[GA - DEFEATED] Water Fluoridation Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Westinor

Westinor

Registered
TNP Nation
Westinor
Discord
Westinor#2315
ga.jpg

Water Fluoridation Act
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Research
Proposed by: Scalizagasti | Onsite Topic​
The General Assembly,

Noting the World Assembly’s precedent in supporting the health of the public,

Alarmed by the negative health and financial impacts of tooth decay,

Recognizing the benefits of water fluoridation to dental health,

Further recognizing that a 'one-size fits all' approach to water fluoridation is unwise, as the level of fluoridation required depends on unique local circumstances,

Hereby:
  1. Defines “water fluoridation” as the artificial, controlled adjustment of fluoride concentration in public drinking water sources,

  2. Defines "public drinking water sources" as a water supply system that provides water used for sapient consumption for at least 20% of the year, including treatment, storage, transportation, and distribution,

  3. Mandates member nations to
    1. conduct research on natural and artificial fluoride levels in public drinking water sources,

    2. research the health impacts of artificially altering water fluoridation levels in a public drinking water source on the local population,

    3. send all of the aforementioned research data to the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) for processing,

  4. Tasks the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) with
    1. analyzing the research conducted by member nations to issue recommendations on optimal water fluoridation practices based on the local circumstances, including recommendations on the optimal fluoride concentration and method of water fluoridation,

    2. consulting the relevant local scientific authorities when creating and issuing recommendations for specific public drinking water sources,

    3. assisting member nations with conducting this research if the IBWS determines they require help due to financial, technological, or logistical limitations, and those nations explicitly request assistance, and

    4. aiding member nations with water fluoridation if the IBWS determines they require help due to financial, technological, or logistical limitations, and those nations explicitly request assistance,

  5. Requires member states to fluoridate their public drinking water sources to optimal fluoride levels, based on the analysis and recommendations of the IBWS,

  6. Gives an exception to clause 5 for member states which
    1. do not have the technological or logistical means to safely fluoridate water,

    2. would suffer from demonstrable, widespread health concerns due to water fluoridation as a result of the biology of their citizens, or

    3. would receive no demonstrable, widespread dental benefits as a result of the biology of their citizens.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]3[/TD][TD]14[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]

Water Fluoridation Act was defeated 5,670 votes to 9,712 (36.9% support).
 
Last edited:
IFV - Against
Overview
The at-vote proposal aims to provide for the fluoridation of member nations' water supplies in such a way that promotes public health. To that end, the proposal mandates that member nations research fluoridation levels, and instructs the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) to analyze said research, issue specific fluoridation recommendations, and assist with fluoridation and research where requested.

Recommendation While the promotion of dental health is undoubtedly a noble goal, this resolution goes about said goal in a suboptimal and unnecessary manner. The proposal legislates specifically on water fluoridation with the aim of improving dental health. However, nations caught by the proposal's mandates are not the ones most likely to benefit from them, considering that nations which "do not have the technological or logistical means to safely fluoridate water" are exempted from the proposal's fluoridation mandate despite the IBWS being authorized to provide support in this case. Additionally, the proposal mandates that nations conduct research only to send it to a WA committee for analysis, and has said committee issue fluoridation mandates at the municipal or private level. Overall, this is a highly bureaucratic albeit well-written international solution to a local problem, which overrides successful local systems in the name of an "optimal" approach and exempts the nations that would benefit the most from its mandates.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, “Water Fluoridation Act”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against. It recommends that we send this to a committee (clause 4) and while it does require that states actually research water fluoridation fluoridate their water (clause 3), it doesn’t require that states actually fluoridate their water until the committee studies the problem (clause 5) while still providing an opt-out (clause 6). A noble goal? Yes. Is this necessarily what’s needed on the subject? Not in my opinion.
 
For
Against, because of what others have said below.
 
Last edited:
Against. The resolution is a solution that simply can be handled on the local level. Clauses 3, 4, and 5 are written in such a way that it pushes the simple problem of water fluoridation through mandated research, then a committee which researches based off of the first round of research, and then finally creates a mandate, only to have a massive opt-out clause. The resolution is truly an overengineered solution.
 
Last edited:
Joshbly:
Against. The resolution is a solution that simply can be handled on the local level. Clauses 3, 4, and 5 are written in such a way that it pushes the simple problem of water fluoridation through mandated research, then a committee which researches based off of the first round of research, and then finally creates a mandate, only to have a massive opt-out clause. The resolution is truly an overengineered solution.
Click to expand...
Well looks like someone elaborated for me. :blush:

I appreciate that the author took my and others' criticism into account when revising this. I just can't get behind the premise. Robust dental health systems are important, especially in developing/poor countries. However, this proposal legislates only on fluoridation of drinking water, and grants an opt-out to the countries that would benefit the most from something like this. It mandates that a WA committee dictate "optimal" fluoride levels for water supply systems at the municipal, or even private level. Legislation like this, and all the sprawling WA bureaucracy it would create, just doesn't have a good reason to exist.
 
