Cookwala / Policy
Draft profile
Something concrete to point to
Cooking machines are arriving under regulations written for appliances and software separately. Food donation runs on spreadsheets that differ by site. An open, royalty-free standard gives regulators and programs a reviewable technical basis: refusal before heat, safety limits on the device, signed records, anonymous incident reporting, a conformance suite anyone can run, and a donation data standard with no personal data.
What a government can do, by effort
| Action | Effort | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Ask the national standards body to review Core 0.2 and comment publicly | weeks | A technical basis for guidance on cooking machines; complementary to ISO 13482 and IEC 60335, which this standard does not replace |
| Reference "refusal before heat", on-device safety limits and incident reporting in guidance for connected cooking appliances, after independent review and two implementations | later | Makers have a concrete target; consumers get machines that refuse rather than guess |
| Review the Humanitarian Profile's data-protection rules for food-donation programs (the rule packs are unreviewed drafts) | months | Food rescue that protects the people it serves and produces comparable numbers |
| Fund a 12-week pre-registered pilot with a school-meal or food-bank program | months | Evidence, published whatever it shows |
| Use the model language for donor-protection and data clauses | at drafting | Clauses that match a working data standard |
| Run a national registry node and recall feed | months | Recalls reach kitchens without depending on a foreign server |
Model language, four sections
- A. Food donation: no personal data; aggregates and small numbers; a cold-chain record at every custody transfer; retention; written acceptance rules reviewed by a professional; an open format; good-faith donor protection.
- B. Cooking machines: refusal before operation; local safety limits no update can raise; a local stop (0.5 s motion, 1 s heat); text is data; agents under mandate; verifiable records with no personal data; recall feeds; anonymous incident reporting; conformance reports before any mark.
- C. Household data held by domestic robots: stored on the device, erasable, leaving only as derived constraints or with withdrawable consent; no behavioural score; no inferred economic status; inferred facts never the sole basis of a safety decision.
- D. Procurement language for school-meal and relief programs.
Written to match what the standard actually does; not legal advice; each jurisdiction's drafters fit terms to local law.
What this is not
Not a certification: the path to one is described and no certifier is engaged. Not medical advice. Not a product. Not endorsed by any government or agency. Not a claim to end hunger: hunger is driven by poverty, conflict, climate and prices, and this standard contributes through waste, safety and coordination.
Status and governance
Core 0.2 is a draft under public review. Decisions are made in public with written reasons; a steering committee with seats for food banks, a low- or middle-income country, labour, privacy and dietetics takes over once there are independent adopters, under published numbers (quorum, windows, employer cap); the specification moves to a neutral foundation with a patent non-assertion pledge. Governance · Critiques · Your page