[DEFEATED] Factory Farming Ban

[Potted Plants United]

Plants don't have feelings, so there's no point in protecting them through this law.

OOC: They have same kind of chemical reactions of stress chemicals when stressed as animals do, so try again or give up your fluffy feelings point. Or be a hypocrite, but then you need to stop blaming others for that.

"suffering" by people having to spend a tiny bit more money on their food is definitely a stretch

...we're talking about farmhands. People who actually work in farming. Look up their working conditions before being a smartass.

Also, my income (permanent disability pension) is small enough that I sometimes (surprising healthcare costs, for example, or something costing more than 20 euros or so breaks and needs to be replaced) need to go without food (or at least without healthy nutritional food) near the turn of the month to be able to pay my rent and bills, and I live in a wealthy nation! I'm very aware of how well-off I am compared to the majority of people living on this planet. So "to spend a tiny bit more money on food" can mean "not eating" for a LOT of people.

I get it that you're someone living a comfy life who's never actually farmed anything even in smallscale (judging by your fanaticism, you're also young, or possibly bipolar in which case welcome to that particular boat; just a warning that it has a habit of capsizing if you're not on meds) and can afford year-round fresh veggies and so can't understand why everyone doesn't do that, but the world isn't like that. Many people even in RL where we're one species and one planet, have to think "do I eat healthily or do I eat enough?"

EDIT: Also, if you're talking OOCly, make that clearer. This is an IC forum, all OOC posting should be obviously OOC.

[The Python]

I get it that you're someone living a comfy life who's never actually farmed anything even in smallscale (judging by your fanaticism, you're also young, or possibly bipolar in which case welcome to that particular boat; just a warning that it has a habit of capsizing if you're not on meds) and can afford year-round fresh veggies and so can't understand why everyone doesn't do that, but the world isn't like that. Many people even in RL where we're one species and one planet, have to think "do I eat healthily or do I eat enough?"

Erm, who told you that factory farming is good for the economy?

Source

Livestock factories promise badly needed jobs for economically depressed rural areas. When a large, corporate livestock operation locates in a rural community, there almost certainly will be more jobs available in that community than before. But, the overall quantity of meat demanded by consumers will not expand just because corporate operations take control of an industry. If anything, demand for red meats has declined since beef and pork production has become more consolidated. So each hog or steer sent to market from a factory livestock operation means a market for one less steer or hog from an independently owned operation. Every time factory livestock takes a larger share of a market, independent livestock producers lose market share.

[Greater Cesnica]

(judging by your fanaticism, you're also young, or possibly bipolar in which case welcome to that particular boat; just a warning that it has a habit of capsizing if you're not on meds)

Yikes

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"There is no rational or logical reasoning behind most of the international laws which are based on emotional ideas around hurt feelings and so on. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."

"Speaking of which, could we have 1(b)(ii) limited to mammals specifically? The geese line up of their own free will to fatten their livers, yet I imagine the WA busybodies would still call that 'force feeding' simply because of the mechanized nature of the operation. Fowl do not have gullet pain as mammals do."

"The other major issue with this in its current state is that there is no direct environmental effect. Hormone runoff is a much more attenuated ill than the many heinous effects of manure lagoons, which are common to this type of farming, yet not one word against the latter. This has far to go to whip into reasonable shape."

OOC: The only primarily environmental protection here is the tenuous connection to the broad term "factory farming" given in the preamble. The actual negative effects (see also slaughterhouse runoff and methane emissions) are mentioned exactly nowhere, let alone regulated in any way.

[The Python]

"There is no rational or logical reasoning behind most of the international laws which are based on emotional ideas around hurt feelings and so on. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."

"Speaking of which, could we have 1(b)(ii) limited to mammals specifically? The geese line up of their own free will to fatten their livers, yet I imagine the WA busybodies would still call that 'force feeding' simply because of the mechanized nature of the operation. Fowl do not have gullet pain as mammals do."

Well then things like foie-gras (which is proven to cause a lot of suffering/pain/fear in farm animals) would be allowed so idk if it's worth it :V

[Farnhamia]

Plants don't have feelings, so there's no point in protecting them through this law.

OOC: They have same kind of chemical reactions of stress chemicals when stressed as animals do, so try again or give up your fluffy feelings point. Or be a hypocrite, but then you need to stop blaming others for that.

"suffering" by people having to spend a tiny bit more money on their food is definitely a stretch

...we're talking about farmhands. People who actually work in farming. Look up their working conditions before being a smartass.

Also, my income (permanent disability pension) is small enough that I sometimes (surprising healthcare costs, for example, or something costing more than 20 euros or so breaks and needs to be replaced) need to go without food (or at least without healthy nutritional food) near the turn of the month to be able to pay my rent and bills, and I live in a wealthy nation! I'm very aware of how well-off I am compared to the majority of people living on this planet. So "to spend a tiny bit more money on food" can mean "not eating" for a LOT of people.

