[PASSED] Reducing Food Waste

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’ve made some changes to the proposal, albeit minor ones, and added a new clause. Feedback?)

[Essu Beti]

“Do other countries really have so much food to go around that the farmers throw it away instead of selling it?” asked Muru before Inan could shut him up. “If so, rest assured that Essu Beti will happily take the horrors of ugly or very slightly spoiled food off of your hands.”

[Kenmoria]

“Do other countries really have so much food to go around that the farmers throw it away instead of selling it?” asked Muru before Inan could shut him up. “If so, rest assured that Essu Beti will happily take the horrors of ugly or very slightly spoiled food off of your hands.”

“Indeed, it is a prevalent issue issue within many member nations, though maybe not your own. Essu Beti will be largely unaffected by this proposal.”

[Bruke]

The Brukean ambassador reads over the proposal, before giving complements to the author(s).

"The Royal Republic already has programs to minimize food waste and turn what is produced into animal feed, soil nutrients, and biofuels, and would be quite willing to work with the International Food Welfare Organisation in its research. In that spirit, I would suggest that there be a clause, or a portion of a clause, which encourages member states to share relevant technologies where possible."

[Araraukar]

OOC: A little question, what "strength" is "instructs"? Is it a must or a please?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: A little question, what "strength" is "instructs"? Is it a must or a please?

(OOC: It was meant to be a command on the same strength as ‘mandates’.)

The Brukean ambassador reads over the proposal, before giving complements to the author(s).

"The Royal Republic already has programs to minimize food waste and turn what is produced into animal feed, soil nutrients, and biofuels, and would be quite willing to work with the International Food Welfare Organisation in its research. In that spirit, I would suggest that there be a clause, or a portion of a clause, which encourages member states to share relevant technologies where possible."

“I have taken your feedback into account, and a version of the idea you suggest will be added shortly.”

[Kenmoria]

“This delegation has been having some trouble with the category. I had originally planned to put this under ‘social justice’, but looking at the proposal now I can see that the proposal also appears to target the environment. Even assuming I do go with the environment category, I can’t see which industry this would affect.

What are all the delegations’ thoughts on the category? I recognise that it could be that the current draft doesn’t fit neatly into either, in which case I’ll have to change it around a lot, but it could also be that I’m just worrying, and the current option fits fine.”

[Vlender Tusdeta]

In terms of improving the health of society, it does not seem like international legislation reducing food wastage would likely be all that beneficial. Economies under normal operating conditions are generally so very adequate at limiting famine that obesity often plagues rich nations. Insofar as this proposal could improve health, it seems like it would be via creating food insecurity through questionable regulation of agricultural operations. That might reduce obesity by creating food insecurity, and yet even that does not tend to work for under conditions of food insecurity people seek out the dense and cost-efficient sources of nutrients, the most exemplary and widely known examples of which requirements are quite unhealthy (note that dense and cost-efficient sources of nutrients are the very substances often derided as aka 'junk food').

Furthermore, food wastage is not strictly wasted. Food processing facilities also often seek to purchase food that is cheaper for their use because it is not of grocer's quality; this second rate material is used for processing via mechanical and chemical means into hyperpalatable foods with greatly superior shelf lives (often also aka 'junk food'). In its decay it is used as a source of safe, clean compost material for fields; there do exist more dubious substances used to produce compost for agricultural use, particularly in more suffering economies. Even in landfills, the decay of food waste provides methane output that can be tapped to provide electrical power.

It seems potentially undue meddling to require citizens to be informed as to how to save and store leftovers, but as that clause is merely a non-binding 'urge', the office of Vlender Tusdeta does not wish to formally criticize it.

[Kenmoria]

In terms of improving the health of society, it does not seem like international legislation reducing food wastage would likely be all that beneficial. Economies under normal operating conditions are generally so very adequate at limiting famine that obesity often plagues rich nations. Insofar as this proposal could improve health, it seems like it would be via creating food insecurity through questionable regulation of agricultural operations. That might reduce obesity by creating food insecurity, and yet even that does not tend to work for under conditions of food insecurity people seek out the dense and cost-efficient sources of nutrients, the most exemplary and widely known examples of which requirements are quite unhealthy (note that dense and cost-efficient sources of nutrients are the very substances often derided as aka 'junk food').

