tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post4461723075566138264..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Eggs: Nothing to Apologise ForIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25869171234609793132010-07-06T14:01:18.990+01:002010-07-06T14:01:18.990+01:00@Span Ows: Yes. It's that simple.@Span Ows: Yes. It's that simple.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13926612253284689288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-85812572968977088412010-07-05T09:25:09.027+01:002010-07-05T09:25:09.027+01:00Thanks Nosemonkey: a vital point that you mention ...Thanks Nosemonkey: a vital point that you mention re the standard opt-out.Span Owshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144861546996033462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12575216750341865812010-07-04T22:01:50.111+01:002010-07-04T22:01:50.111+01:00Span Ows: Actually, there's a standard opt-out...<b>Span Ows:</b> Actually, there's a standard opt-out in all of this sort of legislation for farmers selling direct to consumers and for small producers. They only need to abide by these regulations if selling on the mass market.<br /><br />Also, check out Annex VIII of the proposed legislation (specifically VIII.4). That explicitly provides for selling by number.Nosemonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10770646488422232541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-63962710869531956652010-07-04T22:01:50.112+01:002010-07-04T22:01:50.112+01:00John - you ask what is added to life by such regul...<b>John</b> - you ask what is added to life by such regulation. Not that I'd call myself an EU-enthusiast, but OK...<br /><br />Here are the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20545/50293" rel="nofollow">existing egg labelling rules</a>. Somewhat detailed - and that's just for eggs.<br /><br />This is as simple as I can make it:<br /><br />These proposals are designed to rationalise this existing labelling system (not just for eggs, but for thousands of other foodstuffs), removing unnecessary information, and thus reducing administrative and manufacturing costs to the producer, while simultaneously making food packaging clearer for the consumer.<br /><br />Why does this need to be set at EU level? If doesn’t. It does, however, make a great deal of sense to have *one* set of packaging standards across the entire Common Market – not only does this allow a much fairer, more free-market system of trading across the EU (and EEA, as Norway, Switzerland, etc. are also – voluntarily – bound by such EU rules) as all producers can compete on a level playing field, and consumers in every country know that they are getting the same information on which to base their purchases as those in every other, it also significantly reduces costs for both governments and producers, as only one set of rules and regulations has to be adhered to and maintained, rather than 27+.<br /><br />You can dispute the *need* for such regulations if you so choose. However, the fact that 99% of all countries in the world *have* such regulations would tend to suggest that your utopian dream of market self-regulation is pretty far from being attainable. In the meantime, the EU’s rationalisation of the packaging regulations of 27+ countries is one of the most cost-effective and efficient ways of maintaining standards and ensuring the free-flow of capital within the market that anyone has ever come up with anywhere in the world.Nosemonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10770646488422232541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-83335836999150974652010-07-04T22:01:15.867+01:002010-07-04T22:01:15.867+01:00John - you ask what is added to life by such regul...<b>John</b> - you ask what is added to life by such regulation. Not that I'd call myself an EU-enthusiast, but OK...<br /><br />Here are the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20545/50293" rel="nofollow">existing egg labelling rules</a>. Somewhat detailed - and that's just for eggs.<br /><br />This is as simple as I can make it:<br /><br />These proposals are designed to rationalise this existing labelling system (not just for eggs, but for thousands of other foodstuffs), removing unnecessary information, and thus reducing administrative and manufacturing costs to the producer, while simultaneously making food packaging clearer for the consumer.<br /><br />Why does this need to be set at EU level? If doesn’t. It does, however, make a great deal of sense to have *one* set of packaging standards across the entire Common Market – not only does this allow a much fairer, more free-market system of trading across the EU (and EEA, as Norway, Switzerland, etc. are also bound by such EU rules) as all producers can compete on a level playing field, and consumers in every country know that they are getting the same information on which to base their purchases as those in every other, it also significantly reduces costs for both governments and producers, as only one set of rules and regulations has to be adhered to and maintained, rather than 27+.<br /><br />You can dispute the *need* for such regulations if you so choose. However, the fact that 99% of all countries in the world *have* such regulations would tend to suggest that your utopian dream of market self-regulation is pretty far from being attainable. In the meantime, the EU’s rationalisation of the packaging regulations of 27+ countries is one of the most cost-effective and efficient ways of maintaining standards and ensuring the free-flow of capital within the market that anyone has ever come up with anywhere in the world.