The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RickBFA]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

It's not putting "salmon" on the packaging, it's putting "contains fish" on a packet of salmon.

Maybe the smoked salmon guy is not as smart as you.

The more I think about Mint's point about us not imlementing these rules until being forced to, if that's your point of view and he doesn't trust UK governments to make/implement policy, maybe we should hand over political power on more issues to the EU. What you think Mint? You clearly think we need protecting from our own elected politicians and leaders.

[doubleup]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

It's not putting "salmon" on the packaging, it's putting "contains fish" on a packet of salmon.

Maybe the smoked salmon guy is not as smart as you.

The more I think about Mint's point about us not imlementing these rules until being forced to, if that's your point of view and he doesn't trust UK governments to make/implement policy, maybe we should hand over political power on more issues to the EU. What you think Mint? You clearly think we need protecting from our own elected politicians and leaders.

contains fish salmon whatever

Answer the point

Do you think it is simpler just to put the ingredients on end of story or sometimes put them on?

or do you just object to the concept of ingredients entirely?


and oh wait what the fuck is this - is the USA in the EU now?

http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/default.htm

[Doobs]

Only a loony leftie can think of a more stupid way to set fire to five figure sum of cash.  I would love to know your views mint if you run the said business and were forced to set fire to this cash rather than just be a sit on the fence do gooder.  Maybe your view would be different then?

Why don't fosters glasses in a pub say 'contains lager' on them? Where does the nonsense stop.  It is all about the claim culture and too many years of the nanny state killing common sense.

You're right Arb.

Our society has become so risk averse and politically correct.

I suppose this question in a daft way gets to the heart of the question about controlling our own laws - Mint says its about "protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses" - why do we need the EU to do this?

Are we so incapable as a society to make these decisions ourselves or do we need the wisdom of the EU to protect us from ourselves?

Terrible how people have become all polite and respectful to each other.  First thing that we need to put a stop to when we leave the EU. 

[Nakor]

The labelling change Food Information Regulation (FIR) 2014 that forced the fish farmer to change his packaging didn't actually have to be place until December 18th 2015 for fresh and this December for frozen product. Giving him 18 or 30 months to be prepared. Less then 1k to work up the artwork, no oncost on printing. If it cost any business more then that they were holding too much stock and or run by an idiot.

[neeko]

I am very disappointed by the leave campaigners not jumping on the big news story today, of a European stealing British jobs, Pardew, Hodgson or McClaren could have been ManU manager.

Vote leave and this injustice can be righted.

[Ledders]

Bosman rule is only down to the darned EU too!

[DungBeetle]

Only a loony leftie can think of a more stupid way to set fire to five figure sum of cash.  I would love to know your views mint if you run the said business and were forced to set fire to this cash rather than just be a sit on the fence do gooder.  Maybe your view would be different then?

Why don't fosters glasses in a pub say 'contains lager' on them? Where does the nonsense stop.  It is all about the claim culture and too many years of the nanny state killing common sense.

You're right Arb.

Our society has become so risk averse and politically correct.

I suppose this question in a daft way gets to the heart of the question about controlling our own laws - Mint says its about "protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses" - why do we need the EU to do this?

Are we so incapable as a society to make these decisions ourselves or do we need the wisdom of the EU to protect us from ourselves?

Funny that we haven't gone ahead and implemented them ourselves then until forced to do so. Why do you think that is?

At a guess because having a regulation on salmon that says "contains fish" is completely and utterly idiotic?

[DungBeetle]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

This is amazing.  Some people are so unwilling to be critical of the EU that they are actually suggesting that some consumers don't know that salmon is fish.

Take a balanced view ffs.  You can be pro EU while at the same time conceding that some of their regulations are pure idiocy implemented by politicians with no concept of small business cost pressure.

[DungBeetle]

As I'm bored I read the EU directive, and I think it's just poorly worded.  If you have a list of ingredients you can just put the allergen in question in bold to meet the requirements.  It's only if you don't do this that you need to put "Contains XYZ".  The issue is they haven't made allowances for products which are just pure allergens (eg bags of nuts, fresh fish, eggs) so you end up with bags of nuts with "contains nuts" because pure products don't have ingredients as such.  Our domestic FSA says the allergen must be either in the ingredients or in the name of the product (which covers the nuts example but not salmon I guess).

So anyway on reflection they haven't gone out to stitch up smoked salmon bloke - it's just an unintended (I think) result of the directive. 

[RickBFA]

As I'm bored I read the EU directive, and I think it's just poorly worded.  If you have a list of ingredients you can just put the allergen in question in bold to meet the requirements.  It's only if you don't do this that you need to put "Contains XYZ".  The issue is they haven't made allowances for products which are just pure allergens (eg bags of nuts, fresh fish, eggs) so you end up with bags of nuts with "contains nuts" because pure products don't have ingredients as such.  Our domestic FSA says the allergen must be either in the ingredients or in the name of the product (which covers the nuts example but not salmon I guess).

So anyway on reflection they haven't gone out to stitch up smoked salmon bloke - it's just an unintended (I think) result of the directive. 

I was having a bit of fun with Mint/Doubleup last night.

No problem with listing ingredients/protecting consumers where its reasonable and proportionate.

Making the salmon guy put "contains fish" on a pure salmon product is crazy though.

I was being serious about the bigger question though - why do we need the EU to tell us what we should put on labelling or any other regulation?

Surely we are capable of making these decisions ourselves?

[doubleup]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

This is amazing.  Some people are so unwilling to be critical of the EU that they are actually suggesting that some consumers don't know that salmon is fish.

Take a balanced view ffs.  You can be pro EU while at the same time conceding that some of their regulations are pure idiocy implemented by politicians with no concept of small business cost pressure.

It is me who is taking the balanced view.  You seem to think that that its simpler to have a packaging regulation that say sometimes put the ingredients on and sometime don't, based on some nebulous criteria.  Your rationale for this is that there are occasions when it would seem like over-regulation, but it is actually a minor consequence of less complex regulation.

[DungBeetle]

As I'm bored I read the EU directive, and I think it's just poorly worded.  If you have a list of ingredients you can just put the allergen in question in bold to meet the requirements.  It's only if you don't do this that you need to put "Contains XYZ".  The issue is they haven't made allowances for products which are just pure allergens (eg bags of nuts, fresh fish, eggs) so you end up with bags of nuts with "contains nuts" because pure products don't have ingredients as such.  Our domestic FSA says the allergen must be either in the ingredients or in the name of the product (which covers the nuts example but not salmon I guess).

So anyway on reflection they haven't gone out to stitch up smoked salmon bloke - it's just an unintended (I think) result of the directive. 

I was having a bit of fun with Mint/Doubleup last night.

No problem with listing ingredients/protecting consumers where its reasonable and proportionate.

Making the salmon guy put "contains fish" on a pure salmon product is crazy though.

I was being serious about the bigger question though - why do we need the EU to tell us what we should put on labelling or any other regulation?

Surely we are capable of making these decisions ourselves?

If we want a trading bloc then I guess we need consistent labelling between countries?

I am pro EU but I agree when the salmon incident arises either intentionally or due to poorly thought out directives I find it frustrating.  

[DungBeetle]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

This is amazing.  Some people are so unwilling to be critical of the EU that they are actually suggesting that some consumers don't know that salmon is fish.

Take a balanced view ffs.  You can be pro EU while at the same time conceding that some of their regulations are pure idiocy implemented by politicians with no concept of small business cost pressure.

It is me who is taking the balanced view.  You seem to think that that its simpler to have a packaging regulation that say sometimes put the ingredients on and sometime don't, based on some nebulous criteria.  Your rationale for this is that there are occasions when it would seem like over-regulation, but it is actually a minor consequence of less complex regulation.

Do you think a pure smoked salmon product should be forced to put Ingredients:smoked salmon?  Same for eggs?  Milk?

It's hardly rocket science to say that one ingredient products where the single ingredient is in huge letters on the labelling doesn't need to have an ingredients list.  It's a single bullet point in a lengthy directive.  The directive had an oversight in my opinion.

[doubleup]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

This is amazing.  Some people are so unwilling to be critical of the EU that they are actually suggesting that some consumers don't know that salmon is fish.

Take a balanced view ffs.  You can be pro EU while at the same time conceding that some of their regulations are pure idiocy implemented by politicians with no concept of small business cost pressure.

It is me who is taking the balanced view.  You seem to think that that its simpler to have a packaging regulation that say sometimes put the ingredients on and sometime don't, based on some nebulous criteria.  Your rationale for this is that there are occasions when it would seem like over-regulation, but it is actually a minor consequence of less complex regulation.

Do you think a pure smoked salmon product should be forced to put Ingredients:smoked salmon?  Same for eggs?  Milk?

