[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling

[Tinhampton]

Proposal being challenged: "Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling," by Simone Republic. Regulation/ConsumerProtection

Proposal text: may be found by opening the below spoiler.

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the frequent trade in pre-packaged food products between WA states;

Believing that consumers would be better informed to make decisions on their own well-being if labels on products from different WA states are reasonably standardized to ease comparison, and contain pertinent information for the consumer;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Authority" means one or more government entities (depending on the governance structure of that state) designated by a WA state to be in charge of formulating, enforcing and interpreting the regulations.
   2. "Food" means anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption by a sapient species.
   3. "Regulations" means all standards and requirements for templates and labelling for products according to clauses (2) to (4).
   4. "Product" means any pre-packaged food.
2. Templates.
   
   1. Each authority is to set forth templates for labels set out in clause 3.
   2. All labels are to be tailored for the sapient inhabitants of that WA state.
   3. Additional regulations shall be set if tailored standards are needed for inhabitants in different stages of their life cycle, such as infants, or if a WA state is inhabited by multiple sapient species.
   4. All products imported into, distributed in, or sold in a WA state (say "state A") must carry labels set out in clause 3, providing an accurate profile of the contents of that particular product, using the templates developed by state A's authority for state A.
3. Types of labels.
   
   1. Additives labels must include all pertinent information on any additives deliberately added to the product, such as for technology, sensory, production, or other reasons.
   2. Allergies labels must include all pertinent information on any ingredients that the authority deems likely to trigger adverse food reactions for the targeted consumers, such as milk and nuts, and whether the facilities that make that product also process ingredients that may trigger such reactions.
   3. Cannibalism labels must warn targeted consumers if the product involves cannibalism, such as products targeted for humans that include human placenta.
   4. Ingredients labels must include all pertinent information on the main ingredients of that product.
   5. Nutrient labels must provide pertinent analysis of the nutrition of the product tailored for the targeted consumer, such as energy values, proteins, vitamins, and minerals.
   6. Technology labels must include all pertinent information on the technologies used in making the product, such as irradiation, dry salting, or reconstitution.
   7. Warning labels must include all pertinent information on any ingredients that the authority deems to be harmful to the targeted consumer, such as products containing cannabis.
4. Display of labels.
   
   1. All labels must be prominently displayed on (or affixed to) the packaging of the product, and in languages customarily used by that WA state (or its sub-national divisions, as appropriate).
   2. All labels must use the customary measurement units of that WA state.
5. Compliance.
   
   1. Each authority is responsible for enforcement of the regulations, including ensuring that the labels are not materially false or grossly deceptive through such means, such as random tests and verification from time to time, as it deems necessary.
   2. For example, if a WA state (say “state A”) produces and distributes its own products, or imports its products from another state (say "state B"), state A’s authority is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations of state A, rather than state B.
   3. Each authority may require products made, distributed, or sold in that WA state carry such additional labels as it deems necessary.
   4. The manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of products are jointly and severally liable on ensuring that all products sold or distributed in a WA state are in compliance with the regulations.
6. Database. Each WA state is to:
   
   1. collate all templates for all labels issued by the authorities in that state in an up-to-date database, including any imports from other states;
   2. ensure that the database is accessible free of charge through convenient electronic and physical means, and available in all commonly used languages of that state.

Argument: The challenged proposal states that "All labels must use the customary measurement units of that WA state." However, Article 3 of GA#88 "ENABLES member nations with the freedom to determine if they shall prohibit their private enterprises or any non-plenipotentiary citizens of their nation from using any units of measurement or variations of numeration or mathematical notation."

"All labels" includes labels which private food packagers - restaurants, supermarkets, wholesalers, and purveyors of cottage foods - affix onto their foods. If such labels use units forbidden under GA#88, it is a violation of WA law, regardless of what this proposal says. Arguably managers of state-run food packagers may also face responsibility if they allow or authorise the food they package to be labelled with forbidden units.

GA#88's blocker is a broad provision allowing member states to forbid the use of any units in any context for any combination of reasons. This includes the use of units on food labels. A member state can ban the use of some units in some contexts while allowing or requiring them in others: it can require fuel to be measured in gallons by petrol stations, allow servings of beer to be measured either in pints or millilitres by pubs and bars, and require that bottles of olive oil be measured in litres.

Suppose that a certain family of non-IMI units, such as imperial units, are colloquially used by the general public in a member state to describe measurements. Those units are "the customary measurement units." That member is still well within its right under GA#88 to require that all measurements on food labels be indicated with IMI units instead of those units, such as for the purpose of international standardisation or to improve consumer understanding.

Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling would require that member to ensure that these non-IMI units are used in product packaging, even though GA#88 forbids the WA from making such decisions on behalf of member states. Under the status quo, a member state can require that a particular food be labelled as containing 5,000 kilojoules, while banning it from being labelled as containing 1,200 calories, even if the general public overwhelmingly prefers to say in conversation that this food contains 1,200kcal of energy rather than 5,000kJ. If this proposal passes, it would have no choice but to label that food as containing 1,200kcal of energy, irregardless of its wishes and powers.

