[PASSED] Limiting Animal Pathogens

[Goobergunchia]

Limiting Animal Pathogens
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Agriculture | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the risks posed by zoonotic diseases to sapient wellbeing and the increasing risks of such dangers as the world becomes ever more connected,

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   In this resolution:
   
   1. the "WHA" is the World Health Authority;
   2. the "WAGF" is the World Assembly General Fund;
   3. a "zoonotic disease" is any disease which:
      
      1. is caused by a pathogen; and
      2. is capable of being transmitted from a nonsapient being to a sapient being; and
   4. "wet market" refers to any marketplace which:
      
      1. keeps and offers for sale to the general public live animals;
      2. keeps and offers for sale to the general public nonsapient animals to be killed at or immediately before or after sale; or
      3. is in the business of reselling wares described in paragraphs (i) and (ii).
2. Testing.
   
   1. Animals sold or intended for sale in any wet market shall be subject to random testing for any zoonotic disease which:
      
      1. has been determined by the WHA or local health authorities to pose a substantial danger to sapient wellbeing; and
      2. is capable of infecting and thereby harming sapient beings in the intended market.
   2. Animal carcasses intended to be sold in any wet market shall be subject to random testing for any zoonotic disease described in subsection (a).
   3. Any animal which tests positive under subsection (a) or (b) shall not be sold until such animal reliably tests negative for such disease. If a negative test does not result, the animal shall be disposed of in a manner provided by local health authorities.
   4. Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease described in subsection (a). If a person tests positive, then every other worker at that or other wet markets who may reasonably have been exposed to the same zoonotic diseases shall be tested for each zoonotic disease which the individual worker has tested positive for. Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.
   5. Testing under this section shall be carried out by local health authorities, except that if a governmental body responsible for such an authority certifies to the WHA that it does not have the capacity or training to carry out such testing, the WHA shall send Inspectors to carry out such testing. While so engaged, Inspectors shall be treated as members of a local health authority and shall enjoy international protection.
3. Animal marketing regulations.
   It is an unlawful business practice for a wet market or other marketplace which sells living or dead animals to:
   
   1. store an animal of one species in close physical proximity to animals of another species (or carcasses of such species) if such proximity is likely to result in the cross-species transmission of zoonotic diseases;
   2. store the carcasses of animals of one species in close physical proximity to the carcasses of animals of another species if such proximity is likely to result in the transmission of zoonotic diseases across carcasses;
   3. store the carcasses of animals intended for sale in a manner which is likely to result in the acquisition of zoonotic diseases, when there is a cost-efficient way of preventing such acquisition;
   4. furnish false information in response to any test ordered under this resolution, or impede such a test;
   5. retaliate against any person for reporting any violations of this resolution or any other applicable laws governing wet markets;
   6. falsely label any species of animal or animal carcass for the purpose of bolstering sales or evading inspections; or
   7. discriminate against any person on account of such person's decision to don personal protective equipment on the premises of such market.
4. Import and export.
   Each member nation shall:
   
   1. test every animal intended for import to or export from such nation for any zoonotic disease which:
      
      1. has been determined by the WHA or local health authorities to pose a substantial danger to sapient wellbeing; and
      2. is capable of infecting and thereby harming sapient beings in the area and population in which such animal is intended to be moved to;
   2. deny entry or exit to, treat, euthanize, or isolate, any animal which tests positive for any such disease until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease; and
   3. take measures to ensure the health of individuals engaged in the business of transporting animals internationally, including measures to monitor and prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases among such individuals
5. Funding.
   A mandate under this resolution shall be funded by the member nation in whose borders the mandate is done. However, upon verification of inability to fund such a mandate in full or in part, the WAGF shall cover such proportion of the costs as is necessary to ensure that the mandate is effectively carried out. In determining whether and to what extent to cover costs, the WAGF shall seek to ensure that this resolution is carried into effect as broadly and effectively as possible.

Ambassador MacGeorge enters the debating chamber, tailed by assistants, and begins circulating drafts of his new proposal among the attending delegates and leaving spare copies on desks of vacant delegates. "After the failure of Reducing Natural Disease Reservoirs," he says, "I have instructed the hamsters in the legislation office to provide a draft of a far saner proposal to limit the risks that animal-borne diseases pose to all sapient life. This is one of the more challenging problems we face, and if we are ever going to do it, it will be with the cooperation of the World Assembly."
OOC: I don't know if it is bad form to propose a draft while a prior proposal is in queue, but I've seen others do it, so I will go ahead and try it.

