[PASSED] - Reducing food contaminants and residues

[Simone Republic]

Motivation

This is the first resolution that I have written that draws from the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius:
https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimen ... -codex/en/

The section on antimicrobial resistance has already been covered by IA in GAR 333 (Preserving Antimicrobials).

It is indirectly a replacement for Pesticide Regulations (GA376), but the angle we take is different - instead of regulating dropping pesticide in grass (or dropping hand sanitizer at your home near the border), we look at regulating pesticide residues in food instead. It does not conflict with GA 64, so is going in first.

Category: Regulation/Consumer Protection

Submitted draft

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the widespread trading of food between WA states;

Affirming the passage of related GARs such as 333 and 679;

Desiring clear standards on contaminants, pesticides, and other residues in food, to protect the well-being of sapient individuals, including both consumers and production workers;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Authority" means an entity designated by a WA state as in charge of formulating and enforcing the regulations. Such an authority shall be independent of other entities designated with responsibilities for promoting consumption or exports of food and feed.
   2. "Contaminants" means anything not intentionally added to food or feed during the production process.
   3. "Feed" means anything grown to be eaten by a non-sapient species.
   4. "Food" means anything grown to be eaten by a sapient species, including eating non-sapient species fed with feed. For this resolution, the definition of "food" excludes anything involving eating any sapient species, and also excludes anything involving cannibalism.
   5. "FDRA" means the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency.
   6. "Regulations" means all standards and requirements to be formulated pursuant to clauses (2) to (5).
   7. "Residues" means anything found in food or feed that remains from the production process, including any contaminants.
   8. "Residue limits" means appropriates limits for residues found in food and feed.
2. Residue limits. Each authority is to publish standards for residue limits for:
   
   1. Feed additives,
   2. Veterinary drugs;
   3. Pesticides;
   4. Fertilizers; and
   5. Other types of contaminants the authority deems necessary, whether naturally occurring or due to production processes, such as arsenic in rice, and inorganic tin in canned goods.
3. Reducing contamination. Each authority is to publish standards for reducing:
   
   1. Potential contamination as much as possible during all stages of the production processes of food and feed, both for the well-being of consumers of the food and feed, as well as for the well-being of any workers involved in the production process that may be exposed to the contaminants;
   2. Retention of pesticides in feed and food as much as possible.
4. Sampling and testing.
   
   1. Each authority is to publish standards in the sampling, testing and analysis of the presence of residues in both and feed.
   2. Each authority is to, from time to time, conduct randomized testing and analysis of the presence of residues in both food and feed to ensure compliance with the regulations.
5. Compliance.
   
   1. The regulations shall apply to all food and feed imported, distributed or sold in a WA state.
   2. If a WA state (say “state A”) produces and distributes its own food or feed, or imports its food and feed from another state, state A’s authority is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations of state A.
   3. The regulations are to be tailored to the sapient inhabitants (including multiple sapient species, if applicable) of that WA state to ensure their well-being.
   4. Additional regulations and standards shall be set if tailored standards are needed for sapient inhabitants in different stages of development, such as infants, or if a WA state is inhabited by multiple sapient species.
   5. Each authority is to review and update its regulations from time to time based on the latest scientific research.
   6. All regulations from an authority shall be publicly available free-of-charge through convenient physical and electronic means.
6. FDRA review.
   
   1. FDRA is responsible for reviewing all regulations set by each WA state from time to time to ensure minimum standards that are required to maintain the well-being of sapient inhabitants of that state.
   2. A WA state must provide full and complete details on sampling, testing and analysis data and any other information that FDRA requests for assessment by FDRA in terms of compliance with the requirements of this resolution.
   3. If a WA state is conclusively able to demonstrate to FDRA that it cannot comply with this resolution due to a lack of resources or technological capability, it may voluntarily elect to outsource such work to FDRA.
7. Clarifications.
   