Since Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling requires pre-packaged foods sold in member states to bear labels featuring "the customary measurement units of that WA state," while member states are allowed under prior and standing law to forbid the use of any units whatsoever (including "customary measurement units") on food packaging, Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling CONTRADICTS GA#88.

[The Ice States]

Could you justify how the blocker in #88 prohibits any restriction on unit use even in a specific context? I'm not convinced that requiring a unit in a specific context is, in a general sense, prohibiting enterprises from using some unit, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise; the blocker seems as if it would only ban eg "No entity in a member nation may use imperial units".

[Wallenburg]

It would seem that GAR #88 § 3 would indeed prohibit any degree of specificity in terms of unit conventions.

[The Overmind]

To piggyback on what The Ice States said, any entity that this proposal forces to "use the customary measurement units of [their] WA state" is not prohibited from also including other measurement units alongside it. A plain English reading of the proposal text does not seem to imply a prohibition on the use of any particular measurement units, the power to do so remaining the purview of the member nation, as stipulated in GA#88.

[The Ice States]

To piggyback on what The Ice States said, any entity that this proposal forces to "use the customary measurement units of [their] WA state" is not prohibited from also including other measurement units alongside it. A plain English reading of the proposal text does not seem to imply a prohibition on the use of any particular measurement units, the power to do so remaining the purview of the member nation, as stipulated in GA#88.

I had not considered this before, but this is indeed a strong argument.

[Simone Republic]

I don't see an international trade angle because clause 5b specified that state A is responsible for templates for food within state A, even if the products are produced in state B.

Also with reference to 2024 [GAS] 2 with regards to IA's comment on blockers and the point from Heavens Reach above. Note that it is the national authority that determines whether customary units would include or in parallel more that one set of units so it can include both (say IRL) American units and metric units. The template design is up to each national authority per clause 1a.

Please note that as usual I will pull this if no decision is made by Gensec prior to this going to vote to avoid a discard.

[Tinhampton]

I'm not convinced that requiring a unit in a specific context is, in a general sense, prohibiting enterprises from using some unit

GA#88 says that members can decide whether their citizens are "prohibit[ed]... from using any units of measurement," and if so which units.

Suppose that X is the customary measurement unit for something.

Under GA#88, member states can forbid X from being used on food labels for the relevant purpose. If they do so, they can specify some other unit Y.

PPFL would require member states to provide for the use of X on food labels. Even if they have used their prerogative under GA#88 to say that only Y can be used for these purposes, to the exclusion of X and all other units.

Therefore, PPFL contradicts GA#88, to the extent that it requires a member state to do something (allow X to be used on food labels) which it bans under GA#88.

To piggyback on what The Ice States said, any entity that this proposal forces to "use the customary measurement units of [their] WA state" is not prohibited from also including other measurement units alongside it. A plain English reading of the proposal text does not seem to imply a prohibition on the use of any particular measurement units, the power to do so remaining the purview of the member nation, as stipulated in GA#88.

GA#88 is an explicit blocker: the power to say that any unit is forbidden lies purely with the individual member states. (The provision says that the use of the affected units may be forbidden among citizens of "their nation." This makes it an individual rather than a group blocker, or at least plausibly readable as such. Article 1 of GA#88 would similarly "forbid" a WA resolution saying "every nation must adopt the decimal system as their official numeric system.")

Therefore, member states are allowed under GA#88 to forbid the use of customary measurement units on food labels. PPFL would require them to use those units on food labels.

If Resolution 1 says "You are allowed to ban Z in context ABC," and Resolution 2 says "You must allow Z in context ABC," then is Resolution 2 contradictory of Resolution 1?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I concur with Wallenburg.

[The Ice States]

Devil's advocate: if some unit of measurement is illegal for enterprise to use, would it really be "the customary measurement units of that WA state"?

[The Overmind]

To piggyback on what The Ice States said, any entity that this proposal forces to "use the customary measurement units of [their] WA state" is not prohibited from also including other measurement units alongside it. A plain English reading of the proposal text does not seem to imply a prohibition on the use of any particular measurement units, the power to do so remaining the purview of the member nation, as stipulated in GA#88.

GA#88 is an explicit blocker: the power to say that any unit is forbidden lies purely with the individual member states. (The provision says that the use of the affected units may be forbidden among citizens of "their nation." This makes it an individual rather than a group blocker, or at least plausibly readable as such. Article 1 of GA#88 would similarly "forbid" a WA resolution saying "every nation must adopt the decimal system as their official numeric system.")

Therefore, member states are allowed under GA#88 to forbid the use of customary measurement units on food labels. PPFL would require them to use those units on food labels.

If Resolution 1 says "You are allowed to ban Z in context ABC," and Resolution 2 says "You must allow Z in context ABC," then is Resolution 2 contradictory of Resolution 1?

Having the reserved right to prohibit certain measruement units only reserves to you the sole ability to do so. In other words, no one else can prohibit them. That does not mean that no international law can be written that would limit the scope of those prohibitions.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

On first reading, I also concur with Wallenburg.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Devil's advocate: if some unit of measurement is illegal for enterprise to use, would it really be "the customary measurement units of that WA state"?

