[DRAFT #2c] Nutritional Freedom Compact

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 3,492
Word count: 552

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Something is probably wrong with the final bit of Article a.

OOC: This inspiration for this draft was not Animal Rebellion's recent McBlockade but a poll carried out for the Independent Women's Forum in 2013 which found that 65% of American women opposed "the government regulating the consumption habits of Americans, such as limiting how much salt, sugar, or fatty foods consumers can buy at a store or restaurant."

Nutritional Freedom Compact
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

Category: Advancement of Industry

Area of Effect: Commerical Enterprise

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Aware that individuals of many species require nutrition to survive, especially through the consumption of food and drink,

Recognising that many such individuals often acquire such nutrition through businesses such as supermarkets and restaurants, rather than (for instance) hunting or foraging for it, and

Believing that individuals, especially those with dietary needs, should not be unfairly disadvantaged by red tape which arbitrarily restricts what food and drink they can or cannot order from businesses...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "compliant foodstuff," henceforth a CF, as any food or drink sold or provided in a given member state which fulfils all food safety standards which have been laid by the World Assembly or by that member state and which are equally applicable to all food or all drink as appropriate at the point of sale or provision,
   2. an "age-restricted CF" as any foodstuff subject to Article c,
   3. a "store" as any entity in a member state which sells or provides any good or service, and
   4. "relevant criteria," in relation to any given CF, as that CF's nutritional content and the nature or identity of whoever sells, provides, produces or supplies that CF,
2. prohibits member states and their political subdivisions from:
   
   1. requiring stores to offer or refrain from offering any given CF for sale or provision, except as provided in Article e(i); whether or not to offer any CF shall be the exclusive decision of each store,
   2. restricting the supply of any CF to stores in a manner not permitted by prior and standing international law,
   3. restricting the purchase of any CF, except to prevent shortages of the targeted CFs during times of national emergency (where those foodstuffs are necessary for sapient life) or otherwise as provided in Article c,
   4. restricting any deliveries of non-age-restricted CFs made by an individual who has ordered such CFs with the intention that they be consumed at any private residence where that individual is currently residing, including by permitting their confiscation,
   5. restricting or preventing the advertisement of any CF simply because of any of that CF's relevant criteria, subject to Article c (although members may still restrict or prevent advertisements that make demonstrably false claims about that CF's relevant criteria),
   6. making access to any government service conditional upon purchasing, not purchasing, consuming, or not consuming any CF with any frequency, and from
   7. regulating the free and voluntary consumption of any non-age-restricted CF in private residences,
3. reaffirms the rights of members to impose a sensible minimum age for purchasing particular CFs, including those items which can seriously harm the health of those consuming it below that age, and to prevent the advertisement of those CFs to individuals below that age,
4. urges stores not to sell or provide age-restricted CFs where they cannot generally be legally purchased by their target audience (i.e. school canteens refraining from selling alcoholic drinks to pupils), and
5. clarifies that nothing in this resolution prevents members from:
   
   1. requiring all stores wishing to sell alcoholic drinks to hold a license to enable them to do so,
   2. outlawing the advertisement of all CFs, nor from
   3. imposing restrictions on advertisements of CFs that apply equally to all such advertisements.

Nutritional Freedom Compact
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

Category: Advancement of Industry

Area of Effect: Commerical Enterprise

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that many inhabitants of member states choose to acquire food and drink through businesses such as supermarkets and restaurants, instead of (for instance) hunting or foraging for such nutrition,

Believing that such people, especially those with dietary needs, should not be unfairly disadvantaged by red tape which arbitrarily restricts what food and drink they can or cannot order from businesses, and

Noting that in lieu of Article b - and at least while GA#68 stands - a future resolution requiring member states to severely or fully restrict the sale of heavily-sweetened drinks (on obesity-related grounds or similar) or the byproducts of farmed animals (due to its perceived impacts on climate change) could be successfully rammed through with almost no prior discussion whatsoever...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines a "compliant foodstuff" as any food or drink which fulfils all food safety standards which have been laid by the World Assembly or by member states and which are equally applicable to all food or all drink as appropriate at the point of sale,
2. prevents member states and their political subdivisions from:
   