[Barfleur]

Limiting Animal Pathogens
Category: Health | Area of Effect: ? | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Aware of the numerous species of sapient and nonsapient beings alike in existence in the multiverse, not limited to the territory subject to the jurisdiction of this august body, and the various dangers posed to such species;

Considering the emergence of animal-borne diseases to be a major threat to the life and wellbeing of all living things, and to their populations as a whole,

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions. In this Resolution:
   
   1. the "WHA" is the World Health Authority;
   2. a "zoonotic disease" is any pathogen which is capable of being transmitted from a nonsapient being to a sapient being; and
   3. a "wet market" is any marketplace which:
      
      1. keeps and offers live nonsapient beings for sale to the general public;
      2. keeps and offers for sale to the general public nonsapient beings to be killed at or immediately before or after sale; or
      3. resells wares obtained as described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii).
2. Testing.
   
   1. Every animal sold or kept for sale at a wet market in a member nation shall be tested for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population, given the species of that animal as well as any additional factors relating to a particular animal. Any animal which tests positive for such a disease may not be sold or offered for sale until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.
   2. Every animal killed and intended to be sold for sapient consumption shall be tested post-mortem for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population, given the species of that animal as well as any additional factors relating to a particular animal. Any animal carcass which is so detected to carry a zoonotic disease of that kind shall be destroyed and not sold in any manner.
   3. Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease which such person may reasonably be expected to acquire and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient populations. If a person tests positive, then every other worker at that or other wet markets who may reasonably have been exposed to the same zoonotic diseases shall be tested for each zoonotic disease which the individual worker has tested positive for. Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.
   4. Each member nation shall determine who will administer the tests required by this section, provided such persons are qualified by training to do so, and such tests shall be provided and paid for by the WHA using money drawn from the General Fund.
   5. Member nations are encouraged to prosecute individuals who knowingly manufacture or provide false or defective tests under this section at least as harshly as individuals who knowingly traffic in other counterfeit products.
3. Regulation of wet markets. A wet market in a member nation:
   
   1. may not:
      
      1. store one species of animal in physical proximity to animals of a different species without a barrier in place capable of preventing the exchange of pathogens from one species of animals to another;
      2. retaliate against any person for reporting any violations of this Resolution or any other applicable laws governing wet markets; or
      3. falsify any information concerning the quality of its livestock for the purpose of encouraging sales; and
   2. must offer every worker and prospective customer of such wet market personal protective equipment which is capable of substantially limiting the ability of harmful zoonotic diseases to infect the person wearing such equipment, which equipment shall be provided and paid for by the WHA using money drawn from the general fund and which may be reusable.
4. Regulation of animal marketplaces generally. Any marketplace in a member nation which sells animals, whether living or dead, may not:
   
   1. store the carcasses of animals of one species in close physical proximity to carcasses of animals of a different species, unless a barrier is in place capable of preventing the exchange of zoonotic diseases and other pathogens between the species of carcasses;
   2. store the carcasses of animals in a manner of condition which is likely to cause or allow for the deterioration of such carcasses, or the exposure of the same to zoonotic diseases; or
   3. label or market animals, or carcasses of animals, of one species, as being of a different species.
5. Import and export. Each member nation shall:
   
   1. test any animal intended to be imported to exported from that nation for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population;
   2. deny entry or exit to, treat, or isolate, any animal which tests positive for any such disease until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease;
   3. take measures to ensure the health of individuals engaged in the business of transporting animals internationally, including measures to monitor and prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases among such individuals.
6. Further measures.
   
   1. The World Assembly may further legislate on standards for animal storage, sale, and testing, provided such legislation is consistent with this Resolution.
   2. Member nations are encouraged to enact legislation on the national level to further limit the spread of zoonotic diseases.

[Fachumonn]

Looks good after first glance, would have to read it over more.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Three questions off the top of my head:

Does 1ci include pet shops/horse breeders/farmers selling livestock for fattening?

What does 1ciii cover that 1ci and 1cii do not, and what is your intent behind including 1ciii and section 2?

How do you plan on implementing testing requirements in resource-poor nations? How will a remote subsistence farmer who sells their chickens in the local village access/store pathogen testing tools?

[Barfleur]

Three questions off the top of my head:

Does 1ci include pet shops/horse breeders/farmers selling livestock for fattening?

What does 1ciii cover that 1ci and 1cii do not, and what is your intent behind including 1ciii and section 2?

How do you plan on implementing testing requirements in resource-poor nations? How will a remote subsistence farmer who sells their chickens in the local village access/store pathogen testing tools?

OOC:
1. Clause 1(c)(i) includes all of those as long as the animals are being sold to the general public, as opposed to, say, a farmer selling livestock to a market, which then sells the animals wholesale. In that case, the market would be covered by 1(c)(i), but the farmer would not, and it would be the market which would be responsible for testing what it sells.
2. The purpose of clause 1(c)(iii) is to ensure that animals which almost always carry a zoonotic disease are presumed to carry one unless otherwise proven, and that animals for which there is no available way to test for zoonotic diseases are treated with suspicion. I may be inclined to amend that and clause 2 if there are better and more precise methods of doing so.
3. The testing requirement will be funded and supplied by the WHA, and it will be up to each nation to decide how it will be carried out. So a nation full of subsistence farmers would have a reason to choose a testing mandate which prioritizes outreach to remote farmers, etc.

[Xanthorrhoea]

1. Clause 1(c)(i) includes all of those as long as the animals are being sold to the general public, as opposed to, say, a farmer selling livestock to a market, which then sells the animals wholesale. In that case, the market would be covered by 1(c)(i), but the farmer would not, and it would be the market which would be responsible for testing what it sells.
2. The purpose of clause 1(c)(iii) is to ensure that animals which almost always carry a zoonotic disease are presumed to carry one unless otherwise proven, and that animals for which there is no available way to test for zoonotic diseases are treated with suspicion. I may be inclined to amend that and clause 2 if there are better and more precise methods of doing so.
3. The testing requirement will be funded and supplied by the WHA, and it will be up to each nation to decide how it will be carried out. So a nation full of subsistence farmers would have a reason to choose a testing mandate which prioritizes outreach to remote farmers, etc.

Thanks for the clarification re: 1ci. Wet market seems a slightly counter-intuitive phrase for things like pet shops, but I understand where you’re coming from.

Regarding 1ciii and section 2, I understand the idea, but I’m not sure if they have any mechanical effect on the resolution. Clauses 1ci and 1cii already cover all alive and dead animals being sold to the public, so 1ciii doesn’t do anything to expand or limit the definition. It’s a bit like saying that your resolution applies to all dogs, as well as all red dogs. Animals certified under section 2 are a strict subset of “all animals”, so 1ciii (and section 2) seem completely superfluous.

I’m not a great fan of demanding constant testing for all workers at wet markets. Animals are an enormous industry with hundreds of millions of employees. Regularly testing every one is a gigantic money sink. I’d be much more in favour of a combination of random and targeted testing regimes instead. That way the WA will remain solvent. I have similar views on animal import/export testing. Test are expensive, and animals are many.

[Barfleur]

1. Clause 1(c)(i) includes all of those as long as the animals are being sold to the general public, as opposed to, say, a farmer selling livestock to a market, which then sells the animals wholesale. In that case, the market would be covered by 1(c)(i), but the farmer would not, and it would be the market which would be responsible for testing what it sells.
2. The purpose of clause 1(c)(iii) is to ensure that animals which almost always carry a zoonotic disease are presumed to carry one unless otherwise proven, and that animals for which there is no available way to test for zoonotic diseases are treated with suspicion. I may be inclined to amend that and clause 2 if there are better and more precise methods of doing so.
3. The testing requirement will be funded and supplied by the WHA, and it will be up to each nation to decide how it will be carried out. So a nation full of subsistence farmers would have a reason to choose a testing mandate which prioritizes outreach to remote farmers, etc.

Thanks for the clarification re: 1ci. Wet market seems a slightly counter-intuitive phrase for things like pet shops, but I understand where you’re coming from.

Regarding 1ciii and section 2, I understand the idea, but I’m not sure if they have any mechanical effect on the resolution. Clauses 1ci and 1cii already cover all alive and dead animals being sold to the public, so 1ciii doesn’t do anything to expand or limit the definition. It’s a bit like saying that your resolution applies to all dogs, as well as all red dogs. Animals certified under section 2 are a strict subset of “all animals”, so 1ciii (and section 2) seem completely superfluous.

I’m not a great fan of demanding constant testing for all workers at wet markets. Animals are an enormous industry with hundreds of millions of employees. Regularly testing every one is a gigantic money sink. I’d be much more in favour of a combination of random and targeted testing regimes instead. That way the WA will remain solvent. I have similar views on animal import/export testing. Test are expensive, and animals are many.