I get it that you're someone living a comfy life who's never actually farmed anything even in smallscale (judging by your fanaticism, you're also young, or possibly bipolar in which case welcome to that particular boat; just a warning that it has a habit of capsizing if you're not on meds) and can afford year-round fresh veggies and so can't understand why everyone doesn't do that, but the world isn't like that. Many people even in RL where we're one species and one planet, have to think "do I eat healthily or do I eat enough?"

EDIT: Also, if you're talking OOCly, make that clearer. This is an IC forum, all OOC posting should be obviously OOC.

Don't go around making remarks about people's mental health. The only reason you're not being warned officially is because you have a clean record. Take this to heart and don't sully it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Well then things like foie-gras (which is proven to cause a lot of suffering/pain/fear in farm animals) would be allowed so idk if it's worth it :V

"I do. It is. Also your 'proof' is highly suspect. What animal would try to shoulder its fellows aside to get at something it fears and suffers from? Yet this is precisely what they do. Many forms of industrialized farming are indeed horrendous, but this isn't one of them."

[The Python]

Well then things like foie-gras (which is proven to cause a lot of suffering/pain/fear in farm animals) would be allowed so idk if it's worth it :V

"I do. It is. Also your 'proof' is highly suspect. What animal would try to shoulder its fellows aside to get at something it fears and suffers from? Yet this is precisely what they do. Many forms of industrialized farming are indeed horrendous, but this isn't one of them."

Hmm.

The avoidance behaviour by most ducks and geese in pens during force feeding observed by members of the working group indicates aversion to the force feeding procedure. Ducks in cages had little opportunity to show avoidance but sometimes moved their heads away from the person who was about to force feed them.

(A good argument might be able to convince me otherwise though)

[Araraukar]

Erm, who told you that factory farming is good for the economy?

OOC: Nobody's claiming it's good for the economy, just that it is largely the reason why food price is so low. Over here in Europe meat is much more expensive than it is over in USA, exactly because you need to treat meat animals better and can't feed them antibiotics and hormones all you want. So fairly obviously increase of regulation will make prices go up. If it was cheap to farm organically, then "organic" wouldn't mean an immediate price increase. As it's not (more losses to pests, less prevalent fertilizer use and whatnot), then the better you want farming to be, ethically and environmentally, the more you're going to end up having people unable to afford healthy food.

I would suggest checking out the resolution that requires member nations to not create food shortages. I don't remember what it's called, but I don't think it's been repealed yet. You might want to check that out before mandating all nations to hop onto the lab-grown meat wagon, whether or not they have the capability to do so.

Now, on the current version of the proposal as it stands, the definition of factory farming sounds a bit off, as "an industrialized system of producing commodities from farm animals which are characterized by one or more of the following aspects" sounds (the underlined bit especially) more like what happens to animals once they've reached the size/maturity after which they are killed for processing. I think you might have meant "the process of breeding and raising animals for the production of commodities" or something similar, to specify you mean what happens to the animals when they're being grown (or bred or both), instead of what happens when they're taken to the slaughterhouse or whatever. Or even define it as "an agricultural environment characterized by one or more of the following aspects" since your farm animal definition refers to "an agricultural environment". You want to ban specific kind of animal keeping, remember? Not all of it.

As for 1.b.i., "keeping farm animals in spaces where they are unable to exercise their full range of motion" needs an addition similar to what 1.b.ii. and iii. have about animal healthcare. I don't know if you've ever seen cows being examined and medicated, but you tend to really want them confined in a space where they can't hurt the veterinarian.

1.b.iv. on the other hand could simply be shortened to "the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones on farm animals". There's no reason to specify what the excuses given for the practice are, "routine use" is bad enough.

And 1.b.v. to "intentional abuse or neglect towards farm animals". There's, again, not really that much reason to specify what and why. Not making sure they're as healthy as possible, is already included in the neglect. Hurting them unnecessarily (again not including veterinarian things done to them for their own sake) is intentional abuse.

And actually, you might remove the "where such is not necessary for the health or welfare of said farm animals" from all the subclauses and make a separate clarifying clause that such reasons are not included in the definition.

But the elephant in the room, the preamble...

