Nothing To Do With Arbroath: EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen

Monday, June 28, 2010

EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen

Shoppers will be banned from buying bread rolls or eggs priced by the dozen under new food labelling regulations proposed by the European parliament. Under the draft legislation, to come into force as early as next year, the sale of groceries using the simple measurement of numbers will be replaced by an EU-wide system based on weight.

It would mean an end to packaging descriptions such as eggs by the dozen, four-packs of apples, six bread rolls or boxes of 12 fish fingers. The legislation could even see special unit-based promotional packs offering 'eight chocolate bars for the price of six' banned, according to a report in trade magazine, The Grocer.

It comes after MEPs last week voted against an amendment to the regulations that would allow individual states to nominate products that could be sold by number. Individual countries are currently allowed to specify exemptions, but the proposed Food Labelling Regulations make no such provisions.

The changes would cost the food and retail industries millons of pounds as items would have to be individually weighed to ensure the accuracy of the label. The Grocer said food industry sources has described the move as "bonkers" and "absolute madness". Its editor, Adam Leyland, said the EU had "created a multi-headed monster".

27 comments:

Mark said...: You have got to be joking! Why can't MEPs p*ss off and find something genuinely useful to do with their time?

Are you sure this isn't a very late April Fool's Day joke? It's utterly bonkers.; 11:54 am
D said...: Remember, it's all about lifting trade restrictions...; 5:37 pm
dutilleul said...: That isn’t new and does not surprise me.
Considering eggs are already classified by size (at least in Portugal they are), I suppose one of the “ruling” countries, most probably Germany, has found out a new way to sell machinery…
Until recently, apples – or any kind of fruit, for that matter – had to be of a certain size. Apparently, nature was mad and apples size had to be calibrated in order to be digestible. This meant a billions of euros business until someone sold all the calibrators’ machine to everyone who produced fruit and could afford them. Billions of tons of perfectible good fruit went to garbage, in the process… Now that they finally found out that different sizes of apples are as ok as the different sizes of our mouths, they turn to eggs. 
I think the UE is a great idea but the UE parliament as to be downsized in order to avoid this idleness. They shouldn’t be allowed to seat at our tables, to lie in our beds or enter our houses.
And small countries should be represented by people smart enough to defend their citizens from the major countries’ rapacity. ; 6:21 pm
L said...: LOL... Europeans crack me up.

I still don't understand the size guidelines on fruit. But I guess if you're selling apples in 4-packs, it makes sense. (Here, fruit is sold by weight... so if you want a tiny apple, you pay for a tiny apple!); 10:27 pm
Insolitus said...: "And small countries should be represented by people smart enough to defend their citizens from the major countries’ rapacity."

Unfortunately for your idea, the representatives from smaller countries are elected by popular vote, just like from the bigger countries. It is a tremendously effective way of keeping the smartest people out.

But anyway, a radical downsizing of the parliament would hit the smallest countries the hardest - the less representatives a country has, the poorer they reflect the diversity of opinion within the coutry. If the number of MEPs was reduced, many more EU citizens would feel they had no representation in the parliament at all.; 11:05 pm
dutilleul said...: As I said, until recently, apples had to be calibrated (to be of the same size) according to UE regulations. You don’t understand this because it is plainly stupid, so stupid that it is behind comprehension. Unless someone has calibrator machines to sell …
(Fruit is sold by weight in all European countries, like in the US - I assume you are from US); 11:20 pm
dutilleul said...: Yes, they are elected by me and all other Europeans and have to chose between the less bad because “partycracy “ is a tremendously effective way of keeping the smartest people out. But of course this is what we call “democracy” and I suppose you are a lucky guy from North Korea.

“…would hit the smallest countries the hardest - the less representatives a country has, the poorer they reflect the diversity of opinion within the coutry.”

I believe you have heard something about proportionality; it’s a math concept…
Oh, wait, you aren’t north Korean, you are one of them, you are a European deputy, aren’t you?; 11:42 pm
Insolitus said...: Are you this pleasant with everyone or am I special?

Your snide remark about proportionality was simply stupid. But in case you decided to go that way only because you didn't understand what I tried to say, I'll clarify.

In a small country with a multi-party system it is possible and even plausible for smaller parties to get decent representation in national elections because of proportionality and because the national parliament has quite a lot of seats. Compare that to the European Parliament, where the same country is even currently likely to have less or only sligthly more than ten seats altogether. It is simply impossible to both maintain the relative sizes of parties and get representation for every non-insignificant party when there are so few seats available. The situation would worsen dramatically if the number of MEPs was decreased. If you were, for example, to cut the number of MEPs in half, Germany would still have almost 50 MEPs and probably almost every German would have at least one representative from the party of their choice in the Parliament. In the same situation Estonia would have only 3 MEPs, which would inevitably leave a large percentage of Estonians in a situation where their political opinions would not be represented at all in the European Parliament.