OOC: as to your first point, I guess you can consider it like every pet shop is a wet market, but not every wet market is a pet shop. As to the certification of animals, I think you are right, and have removed those provisions. And as to the testing, I agree with you that random testing is far better than regular testing of workers; nevertheless, I do think that all animals trafficked for sale should be tested, to nip transmission in the bud by forbidding infected livestock and wildlife from entering the market in the first place.

[Vilverin]

IC: bork

---

OOC: Looks good on first readthrough, I would suggest a couple of things.

In terms of 2(a), an animal testing positive for a zoonosis at a wet market, I would personally argue the best thing to do is cull and condemn the carcass, I would even argue freeze the wholesale of any animal or carcass from the same stock. Public and animal health risk is likely too high to keep the animal at the market, or even consider selling regardless of health status. Also, testing every animal would be difficult, as some zoonoses may only be detectable post-mortem. Maybe having ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections of the animals and carcasses, inspectors that suspect issues with the animals or carcasses could intervene appropriately.

For 2(b), the only need for this would be if the zoonoses was also infectious. Not all zoonoses will be communicable. Plus, testing randomly will likely lead to false positives or negatives, and would not be efficient in actually preventing zoonoses making it to market. Proper hygiene standards at the market and preferentially pre-farm gate would be better to control the risk of zoonotic spread of disease. Having workers that do test positive for any disease not coming into a workplace full of animals meant for consumption however is always best practice!

For 2(c), I would maybe add a stipulation stating that those who are inspecting and testing be qualified for the role - WHA trained inspectors, vets, etc. Otherwise, it could be anyone, including the market employees, which may lead to improper testing techniques.

For 3(a), I would personally expand on this! The biggest cause of foodborne illness in meat products is improper storage and contamination. Are the carcasses being stored haphazardly, is there GIT contents spilling down the sides of the carcass, is the animal being sold with offal intact, etc.

I would also maybe think about what animals are being authorised to be sold at wet markets. Are these domestic livestock, wild animals, game? Where are the animals coming from? Do we know the transport history of these animals, how traceable are they? Things like that!

This is just a rough bunch of ideas and stuff and I've probably missed some things out, so sorry if it seems like a big jumbly ramble! But overall, it looks like a really cool proposal, and I'm always stoked to see animal health proposals in the GA! (mostly cos it gives me an excuse to post here lol)

[Barfleur]

OOC: I have taken most of Vilverin's advice, for which I thank them sincerely. Is there any other feedback?

[Barfleur]

OOC: Bump.

[Araraukar]

OOC post because I'm too much in a hurry to do IC. (EDIT: If you don't chop this into pieces to reply, for the sake of all that's holy, spoiler the quote!!!)

Limiting Animal Pathogens

Reading this made me go "didn't you try this already?" before the text clued me in on you actually doing some limiting of scope this time, so maybe change the title to something more in tune with the contents? Like "Limiting Zoonosis Occurrence in Trade" or something similar?

Category: Health | Area of Effect: ?

The applicability of this remains to be seen. Could well be Environmental: Agriculture as well. Depends very much on wording, but you should try to pick a category and write to the category, not the other way round.

Aware of the numerous species of sapient and nonsapient beings alike in existence in the multiverse, not limited to the territory subject to the jurisdiction of this august body, and the various dangers posed to such species;

Considering the emergence of animal-borne diseases to be a major threat to the life and wellbeing of all living things, and to their populations as a whole,

These have nothing to do with anything, and look more applicable to what you were trying to do before, rather than this attempt. Also, semicolon or comma, pick one and stick to it.

Definitions.

Personally I see no point to these headers. If you're defining something, then define it with active clauses.

In this Resolution:

Random capitalization of Word. You're not writing in German where Nouns are capitalized. Also, rather than "is" in the following, you should have "refers to", for more professional language. Which could be avoided simply by using "Defines for this resolution" as the main clause and then replacing "is" with "as" in the subclauses.

the "WHA" is the World Health Authority;

Given that you never use "WHA" without also "the", you might as well include it inside the quotes.

a "zoonotic disease" is any pathogen which is capable of being transmitted from a nonsapient being to a sapient being; and

"...which can be transmitted from animals to people" would narrow the scope to what you presumably intend this to be, and also simplify the language. Though, does this also apply to universally applicable things that also exist on humans (many skin and gut bacteria species are shared in animals and humans, just not the particular strains of them).