Consider not using "factory farming" in the "resolved" bit as is, because in RL that includes a variety of farming practices, many of which would fall outside of your definitions. So maybe instead go for "uncaring factory farming" or some similar modifier, to specify you're not trying to ban ALL factory farming, but instead are trying to ban the inhumane form of it. Believe me, it'll make it easier to pass in general.

is almost universally considered cruel and inhumane, as it holds no regard for the welfare of animals, and also profits off of their abuse,

Here especially - factory farming is none of those things except the kind of factory farming that you define later on.

has significant, demonstrably negative environmental effects on wildlife and flora,

This is false in general, so consider carefully if you want this whole proposal to be dismissed as "hippie nonsense" or whatever, or actually go for the REAL reasons why meat-eating public might want to care about animal welfare, such as animals that are kept more humanely simply tasting much better.

has been shown to increase the risk of infection and other health dangers to consumers,

Another falsehood. If you do strict enough testing on food safety, this isn't a major problem. And actually if you want to, say, avoid salmonella issues for chicken eggs, you want to minimize any contact the chickens have with the outside world, since wild birds can spread it, and it's also easier to take care of animal cleanliness if they're in cages instead of walking around on the yard.

fosters anti-competitive practices and the cartelization of the farming industry, and

...how? Because, again, isn't it more the fault of whatever anti-cartel methods the nation's supposed to have, than specific kind of farming? What's to stop organic farmers from forming a cartel? (As I half suspect they already have. )

often results in particularly egregious exploitation of laborers and the destruction of small-scale farming livelihoods

Yet you don't give a shit about these in the mandates. Again, what's to stop a freerange farmer from abusing their labourers? Or ousting smallscale farmers out of the market?

And finally, like was already pointed out, this reads more like Moral Decency (using ethical arguments) than Environmental (actually doing something to improve environmental protections).

[The Python]

And finally, like was already pointed out, this reads more like Moral Decency (using ethical arguments) than Environmental (actually doing something to improve environmental protections).

Hmm, moral decency is restricting civil rights and this restricts economic freedom much more than it does civil rights.

[Araraukar]

Hmm, moral decency is restricting civil rights and this restricts economic freedom much more than it does civil rights.

OOC: But it doesn't restrict economic freedom by being good for the environment, rather it restricts the farmers' right to do whatever they want with their animals based on ethical reasoning, aka moral reasoning. If it was (just as an example on categories) instead rewritten to be about farm workers' rights to good working conditions and humane treatment (or at least partially so), it could even be civil rights (which includes the old human rights category) or social justice, but because animals aren't people, you're restricting people's rights (NOT saying people should have the right to mistreat animals, but unless you make it not ok, they technically have such a "right") to do whatever they want with their animals.

Alternatively, move the focus (entirely or mostly) away from the ethical argumentation and focus on the actual environmental issues of factory farming. If they are as numerous as you claim in the preamble, then it shouldn't be difficult to do. It would also be an easier "sell" at voting stage.

[The Python]

Hmm, moral decency is restricting civil rights and this restricts economic freedom much more than it does civil rights.

OOC: But it doesn't restrict economic freedom by being good for the environment, rather it restricts the farmers' right to do whatever they want with their animals based on ethical reasoning, aka moral reasoning. If it was (just as an example on categories) instead rewritten to be about farm workers' rights to good working conditions and humane treatment (or at least partially so), it could even be civil rights (which includes the old human rights category) or social justice, but because animals aren't people, you're restricting people's rights (NOT saying people should have the right to mistreat animals, but unless you make it not ok, they technically have such a "right") to do whatever they want with their animals.

I disagree. This is designed to affect and regulate corporations more than individual farmers.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: But it doesn't restrict economic freedom by being good for the environment, rather it restricts the farmers' right to do whatever they want with their animals based on ethical reasoning, aka moral reasoning. If it was (just as an example on categories) instead rewritten to be about farm workers' rights to good working conditions and humane treatment (or at least partially so), it could even be civil rights (which includes the old human rights category) or social justice, but because animals aren't people, you're restricting people's rights (NOT saying people should have the right to mistreat animals, but unless you make it not ok, they technically have such a "right") to do whatever they want with their animals.

I disagree. This is designed to affect and regulate corporations more than individual farmers.

OOC: Literally nothing in this proposal makes a distinction between corporations, individuals, or any other business entity. Your reply also does not address Ara's statement.

[The Python]

I disagree. This is designed to affect and regulate corporations more than individual farmers.

OOC: Literally nothing in this proposal makes a distinction between corporations, individuals, or any other business entity. Your reply also does not address Ara's statement.

No, but this restricts methods corporations can use to make money more than it affects individual farmers.

Anyway, bump

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Literally nothing in this proposal makes a distinction between corporations, individuals, or any other business entity. Your reply also does not address Ara's statement.

No, but this restricts methods corporations can use to make money more than it affects individual farmers.

Anyway, bump

Ooc: no, it doesn't.

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood and her unnamed companion wander in. She sighs, then shakes her head.

"I am beginning to wonder if this building has no offices for delegates. But, might as well get this over with..."

She then leans down to read the draft.

has significant, demonstrably negative environmental effects on wildlife and flora,

Dame Allania frowns, then turns to her companion. "Does our practice harm the environment?"

