NationStates Jolt Archive

I just submitted this to the UN and beginning my telegram campaign. I urge you to request that your regional delegates approve.

Potentially Dangerous Food Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Adam Island

Description:
The United Nations,

Recalling its resolution Epidemic Prevention Protocol, adopted Oct. 13, 2004, which affirmed UN member states’ rights to ban or quarantine food and medicinal products as necessary to reduce the spread of epidemics;

Observing that large quantities of food cross international borders every day;

Aware that occasionally food will be found to be contaminated with disease or pose a serious health risk, often prompting a quarantine or recall;

Concerned that there is no international body responsible for notifying nations and citizens of food quarantines or recalls;

Convinced that nations need this information to prevent the spread of disease and death;

1. Establishes a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), to help protect international food supplies, provide technical assistance to member nations related to the production and testing of safe food supplies, and to compile and maintain a list of dangerous foods and domestic quarantines or recalls;

2. Urges nations to notify the UN FAO of potentially dangerous food, and to provide all necessary information to prevent diseases spreading from the potentially dangerous food, as qualified by any of the following:

a) A government, corporation, organization, group or individual recalls the
food or parts of the food.

b ) Criminal or civil action regarding the safety of the food is filed.

c) The food is shown to be unfit for consumption.

d) The food was produced, processed and/or transported using the same
method or in the same area as a potentially dangerous food.


3. Urges nations to take the greatest possible care in food production, processing and transport;

4. Authorizes the UN FAO to hire and work with experts in the fields of agriculture, food production and distribution, and public health; and

5. Urges the nations of the UN to provide long-term assistance to the UN FAO on an “as-needed” basis.

This looks good.

I've telegrammed the list of nations on the IDU Social Justice category plus some trusted nations asking for them or their delegates to endorse this.

Ok. But you'd be amazed what passes for food in Antarctica.

Ok. But you'd be amazed what passes for food in Antarctica.

LOL! Coming from a mountain nation with little arable land, I might not be that surprised. Care for a borrowing owl wing? It might be light on the meat, but the craziest thing happened. When we felt the population was no longer endangered and allowed street vendors to sell both crispy fried and original fried owl wings, our economy shot off! And more and more birds keep appearing too! Last week one actually ate a man (well child rather, but that doesn't sound nearly impressive). Perhaps the owls are running low on food too.

*hands you a herring milkshake, double thick*

*hands you a herring milkshake, double thick*

Ewww, no offense, but maybe some exports to Vastiva are in order too! ;)

Where does haggis fit on this?

Where does haggis fit on this?

Right next to Norwegian Lukfisk (sp?) and Mexican Menudo.

I got this telegram from the NationStates Moderators 6 hours ago:

"Potentially Dangerous Food Act" didn't really have anything to do with 'reduc[ing] income inequality' or 'incres[ing] basic welfare', and has thus been deleted.

Personally, I felt that it did sort of tie into basic welfare with the whole telling-people-when-their-food-is-bad part, but I'd like to resubmit this ASAP so delegates I TGd can find it. Any suggestions on a new category?

Moral Decency. 'It is a good thing to restrict the freedoms of companies'.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

While I like the idea of this proposal, and any proposals that seeks to regulate trades and what-not among two nations, I fail to see where UN liability and national liability is divided.

There doesn't appear to be any consequences for a nation if they fail to do what is "urged" of them; there's the threat of lawsuit, but it doesn't say whether that's at a national or international level.

Also, what type of situations would be considered public health risks with food? I mean, in some cases, not cooking food at the proper temperatures, etc. cause public health risks, as does keeping cans for too long of a time and letting them spoil... does this resolution cover the scope of diseases that are naturally occuring in food (let's say, like Mad Cow Disease?) or strictly nationally-produced contaminents (such as Salmonella)? Or does it cover both?

To me, with the language used, I see only diseases being covered, but I could be wrong in intent...

Do the workers the UN FAO hire remain under the UN's jurisdiction or the nation's jurisdiction?

These are just some of my concerns as to why I'd vote against this resolution; while in spirit it's a good idea, I just don't see the idea being expanded enough to be effective as a UN proposal and (hopefully) resolution.

