EPTI asked for the text of the EU regulation, not some Kiwi tabloid repeating the same nonsense British tabloids printed for years.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1368
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States44239 Posts
I asked for the text of the EU regulation, not some Kiwi tabloid repeating the same nonsense British tabloids printed for years. | ||
|
smille
Germany30 Posts
On April 26 2022 00:31 Vivax wrote: No problem. Reading the specific part on tomatoes is enough to know it's true. https://info.bmlrt.gv.at/themen/landwirtschaft/betriebswirtschaftliches-vermarktung/vermarktungsnormen/Obst_und_Gemuese.html The logic is that to have equal competition you need vegetables from all countries sold in yours to look the same as in the other countries. Part of the reasoning is also to ensure a certain quality. For anyone not familiar with it, vegetables are categorized into different classes. Roughly speaking, this happens according to their appearance and ripeness. At the example of Tomatoes, there are minimal requirements which have to be met for them to be traded. Furthermore, depending on their quality they are of quality class II, I or “Extra”. This makes sense because it allows for fair/easier trade because the quality is well-defined. It comes with the downside that edible food goes to waste and it introduces increased complexity for the sorting process. A little bonus advantage of this system is that populists can take the whole thing ad absurdum and score cheap political points in debates. | ||
|
Voksenlokker1
3 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
the directive does not forbid trade of old varieties. non-perfect / damaged / wonky food is not really bought by the customer. what came first? customer voting with their choices or the EU directive stating what quality criteria we have? Hen and egg problem to be solved here. furthermore, your anger could also be directed at animal farming. much more detrimental to biodiversity than tossing away 30% of our produce. but no, let's focus on the easy meme EU banana republic bad. I can buy wonky food if I want to. I can buy old apple or potato varieties if I want to. That food gets discarded before even making it to the truck to be shipped is hardly the EU's fault. No longer in force, Date of end of validity: 30/06/2009; Implicitly repealed by 32008R1221 . Latest consolidated version: 06/01/2005 | ||
|
Vivax
22408 Posts
On April 26 2022 00:56 smille wrote: Part of the reasoning is also to ensure a certain quality. For anyone not familiar with it, vegetables are categorized into different classes. Roughly speaking, this happens according to their appearance and ripeness. At the example of Tomatoes, there are minimal requirements which have to be met for them to be traded. Furthermore, depending on their quality they are of quality class II, I or “Extra”. This makes sense because it allows for fair/easier trade because the quality is well-defined. It comes with the downside that edible food goes to waste and it introduces increased complexity for the sorting process. A little bonus advantage of this system is that populists can take the whole thing ad absurdum and score cheap political points in debates. You called it an advantage, not me. As for the quality, I'd rather have a choice whether I want the ugly but cheap stuff or the shiny expensive stuff that has been riped with UV light post-transport from Almeria or something. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44239 Posts
On April 26 2022 00:31 Vivax wrote: No problem. Reading the specific part on tomatoes is enough to know it's true. https://info.bmlrt.gv.at/themen/landwirtschaft/betriebswirtschaftliches-vermarktung/vermarktungsnormen/Obst_und_Gemuese.html The logic is that to have equal competition you need vegetables from all countries sold in yours to look the same as in the other countries. I read the English version of this and it’s just generic defining shit that happens in every law. They say “tomatoes” and then they describe what a tomato is for the purpose of the application of the regulation. They say “bruised” and define it. At no point do they say that all tomatoes must look the same, they’re just defining the language which is necessary whenever you write a regulation. If you don’t define shit you end up with the courts arguing for years about whether shitty rotten tomatoes were just extra ripe. The EU bureaucracy meme was largely manufactured by the British tabloid press with nonsense like “all fruit must look the same”. The EU civil service is smaller than a medium sized city and these regulations are not imposed upon EU nations, they are freely incorporated into the statutes of the individual EU members for the purpose of facilitating trade. Britain isn’t upset that they’re using the same definition of tomato as Spain, they’re happy to have a common definition because it makes buying tomatoes from Spain a lot simpler. That’s why they passed their own law in Westminster to bring British law into alignment with the proposed EU regulations. The EU has way less power than people think it does. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9243 Posts
On April 26 2022 00:47 Vivax wrote: Why not? It's a stupid law. The price to pay is that nonconform food gets tossed away and some types of vegetables sort of disappear. A farmer's market in Italy that doesn't care about these laws has a much wider variety on display than my local supermarket. There is no law that prevents your local supermarket from selling class II fruits and vegetables. | ||
|
Vivax
22408 Posts
