PROPOSAL TO THE WA: Scale Back Act of 2009

[FD Roosevelt]

REALIZING that obesity is one of the most prevalent causes of disease and untimely deaths of people living in developed and developing nations alike.

CONVINCED that there are specific contributors to excessive weight gain and obesity such as the widespread distribution of unhealthy foods including those containing trans fat or simply lacking nutrition.

BELIEVING that uncontrolled obesity has and will continue to plague nations of the world with higher healthcare costs and begin to diminish progress in life expectancy.

FURTHER BELIEVING that the provisions set forth in this resolution will not only result in happier healthier lives among the citizens of member nations but will help reduce soaring short and long term health care costs.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY

1. MANDATES that all commercially prepared food be free of trans fat.

2. REQUIRES that commercially prepared food items not contain more than 15 grams of fat or 400 calories per serving.

3. DEMANDS members of the World Assembly to begin an annual weigh-in of all citizens, and create a registry of all citizens who are found to weigh more than 350 lbs. or who are considered obese using the Body Mass Index (BMI).

4. URGES that an individual’s daily caloric intake not to exceed 2,000 calories.

5. MANDATES that all citizens added to the weight registry of a member nation must reduce their weight or BMI by 10 percent or more before the next annual weigh-in. If said citizens do not achieve the required weight loss they shall be banned from consuming commercially prepared foods until they have fallen below the weight limits specified in article 3.

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that despite efforts to control excessive consumption of less than healthy commercially prepared food, citizens may continue to gain weight or remain above the mandated limits. In an attempt to thwart rebellion and lack of action, any person found to be in violation for a fifth consecutive weigh-in shall be subject to a mandatory surgical procedure used for accelerated weight loss at the expense of the offender and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.

[Surote]

No controling my industries but it will help healthcare cost so I split

[The Emmerian Unions]

No! RL references, and other things.

[FD Roosevelt]

RL references? Where? Using your standard we shouldn't discuss drugs because heaven forbid those are RL things!

[Slovkastan]

Although citizens (especially men) of Slovkastan are very fit (due to military conscription), we believe that parts 3-5 are a bit violating. We believe that said articles will be a major violation of privacy and the facilities needed to weight citzens and keep millions of files (wether physical or electronic) as well as the costs of enforcing caloric intake would be far above our health budget. We are talking millions over budget.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

That would be an invasion of privacy, honoured ambassador. I have to oppose this.

[Rutianas]

Not to mention the nations that have very cold environments that higher body fat measurements are needed to keep warm as is a higher caloric intake. Oh, or the sentient whales that are well over the "weight limit".

Good thought, but inappropriate as written as it does not take into account all the different situations and races that are involved in the WA.

Oh, one more thing, we passed the year 2009 a long time ago.

Oh, okay, another thing. Who exactly is going to pay for this forced surgery? It's not an issue to us, but it will be raised.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[FD Roosevelt]

If you had actually read the proposal you would have noted the answer to your question, the offender will pay for the surgery.

[Linux and the X]

From a practical standpoint, I would like to point out that this is a logistical nightmare. In my nation alone, there are nearly 6,4 billion citizens. How are we to weigh them all annually? If we somehow were able to, we would then have to ban them from eating commecially processed food. I ask the Ambassador how he intends us to enforce that ban. Similarly, how would mandatory surgery be enforced?

Also, the food limitations need to be fixed if the Ambassador intends to attempt to go through with this. The restrictions as they stand are much too low.

[Bears Armed]

Not to mention the nations that have very cold environments that higher body fat measurements are needed to keep warm as is a higher caloric intake. Oh, or the sentient whales that are well over the "weight limit".

Or those who -- like some people in my own nation -- have to build-up their fat reserves prior to hibernation...

[Absolvability]

Or those who -- like some people in my own nation -- have to build-up their fat reserves prior to hibernation...

You told me once that your citizens didn't hibernate, Ambassador. Which is it?

If you had actually read the proposal you would have noted the answer to your question, the offender will pay for the surgery.

This is illegal, as it violates the Patients Rights Act, which gives individuals the right to decline treatment. Then again... the way you've written this, it could easily be said that this surgery is more a punishment than a treatment. Which brings me to my next point...

This proposal is so utterly ridiculous I can't really put into words the degree of wrongness. Violating the Patients Rights Act... violating the privacy of citizens... trying to dictate their eating habits... herding everybody up to pass some standardized weight test. Hell, you don't even acknowledge in your proposal that sometimes... juuuuuuuust sometimes... weight is gained due to factors other than cheeseburgers.

Throw this proposal away, Ambassador.

[Bears Armed]

Or those who -- like some people in my own nation -- have to build-up their fat reserves prior to hibernation...

You told me once that your citizens didn't hibernate, Ambassador. Which is it?

OOC: please note the word that I've now bolded in the remark by me that you're quoting... It's a very small minority of the total population, whom Borrin might not have considered worth mentioning before because that would have confused the issue. In fact, given that they're all in the Northlands whereas he's from the Mainland, it's possible that he simply didn't even know about them back then...

[Meekinos]

Firstly honoured delegate, we wish to point out that there is already an existing health resolution on the books. It is General Assembly Resolution #31, World Health Authority. Though it does not directly address the issue of obesity, it addresses the issue of health. The resolution in our opinion covers this topic due to is convenient wording, which would allow for anything that threatens health to be taken serious. It also does not violate the individual privacy of each citizen in WA member nations.

I) Strongly encourages nations to make spending commitments to achieving decent health standards for their people;

III) Establishes the World Health Authority (WHA), with the mission to:
-identify, assess, and communicate current and emerging threats to global health,
-actively research treatment, cures, and preventative measures concerning threats to global health,
-coordinate efforts between WA member states in preventing and controlling serious health concerns;

V) Strongly encourages individual nations to:
-create agencies concerned with the health of their people,
-research ways to prevent and remedy threats to decent health,
-disseminate such information in the international community in order to impede threats to decent health.