That is why, in my opinion, it's better to have a big and perhaps a little sluggish parliament than small, more efficient and less democratic one.; 2:30 am
dutilleul said...: “Unfortunately for your idea, the representatives from smaller countries are elected by popular vote, just like from the bigger countries. It is a tremendously effective way of keeping the smartest people out.”
…
 
“Your snide remark about proportionality was simply stupid.”
 
Do not want to seem rude but I think you misunderstood my point.
My fault!; 2:56 am
Insolitus said...: Then what was your point? I got the impression you didn't agree with me that downsizing the European Parliament would be especially bad for the smaller countries.; 10:31 am
dutilleul said...: Yes, I disagree with you on your assumption that the resizing of the European Parliament would necessarily affect the smaller countries (or any country), as well as I do not agree with you in the assumption that politicians are irredeemably stupid just because they're the outcome of a popular suffrage.
 
Anyway, what interests me most now is to assure you that I had no intention of being less pleasant to you (and I recognize I might have given reasons to you thought so).; 11:51 am
Insolitus said...: Well I'm not offended, if you are worried about that. As far as I'm concerned, we're cool.

But please tell me where you think my reasoning was flawed.; 12:11 pm
dutilleul said...: I remember an episode in the US when someone win the presidential elections without being the most voted (it didn’t happened long ago but doesn’t really matter with whom). A lot of us scorned about it (at least, many of my friends did). I didn’t. I had the privilege to live among them for a while and know for a fact that we could learn a lot about freedom and justice with them. The reason for this apparently awkward situation relates to the proportionality formula that is used in the US; it has not a direct relation with population ratio, like in the UE, because it assures that every state - no matter how small or populated it is - as a real vote. And I don’t blame you for the coincidence but your argument is precisely the one that our MEPs wield whenever they make a break in pondering the weight of eggs or some other heavy stuff in our troubled times. 

Seriously, do you really believe that intelligence and common sense is abundant enough to fill an oversized parliament, in Europe or anywhere else?; 1:59 pm
Insolitus said...: So you think the representation of the member nations in the EU Parliament shouldn't be based on their respective populations at all? If that's the case then I understand why you don't see a problem for small countries in your proposed reduction of the number of MEPs.

You do realise in the US the members of the House of Representatives are divided between states by their population, just like in the EU? I can't be bothered to check the actual numbers but I think there are over 400 representatives in the US compared to the about 700 in the EU Parliament. That is not a huge difference in scale, when you think there are a lot more people in the EU.

And personally I would find it very regrettable if in parliamentary elections my only real choice was between two people in my election district from the only two parties, as pretty much is the case in the USA. I don't know how that would be more democratic or free.

And yes, from 500 million people it's pretty much as easy to get 700 bright people with common sense than just a 100. But the only way to ensure there are only sensible, intelligent people who fight only for common good in any political entity is to not use humans or the democratic process at all. In other words it is a fairy tale. Representative democracy is a flawed concept, but there's no better alternative.; 3:48 pm
dutilleul said...: 
“…a radical downsizing of the parliament…” (from more above) 
 
You’ve got lucky in this part; I didn’t write it that way anywhere, but that’s pretty much what I think… (and believe me, I’m not alone)
 
“..you think the representation of the member nations in the EU Parliament shouldn't be based on their respective populations at all.” 
 
No I don’t. I didn’t write it, it’s not how it works and that’s not what I think. What I think is that it shouldn’t be based entirely on population ratios. 


 ; 6:06 pm
dutilleul said...: “…I think there are over 400 representatives in the US compared to the about 700 in the EU Parliament. That is not a huge difference in scale, when you think there are a lot more people in the EU.”
 
 I believe the US Congress is also oversized but I think you will agree with me in saying that we should let our friends from US to speculate and decide the ideal size of their own congress. In what refers to our own, apparently we don’t agree. 
 
“And personally I would find it very regrettable if in parliamentary elections my only real choice was between two people in my election district from the only two parties, as pretty much is the case in the USA. I don't know how that would be more democratic or free.”
 
That’s a capital difference between US and most of European states; they aren’t compelled to make a choice between two parties, they choose between different people. (btw, how many parties gravitate in the axis of power in your country, those that are really entitled to craft political reality?); 6:08 pm
dutilleul said...: “And yes, from 500 million people it's pretty much as easy to get 700 bright people with common sense than just a 100.”
 
I agree. I was trying a hyperbole for the sake of my argument…
 
“Representative democracy is a flawed concept, but there's no better alternative.”
 
Again, I agree with you.
 