It's hardly rocket science to say that one ingredient products where the single ingredient is in huge letters on the labelling doesn't need to have an ingredients list.  It's a single bullet point in a lengthy directive.  The directive had an oversight in my opinion.

While that might seem straightforward, you are making the assumption that they didn't do that due to an oversight on their part, when it is far more likely that they considered 28 countries and 28 languages and 28 different cuisines and just decided to go for the simplest - if a product contains an allergen put it on the label.

And as Nakor confirmed the cost in any case was minor for any competently run business.

[Doobs]

The flip side of this is the constant red tape businesses face (and the incurring ex's which force up prices and reduce competitiveness) from EU reg's when they don't trade with the EU.  There was a smoked salmon farmer on radio five live a week or so ago saying the EU reg's he faces cost him a five figure sum being forced to reprint all his packaging to fall in line with EU reg's even though he doesn't trade outside of the UK to the EU at all.

So businesses are being forced to tell consumers what they are putting into our food, and they have to follow regulations about the size of lettering and so on. Bloody red tape.

I may be wrong but I think the situation was the guy selling salmon had to print something like "contains fish" or some such wording - he was selling salmon!

The guy had to go to the expense of re-printing all his labelling.

It was rather silly (and unnecessary if common sense prevailed).

Correct that is exactly what it was!  Contains fish!  Do me a fucking favour.  Fuck off EU.   Buy some nuts at the boozer and they have to say 'contains nuts'.  No fucking shit.  imagine running a business where you don't trade at all with the EU and being forced to set fire to a five figure sum just to put something insane like that on your new packaging and set fire to the perfectly good old packaging.

You're not getting the point. It has nothing at all to do with trading with the EU. It's about protecting UK customers, employees and other businesses.

Mint, I'm feeling playful - how does getting a guy who sells salmon to reprint his labels to say "contains fish" protect the consumer?

We've managed to sell salmon for hundreds of years and realise salmon is fish.

You have to agree, some regulations are just daft.

So you think that instead of just putting the ingredients on the pack (whether this is single or multiple ingredients) it would be a simpler process to decide - perhaps through complex testing - what the simplest consumer would be expected to know and then either put the ingredients on or not?

And you think the EC are bureaucratic?

And if putting "salmon" on a package is a significant cost to a business in the digital age, they deserve to go under as they are obviously utter mugs.

This is amazing.  Some people are so unwilling to be critical of the EU that they are actually suggesting that some consumers don't know that salmon is fish.

Take a balanced view ffs.  You can be pro EU while at the same time conceding that some of their regulations are pure idiocy implemented by politicians with no concept of small business cost pressure.

It is me who is taking the balanced view.  You seem to think that that its simpler to have a packaging regulation that say sometimes put the ingredients on and sometime don't, based on some nebulous criteria.  Your rationale for this is that there are occasions when it would seem like over-regulation, but it is actually a minor consequence of less complex regulation.

Do you think a pure smoked salmon product should be forced to put Ingredients:smoked salmon?  Same for eggs?  Milk?

It's hardly rocket science to say that one ingredient products where the single ingredient is in huge letters on the labelling doesn't need to have an ingredients list.  It's a single bullet point in a lengthy directive.  The directive had an oversight in my opinion.

While that might seem straightforward, you are making the assumption that they didn't do that due to an oversight on their part, when it is far more likely that they considered 28 countries and 28 languages and 28 different cuisines and just decided to go for the simplest - if a product contains an allergen put it on the label.

And as Nakor confirmed the cost in any case was minor for any competently run business.

I think the issue with all they regulation is it becomes very difficult to keep up with it all as a small businessman.  This equally applies whether it is EU or UK legislation.  I am pretty much an expert in regulation in my industry, but even though I subscribe to updates erc, I still miss stuff and some things catch me surprise.  This happems much more away from where I specialise.  So fish man may have theoretically had 18 months notice to change his packaging, but that doesn't mean he was aware he had 18 months notice.  He can still be a competent businessman, yet still miss things like this. 

I have worked with hundreds of very competent colleagues over the years and suspect maybe a handful were very much on top of all the current regulation.  In cases like this, fish man should probably be given a bit of leeway.  Strictly he should do this, but he is selling fish and common sense says we can wait till his old packaging runs out before replacing it.

But as I said at the top, this isn't just an EU thing, the UK produces its fair share and happily dicks around with the EU regulations you recently learned so you have two opportunities to get caught out.