NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: Can we get a poll for this thread (if you're going to use it as official)?

This looks like it's about to hit Quarom, so I thought I should bring it to the attention of the forums

Labeling Standards

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Antrium

Description: SEEING THAT some companies may label their products incorrectly, or misuse words like “fresh“ and “organic“, and also seeing that there is a rising number of people that need to be able to know what is in what they are eating, this proposal imposes the following:

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.

II. Defining “fresh” as “not stale, sour, or decayed” and “not altered by processing,” and defining “organic” as “food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides.” Nothing may be labeled “fresh” or “organic” unless it fits the above definition.

III. All people have the right to know what is in the food they eat. This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, which should include the amount of fat, trans fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, sodium, protein, vitamins and minerals, and calories in the product. Also, all packaged products must be labeled with the country where the product was grown/made.

And now my position:

Labeling Standards

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Antrium

Description: SEEING THAT some companies may label their products incorrectly, or misuse words like “fresh“ and “organic“, and also seeing that there is a rising number of people that need to be able to know what is in what they are eating, this proposal imposes the following:

This is fine

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.

Perfect

II. Defining “fresh” as “not stale, sour, or decayed” and “not altered by processing,” and defining “organic” as “food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides.” Nothing may be labeled “fresh” or “organic” unless it fits the above definition.

I don't really like the fact that we're defining this in a UN resolution for corporate use (I think there should be some power to define stuff like this by international law, but I would personally rather see a committee on the matter), but fair enough.

III. All people have the right to know what is in the food they eat. This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, which should include the amount of fat, trans fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, sodium, protein, vitamins and minerals, and calories in the product. Also, all packaged products must be labeled with the country where the product was grown/made.

Here is where I have a problem. This resolution works great for today. What about tomorrow? How long have we actually been concerned about trans-fats? 5 years at most? And yet, we are limiting, at an International scope, our ability to enforce labeling capabilities beyond this listing to include things that will be brought to our attention in the next 5 years. Because of this limiting feature, I cannot support this resolution.

All small nations will be put at an unfair disadvantage by the requirement of the new UN Resolution on labelling standards. For one, if a country sells peas in 47 countries, the exporter would be sending out only 20 gallon cans so they could fit the label on the cannister!

My nation's companies would be required to hire some 140 translators, at a minimum- how can a small company even hope to compete on a global scale?

I beseech all nations, large and small, to vote against this resolution.

All small nations will be put at an unfair disadvantage by the requirement of the new UN Resolution on labelling standards. For one, if a country sells peas in 47 countries, the exporter would be sending out only 20 gallon cans so they could fit the label on the cannister!

My nation's companies would be required to hire some 140 translators, at a minimum- how can a small company even hope to compete on a global scale?

I beseech all nations, large and small, to vote against this resolution.

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.
It means that the label must be printed in the official language(s) of the nation in which the product is sold. I don't believe we are meant to print them in all of the official languages of all of the nations where the product is sold.

It means that the label must be printed in the official language(s) of the nation in which the product is sold. I don't believe we are meant to print them in all of the official languages of all of the nations where the product is sold.

So, if a nation does not have an official national language established by their law we are free to ignore this resolution? If that is the case, I will warn my nation not to sell to any of the rabid xenophobic nations that are most likely to pass such laws. Or will it be by matter of tradition as to what the official language is within that nation? Or will it be decided by the UN?

Secondly, how are our manufacturers to know in which nations their products will ultimately be sold? Many brokers buy products and re-sell them on an international basis - on whom will the burden fall to ensure the labelling is correct?

I must respectfully disagree - the only way a company can be sure it is in compliance is to have a translation on its product in all languages, lest it face potential sanctions.

OOC: In Real Life, food products are manufactured in one country and then sold in multiple other countries. Amazingly, they manage to make it onto the shelves with their labels printed in the native language of the targeted consumers. Ever bought Kikkoman soy sauce? What language was on the label?

All small nations will be put at an unfair disadvantage by the requirement of the new UN Resolution on labelling standards. For one, if a country sells peas in 47 countries, the exporter would be sending out only 20 gallon cans so they could fit the label on the cannister!

My nation's companies would be required to hire some 140 translators, at a minimum- how can a small company even hope to compete on a global scale?

I beseech all nations, large and small, to vote against this resolution.

If I'm going to walk to Vietnam and try to sell my services as an engineer, doesn't it make sense that as the one trying to sell my services, that I should understand some Vietnamese?

My point is that the burden of providing for a customer always has and always will lie with the person or firm that is providing the service. Mikitivity isn't about to allow products to flow through our borders (even if for consumption in another state) without having some idea of what those products are. That much is a matter of international security, is it not? At the same time, some of the cantons in Mikitivity also require that consumers be informed about foodstuffs ... that is a government regulation designed to protect personal health (not much different than international security). In both cases, if Nabisco Foods wants to ship or sell product in the German speaking parts of Mikitivity, it makes business sense to slap on a German label to just make things happen smoothly.

I would imagine that if we were to conduct a survey in the International Incidents forum that we would find that most nations already have some form of consumer protection.

(OOC)I remember reading years ago about bags of seed grain shipped from a western nation (can't remember which one) to the middle east. The grain itself had been treated against rot with a poisonous substance and was sprayed bright pink to indicate that. The grain bags carried explainations and warnings that the grain inside was poisonous to eat, but only in english and spanish, not Arabic.

Some of the bags were stolen off the wharf and sold as food to hungry people. Apparently the death toll was in the hundreds. Having the bags marked properly could well have prevented those deaths.

OOC: I think we should try and find that story. It would be a most compeling reason to consider supporting this resolution. :)

BTW, I'm going to ask the moderators to start an official thread with the text of the resolution as the first post and then ask that this debate (which is small) be merged. It is on topic, but traditionally the first post should be the resolution text. :)

edit:
I found this ...
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/11-2002/agnet_november_11-2.htm#LABELING%20SHOULD

It took a bit of searching through my old The People's Almanac (where I originally saw this story) trio of books to find the grain story, but I finally found it. Looked it up on the web and found bits and pieces about the story but it appears not much notice was taken of it at the time.

This link is to a page that has the article exactly as printed, and I read it, in the book....

The People's Almanac Story (http://listserv.dom.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0109&L=stumpers-l&D=0&O=D&P=61435)

Seems I misremembered the deathtoll and greatly underestimated it.

Seems I misremembered the deathtoll and greatly underestimated it.
Good lord! It killed 6000 people? I have never heard of this incident. I would definitely say that would be a good RL reference to support the resolution.

Good lord! It killed 6000 people? I have never heard of this incident. I would definitely say that would be a good RL reference to support the resolution.

I dug up a MS Thesis from Canada that was a pdf and it looked like (in the google summar) that the death toll was 460+ with another 6,000 people impacted. I can't read a 152-page paper here at home (slow connection), but yeah, this is a pretty good reason why labels are important.

I'll want to see what the poison was (I think one site said mercury), and find out how it could have been avoided.

Bump

Agreed. I also can't support it because of the first clause - in some countries, this could border on ridiculous, and is totally unfair to some providers. For example, all real world United Kingdom registered produce could potentially have to be labelled in English, Welsh, Scotch Gaelic and Irish.

The U.N. should not be the body to make judgements on this matter! This would be better solved as an issue...

It is our opinion that the proper definition of things like "fresh" and "organic" or declaring whether or not a candy bar has 25 grams of carbs is an issue that doesn't quite rise (read: doesn't even come close) to the level of international importance that would require the UN to enact legislation on the matter.

That being the case, in the interests of reducing needless beaurocracy, we are opposed.

At present we are in favour, taking the view that for a geniune free market to exist, infomation failure is a factor that must be countered for consumers to make informed decisions.

It is our opinion that the proper definition of things like "fresh" and "organic" or declaring whether or not a candy bar has 25 grams of carbs is an issue that doesn't quite rise (read: doesn't even come close) to the level of international importance that would require the UN to enact legislation on the matter.

That being the case, in the interests of reducing needless beaurocracy, we are opposed.

I'm very much agreed with my colleague from Reformentia.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

At present we are in favour, taking the view that for a geniune free market to exist, infomation failure is a factor that must be countered for consumers to make informed decisions.

OOC: In the US there is a private organization called the Consumers Union that serves to inform people about the products available on the market. They publish texts which contain information regarding foodstuffs, electronics, and all manner of other goods. This private organization makes this important consumer information available, and you can just read their magazine without buying it if you spend a little time in a bookstore. Keep in mind that--in the US at least--most people don't go around reading the labels on the products they buy anyway.

"Labeling Standards

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Antrium

Description: SEEING THAT some companies may label their products incorrectly, or misuse words like “fresh“ and “organic“, and also seeing that there is a rising number of people that need to be able to know what is in what they are eating, this proposal imposes the following:

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.

II. Defining “fresh” as “not stale, sour, or decayed” and “not altered by processing,” and defining “organic” as “food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides.” Nothing may be labeled “fresh” or “organic” unless it fits the above definition.

III. All people have the right to know what is in the food they eat. This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, which should include the amount of fat, trans fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, sodium, protein, vitamins and minerals, and calories in the product. Also, all packaged products must be labeled with the country where the product was grown/made."

Certainly the need for clear labelling standards so as to protect consumers from unscrupulous production practices and being ripped off with shoddy, misleadingly titled produce, is great. The Second and Third sections offer no problems from our point of view, except that the definitions of fresh and organic are rather sparse. We put forwards the following:

Organic :
That which is produced entirely or to a significant degree (i.e. 90% of the production process) using no artificial additives, nor using artificial means to boost production or garantuee the crops development (i.e pesticides and herbicides). It shall also apply to that which has not (in the case of animals) been given artificial means to boost its yield (i.e. antibiotics, steroids, etc).

Fresh :
Naturally produced, not artificially preserved other than in the most essential of cases (i.e. fish) and obtained within a period of 24 hours of being put on sale.

Our main problem is with Section One: We can't see how it is feasible that the product carry every single language of the country, regardless of which area it's in. In Compadria, only 6 percent of the population speak Latin and most are crowded in an area that comprises 5 percent of our territory, thus putting Latin on everything would be unecessary. Rather, we suggest that were necessary, provisions be made to put the relevant languages on the labelling and otherwise simply go with the majority language. Most citizens of our country are pent-lingual anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem. We expect that in multi-official-language nations, bi or tri-lingualism is standard, so we feel that our experience can be applied generally.

Otherwise, congratulations. This is a good resolution and we will work with you to make it pass.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live well-labelled Compadria!

Leonard Otterby

regardless of whether this is worthy of the un we have to make a decision
and i think that the consumer has the right to know whats happened to their food
so i support this bill

regardless of whether this is worthy of the un we have to make a decision

We are unsure what you mean by this. A decision that this is not worthy of the UN IS a decision... which results in an 'against' vote.

Similarly, a "For" vote is not just an expression of approval for the general idea of the proposal, but a vote in favor of it being an issue of sufficient international importance to require that UN legislation be passed on the matter. You are not voting on whether labelling standards are a good thing. You are voting to enact a UN resolution on labelling standards.

Agreed. I also can't support it because of the first clause - in some countries, this could border on ridiculous, and is totally unfair to some providers. For example, all real world United Kingdom registered produce could potentially have to be labelled in English, Welsh, Scotch Gaelic and Irish.

The U.N. should not be the body to make judgements on this matter! This would be better solved as an issue...


all the countries in United kingdom speak english as their official language

Agreed. I also can't support it because of the first clause - in some countries, this could border on ridiculous, and is totally unfair to some providers. For example, all real world United Kingdom registered produce could potentially have to be labelled in English, Welsh, Scotch Gaelic and Irish.

So? If people only understand that language, that's fine, isn't it? They have a right to know what's in their food.

The U.N. should not be the body to make judgements on this matter! This would be better solved as an issue...

No it wouldn't, because food isn't a national issue. To feed our billions of people, the People's Republic needs to import a lot of food from abroad, especially since quite a large proportion of our food is also exported. Correct labelling becomes an international issue then, and thus a UN matter.

Besides, this comes from my region, so no matter what, I'll be voting for this excellent resolution anyway.

Here is where I have a problem. This resolution works great for today. What about tomorrow? How long have we actually been concerned about trans-fats? 5 years at most? And yet, we are limiting, at an International scope, our ability to enforce labeling capabilities beyond this listing to include things that will be brought to our attention in the next 5 years. Because of this limiting feature, I cannot support this resolution.

"This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, ..."

Can I take it you are OK with this part, but have an objection to the list of nutrition facts that were included after this?

My government has voted in favour of this resolution. There are some interesting posts in another thread about problems due to a lack of labels.

The more information the consumer has at their disposal, the better will be their purchases and the closer will come the ecomony to fulfilling their needs.

I disagree with the people who say that this is wasting the UN's time. There aren't any proposals queued up that it's blocking, or any that are anywhere near quorum, so if this wasn't at vote nothing would be.

If you want the UN to be voting on things which you percieve to be more valuable, write and market proposals concerning those things you believe ought to be around in favour of stuff like this.

It is our opinion that the proper definition of things like "fresh" and "organic" or declaring whether or not a candy bar has 25 grams of carbs is an issue that doesn't quite rise (read: doesn't even come close) to the level of international importance that would require the UN to enact legislation on the matter.

That being the case, in the interests of reducing needless beaurocracy, we are opposed.

The Commonwealth of Simonovastan agrees with the Reformentia delegation.

The most important problem raised is: Who would be responsible for verifying the accuracy of the labels? Consumer watchdog groups and independent nutrition periodicals would do a better job of policing the food industry than the United Nations.

It is a matter of individual choice whether or not to consume a particular foodstuff manufactured or distributed by a corporation. It is the corporation's choice whether or not to expend the resources required to analyze their product and label it accordingly.

Many already provide labels for the health-conscious consumer. For those that choose to keep what they eat a mystery, caveat emptor.

This isn't a "human rights" issue, nor should labeling be mandatory. We vote against this resolution.

Agreed. I also can't support it because of the first clause - in some countries, this could border on ridiculous, and is totally unfair to some providers. For example, all real world United Kingdom registered produce could potentially have to be labelled in English, Welsh, Scotch Gaelic and Irish.

The U.N. should not be the body to make judgements on this matter! This would be better solved as an issue...

