Advertisement
by United States of Americanas » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:36 am
by Maowi » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:41 am
United States of Americanas wrote:Hold on, I got a special place for filing proposals like this one!
(Image)
People have a right to self regulate what they eat. If they want processed sugars let them have it. They are far less harmful and far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco so those comparisons right there make this proposal worthy of the shredder!
by United States of Americanas » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:50 am
Maowi wrote:United States of Americanas wrote:Hold on, I got a special place for filing proposals like this one!
(Image)
People have a right to self regulate what they eat. If they want processed sugars let them have it. They are far less harmful and far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco so those comparisons right there make this proposal worthy of the shredder!
This proposal doesn't force people to stop eating processed sugars, though, it makes sure they actually realise they're eating processed sugars. I suggest you actually read proposals before you comment so confidently on them.
by Arasi Luvasa » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:59 am
by Marxist Germany » Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:41 pm
by Maowi » Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:46 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:full opposition
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:55 pm
Maowi wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:full opposition
Any reason why?
I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.
by Cosmosplosion » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:16 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Maowi wrote:
Any reason why?
I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.
"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."
by New Tardland » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:36 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:59 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Maowi wrote:
Any reason why?
I personally quite like the new draft, although I think it's a bit much to ask to have the statement on sugar taking up ten percent of the packaging. IMO, I think packaging should only have to clearly state how much sugar it contains among its ingredients, and then it should be up to the mandated education programme to educate people on the dangers of sugar.
"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."
by Arasi Luvasa » Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:31 pm
Cosmosplosion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Because this isn't really an issue. Certainly not on an international scale. Nations with obesity problems are welcome to address this, or not, as their people may vote. The World Assembly acting as the world's nutritionist, however, is a waste of time and resources."
"While I agree with this Ambassador, I think it would be logical to put in regulations similar in spirit to this proposal to encourage healthier eating. Sugar, especially processed and added sugars, are unnecessary parts of diets across this assembly. It is in an international issue in the sense that added sugars are easily available and cheap to purchase in almost every nation that is a member of this assembly. Banning it and slapping big warning labels on it isn't the right step at all. I would like to see a proposal that addresses more than added sugar, and places similar restrictions on high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients which could cause adverse health risks. I encourage the author to explore this topic on a wider scale. Again, I am still a yes, not to this proposal specifically, but in spirit."
by The New Nordic Union » Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:43 pm
Fedele wrote:Is this more palatable?
by The Guardians of the Rhine » Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:52 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:20 pm
The New Nordic Union wrote:Does 'sugar' include all mono-, di-, poly-, and oligosaccharides?
by Hatzisland » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:01 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:22 pm
by Kenmoria » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:33 am
Hatzisland wrote:Wait, this post still exists? I thought the author would have deleted the thread in shame by now!
by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:42 am
by Hatzisland » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:30 am
Kenmoria wrote:Hatzisland wrote:Wait, this post still exists? I thought the author would have deleted the thread in shame by now!
(OOC: Authors can’t delete threads once someone’s posted in them, and deleting entirely one’s own proposal is a bad idea. The current proposal isn’t all that bad, and is something I can see reaching quorum and having a chance at vote, in the future.)
by The First German Order » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:35 am
by Fedele » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:07 am
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:"This is a waste of the time and resources of the WA. Legislation of sugars is entirely unnecessary and should be left to sovereign nations or their individual citizens. Sugars are far too universal to be regulated and the amount it would cost out of the WA Budget (defined to be based on donations) is astoundingly high to enforce all of the provisions. Our delegation is most glad that this does not seek to ban them, but sees to many errors with the proposal regardless as well as flaw in concept."
by Bears Armed » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:13 am
by The New Nordic Union » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:22 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Deoxyribose (the 'D' in 'DNA') and Ribose (the 'R' in 'RNA') are both sugars, so technically anything containing DNA &/or RNA "contains sugar".
by Kenmoria » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:58 am
by Bears Armed » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:06 am
Kenmoria wrote:
(OOC: I think just saying something along the lines of, “Defines ‘sugar’ as fructose, sucrose and/or glucose,” would be acceptable, since other sugars such as maltose, galactose and cellobiose aren’t used in foods.)
Defines 'sugar', for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning ', fructose, glucose, sucrose, and/or maltose;"?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement