|
steinrokkan posted:Well, not in Europe, afaik. You definitely need to meet some standards to get Bio (or local equivalent) certified. Haha, nope. Only the AB (euroleaf) label has any oversight, and even then the national bodies are so understaffed there's no way they are actually doing all the checks they're supposed to do. Also, it's a pretty low bar to reach. Every other "bio" label or mention on a package is worthless. Fair trade is 100% un-regulated.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Either way "organic" certification makes no claim that the end product is better, it's about what kind of pesticides, animal feed, etc. is used. The rest is marketing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Shazback posted:Haha, nope. Only the AB (euroleaf) label has any oversight, and even then the national bodies are so understaffed there's no way they are actually doing all the checks they're supposed to do. Also, it's a pretty low bar to reach. Every other "bio" label or mention on a package is worthless. Fair trade is 100% un-regulated. I'm sure that all the various BIO and Organic labels are in fact derived from the baseline regulation. I.E. if somebody uses some sort of scheme that refers to organic food, they can only do so within limits set up by the regulation that also established the Euroleaf. Since 2009 there is only one legislation for organic farming in all member states, and no exceptions from the organic regulations can be given.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Either way "organic" certification makes no claim that the end product is better, it's about what kind of pesticides, animal feed, etc. is used. The rest is marketing. Yeah, much like regional designation it makes claims that are not related to the quality of the product as it is materially experienced by a customer. Therefore wrong and limiting the free market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It actually clarifies terminology. Anyway, we should probably also do away with fair trade and bio / organic designations because they don't really affect the final quality of the product. Even Euro organic products are actually less awful labelling, since that at least stands for a standardised set of (somewhat stupid) production practices rather than arbitrary location.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
It's the same idea as when communal lands were made private, so that instead of having every inhabitants of such or such village be able to gather wood from a forest, the wood now belonged to one landlord who had absolutely nothing to do with it and certainly would never bother gathering it, but would feel entitled of hanging any peasant who would dare trespass on what was now his exclusive property to steal some rotting sticks from him. Things that belong to a community in general, instead of belonging to specific moral persons, are an affront to commercialism. So it has to be attacked, as being regressive, and fascist. Camembert is worse than Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:-Dad, why did we have to leave Earth? I liked it there! I'm sorry but could you please make a point instead of showing off your exceedingly poor writing skills? Cat Mattress posted:It's the same idea as when communal lands were made private, so that instead of having every inhabitants of such or such village be able to gather wood from a forest, the wood now belonged to one landlord who had absolutely nothing to do with it and certainly would never bother gathering it, but would feel entitled of hanging any peasant who would dare trespass on what was now his exclusive property to steal some rotting sticks from him. Things that belong to a community in general, instead of belonging to specific moral persons, are an affront to commercialism. So it has to be attacked, as being regressive, and fascist. Camembert is worse than Hitler. If you want communal whatever, then specify your camembert is traditional camembert from the region where it was invented (a long time ago by now-dead people), rather than trying to grab the term of camembert (widely understood to refer to moldy cheese with a particular type of mold) for yourself. You selfish
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
The organic stuff is just funny because it was invented by a group of rich British people who were really picky about their food in the Great Depression and World War II when everyone was starving around them, and also literally believed in magic rituals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'm sure that all the various BIO and Organic labels are in fact derived from the baseline regulation. I.E. if somebody uses some sort of scheme that refers to organic food, they can only do so within limits set up by the regulation that also established the Euroleaf. Since 2009 there is only one legislation for organic farming in all member states, and no exceptions from the organic regulations can be given. Many do (I mean, as a label owner you'd have to be stupid to not at least pretend your products need to meet the criteria of the Euroleaf). But that's not obligatory. For example, the label "BIO-EQUITABLE" is a private label that can be granted to products that don't meet the Euroleaf criteria (http://www.natexbio.com/bio-et-bon/labels-alimentaires-de-qualite/labelbio-equitable). And that's without counting all the products that have some sort of vague allusion to "sourced ecologically" or "eco-friendly" and such on their label. Again, the criteria for organic farming in the EU are so lax that private, more stringent Bio labels are still in business and seen as important criteria for some customers and producers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Shazback posted:Many do (I mean, as a label owner you'd have to be stupid to not at least pretend your products need to meet the criteria of the Euroleaf). But that's not obligatory. For example, the label "BIO-EQUITABLE" is a private label that can be granted to products that don't meet the Euroleaf criteria (http://www.natexbio.com/bio-et-bon/labels-alimentaires-de-qualite/labelbio-equitable). And that's without counting all the products that have some sort of vague allusion to "sourced ecologically" or "eco-friendly" and such on their label. Of course the standards for "organic" are lax, they could never be strict. Organic has nothing to do with anything real, just with random things some rich snobs thought about farming and food in around 1935-1945. Can't stay whether Bio-Equitable or whatever actually meaningfully reflects something easier, but by not tying itself to a 70 year old crank idea it at least has the possibility/
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Of course the standards for "organic" are lax, they could never be strict. Organic has nothing to do with anything real, just with random things some rich snobs thought about farming and food in around 1935-1945. How exactly are pesticides, fertilizers or antibiotics not real?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
doverhog posted:How exactly are pesticides, fertilizers or antibiotics not real? Organic food still uses pesticides and fertilisers, just from a very arbitrarily (i.e. not based on health or environmental impact) restricted list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
So you have a list that restricts you, seems real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
doverhog posted:So you have a list that restricts you, seems real. It's a list that appeals to bored rich people with weird opinions divorced from reality and also hipsters, i.e. it's not based on anything real. Buying organic food for alleged (generally nonexistent) health or environment benefits makes you a very stupid person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Shut up about PDOs
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
doverhog posted:How exactly are pesticides, fertilizers or antibiotics not real? Organic uses plenty of pesticides and fertilizers, and antibiotic use wasn't a thing when the movement was invented, as they wouldn't hit mass production of any sort until the late 40s, let alone in farming. So those are completely irrelevant to organic. And changes since the original weird British people who came up with it are hardly standardized or based on anything other than vague handwaving towards "naturalness". So what's considered "organic" by one farmer or community of farmers easily won't be considered as such by others, and any choice by the government towards what counts for labeling is going to be arbitrary. Hence, the label "organic", no matter what government issues it, is always going to be a "lax" thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It's a list that appeals to bored rich people with weird opinions divorced from reality and also hipsters, i.e. it's not based on anything real. I don't buy organic, for health or other reasons. Regardless, the list really describes real rules used by real farmers to produce produce for real people who really want to buy it. Certifications don't have to produce a health benefit, they just need to help consumers pick what they want to buy, however stupid that choice may be. If the case really is that no one enforces any of the certificates, ok, you got me. That's an enforcement problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I don't buy organic, for health or other reasons. well, meaningless certificates/designations shouldn't be enforced by the government, because that should be reserved for certificates relating to actually important things. meaningless certificates should be enforced by whoever hands them out (probably poorly).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
So are the organic certificates enforced or not? By the government?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
doverhog posted:So are the organic certificates enforced or not? By the government? there's like one that is (sort of, and it shouldn't be at all in a less insane world), most of them are poorly enforced by random business associations
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Organic uses plenty of pesticides and fertilizers, and antibiotic use wasn't a thing when the movement was invented, as they wouldn't hit mass production of any sort until the late 40s, let alone in farming. So those are completely irrelevant to organic. What the hell are you a rambling on about? I swear, you have the weirdest hangups and conspiracy theories.  The Euroleaf standard specifies a minimum amount of room per animal and access to open air spaces. It restricts the use of artificial/imitation flavours, food colouring, GMO and other stuff. Also, I guess it sets humane standards for long distance animal transports. loving Rothschild and Limey conspiracy right there! Esoteric quacks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What the hell are you a rambling on about? I swear, you have the weirdest hangups and conspiracy theories. I'm talking about the organic movement, can't you read? It's all fact, that organic is a bunch of bullshit that people have randomly attached other things to over the years - and the sort of ther stuff that got attached is rarely consistent between practitioners or regions. Euroleaf is something that developed from it later. It includes a lot of things that the originators of the organic movement never cared about, and it's positions on what qualifies don't match up with provisions in other areas - that's why the one guy was mad that it is too "lax", it didn't fit whatever particular kind of "organic" he wants/is used to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Regardless of standards that you guys go peak pedant over, you're still going to get absolute gowls who say, "gently caress standards" and shovel rotten horses into the grinder to call it beef, like they did in my own patch of the EU. The key is effective inspection and enforcement, where the inspection agency responsible for standards can just go, "Hi Commission, yeah this P.S. Blowfish you're literally worse than the fishmech of old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
School Nickname posted:Regardless of standards that you guys go peak pedant over, you're still going to get absolute gowls who say, "gently caress standards" and shovel rotten horses into the grinder to call it beef, like they did in my own patch of the EU. The key is effective inspection and enforcement, where the inspection agency responsible for standards can just go, "Hi Commission, yeah this Food safety standards are cool. Organic food is a disease of civilisation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you want communal whatever, then specify your camembert is traditional camembert from the region where it was invented (a long time ago by now-dead people), rather than trying to grab the term of camembert (widely understood to refer to moldy cheese with a particular type of mold) for yourself. You selfish Afaik only "Camembert de Normandie" is a PDO. Why should you be allowed to sell Camembert "de Normandie" if it wasn't from Normandy? It's like selling "Real Tennessee Whiskey" that's from Kentucky. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:Afaik only "Camembert de Normandie" is a PDO. Why should you be allowed to sell Camembert "de Normandie" if it wasn't from Normandy? It's like selling "Real Tennessee Whiskey" that's from Kentucky. If you make Camembert in Normandy with less than 50% of your milk coming from a certain breed, it can be called "Camembert", but it can't be called "Camembert de Normandie", despite being made in Normandy. Perhaps the PDO guys should have tried to develop their own brand, something like "Camembert Tradition Normande" rather than just taking a generic product name and a region? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Shazback posted:If you make Camembert in Normandy with less than 50% of your milk coming from a certain breed, it can be called "Camembert", but it can't be called "Camembert de Normandie", despite being made in Normandy. Perhaps the PDO guys should have tried to develop their own brand, something like "Camembert Tradition Normande" rather than just taking a generic product name and a region? OK. That makes it somewhat more understandable. Yet it is the same for Tennessee Whiskey, not only does it have to be made in Tennessee, it also has to be produced in a certain way. I am not quite sure: Are all PDOs bad or only European ones?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:Afaik only "Camembert de Normandie" is a PDO. Why should you be allowed to sell Camembert "de Normandie" if it wasn't from Normandy? It's like selling "Real Tennessee Whiskey" that's from Kentucky. So I was misremembering camembert, restricting "de Normandie" to camemberts made in the Normandy is reasonable, because "Camembert" refers to the product type and "de Normandie" shouldn't. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Shazback posted:If you make Camembert in Normandy with less than 50% of your milk coming from a certain breed, it can be called "Camembert", but it can't be called "Camembert de Normandie", despite being made in Normandy. Perhaps the PDO guys should have tried to develop their own brand, something like "Camembert Tradition Normande" rather than just taking a generic product name and a region? Oh gently caress off. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Oh gently caress off. He's right you know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:OK. That makes it somewhat more understandable. Yet it is the same for Tennessee Whiskey, not only does it have to be made in Tennessee, it also has to be produced in a certain way. I am not quite sure: Are all PDOs bad or only European ones? IMO there should be differences between "food naming" on one side and "locality naming" on the other. Food naming should have to respond to specific criteria in order to make clear to the customer what is contained. Beef means "made from cows in compliance with XYZ rules". Camembert means "cheese made in XYZ manner that fulfills ABC criteria". These naming criteria can (and should) include higher-grade or more stringent levels of quality, for instance "Traditional Camembert" could have increased specifications on how long the product matures, or "Angus Beef" could mean only beef from a certain variety of cows of a certain age and health. Food naming should be mandatory and intend to inform customers as clearly as possible what the product is. A genericized name should not be able to be reclaimed by a smaller subset of producers. However, this smaller subset should be allowed to propose a new, more stringent criteria and associated name. As a general rule, these names should avoid using geographical names except when they are already genericized. "White sausage" is a clear and appropriate food name. If producers in Bavaria wish to have a different standard to market to their customers, they should be able to create it, with the name of their choosing. "Münchner Weißwurst" is probably not the best name, But "Original Münchner Weißwurst" is fine. Locality naming should be mandatory at a relatively basic level (I'm fine with "EU" or the country of origin if the product is outside the EU, but I understand some people would want it to be more precise), but more precise naming should be a decision made by the company. The locality naming must be truthful and represent the origin of the product as a whole, not just the last stage of assembly or transformation. A company that makes Cheddar with dutch milk in south Netherlands should be able to chose if they wish to give more than the most basic information regarding the local origin of the product. I'd be fine with them calling it "Cheddar (made in the EU)", "Dutch Cheddar", "Cheddar of North Brabant" or "Tilburg Family Cheddar", and any combination or association of these notions, so long as they don't cause confusion with an approved food naming which the product isn't. If "Family-style North Brabant Cheddar" is a distinct food naming, then even if the cheddar was made by a family farm and is from north brabant they shouldn't be allowed to use this name. They could still use similar but non confusing names such as "Tilburg Family-made Cheddar", for instance. Again, it's just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
In actually relevant news: PSOE stopped being naysayers and are going to enable Rajoy to stay on. It's a good day for Spain.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Am I to understand that they won't be breaking Belgium's record after all? I knew they didn't have it in them. In CETA news, Belgium has until Monday night to sign the agreement: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20161023_02533947 The only way it's happening is if Wallonia gives in or the Flemish liberals brute-force it through federal parliament. I hope the N-VA blocks the attempt in the latter case. This time it's Wallonia having a federal dictate pushed down its throat, next time it could be Flanders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Do we need an FTA to trade with Canada or the USA? Are the tariffs high? The whole thing about how the EU not automatically rubber-stamping every trade agreement that comes its way is a proof that it's dysfunctional and backward is really ridiculous. How can you support the EU (and many other agreements that you just listed that have built-in dispute resolution mechanisms or supranational rules that override national policy on things like state aid) but oppose "any kind of ISDS"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:How can you support the EU The burning question of our time
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:How can you support the EU
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Am I to understand that they won't be breaking Belgium's record after all? I knew they didn't have it in them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Foulbrood posted:If the Walloons give in to the pressure is there any other way to get it vetoed or sidetracked since the trade agreement bypasses the European Parliament? Mass protests in Brussels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:How can you support the EU (and many other agreements that you just listed that have built-in dispute resolution mechanisms or supranational rules that override national policy on things like state aid) but oppose "any kind of ISDS"? Anything that allows a private firm to sue a state or any subdivision of a state should be made illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Companies should be able to sue public entities for not following the law, but shouldn't be able to use litigation to force a change in policy or to retroactively demand compensation for another private subject being offered better terms in a different contract.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:59
|
|