NationStates

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:36 am**

Hold on, I got a special place for filing proposals like this one!

People have a right to self regulate what they eat. If they want processed sugars let them have it. They are far less harmful and far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco so those comparisons right there make this proposal worthy of the shredder!

It’s not governments place to regulate people’s diet. That’s between the person and their doctor.

So if this thing ever does make it out of draft state and ends up going to the floor for a vote I guarantee my vote will be a BIG FAT NAY!

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:41 am**

United States of Americanas wrote:Hold on, I got a special place for filing proposals like this one!

(Image)

People have a right to self regulate what they eat. If they want processed sugars let them have it. They are far less harmful and far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco so those comparisons right there make this proposal worthy of the shredder!

This proposal doesn't force people to stop eating processed sugars, though, it makes sure they actually realise they're eating processed sugars. I suggest you actually read proposals before you comment so confidently on them.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:50 am**

Maowi wrote:
United States of Americanas wrote:Hold on, I got a special place for filing proposals like this one!

(Image)

People have a right to self regulate what they eat. If they want processed sugars let them have it. They are far less harmful and far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco so those comparisons right there make this proposal worthy of the shredder!

This proposal doesn't force people to stop eating processed sugars, though, it makes sure they actually realise they're eating processed sugars. I suggest you actually read proposals before you comment so confidently on them.

I don’t need a label on every piece of food saying “this contains processed sugar” if I pick up a can of Cola I can tell just from looking at the ingredients pane that it has processed sugars.

This would only increase costs for consumers as corporations are forced to print more useless warnings on the package.

How’s about a public ad campaign that says “Sugars and harmful ingredients like MSG lurk in many of your foods in your fridge, read the ingredients panel carefully before eating or purchasing a food.”

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:59 am**

"Common sense is not a flower that grows in every garden ambassador, don't expect that just because you or I have this understanding that every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street shares that understanding. I once had to point out to one of my parishioners that tonic water still contains sugar, and stop another from cleaning an electric shaver under a tap when visiting."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:41 pm**

full opposition

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:46 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:full opposition

Any reason why?

I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:55 pm**

Maowi wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:full opposition

Any reason why?

I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.

"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:16 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Maowi wrote:
Any reason why?

I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.

"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."

"While I agree with this Ambassador, I think it would be logical to put in regulations similar in spirit to this proposal to encourage healthier eating. Sugar, especially processed and added sugars, are unnecessary parts of diets across this assembly. It is in an international issue in the sense that added sugars are easily available and cheap to purchase in almost every nation that is a member of this assembly. Banning it and slapping big warning labels on it isn't the right step at all. I would like to see a proposal that addresses more than added sugar, and places similar restrictions on high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients which could cause adverse health risks. I encourage the author to explore this topic on a wider scale. Again, I am still a yes, not to this proposal specifically, but in spirit."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:36 pm**

"Though I agree with the idea of standardizing warning labels to make the harmful effects of refined simple sugars (referring to products containing fructose or sucrose that has been deliberately added, not products such as fruit that naturally contain sugar and not including things such as normal bread that are made with flour and thus contain glucose and complex sugars that are shown to be generally harmless when consumed normally)
better known to the public, it is best that we avoid overbearing government interference, as that approach has failed many times before. Make efforts to educate the public about what consequences unhealthy habits may result in, but do not try to tell them what they can and can not do. 10% of the packaging may seem a little overkill, but we have to ensure that there's enough space to get the message across and make it visible. Also, restricting sales to minors has never worked in the past and is even less likely to work here. Alcohol and tobacco are both still shockingly easy for any minor who wants them badly enough to get their hands on, no matter what legislation we enact. If this is to be voted on, I will have to vote against this proposal due to the fact that it discourages self-regulation and personal responsibility for health. If people want to risk their health by consuming large amounts of refined/processed sugars, that's their choice; just make sure that as many people as possible are educated enough to make an informed decision."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:59 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Maowi wrote:
Any reason why?

I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.

"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."

“I would argue this is an international issue given that food and the packaging thereof can easily travel across national borders via trade and being taken on aeroplanes. Furthermore, it concerns the right to health, which as a human right deserves to be given to all people in the World Assembly.”

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:31 pm**

Cosmosplosion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."

"While I agree with this Ambassador, I think it would be logical to put in regulations similar in spirit to this proposal to encourage healthier eating. Sugar, especially processed and added sugars, are unnecessary parts of diets across this assembly. It is in an international issue in the sense that added sugars are easily available and cheap to purchase in almost every nation that is a member of this assembly. Banning it and slapping big warning labels on it isn't the right step at all. I would like to see a proposal that addresses more than added sugar, and places similar restrictions on high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients which could cause adverse health risks. I encourage the author to explore this topic on a wider scale. Again, I am still a yes, not to this proposal specifically, but in spirit."

"Fructose is a sugar ambassador, as is glucose and thus both would be considered under this legislation. I would suggest that the ten percent of the label note the total sugars in the product. It may also be worthwhile to mandate suggested serving sizes or suggest that nations invest in creating an index of suggested serving sizes."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:43 pm**

Fedele wrote:Is this more palatable?

'The new draft proposal still lacks definitions. Does 'sugar' include all mono-, di-, poly-, and oligosaccharides? Does 'added sugar' only cover those instances in which such a (previously defined!) sugar is added to any other product in pure form, or also those when it is part of another ingredient?'

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:52 pm**

The Grandmaster adjusts his jacket and lifts a piece of paper before putting it down.

"I do not see a single possibility in which this proposal shall pass."

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:20 pm**

The New Nordic Union wrote:Does 'sugar' include all mono-, di-, poly-, and oligosaccharides?

I think that national legislatures will be adequately able to define sugar. Resolutions are not dictionaries.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:01 pm**

Wait, this post still exists? I thought the author would have deleted the thread in shame by now!

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:22 pm**

The capacity for people to criticize proposals without reading them at all is astoundingly strong.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:33 am**

Hatzisland wrote:Wait, this post still exists? I thought the author would have deleted the thread in shame by now!

(OOC: Authors can’t delete threads once someone’s posted in them, and deleting entirely one’s own proposal is a bad idea. The current proposal isn’t all that bad, and is something I can see reaching quorum and having a chance at vote, in the future.)

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:42 am**

"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."

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:30 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Hatzisland wrote:Wait, this post still exists? I thought the author would have deleted the thread in shame by now!

(OOC: Authors can’t delete threads once someone’s posted in them, and deleting entirely one’s own proposal is a bad idea. The current proposal isn’t all that bad, and is something I can see reaching quorum and having a chance at vote, in the future.)

I think it is. It is an invasion of national sovereignty, uselessly expensive to enact and enforce, and it's non-binding clauses are laughable. Significant changes are required to keep this thread from being abandoned.

OOC: For all the issues the WA, having stupid resolutions isn't one of them(at least in the sense where there is a reasonable argument for it, though I could name a few a think are stupid.) This proposal would change that. The shredder it goes.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:35 am**

OOC: Uh. Sugar causes cancer? What? And also, this proposal treats it as if sugar is bad for every species and can (apparently) cause cancer for every species.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:07 am**

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:"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.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:13 am**

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

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:22 am**

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

OOC:
Which underlines the need for a definition.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:58 am**

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Deoxyribose (the 'D' in 'DNA') and Ribose (the 'R' in 'RNA') are both sugars, so technically anything containing DNA &/or RNA "contains sugar".

OOC:
Which underlines the need for a definition.

(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.)

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:06 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC:
Which underlines the need for a definition.

(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;"

?

NationStates

[Draft] On Sugar