:headbang:

Here here; since when has the UN been the governing body of individual NationStates? You're turning us all into a bunch of Michael Moore soundalikes. The shame! The pitious shame! Why can't somebody come up with something simple; like a resolution not to put weapons in orbit or a resolution not to sit back and watch your neighborState be blown off the map by a rivalState?

Y'know...something more international. These resolutions lately have ALL been sounding like somebody's getting bored cuz they don't run their OWN NationState rightly, so they want to pick on everyone else's. Shame on you all for sticking your nose where it doesn't belong...and then not even offering a hankie.

None of you would last an HOUR in the UN on my planet. You'd simply be ignored until your wimpy panderings and banterings went away. The environment is NOT a UN issue. Sexual preferance is NOT a UN issue. These are the types of things INDIVIDUAL NationStates do on a local basis. I mean, if the WHOLE WORLD were to adopt gay as a lifestyle (for instance) there would be nobody left to govern in about 4 decades. THEN where would you be?

THINK like a world entity. Puh-LEASE!

OOC: Keep in mind that--in the US at least--most people don't go around reading the labels on the products they buy anyway.

OOC: Very true! Though one would hope that the government is reading the labels and if it spots something that could be bad, flags it.

Dang, I'll need to ask a friend of mine again, as it was two people from grad school that he keeps in touch with that I no longer talk to, but he pointed out that after getting their PhDs that the two of them now make a very good living suing companies that violate health standards. I wasn't sure how exactly they do this, but basically by suing companies, they get a finanical reward and a court order placed against a company for making something that is hazardous. My friend said they are always reading Federal and state laws and writing letters, but apparently only a few pay offs are needed each year in order for them to make more than many engineers do by working year round.

So I rarely read the info on my breakfast cereal or can of beans. But there are some people who do, and their actions actually help to keep things in check.

IC: My government actually feels that the first clause makes great sense. If a product is destined for sale in Mikitivity, naturally the canton to where it is going will want to review the product first. If the product isn't described in English or German, it is standard proceedure for cantons to simply refuse the products entry into the market.

A nice low-key entrance by Ganglioplast :D

I completely agree with Ganglioplast ... this is the reason why I left the UN.

However I would like to make a comment because I am optimistic and i hope that the UN will comply with the standards it was created for. Then I would join again.

What is it with this language issue?
Considering all countries under this resolution will have to comment in their own language on the products, the solution is just to ask the translation to the country you want to export to. No need for any translator.

But overall I agree that this is not what UN should be used for ...

Thank you for your time

Though the Unified Capitalizt States do not believe in any government interference in the economy (which is why they have not joined the UN), they urge nations that do support a resolution of this type to reconsider the language provision, requiring instead that all products sold in a particular administrative division of a country be labeled in all official languages of that administrative division. To pass this resolution as is will severely diminish trade between Commerce Heights and UN nations, as while the nation as a whole has 6 official languages, there are only 1–3 in any particular State, a much more managable number for labeling small products.

Of course, given the track record of the UN, the States doubt that any significant number of UN member states will take this advice.

The Theocracy of Bangabhumi is going to support this legislation. We do understand that by introducing this legislation might cause a bit of problem for our land on economic sector because this land has recently earned independence.

However, we don't want any unwanted materials entering our diet and therefore for the sake of moral health of the nation, we will support it.

The Republic of Raguvia feels that the responsibility for proper labeling lies at the state level, and is not an international concern. We feel that the current resolution is an example of beaurocracy at its worst. Rules for rules sake. Mid level officials hoping for a promotion. Waste of everyone's time. Needless to say, our vote will not support this resolution. We urge the international body to be aware of the implications of making rules for rules sake, or for prestige.

I Can sum up the guy who wrote this in two words




GRAMMER NAZI

I believe that the people of the world should vote against this resolution, the reason being is that it will be shown to be that companies will not be able to comply with it and will be a major source of consumer litigation for years to come.
I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.
Depending on the market, the label for a can of beans could wind up being the size of an instruction manual for a stereo system. Considering the eclectic nature of just one region, it may require 1000+ languages to be included on a product to meet the requirements.

Secondly, getting one word in one language to translate exactly into another word into another language is impossible. One way around that would be to include a "good faith" clause regarding translation to allow for genuine best efforts, but as it stands now, it's not going to be possible to follow.


II. Defining “fresh” as “not stale, sour, or decayed” and “not altered by processing,” and defining “organic” as “food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides.” Nothing may be labeled “fresh” or “organic” unless it fits the above definition.
I take exception to the word "altered". After all, "fresh" produce, depending on the variety does have the roots cut off, thus altering the product by processing.

Furthermore, fertilizer itself is a "growth stimulant", after all, that's the whole point of using fertilizer.


III. All people have the right to know what is in the food they eat. This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, which should include the amount of fat, trans fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, sodium, protein, vitamins and minerals, and calories in the product. Also, all packaged products must be labeled with the country where the product was grown/made."
Again, see 1.

Don't get me wrong though. The idea behind the legislation is good. It's just that I think it would be better taken care of by a regulatory agency rather than trying to give consumers the equalent knowledge of a regulatory agency.

[The Nuncio of the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii shuffles up to the podium and begins reading from a prepared text.]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised).

Esteemed delegates and representatives: We rise to offer Our opinion against this proposed regulation. We do so not because We are against proper labelling of foodstuffs. Indeed, this is a matter of some importance to Our people. However, we feel this is a matter more properly regulated by the individual NationState.

To provide an example, I draw the assembly's attention to Our nation's jihi code. HOCEK doctrine includes rather extensive teachings on the ritual purity of food. These include restrictions on may and may not be fit for human consumption, and the proper ways in which animals may be hunted or raised for their flesh and its byproducts. Since few Kawaiians hunt or raise their own food these days, Our Conclave of Friendship maintains a Jihi Certification Board to ensure that food producers within Our nation abide by the code, assuring consumers that the food they eat is ritually pure.

This certification extends to foodstuffs of foreign origin, naturally. Jihi certification is required for all such products brought into Our country. As Our NationState is net importer of food, this is an ongoing concern in Our relations with other NationStates.

That said, the need for jihi certification is obviously specific and binding only to Kawaiians. Other NationStates may not require such rigid standards for themselves. Therefore, We deem it best that labeling practices such as are specified here be properly addressed by the importing nation. We would not expect the NSUN to provide jihi certification for Our nation's imported food, and We see no reason why other NationStates would need similar UN oversight.

"This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, ..."

Can I take it you are OK with this part, but have an objection to the list of nutrition facts that were included after this?

My government has voted in favour of this resolution. There are some interesting posts in another thread about problems due to a lack of labels.

The actual list I have little problem with (except that its even too limiting for today IMO), but the last time that I supported something where I stated a small flaw that I could overlook, it became resolution 122 and I ate my words in big helpings. As such, I cannot support this one.

The more information the consumer has at their disposal, the better will be their purchases and the closer will come the ecomony to fulfilling their needs.

I disagree with the people who say that this is wasting the UN's time. There aren't any proposals queued up that it's blocking, or any that are anywhere near quorum, so if this wasn't at vote nothing would be.

If you want the UN to be voting on things which you percieve to be more valuable, write and market proposals concerning those things you believe ought to be around in favour of stuff like this.

There are, actually, two different types of arguments, and you addressed the wrong one. The first type is that we should be focusing on something other than this, or that this is distracting us from more important matters. This is what you argued against, but this isn't what others were arguing

The other is that this is not or should not be within the jurisdiction of International Law.

The dominion of Canada6 will vote in favour of this resolution.

My region has not yet polled on this issue, but I suspect we will vote no at the last moment.

IRL I'm a heavy equipment mechanic and welder/fabricator, and I laugh every day when I see the silly warning stickers on equipment. Do NOT insert hands in baling mechanism while engine is running, etc. My personal opinion is that if you don't know how to operate a machine, you should stay away from it.

On a related topic, it was the real life UN that shipped that treated seed.

Regarding this proposal, anyone in any nation on the planet can learn about the safety of the food he or she is buying, assuming an internet connection. There's no need to pass an expensive resolution.

AK_ID

The voting deadline is when?

Hmm, if this passes, I think I'll beseech the Emperor to make Pittsburghese the official language of The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine insted of English. Just the thought of having the words, Jumbo(for bologna),Pop(for soda), sketti(for sphagetti), and phrases like n'at, da, ats, yunz, cuttent, and shuttent, poke, Ahia, hunky, and Arn makes me giggle like a schoolgirl on Pez. :D At the verry least it will make lables in the Palentine interesting reading. Plus my country can sell glosseries to yunz so yunz can learn Pittsburghese. :D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine.

Double Hmm, or as Myron would say "Double Yoi!" Maybe I'll beseech the Emperor to change official languages anyway even if this does not pass. :p

On a related topic, it was the real life UN that shipped that treated seed.

If this resolution passes it will help stop our UN from making the same mistake :).

I believe this is a good resolution and support it.

The most important problem raised is: Who would be responsible for verifying the accuracy of the labels? Consumer watchdog groups and independent nutrition periodicals would do a better job of policing the food industry than the United Nations.

Then let consumer watchdog organizations police the food industry. This resolution doesn't prescribe how, just what.

It is a matter of individual choice whether or not to consume a particular foodstuff manufactured or distributed by a corporation. It is the corporation's choice whether or not to expend the resources required to analyze their product and label it accordingly.

But the individual has to have a choice. As a consumer, you're already in a disadvantage against cooperations. This resolutions provides some power for consumers. UN-wide.

Many already provide labels for the health-conscious consumer. For those that choose to keep what they eat a mystery, caveat emptor.

This isn't a "human rights" issue, nor should labeling be mandatory. We vote against this resolution.

This isn't just a matter of the health-conscious consumer, but general health of your people. They need help to be the informed consumer theory expects them to be. So help them.

Here here; since when has the UN been the governing body of individual NationStates?

Since the beginning.

You're turning us all into a bunch of Michael Moore soundalikes. The shame! The pitious shame! Why can't somebody come up with something simple; like a resolution not to put weapons in orbit or a resolution not to sit back and watch your neighborState be blown off the map by a rivalState?

There are already several resolution for that kind of stuff. Or they have been tried, but defeated because a frightening lot of nations prefers weapons in orbit or blowing neighbouring states or the map.

Y'know...something more international. These resolutions lately have ALL been sounding like somebody's getting bored cuz they don't run their OWN NationState rightly, so they want to pick on everyone else's.

Please don't confuse the crappy resolutions of late with this. It's leaving quite some room for nations to implement, deals with an international issue, it's short and to the point. An example to the rest of us, I'd say, and that for a fairly new member. Eat your heart out, Love and Esterel, I would like to say.

Food is very much an international issue. Food crosses borders all the time, so it is vital that we agree on a labelling standard.

Though the Unified Capitalizt States do not believe in any government interference in the economy (which is why they have not joined the UN), they urge nations that do support a resolution of this type to reconsider the language provision, requiring instead that all products sold in a particular administrative division of a country be labeled in all official languages of that administrative division. To pass this resolution as is will severely diminish trade between Commerce Heights and UN nations, as while the nation as a whole has 6 official languages, there are only 1–3 in any particular State, a much more managable number for labeling small products.

OOC: What is it with you lot about this language provision? True, for extremely small packings it might be an issue, but really, here in Europe products are often labelled for 6 to 10 languages, and it's really not a problem at all.

Tanjania does not agree with this resolution.

The resolution will put smaller food suppliers or regional brewerys at a disadvantage against the large companys.
Less industrialized food businesses will not afford the bureaucracy and the costs for scientific reports which will be necessary to get the nutrition values, while the large food companys will afford.

In the end this resolution would endanger the smaller and less industrialized food suppliers which would be counterproductive in order to get fresh and healthy food.

I believe that the people of the world should vote against this resolution, the reason being is that it will be shown to be that companies will not be able to comply with it and will be a major source of consumer litigation for years to come.

Good, because that means those companies were not labelling their products properly, deceiving consumers. And it's the consumer that matters in an important issue like food.

Depending on the market, the label for a can of beans could wind up being the size of an instruction manual for a stereo system. Considering the eclectic nature of just one region, it may require 1000+ languages to be included on a product to meet the requirements.

That's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. No nation has 1000+ official languages. If they do, they'll probably have a workable system for it, because government information should be spread in those same languages. But the label for a can of beans stays well within what fits a can of beans. Even in several languages.

Secondly, getting one word in one language to translate exactly into another word into another language is impossible. One way around that would be to include a "good faith" clause regarding translation to allow for genuine best efforts, but as it stands now, it's not going to be possible to follow.

It must mean the same. That's not "exact translation". That's "means the same". That's easily possible, especially for the limited scope of this resolution. Fresh is fresh, it's not something else suddenly.

I take exception to the word "altered". After all, "fresh" produce, depending on the variety does have the roots cut off, thus altering the product by processing.

Furthermore, fertilizer itself is a "growth stimulant", after all, that's the whole point of using fertilizer.

The resolution deals with chemical fertilizer. On the processing, well, you can be as picky as you want. In fact, picking is processing in a way. But ask yourself: does it really alter the product? Reasonably speaking, it doesn't within the spirit of this resolution. It changes size, weight, but not the content of the product.

Don't get me wrong though. The idea behind the legislation is good. It's just that I think it would be better taken care of by a regulatory agency rather than trying to give consumers the equalent knowledge of a regulatory agency.

That agency needs that knowledge as well. And why shouldn't consumers be able to check the same thing? Besides, I really like it that we have a resolution again aimed at the people in the UN, not the nations, or agencies, or organisations. Too many resolutions institute an agency and create bureaucracy. This can be done by the people, or by a national agency, or an international agency. But nothing is forced on you - you can do it your own way that suits your nation best.

I mean, if the WHOLE WORLD were to adopt gay as a lifestyle (for instance) there would be nobody left to govern in about 4 decades. THEN where would you be?

Ugh. Now I remember why I stopped visiting the NSUN forfum. My mind is constantly blown.

Domnonia supports this resolution. Yes. this could be controlled on a national level, but with an international agreement we will be ruling out the possiblity of less bureaucratic nations having their citizens misinformed.

I don't understand some of the violent opposition to this resolution. This sort of labeling isn't new. Most nations would have some form of it. All the resolution is trying to achieve is bringing it to an international level and making it standard to protect all our peoples and give them the knowledge of what they are actually eating.

If a person is allergic to shellfish, then they certainly don't want to eat something imported into their nation that uses crabjuice (for instance) as an ingredient in the product, doesn't have that information on the label or if it does, has it only in a language the person can't read.


