NationStates Jolt Archive

We request your support for the International Meat Standards proposal. It's been thoroughly thought out by many members of our region and we hope you will agree that it just makes sense. Your support greatly appreciated.

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=International%20Meat%20Standards

International Meat Standards

Category: Environmental; A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Contino


Description: Where by livestock infected with Anthrax(the natural form), BSE, Scrapie and Mycoplasma gallisepticum, to mention but a few, are running rife on the farms of our nations I call for action from the U.N. to address this problem and thus eliminate the risk of these diseases being passed onto humans.

I propose the foundation of an international meat standards agency to enforce and carry out the following proposals.

1. A complete ban on using on using parts from other animals to feed livestock.

2. Random testing programs to test livestock for any diseases that could be transmitted to humans.

3. Vaccination of all livestock in areas where cases of diseased livestock has been discovered. Providing there exists at the time a suitable vaccine.

4. Stronger actions to be taken against livestock farmers who don’t follow current regulations to prevent infection of livestock and farmers who don’t inform the authorities of any cases of livestock diseases.

5. Higher safety levels in rendering plants to protect employees from the human variants of the for mentioned livestock diseases, most notably CJD.

I also propose increased support from the U.N. for scientists researching vaccines and cures for the previously mentioned diseases. For both humans and livestock.


Voting Ends: Sat May 15 2004

Not a bad idea. A few questions to consider if you end up redrafting: (1) Should this be left to individual governments or in the hands of the UN? There are easy arguments to support either answer. (2) Should the UN provide funding for this? Admittedly, such funds would come from member nations, so that idea is probably not so wise, but could perhaps offset the expenses of smaller nations. (3) How should this be enforced with meats traded internationally? Should it apply only to meat which crosses national or regional borders?

And while there is no easy category for this proposal, I do feel the need to mention that an "Environmental, All Industries" resolution will inevitably have a strong negative impact on the NSUN economy.

Yeah - it seems pretty obvious that this should only apply to Beef-Based Agriculture. Damn you, NSUN categories! Damn you to hell!

Yeah - it seems pretty obvious that this should only apply to Beef-Based Agriculture. Damn you, NSUN categories! Damn you to hell!
(OOC)
Indeed. The NS UN Categories are pretty limited.

Would probably be closest to woodchipping, but farming is really the only one that'd fit.

Also, might also be considered under human rights. As this is mild improvement to the right to be healthy.

This would require a code change though.

In any case, I don't think this category will really fit.

g.e.
spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

Our proposal is a preventative/curative measure. Obviously its aim is to cure the current problems of diseases being passed to humans. But perhaphs much more importantly it is designed to reduce the posibility of new epidemics occuring.

You should note that about 10 million people have died from chinese flu, which was passed from chickens to humans.

Also that sars is suspected by some to have been passed from animal to human.

And of course CJD (the human varient of CJD) is incurable.

And while there is no easy category for this proposal, I do feel the need to mention that an "Environmental, All Industries" resolution will inevitably have a strong negative impact on the NSUN economy.[/quote]

I appreciate your point. However as mentioned, really its the only feasible catgory for the proposal as it stands. You should consider though that this resolution would increase farm productivity over the long term. As the cases of diease will drop in livestock globally, the number of animals that die due to these diseases will lbe greatly reduced. Thus increasing productivity by reducing loss.

Also your third point. Forgive me if i suggest paying more attention to the wording of the proposal. The proposal refers to "livestock" the internation trade of which is tiny in comparison to its slaughtered form, ie. meat. So it is clear surely that this resolution has no effect on the trade of meat, as such. However livestock, as I would hope is clear would be tested independant of its movements.

Contino

A couple of things we'd like to see added to this, if it comes to a redraft:

The banning of hormone use on livestock.

The restriction that antibiotics will only be given to actually sick animals, rather than routinely added to feed. The latter practise vastly increases the risk of resistant strains of disease emerging and makes disease control a great deal harder.

Is it fair for the economies of vegetarian/vegan nations to take a hit for this? I'd like to see the strength reduced to 'mild'; this should in some way mitigate the effect. Otherwise, a redrafted proposal accounting for suggestions made by Rehochipe and Santin would be welcomed by us.

Is there really no appropriate single industry that can be affected?

Nirgal
Speaker for Agriculture

Is there really no appropriate single industry that can be affected?

Sadly, the only options for an environmental proposal are Automobile Manufacturing, Woodchipping, Uranium Mining or All Industries.

This seems too broad and heavy handed. We will end up with a costly bureaucracy telling us what to do and penalizing us if we don't, and we will have no control, no say, over the actions of that agency.

Since the beef from the Proponent's nation are so diseased, we have immediately stopped trading with them. That will help protect us.

This seems too broad and heavy handed. We will end up with a costly bureaucracy telling us what to do and penalizing us if we don't, and we will have no control, no say, over the actions of that agency.

Since the beef from the Proponent's nation are so diseased, we have immediately stopped trading with them. That will help protect us.

That could easily be rather foolish policy as has been shown. Take this, just before the milenium the UK had a huge BSE crisis. All beef trading was essentially stopped (including to the USA). A few years later? What happens in America?
Well another BSE crisis, the financial blow to the livestock farmers in the USA, was and is huge.

Look at the chicken crisis in Thailand. Though Thailand is growing, they still didn't have the necessary technology in place to prevent disaster. Livestock disease spreads everywhere, even to vegetarian countries. Diseased animals stil breath and dispose of waste which can hurt people. We still don't understand where SARS comes from, or AIDS, etc.