[PASSED] Regulating Industrial Farming

[The Ice States]

This is now GA #679!

Environmental - Agriculture.

Noting that the industrial farming (or "factory farming") of animals is a method often used in agricultural settings to increase efficiency and lower the cost of production;

Concerned, however, that the stocking densities used in factory farming frequently result in the quick transfer of communicable diseases among animals, many of which can affect public health through both the consumption of meat produced in factory farms, and the direct transfer of diseases from factory farm facilities to workers and the public;

Perturbed that these facts are only overcome through the massive use of medication and antibiotics, a practice which contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria while wasting medications which could instead be used to benefit the health of those actually in need;

Observing that factory farming also has significant, demonstrably negative environmental effects on nearby wildlife and flora, as this approach produces a large amount of biological waste necessitating safe and responsible collection, handling and disposal;

Aware too of the economic effects of factory farming, as by maximising efficiency while disregarding animal health and welfare, the practice fosters anti-competitive practices and the cartelisation of the agricultural industry;

Concluding there to be ample evidence that regulating factory farming is essential to public health, a fair economy, and animal health and welfare;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Definitions: The following provisions must be followed in interpretation of this resolution.
   
   
   1. An "animal" is a non-sapient animal being held in captivity for the purpose of extracting any commodity ("animal product") directly produced from or by said animal.
      
      
   2. An "industrial farm" is an industrial facility where animals are enclosed en masse and in close proximity to each other.
   
   
2. Health spacing requirements: No industrial farm may enclose animals in such proximity to other animals as to result in the significantly likely transfer of communicable diseases between said animals, except as necessary for contact between said animals while meeting Section 3 requirements. Nor may any animal be enclosed in a location of such size, design or stocking density as to prevent said animal from engaging in motion or like behaviours necessary to prevent diseases such as osteoporosis from arising in said animal. Both conditions of this Section must be met regardless of any supplements or medication administered to said animals not on an ad hoc basis.
   
   
3. Welfare spacing requirements: No industrial farm may enclose animals in any location of such size, design or stocking density as to prevent said animal from exercising their full range of motion.
   
   
4. Exceptions: Sections 2 or 3 may be waived to the minimal extent necessary to prevent physical harm to a animal, or otherwise protect the health or welfare of sapients or animals.
   
   
5. Waste collection: All industrial farms must
   
   
   1. regularly or continuously collect all biological waste from their animal enclosures; and
      
      
   2. prevent such waste from entering any enclosure other than that enclosure in which it originated; except to administer said waste as feed or nutrients to other animals, should such waste have undergone sufficient processing to minimise any health risk to animals administered with said waste.
   
   
6. Waste handling: The processing, disposal and transportation of such waste must comply with all relevant subnational, national and international standards regarding handling of toxic materials or biological waste.
   
   
7. Trade restrictions: Every member nation must fully embargo all international trade of animal products produced in a manner violating this resolution. Nor may any area under member nation jurisdiction be used for trade of such products. This applies regardless of whether such products were produced under World Assembly jurisdiction. For the purposes of this resolution, "animal products" includes any products manufactured or otherwise created therefrom.
   
   
8. Phase-out: If a member nation can prove to the Compliance Commission that said nation is unable to meet Sections 2 - 7 immediately without causing significant economic damage to said nation, or significantly reducing access to animal products, the Compliance Commission may direct and supervise the gradual implementation of measures in said nation, commencing at once, to bring said nation into compliance with this resolution as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such products. Such measures shall be implemented in cooperation with said nation.
   
   
9. Conflicts: The World Assembly shall reserve the power to further restrict industrial farming. Yet, should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.

Co-author: Greater Cesnica.

[The Ice States]

Noting that the industrial farming (or "factory farming") of animals is a method often used in agricultural settings to increase efficiency and lower the cost of production;

Concerned, however, that the large stocking densities used in factory farming frequently result in the quick transfer of communicable diseases among farmed animals, many of which can affect public health through both the consumption of meat produced in factory farms, and the direct transfer of diseases from factory farm facilities to workers and the public;

Perturbed that these facts are only overcome through the massive use of medication and antibiotics, a practice which contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria while wasting medications which could instead be used to benefit the health of those actually in need;

Observing that factory farming also has significant, demonstrably negative environmental effects on nearby wildlife and flora, as this approach produces a large amount of biological waste necessitating safe and responsible collection, handling and disposal;

Aware, at the same time, of the economic effects of factory farming, as by maximising efficiency while disregarding animal health and welfare, the practice fosters anti-competitive practices and the cartelisation of the agricultural industry;

Concluding there to be ample evidence that regulating factory farming is essential to public health, a fair economy, and animal health and welfare;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Definitions: The following provisions must be followed in interpretation of this resolution.
   