Some real life nations have similar laws in place now.

Reall Life Australia (http://www.chdf.org.au/icms_wrapper?page=774&issurvey=&rand=0.44937921108266843)

Hmm, if this passes, I think I'll beseech the Emperor to make Pittsburghese the official language of The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine insted of English. Just the thought of having the words, Jumbo(for bologna),Pop(for soda), sketti(for sphagetti), and phrases like n'at, da, ats, yunz, cuttent, and shuttent, poke, Ahia, hunky, and Arn makes me giggle like a schoolgirl on Pez. :D At the verry least it will make lables in the Palentine interesting reading. Plus my country can sell glosseries to yunz so yunz can learn Pittsburghese. :D


OOC: And don't forget.... After you eat your sammich, yunz'll have to go worsh your hands in the crick. :D

All the resolution is trying to achieve is bringing it to an international level and making it standard to protect all our peoples and give them the knowledge of what they are actually eating.

If a person is allergic to shellfish, then they certainly don't want to eat something imported into their nation that uses crabjuice (for instance) as an ingredient in the product, doesn't have that information on the label or if it does, has it only in a language the person can't read.


Some real life nations have similar laws in place now.

Reall Life Australia (http://www.chdf.org.au/icms_wrapper?page=774&issurvey=&rand=0.44937921108266843)

This was exactly why I wrote this proposal. My father is allergic to gluten and fructose and without labeling foods with ingredients, he would not be sure he could eat anything safely. Many people have similar allergies and MUST be able to know what is in what they eat. This is mostly an issue of people's health, and I think it's important.

The Republic of Raguvia feels that the responsibility for proper labeling lies at the state level, and is not an international concern.

But, what if a person with allergies travels to another country which does not have these standards in place? Then they would not be able to safely eat anything. This way people with food allergies or just health-conscious people can know what they eat in any UN member nation.
And food can be made in one place and transported to another, so food is a very international issue. Unless your country grows all of its own food, which is unlikely.

On the behalf of Her Sacred Majesty, I'm here to voice Her opinion on this matter, and give you the official vote of our country. And that vote is against.

Ladies and gentlemen, first off, is this truly an issue that needs to be addressed by this body? Certainly, it is important that food be labelled correctly, as consumers do make their decisions based on these labels. But this is a matter of national, or perhaps even regional concern, not international.

Further, the language requirement for the new labels required by this resolution are insane! We would either end up with totally unreadable labels.. Or labels that have to fold out like books! This would have the direct effect of increasing the price of almost every single good purchased at any store, as the extra labelling and translating costs would be enormous! In fact, the end effect, if one were to look at the worst case scenario, is that many major international companies may be driven out of business, and that only local producers of goods would thrive. Some of you may see this as a good thing, but we, certainly, do not.

Finally, even if we were willing to support this resolution, there is no recourse for this body to take should this resolution be violated. No fines, penalties, or other such consequences have been provided or suggested by this resolution.

Again, I state that Her Sacred Majesty has indicated to me that we will stand firmly against this resolution. And we encourage others to truly consider the points I have raised, and to vote with us.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

This resolution places my nations Soylent Green plans firmly in the dustbin. Vote against this resolution.

Not only is it costly printing more information, but it's also uneffective. How many people really read the nutritional labels?

- Grand Poobah Sorscher

This resolution places my nations Soylent Green plans firmly in the dustbin. Vote against this resolution.

Not only is it costly printing more information, but it's also uneffective. How many people really read the nutritional labels?

- Grand Poobah Sorscher

Diabetics
People watching their weight
People watching their salt intake
People who care how much saturated fat is in a product
Parents watching the sugar intake of their children
Anyone who cares about exactly what they are eating

You'd be surprised actually.

... Ladies and gentlemen, first off, is this truly an issue that needs to be addressed by this body? Certainly, it is important that food be labelled correctly, as consumers do make their decisions based on these labels. But this is a matter of national, or perhaps even regional concern, not international.

Further, the language requirement for the new labels required by this resolution are insane! We would either end up with totally unreadable labels.. Or labels that have to fold out like books! This would have the direct effect of increasing the price of almost every single good purchased at any store, as the extra labelling and translating costs would be enormous! In fact, the end effect, if one were to look at the worst case scenario, is that many major international companies may be driven out of business, and that only local producers of goods would thrive. Some of you may see this as a good thing, but we, certainly, do not.

Finally, even if we were willing to support this resolution, there is no recourse for this body to take should this resolution be violated. No fines, penalties, or other such consequences have been provided or suggested by this resolution...

This is an international issue. Food travels a lot, and so do people. People with food allergies wouldn't be able to travel because they wouldn't be able to know what they're eating, so they wouldn't be able to eat at all during their travels. Another reason it's international is because if a food is only labeled in one language, and transported to a country where they don't speak that language, that could have bad effects. (Read earlier in this thread about mislabeled food causing hundreds of deaths because of this)

Next, the language requirements are NOT insane. It only requires that every food be labeled in all official languages of the country in which it is sold, NOT in all official languages in ALL of the countries it is sold in. I don't think thats insane at all...if you have labels at all you might as well make it so the people buying them can read them. No country that I have ever heard of has enough official languages that a book would be required.

The fines and penalties are left to the countries. This proposal makes it illegal to mislabel or not label foods. It doesn't list penalties because if they mislabel an item, the country could decide on its own punishments. People who became ill from mislabeled foods would be able to sue the company who made them, and the court could decide. I didn't want to force punishments on countries, when some punishments would not be acceptable in all countries.

This resolution places my nations Soylent Green plans firmly in the dustbin. Vote against this resolution.

Not only is it costly printing more information, but it's also uneffective. How many people really read the nutritional labels?

- Grand Poobah Sorscher

Grand Poobah,

I think you are asking the wrong question. What matters in many nations isn't how many people really read the labels, but how many government officials read the labels and then pass along advice to the people in their nations.

For example, let's say you wanted to market a new product like Soylent Grun in Solacewald (one of Mikitivity's cantons). Given that different cantons have different laws, public health matters such as imports into Mikitivity are held at the canton level so long as the imports do not cross through other cantons.

In any event, it would be your company's (I'm assuming your Soylent products are from a company and that your nation is not a communist state-run enterprise, forgive me if I'm wrong ... as there is nothing wrong with state-run businesses) responsibility to acquire the permits to transport food into Solacewald, Mikitivity. You'd contact the Mayor of Solacewald, who's office would then direct you to the canton's Office of Public Health. From there, you'd have to submit in English, German, or French (Solacewald actually borders the French speaking nation of Sober Thought, so it excepts French as well) a list of ingridients and known effects of the consumable. If you were to submit an application in Dutch or Spanish, Solacewald would simply ban the product (and the Mayor would probably spread nasty rumours about your arrogance as well for expecting us to learn your silly language when you are asking for our money).

In the case of Solacewald's Office of Public Health, if the food seems safe, then they'll require that you put the standard calorie information on the label for domestic distribution.

Now if this resolution passes, the national government at Mikitivity would require a standardization of all Mikitivity canton requirements for the labeling of food and would strive to make the labels in Mikitivity similar so that food could easily be shipped to Solacewald or just across the border in Sober Thought ... or the same food could be shipped to Miervatia, Aslan, Valitz (all separate cantons in Mikitivity) or to other countries, with little problems.

It seems to me that this resolution is a step in the right direction.

What a worthless peice of legislature! I'm pretty lenient when it comes to wishy-washy proposals, but this goes to far. I agree that all businesses and corporations should label their products correctly, but to make it UN law is ridiculous and a total waste of time on all our parts. I would vote no simply because of the frailty of the proposal, but to be fair, I will simply abstain.

Spoon Savers

What a worthless peice of legislature! I'm pretty lenient when it comes to wishy-washy proposals, but this goes to far. I agree that all businesses and corporations should label their products correctly, but to make it UN law is ridiculous and a total waste of time on all our parts. I would vote no simply because of the frailty of the proposal, but to be fair, I will simply abstain.

Spoon Savers

Let's pretend that right now Plastic Spoons doesn't have the same sorts of information on its labels that Mikitivity does. A blizzard hits Mikitivity and we need food. Your nation ships some supplies over ... and even if the labels are written in Greek or Penguin, at the very least we'll have some information and shot as using the food.

That is why my government feels that this resolution is a good idea.

I think though that the nutritional inof should be availiable, if not o the packaging, then on a website, or something. Also, if I were to sell, say, tooth paste to china, canada, mexico, and france, I would make different packaging for each place. Well, porbably.

I've never bothered to post on the forum before since I only play NationStates as a small stress relief from grad school life. However, I felt compelled to write about the current UN resolution up for vote. Frankly I don't understand how anyone would want to vote against this, and I think all the reasons given have been good for defending this resolution: preventing deception against consumers, giving proper information for those needing to watch their diet for medical reasons, etc. I'm getting my Ph.D. in food science and I read labels all the time, and did so even before I started grad school. It helps me to make proper choices and compare similar products to find out how they are made and which is better for me to eat. I don't understand how people would think it's going to be a huge cost to get this information. I know it would be more to get all labeling initially established but to get the values needed really isn't that bad. One of the most expensive tests (at least for US labels mandated by the FDA) is putting down the %DV (daily value) for protein, because the amount of protein in a food isn't necessarily the same amount our body can digest/absorb. However, this test also isn't mandatory, but optional, and only must be done if you want to put %DV for protein. Other than that, the tests really aren't too bad or costly, and I do feel rather qualified to say this since I've done a vast majority of tests commonly used from some labwork I did for my MS degree. I found the whole cost thing to be a rather poor argument. I think everyone should vote in favor of it and I'm surprised something like this hasn't come up sooner!

I've never bothered to post on the forum before since I only play NationStates as a small stress relief from grad school life. However, I felt compelled to write about the current UN resolution up for vote.

Speaking for Reformentia, we are voting against it because this is the United Nations and not your national Food and Drug Administration... where such a topic would be more properly dealt with in our opinion.

The emperor whole-heartedly supports this measure, not only for his own subjects, but for all consumers everywhere.

ugh, what's the next important UN vote going to be on.....

Definitive naming of the "bro" or "manzier"?

I think the UN should repeal all resolutions and propose new ones, or re-introduce the ones re-proposed.

The UN is becoming like the other "UN"

Speaking for Reformentia, we are voting against it because this is the United Nations and not your national Food and Drug Administration... where such a topic would be more properly dealt with in our opinion.

Why are you so stubbornly convinced? Food crosses borders all the time! If anything, this should be legislated on the highest level first - the local level can continue with these basic laws accross the UN.

Why are you so stubbornly convinced? Food crosses borders all the time!

Which is what a national customs service is for.

If anything, this should be legislated on the highest level first - the local level can continue with these basic laws accross the UN.

These are the basic laws that should be covered at that local level you mention. The definition of "organic"? As a UN resolution?

We think not.

Why are you so stubbornly convinced? Food crosses borders all the time! If anything, this should be legislated on the highest level first - the local level can continue with these basic laws accross the UN.

While I disagree with Reformatia that this couldn't be considered by the UN as a whole, I must agree that to claim this system is necessarily international because food is imported is flawed at best. The regulations are imposed upon customs and retailers. As such, it is in the interest of those who make the product to do what's necessary to translate and note ingredients for the country in question. In fact, I would consider that an issue that shows that specifics needs to be regulated by the nations individually - because this list is far from complete, but it limits nations from expanding on them, or adding things they want added.

OOC: And don't forget.... After you eat your sammich, yunz'll have to go worsh your hands in the crick. :D

OCC. Ah, a fellow speaker of Pittsburghese. LOL :D

Allthough I think it would be a missed chance to implement a good labelling standard, wich is IMHO important, I can't vote for in it's present form.

IMHO a few changes should be made first. The first paragraph should be more exact about what exactly is to be expected. I think it should be clear that only one ore little languages should be on the package. (IMHO those languages should be, the native in the country it's sold in, English, Spanish and Arabic)

Also I would want more clearly who's responsibility it is to do this. (The manufacturer, the exporter, the importer, the wholesaler etc etc)

Also it would be a good idea to add an obligation to make a translation available in all languages the product is sold to either by (oldfashioned) mail or on the internet.

Also I think it is not necesary do define words like fresh. When these words are in the original language people know what they mean.

As the leader of my little playthings, i support anything that business harder but benefits the people of my tiny, secluded nation.

Actually I voted against this proposal, I just don't see the need for the UN to get involved. However its something my nation does anyway with the products we sell internationally. Being the greedy, exploitive, evil conservative capitalists that we are, we wish to squeeze the last greenback we can out of our international trading partners. The only way to do this is to make sure they can read the label in their own language so they will buy the product. So in the case of the Palentine this resolution is redundant. Of course, apart from Tuna with genuine Orca meat, we don't sell much food on the international marketplace. We mostly stick to Guns and Gambling.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Suddenly there is a voice going out throughout the entire assembly:

"The Chair recognizes the delegate from the Capitalist Wing"

The great King Hassan the Chop walks towards the podium, stops at the delegate from Canada6 and winks before reaching his destination.

My fellow members of the UN:

I think that I have finally seen the day where leftys and rightys will actually meet in the middle and agree on something. The City by the Live Sea and its region are going to vote YEAH for this.

If you are one of the far wacko extremites that can't understand why such a proposal is great let me tell you why.

PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IT IS THEY ARE EATING!!!!

If you can not afford to make a label in a particular language, do not sell to that nation.

If you are stupid enough to buy a can of something that you don't know what it is...EAT IT.

But for the most part, the world will be a better happier world because of this proposal. It does not interfere with the politics of a nation. People can still continue their lives without changing any rules, and only reputable food manufacturers will be able to stay in business.

A wonderful proposal,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

he regulations are imposed upon customs and retailers. As such, it is in the interest of those who make the product to do what's necessary to translate and note ingredients for the country in question.

Yes, thanks to this resolution. But otherwise it isn't in the interest of those producers. They will prefer to lie to customers if they can sell more products because of that. Which is why we need to regulate this.

In fact, I would consider that an issue that shows that specifics needs to be regulated by the nations individually - because this list is far from complete, but it limits nations from expanding on them, or adding things they want added.

It doesn't disallow nations to add their own things. But that's only local, so harder to enforce, which is why this should be done on a UN level. Also, because definitions may vary, and some product might be sold as "fresh" while it isn't.

