DRAFT: International Committee of Food Safety

[Panemore]

World Assembly-
Aware that obesity is a large (pun not intended) issue in The World and scared that many lives will be lost prematurely to eating habits and food addiction, I am proposing having a committee against such issues.
This committee would:
1. Make it a crime to put synonyms of unhealthy ingredients on ingredient lists (i.e High fructose corn syrup in place of sugar)
(1a) This order would include banning abbreviations of ingredients, so the mentally disabled and illiterate could understand the list easier and so food producers can't get away with adding unhealthy ingredients with similar abbreviations as healthier ingredients.
(1b) This order would also ban not listing certain ingredients on ingredient lists.
2. Ban unnecessary sugar.
(2a) This order would include banning any other unnecessary ingredients that do nothing but hurt the human body.
3. Ban government meddling and dealings with food companies.
(3a) This would not include federal health organizations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(With light reformatting.)

World Assembly-

Aware that obesity is a large (pun not intended) issue in The World and scared that many lives will be lost prematurely to eating habits and food addiction, I am proposing having a committee against such issues.

This committee would:

1. Make it a crime to put synonyms of unhealthy ingredients on ingredient lists (i.e High fructose corn syrup in place of sugar)
(1a) This order would include banning abbreviations of ingredients, so the mentally disabled and illiterate could understand the list easier and so food producers can't get away with adding unhealthy ingredients with similar abbreviations as healthier ingredients.
(1b) This order would also ban not listing certain ingredients on ingredient lists.

2. Ban unnecessary sugar.
(2a) This order would include banning any other unnecessary ingredients that do nothing but hurt the human body.

3. Ban government meddling and dealings with food companies.
(3a) This would not include federal health organizations.

A few remarks.

1. This is law is not an 'order', it is a resolution. (Though there are laws which are orders. See eg Statutory Instruments Act 1948; more verbosely, A470 Trunk Road (Pontypridd to Abercynon, Rhondda Cynon Taf) (Temporary Traffic Prohibitions & Restrictions) Order 2016.) It also is insufficient to describe the actions of the resolution in terms of 'this order would ban X'. A document qua law would instead write 'X is banned' or 'The World Assembly prohibits X'. Most of your actions also do not need a wrapping or decorating by a committee object; the committee here seems mostly pointless, except in fact determination.
   
   
2. We have food and drug standards. See GA 64 'Food and Drug Standards' (2009) viewtopic.php?p=668491#p668491. That said, the powers granted in that resolution are relatively weak, as it really only requires 'food and drug products produced in member states [to] undergo safety and quality screening'.
   
   
3. High fructose corn syrup is not the same as sugar. Nor would a label saying HFCS when the actual ingredient is sugar (sucrose) be permissible, presumably under fraud law (possibly under WA food and drug law?) Abbreviations for ingredients is sometimes necessary for understanding. What is more clear, Vitamin C, ascorbic acid, or '(5R)-5-[(1S)-1,2-Dihydroxyethyl]-3,4-dihydroxy-2(5H)-furanone'? A better standard is to require that the ingredient be described in a commonly recognisable manner. Dihydrogen monoxide not being an example thereof.
   
   
4. Presumably section 2 and subsection (a) thereof ban different things; nb sugar does not 'do nothing but hurt the human body'. The body of section 2, however, probably refers to 'added' sugar instead of 'unnecessary', as the latter becomes ill-defined (especially if sugar is 'necessary' to sell a product, eg candy, lemonade, etc). Regardless, added sugars are necessary for a large number of baked goods and jams and also to counteract acidity, eg in tomato sauces. A direct ban on added sugars would make food taste bad, which while certainly a way to get people to consume less, seems ridiculous when your committee's jurisdiction is not limited in any way. Should gnomes pop in to stop people from putting sugar into their home cooking?
   
   
5. The anti-corruption provisions seem to be double edged, pointing back at yourself. Regulating food companies is ipso facto government meddling with food companies. Also, many nations are not federations and would not be subject to your exception. Eg while Imperium Anglorum might be a federation, the federation government does not have food regulation powers. The pre-federation government, consisting only of a unitary republic, would similarly not have any federal health organisation. In the real world, there are many unitary states: France, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy, etc. Moreover, the empowering of health organisations is inconsistent with most structures of government, where food and drug regulation is separate from that for public health or hospital regulation.

Before anyone goes to the international question angle, I think it is at least marginally relevant. Under GA 97 'Quality in Health Services', the World Health Authority supports member nation health services, introducing some element of cost sharing and inter-nation transfers. Improving health outcomes in other states lowers the need and size of such transfers.

[Tinhampton]

This has been submitted as Committee of Food Safety (Health/Healthcare). It is very possibly illegal for branding ("...I am proposing...").

[Panemore]

You're right, I'll delete it.