While I like the idea of this proposal, and any proposals that seeks to regulate trades and what-not among two nations, I fail to see where UN liability and national liability is divided.

There doesn't appear to be any consequences for a nation if they fail to do what is "urged" of them; there's the threat of lawsuit, but it doesn't say whether that's at a national or international level.

Also, what type of situations would be considered public health risks with food? I mean, in some cases, not cooking food at the proper temperatures, etc. cause public health risks, as does keeping cans for too long of a time and letting them spoil... does this resolution cover the scope of diseases that are naturally occuring in food (let's say, like Mad Cow Disease?) or strictly nationally-produced contaminents (such as Salmonella)? Or does it cover both?

To me, with the language used, I see only diseases being covered, but I could be wrong in intent...

Do the workers the UN FAO hire remain under the UN's jurisdiction or the nation's jurisdiction?

These are just some of my concerns as to why I'd vote against this resolution; while in spirit it's a good idea, I just don't see the idea being expanded enough to be effective as a UN proposal and (hopefully) resolution.

First, it looks like a mod deleted this. I'm not sure why ... but hopefully we can find out.

As for the specific questions I have some opinions based on how the resolution is written and how other resolutions and the UN work, but I'd like to defer to Adam Island's opinion, since it is his nation's proposal.

But I will quote the resolution with respect to your question about workers:

1. Establishes a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), to help protect international food supplies, provide technical assistance to member nations related to the production and testing of safe food supplies, and to compile and maintain a list of dangerous foods and domestic quarantines or recalls;


That is a UN committee, and like the UN Secretariat and staff of other UN committees (take the UNEC for example) I believe the list of dangerous foods and technical assistance would be coming from UN staff. :)

I got this telegram from the NationStates Moderators 6 hours ago:

Personally, I felt that it did sort of tie into basic welfare with the whole telling-people-when-their-food-is-bad part, but I'd like to resubmit this ASAP so delegates I TGd can find it. Any suggestions on a new category?

I agree with you of course, because what you've done ... to quote it again is:

1. Establishes a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), to help protect international food supplies, provide technical assistance to member nations related to the production and testing of safe food supplies, and to compile and maintain a list of dangerous foods and domestic quarantines or recalls;


Later you put recalls and quarantines which are anti-Free Trade ideas.

Moral Decency is the opposite of Human Rights.
Social Justice is the opposite of Free Trade.

Cog's stickied post makes this 100% clear.

Your resolution seeks to provide technical assistance in the areas of food testing and then gives power to a new UN committee, the UN FAO to provide that assistance to nations in need and also allows nations to STOP the trade of dangerous food.

That sounds like an income equality issue to me. It also could be a humanitarian relief (not the same as human rights).

A program at the national level might be "Food Not Bombs" or "Loaves and Fishes". This are classic American examples of what are called "Social Justice" programs.

My advice is to go to #themodcave on IRC. I can't do this from work. But ask the game mods this and point them to this thread.

I honestly think that the moderator who made this decision made a mistake, and to be fair last night there were over 27 pages of proposals when I was telegramming for support on this one.

All too often people are stuck in the mind set that the game and UN should only be about having the UN craft domestic laws common to all nations ... a classic example would be the majority of the Human Rights issues. Even Social Justice and Moral Decency sort of take that approach, and Hui Bei and myself had to work hard to get our international relief resolutions hammered out. This is IMHO a problem that is a bit inconsistent too. It only takes one game moderator who disagrees with international aid efforts to zap these types of resolutions.

Moral Decency. 'It is a good thing to restrict the freedoms of companies'.


Here are Cog's notes:

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.


Restricting the sale of food is a social justice issue. A FAO is a food based healthcare / protection agency. It provides technical experts (welfare) and restricts trade (anti-Free Trade).

I think this really is a "whooops" meaning that the moderator who deleted this resolution probably just forgot what Cog wrote. (I'm hoping this wasn't Cog.)

That said, the telegram sent to Adam Island was a bit helpful. It does say that the objection to the resolution is just the category, and I think we can work from there. Moderators do not have to send telegrams, and I've gotten the, "Next time submit this in the right category" note, which is actually less helpful than what we have here.

So I'm puzzled, but not angry or upset. But I would like to honestly have a moderator explain why this isn't a text book social justice program.