I think that I have finally seen the day where leftys and rightys will actually meet in the middle and agree on something. The City by the Live Sea and its region are going to vote YEAH for this.

The representative from Groot Gouda would like a glass of water, please. No, make that a double whiskey. Properly labelled, of course.

I generally do not like the resolution. I think it is a little sloppy and a little vague. (Of course looking at the debate so far compared to the previous reslution I am starting to think that perhaps sloppy and vague is probably good.) In some cases I think it goes a little to far, and in other cases I think it does not go far enough.

Standards are important. I think that standards need to be defined by committee rather than have one or two of them written into the law. In the real world there is a whole lot of confusing things that happen when food tries to cross nations ... one man's ferment is another man's rot ... one man's definition of say chocolate may not be another man's definition of chocolate ... one man may consider a word a type of food product, while another man may consider a word a location of the source of the food product. (Good example: not everyone consideres champaigne a regional descriptor which it should be.)

Labeling standards is important because there exists different names for the same product or combinations of products. These terms are often not known in other countries and not even "translating" them will have the desired efect of informing the customer.

None of these issues is effectively covered in the resolution as written.

Having written that, find that there is nothing in the resolution that I really object to. I wish it had been better written ... even though the debate would have long degraded by now if it had. I find that I can't really vote for it as it, but I certanly won't vote against it.

(Come to think of it, if it passes I might require labeling standards from my own congress. Think of how they will feel if every bill they send to me has to have the words "contains PORK and PORK BYPRODUCTS" on every one of those pork-barrel pieces of spending they try to place on my desk every day.)

Allthough I think it would be a missed chance to implement a good labelling standard, wich is IMHO important, I can't vote for in it's present form.

IMHO a few changes should be made first. The first paragraph should be more exact about what exactly is to be expected. I think it should be clear that only one ore little languages should be on the package. (IMHO those languages should be, the native in the country it's sold in, English, Spanish and Arabic)

You've gotta be kidding

Also I would want more clearly who's responsibility it is to do this. (The manufacturer, the exporter, the importer, the wholesaler etc etc)

I sure as heck hope the manufacture is responsible. It'll be the government that's responsible for making sure the data is accurate. That's just plain the logical conclusion.

Also it would be a good idea to add an obligation to make a translation available in all languages the product is sold to either by (oldfashioned) mail or on the internet.

Disagree, but the catalogue they're using should be in their national language.

Also I think it is not necesary do define words like fresh. When these words are in the original language people know what they mean.

...that's about....making sure there's a proper labelling standard. That's about misinformation.

Honestly, WTF?

The People's Republic of Kaztopia in its first speech to the UN is calling on all remaining member nations that have not voted on this matter to step up to the plate and shoot down this measure!

Labeling standards should not be an issue of this great UN. These standards will be constantly changing and in need of constant amendment and improvements.

Lastly, as one of my esteemed nations has pointed out, when Kaztopia sells its lush green peas (in which we export to 39 countries) are we going to be forced to label that can with 39 different languages ? This is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Lets push this resolution out of the UN with a strong NO vote.

The Commonwealth of Bakanda cannot support this type of measure from the UN. This will be a waste of resources and time and as there are other things that are more pressing for my country to address, we oppose this proposal.

If people want to know more about the contents of their can of beans, they should buy a can of beans which gives them more information. If enough people want to know about the contents of their can of beans, companies which manufacture cans of beans will print more information about the contents of their cans of beans. Companies who do not supply more information about the contents of their cans of beans will therefore lose out on trade, and will sell fewer cans of beans.

Likewise, if shoppers only buy cans of beans which contain the relevant information in a relevant language, those companies who don't supply that information in that language on their cans of beans will suffer and will sell fewer cans of beans.

Why vote in a resolution which enforces a blanket measure on an industry which would already have adopted these practices if there was a market demand for it?

If I wasn't representing a right wing government, I'd be up in arms about so many trees being cut down to fuel such a pointless resolution. As it is, I'll just vote 'no'.

A nice low-key entrance by Ganglioplast :D
Thank you, Bagdadi Georgia. I figured it was better than "What's the UN for?" which was my original question; and should be everyone's question. Especially those who make the decisions on what to bring up for vote.

As I think about it and read further here, it may not be so bad to pass this resolution. I was thinking of a history of a buttload of bad resolutions which was spurring me on in my original rant. Please excuse my candidness.

Purveyors of Artificial Nerve Tissues

If you are stupid enough to buy a can of something that you don't know what it is...EAT IT.


Yes! Yes! GREAT idea! Let's abolish labels!

I also feel that this should be an issue for individual nations not the UN and must vote "no" on this resolution.

Theideaof labeling is good but they often use stuff that people have no clue about. So if the labels are enforced the problem would be making labels understandable and readable in forein countries that the goods are exported to. The translation would cost corprate more money and only give a few jobs to a country so labeling is good and bad.

The High Bishop of Tatovia informes me that Our Lord doesn't agree with the resolution:

1) Labeling will only come to more expenses to manufacturers

2) People won't be able to understand every single quimical component of a product, therefore we will remain the same we are.

3) He said: "Haven't you ever eaten something you thought was very tasty and then realized it was Koala's testicules or something like that". Labeling will only make people avoid the experience of trying new things.

4) Any country should have their laboratories to make sure the contained of each food is safe for public consume.

Therefore:

The High Priest of Tatovia informs:

1) He won't support this resolution.

2) He thinks it's the responsability of each country to determine the labelling of cans.

3) It's the responsability of each conutry to assure that the food the citizen eats are safe.

4) The UN should be more concerned in other issues and not in corporated bussiness.

May Our Lord be with you.

(Heh... koala testicles.)
Why are you so stubbornly convinced? Food crosses borders all the time!
Which is what a national customs service is for.
The Duke agrees completely with Reformentia on this point. It is a nation's prerogative to allow or disallow products which are improperly labeled. The Grand Duchy of Mustachios has a quite extensive system in place to safeguard its citizens, and considers this to be a responsibility of every nation's leader; to ensure that his or her people can pick and choose what they wish to eat and drink. However, this is not the Duke's primary reason for opposing this resolution.

Also a factor is the poorly worded second operative clause, which attempts to define one term—"fresh"—by means of three undefined terms—"stale", "sour" "decayed". Even while still living, a plant experiences some amount of decay; as soon as a carrot is pulled from the ground and loses its source of nourishment, that rate of decay begins to overtake the rate of its growth; but how much decay is too much decay?

"Sour" is also a very subjective term, as individuals of different experiences, cultures and even races may have differing opinions of what is or is not "sour". The Duke must assume that lemons and other bitter citrus were not intended to be affected here, but in failing to define "sour", the author may have forbidden the labeling of such foods as "fresh" even when they are not five minutes removed from the garden. The Duke is certain there could be several pages of semantic argument about that point, and wishes to stress that it is merely intended as an example.

The Duke feels it unnecessary to even address the remaining term, as "stale" is possibly the most subjective of the three, and the arguments are essentially the same.

Ultimately, the Duke is inclined to vote against this resolution, due to its poor construction and unnecessary nature.

Labeling standards should not be an issue of this great UN. These standards will be constantly changing and in need of constant amendment and improvements.

First of all: nonsense. Secondly, why aren't issues that constantly change an issue of the UN? But mostly: how do these standards change constantly? Fresh food is fresh food, that really doesn't change.

Lastly, as one of my esteemed nations has pointed out, when Kaztopia sells its lush green peas (in which we export to 39 countries) are we going to be forced to label that can with 39 different languages ? This is inappropriate and unacceptable. and a misinterpretation of the resolution text.

In the country where those peas are sold, the label has to be in the official languages of that country. Not to all countries where it's sold.

While in general, Leopoldonia supports this, there are areas that need to be reworked.

Labels need not have so many words on them to cover all languages in all countries. We would prefer if there were a few listed, english, as it seems to be the language we are all choosing to use as a somewhat official language for the moment. Then also 2-3 others including the local language, if there is one, and one or two staple languages.

Also, we are not particularily happy with having to mark the specific country of origin. What is to done if it is a mulinational product.
For instance, if the U.S. sends me seeds, the U.K. sends growing supplies, and it is grown on my farm, is it solely a product of my farm?
Possibly, a general notation of region would be preferable.

This, is the current stance of Leopoldonia.

The United Socialist States of Garbage Bag Johnny issues this official statement on its support of the labeling proposal.

"Debate on the topic of labelling is wholly redundant. I've seen plenty of countries complain about having to translate food labels to other languages, but I have yet to see a country that did not communicate in English. Besides, printing ink and packaging labels cost the same price regardless of what language they are in. I see no grave negative consequence to this bill that would outweigh the very mild positive consequences the passage of this proposal would warrant. Labelling would make eating food a safe activity for people with food allergies or other such diet restrictions. So stop acting a B. Vote yes, and get on with it."

USSGBJ

I, the Grand Rodential President of The Republic of Rodential United Korea, Turquoisia, The Koreas, Rodentia, Cavia, Muso, etc.

Hereby declare support for the UN Resolution at hand, and have already established said support.
I think it makes intuitive, if not exact sense.

Sincerely, GRPRRUKTKTRCM.

I have to agree with GBJ on this.

OOC:
I can only hope everyone here against this bill doesn't live in a RL country that doesn't impose such a restriction on labeling. If so I can only hope non of their family members are diabetic and dependant on precise(truthful) labeling. It's been on the news in that last couple of years where companies were labeling product XYZ to be one thing but in reality it wasn't what it was labeled to be. FRESH, ORGANIC, GLUTEN FREE, SUGAR FREE etc. are important labels to people with allergies or people who have medical conditions that require a restriction on certain things. What if companies labeled certain things sugar free, and then put sugar in it. How would you people feel when one of your beloved family members is all of a sudden laying in the floor in a sugar induced diabetic coma.

I have to agree with GBJ on this.

OOC:
I can only hope everyone here against this bill doesn't live in a RL country that doesn't impose such a restriction on labeling. If so I can only hope non of their family members are diabetic and dependant on precise(truthful) labeling. It's been on the news in that last couple of years where companies were labeling product XYZ to be one thing but in reality it wasn't what it was labeled to be. FRESH, ORGANIC, GLUTEN FREE, SUGAR FREE etc. are important labels to people with allergies or people who have medical conditions that require a restriction on certain things. What if companies labeled certain things sugar free, and then put sugar in it. How would you people feel when one of your beloved family members is all of a sudden laying in the floor in a sugar induced diabetic coma.


I totally agree. If article I of the resolution was reworded, or thrown out Kaztopia would vote yes and accept the resolution.

Article I states "I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing. "

The wording of this article will lend itself to too much labeling, with most countries believing they need to spell one word on the label 30 times to cover all languages.

This is our chance to participate in politics on an international level. Who the f@#% thought up labeling standards? SERIOUSLY?! And don't give me something about how it's really very important. Beacause this is National level stuff, and while it's almost important, it's really NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

I will admit that listing proper ingredients is important. That's worth a resolution. But not fraudulently labeling something organic.

Here's are two slightly reworded article I's.

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in the official prevalent language of said country that the product is shipped too, and must be translated to mean the same thing no matter what language it maybe in.

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in the official prevalent language of said country that the product is shipped too, and must be properly translated so as to not be misleading.

Each one of these should be acceptable. Though some might find one more precise than the other.

This is our chance to participate in politics on an international level. Who the f@#% thought up labeling standards? SERIOUSLY?! And don't give me something about how it's really very important. Beacause this is National level stuff, and while it's almost important, it's really NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

It's important to people because this provides an international framework so that different nations can trade with each other without petty bickering over these things. Also the people of each person's nation should be important enough so as to provide internationl standards so that a country's whose national leadership or whose national corporate owners are less than scrupulous don't endanger the citzens of another country or region for their own profit.

If you had read what they define as organic you'd realize that they talk about the use of chemicals. Some of these chemicals won't bother you or me, but to other people it could put them in critical condition in the hospital or on the morgue table for a post-mortem autopsy.

But then again you can't worry yourself with the lives your nations people. You have more important things than there lives. You can't be bothered with whether a foreign corporation is properly labeling the products your country imports.

The legal minds from Lazy days have a few questions. The people of Lazy days emphasize that it is a good thing to label products clearly, and in fact our laws currently require that.

Nonetheless:


"I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing."

How can the UN possibly have jurisdiction here? Unless the UN gets to determine the official language of every country, this is meaningless. For example, a country could have 1,052 official languages, and every good sold anywhere in the world that happened to be sold in that country would require those 1,052 languages.

This is a huge regulation for laissez-fair economies. Some governments no doubt have decided to let the private sector decide for itself what languages to print its labels in. In addition, labeling is an integral component of product marketing. There is no need for the UN to take such a regulatory approach. Products get delivered just fine now in languages people need to make purchases.


"II. Defining “fresh” as “not stale, sour, or decayed” and “not altered by processing,” and defining “organic” as “food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides.” Nothing may be labeled “fresh” or “organic” unless it fits the above definition."

Why only fresh and organic? Companies employ a wide variety of words on product packaging. This is a great example for why each country should decide for itself how to label products sold in that country. Many countries would want product labeling requirements much stricter than those proposed in the current resolution. Many countries do not use the English words "fresh" and "organic".


"III. All people have the right to know what is in the food they eat. This means all packaged products must be labeled with (if applicable) the ingredients of the product, and nutrition facts, which should include the amount of fat, trans fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, sodium, protein, vitamins and minerals, and calories in the product. Also, all packaged products must be labeled with the country where the product was grown/made."

From where does that right originate?

Furthermore, this is not strong enough for many governments. Many countries would want a great deal more nutritional information than is listed. Again, this is why this should be decided by national governments. The international community is a poor arena for addressing this issue.


Therefore, the Protectorate of Lazy days must voice its opposition to the proposed resolution.

Description: SEEING THAT some companies may label their products incorrectly, or misuse words like “fresh“ and “organic“, and also seeing that there is a rising number of people that need to be able to know what is in what they are eating, this proposal imposes the following:

The People of Jresnada would like to state that it's a whole lot easier to just eat Kosher. That way, you always know what you're getting.

The most esteemed nation of Andreas Potens, a memeber of the Covenanters, of whom the Protectorate of Lazy Days is the regional delegate, would like to also voice objection to the current resolution.