He shrugs. "No more than heating our homes does, I think. Nobody has bothered to study the ice to find out."

fosters anti-competitive practices and the cartelization of the farming industry, and

"I fail to see how this is a downside," Dame Allania says. "Stability can prevent starvation."

often results in particularly egregious exploitation of laborers and the destruction of small-scale farming livelihoods,

Dame Allania opened her mouth, only to be interrupted as her companion said, "We are an absolute monarchy, remember? Certain economic situations have benefits for us they don't have for most nations."

Dame Allania closed her mouth and nodded to him.

"farm animal" as a sentient animal raised in an agricultural environment to produce commodities where said commodity is produced directly from said animals and

"I must protest this definition; though farm animals have feelings and can feel pain, they do not pass any of the standardized tests for sentience within our nation, and I do not believe any reasonable nation would hold them as sentient either," Dame Allania said.

keeping farm animals in spaces where they are unable to exercise their full range of motion,

Dame Allania turned to her companion. "What would happen if we let our farm animals roam during winter?"

"They would die from exposure, with much suffering before they did," the man answered. "Many nations with winter or extreme weather seasons would have the same issue."

Dame Allania nodded and then looked back to the draft. "I think this need to have an 'except when necessary for the wellbeing of the animal' exception to cover both weather and situations where the animal needs to be restrained for healthcare."

the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones on farm animals in attempts to alter their physical characteristics and/or mitigate the consequences of keeping farm animals in crowded, unhygienic conditions, or

"This could be read as banning antibiotics for animals under the care of a vet or to prevent sickness," Dame Allania said. "Could you reword this section?"

Dame Allania then stood straight. "Other than those issues, I find much of this bill to be quite in good taste, and it aligns with laws Trellania has passed in this regard. I would be willing to support and vote for if those items are resolved."

[Araraukar]

"farm animal" as a sentient animal raised in an agricultural environment to produce commodities where said commodity is produced directly from said animals and

"I must protest this definition; though farm animals have feelings and can feel pain, they do not pass any of the standardized tests for sentience within our nation, and I do not believe any reasonable nation would hold them as sentient either," Dame Allania said.

OOC: If that's just IC mistake then ignore this, but pointing out OOCly that in RL a regular housecat is sentient. A human is both sentient and sapient. They are sometimes erroneously used as synonyms but they really aren't.

[Trellania]

"I must protest this definition; though farm animals have feelings and can feel pain, they do not pass any of the standardized tests for sentience within our nation, and I do not believe any reasonable nation would hold them as sentient either," Dame Allania said.

OOC: If that's just IC mistake then ignore this, but pointing out OOCly that in RL a regular housecat is sentient. A human is both sentient and sapient. They are sometimes erroneously used as synonyms but they really aren't.

OOC: It's just an IC mistake. And notice Dame Allania protests it, but doesn't ask for it to be removed or altered; the protest is entirely political theatre.

[The Python]

bump

[Araraukar]

bump

OOC: If you're not going to address the problems, there's no point in bumping.

[The Python]

It has been updated to add more logistical (e.g. hygiene) arguments rather than pure ethics in the active clauses. So yes.

[Araraukar]

It has been updated to add more logistical (e.g. hygiene) arguments rather than pure ethics in the active clauses. So yes.

OOC: So you have given up on the claims of this being anti-big-agribusiness?

Also, you realize you are trying to lump several normal beekeeping practices (on stationary hives, not the madness with trucking bees around they do in USA) under the heading of evulz for lolz factory farming and thus ban beekeeping? The distress clause is still the problematic one.

[Sylh Alanor]

OOC: This proposal would have my approval and support in its current state. It's a bit much to ask for outlawing meat-eating altogether in the world, which I would personally prefer, but this is a good middle ground.

[Norfadia]

Norfadian Ambassador to the WA, Jim Hacker: "The Kingdom of Norfadia stands in complete opposition to this proposal. The argument that repealing factory farming doesn't outweigh costs incurred on consumers, and the economy is completely false in our views. Arguments regarding farm consolidation, consumer welfare have already been illustrated by many of my colleagues in their previous arguments but we would also like to point out that while banning the practice will increase costs of agricultural products in relatively low amounts to citizens of high-income nations, citizens of low-income nations will not be so fortunate. Such a resolution has the potential to create famines in lesser developed countries and at the very least would retard growth in economically depressed regions. Hence we urge fellow World Assembly nations to vote against such a resolution."

[The Python]

OOC: This proposal would have my approval and support in its current state. It's a bit much to ask for outlawing meat-eating altogether in the world, which I would personally prefer, but this is a good middle ground.

FYI: I wouldn't oppose a bill to ban meat altogether, though it would be very impractical as not only would meat be so widespread in some nations it would be difficult (hmm), and I hate to say this but NatSov (yeah I'm usually not a NatSov person). Note that this would not block a ban on meat in the WA if passed, though it would be incredibly difficult to pass such.