   
   1. An "animal" is a non-sapient animal being held in captivity for the purpose of extracting any commodity directly produced from or by said animal.
      
      
   2. An "industrial farm" is an industrial facility where animals are enclosed en masse and in close proximity to each other.
   
   
2. Health spacing requirements: No industrial farm may enclose animals in such proximity to other animals as to result in the likely transfer of communicable diseases between said animals, except as necessary to permit contact between said animals while meeting Section 3 requirements. Nor may any animal be enclosed in a location of such size or design as to prevent said animal from engaging in motion or like behaviours necessary to prevent diseases such as osteoporosis from arising in said animal. Both conditions of this Section must be met regardless of any supplements or medication administered to said animal.
   
   
3. Welfare spacing requirements: No industrial farm may enclose animals in any location of such size, design or stocking density as to prevent said animal from exercising their full range of motion.
   
   
4. Exceptions: Sections 2 or 3 may be waived to the minimal extent necessary to prevent physical harm to a animal, or otherwise protect the health or welfare of sapients or animals.
   
   
5. Waste collection: All industrial farms must
   
   
   1. regularly or continuously collect all biological waste from their animal enclosures; and
      
      
   2. prevent such waste from entering any enclosure other than that enclosure in which it originated; except to administer said waste as feed or nutrients to other animals, should such waste have undergone sufficient processing to minimise any health risk to animals administered with said waste.
   
   
6. Waste handling: The processing, disposal and transportation of such waste must comply with all relevant subnational, national and international standards regarding handling of toxic materials or biological waste.
   
   
7. Trade restrictions: Every member nation must fully embargo all international trade of products produced in a manner violating this resolution. Nor may any area under member nation jurisdiction be used for trade of non-compliant products.
   
   
8. Phase-out: If a member nation demonstrates to the Compliance Commission that said nation is unable to meet Sections 2 - 7 immediately without causing significant economic damage to said nation, or significantly reducing access to those commodities produced by or from animals via industrial farms, the Compliance Commission may direct and supervise the gradual implementation of measures in said nation, commencing at once, to bring said nation into compliance with this resolution as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such commodities. Such measures shall be implemented in cooperation with said nation.
   
   
9. Conflicts: Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Yet, the World Assembly shall not pass any resolution which prevents further World Assembly restrictions on industrial farming, or which would conflict with these mandates upon some date or event, including repeal of this resolution.

[Simone Republic]

I made some comments before this was posted and I don't really have further comments unless I spot something else.

[The Ice States]

Any comments, or can I presume that this is perfect?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Phase-out: If a member nation demonstrates to the Compliance Commission that said nation is unable to meet Sections 2 - 7 immediately without causing significant economic damage to said nation, or significantly reducing access to those commodities produced by or from animals via industrial farms, the Compliance Commission may direct and supervise the gradual implementation of measures in said nation to bring said nation into compliance with this resolution as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such commodities. Such measures shall be implemented in cooperation with said nation.

OOC: I feel as if this violates the Metagaming rule, the Game Mechanics rule or the Optionality rule. It has traditionally been accepted that compliance with resolutions is immediate. There is mod precedent to suggest that gradual compliance is legal, but reading Ard's ruling closely, I'm not sure this proposal passes the 'test' that is used in that ruling. There is also the matter of whether GenSec would defer to that precedent or take a different view. Right now, I'm tempted to file a legality challenge to get this over and done with, but I feel it might be too early in this proposal's drafting stage to go forward with that.

[The Ice States]

Phase-out: If a member nation demonstrates to the Compliance Commission that said nation is unable to meet Sections 2 - 7 immediately without causing significant economic damage to said nation, or significantly reducing access to those commodities produced by or from animals via industrial farms, the Compliance Commission may direct and supervise the gradual implementation of measures in said nation to bring said nation into compliance with this resolution as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such commodities. Such measures shall be implemented in cooperation with said nation.