It is the opinion of my government that such issues are hardly worthy of U.N. consideration. National governments are more than capable of deciding their own regulations on food labeling. without having to be subject to this bureaucratic resolution. Please, let us focus our attention on more pressing and let national governments decide this one on their own.

Thank you.

The People of Jresnada would like to state that it's a whole lot easier to just eat Kosher. That way, you always know what you're getting.

We wholeheartedly agree with the esteemed representative of Jresnada. Kosher laws, however, are specific to a particular culture, not to humanity as a whole. It is the responsibility of those who choose to live by that culture to ensure that its laws are enforced for them, rather than depend on some soulless foreign bureaucracy.

Our nation sees this resolution as a redundancy. Our Jihi Certification Board already performs the function it seeks to enforce, so there is no benefit to Our people to justify the expense of enforcing the additional layer of bureaucracy.

Food labelling standards should be a national issue, not a UN issue. I'm waiting for a few late votes from my region, but I can predict The Wild West will vote "No" unanimously. I'll vote later this evening.

Oh, and the language requirements? LMAO. Where are the "Save The Trees" folks -- do any of you realize the increase in paper consumption that is directly related to NAFTA IRL? Having to print every set of instructions or owners manual in three languages? Back on the food labelling issue, think of the ink costs. Yeah, guess it might increase employment by forcing every company in every nation to hire 80 translators, but ...

Where has common sense gone?

AK_ID

This is our chance to participate in politics on an international level.

And don't give me something about how it's really very important. Beacause this is National level stuff, and while it's almost important, it's really NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

We just finished discussing solar panels ... my government feels this is a different issue that does in fact have international standing in situtations where products are exported to several countries while on the same trip.

My government feels this could be important to nations that are active in international trade, especially governments that import or export larger quanties of food.

This might not be a big deal to a "United States", but this could be very important to a "Netherlands". The international justification comes from an argument that standardizing the labels should help to streamline the flow of supplies in addition to the general "human rights" justification based on the idea that consumers should have the right to know.

How can the UN possibly have jurisdiction here? Unless the UN gets to determine the official language of every country, this is meaningless. For example, a country could have 1,052 official languages, and every good sold anywhere in the world that happened to be sold in that country would require those 1,052 languages.


There are two major problems with your argument here.

First, official languages are determined by individual nations. This is, and has been, a standard proactice for hundreds of years. In nearly all cases, countries choose ONE (1) language as their official language. Further, it has been noted earlier that many products available in both Europe and North America are already labeled with several langauges popularly spoken in those regions.

Second, even if one discounts the fact that countries have only one official language, your hypothetical nation does not exist. There are roughly six thousand languages spoken IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. There is certainly no nation with 1,052 languages at all, much less that many official languages. Most of the world's languages have fluent popultations numbering in the hundreds. Your hyperbole does not negate the usefulness of this proposal.

On a final note, it is fully within the scope of UN oversight to concern itself with this issue. This is a matter of international trading standards. Just as a nation with states or provinces has interstate/province trade regulated by its federal body, international trade can be regulated by an international body. This is common sense politics. It is not a domestci issue whether a food maker appropriately labels products to be sold abroad. The current vote tally indicates that nations want the information provided for by this resolution. The UN is the only body that can offer them a solution.

This is stretching the UNs jurisdiction. I do not see how this can be categorised as a Human Rights issue by any stretch of the imagination. :confused: While the logic behind having proper labelling standards is obvious, this is a matter for the individual states and governments. This is a prime example of the abuse of the UNs legislative powers and the misuse of its resources. :headbang: I vote NO. If this bill goes through, I propose we move to repeal it as soon as possible. :mp5:

In nearly all cases, countries choose ONE (1) language as their official language.

Canada:
English
French

Swizterland:
German
French
Italian
Romansh

India:
Hindi
English
21 other official languages

Israel:
Hebrew
Arabic

Kenya:
English
Swahili

edit: Not that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with your other points, but I just wanted to point out that nations can have multiple languages. :)

The idea of forcing nations into making their companies follow rules about labeling from an international stand point is a violation of the country's right to setting up its own ideals and laws. This is ridciulous to ban something like this. The idea of banning organic is simply stupid. These are everday words with an everday understanding. Its unfair for many reasons. This is degrading the vernacular and speech of everday countries. Unfair to companies to have to spend extra money on labeling. Unfair to poor countries becuase the inability to understand what the label means because of a low literacy rate. Also unfair because corporations will have to raise prices to help make up for the lost profit from having to restyle all their labels, and use different wording. This leads to unfair for poor countries in which it is already hard enough to buy everday products...raising prices will hurt them. This is really a bad idea. To force a country to make changes to their corporations. The UN really has no right nor the power to force corporations into changing their labels. These companys can be asked but not forced..only government run programs can be forced. And I am not a comunist nation..as far as I am concerned I can only ask and influence companies through the public and lobbiest to change labeling. I wouldn't waste my governments time though on forcing corporations to adhere to such a stupid rule. This doesn't make any sense...the free enterprise corporations do not have to abide by UN Labeling standards. I for one will not support this bill.

We wholeheartedly agree with the esteemed representative of Jresnada. Kosher laws, however, are specific to a particular culture, not to humanity as a whole. It is the responsibility of those who choose to live by that culture to ensure that its laws are enforced for them, rather than depend on some soulless foreign bureaucracy.

Yes, but many people outside the culture follow that particular rule anyway, for health reasons, to know what they're eating, etc.

Our nation sees this resolution as a redundancy. Our Jihi Certification Board already performs the function it seeks to enforce, so there is no benefit to Our people to justify the expense of enforcing the additional layer of bureaucracy.
The people of Jresnada agree with The Eternal Kawaii.

The Wild West, via its loose cannon delegate AK_ID, opposes this resolution.

AK_ID

Any particular reason as to why?

Canada:
English
French

Swizterland:
German
French
Italian
Romansh

India:
Hindi
English
21 other official languages

Israel:
Hebrew
Arabic

Kenya:
English
Swahili

edit: Not that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with your other points, but I just wanted to point out that nations can have multiple languages. :)


Hebrew is the only official language of Israel, though both English and Arabic are recognized languages there. English is the official language of Kenya and Swahili is the 'national' language (this is pretty much the standard in African countries; having an official language [usually English or Swahili] and a national language). Though both Hindi and English are official languages in India, the others are not. They are recognized in the country's constitution, but are not official languages. I think that everyone will agree that Switzerland is a very special case with regard to most political issues.

So two of your examples are not correct assements. There are, however, other nations that could supplant them. I think that you should note that I said "nearly all nations choose ONE (1) official language," which is far from being a blanket statement about nations. In addition to the three nations that you correctly assessed as having multiple official languages there are thirty others, all of which comprise 16% of all nations on Earth. If you think that makes the term "nearly all" incorrect, then your objection may be appropriate. I, however, stand by my statements as a response to someone's suggestion of 1,052 official languages in a given nation.

I mean no offense here. I just happen to think that I am right.

The idea of forcing nations into making their companies follow rules about labeling from an international stand point is a violation of the country's right to setting up its own ideals and laws. This is ridciulous to ban something like this. The idea of banning organic is simply stupid. These are everday words with an everday understanding. Its unfair for many reasons. This is degrading the vernacular and speech of everday countries. Unfair to companies to have to spend extra money on labeling. Unfair to poor countries becuase the inability to understand what the label means because of a low literacy rate. Also unfair because corporations will have to raise prices to help make up for the lost profit from having to restyle all their labels, and use different wording. This leads to unfair for poor countries in which it is already hard enough to buy everday products...raising prices will hurt them. This is really a bad idea. To force a country to make changes to their corporations. The UN really has no right nor the power to force corporations into changing their labels. These companys can be asked but not forced..only government run programs can be forced. And I am not a comunist nation..as far as I am concerned I can only ask and influence companies through the public and lobbiest to change labeling. I wouldn't waste my governments time though on forcing corporations to adhere to such a stupid rule. This doesn't make any sense...the free enterprise corporations do not have to abide by UN Labeling standards. I for one will not support this bill.

Banning organic? This proposal bans nothing, except mislabeled products. It does not ban the use of the word "organic", it defines it, so products that are not organic cannot be labeled "organic".

The only reason a company would have to change its wording is if it was mislabeling its products in the first place, which is exactly why this proposal was submitted. It will have to add more languages, but probably not more than 1 or 2 generally. Most countries would have less than 5 official languages, usually less than that. It wouldn't be too hard to add one language to your label. A lot of American products have French and Spanish labels, in addition to the normal English, and we seem to be doing alright with it.

Is it really such a stupid rule? Many people are allergic to certain foods, and it would be very bad for them to eat certain foods. If a product is not labeled properly, they could become very ill or worse in extreme cases. It's a matter of citizen's health and I, for one, think it is important.

Banning organic? This proposal bans nothing, except mislabeled products. It does not ban the use of the word "organic", it defines it, so products that are not organic cannot be labeled "organic".

The only reason a company would have to change its wording is if it was mislabeling its products in the first place, which is exactly why this proposal was submitted. It will have to add more languages, but probably not more than 1 or 2 generally. Most countries would have less than 5 official languages, usually less than that. It wouldn't be too hard to add one language to your label. A lot of American products have French and Spanish labels, and we seem to be doing alright with it.

Is it really such a stupid rule? Many people are allergic to certain foods, and it would be very bad for them to eat certain foods. If a product is not labeled properly, they could become very ill or worse in extreme cases. It's a matter of citizen's health and I, for one, think it is important.


Well said. I was just considering responding to Brett, but you have done the job for me.

Food labelling should be a national issue, and not within the purvue of the UN.

AK_ID

Well said. I was just considering responding to Brett, but you have done the job for me.

Thank you for the thought anyway, I hate defending the same points over and over :D

We in particular take issue with the very narrow definition of "fresh." A reasonable reading seems to make it impossible to define any food as "fresh": can you have "fresh" milk, if it is pasturized? What about "fresh" sour cream? Is digging up a potato a process? It does, after all, alter it from its natural state as a tuber that grows in the ground whose sole purpose is to bear buds from which new plant shoots arise, if it were not being cultivated for food.

Too many problems.

I think that everyone will agree that Switzerland is a very special case with regard to most political issues.

If you think that makes the term "nearly all" incorrect, then your objection may be appropriate. I, however, stand by my statements as a response to someone's suggestion of 1,052 official languages in a given nation.

I mean no offense here. I just happen to think that I am right.

Any objection I may have had is gone now and count myself among those that happen to think you're standing on solid ground! :) The Swiss reference made me laugh, as it is so incredibly true.

(OOC)I remember reading years ago about bags of seed grain shipped from a western nation (can't remember which one) to the middle east. The grain itself had been treated against rot with a poisonous substance and was sprayed bright pink to indicate that. The grain bags carried explainations and warnings that the grain inside was poisonous to eat, but only in english and spanish, not Arabic.

Some of the bags were stolen off the wharf and sold as food to hungry people. Apparently the death toll was in the hundreds. Having the bags marked properly could well have prevented those deaths.

I do not see how that necessarily follows - the bags were stolen and sold. Stolen...then sold. If they were stolen and consumed by the thieves themselves, then there were merely trying to stop starving, and the death toll in the tens, not hundreds. But it sounds as if they true intent was to profiteer from the hunger of their neighbors, not put food in their own bellies.

And I agree with another writer - this is needless bureaucracy being mandated on a world-wide level. Why should every nation be forced to shoulder the burden placed on taxpayers to enforce this? Let the nations that want this pay the bill to enforce the labelling standards for what enters their ports, and let the individual companies decide which, if any, other nations they want to market to.

There are two major problems with your argument here.

First, official languages are determined by individual nations. This is, and has been, a standard proactice for hundreds of years. In nearly all cases, countries choose ONE (1) language as their official language. Further, it has been noted earlier that many products available in both Europe and North America are already labeled with several langauges popularly spoken in those regions.
The people of Lazy days appreciate the commentary from the representative of Syndicalasia. Here's the core of the problem. The resolution is designed to protect consumers in nations that oppose forcing sellers to label products. But if those countries have the right to determine their official languages, then they have the power to wreak havoc throughout the international trading system by simply naming a large number of official languages. Sure, foreign producers could simply refuse to sell their products there, or they could make separate product lines for that country, but then that would defeat the whole purpose of the resolution, which is to help consumers, because it would limit the availability of products or render them very expensive. The resolution mandates that a product's labeling must include official languages of all nations in which said product is sold.

OOC: Also, I thank you for the examples of North America and Europe. Those are great examples of several nations not needing the RL UN to get domestic arrangements for product labeling. In the US, for example, there is much spirited discussion (ie, democracy in practice) about the role of the FDA.

OOC: For the purposes of congenial exchange, I'll grant that nations in RL mostly choose no more than one official language. But the people with the most access to information are those of the major languages of the world. The people who "need" protection are those speaking the more minor languages. I would also add that, in a strict NationSates sense, this whole discussion is irrelevant. English is the only official language.

Second, even if one discounts the fact that countries have only one official language, your hypothetical nation does not exist. There are roughly six thousand languages spoken IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. There is certainly no nation with 1,052 languages at all, much less that many official languages. Most of the world's languages have fluent popultations numbering in the hundreds. Your hyperbole does not negate the usefulness of this proposal..
OOC: Actually, I think the fact that the hypothetical nation I described does not exist in RL is my whole point. I would oppose this resolution in the RL UN, even though it would only involve a few hundred languages. But in NationStates, it would be absolutely catastrophic (and you grant each nation the right to make 1,052 languages). To keep the math easy, let's say there are roughly 100 times as many NSUN members as RLUN members. Someone cited roughly 6,000 languages in RL. That would make roughly 600,000 in NS. Let's say only .01% of those are "important". That leaves 60 languages that would be required to be placed on every single product label sold in every single UN member country. Now imagine that many translations for braille.

That also ignores the other 99.99% of languages! The languages for whom there are hundreds of millions of speakers don't need a law to force companies to provide products written in their language. If the lack of international law is bringing harm to speakers of languages not large enough to warrant direct product packaging, aren't those the languages that should be targeted? The resolution does not address local language needs (which, after all, may be far different from national official languages).