Against. While the goal seems a fair one, it is seems open to question whether this is needed to achieve it. If the solution is, as the resolution indicates, a necessarily local one, then why not leave the matter to individual nations. Additionally, reference to “optimal” levels or practices seems to me an inappropriately vague one, there is no defined standard or object to be optimally pursued (despite the fact that it would presumably have been easy to simply indicate that it was improvement in dental health), so it seems to leave the IBWS to determine its own aim.
 
Cretox State:
Well looks like someone elaborated for me. :blush:

I appreciate that the author took my and others' criticism into account when revising this. I just can't get behind the premise. Robust dental health systems are important, especially in developing/poor countries. However, this proposal legislates only on fluoridation of drinking water, and grants an opt-out to the countries that would benefit the most from something like this. It mandates that a WA committee dictate "optimal" fluoride levels for water supply systems at the municipal, or even private level. Legislation like this, and all the sprawling WA bureaucracy it would create, just doesn't have a good reason to exist.
Click to expand...
Did you suddenly feel that this proposal was also a 'little off' too, after it was submitted and the author asked for your feedback?
 
Last edited:
Honeydewistan:
Did you suddenly feel that this proposal was also a 'little off' too, after it was submitted and the author asked for your feedback?
Click to expand...
Blerg? The author didn't ask for my feedback; I left feedback in the onsite thread of my own volition. Just because I'm personally iffy on the premise doesn't mean I can't leave feedback on the execution, y'know?

Now, I have some questions for you:
  1. Why are you singling me out rather than the 4 people who voted against prior to my explanation, or the 8 who voted against in total?
  2. Do you intend to address the actual substance of people's complaints, considering your apparent aggressiveness in supporting it?
 
Cretox State:
Blerg? The author didn't ask for my feedback; I left feedback in the onsite thread of my own volition. Just because I'm personally iffy on the premise doesn't mean I can't leave feedback on the execution, y'know?

Now, I have some questions for you:
  1. Why are you singling me out rather than the 4 people who voted against prior to my explanation, or the 8 who voted against in total?
  2. Do you intend to address the actual substance of people's complaints, considering your apparent aggressiveness in supporting it?
Click to expand...
Okay, my mistake, I thought the author reached out to you personally.
To answer your questions:
1. You're the only one who voted against who posted in the thread.
2. Yes, I do:

To the claims that there is a massive opt out, I do not think that's a convincing counter argument. Only nations without the technology, or where there will be no benefit or there will be harmed caused have the ability to opt out. The last two should have an opt out in order not to cause widespread harm or waste money. The nations without technology can ask for aid, but if they don't, that's literally their problem, they get what they deserve.

To the claims this isn't an international issue, well that's true. However we have legislated on disease vectors, or arbitration, which do not have similar transnational impacts. I think this is appropriate for WA law, especially since poor nations who otherwise couldn't achieve fluoridation can receive assistance.

To the definition of 'optimal', I'm not seeing the argument. It would have to be the most favourable level, so it can't just be anywhere the IBWS wants.
 
Honeydewistan:
Okay, my mistake, I thought the author reached out to you personally.
Click to expand...
Happens. :)

Honeydewistan:
To the claims that there is a massive opt out, I do not think that's a convincing counter argument. Only nations without the technology, or where there will be no benefit or there will be harmed caused have the ability to opt out. The last two should have an opt out in order not to cause widespread harm or waste money. The nations without technology can ask for aid, but if they don't, that's literally their problem, they get what they deserve.
Click to expand...
If "they get what they deserve" is a valid argument here, why the fluoridation mandate to begin with? Why not just let all nations decide whether they want to implement the committee's mandate or not, if that's the logic we're going with?

Honeydewistan:
To the claims this isn't an international issue, well that's true. However we have legislated on disease vectors, or arbitration, which do not have similar transnational impacts. I think this is appropriate for WA law, especially since poor nations who otherwise couldn't achieve fluoridation can receive assistance.
Click to expand...
Except disease vectors and arbitration didn't involve a WA committee dictating municipal plans of action.

Honeydewistan:
To the definition of 'optimal', I'm not seeing the argument. It would have to be the most favourable level, so it can't just be anywhere the IBWS wants.
Click to expand...
I obviously can't speak for Zyvet, but I think they meant that what constitutes "optimal" isn't clearly defined. Not my own argument, for the record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top