On April 26 2022 01:06 KwarK wrote: I read the English version of this and it’s just generic defining shit that happens in every law. They say “tomatoes” and then they describe what a tomato is for the purpose of the application of the regulation. They say “bruised” and define it. At no point do they say that all tomatoes must look the same, they’re just defining the language which is necessary whenever you write a regulation. If you don’t define shit you end up with the courts arguing for years about whether shitty rotten tomatoes were just extra ripe. The EU bureaucracy meme was largely manufactured by the British tabloid press with nonsense like “all fruit must look the same”. The EU civil service is smaller than a medium sized city and these regulations are not imposed upon EU nations, they are freely incorporated into the statutes of the individual EU members for the purpose of facilitating trade. Britain isn’t upset that they’re using the same definition of tomato as Spain, they’re happy to have a common definition because it makes buying tomatoes from Spain a lot simpler. That’s why they passed their own law in Westminster to bring British law into alignment with the proposed EU regulations. The EU has way less power than people think it does. Maybe we didn't read the same thing? There's definitions that go into centimeters. ->+ Show Spoiler + Griffelnarbenverkorkung bis zu 2 cm2 the article says the generic look must be good -> + Show Spoiler + Die folgenden leichten Fehler sind jedoch zulässig, sofern diese das allgemeine Aussehen der Erzeugnisse und ihre Qualität, Haltbarkeit und Aufmachung im Packstück nicht beeinträchtigen. And to top it off, they have to be NOT ripe. -> + Show Spoiler + Entwicklung und physiologischer Reifezustand der Tomaten/Paradeiser müssen so sein, dass sie den Reifungsprozess fortsetzen können und einen ausreichenden Reifegrad erreichen können. What it says is that for something to even count as a tomato for EU trading purpose, it has to fulfill these criteria. On April 26 2022 01:15 JimmiC wrote: You should read your link as well as the ones I provided. Your last few posts on the subject ate gripes that are not releveant to the regulation. On top of that, they are in the process of updating and changing it. The regulation was not about food uniformity and lack of bio diversity it was about setting standards in quality (for any of the x number of apples for example) to speed up and make trade more fair. So each country did not have seperate regulations and wording causing delays and expense. You seem to be on board with the "free trade" aspect, that is this. I've read the title of your article. It just said that there was a push to change these regulations, doesn't change the fact that these regulations exist and are in place. As for the standard of quality, usually it's the consumer who decides what he likes. Not a commission. Would you like to have a law that dictates you only may buy superior quality at a higher price (not directly, but as a consequence). On April 26 2022 01:20 Dan HH wrote: There is no law that prevents your local supermarket from selling class II fruits and vegetables. Yeah, because class II is still defined by this law. When it's not class I or II, what then? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
wonky fruit and veg are not sold because they cant be sold (unless heavily discounted or for a woke crowd [and that's not meant in a derogatory way]) the stuff is clean because people dont buy dirty produce. it is not the regulation that causes the waste. it is consumer behaviour. can you produce any evidence that this wasteful behaviour surfaced only after the EU regulation? How come brown bananas still are left on the shelf? Are we so conditioned by the oppressive regulation that, now that it's gone for more than a decade, we still feel it's shackles? If the EU is to blame, why is it happening in the US as well? The return of the curvy cucumber. + Show Spoiler [article text] + "This marks a new dawn for the curvy cucumber and the knobbly carrot," said Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. "It's a concrete example of our drive to cut unnecessary red tape. We simply don't need to regulate this sort of thing at EU level. It is far better to leave it to market operators. And in these days of high food prices and general economic difficulties, consumers should be able to choose from the widest range of products possible. It makes no sense to throw perfectly good products away, just because they are the 'wrong' shape." During last year's negotiations on the reform of the Common Market Organisation for fruit and vegetables, the Commission committed itself to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy by getting rid of a number of marketing standards for fruit and vegetables. Today's vote means that these standards will be repealed for 26 products: apricots, artichokes, asparagus, aubergines, avocadoes, beans, Brussels sprouts, carrots, cauliflowers, cherries, courgettes, cucumbers, cultivated mushrooms, garlic, hazelnuts in shell, headed cabbage, leeks, melons, onions, peas, plums, ribbed celery, spinach, walnuts in shell, water melons, and witloof/chicory. The proposals would maintain specific marketing standards for 10 products which account for 75 percent of the value of EU trade: apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes. However, Member States could also exempt these from the standards if they were sold in the shops with an appropriate label. In practical terms, this means that an apple which does not meet the standard could still be sold in the shop, as long as it were labelled "product intended for processing" or equivalent wording. The Commission will now formally adopt the changes which, for practical reasons, will be implemented from 1 July 2009. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12501 Posts