   1. This resolution does not apply if a WA state does not have sapient inhabitants that consume food for their well-being.
   2. In this resolution, "production" of food involving meat specifically refers to all steps in the process after the slaughtering of the non-sapient species. It does not regulate other processes beforehand such as animal husbandry.
   3. Disputes between different authorities of the WA state regarding enforcement of regulations on food and feed shall be subject to the jurisdiction of FDRA, if it is not taken up by another WA organ pursuant to extant resolutions.

[Simone Republic]

Space reserved for drafts.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the widespread trading of food between WA states;

Affirming the passage of “Food and Drug Standards” (GAR 64), and related GARs 333 and 679 by the WA;

Hoping for additional granularity with regards to the presence of pesticides, contaminants, and other residues in food;

Desiring a common approach across WA states to facilitate the trade in food and to protect the safety of food consumers; hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. “Contaminants” to mean anything not intentionally added to food or feed during any stage of the production process;
      
   2. “Feed” to mean anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption for a non-sapient species, where such species are in turn husbanded for the purpose of consumption by a sapient species;
      
   3. “Food” to mean anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption by a sapient species;
      
   4. “FDRA” to mean the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency;
      
   5. “Residue limits” to mean the maximum levels for certain pesticides and contaminant residues found in food and feed, tailored for each of the sapient species that inhabit each of the WA states;
      
   6. "WHA" to mean the World Health Authority;
2. Requires the FDRA to publish minimally acceptable standards for:
   
   1. Residue limits for feed additives (such as enzymes and acidity regulators),
   2. Residue limits for veterinary drugs (such as antibiotics);
   3. Residue limits for pesticides and fertilizers;
   4. Residue limits for contaminants, whether naturally occurring or as a result of the production processes employed, such as arsenic contamination in rice, cadmium contamination in cocoa beans and inorganic tin contamination in canned goods;
   5. Procedures for reducing potential contamination during all stages of production processes, such as during farming, manufacturing, processing, distribution, and cooking;
   6. Sampling, testing and analysis methods for assessing the presence of contaminants or residues;
   7. Ionizing radiation of food and feed, including dosimetry and minimum maximum dosages;
3. Requires the FDRA to publish best practices for:
   
   1. Laboratory practices in the sampling and testing of the presence of residues of pesticides and contaminants;
   2. Preparation and cooking practices for different types of food for safe consumption for sapient species, including specific guidelines for healthy individuals compared those with special needs, such as the elderly or immuno-compromised individuals;
   3. Reducing the health risks of consuming raw, uncooked food by sapient species;
4. Requires each WA state to:
   
   1. Comply with the standards published in clause (2) for all food and feed made, imported (whether from another WA state or a non-WA state), or distributed in that WA state to the best technological ability of that WA state;
   2. Comply with the practices published in clause (3) to the maximum extent possible given the available resources of the WA state;
   3. Designate a competent authority within the WA state as responsible for ensuring the monitoring and compliance with clauses (2) and (3), and for liaison with FDRA;
5. Requires the FDRA to conduct ongoing research into:
   
   1. The safety and proper use of feed additives, veterinary drugs, pesticides and fertilizers in the production of food and feed;
   2. The presence of contaminants and toxins in food and feed and measures to improve production processes to reduce the risks of contamination;
   3. Risk analysis and mitigation measures for contaminants and toxins found in food and feed, in conjunction with the WHA;
   4. Foodborne antimicrobial resistance, in conjunction with the WHA Antimicrobial Resistance Workgroup;
6. Requires the FDRA to render such assistance as may be required by the competent authorities defined in clause (4)(c) to facilitate compliance by each WA state with this resolution, for both:
   
   1. domestic food production; and
   2. food imports, including both imports from WA states and from non-WA states;
7. Clarifies that:
   
   1. References to “such as” are merely as examples only and is not meant to be exhaustive;
   2. All standards published by the FDRA shall be available through convenient physical and electronic means, and free of charge to end-users;
   3. All standards shall be updated from time to time by FDRA based on the latest scientific research;
      FDRA shall be responsible for implementing and interpreting this resolution.