On a final note, it is fully within the scope of UN oversight to concern itself with this issue. This is a matter of international trading standards. Just as a nation with states or provinces has interstate/province trade regulated by its federal body, international trade can be regulated by an international body. This is common sense politics. It is not a domestci issue whether a food maker appropriately labels products to be sold abroad. The current vote tally indicates that nations want the information provided for by this resolution. The UN is the only body that can offer them a solution.
This is where we fundamentally disagree about the role of the UN. Lazy days is a strong advocate for using the UN to govern international trade. But this resolution targets domestic economic activity. That's the explicit goal of the supporters: to protect consumers in countries whose governments have chosen not to enact or enforce sufficient labeling standards. This isn't about how something gets sold abroad; it's about how something gets sold at home. Lazy days will of course abide by all UN decisions, and on this particular issue, the people of Lazy days have already decided for much more detailed labeling legislation for any product sold in Lazy days. But we will also advocate for responsible and appropriate use of UN power.

completely freaking useless

diggsmon@yahoo.com Hear Hear I'm for this resolution. because if other nations in the same region can't read my labels how the bloscha are they going to know what they're buying.

Edit: Can we get a poll for this thread (if you're going to use it as official)?

This looks like it's about to hit Quarom, so I thought I should bring it to the attention of the forums

This first clause is murder.

I. If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.

What if a product is marketed in all 30,000+ nations within the NSUN? That would be over a thousand different lauguages, easily. If we printed every language on the wrapper, we'd be forced to fell a giant sequoria tree for each pound of Sidestream toffee cake that we export!

The Corporate Christian Empire of Sidestreamer and its Mouthpiece of the Sidestream oppose.

In regard to your first rebuttal:

"if those countries have the right to determine their official languages, then they have the power to wreak havoc throughout the international trading system by simply naming a large number of official languages."

One would hope that the bodies governing nations would not act in such a reflexive fashion to a banal request for information that would most likely improve their customer base. In fact, it is fair to say that such an action would be regarded by the international community as an act of economic sabotage and would be answered with appropriate sanctions and embargoes. Postulating these outrageous scenarios does not really make any kind of argument.

I feel that your response reflects a lack of understanding about the nature of the proposal. You seem to assume the following:
- Products need to be labelled in every language in the world.
- Food production is a primarily domestic issue.
- The goal of the proposal is to protect citizens of nations run by devious corporate conglomerates.
But none of these assumptions bears out the truth of the issue. Products need only be labelled in the language of the market in which they are sold. This does not involve any new translators, as those markets are already receptive to the same product and companies must have invested in some sort of labelling. Furthermore, the job of translation is done by free-lance contractors and is a one time expense.

Food is a primarily international market. It is a simple fact of geography that not all nations can support both their populations and the means to feed them. Some nations have large plains areas in temperate climates. Some nations are merely islands. We even have members of the UN hailing from Antarctica. This is not a domestic issue. The fact of the current vote tally suggests that proper labelling is a subject that most nations find necessary. Thus, it is the job of the UN to provide guidelines for such in the interests of nations without the goegraphical means to provide sustenance to their populations.

The third bullet is answered by the same argumentation as the second. The people who seek "protection" are those who must purchase their food from consumerist nations.

In regard to your comments about language:

Again, only langauges relevant to a particular market need be included. This is common sense for the producer, as it adds to the marketability of one's product. The imposition of a rule for particular label standards is to ensure the safety of citizens with particular dietary needs (e.g. diabetics, people with allergies). This again makes good market sense to the producer. The pupose of a law is simply to ensure that good practices are followed. For most people, and we would like to hope most companies, it does not require a law to curb behavior, yet we still have them.

As to your concern(?) for the citizens who speak the multitude of lesser konwn languages, it is unfounded. Though the multiplication factor present in this world (over RL) does increase the sheer number of speakers, I assure you that they are not a constituency that is concerned nor need concern us. These types of languages have total speakers numbering in the tens to hundreds. If they do interact much with the standard market economy, then they will know the official language of their native country. Essentially, these lesser known languages do not need to be considered because they represent a tiny population (not the hundreds of millions that you posit). I assure you that in RL you will never meet a person who speaks Tumbuka, Yucatec, or Tok Pisin. In areas where these sorts of languages are prevalent one will also find large amounts of bilingualism with the national or official language.

I think that the above arguments deal quite directly with your believed difference of opinion on the role of the UN. This is very much an international issue and should be handled as such.

Tune in later for chapter two (jk). ;)

But if those countries have the right to determine their official languages, then they have the power to wreak havoc throughout the international trading system by simply naming a large number of official languages. Sure, foreign producers could simply refuse to sell their products there, or they could make separate product lines for that country, but then that would defeat the whole purpose of the resolution, which is to help consumers, because it would limit the availability of products or render them very expensive. The resolution mandates that a product's labeling must include official languages of all nations in which said product is sold.

No, the nation will starve if their government pulls that kind of trick. So you're just thinking up a silly example now, which isn't even close to a realistic prediction.

This is where we fundamentally disagree about the role of the UN. Lazy days is a strong advocate for using the UN to govern international trade. But this resolution targets domestic economic activity.

Food isn't domectic anymore, it travels all over the world.

What if a product is marketed in all 30,000+ nations within the NSUN? That would be over a thousand different lauguages, easily. If we printed every language on the wrapper, we'd be forced to fell a giant sequoria tree for each pound of Sidestream toffee cake that we export!

So you market a product per nation or region. Our companies will sell beans as "bonen" to dutch speaking nations, as "beans" to english speaking nations, etc. So only the language of a nation or group of nations needs to be printed on the label. It's complying with the resolution, and thinking pracical.

It's important to people because this provides an international framework so that different nations can trade with each other without petty bickering over these things.

An international framework so that different nations can trade with each other without petty bickering?

Well, thank the deities this resolution's passed. I don't quite know how we all coped for the last three millenia.

This concludes the petty retort.

This first clause is murder.


What if a product is marketed in all 30,000+ nations within the NSUN? That would be over a thousand different lauguages, easily. If we printed every language on the wrapper, we'd be forced to fell a giant sequoria tree for each pound of Sidestream toffee cake that we export!

The Corporate Christian Empire of Sidestreamer and its Mouthpiece of the Sidestream oppose.

You could try and find a trade language to use on your packaging, or simply use the ten most common languages of your trading block.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Sidestreamer is exactly right.

While it is reasonable to require a label to be in the primary language of one country, it would not be reasonable to add 30,000 languages (nor the 100+ languages in current active use around the real world). It might make sense to print a label in Russian if the product is to be sold in the CIS, but products sold in the United Kingdom do not need to include Russion, Bantu, Norwegian, etc.

Ona recent business trip to Scandinavia, I found that they printed many things in English, which was a common language understood throughout Scandinavia. The reason for this is that most Scandinavians understand English better than their non-native Scandinavian languages (e.g. Danish, Swedish, Norwegian), despite the similarities between their languages.

All regions and nations should be free to make the same sorts of choices based on marketting realities. And global companies should not be forced to find a way to place 100+ different languages on a single package, when the packages caqn easily be tailored to include only the relevant languages based on where they will be sold.


This first clause is murder.


What if a product is marketed in all 30,000+ nations within the NSUN? That would be over a thousand different lauguages, easily. If we printed every language on the wrapper, we'd be forced to fell a giant sequoria tree for each pound of Sidestream toffee cake that we export!

The Corporate Christian Empire of Sidestreamer and its Mouthpiece of the Sidestream oppose.

People are starving and in extreme poverty, yet the UN is worrying about labels???

Several nations are in private discussion to pull out of the UN if this resolution passes. We are going to have a mass exodus of the UN if this goes thru.

:gundge: Vote No.

Several nations are in private discussion to pull out of the UN if this resolution passes. We are going to have a mass exodus of the UN if this goes thru.

:gundge: Vote No.
Any particular reason why?

Any particular reason why?


Honestly, I cant say. I am not one of the nations in those talks. Nor was any country from the The Circle Islands of Tola involved in those talks. These are just rumors. But if proven true, we could see a whole new UN by the end of this week.

Kaztopia, I'm tempted to vote yes just to wach the mass exodus. They have been promising that since forever. I remember the arguments that allowing for resolution repeal would cause a "mass exodus." Go, leave, see if I care, because it only means that there will be more food in the cafeteria for me.

Clearly this resolution would never pass in the mythical "real world" but then again none of the resolutions we pass would. Furthermore none of the so called "real world" resolutions would be able to qaulify for passage because we have to keep resolutions short.

Specifics should not be mentioned in the resolution, rather a committee should work out all the necessary terms that need to be established. You think these UN reps who are looking for an excuse for a "mass exodus" probably because they don't like the navy bean soup are goig to vote for a reslution that simply calls for a committee? Doubtful.

Labeling needs to support all languages, but they don't all have to be on the same product item as long as they are available. (If there are two cans, one on one language and one in another, and both are generally the same it should be acceptable, along with brochures for those other languages that may be a common tourist population in the region.) But while that is reasonable, it just doesn't have the overboard feeling that makes this Nationstates the wonderfully wacky place that it is.

As for people starving and in poverty, if you look at the eary posts you will see an example of mislaeled (labeled correctly but in a wrong language) being stolen and distributed to people for consumption even though it was actualy poisonous and this resulted in the death of thousands of starving people.

Look, I'm not saying vote yes, if this doesn't pass someone else might propose one that would be better I suppose. If it does pass the world as we know it won't end ... and makers of reading glasses will make a fortune. Don't leave the UN because of this ... no wait plaease do! The line at the ATM is far too long and I can't get an empty table at the posh resturants without a reservation.

Resolution Contents: Pork, Pork by products, Useless fluff, Useful regulations (trace amounts). Caution: This resolution is manufactured in a plant that produces legislation and may contain trace amounts of actual legislation.

Considering that this resolution will be passed by the vast majority, and that it is practically as unanimous as a resolution can get, I find your petty dealings and rumors to be laughable at best. It warrants no attention and is of no importance or consequence.

Products need only be labelled in the language of the market in which they are sold.
In the interest of expediency and respecting the right of all nations to approach the podium for their voices to be heard, the government of Lazy days will prepare a separate white paper in response for those leaders interested in further explanation of the position of Lazy days. If there is a formal request, the authors will honor that with a direct submission to the forum.

In short, this quote from the esteemed representative of Syndicalasia represents the heart of the problem and of the disagreement regarding Article I. Proponents of the resolution support it as it should be, but not as it is written. The lawyers of Lazy days are not comprehending how there could be any other interpretation of Article I, which reads in part:

"If a product is marketed in...multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries..."

OOC: We're not talking about French in France and Arabic in Saudi Arabia, which national governments and market forces already address. We are talking about Cyrillic, German, Japanese, and so forth all being forced to be included on an iPod box sold in Santiago, Chile.

Kaztopia, I'm tempted to vote yes just to wach the mass exodus. They have been promising that since forever. I remember the arguments that allowing for resolution repeal would cause a "mass exodus." Go, leave, see if I care, because it only means that there will be more food in the cafeteria for me.

Clearly this resolution would never pass in the mythical "real world" but then again none of the resolutions we pass would. Furthermore none of the so called "real world" resolutions would be able to qaulify for passage because we have to keep resolutions short.

Specifics should not be mentioned in the resolution, rather a committee should work out all the necessary terms that need to be established. You think these UN reps who are looking for an excuse for a "mass exodus" probably because they don't like the navy bean soup are goig to vote for a reslution that simply calls for a committee? Doubtful.

Labeling needs to support all languages, but they don't all have to be on the same product item as long as they are available. (If there are two cans, one on one language and one in another, and both are generally the same it should be acceptable, along with brochures for those other languages that may be a common tourist population in the region.) But while that is reasonable, it just doesn't have the overboard feeling that makes this Nationstates the wonderfully wacky place that it is.

As for people starving and in poverty, if you look at the eary posts you will see an example of mislaeled (labeled correctly but in a wrong language) being stolen and distributed to people for consumption even though it was actualy poisonous and this resulted in the death of thousands of starving people.

Look, I'm not saying vote yes, if this doesn't pass someone else might propose one that would be better I suppose. If it does pass the world as we know it won't end ... and makers of reading glasses will make a fortune. Don't leave the UN because of this ... no wait plaease do! The line at the ATM is far too long and I can't get an empty table at the posh resturants without a reservation.

Resolution Contents: Pork, Pork by products, Useless fluff, Useful regulations (trace amounts). Caution: This resolution is manufactured in a plant that produces legislation and may contain trace amounts of actual legislation.

I didnt say I would be involved in that exodus....I dont even know if what I heard is true.

But I do want to point out that if this resolution passes I can promise everyone that we will see more useless resolutions being brought forth to the UN.

Where will it stop ?

A resolution for product descriptions? A resolution for corporate mottos?

due to the fact that under this resolution genetically modified foods can be labeled as organic, it is our beleif that thoose who are willing to pay more for organic food will not want to be eating GM food.
therefore it is in the best interests of my citizens to REJECT this resolution

Genetically modified food is organic food, as far as I'm concerned.

canada6: "It warrants no attention and is of no importance or consequence."

Then why did you acknowledge it?

I have not acknowledged it.

The lawyers of Lazy days are not comprehending how there could be any other interpretation of Article I, which reads in part:

"If a product is marketed in...multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries..."

So you have a can of beans, and if that exact same can is sold in 5 countries, you need to write the label in the languages of all 5 countries.

If you have 5 cans of beans, you can market each as a seperate product and need only write the label in the official language of one nation. Or combine a few if you have more space on your label.

"and that it is practically as unanimous as a resolution can get"

Almost two thousand representatives have registered their informed displeasure with a "NO" vote, and you see this as practically unanimous?

My faith in the democratic nature of this organisation is taking a nose dive.

"and that it is practically as unanimous as a resolution can get"

Almost two thousand representatives have registered their informed displeasure with a "NO" vote, and you see this as practically unanimous?

My faith in the democratic nature of this organisation is taking a nose dive.
1,687 is not almost two thousand. I consider it practically unanimous because it is my belief that there will never be a unanimous result, and that most resolutions are much, MUCH closer than the present one. At this point having 1,687 votes against in a body of 31,054 members is a resounding practically unanimous success.

Besides... I haven't seen one single valid argument for voting against this resolution.

1,687 is not almost two thousand. I consider it practically unanimous because it is my belief that there will never be a unanimous result, and that most resolutions are much, MUCH closer than the present one. At this point having 1,687 votes against in a body of 31,054 members is a resounding practically unanimous success.

Besides... I haven't seen one single valid argument for voting against this resolution.

It's a slightly depressing reminder of the sheer unanimity of support (unanimity by our standards) for this resolution and the one-sided nature of the debate so far, that we are reduced to arguing about what counts as a unanimous vote.