“Although it is true that economies in first-world nations have very little issues with famine and hunger, due to their wealth and technological advancement, that does not necessarily mean that food wastage is not an issue. Often, it is the producers of food or the countries from which food may be imported that take the strain of food wastage even when the nation actually consuming the form does not. Obesity, though a prevalent issue in many member nations, is not what I wish to address in this proposal. I don’t think that reducing the amount of food that is unused will lead to a rise in unhealthiness, since food availability is so high that any further increases won’t have too large of an effect.”

Furthermore, food wastage is not strictly wasted. Food processing facilities also often seek to purchase food that is cheaper for their use because it is not of grocer's quality; this second rate material is used for processing via mechanical and chemical means into hyperpalatable foods with greatly superior shelf lives (often also aka 'junk food'). In its decay it is used as a source of safe, clean compost material for fields; there do exist more dubious substances used to produce compost for agricultural use, particularly in more suffering economies. Even in landfills, the decay of food waste provides methane output that can be tapped to provide electrical power.

“You raise a good point, in that I haven’t defined ‘food wastage’. My intention was for any food that is used for a practical purpose, which ideally would be sustenance but could be a few other things, wouldn’t be targeted by the proposal. This will be fixed in the next draft.”

It seems potentially undue meddling to require citizens to be informed as to how to save and store leftovers, but as that clause is merely a non-binding 'urge', the office of Vlender Tusdeta does not wish to formally criticize it.

“Indeed, the optionality of that clause was intentional, as it wouldn’t be a good fit for some nations.”

[Rovikstead]

OOC: Hey, Kenmoria. I'm glad to see you're continuing the proposal Australian rePublic dropped a while ago. I'm the main nation of the puppets, Dmitry II and Cute Puppies, and although I'm still a bit rusty after taking so much time off from the WA, I'm happy to help in whatever way I can with the proposal.

In your preamble, I believe you should acknowledge that the citizenry also plays a significant role in the amount of food that is wasted. I think your mandates section is great and covers the essentials from educating the public on this issue to effective ways member nations can drastically reduce food wastage. I'll be looking through this proposal more in the future and try to share any constructive feedback I can, but it looks great so far.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Hey, Kenmoria. I'm glad to see you're continuing the proposal Australian rePublic dropped a while ago. I'm the main nation of the puppets, Dmitry II and Cute Puppies, and although I'm still a bit rusty after taking so much time off from the WA, I'm happy to help in whatever way I can with the proposal.

In your preamble, I believe you should acknowledge that the citizenry also plays a significant role in the amount of food that is wasted. I think your mandates section is great and covers the essentials from educating the public on this issue to effective ways member nations can drastically reduce food wastage. I'll be looking through this proposal more in the future and try to share any constructive feedback I can, but it looks great so far.

(OOC: The point about citizenry has been put in the latest draft. I look forward to any potential feedback in the future.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just a quick note to say I haven't forgotten about this draft and know I owe you a new look-see. Out and about atm, will try to get to it tonight.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Further edits have been made, and this is a bump.)

[Araraukar]

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, ‘food wastage’ as the discarding of any products intended for sapient consumption, such that these products are not used for any practical purpose;

OOC: What of artistic (edible sculptures and whatnot, that are not actually eaten) or entertainment purposes?

[Kenmoria]

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, ‘food wastage’ as the discarding of any products intended for sapient consumption, such that these products are not used for any practical purpose;

OOC: What of artistic (edible sculptures and whatnot, that are not actually eaten) or entertainment purposes?

(OOC: I’ve changed ‘practical’ to ‘reasonable’, which should be broad enough to cover art installations and ceremonial/festival usage.)

[Maowi]

OOC:

Noting that many organisations who grow, prepare, sell or distribute food have unneeded wastage of their product because a greater amount of stock is ordered than is sold, causing the excess food to go to waste,

I would change 'who' to 'which' here, as in general I believe impersonal pronouns are used with organisations. Also I find the use of 'have' slightly jarring. Maybe you could consider changing it to read 'unnecessarily waste their product'?

Further acknowledging that some farmers, retailers and wholesalers refuse to sell some fruit and vegetables if they are considered aesthetically unpleasing, regardless of actual quality or nutritional value,

I'm not sure whether it's strictly a grammatical necessity but I'd think 'fruit' should be in the plural here

Harming the environment, due to: the production of the greenhouse gas methane, the wastage of the fresh water that was used to create discarded products and the attraction of pestilent vermin to rotting food,

I find the use of a colon followed by a list a bit cumbersome to read here, especially within a bigger list preceded by a colon. I don't think the colon is necessary, and the same in clauses 2, 5 and 10.