Char count: 4,495

(IC)

The bear walks by, having just swallowed another salmon, and looks at this resolution. "Ummm.... I guess it helps my fellow Simone Republic bears since (3)(c) talks about raw food. And at least this time it's from our own Simone Republic Ministry of World Assembly Affairs."

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I cannot remember which, but there was a repeal that I can vaguely recall of a resolution on the basis that the resolution delegated all legislative work to a committee. I fear that this shares in that problem. Every single mandate here is offset onto the Gnomes, with the result that this doesn’t actually say anything about the precise burden on member-nations.)

[Coporiana]

(OOC: I cannot remember which, but there was a repeal that I can vaguely recall of a resolution on the basis that the resolution delegated all legislative work to a committee. I fear that this shares in that problem. Every single mandate here is offset onto the Gnomes, with the result that this doesn’t actually say anything about the precise burden on member-nations.)

Heavily agree with the above statement. To that extent, I've been trying to come up with ideas as to how this can involve member states more and will present them here as examples. Take what resonates, leave what doesn't (comments in red).

-snip-

1. Definitions.
   
   1. “Contaminants” means anything not intentionally added to food or feed during any stage of the production process.
      
   2. “Feed” means anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption for a non-sapient species, where such species are in turn husbanded for the purpose of consumption by a sapient species;
      
   3. “Food” means anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption by a sapient species;
      
   4. “FDRA” means the Food and Drug Regulatory Agency;
      
   5. "Regulations" mean the standards and practices published pursuant to clauses (2) to (4).
      
   6. “Residue limits” means the maximum levels for certain pesticides and contaminant residues found in food and feed.
      
   7. "WHA" means the World Health Authority.
2. Residue limits. The FDRA is to publish standards for residue limits for:
   
   1. Feed additives (such as enzymes and acidity regulators),
   2. Veterinary drugs (such as antibiotics);
   3. Pesticides and fertilizers;
   4. Contaminants, whether naturally occurring or as a result of the production processes employed, such as arsenic in rice, cadmium in cocoa beans and inorganic tin in canned goods.
   ...Why? For health? 'purity'? So that I know my food doesn't have too much of the pesticide my enemy produces? I'm being pedantic and know that the answer is health, but shouldn't that be said in the resolution? I might not want any pesticides in my food at all, but that doesn't mean that any amount of it is unhealthy to me. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with a nation's health ministry to identify what's healthy for a certain species, or require member nations to publish the averages of these residues in each of their produced food items publicly for importing nations to consider.
3. Standards. The FDRA is to publish standards for:
   
   1. Reducing potential contamination during all stages of production processes, such as during farming, manufacturing, processing, distribution, and cooking;
   2. Sampling, testing and analysis methods for assessing the presence of contaminants or residues;
   3. Ionizing radiation of food and feed, including dosimetry and minimum maximum dosages;
   4. Laboratory standards in the sampling and testing of the presence of residues of pesticides and contaminants.
   This is less about the question of why, and more about building this from the individual nation up to the WA. Might this be better phrased as requiring member nations to create these standards and have the FDRA review them? Or maybe does it require member nations to have their agricultural bureau create, implement, and uphold these standards to the best of their ability, and hold the FDRA up as an assisting/compliance body?
4. Best practices. The FDRA is to publish best practices for:
   
   1. Preparation and cooking practices for different types of food for safe consumption for sapient species, including specific guidelines for healthy individuals compared those with special needs, such as the elderly or immuno-compromised individuals;
   2. Reducing the health risks of consuming raw, uncooked food by sapient species.
   Wouldn't B in theory be covered by the reducing contaminants part(since most of the dangers around uncooked meat comes from contaminants both naturally and artificially introduced? Also, again a place where member nations could create these guides from their agricultural bureau and have them approved or have a style/requirement guide created by the FDRA.
5. Compliance. Each WA state must:
   
   1. Comply with the standards in clauses (2) and (3) for all food and feed made, imported into, or distributed in that WA state to the best technological capability of that WA state;
   2. Comply with the best practices in clauses (4) to the maximum extent possible given the resources of the WA state.
   Could either elaborate on requirements and compliances in this section or integrate them into each previous section.
6. Research. The FDRA is to conduct ongoing research into:
   
