A/HRC/36/58 163. In paragraph 3, India suggested inserting “appropriate competent” before “authority”, to take account of institutional differences across countries. 164. In paragraph 4, ILO suggested adding subparagraphs on a reporting system and on occupational safety and health education. It also suggested inserting “distribution” and “and use” before “of chemicals” in subparagraph (a) and substituting “safe” with “tracking” and “avoid” with “prevent” in subparagraph (c). Moreover, it proposed two additional subparagraphs on systems to be put into place and on the duties of employers. Argentina stated its preference for the already agreed language. 165. La Via Campesina (Europe) proposed adding a subparagraph to paragraph 4 on protection against chemical products and technologies that could endanger safety and health at work. 3. Article 15 166. The European Union suggested changing the title to “Right to adequate food” and deleting “and food sovereignty”, as a right to food sovereignty did not exist. Consequently, the European Union requested the deletion of paragraph 2 and the replacement of “sovereignty” with “adequate” in paragraph 3. Other delegations (Chile, Egypt, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay and Switzerland) expressed similar concerns. Egypt suggested using “food sufficiency”. India suggested using “rights to food and to be free from hunger”. Others suggested using “food security”. Brazil asked whether it would be possible to harmonize “food sovereignty” with other terms. Uruguay enquired why the term “food sovereignty” had been chosen since the concept of “food security” already existed and had been agreed upon by Governments. Argentina stated its preference for previously agreed language. 167. Switzerland proposed replacing “food sovereignty” with language from Sustainable Development Goal 3, on sustainable consumption and production patterns. 168. New Zealand stated that it was considering whether to abstain or vote against the draft declaration when it came before the General Assembly. 169. Ecuador observed that most of the article enjoyed the support of delegations and that it was the reference to food sovereignty that was causing the most problems. Food sovereignty went beyond food security and included cultural and ancestral rights to use food products. 170. Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and South Africa noted that it was possible to reconcile food security, the right to food and food sovereignty in the declaration. The Plurinational State of Bolivia highlighted that food sovereignty had already been included in various constitutions and regional parliamentary documents. 171. The Dominican Republic and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) supported the article as it currently stood and argued that it was inappropriate to replace food sovereignty with food security. 172. Several NGOs provided clarifications about food sovereignty and all the civil society organizations that made interventions were in support of the inclusion of the concept of food sovereignty in the draft declaration as a crucial element for the rights and survival of peasants. Centre Europe—Tiers Monde added that nothing prevented the working group from drafting a clearer paragraph or from adding a note to clarify its understanding of food sovereignty. 173. The European Union, with Switzerland concurring, requested the deletion of “culturally acceptable” from paragraph 4. It also requested the deletion of “the right to” before “physical and economic access” from the first sentence of that paragraph. A civil society organization recalled that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had, in its general comment No. 12 (1999) on the right to adequate food, had recognized that food should be culturally appropriate. 14