Regretting that action has not been taken by this most august assembly to reduce unnecessary food wastage, and thus lend assistance to both environments and citizens of member nations who are hurt by the discarding if edible food,

'if' --> 'of

4. Charges food producers and food transporters to minimise the amount of food that, having been produced, is thrown away, without a compelling health or safety purpose;

I personally find 'charging someone with doing x' to flow more naturally than 'charging someone to do x'. Also I think the comma in red should be removed to make the meaning clearer.

Full support regardless of whether the above changes are made, as they are pretty much all personal preference

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Full support regardless of whether the above changes are made, as they are pretty much all personal preference

(OOC: I’ve implemented most of your suggestions. The first preamble clause should actually have ‘that’, rather than ‘who’ or ‘which’, since I am specifying what organisations I am talking about, rather than providing additional detail.

Also, ‘fruit’ can be an uncountable noun, and I think ‘fruit and vegetables’ sounds better than ‘fruits and vegetables’, though that could be a result of where I’m from rather than an actual rule.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Corrections in red. Comments in green.

The World Assembly,

Noting that many organisations that grow, prepare, sell or distribute food unnecessarily waste their product because a greater amount of stock is ordered than is sold, causing the excess food to go to waste,

Further acknowledging that some farmers, retailers and wholesalers refuse to sell some fruit and vegetables if they are considered aesthetically unpleasing, regardless of actual quality or nutritional value, (Farmers would prefer to sell them; retailers won't purchase them. This isn't caused by a refusal to sell them.)

Recognising the fact that much of this wastage is still edible, and its lack of use is therefore unproductive and damaging to the environment,

Concerned over the many tonnes of food that unintentionally expire due to improper or incorrect stock rotation,

Worried for the many negative effects of the aforementioned food wastage on WA member states and their populations, including:

1. Hharming the environment, due to the production of the greenhouse gas methane, the wastage of the fresh water that was used to create discarded products and the attraction of pestilent vermin to rotting food, (Normal vermin would do that just fine.)
   
2. Fforcing a rise in the prices of food, because of a lack of supply caused by wastage between intitial initialproduction and final sale, resulting in serious negative consequences for the price of living, (Depends; if food production has large positive economies of scale, it could have a long-run negatively-sloping supply curve which would offset the costs of food wastage.)
   
3. Rrobbing poorer citizens of member nations of the ability to eat possibility of eating the perfectly edible food, safe for sapient consumption, that is thrown away unnecessarily,
   
4. Ssquandering the energy used to store and distribute the discarded food, thus increasing power demand unnecessarily, and
   
5. Wwasting the labour that was used to create said food products, which could otherwise have been spent on goods and services that would have ultimately been used for the betterment of member nations, and (I agree, we shouldn't waste labour. People generally underestimate the benefits of conserving labour and bias themselves towards make-work policies, let's not do that. However, labour isn't spent, unless you are Russia during the Second World War or on the Western Front between 1914–1918. One could, however, divert labour or more efficiently employ or allocate it.)

Regretting that action has not been taken by this most august assembly to reduce unnecessary food wastage, and thus lend assistance to both environments and citizens of member nations who are hurt by the discarding of edible food,

Hereby,:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, ‘food wastage’ as the discarding of any products intended for sapient consumption (Consumption is an economic term meaning the using of a resource for utility; I think a more precise term would perhaps be something like eating or drinking.), such that these products are not used for any reasonable purpose; (I presume you mean something along the lines of "except products which are not used for any other reasonable purpose"? Clarify.)

2. Strongly encourages member nations to create local initiatives that seek to prevent the overproduction and disposal of viable and edible food, including but not limited to: food banks and charities; (Agricultural subsidies are common. Subsidies ipso facto produce more of something than the market itself would bear. Could you clarify if such things are included in your proposal?)

3. Urges member nations to inform their citizens about how to properly save and store leftovers for future consumption; (Most food wastage is at the consumer level, not at the producer level (which is entirely to be expected, given that firms are likely better profit-maximisers, knowing more about food, than consumers). Require this.)

4. Charges food producers and food transporters with minimising the amount of food that, having been produced, is thrown away without a compelling health or safety purpose; (Can we stick to normal verbs? New ones always lead to everyone getting into a fit about which verbs are requirements and which ones are not. However that is, let's say that "charge" is a mandate; if that's the case, food producers and transporters are likely profit maximising institutions. Current business practices may be profit maximising and in this case, the things not sold are probably ones that either are too dangerous to sell given possible lawsuits or won't be bought. If the former, this policy would effectively force grocers to expose themselves to lawsuits. If the latter, it would do little to stop wastage.)

