[DRAFT] Food and Water Security

[Oreland]

Food and Water Security
Category: Environmental
Strength: Mild??

World Assembly Nations,

The problem of environmental changes are increasing, and within the big idea, small, but important and critical problems are reoccurring. Within the small problems, one of the most serious problem in the world is the fact that food and water, what most of us take for given, is not being properly distributed to the poor. Water and food is one of the most important things we need in our life, yet many people are not able to enjoy this privilege and feed themselves, nor their family.

While these problems are happening, waste of food and water are also increasing, when all the food and water that goes to waste can be used to make a clean supply of water and/or food.

This proposal states:

1. WA member nations must distribute sanitary food and water to the poor or others who cannot make out a living.
2. The food and water that goes to waste should be used to remake a clean supply of food and water to be given out to the poor again.
3. Food and Water that are not to be remade should be used as nutritious food for animals/plants.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The first two paragraphs read a lot more like a speech than a piece of law, though the other clauses are fine in this regard. Also, the environment category doesn’t have strengths, it has areas of effect. I assume you mean the environment - all businesses mild area of effect, this could be clarified. Finally, this will be a resolution once it is passed, not a proposal, which should be reflected in the draft. On the other hand, well done for posting a draft here and not just submitting it instantly.)

[Oreland]

Food and Water Security
Category: Environmental
Areas of Effect: ?? (Should it be environment & mild area of effect in all businesses?)

World Assembly Nations,

The problem of environmental changes are increasing, and one of the most serious problem in the world in this topic is the fact that food and water is not being properly distributed to the poor, and that waste of food and water are also increasing. Important resources such as these must be distributed properly, regardless of people's social rank. All the food and water that goes to waste needs to be used to make a clean supply of water and/or food.

Hereby:

1. WA member nations must distribute sanitary food and water to the poor or others who cannot make out a living.
2. The food and water that goes to waste should be used to remake a clean supply of food and water to be given out to the poor again.
3. Food and Water that are not to be remade should be used as nutritious food for animals/plants.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Don't make a new thread for a new draft. Include the new draft in the original thread. I'll ask for this to be merged.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Don't make a new thread for a new draft. Include the new draft in the original thread. I'll ask for this to be merged.

Indeed. Edit your original post so that the latest draft always appears at the top.

[Kenmoria]

Areas of Effect: ?? (Should it be environment & mild area of effect in all businesses?)

(OOC: It should be “all businesses - mild”. Also, have you checked to see if this contradicts/duplicates any prior resolutions? I haven’t but this looks similar to something I have seen before. Echoing the statement of Wrapper and NCR, put a new draft into the first post instead of adding it halfway down the thread or in a completely different thread, this enables people to give feedback more easily.)

[Araraukar]

1. WA member nations must distribute sanitary food and water to the poor or others who cannot make out a living.

OOC: If "sanitary" means "safe to consume", then that's already been achieved by the Minimum Standards of Living resolution.

2. The food and water that goes to waste should be used to remake a clean supply of food and water to be given out to the poor again.

You know that water pretty much just stays as water, right? Your pee is mostly water. I'm not exactly sure what "remake" means, because food doesn't just magically appear, it actually needs to grow (whether plants or animals or, indeed, lab cultures) and that takes more than just organic matter starter. And most of all it takes time. I think what you're trying to talk about is recycling nutrients back into the food production chain. Though why it should be only done to be given to the poor, I don't know. Also, "should" doesn't work in legislation.

3. Food and Water that are not to be remade should be used as nutritious food for animals/plants.

Even if they're "not to be remade" because they're not nutritious? Also, I can't help but wonder if you honestly understand how food production works? Any recycling of nutrients from wasted food would necessarily mean "feeding" it to animals or plants, becase animals and plants are the food that you eat.

[Grays Harbor]

I can see the headlines now: “WA forces nations to feed garbage to the poor and disadvantaged”.

[Aclion]

I can see the headlines now: “WA forces nations to feed garbage to the poor and disadvantaged”.

"Eat you garbage, dear"
"I din't want to. I hate garbage"
"You know, many children in nonWA countries would be very happy to have that garbage."

[Grays Harbor]

I can see the headlines now: “WA forces nations to feed garbage to the poor and disadvantaged”.

"Eat you garbage, dear"
"I din't want to. I hate garbage"
"You know, many children in nonWA countries would be very happy to have that garbage."

“Could be worse, I guess. You could be trying to make me eat haggis and blood pudding. Pass the mystery meat, then.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"Eat you garbage, dear"
"I din't want to. I hate garbage"
"You know, many children in nonWA countries would be very happy to have that garbage."

“Could be worse, I guess. You could be trying to make me eat haggis and blood pudding. Pass the mystery meat, then.”

"You say blood pudding in a context that suggests it is unappetizing, but it clearly is delicious, ambassador. Are you feeling well? Perhaps a hearty meal of various sausages would restore you."

[Liberimery]

Section 3 also needs clarification. Human Beings, for example, have one of the widest ranges of diets in the animal kingdom. Certain foods humans can eat are harmful to livestock. For example a human can process chocolate but its poisonous to dogs. And the ability to consume lactose of another species is largely a human trait. Most mammals that are beyond suckling age cannot process lactate at all. And don't get me started on the potential madness of feeding certain beef products to cattle.