For all intents and purposes, we have chosen the above three articles to highlight our point.

You may also want to consider General Assembly Resolution #35, which is The Charter of Civil Rights.

Article 1.
a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Your proposal would interfere with the rights guaranteed here. It is essentially legalising discrimination on the basis of health, which is related to a physical condition. It would also create inequality, which would directly contravene Article 1.a, which dictates that all inhabitants of WA member states are equal in status. Your resolution would take away that status.

Now that we got that out of the way, we intend to break down your proposal piece by peace and show you just how unprofitable your proposal truly is.

REALIZING that obesity is one of the most prevalent causes of disease and untimely deaths of people living in developed and developing nations alike.

What's the basis for this allegation? Your nation knows little of other nations in the world. Even if there is a handful where this is an issue, it doesn't make it a justification to drastically curb the rights of trillions.

CONVINCED that there are specific contributors to excessive weight gain and obesity such as the widespread distribution of unhealthy foods including those containing trans fat or simply lacking nutrition.

Oh and it would have nothing to do with bad genes, lack of exercise or even medication which could inadvertently effect an individual's weight even if they make an effort to avoid these foods? Or perhaps it could have something to do with the actual rate of consumption and not the food itself.

BELIEVING that uncontrolled obesity has and will continue to plague nations of the world with higher healthcare costs and begin to diminish progress in life expectancy.

This proposal can believe anything it wants but it doesn't make it true.

FURTHER BELIEVING that the provisions set forth in this resolution will not only result in happier healthier lives among the citizens of member nations but will help reduce soaring short and long term health care costs.

At the expense of civil rights.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY

1. MANDATES that all commercially prepared food be free of trans fat.

That doesn't stop it from being used at the domestic level.

2. REQUIRES that commercially prepared food items not contain more than 15 grams of fat or 400 calories per serving.

Once again, this fails to address the issue of food prepared at home.

3. DEMANDS members of the World Assembly to begin an annual weigh-in of all citizens, and create a registry of all citizens who are found to weigh more than 350 lbs. or who are considered obese using the Body Mass Index (BMI).

Firstly, this would infringe on a person's right to privacy. Secondly, weight is no true indication of obesity, as height can impact on the distribution of weight. Further, you're insistent on using imperial units. Not all nations use such units of measurement.

4. URGES that an individual’s daily caloric intake not to exceed 2,000 calories.

And that would be totally unenforceable. Besides, intake would likely vary depending on a person's level pf physical activity, since those engaging in physical exhausting jobs or athletic endeavours would require a higher intake than those who don't.

5. MANDATES that all citizens added to the weight registry of a member nation must reduce their weight or BMI by 10 percent or more before the next annual weigh-in. If said citizens do not achieve the required weight loss they shall be banned from consuming commercially prepared foods until they have fallen below the weight limits specified in article 3.

Going through this, we realise one thing, you have failed to define 'commercially prepared foods', and that you also fail to take into account that home-cooked food is not automatically healthy by any means.

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that despite efforts to control excessive consumption of less than healthy commercially prepared food, citizens may continue to gain weight or remain above the mandated limits. In an attempt to thwart rebellion and lack of action, any person found to be in violation for a fifth consecutive weigh-in shall be subject to a mandatory surgical procedure used for accelerated weight loss at the expense of the offender and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.

A gross violation of an individual's rights. Being obese is not a crime. An individual has the right to choice.

We find your proposal to be lacking. It also is a gross violation of civil rights guaranteed by the WA.

Your proposal as failed to define the following:
Obese - what you have defined this as throughout the articles fails to take into account different factors, including that an individual may have a high BMI but won't be fat.

Commercial food - you've used this repeatedly, and yet have not proven it to be dangerous. You have also failed to properly define it.

Homemade food - this wasn't even take into account.

Level of physical activity and caloric intake - this is not defined nor considered properly. Your numbers for this are off and woefully uneducated.

We could go on to point out how utterly unprofitable this is, but we're sure you get the idea at this point.

[Rutianas]

If you had actually read the proposal you would have noted the answer to your question, the offender will pay for the surgery.

Well, to be honest, I only glanced at it after noticing the primary cause of concerns for the Imperial Republic before throwing it in the garbage. The mention of 2009, which as I stated, we passed a long time ago. And the 2,000 calorie limit? Absurd. And this 350 pound limit? What, pray tell, are pounds anyway? Or, of course, whatever is considered obese. You do realise that this is doing more harm than good? No? Well, read up on cultures and different environments.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Snapoffistan]

To Whom It May Concern,

I'm afraid that such a proposal cannot be supported by Snapoffistan. We understand the desire to promote the world's health within the World Assembly; however, we do believe that this proposal goes a bit too far and dives into personal measures. We believe that the 'annual weigh-in' is a bad idea, because ultimately, each individual is responsible for their own health. The government does not need to get involved with such a personal issue.

Again, we appreciate the concern for our citizen's health, but as far as individual freedoms go here, we leave health issues (for the most part) up to the individual.

Jillian Zoboroski,
WA Representative of Snapoffistan

[Grays Harbor]

We cannot and will not support the criminalization of weight issues. It is proposals such as these that make my government wish for not only an "approve" function for proposals, but one for "disapprove" for those proposals we find so onerous that merely not voting to send them before the WA at large is not enough.

[Kryozerkia]

As this proposed resolution has been removed from the floor, there doesn't appear to be a need for this discussion any more.

[Ardchoille]

That was quick, Kryo! I'd only just killed it!

(She musta been taking lessons from Ol' Speedy, Fris )