5. Obligates member nations to repurpose a reasonable amount of food surpluses into appropriate environmentally, socially or economically viable programs, such as: diverting food scraps to animal feed, composting inedible food to create nutrient-rich soil, converting scraps into biofuel, or using waste oils from food for fuel conversion in order to recover lost energy in industrial processes; (If I store for future use 100 pc of my surplus, is that a reasonable amount of repurposing?)

6. Instructs member states to divert a reasonable proportion of their wasted food, if assuredly edible and safe for sapient consumption, to feeding those who are unable to procure food for themselves or their family, either in their own nation or in the form of foreign aid. This may be accomplished directly or via foodbanks; (Why would anyone do this if the more fundamental problem of getting sued is not resolved?)

7. Requires that all businesses in member nations take every reasonable step to reduce the amount of safely-consumable food and drink that is discarded, and implement stock rotation techniques that minimise product expiry, if not already being used; (Shrug. Seems like something a profit-maximising firm would already be doing anyway.)

8. Mandates the establishment, if one is not already existent, of at least one agency, department or office within each member nation to assess the causes of excess food wastage and research ways in which this can be reduced; (If you're going to do this, why not do it via a WA agency that we can trust and not via a member nation department?)

9. Suggests that member nations share their research about food wastage and the mitigation thereof in order to improve the efficiency of data gathering, as well as aiding in the generation of international solutions to this issue; (Sharing wouldn't be necessary under a WA agency.)

10. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organisation to include: coordinating international research on the most practical and environmentally-friendly methods, of reuse of wasted food products, and publishing these findings; as well as supporting local charities and initiatives in member nations that aim to reduce food wastage; and (When you say supporting, specifically what do you mean?)

11. Compels member nations to implement techniques that minimise food wastage, based on the findings from their internal office or the research published by the International Food Wastage Organisation, where doing so would not be harmful to sapient health, extremely expensive, or excessively impractical.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Thank you for your feedback, IA. I’ve implemented your changes and suggestions, with the exception of your points about the risk of suing in clauses 4 and 6. I feel that, if there is a chance of litigation due to damages to health, that would fall under the ‘compelling health or safety’ exception.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Food spoils on a stochastic basis. There is a distribution of dates at which some of the food spoils, then more, then, all of it. Most firms discard unsold produce after it reaches the point where some of it could start spoiling. That doesn't mean that none of it has spoiled, because again, spoilage occurs stochastically. Does your proposal intend that grocers test every single item to determine whether it has spoiled or not? If not, those grocers are now open to lawsuits of giving away or selling spoiled, possibly poisoned, food.

[Kenmoria]

Food spoils on a stochastic basis. There is a distribution of dates at which some of the food spoils, then more, then, all of it. Most firms discard unsold produce after it reaches the point where some of it could start spoiling. That doesn't mean that none of it has spoiled, because again, spoilage occurs stochastically. Does your proposal intend that grocers test every single item to determine whether it has spoiled or not? If not, those grocers are now open to lawsuits of giving away or selling spoiled, possibly poisoned, food.

(OOC: I’ve now added a qualifier to the clause about businesses minimising food wastage, such that it is only member nations who have the stronger requirement to repurpose all safe food.)

[Araraukar]

Enjoins
Instructs

OOC: Any chance these could be changed into something less ambiguous? The first means both prohibit and command, and the latter, yes, can mean something you must do, but can also be read as something you are taught to do (which will then be up to you whether you want to do it or not).

[Kenmoria]

Enjoins
Instructs

OOC: Any chance these could be changed into something less ambiguous? The first means both prohibit and command, and the latter, yes, can mean something you must do, but can also be read as something you are taught to do (which will then be up to you whether you want to do it or not).

(OOC: I’ve changed ‘instructs’ to ‘commands’, to make it less ambiguous, and ‘enjoins’ has become ‘orders’.)

[Barfleur]

After a long slumber, Ambassador MacGeorge wakes up, gets ready, and walk to WAHQ. He picks up a copy of the proposal and reads it over.

"Ambassador, I support this bill Just one suggestion: you might want to define 'excessively impractical'."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: My dear chap, that is a matter defined by what the definition of define is.