by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

3

DispatchBulletinNews

by The 🥔Potato is Friendly🥔 of PotatoFarmers. . 17 reads.

Government's Official Stance with regards to GA proposal: Reducing Food Waste


Opinion on resolution: Reducing Food Waste

Committee of WA Affairs, PotatoFarmers

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Kenmoria

The World Assembly,

Noting that many organisations that grow, prepare, sell or distribute food unnecessarily waste their product because a greater amount of stock is ordered than is sold, causing the excess food to go to waste,

Further acknowledging that retailers and wholesalers may refuse to purchase fruit and vegetables if they are considered aesthetically unpleasing, regardless of their actual quality or nutritional value,

Worried for the many negative effects of the aforementioned food wastage on WA member states and their populations, including:

  1. harming the environment, due to the production of the greenhouse gas methane, the wastage of the fresh water that was used to create discarded products and the attraction of pestilence and vermin to rotting food,

  2. forcing a rise in the prices of food, because of a lack of supply caused by wastage between initial production and final sale, resulting in serious negative consequences for the price of living,

  3. robbing poorer citizens of member nations of the possibility to eat the perfectly edible food, safe for sapient consumption, that is thrown away unnecessarily,

  4. squandering the energy used to store and distribute the discarded food, thus increasing power demand unnecessarily, and

  5. wasting the labour that was used to create said food products, which could otherwise have been allocated towards goods and services that would have ultimately been used for the betterment of member nations,

Concerned over the quantities of food that unintentionally expire due to improper or incorrect stock rotation, and

Regretting that action has not been taken by this august assembly to reduce unnecessary food wastage, and thus lend assistance to both the environments and citizens of member nations who are hurt by the discarding of edible food,

Hereby,

  1. Strongly encourages member nations to create local initiatives that seek to prevent the overproduction and disposal of viable and edible food, including but not limited to food banks and charities;

  2. Commands member nations to inform their citizens about how to properly save and store leftovers for future consumption;

  3. Obliges food producers and transporters with minimising the amount of food that, having been produced or brought, is thrown away without a compelling health or safety purpose, as far as is reasonably possible;

  4. Mandates member nations to repurpose a reasonable amount of food surpluses into appropriate environmentally, socially or economically viable programs, such as: diverting food scraps to animal feed, composting inedible food to create nutrient-rich soil, or using waste oils from food for fuel conversion in order to recover lost energy in industry;

  5. Orders member states to divert a reasonable proportion of their wasted food, if assuredly edible and safe for sapient consumption, to feeding those who are unable to procure food for themselves or their family, either internally or in the form of foreign aid. This may be accomplished directly or via reputable charities;

  6. Extends the authority of the International Food Welfare Organisation to include:

    1. researching into: the causes of food wastage, the reduction of this waste, the ways in which uneaten food can be reused, and the points at which foodstuffs become unsafe for sapient consumption,

    2. publishing this data for the benefit of member nations’ governments, food producers and businesses, food charities such as foodbanks, and the general citizens of member states’ populations,

    3. lending aid, in the form of donations from the World Assembly General Fund as well as research, to food charities that have proven virtuous conduct and use techniques of strong efficacy to minimise wastage and maximise reuse, and

    4. likewise giving monetary aid to member nations - this shall be used only accomplish the reduction of unnecessary foodwastage, either directly or indirectly;

  7. Requires all businesses in member nations to take every reasonable step to reduce the amount of safely-consumable food and drink that is discarded, and implement stock rotation techniques that minimise product expiry, if not already in use; and

  8. Compels member nations to implement techniques that minimise food wastage, based on the research published by the International Food Wastage Organisation, where doing so would not be harmful to sapient health, objectively inferior to current methods, extremely expensive, or excessively difficult to accomplish in a reasonable time frame;

    1. where a member state is unable to implement techniques within a reasonable time frame from the IFWO solely due to resource or technology constraints, it must implement them as soon as it is able to do so.

Coauthored by Australian rePublic and Dmitry II.

28th July 2019

We refer to the resolution above, entitled "Reducing Food Waste". (RFW)

On first look, it seemed that we are to break PotatoFarmers' longest streak of voting Against in the World Assembly. However, on further scrutiny, the Committee of WA Affairs had to debate with regards to some aspects of the resolution. After long periods of discussion, it was decided that PotatoFarmers will Abstain for the current resolution. This decision was made as the Committee does have some issues with the proposal. What slanted the Committee to Abstain was that the Committee believes that the proposal should deserve some support for addressing a largely ignored issue, and that PotatoFarmers largely agree with the points raised in the proposal.

The points raised by the Committee for their decision is as follows:

1. A proposal that addresses such a problem is rare in the GA. Though we had seen our fair share of environmental proposals, as well as the Food Welfare Act (FWA) which describes the issue of food, this seems to be a unique proposal addressing the issue of Food Wastage in one proposal.

2. The Committee has heard the views of other delegates, and at first glance, it may be illegal as it seems to belong in the wrong category, a closer look will let confused delegates understand that this is a Social Justice category bill, not an Environmental category bill. However, there could be a better distinction in terms of the phrasing of the proposal to make it more readable.

3. Critics of the proposal may argue that it is similar to the FWA. It is true that both proposals are talking about food. However, the similarity ends there. The FWA gives nations with food surplus an avenue to reduce food wastage caused by this excess food by allowing these excess food to be donated to those who would require these food. The RFW, on the other hand, address the issue of food wastage within member states, an issue which is not being addressed by any other GA proposals. Given that the issue of Food Wastage is essentially important, the Committee applauds the effort made to ensure such an issue is tackled on the GA platform.

4. A careful reading of the list of reasons why food wastage is a problem shows that the proposal may have underestimate the gravity of the issue of Food Wastage. The proposal has missed out on many key reasons behind the wastage of food. These include the following situations:
i. The government of a member nation, in its efforts to support the agricultural industry, chooses to buy up all the food at a minimum price. This further incentives local farmers to produce more food, which may lead to excess supply of food and when it this excess is not utilised, food wastage occurs.
ii. A corrupt official in a village town collects a portion of the harvest by farmers. As he/she is unable to finish the food, food is unintentionally wasted. (Although it is true that this is illegal under FWA)
iii. Food is wasted unintentionally due to the lack of proper storage facilities resulting in the food going to waste. (This is different from "improper or incorrect stock rotation" raised by the proposal)
The list can go on and on. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the seriousness of the issue isn't shown clearly on the proposal.

5. The International Food Welfare Organization (IFWO), under the FWA, has already been given the authority to redistribute excess food provided by member nations. The FWA has also outlawed actions with regards to distribution of food that are detrimental to the health and welfare of people. This renders Clause 5 of this proposal [5. Orders member states to divert a reasonable proportion of their wasted food ... internally or in the form of foreign aid.] irrelevant and unnecessary.

6. The numerous grammatical and word choice errors in the proposal has made the reading of the proposal difficult for member states, and lessen the proposal's credibility. The usage of "Commands" for Clause 2 seems like a wrong word choice, while obvious grammatical mistakes like "to feeding" in Clause 5 are not corrected.

In conclusion, while PotatoFarmers commends the proposal for addressing an issue that has been largely ignored by the WA, PotatoFarmers finds that there may be some minor mistakes that could be corrected, leading to the vote of Abstain for the proposed resolution. Nevertheless, PotatoFarmers will fully support the proposal at vote if it passes the GA, which looks pretty likely given the support the proposal had at discussion.

Mr Hadisah Soloman
Minister of Foreign Affairs, PotatoFarmers
On behalf of the Committee of WA Affairs, PotatoFarmers.

RawReport