OOC: I feel as if this violates the Metagaming rule, the Game Mechanics rule or the Optionality rule. It has traditionally been accepted that compliance with resolutions is immediate. There is mod precedent to suggest that gradual compliance is legal, but reading Ard's ruling closely, I'm not sure this proposal passes the 'test' that is used in that ruling. There is also the matter of whether GenSec would defer to that precedent or take a different view. Right now, I'm tempted to file a legality challenge to get this over and done with, but I feel it might be too early in this proposal's drafting stage to go forward with that.

I don't think this is illegal -- some measure would have to be implemented immediately, even if a limited measure, for Section 8 to be complied with; as per "as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such commodities". Initiating a nation-wide campaign to discourage buying factory farmed products is a measure. Nonetheless, I have added "commencing at once" to clarify this. Thanks for the comment.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I feel as if this violates the Metagaming rule, the Game Mechanics rule or the Optionality rule. It has traditionally been accepted that compliance with resolutions is immediate. There is mod precedent to suggest that gradual compliance is legal, but reading Ard's ruling closely, I'm not sure this proposal passes the 'test' that is used in that ruling. There is also the matter of whether GenSec would defer to that precedent or take a different view. Right now, I'm tempted to file a legality challenge to get this over and done with, but I feel it might be too early in this proposal's drafting stage to go forward with that.

I see no illegality. Some measure would have to be implemented immediately, even if a limited measure, for Section 8 to be complied with; as per "as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such commodities". Nonetheless, I have added "commencing at once" to clarify this.

OOC: See, that's the thing. With the leaded fuel resolution, some measures had to be implemented immediately even if not all of them had to be, so it was deemed legal. However, your proposal would potentially provide a temporary opt-out to all of its active clauses, meaning that immediately, at least, member states would have to do nothing. Sure, eventually, they would have to comply, but after how long? Honestly, I'm going to go ahead and file a legality challenge because I think that this is something that GenSec ought to clarify.

[The Ice States]

I see no illegality. Some measure would have to be implemented immediately, even if a limited measure, for Section 8 to be complied with; as per "as promptly as possible without causing such economic damage or significant reduction of access to such commodities". Nonetheless, I have added "commencing at once" to clarify this.

OOC: See, that's the thing. With the leaded fuel resolution, some measures had to be implemented immediately even if not all of them had to be, so it was deemed legal. However, your proposal would potentially provide a temporary opt-out to all of its active clauses, meaning that immediately, at least, member states would have to do nothing. Sure, eventually, they would have to comply, but after how long? Honestly, I'm going to go ahead and file a legality challenge because I think that this is something that GenSec ought to clarify.

I amended the draft so that this matter is moot.

[Tinhampton]

the World Assembly shall not pass any resolution which prevents further World Assembly restrictions on industrial farming

Why not?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

the World Assembly shall not pass any resolution which prevents further World Assembly restrictions on industrial farming

Why not?

I am not particularly keen on a resolution being passed which authorises member nations to permit factory farming, which itself has its own inherent issues which cannot be addressed without a ban. Even if you disagree with such a ban, I would rather the World Assembly at least be able to consider one.

[The Ice States]

Bump. I have left the draft unamended because of the challenge, but once there is at least a consensus in the challenge thread I will post a new version of this draft.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Bump. I have left the draft unamended because of the challenge, but once there is at least a consensus in the challenge thread I will post a new version of this draft.

OOC: I'll admit, I didn't anticipate it taking this long when I initially made the challenge. I can certainly sympathise with your frustrations there.

[The Ice States]

Bump. I have left the draft unamended because of the challenge, but once there is at least a consensus in the challenge thread I will post a new version of this draft.

OOC: I'll admit, I didn't anticipate it taking this long when I initially made the challenge. I can certainly sympathise with your frustrations there.

Ooc: I am considering amending the draft already so that the new versions can be commented on, as the challenged text is preserved in the OP of your thread; would that be a problem?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'll admit, I didn't anticipate it taking this long when I initially made the challenge. I can certainly sympathise with your frustrations there.