a "wet market" is any marketplace which:

So if it does only one of those things or does something more than those things, it doesn't count as a wet market? "Which does any or all of the following" would make it an and/or list, which is more inclusive. Depending on the grammar hawks' opinion, it might even be just "any of the following".

keeps and offers live nonsapient beings for sale to the general public;

So that's anything that sells any non-cooked produce. Including plants and fungi. Hence suggestions earlier to change language from "nonsapient" to "animal". Although it'd still apply to pet stores and bait stores selling live bait.

keeps and offers for sale to the general public nonsapient beings to be killed at or immediately before or after sale; or

Isn't that one or same in terms of zoonoses? You could compress this and the above to use "offers live animals for sale to the general public, whether the animal is meant to be killed and processed when being sold or not". At least I can't think of any feasibility of the animal being killed right after it's been sold but rather if the killing of the animal is part of what the buyer expects to happen (so as not needing to do it themselves), then it is a service that is part of the sale of the animal. Would also still apply to pet stores that sell, say, live crickets that you mean to feed to your insectivorous or omnivorous pet right after sale.

resells wares obtained as described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii).

So every single instance that sells anything derived from animals, including grocery stores (even if the point was raw meat, that still applies), some restaurants (think live lobsters being killed in a restaurant for properly fresh food), and, if processing is not excluded, food vendors and anyone selling any leather or wool or silk products. Oh and eggs. Which are usually alive until cooked. Same thing for plants and fungi.

Testing.

Same thing about these headers as above. You could have the main clause as "Every animal sold or kept blah blah blah shall be tested" so the subclauses could avoid repetition. The "every animal sold or kept" makes no difference for whether it's being/been killed.

Every animal sold or kept for sale at a wet market in a member nation shall be tested for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population, given the species of that animal as well as any additional factors relating to a particular animal. Any animal which tests positive for such a disease may not be sold or offered for sale until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.

As others have already pointed out, this is unfeasible or even impossible. How are you going to test every egg? Or every clam, crab, sardine or shrimp pulled out of the sea? Not to mention crickets and maggots and other things like them. And before you protest eggs being just a collection of cells uncapable of turning into a chick, fertilized eggs are still sold by smallscale and subsistence farmers. Also I'm fairly sure the eggs meant for balut count.

Perhaps require randomized testing, and also more intensive testing for vendors of whom any health complaints have been made to the authorities.

Every animal killed and intended to be sold for sapient consumption shall be tested post-mortem for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population, given the species of that animal as well as any additional factors relating to a particular animal. Any animal carcass which is so detected to carry a zoonotic disease of that kind shall be destroyed and not sold in any manner.

Same unfeasibility here for every single thing. The bit about "given the species of that animal blah blah" is also unnecessary, given the previous wording of "may reasonably be expected to carry".

Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease which such person may reasonably be expected to acquire and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient populations. If a person tests positive, then every other worker at that or other wet markets who may reasonably have been exposed to the same zoonotic diseases shall be tested for each zoonotic disease which the individual worker has tested positive for. Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.

...so, none, if common sense of hygiene is expected of such workers? Also, what about diseases you can get from animals but not other people? Like diseases caused by many parasites? Even if a mosquito transmits malaria between two people, you still get the parasite from the mosquito, not the other person. I get that we live in COVID19 world, but your wording applies to malaria as well as any virus.

Each member nation shall determine who will administer the tests required by this section, provided such persons are qualified by training to do so, and such tests shall be provided and paid for by the WHA using money drawn from the General Fund.

And the General Fund acquires its money from ALL the WA nations, including ones that don't have wet markets of any kind (unless you really want to include plants and fungi in the definition and unless fresh clams sold in supermarkets count). Maybe just allow the nations to apply for WHA funding, if provenly unable to?

Member nations are encouraged to prosecute individuals who knowingly manufacture or provide false or defective tests under this section at least as harshly as individuals who knowingly traffic in other counterfeit products.

...this is a random unrelated jump to something that needs much more thorough legislation and should not be included in this one. Also, as an example, COVID19 home tests give almost 50% false negatives (their positives are almost 100% correct, though), so would they count as "defective", if you get the same result from tossing a coin?

Regulation of wet markets.