I personally agree with Canada6. By the standards of NSUN, any figure of under 2,000 in opposition indicates a clean-sweep.

May the blessing of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Is there any way article I can be changed before this resolution passes ? Im guessing from the tone of everyone here that this resolution will pass with no problems :( Where are all the NO votes !?

Is there any way article I can be changed before this resolution passes ? Im guessing from the tone of everyone here that this resolution will pass with no problems :( Where are all the NO votes !?
They exist only in your fertile imagination.

1,687 is as close to 2,000 as it is to "a unanimous yes". And I'll remind you that of the 31,000 people eligible to vote, not one third of those have bothered to do so. That's not sweeping approval, that's sweeping apathy.

"I haven't seen one single valid argument for voting against this resolution."

1) This is entirely unnecessary legislation. If items are not adequately labelled or if consumers are more comfortable buying alternatively detailed products, they already have the option to do so without the UN wasting their time. If I don't feel like I'm being told enough about the car I'm interested in, I'll go to a different dealership. If I don't like the amount of information on the side of a tin of beans - there's a whole aisle of the supermarket just full of alternatives who would love me to buy their product instead.

2) If nations are dishonestly labelling products, their export market will quickly shrink to zero. There is already market pressure upon manufacturers to provide adequate information regarding the content of goods, especially with recent diet fads. How many goods do you buy which DON'T have detailed information regarding their content?

3) The UN has no role whatsoever in telling companies in my nation what they must and must not write upon the labels. Any sane nation already has strict standards on imports, and every sane nation already has watchdog organisations set up to monitor their internal food market to make sure that standards are kept high as regards hygeine and honesty of description.

If we go down this route, there will be legislation for every avenue of life despite the fact that the majority of nations have already covered it in their own national legislature. The UN will become choked in entirely unnecessary "frameworks for international trade" despite the fact that international trade has gone on fine without the UN mandate for hundreds if not thousands of years. The examples given of "labelling gone wrong" are exceptions will will exist even if the UN mandates, and cannot be legislated for simply because they are freak - and therefore newsworthy - exceptions to the rule.

This is pointless legislation.

I believe that consumers have a right to know what they are buying. The vast majorities agrees.

The voting usually has a 50% participation among UN members ou of the 30,000. This has more to do with the fact that many aren't active NS users. Still. We are up to 8 thousand nearly.

So you have a can of beans, and if that exact same can is sold in 5 countries, you need to write the label in the languages of all 5 countries.

If you have 5 cans of beans, you can market each as a seperate product and need only write the label in the official language of one nation. Or combine a few if you have more space on your label.
The people of Lazy days are enjoying the discussion about vote margins and the likelihood this will pass.

However, they have asked me to focus on the substantive issue raised by my colleague from Groot Gouda.

This is an interesting interpretation. If this is how Article I actually works, then it is little different in practice from how economic transactions already take place. It is like enacting a law at the UN to require merchants to accept the legal tender in a country where they do business. Products are already labeled in a language acceptable to the people of the country in which they are sold.

If the UN challenges a merchant as violating this resolution, I do not think this particular perspective will be accepted as a defense. There must be a sizable group of representatives out there who disagree with the people of Lazy days.

1,687 is as close to 2,000 as it is to "a unanimous yes". And I'll remind you that of the 31,000 people eligible to vote, not one third of those have bothered to do so. That's not sweeping approval, that's sweeping apathy.

"I haven't seen one single valid argument for voting against this resolution."

1) This is entirely unnecessary legislation. If items are not adequately labelled or if consumers are more comfortable buying alternatively detailed products, they already have the option to do so without the UN wasting their time. If I don't feel like I'm being told enough about the car I'm interested in, I'll go to a different dealership. If I don't like the amount of information on the side of a tin of beans - there's a whole aisle of the supermarket just full of alternatives who would love me to buy their product instead.

2) If nations are dishonestly labelling products, their export market will quickly shrink to zero. There is already market pressure upon manufacturers to provide adequate information regarding the content of goods, especially with recent diet fads. How many goods do you buy which DON'T have detailed information regarding their content?

3) The UN has no role whatsoever in telling companies in my nation what they must and must not write upon the labels. Any sane nation already has strict standards on imports, and every sane nation already has watchdog organisations set up to monitor their internal food market to make sure that standards are kept high as regards hygeine and honesty of description.

If we go down this route, there will be legislation for every avenue of life despite the fact that the majority of nations have already covered it in their own national legislature. The UN will become choked in entirely unnecessary "frameworks for international trade" despite the fact that international trade has gone on fine without the UN mandate for hundreds if not thousands of years. The examples given of "labelling gone wrong" are exceptions will will exist even if the UN mandates, and cannot be legislated for simply because they are freak - and therefore newsworthy - exceptions to the rule.

This is pointless legislation.


Well done ! You hit the nail on the head !!

Put the language of the country on that Can you going to supply to that country, as easy at THAT

1) This is entirely unnecessary legislation. If items are not adequately labelled or if consumers are more comfortable buying alternatively detailed products, they already have the option to do so without the UN wasting their time. If I don't feel like I'm being told enough about the car I'm interested in, I'll go to a different dealership. If I don't like the amount of information on the side of a tin of beans - there's a whole aisle of the supermarket just full of alternatives who would love me to buy their product instead.

And what if there aren't? What if producers decide that they only print the labels in the first language of a nation, instead of all official languages? In Groot Gouda, this could mean that lazy producers only print in English, or translate cheaply and improperly. The disinformed customer is then unable to make a good decision and might be forced to buy the wrong food. Your car example is nice, but we're dealing with something slightly more important here: food. It's better to prevent nasty incidents then wait for them to happen to consumers can make a different choice.

2) If nations are dishonestly labelling products, their export market will quickly shrink to zero.

Really? Interestingly, it won't. Well, not unless there's deaths involved. But companies will try to find the limit of what's acceptable lying and what isn't, and in the absence of strict rules, will go over that limit if they can make some money out of it. Honesty doesn't sell enough.

OOC: And there's an excellent programme on the dutch TV that shows every week how creative companies can be with labelling, what products really consist of, and how it is actually made. Quite shocking at times.

3) The UN has no role whatsoever in telling companies in my nation what they must and must not write upon the labels. Any sane nation already has strict standards on imports, and every sane nation already has watchdog organisations set up to monitor their internal food market to make sure that standards are kept high as regards hygeine and honesty of description.

Any sane nation has, yes. And the other tens of thousands of nations haven't. That's what we're legislating for, for those nations who perhaps haven't thought of this yet, or haven't implemented legislations like this.

Considering the way the vote goes, there's still a few thousand nations at least opposed to this kind of legislation, nevermind what the nations do who aren't voting.

This is pointless legislation.

It isn't. If you want really pointless legislation on trade issues, find the Promotion of Worldwide Media Formats discussion on this forum, and please help prevent that before it comes up for vote. Now that would be a contribution.

I believe that consumers have a right to know what they are buying.

I believe that consumers have the intelligence to buy a can of beans with ingredients listed on the can, if they want to buy a can of beans with ingredients listed on the can. If you don't trust your populace enough to let market forces dictate which beans sell and which don't, you're going to be passing an awful lot of legislation on awfully petty issues. Goodbye world peace, goodbye global education and getting rid of starvation - hello, nanny federalism.

What if producers decide that they only print the labels in the first language of a nation, instead of all official languages? In Groot Gouda, this could mean that lazy producers only print in English, or translate cheaply and improperly. The disinformed customer is then unable to make a good decision and might be forced to buy the wrong food.

Then Groot Gouda's domestic food production industry will benefit from the lack of competition from imported food suppliers, who have grossly misjudged the wish of their customer base. If people want to buy a product with certain information on the label, a supplier will tap into that market and make money from it. They will do this without a law telling them that they HAVE to do so. Market forces.

It's better to prevent nasty incidents then wait for them to happen to consumers can make a different choice.

Do you honestly believe that any amount of legislation will prevent accidents happening? Poor management, an unmotivated, under educated or over worked workforce, simple bad luck, these things can and WILL contribute to the likelihood of accidents occurring. By legislating to try and cover every eventuality, we are creating barriers of red tape which will interfere with trade and economic growth - not to mention national sovereignty.

Moreover, all the rules do in actuality is provide a means to prosecute companies who break them. Individual nations are able to tailor legislation to their own economy, culture, national identity and economic reality to do this far more effectively than the UN's blanket sledge hammer style proclamations ever can.

Legislating for those countries who don't already have laws covering this in place? Then pass an act encouraging them to legislate for it. Don't pass legislation affecting my economy and trade deficite just because the next country over hasn't bothered to look at the end result of lazy government, when there's no loophole in my nation to be covered.

This is the United Nations. Are we truly incapable of passing a note around to remind nations to have a look at this area of their domestic law? Do we really have to vote a resolution into being international law simply because a few member nations might not have this loophole closed?

Common sense should be at the base of all legislation put before the UN, let alone the issues we actually end up voting on - and I don't see how common sense has been applied to this issue until it came to voting. Even now, I see that "yes" votes outnumber "common sense" voting by four to one. It's madness.

It isn't. If you want really pointless legislation on trade issues, find the Promotion of Worldwide Media Formats discussion on this forum, and please help prevent that before it comes up for vote. Now that would be a contribution.

If a dog is ugly, putting it next to an uglier dog doesn't change the fact that it's not going to win Crufts. The fact that other pointless legislation is up for debate doesn't change the fact that this is pointless.

Your car example is nice, but we're dealing with something slightly more important here: food. It's better to prevent nasty incidents then wait for them to happen to consumers can make a different choice.

OOC: Last month I was down in LA for a few days and hoped to bring the cables for my digital camera so I could view photos each night at the hotel on my TV in order to decide which images to delete. I started looking through my instruction manual for a camera I bought in California, and was shocked that the entire book was written in French! Fortunately I could look at the pictures and figure out the basics of how to cycle through the menu, but I have no idea how a Panasonic digital camera sold in California came with not an English instruction book ... not a Spanish instruction book, but a French instruction book.

The camera isn't a do or die issue. Food can be.

So you have a can of beans, and if that exact same can is sold in 5 countries, you need to write the label in the languages of all 5 countries.

If you have 5 cans of beans, you can market each as a seperate product and need only write the label in the official language of one nation. Or combine a few if you have more space on your label.

Mikitivity imports food, but when Mikitivitian companies like Leon Trains sells toy trains in other nations, it repackages the trains and places text on the boxes in the native languages of the regions the toy is marketed for. The toy inside the box is usually the same, but sales increased by putting the item in a package that locals would understand.

Toys are a luxury item. They are not even remotely as important as food. But my point is only to reinforce what Ambassador Lane has stated, that companies can easily repackage consumables.

The Unified Capitalizt States’ observer in the United Nations has recently become aware of a hypothetical nation known as the “United States of America” that is strikingly similar to many real nations. One of its states, known as “Hawaiʻi,” has an official language known as “ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_language),” which is not widely spoken outside, or even inside, Hawaiʻi. He wonders if the supporters of this resolution would support forcing manufacturers, at gunpoint, if necessary, to label all of their products sold within any of these fifty United States in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi.

The people of Lazy days acknowledge the existence of widespread support for this resolution. However, we believe in the value of plurality and protecting minority perspectives, even when we disagree with those perspectives. We have yet to hear sufficient answers to the concerns we have voiced about the currently proposed resolution. It seems to needlessly force countries to conform to what a certain group of representatives view as "good", as well as creating a variety of practical problems. Therefore, on behalf of all UN members of Covenanters, I will be voting against this resolution.

The researchers of Lazy days have completed their first white paper answering specific comments by their counterparts at Syndicalasia.

It may be accessed here (http://ndempsey.blogspot.com/2005/08/ns-on-labeling.html).

Hi all, this is my first time on the forum. I feel I that the proposed resolution regarding the labelling of food products is a much needed one, however I do not feel it does enough to protect the consumer. The resolution should have included the labelling of food products as being fat free or containing 10% less fat. Such labels are grossly misleading and the products themselves often contain more of another fat. Also the labelling of food products as having a health benefit, ie may help lower the risk of heart disease, such products should have to proior tested by a scientific body regulated by the UN.

The Peoples Republic of Flying Veese have voted against this resolution.

We disagree that all official languages should be represented upon a products label. Having been colonised in the past, our "Official Language" is only spoken by 10% of our populace. For reasons of heritage we are unwilling to remove it's stature as an Official Language. We do not require mulitnational companies to print labels in this language nor do we feel that the UN has any right to dictate otherwise.

We feel that this Resolution will force companies into the position where they wll simply ignore small markets (such as our own) with unusual offical languages, limiting the right of choice of that nations people. We feel that we will only receive new foodstuffs when the market in larger nations has matured.

We find the definitions of "Fresh" and "Organic" to be incompatible with our culture. By no means can the word sour be used in a definition to describe that which is unfresh. We claim that "Organic" foodstuffs can be produced using fertilizer of Animal origin if the animal has received antibiotic treatment. Surely manure from an animal which has received antibiotic treatment for a wound would be acceptable as fertilizer?

Finally, we dispute that the UN is the place within which such resolutions should be drafted. We dispute that this is a "Human Right" or indeed a "Civil Right".

We would like to point out that sometimes the UN should consider the rights of the majority.

I would like to bring to your attention two facts...

The first of these is that most people do NOT CARE what is in the foods we eat- and those that do probly dont want to- I mean say DimSims really do have cat/dog in them?? would you still buy them for their taste??

The second is why not have a global language?? it cuts down the need to destroy this world with a waste of non-renewable rescources.

in conclusion the answer to this is a resounding NO!!. other issues should be raised discerning to this however.

Thank you for your time, Warshrike

The arguments of Flying Veese is one reason why I proposed that a committee should be the one to define terms not the legislation itself.

First there is the problem that not all terms can be translated into equally known terms in other languages, but there are many assumptions that just are plain false. The opposite of "fresh" is "not fresh." Sour is a taste not a contradiction of fresh. If I were to make a batch of sweet and sour sauce and serve it right away, it's certanly "fresh" if is still sour. Likewise you can "sour" something and still have it in a fresh state ... "sour cream."