   1. The safety and proper use of feed additives, veterinary drugs, pesticides and fertilizers in the production of food and feed;
   2. The presence of contaminants and toxins in food and feed;
   3. Measures to improve production processes to reduce the risks of contamination;
   4. Risk analysis and mitigation measures for contaminants and toxins found in food and feed, in conjunction with the WHA;
   5. Foodborne antimicrobial resistance, in conjunction with the WHA Antimicrobial Resistance Workgroup.
   Maybe require nations to conduct research into their own food and feed then require the FDRA to compile and gather all this data in a public database?
7. Assistance. If the FDRA receives a request from a WA state, it must render appropriate assistance for compliance with the regulations in clauses (2) to (4) regarding:
   
   1. domestic food production; and
   2. food imports, from both WA and non-WA states;
8. Clarifications.
   
   1. References to “such as” are merely as examples only and is not meant to be exhaustive.
   2. All regulations shall be updated from time to time based on the latest research, made available through convenient physical and electronic means, and free of charge to end-users.
   3. All regulations in clauses (2) to (4) shall be tailored for each of the sapient species that inhabit each of the WA states.
   4. The FDRA is responsible for implementing and interpreting this resolution.

Char count: 4,159

[The Ice States]

(OOC: I cannot remember which, but there was a repeal that I can vaguely recall of a resolution on the basis that the resolution delegated all legislative work to a committee. I fear that this shares in that problem. Every single mandate here is offset onto the Gnomes, with the result that this doesn’t actually say anything about the precise burden on member-nations.)

Ooc: Are you referring to GA #641, which I co-wrote with Simone?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I cannot remember which, but there was a repeal that I can vaguely recall of a resolution on the basis that the resolution delegated all legislative work to a committee. I fear that this shares in that problem. Every single mandate here is offset onto the Gnomes, with the result that this doesn’t actually say anything about the precise burden on member-nations.)

Ooc: Are you referring to GA #641, which I co-wrote with Simone?

(OOC: I am indeed: thank you for reminding me. I completely forgot that Simone coauthored that. What I said here is particularly relevant.)

[Simone Republic]

Ooc: Are you referring to GA #641, which I co-wrote with Simone?

(OOC: I am indeed: thank you for reminding me. I completely forgot that Simone coauthored that. What I said here is particularly relevant.)

I am going to drop all responsibilities down to WA states, subject to approval by FDRA (and for FDRA to collate and publish the data). The research bits are not particularly important, so I'll trim that.

It's another sign that I basically don't really remember anything I write. Actually, the criticism on dumping everything to a committee bit was written by The Ice States, not me.

Heavily agree with the above statement. To that extent, I've been trying to come up with ideas as to how this can involve member states more and will present them here as examples. Take what resonates, leave what doesn't (comments in red).

I need to restructure this quite a bit to drop all the responsibilities down to WA states and then for FDRA to review and approve it. Will revert.




Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the widespread trading of food between WA states;

Affirming the passage of “Food and Drug Standards” (GAR 64), and related GARs 333 and 679 by the WA;

Hoping for additional granularity with regards to the presence of pesticides, contaminants, and other residues in food;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. “Contaminants” means anything not intentionally added to food or feed during the production process.
      
   2. “Feed” means anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption for a non-sapient species, where such species are in turn husbanded for the purpose of consumption by a sapient species;
      
   3. “Food” means anything farmed, grown, or developed for consumption by a sapient species;
      
   4. “FDRA” means the Food and Drug Regulatory Agency;
      
   5. "Regulations" mean the standards and practices published pursuant to clauses (2) to (4).
      
   6. “Residue limits” means the maximum levels for certain pesticides and contaminant residues found in food and feed.
      