Unnecessary once more.

store one species of animal in physical proximity to animals of a different species without a barrier in place capable of preventing the exchange of pathogens from one species of animals to another;

Define "barrier". Not in proposal text, define it to me in your answer. Because I'm fairly sure you don't mean having each animal species in Level 4 biosafety lab kind of conditions.

retaliate against any person for reporting any violations of this Resolution or any other applicable laws governing wet markets; or

Again, random capitalization of Word. And why should this only apply to the wet markets? Wouldn't it make more sense to be a general clause of no instance, including the state, from being able to retaliate against whistle-blowers?

falsify any information concerning the quality of its livestock for the purpose of encouraging sales; and

The wet market doesn't usually own the livestock (also, "livestock" usually doesn't refer to wild animals being sold at such places) and it's usually the animal sellers who do such falsifying. The system keeping the wet market in operation usually gets paid by the vendors for a spot in said market and so couldn't give a shit about whether the animals get sold as long as the vendors keep wanting to come back. In that way it could be argued the wet market doesn't want the animals to be sold to force vendors to come back to try to sell them another day.

must offer every worker and prospective customer of such wet market personal protective equipment which is capable of substantially limiting the ability of harmful zoonotic diseases to infect the person wearing such equipment, which equipment shall be provided and paid for by the WHA using money drawn from the general fund and which may be reusable.

What the actual fuck? The GF is not a bottomless pit of money, and why should the wet market provide any such protective stuff, given the existing resolution about work safety (unless it was repealed when I wasn't around) that requires the employers to provide safey gear to their employees. Also, seriously, forcing market-goers to wear protective equipment???? Do you ever think these things through as how they might apply to you if you visited such place? Even if you didn't buy anything?

Regulation of animal marketplaces generally.

Again, unnecessary.

Any marketplace in a member nation which sells animals, whether living or dead, may not:

Again, grocery stores.

store the carcasses of animals of one species in close physical proximity to carcasses of animals of a different species, unless a barrier is in place capable of preventing the exchange of zoonotic diseases and other pathogens between the species of carcasses;

...apply this to a grocery store's fresh fish display counter and have a re-think?

store the carcasses of animals in a manner of condition which is likely to cause or allow for the deterioration of such carcasses, or the exposure of the same to zoonotic diseases; or

So, no way in any universe that has any kind of entropy. Also, what is "exposure of the same"? Storage spaces are rarely capable of contracting diseases.

label or market animals, or carcasses of animals, of one species, as being of a different species.

Do you know the difficulty of telling clam species from one another? It took genetic testing by RL biologists to figure such out, because many are either indistinguishable from one another, or the population variance within a species is so great that they were thought to be different species based on morphology? This will likely fit also grubs and maggots (not synonyms!) and some other arthropods, whether aquatic or not. And why should this apply to the marketplace (which likely does none of the things in this entire clause, unless it's specifically applied to grocery stores) instead of the people selling the animals? Apply it to the right people and make it "knowingly". Because if you buy an animal carcass that's been butchered and skinned and such, from a producer, and sell it forward, it's often very hard to know what animal it came from. Much of game meat does not actually come from the species it's claimed to be, but the final vendor may or may not be aware of it.

Import and export.

You know this by now.

test any animal intended to be imported to exported from that nation for any zoonotic disease which such animal may reasonably be expected to carry and which the WHA has deemed to be hazardous to the wellbeing of sapient population;

So why should Araraukarians (human population) test for a disease that in some other universe may be hazardous to sapient mantis people, if they're not selling the animals to the mantis people and in fact have nothing to do with said mantis people's universe?

deny entry or exit to, treat, or isolate, any animal which tests positive for any such disease until such animal tests negative for the same zoonotic disease;

Throughout this thing, you should be talking of pathogens, not diseases. If the animal is not sick, it does not have a disease, though it may still well be the carrier or vector for a disease-causing organism or virus. You even have pathogen in your proposal name, but keep talking of diseases. Which reminds me, your zoonotic disease definition makes no sense because of this same issue. And even if you argue that the definition makes them mean the same thing, then you using "pathogen" in two clauses makes no sense.

take measures to ensure the health of individuals engaged in the business of transporting animals internationally, including measures to monitor and prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases among such individuals.

...monitor the spread of diseases that you are required to prevent from happening? How does that work? Also "in the business of" is unnecessary. And how do you "ensure the health" of people, if their health is bad due to other factors, like, say, untreated diabetes (that they can refuse to treat as it's not communicable) or any untreatable chronic condition? And why exactly does this matter at all, if the people are not capable of transmitting the pathogen to other people or to the animals under their care? It would make more sense to require "hygienic standards of suitable efficacy to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases" or similar wording.

