We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Food Standards Extension Proposal
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2098
Description[?]:
| Food wholesalers, for consumption on the common market, must apply for, and receive, a licence in order to guarantee food safety provisions (to be inspected by the existing Food Standards Authority, hereby refered to as FSA. Charity and small scale "bake sales" though not required to apply for a licence must accept inspection by an FSA representative should it be deemed necessary to guarantee food safety). In order to assist these food wholesalers in the guarantee of the safety of said product, all food products must also display somewhere upon its packaging, in an easily identifiable position, a final date of sale and consumption of said product. Should any food wholesaler be found to be releasing food for sale after its final dated shelf life then they will have their licences revoked and, following an investigation by the FSA, will be brought before a Court of Law to determine the severity of any punishment. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Licensing of food sales.
Old value:: Anyone may sell food, but shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Current: Anyone may sell food, but shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Proposed: Food may be sold by licensed vendors only, and shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:14:13, August 15, 2005 CET | From |  United Blobs | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | I believe I've already stated my position on licencing. |
| Date | 00:38:07, August 16, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | If I can ask, why are people voting against/for this? It makes it difficult to explain advantages if I don't know peoples objections. |
| Date | 21:51:30, August 17, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | I'm sure there was a bill that I stated my reasons in but it seems to have vanished. Basically:- May I point out the stupidity of having to get a government inspector to go round to every kid's house when he bakes food for a charity cake sale? Licencing would be expensive to set up and run. What benefits does licencing bring? |
| Date | 15:33:45, August 18, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | I'll support. |
| Date | 21:42:46, August 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | We would like to point out to our honourable colleagues of the UB that at no point is there mentioned a possiblility of a governnment inspector turning up at a childs home when they are baking food for a charity sale. Moreover, the wording of the bill states as much: "Charity and small scale "bake sales" though not required to apply for a licence". The sale itself may be inspected should there be a concern over food safety, but the concern you point out is not valid. Benefits of licencing include: Guarantees that all food wholesalers must maintain cleanliness of premises as the FSA may close down premises which are deemed to be unsafe, thusly guaranteeing to the public that any food they purchase is safe. Licencing would not necessarily be expensive to set up and run. Costs can be covered by charging food wholesalers for said licences, thusly covering the costs involved for operations. For individual wholesalers, the cost would be dependent upon the form of food product sold, i.e. Large Supermarkets selling mulitiple types of foods in huge quantities would pay more than a small corner shop selling a limited number of products. |
| Date | 22:47:18, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | An unlicensed food vendor can sell food that wouldn't meet safety and or quality standards because the government would have no idea that this food is being sold. A license will help ensure that the food vendor is meeting basic quality and safety standards. Periodic inspections of the vendors shop to check for safety violations (especially meat products) and complaints lodged by customers can be investigated. I believe it is a health hazzard having unlicensed vendors selling uninspected food and this bill should be passed for that reason. |
| Date | 13:37:32, August 19, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Food Standards Extension Proposal |
| Message | We're with the UB on this. Do newsagents or convienience stores really need a license to sell crisps and chocolate bars? Retailers such as butchers will be subject to health checks by the FSA anyway, so why waste time and money on licensing? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 127 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 272 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 1 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America." - Bill Clinton |