Ooc: I am considering amending the draft already so that the new versions can be commented on, as the challenged text is preserved in the OP of your thread; would that be a problem?

OOC: I would not have an issue with it, but I think it'd be safer to wait for a member of GenSec to confirm that it's OK.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: I am considering amending the draft already so that the new versions can be commented on, as the challenged text is preserved in the OP of your thread; would that be a problem?

OOC: I would not have an issue with it, but I think it'd be safer to wait for a member of GenSec to confirm that it's OK.

Ooc: I still intend on waiting for another Gensec opinion regarding the challenge before submitting.

[The Ice States]

New draft is up!

[The Ice States]

This is now on last call, as the challenge thread has largely reached a consensus (public Gensec opinion in the thread being 2-1 for legality).

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Looks good.

[The Ice States]

This has now been submitted -- the proposal may be found here! I would appreciate if any Delegates could approve.

[Experimental I]

The state of experimental one, after having carefully read, and considered the above resolution, humbly request that all states join it in voting NAY to this well guided, but ultimately grossly generalized and poorly considered legislation.

Our ambassadors would have member states consider the following:

1. Within the definitions, no criteria for judging the terms en masse, close proximity, or enclosed are provided. Recognizing that enclosure is me range from outdoor pastures to submersible fences, it is perhaps ill conceived to try and legislate all animal farming within the context of a single piece of legislation.
2. Any sort of close proximity is going to increase the likelihood, rate, transmissibility, and effect of infectious diseases. Humans in apartment buildings are more likely to develop, and share infectious disease biomes than those living in rural communities on isolated farms. As per our current microbiological understanding, even if animals are pastured on spacious lands, they are very definitively more likely to pass infectious diseases amongst each other than those that are not. This resolution would, in fact, prohibit the use of any enclosures writ large, be it a bird cage or 30 acres of pasture for 100 heads of cattle.
3. Certain illnesses and infections are endemic amongst certain animals; the use of supplements or antibiotics as prophylaxis is no different than a human being, taking vitamin D and calcium to prevent osteoporosis or surgical patients being given antibiotics to prevent postoperative infections
4. Regarding the section labelled waste handling, if the purpose of this legislation is not to create enforcible international standards, by which industrial farms are to be regulated, then what is the purpose? That is to say, simply asking signatories, to be beholden to a patchy framework of inconsistent, sometimes conflicting series of various levels of legislation seems to render moot, the entire purpose behind, trying to enact this piece in and of itself.

While recognizing the need to create session via mental standards for industrial farming, we, experimental one, would suggest that this legislation is quite incomplete, and in need of significantly more research, consultation and development, upon the completion of which, it should be clarified, re-submitted and reassessed.

[The Ice States]

1. Within the definitions, no criteria for judging the terms en masse, close proximity, or enclosed are provided. Recognizing that enclosure is me range from outdoor pastures to submersible fences, it is perhaps ill conceived to try and legislate all animal farming within the context of a single piece of legislation.

"That is because the terms have obvious meanings. No reasonable nation will interpret 'enclosed...in close proximity to each other' as broadly as you seem to be implying."

2. Any sort of close proximity is going to increase the likelihood, rate, transmissibility, and effect of infectious diseases. Humans in apartment buildings are more likely to develop, and share infectious disease biomes than those living in rural communities on isolated farms. As per our current microbiological understanding, even if animals are pastured on spacious lands, they are very definitively more likely to pass infectious diseases amongst each other than those that are not. This resolution would, in fact, prohibit the use of any enclosures writ large, be it a bird cage or 30 acres of pasture for 100 heads of cattle.

"This is simply false. It does not require that the risk of disease transmission be zero, the requirement is merely for it not to be 'significantly likely'."

3. Certain illnesses and infections are endemic amongst certain animals; the use of supplements or antibiotics as prophylaxis is no different than a human being, taking vitamin D and calcium to prevent osteoporosis or surgical patients being given antibiotics to prevent postoperative infections

"Obviously, and that is an 'ad hoc basis'. The qualifier there -- which does not directly prohibit or restrict antibiotic use, merely prevent it from being taken into account when considering compliance with Section 2 -- means that preemptively administering regular, large doses of antibiotics to every farm animal so as to 'solve' the health risks of industrial farming does not exempt a facility from compliance with Section 2."