Further measures.

You're aware. Stop it.

The World Assembly may further legislate on standards for animal storage, sale, and testing, provided such legislation is consistent with this Resolution.

Capitalization of Word. The "provided such legislation blah blah" is unnecessary given the inclusion of "further" and the actual proposal rule against contradiction.

Member nations are encouraged to enact legislation on the national level to further limit the spread of zoonotic diseases.

Don't you mean "further legislation"? Since the resolution applies on the national level and nations are required to enact it.

As written, I don't really see this to do enough for any AoE in Health, to apply to it, given AoEs in that category should have minimum effect of Significant (unless that rule was changed when I wasn't looking). If you applied the preventions of spread of zoonotic pathogens to wildlife and not just people (you need to rewrite some clauses to fit), you could put it in Environmental, either Agriculture or All Businesses: Mild.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Re Araraukar: Wow, you obviously spent some time on all that. Thank you. I have taken most of your feedback (though I've kept the title) and, for the most part, made this proposal more feasible. See specifically the presumption of national funding.

EDIT: I have decided to restore the bold section headings, mostly because they help the eyes by breaking up the otherwise solid wall of letters.

[Barfleur]

A lonely intern, dark bags under his eyes from a sleepless night spent in the office, wanders into the chamber. She blows a kazoo, presses a button on her tablet, and watches in slight satisfaction as a blue notice pops up on the television screens: BUMP

With that, the proposal is recirculated to the attending delegations, and the intern stumbles out.

[Barfleur]

"Depending on the schedules of my own delegation and of the voting chamber, I intend to submit this proposal in the next week. We have also made minor edits to the proposal, with a view to ensuring that negative tests are reliable and that mandates are carried out in as many places as possible."

OOC: Consider that a bump and a last call notice.

[Zyvetskistaahn]

e. Testing under this section shall be carried out by local health authorities, except that if a governmental body responsible for such an authority certifies to the WHA that it does not have the capacity or training to carry out such testing, the WHA shall send Inspectors to carry out such testing. While so engaged (and while traveling to and from such duties), Inspectors shall be treated as members of a local health authority and shall enjoy diplomatic immunity.

I may add some further feedback but I have a query about the bold part above for now. Is there a particular reason to afford WHA inspectors diplomatic immunity, which would include at least the protections given by GA #22 (including immunity from criminal prosecution and search and seizure more generally) and in some nations could go further to include immunity from civil suit? I am not au fait with all resolutions, so it may be this is done for some other committees but I can’t recall seeing it before and a perusal of some other resolutions setting up committees don’t seem to include such a provision. I think it also is perhaps a little inconsistent to say they are treated as members of the local health authority and enjoy diplomatic immunity; to take the issue of civil suit, in some nations the local health authority and its agents may be amenable to judicial review whereas diplomatic immunity could bar that for WHA inspectors under this proposal.

[Barfleur]

e. Testing under this section shall be carried out by local health authorities, except that if a governmental body responsible for such an authority certifies to the WHA that it does not have the capacity or training to carry out such testing, the WHA shall send Inspectors to carry out such testing. While so engaged (and while traveling to and from such duties), Inspectors shall be treated as members of a local health authority and shall enjoy diplomatic immunity.

I may add some further feedback but I have a query about the bold part above for now. Is there a particular reason to afford WHA inspectors diplomatic immunity, which would include at least the protections given by GA #22 (including immunity from criminal prosecution and search and seizure more generally) and in some nations could go further to include immunity from civil suit? I am not au fait with all resolutions, so it may be this is done for some other committees but I can’t recall seeing it before and a perusal of some other resolutions setting up committees don’t seem to include such a provision. I think it also is perhaps a little inconsistent to say they are treated as members of the local health authority and enjoy diplomatic immunity; to take the issue of civil suit, in some nations the local health authority and its agents may be amenable to judicial review whereas diplomatic immunity could bar that for WHA inspectors under this proposal.

OOC: You raise a good point, and I have accordingly revised that clause to provide Inspectors only with international protection, not a near-absolute immunity from suit.

[Barfleur]

"This proposal has been sent to the floor."

[Fachumonn]

This proposal has been approved.

[Barfleur]

This proposal has been approved.

"We greatly appreciate the approval, and congratulate the Fachumonn delegation on its alacrity."

OOC: Wow that was fast!

[Gemeinschaftsland]

There's a significant oversight here in clause 2d.

Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease described in subsection (a). If a person tests positive, then every other worker at that or other wet markets who may reasonably have been exposed to the same zoonotic diseases shall be tested for each zoonotic disease which the individual worker has tested positive for. Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.

Under this provision, a worker who were to contract any of a number of incurable zoonotic diseases, even if they can be treated to a point of safety and nontransmissibility, would be permanently barred from working in wet markets, as they would almost certainly be unable to reliably test negative for the illness.

[Barfleur]

There's a significant oversight here in clause 2d.

Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease described in subsection (a). If a person tests positive, then every other worker at that or other wet markets who may reasonably have been exposed to the same zoonotic diseases shall be tested for each zoonotic disease which the individual worker has tested positive for. Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease.

Under this provision, a worker who were to contract any of a number of incurable zoonotic diseases, even if they can be treated to a point of safety and nontransmissibility, would be permanently barred from working in wet markets, as they would almost certainly be unable to reliably test negative for the illness.

OOC: The qualifier "described in subsection (a)" means that this only applies to zoonotic diseases which are capable of "infecting and thereby harming sapient beings." For that reason, clause 2(d) would serve an important purpose, namely, preventing further spread of such a dangerous disease. If they are treated to the point of nontransmissibility, then it would not be "capable of infecting and thereby harming" anyone.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

There's a significant oversight here in clause 2d.

Under this provision, a worker who were to contract any of a number of incurable zoonotic diseases, even if they can be treated to a point of safety and nontransmissibility, would be permanently barred from working in wet markets, as they would almost certainly be unable to reliably test negative for the illness.

OOC: The qualifier "described in subsection (a)" means that this only applies to zoonotic diseases which are capable of "infecting and thereby harming sapient beings." For that reason, clause 2(d) would serve an important purpose, namely, preventing further spread of such a dangerous disease. If they are treated to the point of nontransmissibility, then it would not be "capable of infecting and thereby harming" anyone.

No. The actual wording of the clause does not support that interpretation. Clause 2d. does defer to clause 2a. in "Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease described in subsection (a).". However, this explicitly refers to the disease, not the individual case. One example would be the Toxoplasma gondii parasite, which is responsible for Toxoplasmosis. The disease is zoonotic, the most common forms of transmission being exposure to the fecal matter and consumption of the undercooked meat of an infected animal. It can pose a substantial threat to well-being, approximately one in one thousand deaths being attributed to the disease, and through improper sanitation or contact with blood, can continue to spread in a wet market. Chronic toxoplasmosis can be treated, and the vast majority of cases are latent, but the parasite remains within the host's body, and can result in continued positive testing over the duration of the infected organism's lifespan. Under clause 2d., once a person tests positive for a disease that initially meets the requirements set in clause 2a., toxoplasmosis included, they are barred from working in wet markets "until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease." There is no condition present at that point, and thus this very much remains an issue.

Additionally, there's been another issue with this clause brought to my attention in the time following my original post. There are very many diseases, many of which are zoonotic and comply with the conditions laid out in clause 2a,. that may be treated and cured, but for which there only exist antibody or genetic material tests which may continue to give positive results weeks, months, or years after the infection has been eliminated.

Both of these could very easily be fixed by changing the final sentence of Clause 2d. to "Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease, or once the illness has been treated to a point of safety and nontransmissibility.", but as it stands, we cannot support this proposal.

[Barometria]

The Socialist Commonwealths of Barometria have lodged a vote AGAINST as Barometria opposes clause 4a.

The basis of Barometria’s vote is that 4a results in inefficiency as Barometria sees no reason for importers and exporters (as Barometria understands the legislation) to conduct double-testing on the same subject. It is Barometria’s opinion that the language should have made clear whether testing is the responsibility of the exporting nation or importing nation.

By public vote of 62%-38%, the voters of Barometria have spoken and are AGAINST.

Respectfully,
Olaf Rheinhart-Chairman
Ministry of International Communications and Tourism

[Fachumonn]

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation has voted FOR this resolution.

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

BCP opposes this resolution due to the extremely species-ist and abelist nature of the proposition to help the homo sapiens species or "species which are wise" and not any other types of organisms which may be employed in this line of work. Who is the governing body which determines what species are smart enough to gain the so called benefits of this proposition, or is it simply arrogance that it only applies to homo sapiens?

Many nations are driven by non-homo sapiens species which requires acknowledgement by the author, BCP implores you to vote AGAINST this issue.