NationStates

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:11 pm**

Fedele wrote:
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?

No, but it's just such a joke :lol2:

. Sugar isn't tobacco, drugs, or wine. Also, 90% of foods have added sugar.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:21 pm**

Hatzisland wrote:
Fedele wrote:
Do your bananas get manufactured with added sugar?

Are you suggesting that sugar is not addictive?

No, but it's just such a joke . Sugar isn't tobacco, drugs, or wine. Also, 90% of foods have added sugar.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:46 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:You say that like it's a good thing.

OOC: Would you want to live in a world without chocolate?

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:35 am**

Liberimery wrote: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.

OOC: or genetically engineer the warning into their skins?

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:38 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:You say that like it's a good thing.

OOC: Would you want to live in a world without chocolate?

That is not at issue in this proposal. The proposal is for companies to be required to make consumers aware that they have added sugar to the product they are selling.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:59 am**

So what about ice-cream cones? Tiny loose sweets and candy-apples? Some sweets and other things are sold without wrappings as well.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm**

Arasi Luvasa wrote:So what about ice-cream cones? Tiny loose sweets and candy-apples? Some sweets and other things are sold without wrappings as well.

This is a good point. Products sold for on-premise consumption could be required to notate added sugar on menus and product displays. Would that work?

Also, what if the labels were walked back to simply state that the manufactured product contained added sugar, rather than focusing on the negative health effects? Most people do not realize how much sugar they eat. Simple awareness could be enormously beneficial in reducing the rate of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by high sugar consumption.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:54 pm**

Fedele wrote:
Arasi Luvasa wrote:So what about ice-cream cones? Tiny loose sweets and candy-apples? Some sweets and other things are sold without wrappings as well.

This is a good point. Products sold for on-premise consumption could be required to notate added sugar on menus and product displays. Would that work?

(OOC: It could certainly work, but would be very micromanaging. It is one thing to require companies to put clear labelling on their products, however dictating the menu content of individual menus in independent restaurants is just absurd.)

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:35 am**

Fedele wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Would you want to live in a world without chocolate?

That is not at issue in this proposal. The proposal is for companies to be required to make consumers aware that they have added sugar to the product they are selling.

OOC: But you want to encourage nations to ban selling chocolate to minors.

EDIT: Also, if you're already required to list the ingredients, and the list clearly says "sugar", why would you need a label saying "contains added sugar"? I mean, it's right there in the ingredients list.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:56 am**

Le sucre est présent dans tous les aliments et pas que. Dites moi que doit-on manger alors?

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:47 am**

Lord Mathis Leroux de La France wrote:Le sucre est présent dans tous les aliments et pas que. Dites moi que doit-on manger alors?

(OOC: Apart from the foreign language threads in general, these threads are English only. However, you do make a very good point. Almost all manufactured foods contain sugar, so enforcing regulation against all of them seems over judicious instead of, for example, doing so for only high-sugar products.)

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:32 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Hatzisland wrote:No, but it's just such a joke . Sugar isn't tobacco, drugs, or wine. Also, 90% of foods have added sugar.

You say that like it's a good thing.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:41 pm**

Fedele wrote:
Arasi Luvasa wrote:So what about ice-cream cones? Tiny loose sweets and candy-apples? Some sweets and other things are sold without wrappings as well.

This is a good point. Products sold for on-premise consumption could be required to notate added sugar on menus and product displays. Would that work?

Also, what if the labels were walked back to simply state that the manufactured product contained added sugar, rather than focusing on the negative health effects? Most people do not realize how much sugar they eat. Simple awareness could be enormously beneficial in reducing the rate of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by high sugar consumption.

This. This surpasses the draft in effectiveness by a mile.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:55 pm**

Hatzisland wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:You say that like it's a good thing.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

Nothing in this outlaws anything. You should read the proposal.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:16 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Hatzisland wrote:

It isn't, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

Nothing in this outlaws anything. You should read the proposal.

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

Yes it doesn't, but still. Even when that is clarified, the plan is still stupid.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:25 pm**

Hatzisland wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Nothing in this outlaws anything. You should read the proposal.

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

Yes it doesn't, but still. Even when that is clarified, the plan is still stupid.

How so? You have admitted that excess sugar is a bad thing. What is so stupid about providing information to consumers so that they are aware their food is bad for them?

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:09 pm**

Hey - maybe the draft should just take an entirely different approach. As was stated above, just stating that things have added sugar would be great. Let's take that a step further and include similar regulations on trans fats and on ingredients with questionable health effects. Require calorie counts at places intended for on-site consumption. Just things like that.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:38 am**

Cosmosplosion wrote:As was stated above, just stating that things have added sugar would be great.

OOC: Even that is stupid if there's an ingredients list with sugar clearly mentioned there.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:43 am**

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.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:19 am**

“This new draft is something I can support, as it doesn’t require such obtrusive packaging that restricts the individuals in corporations so much.”

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:42 am**

"I concur."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:58 am**

@ Fedele

Please, review your draft and modify it. This draft still has incomplete provisions.

Children and teens the most need sugar to grow up such as the ants need it too, but that sugar in moderate consumption. Forbidding sugar consumption entirely is a very bad idea.

This should regulate the normal limit of the sugar or the maximum amount in accordance with the health benefits.
You need to add the terms of health and the possible effects of a higher amount of sugar.

For example,
the text "Observing the widespread recreational consumption of manufactured products containing added sugar, especially among minors"
should become:
"Observing the widespread recreational consumption of manufactured products containing added sugar over the normal limits in terms of health, especially among minors";

Also, the text "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;"
may be understood mostly in the way that every product containing sugar should say that it contain sugar but this do not clarify the amount of sugar. This rule do not modify too much and not clarifying the statement as "higher amount of sugar" which is missing.

Every manufactured product already show what it contains and the amounts in them, at least in Europe and America. However, there should be written the possible effects on the health of the people. You forgot this detail. All laws have specific details.

It's not enough saying "added sugar". Lawyers can overcome that sentence as saying simply "sugar".

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:02 am**

OOC:
Change the proposals title, IA cites it as one of the reasons writing a repeal so to give this it's best chance it should not be "On ...".

Also may be an idea to specifically make regulations against hiding sugar under other names (syrup) or having that 10% not the overall sugar content including what those ingredients contribute.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:05 am**

"Its painful to see how many of our colleagues can't read a draft. Despite the goal, which is clearly to label sugar and not to ban it, we are opposed. This is beyond the pale of a genuine international issue."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:31 am**

Koguria wrote:@ Fedele
Forbidding sugar consumption entirely is a very bad idea.

I agree. That is why my proposal does not seek such a thing.

NationStates

[Draft] On Sugar

Le sucre est partout.