmoria wrote:I recommend reworking most of the clauses so that they are proportionate to sugar and not based on the effects of tobacco.”

How would you recommend doing that?

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

I think adults like sugar too - no need to cite recreational consumption either. Note the popularity of sugar and sugar-substitutes to start off instead, it does the same thing

Recognizing the addictive nature of sugar;

This is true.

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

Good, however let's get more specific. Sugar's primary things are dental issues and obesity, two issues that would face most of the member nations of the World Assembly.

The World Assembly hereby:

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;

I'm not entirely sure if this section specifically is compatible with the tobacco proposal. If I were you, personally, I would strike this.

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;

Could see this being unpopular, but it is true.

Mandates that member nations fund informational campaigns targeted at both minors and adults encouraging them to abstain from consuming manufactured products containing sugar;

This is good but why not take it a step further and fund informational campaigns about having a healthy diet in general? (OOC: MyPlate, Food Pyramid) Maybe the focus of your proposal should pivot to education on healthy eating habits, could be something popular in the GA if you do it right.

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

But why? It is still sugar, no?

Furthermore,

Encourages member nations to prohibit the sale of manufactured products containing sugar to minors;

Let's say my nation acts upon your encouragement and bans minors from possessing sugar - can my kid not have a birthday cake?

Urges member nations to prohibit advertisements for manufactured products containing sugar;

This is fine.

Further encourages member nations to consider taking further action to prevent and discourage sugar consumption, especially among minors.

Also fine.

Overall - my advice is expand this to focus on eating habits in general. I think you could implement an entire dietary education system and get this through. Sugar and tobacco honestly may not be the two most compatible things as well, while some of your use of the tobacco language was effective.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
As currently written, illegal for PLAGIARISM of the proposed resolution 'On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes' which is currently at vote.

He does have my permission.

Fedele wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:I recommend reworking most of the clauses so that they are proportionate to sugar and not based on the effects of tobacco.”

How would you recommend doing that?

(OOC: Start without the framework of the current draft and write clauses focusing on what a real-world government might regulate about sugar. Then, to accommodate for the fact that the GA isn’t a nation and instead is supposed to provide bare guidance to member nations, weaken the mandates slightly and add some encouragaing clauses that go back to the original strength.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Fedele wrote:
How would you recommend doing that?

(OOC: Start without the framework of the current draft and write clauses focusing on what a real-world government might regulate about sugar. Then, to accommodate for the fact that the GA isn’t a nation and instead is supposed to provide bare guidance to member nations, weaken the mandates slightly and add some encouragaing clauses that go back to the original strength.)

OOC: If you want it to be only on sugar, I agree with this - I am not sure how compatible sugar and tobacco really are.

Cosmosplosion wrote:

Urges member nations to prohibit advertisements for manufactured products containing sugar;

This is fine.

Really? so no bread, cooldrink, juice, pastry (or any bakery product really), long-life milk or canned food should be advertised? Starch is also a polysaccharide if I remember correctly so this could be suggesting that most foodstuffs should be prevented from advertising.

"I think its pretty clear now that the general consensus is that sugar is not the health hazard recreational drugs can be, and that member states ought have free reign to regulate it as they see fit. Perhaps we can stop going in circles, and the author can either submit this as-is and see it opposed, or adjust it to satisfy their feedback and hope for a fighting chance."

Cosmosplosion wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
As currently written, illegal for PLAGIARISM of the proposed resolution 'On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes' which is currently at vote.

He does have my permission.

Okay.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I think its pretty clear now that the general consensus is that sugar is not the health hazard recreational drugs can be, and that member states ought have free reign to regulate it as they see fit. Perhaps we can stop going in circles, and the author can either submit this as-is and see it opposed, or adjust it to satisfy their feedback and hope for a fighting chance."

"I would love to see the assembly promote healthier eating habits - however, targeting sugar alone seems to be a lost cause. I concur with the Ambassador."

No thanks. Sugar is nowhere near the league of cigarettes. We are firmly opposed.

OOC: "Encourages member nations to prohibit the sale of manufactured products containing sugar to minors..."
Are you crazy? That would kill the food industry!

It should be moved to the top, and rephrased:
"Clarifies that this plan discourages member nations to prohibit the sale of manufactured products containing sugar."

"This product contains sugar, which is addictive"

OOC: I'm dying of laughter here!

As not only the ambassador to the Republic of Vygarm but also one of its citizens and a citizen of the East Pacific region, I could personally name fewer food products that do not contain some form of sugar than those that do.

Unlike tobacco and vape products, which are singular products traded, exported, sold, and consumed with one singular purpose, sugar is a substance which serves as a base for the vast majority of consumer food products. At least 70% of all food products produced, exported and imported into and from Vygarm contain some form of added sugar.

Mark my words ambassador, should this bill reach the Assembly it will surely be shot down before it has even left the drafting table. Might I suggest investigating, researching, and proposing measures to improve education regarding the addictive qualities and health risks that come with sugar and sugary additives as opposed to this poorly conceived consumerist headache?

As it stands currently, Vygarm cannot support this bill.

Hell, fruits contain sugars and we actually want people to eat more of those than fruit-flavored candies!

Not to mention the absurdity of our nation having to wrap Bannanas in their own plastic containers in order to stick a label on it warning of the dangers of sugar in fruit.

Liberimery wrote:Hell, fruits contain sugars and we actually want people to eat more of those than fruit-flavored candies!

Not to mention the absurdity of our nation having to wrap Bannanas in their own plastic containers in order to stick a label on it warning of the dangers of sugar in fruit.

Wait, you manufacture bananas in Liberimery? Unless 'Bannanas' are a different thing to bananas ...

Liberimery wrote:Hell, fruits contain sugars and we actually want people to eat more of those than fruit-flavored candies!

Not to mention the absurdity of our nation having to wrap Bannanas in their own plastic containers in order to stick a label on it warning of the dangers of sugar in fruit.

Do your bananas get manufactured with added sugar?

Hatzisland wrote:"This product contains sugar, which is addictive"

OOC: I'm dying of laughter here!

Are you suggesting that sugar is not addictive?