   7. "WHA" means the World Health Authority.
2. Residue limits. The FDRA is to publish standards for residue limits for:
   
   1. Feed additives (such as enzymes and acidity regulators),
   2. Veterinary drugs (such as antibiotics);
   3. Pesticides and fertilizers;
   4. Contaminants, whether naturally occurring or as a result of the production processes employed, such as arsenic in rice, cadmium in cocoa beans and inorganic tin in canned goods.
3. Standards. The FDRA is to publish standards for:
   
   1. Reducing potential contamination during all stages of production processes, such as during farming, manufacturing, processing, distribution, and cooking;
   2. Sampling, testing and analysis methods for assessing the presence of contaminants or residues;
   3. Ionizing radiation of food and feed, including dosimetry and minimum maximum dosages;
   4. Laboratory standards in the sampling and testing of the presence of residues of pesticides and contaminants.
4. Best practices. The FDRA is to publish best practices for:
   
   1. Preparation and cooking practices for different types of food for safe consumption for sapient species, including specific guidelines for healthy individuals compared those with special needs, such as the elderly or immuno-compromised individuals;
   2. Reducing the health risks of consuming raw, uncooked food by sapient species.
5. Compliance. Each WA state must:
   
   1. Comply with the standards in clauses (2) and (3) for all food and feed made, imported into, or distributed in that WA state to the best technological capability of that WA state;
   2. Comply with the best practices in clauses (4) to the maximum extent possible given the resources of the WA state.
6. Research. The FDRA is to conduct ongoing research into:
   
   1. The safety and proper use of feed additives, veterinary drugs, pesticides and fertilizers in the production of food and feed;
   2. The presence of contaminants and toxins in food and feed;
   3. Measures to improve production processes to reduce the risks of contamination;
   4. Risk analysis and mitigation measures for contaminants and toxins found in food and feed, in conjunction with the WHA;
   5. Foodborne antimicrobial resistance, in conjunction with the WHA Antimicrobial Resistance Workgroup.
7. Assistance. If the FDRA receives a request from a WA state, it must render appropriate assistance for compliance with the regulations in clauses (2) to (4) regarding:
   
   1. domestic food production; and
   2. food imports, from both WA and non-WA states;
8. Clarifications.
   
   1. References to “such as” are merely as examples only and is not meant to be exhaustive.
   2. All regulations shall be updated from time to time based on the latest research, made available through convenient physical and electronic means, and free of charge to end-users.
   3. All regulations in clauses (2) to (4) shall be tailored for each of the sapient species that inhabit each of the WA states.
   4. The FDRA is responsible for implementing and interpreting this resolution.

[Simone Republic]

This has been re-written to push all the powers down to WA states, subject to review by FDRA.

I've also got rid of the research stuff for space reasons.

[Coporiana]

This has been re-written to push all the powers down to WA states, subject to review by FDRA.

While this addresses the comments I made under sections 3 and 4, this resolution is still plagued with a fatal flaw I mentioned under section 2: What goals are the GA and member nations trying to accomplish here? While I, and I assume you too, know that these limits are for the health and safety of sapients, the resolution doesn't actually state that anywhere. Member nations are being asked to create standards and limits for these things, but they don't say what the standards should seek to accomplish. Is it for the safety of the consumer, of the worker, increasing national knowledge, preserving food purity, providing a mechanism for corporate regulation? Should it be so that food doesn't literally poison you upon consumption? So that there's a low enough level of contaminants to where someone won't have long-term health effects from consuming something for an extended period? Those are just some of the questions that are left unanswered on my first reading of this resolution. As it stands, this seeks to see an issue and make it magically go away with regulatory bodies. It doesn't actually give those bodies guidance on what to do. Heavily opposed as stands, with hopes that this might change.
Unrelated to that, I have 2 more minor concerns.
First, why are the best practices of section seated in this resolution? Everything else is clearly contaminant-related, however this feels like a bit of a stretch to include with these other concerns. Even if you do want this resolution to publish best practices for safe consumption, wouldn't 3a already cover that due to it including cooking at the end? While I absolutely support the principle of having states publish consumption guides specifically for underrepresented groups, it seems this section is mostly redundant and out of place in comparison to the rest of the resolution.
Secondly, as I read it, section 5 only mandates that states themselves comply with their regulations. Is there potentially a better way to mandate that states also regulate production so that these regulations are mandated to apply to private actors like corporations as well? I know that it is sort of implied through the distribution clause, however it feels a little vague as written.