It can be. See metrification.

[Tinhampton]

GA#88 is an explicit blocker: the power to say that any unit is forbidden lies purely with the individual member states. (The provision says that the use of the affected units may be forbidden among citizens of "their nation." This makes it an individual rather than a group blocker, or at least plausibly readable as such. Article 1 of GA#88 would similarly "forbid" a WA resolution saying "every nation must adopt the decimal system as their official numeric system.")

Therefore, member states are allowed under GA#88 to forbid the use of customary measurement units on food labels. PPFL would require them to use those units on food labels.

If Resolution 1 says "You are allowed to ban Z in context ABC," and Resolution 2 says "You must allow Z in context ABC," then is Resolution 2 contradictory of Resolution 1?

Having the reserved right to prohibit certain measruement units only reserves to you the sole ability to do so. In other words, no one else can prohibit them. That does not mean that no international law can be written that would limit the scope of those prohibitions.

GA#88 reserves to the member state the right to ban the use of certain units. If this right is exercised: those units cannot be used, in the circumstances in which they are banned, unless the member state reverses its decision. Those units also cannot be imposed by the WA in those circumstances. To do so would overturn, by WA fiat and without a repeal, a decision that a prior and standing resolution has explicitly authorised that member state to take. It is thus contradiction.

GA#451 reserves to the member state the right to govern its space program as it sees fit. If this right is exercised to require certain levels of training for astronauts, say, then the WA cannot just step in to ban astronaut training programs or require a stronger training course than what exists. The same principle should apply here.

GA#43 reserves to the member state whether to ban striking among police officers (etc). If it allows police strikes, the WA cannot ban them in every member nation without running into a Contradiction issue - again.

[The Overmind]

Having the reserved right to prohibit certain measruement units only reserves to you the sole ability to do so. In other words, no one else can prohibit them. That does not mean that no international law can be written that would limit the scope of those prohibitions.

GA#88 reserves to the member state the right to ban the use of certain units. If this right is exercised: those units cannot be used, in the circumstances in which they are banned, unless the member state reverses its decision. Those units also cannot be imposed by the WA in those circumstances. To do so would overturn, by WA fiat and without a repeal, a decision that a prior and standing resolution has explicitly authorised that member state to take. It is thus contradiction.

GA#451 reserves to the member state the right to govern its space program as it sees fit. If this right is exercised to require certain levels of training for astronauts, say, then the WA cannot just step in to ban astronaut training programs or require a stronger training course than what exists. The same principle should apply here.

I think there is a strong difference between "if" and "how" in this context. By stipulating that member nations may determine "if" they establish a prohibition, it is not necessarily implied that they have carte blanche to do so "however" they want.

[Simone Republic]

I am going to axe the proposal and resubmit.

[Fachumonn]

This has been ruled illegal by 3 GenSec members in the last 2 hours.

[Wallenburg]

This challenge alleges that "Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling", by requiring the use of "customary measurement units" in food packaging labels, contradicts GAR #88 "WA Numeration and Units Act" § 3, which "ENABLES member nations [to]...prohibit their private enterprises or any non-plenipotentiary citizens of their nation from using any units of measurement". Such a contradiction requires that member states might choose to prohibit the use of customary measurement units. On first glance, this might appear impossible. However, the customary nature of a set of units does not actually speak to their legality under a member state's jurisdiction. For instance, an authoritarian member state seeking to redefine or standardize units across its territory might suppress units customarily used within select subcultures or disciplines. GAR #88 defends exactly that kind of domestic policy. Its effects go further: GAR #88 § 3 allows member states to restrict the use of § 1 "official units", despite their apparent state endorsement. Without any conditions on its blocker effect, GAR #88 § 3 must prevent any future World Assembly legislation from setting standards on unit use by "private enterprises or any non-plenipotentiary citizens". As such, the challenged language of "Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling" contradicts GAR #88.

FKGL 14.4, permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person with an active registered NS WA member account to use, copy, modify, publish, or distribute this text without attribution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would sign such an opinion, with minor changes to formatting.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***
Proposal: Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling
Date: 18 March 2024
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 5–0
Action: Contradiction (GA 88)

Per curiam, joined by Separatist Peoples, Imperium Angorum, Kenmoria, Desmosthenes and Burke, and The Ice States.

"Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling" requires the use of "customary measurement units" in food packaging labels. This contradicts GA 88 "WA Numeration and Units Act" s 3, which permits "member nations [to]... prohibit their private enterprises or any non-plenipotentiary citizens of their nation from using any units of measurement". Customary units are not necessarily legal. For instance, a member state seeking to redefine or standardize units across its territory – eg metrification – might suppress units currently used by custom. GA 88 defends exactly that domestic policy. Its effects go further: GA 88 s 3 allows a member state to restrict the use of s 1 "official units". Without any conditions on GA 88 s 3's blocker, future proposals also may not set standards on unit use by "private enterprises or any non-plenipotentiary citizens". "Pre-Packaged Foods Labelling" therefore contradicts GA 88.

2024gas3