On April 25 2022 19:35 Biff The Understudy wrote: Lol néoliberal elections. How much more can you keep abusing and emptying of all content and intelligence that poor word? The far right doesn’t win because a majority of voters absolutely despise them and their uber racist rethoric, and that a surprising number of french are not on board with the “anti system” extremist rethoric. The fact that populists are spred equally between the far left and far right also gives moderates a much bigger margin. Please remember this if the system doesn't change and the far right ultimately wins, like it has in every similar system across the world. People will tell you that something else is to blame, probably the left specifically, and you'll be tempted to believe them because you love simple answers and you're projecting that onto populists. We won't be to blame, the system will. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9243 Posts
On April 26 2022 01:21 Vivax wrote: Yeah, because class II is still defined by this law. When it's not class I or II, what then? You suggested there's a law that prevents supermarkets from selling ugly tomatoes, a law which farmers' markets ignore. There isn't and they don't. Supermarkets focus more on looks by choice not by obligation, and farmer's markets are inspected as well. So what is the complaint here, that you can't buy rotting or moldy tomatoes? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14181 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11948 Posts
On April 26 2022 04:56 Sermokala wrote: I would also like to hear the benefit to not having the EU anymore. I thought the whole thing was to not become little more than vassals of the USA. There are huge benefits to not having the EU, if you are the leader of Russia, China, the US, or any other nation that would rather bully a few single countries around, but who cannot really do that to a european block. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12501 Posts
On April 26 2022 05:24 JimmiC wrote: Can you source or give some examples of your bold claim? And what system or systems you are referring too? Systems with a neoliberal electoral choice, where one of the main choices is a liberal and the other main choice is far right. We can observe that in politics the power tends to shift from one of the main sides to the other, as the person in power disappoints some people and they are drawn to the most normalized opposition. It is very rare that this balance doesn't occur. You can see it happening in the US right now, as most people agree that whichever ghoul is produced by the republican party will be a huge favourite next election. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
But we can look across the world and see that in every non-democratic country, far right policies has essentially and innately taken root as a matter of national policy, with the best example currently being Russia, an authoritarian model that has remade itself into a model of fascism to the extent that it is now currently in it's second month of the invasion of Ukraine. Shift to the far right indeed. India too has been shifting to far right extremism against Muslims, and have been doing so without a neoliberal option, or indeed any notion of neoliberalism at all. There really isn't many places in the world where minorities are tolerated in any greate numbers, and most of these are in the Western world. With the exception of perhaps Japan who has both managed to be shifting towards neoliberal policies and being far right at the same time. And so your world looks very small indeed. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22517 Posts
On April 26 2022 04:56 Sermokala wrote: If you know that LL was here defending the Crimean annexation by Russia you understand where he comes from every time he talks bad about the EU or US.I would also like to hear the benefit to not having the EU anymore. I thought the whole thing was to not become little more than vassals of the USA. He is here to cheer on the destabilisation of the West, in whatever form that may take. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12501 Posts
On April 26 2022 06:24 JimmiC wrote: US is a different animal with a 2 party FTP system and so far even there the far right has not won, though it does appear to be winning. Can you also let me know what countries have neoliberal electoral choice? I'm guessing France does based on the topic being discussed. Does Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Norway? What is the defining characteristic or characteristics? Is it when the second option is far right? If the Far left had beaten out Le Pen for the second spot would France still be neoliberal electoral choice? The far right has won in the US, multiple times. Not sure what you're talking about. Do you dispute that Trump is far right? The main examples are the US and UK, as they both underwent that change much earlier than other places. I don't know about every country's politics (and don't see much relevance to that) but from what I know Canada has a similar system, New Zealand and Norway don't. France wasn't a neoliberal system until Macron, as is obvious and I already explained during the last sealioning session. Macron's main contribution to the non-international politics of France has been to try and shift to a neoliberal system. If Mélenchon had been to the second round, that attempt would have failed, and we'd be in the good future. But it didn't, and the most likely outcome is that it won't happen next time either. | ||
| ||