   1. requiring those who sell or provide food and drink to refrain from offering any compliant foodstuff for sale or provision; whether or not to offer such foodstuffs shall be the exclusive decision of the entity selling or providing them,
   2. restricting the purchase of any compliant foodstuff, except to prevent shortages of the targeted compliant foodstuffs during times of national emergency (where those foodstuffs are necessary for sapient life) or otherwise as provided in Article d,
   3. restricting the supply of any compliant foodstuff to such sellers or providers in a manner not permitted by prior and standing international law, and from
   4. restricting or preventing the advertisement of any compliant foodstuff simply because of that foodstuff's nutritional content,
3. forbids members and their political subdivisions from regulating the free and voluntary consumption of any compliant foodstuff not covered by Article d in private residences, and
4. reaffirms the rights of members to impose a sensible minimum age for buying particular compliant foodstuffs, including those items which can seriously harm the health of those consuming it below that age, and to prevent the advertisement of those compliant foodstuffs to individuals below that age.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: See GAR#64. Member states are required to have domestic standards agencies.

Also, this is nutse. There is no resolution against adding, say, uranium to food. Under this proposal, you'd stop member states from prohibiting this until the WA got around to banning adding uranium to food. Bad.

[Tinhampton]

Good spot, Banana - Article a rectified to respect national food standards authorities.

[Bananaistan]

OOC. So stuff that member states say is not banned is not banned. What's the point?

Still opposed anyway. Controlling the sale of alcohol, for example, is inherently reasonable.

Needless micromanagement like just about every other proposal atm.

[Tinhampton]

OOC. So stuff that member states say is not banned is not banned. What's the point?

To stop member states from arbitrarily banning particular foodstuffs

Still opposed anyway. Controlling the sale of alcohol, for example, is inherently reasonable.

Article d allows "members to impose a sensible minimum age for buying... compliant foodstuffs... which can seriously harm the health of those consuming it below that age." (Most people would assume, rightly, that alcoholic drinks/products fall under this Article.)
GA#299.4 allows members "to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of ...use of drugs)."

Needless micromanagement like just about every other proposal atm.

I try my best not to

[Tinhampton]

Since GA#374 is currently standing in the way of my corporal punishment/employee rights proposal arc, I've decided to bring this one up for further comments

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood wanders in, holding what looks like a bottle of rum. She is sniffing it curiously as she carries it.

"Did you guys know there is some guy who converted a group of mailcarts into a pirate ship and is 'sailing' around the halls selling tobacco and alcohol?"

She pauses as she spots the proposal, then leans down and gives it a read. She frowns as she leans back up.

"By wording, this would require an end to ban of sales of alcohol in places of education and nearby them. This also is questionable in the first requirement, as fruit and ice cream and meat all by necessity have different safety regulations and, thus, different safety standards; you can't just find ice cream or steaks growing on a bush, or obtain lemons or ice cream by hunting down a deer.

"I think this has some good to it, but I believe you need to rework a and b in this."

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: This proposal aims to lift regulations on what kind of foodstuffs can be sold by people who wish to sell them, not regulations on where these people can sell those foodstuffs. Nor is the safety of a particular food contingent on where in nature it originated from.

[Trellania]

Anderson: This proposal aims to lift regulations on what kind of foodstuffs can be sold by people who wish to sell them, not regulations on where these people can sell those foodstuffs. Nor is the safety of a particular food contingent on where in nature it originated from.

"The 'political subdivisions' portion does get into where food can be sold. A region with a specific local government is a political subdivision, after all. Nor does removing that bit undo the fact it would still be preventing a nation from banning a school from selling alcohol if it sells meals as long as it does not sell alcohol to minors; after all, alcohol is a compliant drink.

"And, yes, the safety of a particular food is contingent on exactly that. Wild animals require entirely different regulations than domesticated animals simply because of the difference in lifestyles. Wild animals are exposed to diseases and parasites that domestic are not. And you can easily face the same with edible plants.

"Regulations need to reflect the reality of the food on all levels. That you are not taking that into consideration is frankly terrifying."

[Tinhampton]

RE alcohol in schools: I may amend Article b to clarify that its requirements only apply to "those who sell or provide food and drink to the general public."

RE differential food safety standards: The definition of a compliant foodstuff will almost certainly be changed in the near future but I'm too confused to change it right now =P

[Tinhampton]

New Article b(iii) added because Cadbury Dairy Milk is making people obese. Article e has also been fattened up to regulate the advertisement of alcohol etc.

I remain open to comments regarding who this Compact should apply to and what should count as a compliant foodstuff. In the meanwhile, I have amended Article a to require that compliant foodstuffs need only meet food safety standards "at the point of sale."