[Simone Republic]

The below is in reply to Coporiana.

While this addresses the comments I made under sections 3 and 4, this resolution is still plagued with a fatal flaw I mentioned under section 2: What goals are the GA and member nations trying to accomplish here?

I mentioned "health and well-being" of sapient species in both the preamble and definitions. I can't say "humans" directly so sapient species it is. There's also now a line about taking into account of "sapient species with different ages".

First, why are the best practices of section seated in this resolution? Everything else is clearly contaminant-related, however this feels like a bit of a stretch to include with these other concerns. Even if you do want this resolution to publish best practices for safe consumption, wouldn't 3a already cover that due to it including cooking at the end? While I absolutely support the principle of having states publish consumption guides specifically for underrepresented groups, it seems this section is mostly redundant and out of place in comparison to the rest of the resolution.

This has been axed and will go into another resolution.

Secondly, as I read it, section 5 only mandates that states themselves comply with their regulations. Is there potentially a better way to mandate that states also regulate production so that these regulations are mandated to apply to private actors like corporations as well? I know that it is sort of implied through the distribution clause, however it feels a little vague as written.

It's been changed to "anyone who produces or distributes", so both state actors or otherwise.

(OOC: I cannot remember which, but there was a repeal that I can vaguely recall of a resolution on the basis that the resolution delegated all legislative work to a committee. I fear that this shares in that problem. Every single mandate here is offset onto the Gnomes, with the result that this doesn’t actually say anything about the precise burden on member-nations.)

Ooc: Are you referring to GA #641, which I co-wrote with Simone?

This has been pushed down to national level rather than FDRA as a committee.

I have also moved a section on additives over from another resolution draft as there is some space.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 4

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the widespread trading of food between WA states;

Affirming the passage of related GARs such as 333 and 679 by the WA;

Hoping for clearer guidelines regarding to the presence of additives, contaminants, pesticides, and other residues in food, in order to protect the health and well-being of sapient individuals, regardless of whether they are food consumers or workers along the production chain;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Additives" means any substance intentionally added to a feed or a food, whether for technological or sensory purposes.
      
   2. "Authority" means an entity of a WA state designated by the government of that state as in charge of formulating and enforcing the regulations.
      
   3. “Contaminants” means anything not intentionally added to food or feed during the production process.
      
   4. “Feed” means anything grown or developed to be eaten by a non-sapient species, and where such non-sapient species is eventually eaten by a sapient species;
      
   5. “Food” means anything grown or developed to be eaten by a sapient species;
      
   6. “FDRA” means the Food and Drug Regulatory Agency;
      
   7. "Regulations" mean the standards published pursuant to clauses (2) to (4).
      
   8. “Residue limits” means appropriates limits for residues found in food and feed.
2. Additives. Each authority is to publish standards for appropriate use and disclosure of:
   
   1. The maximum amount and type of additives used in food and feed, such as acidity regulators, colorings, and emulsifiers. All such disclosures must be made on each pre-packaged food product sold to an inhabitant of a WA state.
   2. The valid technological or sensory rationale for such use, such as easier preparation, reduced decay in transit, or to improve presentation, and any health risks associated with such additives.
3. Contaminants. Each authority is to publish standards for:
   
   1. Reducing potential contamination during all stages of production processes, such as during farming, manufacturing, processing, distribution, and cooking;
   2. Reducing retention of pesticides in feed (and in turn in food);
   3. Sampling, testing and analysis methods for assessing the presence of contaminants or residues;
4. Residue limits. Each authority is to publish residue limits for:
   