Without any hope to convert you to my conviction that we have to many representatives speculating about the size of eggs, I would add that we can’t afford them. ; 6:08 pm
dutilleul said...: “You do realise in the US the members of the House of Representatives are divided between states by their population,…” 
 
No, it isn’t exactly like that; every state is entitled with a representation independently of its population. You may argue that it is a technical minor formal difference, but it isn’t; it explains the uncommon fact that I’ve mentioned to you (btw, a recently deceased Polish politician said - with a bit of lack of taste, I recon - to its German counterpart that Poland would have more representatives if Germany didn’t kill so much of them in the past… ); 6:10 pm
L said...: Nope. Canada. But we weigh our fruit, too.; 7:25 pm
Insolitus said...: Over here we have three parties which consistently get about 20 % of the votes, but there are additionally two parties both with about 10 % of the electorate and three with approximately 5 % share of the votes each. And in local elections the smaller parties can actually be rather big parties. In any case, none of them can be considered insignificant.

If the number of MEPs was cut, after the next election most of the smaller parties would lose their single current seat and a large portion of the voters would have nobody in the EU Parliament who was there because of their support, even indirect. What's the point in voting at all if it is simply impossible for your nationally significant party to get representation on the EU level?

That's pretty much the reason I feel reducing the number of MEPs would not be a good idea and would harm democracy. But I am not so closed-minded as you seem to think, you could very well "convert me to your conviction" if you laid down some convincing evidence showing my reasoning is flawed.; 9:39 pm
dutilleul said...: “Over here we have three parties which consistently get about 20 % of the votes, but…”
 
Well, you have got me here. The way you master the English language lead me to suppose you where from GB or Ireland. Anyway, as I understand it, in general, most of the European countries have a political framework that isn’t very different from the American political reality; US have two main political blocs (about 66% of the electorate) and a third of the electorate composed of independents and small parties. In Portugal we have two main parties, three other smaller parties with parliament representation, and a reasonable amount of tiny parties that sometimes do not seem to represent anybody besides themselves ( don’t get me wrong here; I do not consider them “insignificant” ). For the last 30 years, the two mainstream parties have ruled the country with occasional coalitions with the minor ones. And, as far as I know, this is pretty much the same thing in most of the European countries (namely, in GB and Ireland). Even the EU Parliament reflects this reality: political forces are organized in a way that isn’t very different from the US congress: you have two main political groups (EPP and S&D) and a bunch of smaller political groups that totalize about a third of the parliament, precisely as in the US senate. ; 3:14 am
dutilleul said...: “…What's the point in voting at all if it is simply impossible for your nationally significant party to get representation on the EU level?”
 
To my knowledge, all the nationally significant parties are represented in the EU parliament, most of them organized in two political groups and I do not believe that it is feasible to accommodate all the possible political sensibilities with any number of seats…; 3:14 am
dutilleul said...: “That's pretty much the reason I feel reducing the number of MEPs would not be a good idea and would harm democracy.”
 
In my opinion, an oversized EU Parliament is more threatening to democracy and even to EU as a great idea in itself.; 3:14 am
dutilleul said...: “But I am not so closed-minded as you seem to think, you could very well "convert me to your conviction" if you laid down some convincing evidence showing my reasoning is flawed.”
 
I honestly don’t see how I gave you the impression that you are a “close-minded” person. Actually, you seem to be a very interesting person and, for me, it has been a pleasure “talking” to you.
As for the evidences, there are no possible evidences in these matters; in spite of persistent rumors, politic isn’t a science. 
We can reason about but I’m afraid I will not make an extra effort with my rusted and second-rate linguistic skills - I lived in the US as a student during a small amount of time, many years ago (time enough to learn, respect and appreciate American values and culture, I must say). I do not feel very cozy writing about complex issues like this one in a foreign language but I will reiterate two powerful reasons in my view:

; 3:15 am
dutilleul said...: 
1-Fewer people would tend to be more carefully selected, would be more able to focus on urgent and critical issues and would have less time to indulge themselves in anecdotic matters like the weight of eggs;
 
2-We can´t afford for such a weighty political structure ( and useless for all the time they have to amuse us to death ) .





 ; 3:15 am
Synnamin said...: and sometimes fruit or vegetables are sold by quantity. It's up to the grocer or producer to determine how to sell the product (in the US); 5:48 am
Insolitus said...: I'm not at all sure that reducing quantity would necessarily improve quality in representatives. It would still be the people who would be doing the electing. People as a whole aren't that rational. Unfortunately.

But OK, let's leave it at that, we can both respectively disagree on this. In any case it's been a pleasure talking with you. I find these unexpected internet discussions over serious matters a great way of clarifying what I myself actually think and why, and how other people still can have a totally different viewpoint without being stupid or totally wrong. The world is not black and white, as I like to say.

And you don't have to mock yourself, your English is fine. We non-natives are the majority, after all, we can use the language just how we want and others just have to deal with it. Mob rule!
:); 10:06 am

Nothing To Do With Arbroath

Monday, June 28, 2010

EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen

27 comments:

Contact

Daily Archives