GA Resolution: Reducing Food Waste

[Lenlyvit]

Reducing Food Waste

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

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:

a. 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,

b. 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,

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

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

e. 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:

a. 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,

b. 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,

c. 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

d. 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;

a. 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.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Deleted]

I see about a dozen problems with this resolution, mainly in that it places a lot of burden on nations to regulate the activities of businesses, but creates mandates without a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the subject.

To wit:

- A restaurant must take in enough inventory to support its menu, and in an effort to provide for a completely unpredictable demand from night to night. It would be impossible to manage inventory from week to week under the terms of this proposal, except in some theoretical world where food purchasers always know what their customers will want. No restaurant wants a reputation for not being able to provide the items on the menu.
- Same goes for grocery stores. No grocery wants empty shelves if demand for a product happens to spike. Businesses must be prepared for fluctuations in the market, and a lack of preparedness is the sort of thing that kills businesses.
- Food producers want to maximize their yield to take advantage of every available acre, as is their right. Placing prophylactic caps on yields has the potential to hurt farmers. When farmers suffer, it's the state that ends up subsidizing. That means nations are using tax dollars to pay farmers not to grow - which is equally wasteful.
- Distributors often set prices based on lots, and purchasers must take those lots, in full, to maintain the per-unit cost. Taking less than the lot often increases price, and the consumer would be paying the difference. The purchaser may not always be able to predict if they can sell everything they buy in a fluctuating marketplace. High prices hurt businesses.

A lot of this is just the reality of doing business. For a nation to have to drill down into the minutia of these processes, and literally count every bean to remain compliant, would be prohibitively costly. The measures introduced in this resolution would drive food costs through the roof.

Further:

- No food handling / producing / delivery / prep / service business is going to incorporate any more spillage / leakage / waste into their inventory than is absolutely necessary for it to operate and survive, because it decreases their margins if they do. No business is wasting any more product than they absolutely have to, because they'd go broke if they did. The problems raised in this proposal are already addressed within the nature of a free market economy.

Finally, from a NatSov perspective, micromanagement of people's eating habits is not for the WA to dictate through member nations. I'm not about to force citizens of my nation to eat their leftovers, or their vegetables, or tell them to keep their elbows off the table... The whole thing is a bit too nanny-state.

THX1138, through its WA proxy, will be voting against this proposal.

[Flying Eagles]

With the exception of clauses 2, 6, and 8, every single clause has words like “reasonable” that are open to way too much interpretation. I think this is more like a list of desires than specific, enforceable policy.

[Shy Guy]

Food waste is definitely something which needs to be addressed it by the GA, but I do agree with Flying Eagles that "reasonable" is too vague for enviromental policy. Against. Someone will probably draft a less vague proposal in the future.

[Lenlyvit]

Hmmm.... All good points you're making. Does anyone have any other thoughts on this proposal?