   1. Feed additives (such as enzymes),
   2. Veterinary drugs (such as antibiotics);
   3. Pesticides;
   4. Fertilizers;
   5. Other contaminants, whether naturally occurring or due to production processes, such as arsenic in rice, and inorganic tin in canned goods.
5. Testing[/b].
6. Each authority is to publish standards in the sampling and testing of the presence of additives, contaminants, pesticides and other residues in both and feed.
7. Each authority is to conduct (or authorize a third party to conduct) randomized testing
   
   
   
8. Compliance.
   
   1. Each authority must ensure that all food and feed made, imported into, or distributed in that WA state are in compliance with the regulations to the best technological capability of that WA state. This includes regular testing of all food and feed in that WA state.
   2. If food and feed are made in one WA state and are solely exported to another WA state and not sold in domestic markets, the regulations standards of the state receiving the exports shall apply.
   3. All standards set forth in the regulations shall be tailored for the health and well-being of different sapient species that inhabit that WA state, including differing stages of development of different sapient species such as between younger and older members of that species, as well as the technological capabilities of that WA state.
9. FDRA review.
   
   1. FDRA is responsible for reviewing all regulations set by each WA state regarding domestic food production and food imports, to ensure minimum levels of compliance required to maintain the health and well-being of sapient inhabitants that consume such food.
   2. If a WA state is unable to comply with this resolution due to a lack of resources or technological capability, it may outsource such work to FDRA.
   3. The work of FDRA with regards to this resolution is to be paid for by the General Fund.
10. Clarifications.
    
    1. References to “such as” are merely as examples only and is not meant to be exhaustive.
    2. Multiple entities may be designated as the competent authority, depending on the government structure of the WA state.
    3. This resolution does not apply if a WA state does not have sapient inhabitants that consume food for their health and well-being.
    4. FDRA is responsible for interpreting this resolution and to adjudicate disputes between different authorities over this resolution in a de novo basis.

Draft 5 has been published and the resolution has been heavily rewritten to (hopefully) smooth out the flow.

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

The proposal title has been changed to "Reducing food contaminants and residues"

[Simone Republic]

Last call. This will go in after "Repeal Pesticide Regulations" although it really has nothing to do with the GAR 376 itself (it regulates pesticides from the point of view of food, rather than pesticides dropped in soil). It also does not conflict with the vaguely worded and hideous GAR 64 as that's about quality of products, this is about reducing contamination in products.

[The Ice States]

A sua sponte challenge, based on the Optionality rule, has been initiated within the Secretariat. Two votes to hear the challenge have been cast, and it shall thus be heard.

[Simone Republic]

Has anyone got comments on the actual resolution itself? Rather than the sua sponte?

[Tigrisia]

Thandi Enfantia comes by the information desk for submitted resolutions, seeing the submission of "Reducing food contaminants and residues", even though marked as "SUA SPONTE". After quickly scanning the document, she is puzzled. Apart from more details and better wording, this document says the same as Resolution #64, establishing the WAFDRA. She scans if there's a proposal to repeal #64, which she doesn't see anywhere. She also looks if there is any conference room dedicated to this - Nothing. She rans off to the spaces dedicated to the milky bears of Simones Republic, to ask them about these differences.

[Simone Republic]

Thandi Enfantia comes by the information desk for submitted resolutions, seeing the submission of "Reducing food contaminants and residues", even though marked as "SUA SPONTE". After quickly scanning the document, she is puzzled. Apart from more details and better wording, this document says the same as Resolution #64, establishing the WAFDRA. She scans if there's a proposal to repeal #64, which she doesn't see anywhere. She also looks if there is any conference room dedicated to this - Nothing. She rans off to the spaces dedicated to the milky bears of Simones Republic, to ask them about these differences.

(IC)

"It was very carefully written to go around GA64, which we do want to repeal, but we don't really want every resolution that turns up in GA to be a repeal, especially when it's all from us." An ursine assistant explains as the milky white bear is still not in WAHQ.

(OOC)

Yes I have a repeal of GAR64.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=544276

[Tigrisia]

"It was very carefully written to go around GA64, which we do want to repeal, but we don't really want every resolution that turns up in GA to be a repeal, especially when it's all from us." An ursine assistant explains as the milky white bear is still not in WAHQ.