But I will quote the resolution with respect to your question about workers:

That is a UN committee, and like the UN Secretariat and staff of other UN committees (take the UNEC for example) I believe the list of dangerous foods and technical assistance would be coming from UN staff. :)

I understood that part, Mik... it just seemed that the language at the end sought to have workers not only "employed" by this committee but that they would be out and about in other countries possibly employed by them as well.

I'd like to resubmit this ASAP so delegates I TGd can find it.
If you haven't resubmitted yet, a suggestion. "Potentially Dangerous Food Act" is a weak name. Poor advertising value, doesn't suggest an immediate threat.

Lose the 'Potentially' from the start. Dangerous Food Act is stronger. I'd probably go with Dangerous Food Imports Act instead, to emphasize the international aspect of this resolution.

I understood that part, Mik... it just seemed that the language at the end sought to have workers not only "employed" by this committee but that they would be out and about in other countries possibly employed by them as well.

Oh, these are two clauses that Groot, Adam, and myself together worked on and represent a blend of ideas ...

4. Authorizes the UN FAO to hire and work with experts in the fields of agriculture, food production and distribution, and public health; and

5. Urges the nations of the UN to provide long-term assistance to the UN FAO on an “as-needed” basis.

#4 is a Groot suggestion, and I like it. It just tells the new UN FAO where it should look for staff, but once hired, they belong to the likes of Cog and Hack (i.e. the UN Secretariat). Think of somebody like a ag related Kofi Anan (who is in the real world a bit of political trouble via his son right now -- but that is a matter better suited for elsewhere).

#5 may be Adam's, but it is the type of thing I may have pressured him to add. The point behind this is really to suggest that nations need to really establish a good working relationship with the UN FAO staff.

For example, IRL I'm a government engineer. If a UN health worker were to phone me, this would mean that my management should encourage me to answer a few UN questions when I can.

What I think the other point of #5 may have been to promote the idea that the UN FAO should be working with and for the nations in need. Sort of how we shouldn't be handing out food stamps to people owning 4 cars, living in a house, and whom have a maid.

But my personal opinion is that this is a two-way street. The UN FAO should also provide long-term assistance to UN members too.

Anyway, I'll have to work to find Adam's original thread here. But Frisbeeteria raised some objections, so Adam, Groot, and I started working on this proposal here:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=145

Anyway, even if I still believe that at its heart that this is a textbook Social Justice proposal, we can make changes, and if anybody thinks any of the clauses are unclear, it can't hurt to make suggestions. As you'll see in the IDU thread above, Groot and I made suggestions and Adam Island was very quick to respond. :)

I think we are all interested in really addressing an international problem here ... aside from the fact that the real world has a FAO and that countries do routinely prohibit certain types of foods, your example of preventing a Mad Cow epidemic in NationStates is exactly what we'd like to explore some more.

Thanks!

I think we are all interested in really addressing an international problem here ... aside from the fact that the real world has a FAO and that countries do routinely prohibit certain types of foods, your example of preventing a Mad Cow epidemic in NationStates is exactly what we'd like to explore some more.

Thanks!

I'll check out the link... I'd like to help out where I can.

OK, I went into #themodcave, and they couldn't see my proposal fitting into any of the categories. :-/ I was advised to wait until new categories are implemented that would cover proposals like mine.

I think I'll do that, file this away and see if I come up with another idea until then. Thanks for your help those, especially Mikivity, thanks for your hard work.

OK, I went into #themodcave, and they couldn't see my proposal fitting into any of the categories. :-/ I was advised to wait until new categories are implemented that would cover proposals like mine.

Any word on how soon the new categories would be in coming?

OK, I went into #themodcave, and they couldn't see my proposal fitting into any of the categories. :-/ I was advised to wait until new categories are implemented that would cover proposals like mine.

I think I'll do that, file this away and see if I come up with another idea until then. Thanks for your help those, especially Mikivity, thanks for your hard work.

That suggests that they have a category or changes in mind.

Tuesday has brought up some good questions, and I like Frisbeeteria's title suggestion. Let's continue to work on the language of the resolution here while the mods do their work.

Though the Chipmunks question is very good ... did they give you any hint when this will happen?