[Tinhampton]

Major changes: Articles a(ii) (for convenience purposes), b(v) (to prevent governmental discrimination based on food consumption habits) and e (which exhorts those selling products to children) added. Article b(iv) reformed to clarify that "the nature or identity of whoever sells, provides, produces or supplies" a given compliant foodstuff cannot be reason to ban the advertisement of that CF.

Prospective submission date is August 5th 2021, the first anniversary of the Mexican state of Oaxaca banning the sale of sugary food to children: BBC News; The Guardian.

[Bears Armed]

'b.iv.' would still allow restriction due to adverts making false claims about such matters, yes?

Shouldn't 'b.iv' also have an exemption for "unless applicable national legislation bans advertisement of any & all foodstuffs altogether"?

[Bananaistan]

"Still opposed. Controlling the sale of alcohol, for example, is not unreasonable."

[Tinhampton]

Changes not otherwise mentioned below:
Article a's definitions are now "for the purposes of this resolution."
Article a(i) amended to allow foodstuffs provided without charge to be considered compliant.
Article a(iii), which defines a "store" and therefore widens the scope of which businesses are protected from government requirements by this resolution, added.
Article a(iv), which defines "relevant criteria," added to save space.
Article b(i) amended to forbid governments from requiring, as well as forbidding, the provision of "any given CF" by stores (not "any CF;" that would have the effect of forbidding members from requiring that school canteens provide any food whatsoever).

'b.iv.' would still allow restriction due to adverts making false claims about such matters, yes?

Yes. I envisage that Article b(iv) will forbid restrictions on advertisements of CFs based on their actual nutritional content and who actually sells (etc.) them. Further clarification has been added, however.

Shouldn't 'b.iv' also have an exemption for "unless applicable national legislation bans advertisement of any & all foodstuffs altogether"?

Article e added. (Not Article f - the old Article c is now Article b(vi).)

"Still opposed. Controlling the sale of alcohol, for example, is not unreasonable."

Anderson (now elevated to Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador): Article d - which allows members "to impose a sensible minimum age for purchasing particular CFs" - has been present in its current form since debate on this draft commenced. Article b(iii), which otherwise forbids restrictions on the purchase of any compliant foodstuff, also contains a carveout which directly refers to Article d.

[Bananaistan]

"Age is not the issue - proper licencing of outlets selling alcohol is. The idea that every corner shop, hardware and fruit stall can sell alcohol at any time they like is insane. Proper control of advertising is also an issue. We've long since moved on in Bananaistan from the dark ages of the likes of sports competitions being sponsored by alcohol companies.

"Also, this prevents member states from shutting down the deli that has rats living in the food preparation area.

"In any case, this is all needless micromanagement - member states are far more capable of ensuring the safety of their citizens than the WA. This whole thing is a solution to a question nobody asked."

[WayNeacTia]

"More minutiae"

Wayne

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: While I accept that governments can - and, at least in Tinhampton, do - have an interest in alcohol licensing, how best to implement those principles into this proposal shall be left for future consideration. By "future," of course, I mean "much later than I thought;" please do not expect updates on this proposal in the coming weeks or months.

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: For the time being, I have decided to include a new Article e(i) which allows member states to require that stores acquire alcohol licences. Similarly, some of you may have noticed a new Article b(iv) regarding food deliveries and a somewhat more conciliatory preamble.

OOC horror story from Majorca hotel quarantine:

A student nurse says she'd rather be in prison than the Spanish quarantine hotel where she's been placed. Sophie Burdge, 22, from Barry, had been on holiday in Majorca but tested positive for Covid before her flight home. She said the lack of communication and service had left her "begging" for food and water. The hotel said water was available and meals were supplied by hospital catering...

Miss Burdge said she was not provided with any food [the day after being chucked into the hotel] until she decided to order some herself at about 13:00. "I ordered McDonald's and they didn't give it to me, they took it off me. Then I tried ordering again from a different company, and they didn't give me that either. "I was crying my eyes out because I was so hungry, I was starving," she said....

Hotel Palma Bellver said food was served by hospital catering, not the hotel, and that water was available to guests on request. In a statement, the hotel said: "The operation is sanitary (more similar to that of a hospital than to that of a hotel), and therefore the meals (four a day) are served by the hospital catering, supervised by hospital dietitians. The guests/patients are allowed to order meals outside, (as well as other basic supplies) but not processed food, as per the doctor's prescription. [...]"