4. Regarding the section labelled waste handling, if the purpose of this legislation is not to create enforcible international standards, by which industrial farms are to be regulated, then what is the purpose? That is to say, simply asking signatories, to be beholden to a patchy framework of inconsistent, sometimes conflicting series of various levels of legislation seems to render moot, the entire purpose behind, trying to enact this piece in and of itself.

"Your nation should take note of the existence of GA #654, which states that 'every member nation must fully comply with all active World Assembly law [...] in good faith, to the very best of its ability, and without any preventable delay'. I am afraid that this ship has already sailed on."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The People's Republic of Communist Oldwitch.

[Experimental I]

"That is because the terms have obvious meanings. No reasonable nation will interpret 'enclosed...in close proximity to each other' as broadly as you seem to be implying."

No, they don’t. Unfortunately, context matters. What may be seen as a reasonably sized enclosure to somebody living in the prairies of Canada for their cattle in the winter is going to vastly differ to what is considered reasonable for somebody who practises open sky ranching in Texas, which is going to be vastly different from what a shepherd in the Urals considers reasonable. The entire premise behind legislation is to lay out guidelines wherein which one can understand the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable. My assertion remains that this category is simply too broad to be covered under one piece of legislation and this issue is emblematic of the problem at hand. It’s not that the issue is not worthy, it’s just unwieldy as a single piece of legislation. This is why, IRL, the laws that govern aquaculture are not the laws that govern indigenous farming practices.

"This is simply false. It does not require that the risk of disease transmission be zero, the requirement is merely for it not to be 'significantly likely'."

Again, context matters. In this case, animal, setting, climate, disease, etc. but by definition, penning an animal, even if done for say, protection from the cold (or hail, or heat wave, etc.) is going to increase…fairly drastically…the risk of disease spread. As true in the wild wherein herds/groups of an animal will get sick from something that will spare a herd miles away. The legislation states “significantly likely”, but in comparison to what? Industry norm? Wild state? Are we trying to suggest that ‘hey, this is the industry norm, and within 1 SD of true normal lie these statistics about infectivity of disease X (let’s say TB) as it accounts for disease spread among this group of enclosed normal. This is what our metrics show enclosure settings are at -1 SD. Do better thank this threshold’? If so, then say it. If we are trying to legislate, the. Those boundaries need to be established.

The threshold (if even there is just one) of enclosure size as it relates to disease transmissibility, will, I suspect, wildly fluctuate based on disease (avian flu? TB? BSE? swine flu? Gill flukes?), isolation practices, climate, animal, treatment protocols, etc. Which brings me back to my first point. This is WAY to large a topic to legislate in one piece of legislation.

"Obviously, and that is an 'ad hoc basis'. The qualifier there -- which does not directly prohibit or restrict antibiotic use, merely prevent it from being taken into account when considering compliance with Section 2 -- means that preemptively administering regular, large doses of antibiotics to every farm animal so as to 'solve' the health risks of industrial farming does not exempt a facility from compliance with Section 2."

My point was more so to point out that we pre emptively treat humans en masse. Sometimes this is just necessary.

"Your nation should take note of the existence of GA #654, which states that 'every member nation must fully comply with all active World Assembly law [...] in good faith, to the very best of its ability, and without any preventable delay'. I am afraid that this ship has already sailed on."

Probably should. What can I say? I got carried away in RP; I’m new at this.

But, my point of holding signatories beholden to a patchy framework of multilayered legislation without any identifiable set points or terms of reference still stands. That will end poorly. Political apathy and lack of specific, short and long term reference points, let alone the absence of any reference points will spell disaster regarding enforcement. Look to PARIS accords.

Respectfully prepared,
The Experimental I Delegate to TWA

[The Ice States]

Ooc: As a note, you should not reference real-world places or other phenomena such as Canada, the Paris accords, or Texas when writing presumably Ic text. If you want to cite real-world examples, you should mark your citations as Ooc, eg [1][2][3]. This avoids the issue of characters from eg my nation having no idea what "Canada", "The Paris accords" or "Texas" are; even if I-the-player obviously know what they are.