"Ah, thanks. We currently reference the WAFDA in our proposal on world hunger. Do you think that it would be a good idea to reference the FDRA instead? Also, 705 contains references to the WAFDA, so the WAFDA would still continue to exist, creating essentially two bodies for the same thing."

[Simone Republic]

"It was very carefully written to go around GA64, which we do want to repeal, but we don't really want every resolution that turns up in GA to be a repeal, especially when it's all from us." An ursine assistant explains as the milky white bear is still not in WAHQ.

"Ah, thanks. We currently reference the WAFDA in our proposal on world hunger. Do you think that it would be a good idea to reference the FDRA instead? Also, 705 contains references to the WAFDA, so the WAFDA would still continue to exist, creating essentially two bodies for the same thing."

"705 clause (1)(b). It refers to "FDRA" to mean the WA Food and Drug Regulatory Agency. There's no duplication."

"Also, several of our upcoming resolutions also reference the FDRA. We don't have an agenda to scrap the FDRA, unlike GESTAPO which we do because we hate the name." The assistant replies.

[Bananaistan]

"Such a shame that the proposal has more or less all member states going around duplicating their efforts. A genuine international solution using the WA authority would have saved everyone a lot of money."

[Simone Republic]

"Such a shame that the proposal has more or less all member states going around duplicating their efforts. A genuine international solution using the WA authority would have saved everyone a lot of money."

I got scared about "oh another WA committee doing everything".

[Tigrisia]

I got scared about "oh another WA committee doing everything".

Imagine the size of the FDRA when it has to do all these things. It would be best to do it on national level or below and use the FDRA for international cooperation.

[The Ice States]

"I may be quite late to this, unfortunately, as the resolution appears to have passed regardless. However, we see little merit in Section 1d having an exception for cannibalism and person-sourced meats. Kortsson, take out the sample." An aide, dressed in a white medical coat, takes out a transparent Wuppertare box containing a small steak apparently cooked medium-rare, alongside cutlery and a plate. Desak opens on the box, serving the steak on the said plate before cutting himself a small part of the steak, elegantly delivering it to his mouth, and swallowing it within a few seconds. Anything longer, after all, would merely result in him being interrupted by another Ambassador. The aide then takes away the plate, returning all the materials apart from the used cultery into the Wuppertare box.

"What I just ate consists of meat derived from -- as much as I am loath to so strongly address any person -- a traitor to the Ice States who ended up being killed on-duty in international territory; bizarrely, he had consented to the consumption of his flesh upon death. Now, this brings us to the main point; this was completely safe to eat only as it went through significant testing, both before and after its full preparation to the form in which I ate it. Indeed, unregulated person-sourced meat is even more dangerous to health than other meat, or most food, products. We do not believe it is wise, accordingly, to exempt cannibal meats from this resolution. There is no reason that it should be permitted to sell unsafe foods, even if such foods originated from a person."

"If the rationale is our own 'Cannibalism Act' and its blocker, this is insufficient, as it explicitly permits regulation of 'person-sourced meat likely to contain, or not tested for...any contaminant, prion, or other substance which would pose a significant health risk to the intended or final consumer'. If the rationale is that further regulations are needed, we do not see the issue; additional regulations can still be enacted even at the World Assembly level regardless of whether these base protections are in force. Overall, it would have been much more desirable not to have this exception."

"While it is late, does the Simonian mission have any response to this point?"

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Kenmoria]

Reducing food contaminants and residues was passed 9,804 votes to 1,361.

Ambassador Fortier gestures to the voting count. “The intent behind the resolution does seem rather moot once it has become a resolution. In terms of your Excellency’s question, even if member-nations are permitted to legalise the practice of cannibalism, it hardly seems right that the World Assembly should condone such a practice, through the imposition of standardised labelling thereon. A cannibal takes a great moral risk when he consumes the flesh of another, to which he apparently consents, to the bodily risk to health is par for the course. There is no reason for the World Assembly to protect this degrading and vile act.”