Eco-Action Committee
Proposal: Add to the text of note “c”
Summary of Process: Proposal brought to committee; Discussion period & brief hiatus ensued; Call for consensus and additional discussion period followed (no objections/changes raised); Proposal passed via consensus on 8/16/2019 8:13pm.
Committee / Co-Chair Info: Eco-Action Committee / Co-Chairs Audrey Clement & Tim Worts (aclement65@hotmail.com, tcworts@gmail.com)
Author Contact Info: Tim Worts, (973) 303-6354, tcworts@gmail.com
Section A Civil Rights and Equal Rights: Sub-section 10. Consumer Protection
Proposed Changes
c. Preserve and expand product-labeling requirements to ensure that consumers are fully informed about the origin, ingredients, and ecological life cycle of all products, including animal testing, and the product’s organic, recycled, and genetically engineered content. Include information about the nutritional value and the vegetarian or vegan status of food products. Require stringent “Eco-Labeling” requirements which show the “environmental impacts associated with the production or use of a product.” This may include land use, water use, waste byproducts, emissions, and more.
Current Text
c. Preserve and expand product-labeling requirements to ensure that consumers are informed about the origin, ingredients and ecological life cycle of all products, including animal testing and the product’s organic, recycled and genetically engineered content. Include information about the nutritional value and the vegetarian or vegan status of food products.
Additional Support
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1a59/d85d0d88a26df8783ba7709cd8d025e30607.pdf
This is very good. I would also like to see mention of accounting for public goods in prices.
Is it enough for the labeling to include a link to a web site where the info is provided?
If every pair of earrings needed paper product labeling provided in great detail, that would be a lot of paper.
Here are the additions:
Adding “fully” to informed – seems superfluous to me – “better” or “more” informed is closer to the meaning, but I think any modifier is unnecessary.
Adding a comma after after animal testing, which doesn’t help this sentence.
At the end adding: Require stringent “Eco-Labeling” requirements which show the “environmental impacts associated with the production or use of a product.” This may include land use, water use, waste byproducts, emissions, and more. So in addition to preserving and expanding requirements, we are requiring stringent requirements. Hmm. This just seems awkward and poorly written. Why are parts of this in quotes? Can we just edit this down to adding environmental impacts to the list of things we want covered?
Things that we do or propose as a party should be reviewed under a lens for how it helps us acquire state power. We all want similar goals, and when Greens are in legislatures and Congress we can write laws with very precise and expansive requirements for protecting life and planet. The majority of US voters are a long way from our level of life choices. I think the proposed changes will not advance our electoral viability. The aspiration is fine but it will detract from our ability to appeal to broad masses, which we must do. The original wording is adequate.