Terms need to be defined for what they are and only what they are. Organic, for example defines a method of growing something which in turn implies what that something was exposed to. Genetic Modification is completely different, it is the process of designing the product. Both labels need to be clearly defined and used appropriately. Some people may want both Organic and non GM on their products, but one term should not be used as a cover for both. Likewise some terms are not yes no, but could come in various grades. This needs to be determined by a committee of experts not within the legislation.

Is there any way article I can be changed before this resolution passes ? Im guessing from the tone of everyone here that this resolution will pass with no problems :( Where are all the NO votes !?

I already registered my no vote and why in an earlier post. For the evil capitalist conservative money grubbing business scum in my nation this legislation is redudundant. The evil B******S already label their products for nations they sell to, but we don't sell much foodstuff on the international market. We sell guns and gambling. So even if this passes my nation's economy won't be affected all that much.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The Unified Capitalizt States’ observer in the United Nations has recently become aware of a hypothetical nation known as the “United States of America” that is strikingly similar to many real nations. One of its states, known as “Hawaiʻi,” has an official language known as “ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_language),” which is not widely spoken outside, or even inside, Hawaiʻi. He wonders if the supporters of this resolution would support forcing manufacturers, at gunpoint, if necessary, to label all of their products sold within any of these fifty United States in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi.

No. It is not an official national language, it's a state language. This proposal states the official languages of "countries" not "states".

Is there any way article I can be changed before this resolution passes ? Im guessing from the tone of everyone here that this resolution will pass with no problems Where are all the NO votes !?

There isn't a way to edit it now. And I wouldn't if I could. I still don't see what's wrong with it. All it asks for is that the labels be printed of the official languages of the country it is sold in. I don't see why that is a problem, since most labels would have to be in the language of that country so people could know what the product is. It makes sense really.

though GM crops can be grown without fertalisers or pestisides (as this is their purpose) and while some poeple may say that gm food is techinacilly organic as it is fertiliser free, most poeple who actually pay the extra money for organic food do so for many reasons,
some of which include:
an objection to modern intensive farming methods,
a fear of the negative effects of chemicals on the body,

poeple who buy organic food use organic to mean made without human interference, i.e. grown naturaly.
GM crops will have the pestisides coded into their genome by humans and is not natural,
one has to recognise the tree hugging nature of thoose who actually care about organic food, i am almost sure that all thoose that pay 3 times as much for dodgy, insect eaten "organic" food are not willing to pay the same amount for GM food,

and seeing as under this regulation GM food will be put into organic food without the knoledge of the consumer,
i am confident this will cause a large section of the organic market to loose trust and confidence in the term "organic" which would have a highly detrimental effect on a newly emerging but growing industry and would therefore have a detrimental effect on the economy of UN nations

the bread sultan has spoken the truth,
it is not too late to change your vote

No. It is not an official national language, it's a state language. This proposal states the official languages of "countries" not "states".
Then in countries that have no official languages other than those determined by the states, like these hypothetical United States of America, there are no labelling standards?

though GM crops can be grown without fertalisers or pestisides (as this is their purpose) and while some poeple may say that gm food is techinacilly organic as it is fertiliser free, most poeple who actually pay the extra money for organic food do so for many reasons,
some of which include:
an objection to modern intensive farming methods,
a fear of the negative effects of chemicals on the body,

poeple who buy organic food use organic to mean made without human interference, i.e. grown naturaly.
GM crops will have the pestisides coded into their genome by humans and is not natural,
one has to recognise the tree hugging nature of thoose who actually care about organic food, i am almost sure that all thoose that pay 3 times as much for dodgy, insect eaten "organic" food are not willing to pay the same amount for GM food,

and seeing as under this regulation GM food will be put into organic food without the knoledge of the consumer,
i am confident this will cause a large section of the organic market to loose trust and confidence in the term "organic" which would have a highly detrimental effect on a newly emerging but growing industry and would therefore have a detrimental effect on the economy of UN nations

the bread sultan has spoken the truth,
it is not too late to change your vote

Well, I or someone else could make another proposal making GM foods illegal or forced to be labeled differently if it is that important, since I can't change it now, and it appears that it will pass.

Then in countries that have no official languages other than those determined by the states, like these hypothetical United States of America, there are no labelling standards?

The labeling standards would be the same. The United States is kind of a weird case, most countries have an official language. It does say "official language" in the proposal, I guess that would be up to the country. The labels would still have to exist, but the language is whatever the country wants at that point since the proposal does not say what to do in that case.

I represent the Empire of Khallosopia II, and I just read the hot topic of debate in the UN today about Proper Labelling on Foods so that people know what goes into them. Well, let me just say that I'm all for public awareness of food ingredients, but I'm wondering what it would do to Command-type economies such as my own, where the government controls all business. This labelling could potentially make some countries economically poorer as a result of people not buying their products because of fear of some urban legend-esque fear that a certain chemical (aspartame, for example) could cause a disease, but which hasn't even been proven yet! And what about the rights of the manufacturer to keep a lid on the "secret recipe" for their product and the reasons why theirs should be purchased over that of the competition? In the end, this is why I simply cannot bring myself to support this legislation.

The Empire of Khallosopia II

Then in countries that have no official languages other than those determined by the states, like these hypothetical United States of America, there are no labelling standards?

The people of Lazy days concur that this is an important issue that shows why country leaders should be making these decisions. Official languages sometimes have little to do with the diversity of tongues actually spoken by citizens of the country, or there may be no official language at all, so they make a poor basis for UN legislation.

OOC: The United States in being a "weird case" is actually a very important RL example. There are several major languages spoken in the US, and a huge number of smaller ones. Society works because English is the common tongue for societal institutions, but market forces and regional (ie, non-UN) legislation also deliver other languages. After all, the only two official languages in the US are in Hawaii and New Mexico, and neither of them are English. Sorry to bust the bubble of my Western European friends, but the world of language is a lot bigger than English, Spanish, French, German, and other languages that have been spread through trade and colonization. English is not necessarily the best language with which to provide rural Indians nutritional information. (And yes, that last sentence was purposefully worded to be vague so it could be interpreted in at least a couple different ways...). It is not educated cosmopolitans who speak the major official languages of the world that most need better access to information about their food sources (not to mention a safe food supply itself), but the people who speak the unofficial languages.

If my companies want to sell rotten meat to the hungry consumer, they're going to. You think I'm going to let you stand in the way of progress?

Vote no on this issue. We don't need a bunch of turkeys getting their fingers into our policies.

If my companies want to sell rotten meat to the hungry consumer, they're going to. You think I'm going to let you stand in the way of progress?

No-one is going to stop your companies selling anything to anyone. Your companies just have to label it properly so customers know exactly what they are spending their money on.

Vote no on this issue. We don't need a bunch of turkeys getting their fingers into our policies.

Bit late for that I think. This resolution looks set to pass easily, so it seems the majority of UN voters don't agree with you :).

it seems we are forgetting that "organic" actually means "containing the element 'carbon'" organic has nothing to do with plant or animal material (besides the carbon factor). this definition would rule out oils, greases, petrols, waxes, and other non-plant/animal materials containing carbon, as organic.

please say so if this has already been raised

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

:headbang:

in reference to point III about the ingredients of the products I disagree with this proposal as it would be a breach of the corporate secrets act to demand that all the ingredients should be displayed on the back and so to pass it as law would be contradictary to an already passed piece of legislation.

After sitting on the fence for quite some time, although generally arguing for the resolution, Tzorsland has finally voted nay. I still strongly disagree with many who oppose the resolution, but I am not convinced that it is the best way to go (by simply defining two terms in a manner that I think is wrong in the first place).

Anyway, back to the discussion. I am stronly convinced that organic and GM have nothing to do with each other. GM is oddly enough not a binary standard, it's a trinary standard. GM free, indicates that the product is free of all GM influence, and GM should be required for any crop directly made through GM. Regular crops which might be cross contiminated by GM should not be labeled either way. Organic likewise is a term way prone to abuse. (When I see the term "organic egg" I think of chickens covered in manure.) Organic covers seperate issues, fertilizer use, pesticide use, and even hormone use to some extent.

You have to go to the bottom of the definition barrel to get the carbon meaning from organic. The general definition we need for legislation is 3a(2) not 3b(1).

3 a (1) : of, relating to, or derived from living organisms (2) : of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides <organic farming> <organic produce> b (1) : of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds (2) : relating to, being, or dealt with by a branch of chemistry concerned with the carbon compounds of living beings and most other carbon compounds.

Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion there are rules everyone must follow. And these rules contain the fact that people, no, peoples got the right to know what they are eating day for day... It cant be that young kids die just because there has been a stupid mistake or a lazy worker who didnt take care of it OR that NOBODY cares what we are eating... think about our children, our future, food is one of the most important thins in everyone´s life! If we aren´t attentive here, then where else we should be any longer? I remain on voting FOR it....

Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion there are rules everyone must follow. And these rules contain the fact that people, no, peoples got the right to know what they are eating day for day... It cant be that young kids die just because there has been a stupid mistake or a lazy worker who didnt take care of it OR that NOBODY cares what we are eating... think about our children, our future, food is one of the most important thins in everyone´s life! If we aren´t attentive here, then where else we should be any longer? I remain on voting FOR it....

Exactly, this is the inescapable heart of this resolution. That is has been made for the protection of consumers and the benefit of society. Who cares about a little inconvenience, what about a bit more compassion and empathy for your fellow man? I thank the honourable delegate from Damlos for his cogent and accurate commentary on the nature of this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Exactly, this is the inescapable heart of this resolution. That is has been made for the protection of consumers and the benefit of society.We completely agree with the insightful words from Compadria. The practical concerns are important, but at the end of the day this was a human rights proposal, not an international trade proposal.

That is why Lazy days asked (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9668034&postcount=97) a couple days ago for an explanation of where that right comes from. The people of Lazy days can think of many human rights far more important than the knowledge of what is in a food product (beyond those already recognized by the UN). If people in other countries suffering from diabetes and allergies are so important, we should really be discussing healthcare, not nutritional labeling and the language (both dialect and diction) merchants use to market food products.

The people of Lazy days are still interested in knowing why this right is so important. As this seems to be the will of the (voting) international community, there are several other human rights that activists in Lazy days are pushing the government to bring to the UN's attention. It would be useful to understand how representatives determine which human rights are universally important and which may be trusted to the stewardship of individual country leaders.

The resolution Labeling Standards was passed 11,399 votes to 3,190, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Apparently it's important enough to pass. It's more a matter of health than a matter of rights, but there's no category for health. I do feel that it is a right to know what you are eating, but if there was a health category I would have put it under there.

The people of Lazy days are still interested in knowing why this right is so important. As this seems to be the will of the (voting) international community, there are several other human rights that activists in Lazy days are pushing the government to bring to the UN's attention.

Where are the resolution proposals then? It they're good, and important rights, the UN tends to vote for them in massive amounts like Labelling Standards.

This right is important. There may be other important rights too, and they're all waiting for those great resolution writers to become a proper resolution. Go ahead, and remember that the IDU welcomes those writers with help and skills, with our 10-resolution experience (including this one).

I totally have to go against the resolution. This is due ot the fact that there is no way that one company will print every language on the product they sell. And also defining fresh would asl o be difficult to do by one universa; norm since all of the countries are so different. This is due ot the fact that what might be fresh some where might be rotten some where else. Every country has there own norms. by doing a universal norm and by printing in every ones language not only would the companies them selfs suffer but also the countries them selfs would. this would be due ot the fatc more companies would sell to other contries because of all the money it would take to print new labels for every country. I think this resolution should be decided among the countries them selfs and not set the resolutiopn into play.

I totally have to go against the resolution. This is due ot the fact that there is no way that one company will print every language on the product they sell. And also defining fresh would asl o be difficult to do by one universa; norm since all of the countries are so different. This is due ot the fact that what might be fresh some where might be rotten some where else. Every country has there own norms. by doing a universal norm and by printing in every ones language not only would the companies them selfs suffer but also the countries them selfs would. this would be due ot the fatc more companies would sell to other contries because of all the money it would take to print new labels for every country. I think this resolution should be decided among the countries them selfs and not set the resolutiopn into play.

First, please consider spell checking. I can barely understand some of that.

Second, fresh is fresh. Why would fresh mean rotten anywhere?

Third, how do you expect to sell a product if it's not in the language of the country? No one would be able to read anything on it, and wouldn't know what it is. That is an essential part of the resolution.

And it already passed.

My economy is already feeling the negative effects of this bill :(
I have had 6 companies close up shop already because they couldn't afford the expense to redesign labels and translation costs.

My economy is already feeling the negative effects of this bill :(
I have had 6 companies close up shop already because they couldn't afford the expense to redesign labels and translation costs.

Good, because that way people can't accidentally buy their food without knowing the contents.

And now for the lemonade-selling kids on the sidewalk!

Fresh, lol. Leave the definition of "fresh" to individual regions and cultures. I once tried IRL to eat "stinky head" at an Athabaskan potlatch near Kotzebue, Alaska. A word or two of explanation: Stinky head is a delicacy among Athabaskans, and consists of salmon heads that have spent a month (or longer) wrapped in leaves and buried in a pit dug in the ground.

I didn't quite manage to swallow my first mouthful, and I've a cast iron stomach.

I don't recall having seen a UN-mandated label on that stinky pile of muck, lol.

AK_ID

My economy is already feeling the negative effects of this bill :(
I have had 6 companies close up shop already because they couldn't afford the expense to redesign labels and translation costs.

Since these companies obviously couldn't ship any food to Mikitivity before the adoption of this resolution, because our domestic laws prohibited imports without labels, my government would like to know what these 6 companies were ... we didn't really have any interaction with them before.

OOC: You might consider nudging your companies to see if other foreign companies can afford to buy them out! :) Mergers seem likely if the only cost is labeling ... could be interesting. :)

So you market a product per nation or region. Our companies will sell beans as "bonen" to dutch speaking nations, as "beans" to english speaking nations, etc. So only the language of a nation or group of nations needs to be printed on the label. It's complying with the resolution, and thinking pracical.

Some countries, however, are multi-lengual. (OOC: Russia has at least 20 languages spoken by more than 1 percent of its population, if my memory's correct). IC: Do we have to make that many "marketing schemes" directed toward one port?

That aside, your suggestion would be reasonable if the new law allowed for it, but if you read the language, what you say is impossible.

If a product is marketed in one or multiple countries that speak different official languages, all labels on the product must be in all official languages of those countries, and must all translate to mean the same thing.


Some countries don't have an official language either. What would happen in these cases?