[Tinfect]

a "store" as any entity in a member state which sells or provides any good or service, and
prohibits member states and their political subdivisions from:
requiring stores to offer or refrain from offering any given CF for sale or provision, except as provided in Article e(i); whether or not to offer any CF shall be the exclusive decision of each store,

"Wherein these entities are elements of a Member-State," said Feren, "Would this clause consider the Member-State entirely to be the 'store', or merely the specific body which handles such affairs; the Imperial Division of Civilian Agricultural Logistics, in this case. Production or health authorities may become aware of concerns prior to distribution authorities; it should be entirely within their power to issue emergency stops and warnings prior to, or simultaneous with, alerting distribution authorities. If we presume that only the distribution authority is the 'store', then this is impossible."

restricting the supply of any CF to stores in a manner not permitted by prior and standing international law,

"Is this to be understood as to prohibit Member-States from strictly allotting specific amounts of a limited item to distribution centers? Adequate access to nonessential goods throughout a Member-State remains important, whether or not there is particular demand in some areas. This clause seems to have very little purpose but to restrict the ability of Member-States to properly plan distribution; one would hope the intent of this legislation is not to cause harm or shortages."

restricting any deliveries of non-age-restricted CFs made by an individual who has ordered such CFs with the intention that they be consumed at any private residence where that individual is currently residing, including by permitting their confiscation,

"Another clause that is plainly lacking in consideration of its consequences. Matters of health, food safety, or security are unaccounted for; a citizen may demand delivery of food in the middle of, for example, an unrelated criminal incident. Internal Security would be unable to prevent the passage of transporters regardless of any other movement restrictions currently in-place. It should be obvious why such is concerning."

restricting or preventing the advertisement of any CF simply because of any of that CF's relevant criteria, subject to Article c (although members may still restrict or prevent advertisements that make demonstrably false claims about that CF's relevant criteria),

"Advertising is not within any field of genuine international concern."

[Tinhampton]

I bump this thread every now and then when a real government, in some real place, tries to regulate the consumer-facing food industry. This bump's unfortunate volunteers lead England and seem to believe that the soda refill machines at Nando's are making children fat.

RE Tinfect: A store is Walmart, not the Department for Agriculture. You make a good point about b(ii); my intention was to stop governments from ruling a particular proven-safe food off-limits to the entire population, rather than discouraging case-by-case restriction. Articles b(iv) and b(v) may be removed from later versions of this draft if they remain unpopular.

[Tinfect]

RE Tinfect: A store is Walmart, not the Department for Agriculture.

OOC, since you insist on it:
Then this legislation doesn't apply to State-run stores of any kind? Because is neither what your definition actually says, nor what I presume you actually mean.

To reuse the example posed in-character, the Imperial Division of Civilian Agricultural Logistics, runs the supermarkets. The question is, does the IDCAL itself count as the 'store', in your definition, or would that be the supermarkets themselves, or to go outside the bounds of the example, smaller, local organs of the central body? Which one has the authority to make decisions?

The second point from my post applies regardless of the answer, really. Government bodies involved in disease control or other public-health oriented organizations need the authority to issue an immediate stop to the sale/distribution of particular goods when necessary; the draft as-written prevents this entirely, and could create significant bureaucratic barriers to any emergency controls being put in place, endangering lives and public health. Say that a private store is selling, lettuce contaminated with Fictitious Disease A; the government food regulation body gets reports of this, and orders a stop to the sales of potentially contaminated lettuce. Under this legislation, as written, the food regulation authority has no ability to require this, and the private store is free to continue selling contaminated lettuce, because it is the 'store' and the sole arbiter of what may or may not be sold within its stores.

The matter of deliveries remains an issue; if people are holding up a bank, and they decide to order pizza, the pizza guy should not be allowed to breach the police barricade to deliver it. Nor should they be allowed to use their buddy in the pizza place to smuggle in extra ammo in an order of wings.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

What is this supposed to do? 'You cannot ban or regulate the trade of foodstuffs which are legal!" is how I'm reading this, which doesn't really seem to be necessary. Moreover, what does 'equally applicable to all food or all drink' mean? Does it mean that no food or drink should be able to pass it easier than others (which effectively bans most all food safety regulations) or that they must regulate all food or all drink with the exact same standards?

Edit: Alcohol also isn't the only foodstuff that should need licensing to sell...