NationStates Jolt Archive

Please consider the repeal of Resolution 123 "Labeling Standards." The text of the proposal is as follows:

1)RECOGNIZING it is in the best interest of consumers of all UN member nations to have clear and concise labeling standards.

2)CONCERNED that Res. 123 does not address ALL standards and requirements necessary for a food item to be labeled Organic – i.e.:

a. Res. 123 does not mention the restriction of sewage sludge in fertilizing organic food items.

b. Res 123 does not address 3rd Party verification standards for Organic Certification, which afford consumers trust in the integrity and accuracy of label claims

c. Res. 123 does not address a standard for “All-Natural” labeling, and the difference between “All-Natural” and “Organic”

d. Res. 123 does not specify what types of food CAN be certified as organic.

e. Res. 123 does not address certain exemptions to organic labeling that should be allowed in specific circumstances relating to raw material availability and raw material cost.

f. Res 123 does not address specific explanation of terms related to Country of Origin Labeling (“COOL”) Such as: “Product of”, “Packed in” or “Imported From”.

3)BELIEVES it is in the best interest of UN member to repeal Resolution 123 to prevent economic harm and/or loss of consumer confidence due to ambiguity in the Resolution’s language. Res. 123 lends itself to widespread abuse, mis-interpretation, and the possibility of protracted litigation against corporations and governmental bodies.

4) ENCOURAGES UN Member Nations to begin work on a new, more effective resolution regarding Food Labeling.

5) REPEALS: UN Resolution 123.

Ironically, your - validly - pointing out the overly specific and narrow scope of Resolution #123 is itself a little too narrow: it might be more concise and effective to more simply point out that the resolution does not adequately cover all issues related to food labelling, and hence is a rather silly little piffle of a resolution. I would like to see this repealed, and this seems like a good first draft, but I'd suggest honing the argument a little to reduce the list appearance of clause 2.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Perhaps we jumped the gun a bit here, as we posted the text here in tandem with a repeal in the UN as well, not leaving a chance to augment the text of the repeal. We are a relativley young counrty and a brand new member of the UN, so we are still learning the ropes. Nevertheless, we are very passionate about repealing Res. 123 and encouraging member nations to begin to craft more durable, citizen-serving label standards. We urge delegates to vote for the repeal of Res. 123 so that it can move to the entire UN for a vote.

Let's take a look at the original resolution _

United Nations Resolution # 123

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.

Votes For : 11,399
Votes Against : 3,190
Implemented : Thu Sep 22 2005

Ah, yes. My government's main objection to this, apart from the whole question of whether it intruded too far into National Sovereignty, was the scope of clause 'I' which -- instead of allowing the manufacturers to put different labels on batches of a product that are intended for different markets -- requires them to use every official language of every nation in which they're trying to sell the stuff on every label... so that (for example) if they were previously exporting a given product to twenty nations that averaged two official languages each -- with none of those languages used in more than one of those countries -- then they had to start putting all of the information on every packet's label into forty different languages!

My liter of whiskey just changed from a bottle into a cask. Unfortunately, there's still only a liter of whiskey actually in it, but the packaging needed to be larger to accomodate all the necessary languages on the label.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Perhaps we jumped the gun a bit here, as we posted the text here in tandem with a repeal in the UN as well, not leaving a chance to augment the text of the repeal. We are a relativley young counrty and a brand new member of the UN, so we are still learning the ropes.No worries, you are hardly the first to do so.

Welcome to the United Nations, by the way.