Ic:

No, they don’t. Unfortunately, context matters. What may be seen as a reasonably sized enclosure to somebody living in the prairies of Canada for their cattle in the winter is going to vastly differ to what is considered reasonable for somebody who practises open sky ranching in Texas, which is going to be vastly different from what a shepherd in the Urals considers reasonable. The entire premise behind legislation is to lay out guidelines wherein which one can understand the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable. My assertion remains that this category is simply too broad to be covered under one piece of legislation and this issue is emblematic of the problem at hand. It’s not that the issue is not worthy, it’s just unwieldy as a single piece of legislation. This is why, IRL, the laws that govern aquaculture are not the laws that govern indigenous farming practices.

"The qualifier is not whether they are 'reasonably sized'. It is whether the animals are in 'close proximity' to each other. It may sometimes be reasonable to enclose animals in close proximity to each other; and whether something is considered reasonable in one nation does not change whether 'close proximity' applies."

Again, context matters. In this case, animal, setting, climate, disease, etc. but by definition, penning an animal, even if done for say, protection from the cold (or hail, or heat wave, etc.) is going to increase…fairly drastically…the risk of disease spread.

"Your mission should take note of Section 4."

As true in the wild wherein herds/groups of an animal will get sick from something that will spare a herd miles away. The legislation states “significantly likely”, but in comparison to what? Industry norm? Wild state? Are we trying to suggest that ‘hey, this is the industry norm, and within 1 SD of true normal lie these statistics about infectivity of disease X (let’s say TB) as it accounts for disease spread among this group of enclosed normal. This is what our metrics show enclosure settings are at -1 SD. Do better thank this threshold’? If so, then say it. If we are trying to legislate, the. Those boundaries need to be established.

The threshold (if even there is just one) of enclosure size as it relates to disease transmissibility, will, I suspect, wildly fluctuate based on disease (avian flu? TB? BSE? swine flu? Gill flukes?), isolation practices, climate, animal, treatment protocols, etc. Which brings me back to my first point. This is WAY to large a topic to legislate in one piece of legislation.

"Doing this would be far greater micromanagement than what is stated right now. 1 standard deviation may, in one nation, be far more restrictive than in another. Keep in mind, too, that requiring animal enclosures to provide more space to their animals will ipso facto make this 1 standard deviation standard increasingly more restrictive."

My point was more so to point out that we pre emptively treat humans en masse. Sometimes this is just necessary.

"Okay, regardless of whether it is 'just necessary', it is not banned by the resolution. Once again, the sole purpose of that exception is so that preemptively administering massive doses of antibiotics to every animal does not render a farm de facto exempt to the health spacing mandates."

But, my point of holding signatories beholden to a patchy framework of multilayered legislation without any identifiable set points or terms of reference still stands. That will end poorly. Political apathy and lack of specific, short and long term reference points, let alone the absence of any reference points will spell disaster regarding enforcement. Look to PARIS accords.

"Whatever these 'Paris accords' are, that still does not address my point -- your nation is bound by international law regardless of this resolution. When your nation joins the World Assembly, it is agreeing to being bound by World Assembly law. What is the point of even having this body if nations can just ignore whatever legislation they please? Note, too, that it is member nations which pass legislation in this body, and can repeal problematic resolutions, as it has done may times before."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The People's Republic of Communist Oldwitch.

[Hoxie]

Section 5; a-b
(Waste collection: All industrial farms must

regularly or continuously collect all biological waste from their animal enclosures; and

prevent such waste from entering any enclosure other than that enclosure in which it originated; except to administer said waste as feed or nutrients to other animals, should such waste have undergone sufficient processing to minimise any health risk to animals administered with said waste)

So would this ban the use of manure lagoons and tanks that store manure until it can be applied as a fertilizer?

[The Ice States]

Section 5; a-b
(Waste collection: All industrial farms must

regularly or continuously collect all biological waste from their animal enclosures; and

prevent such waste from entering any enclosure other than that enclosure in which it originated; except to administer said waste as feed or nutrients to other animals, should such waste have undergone sufficient processing to minimise any health risk to animals administered with said waste)

So would this ban the use of manure lagoons and tanks that store manure until it can be applied as a fertilizer?

"Any rational nation would interpret 'enclosure' here as referring only to animal enclosures; the only context in which the word is used in this resolution."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The People's Republic of Communist Oldwitch.