<br /><br /><b>Span Ows:</b> Actually, there's a standard opt-out in all of this sort of legislation for farmers selling direct to consumers and for small producers. They only need to abide by these regulations if selling on the mass market.<br /><br />Also, check out Annex VIII of the proposed legislation (specifically VIII.4). That explicitly provides for selling by number.Nosemonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10770646488422232541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89874971854480151882010-07-04T21:51:02.663+01:002010-07-04T21:51:02.663+01:00Richard North has gone into even more detail tonig...Richard North has gone into <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/them-eggs.html" rel="nofollow">even more detail</a> tonight why the Daily Mail and the Grocer is talking bollocks, basically he says:<br /><br /><i>It is under the Egg Marketing Regulations (as amended) that the marketing requirements for eggs are set out, <b>and they are not affected by [this regulation]</b>. They cannot be unless specifically repealed. And the application of the EMRs is (rightly) confirmed by the EP press office.</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>And here, one is a little worried by [Leyland's] claim to have taken the trouble "to actually read the EU's 75-page draft", specifically because the draft ...is actually 85 pages. One wonders what he has been reading.</i><br /><br />In short, the EU is not banning selling eggs by the dozen or by any other number.TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21372711424379283352010-07-04T21:02:42.230+01:002010-07-04T21:02:42.230+01:00Rossa, your documjent refers to NET weights. i.e. ...Rossa, your documjent refers to NET weights. i.e. if you had a tin of sardines that was 150g but only 100g sardines after draining; this would not be necessary on the label (actually my example may not be a good one as I've seen tins of sardines with a net weight but hopelly you get the idea)Span Owshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144861546996033462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-9669078840622945462010-07-04T20:55:41.077+01:002010-07-04T20:55:41.077+01:00There is a link to the legislation in the comments...There is a link to the legislation in the comments of Iain's original post. Thos ereally interested could find it themselves in 5 minutes but hey...rather stir shit here wouldn't they.<br /><br />Mike: so could the famer sell a box of "one dozen large eggs". Yes or no? <br /><br />Mike Power, the bit you quote actually proves Iain RIGHT and you wrong. Nice one. <br /><br />Jack of Kent...<i>"I have looked at the draft regulations<br /><br />I regret that Iain has erred."</i><br /><br />He hasn't...read it again.Span Owshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144861546996033462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-33867893057800279532010-07-04T20:48:58.257+01:002010-07-04T20:48:58.257+01:00Which bit of
"If this legislation is not am...Which bit of <br /><br /><i>"If this legislation is not amended when it reaches the EU Council later this year, it will mean pointless red tape and unnecessary costs to food producers who already work on tight margins – without any benefit to the consumer. We think that’s worth fighting"</i><br /><br />are Atticus and friends finding hard to understand? Even in Iain's original piece he used the words "EU Abolishes a Dozen Eggs" which in essence if perfectly correct because if this legislation goes through unchanged selling ONLY by the dozen will NOT BE ALLOWED. <br /><br />Atticus, do you understand? <br /><br />Word verfication: epoopp. How marvellously appropriate.Span Owshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144861546996033462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73552875830625220792010-07-04T20:18:58.562+01:002010-07-04T20:18:58.562+01:00I suggest the European Conservatives and Reformist...I suggest the European Conservatives and Reformists mount a campign to defeat the regulations outright.<br /><br />I cannot see what is added to life by enacting such regulation. If an EU-enthusiast would like to explain, I'm all ears!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094423536763817353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-6977330158284802772010-07-04T20:06:53.909+01:002010-07-04T20:06:53.909+01:00Iain - I've read the entire Grocer article. I&...Iain - I've read the entire Grocer article. I've also read the original legislation. And the amendments. And contact the Food Standards Agency, European Parliament and European Commission for statements and clarifications.<br /><br />Not that I needed to do all this, because it was pretty apparent that this story was a load of old bollocks from the headline. Even <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/euromyth-bites-dust.html" rel="nofollow">arch-eurosceptic Richard North of EU Referendum dismissed it as obvious bullshit</a>.<br /><br />I think the reason people are so annoyed is that you pretend to be some kind of leading blogger, yet are happy to unthinkingly regurgitate print media stories without even doing the most basic of secondary checks.<br /><br />Hell - you think that the Liberal Conspiracy story was written by Sunny Hundal, and dismiss it on that bases. (It isn't, as anyone who bothered to follow the link would know.)<br /><br />Is that really how far your research extends? Dismissing sources you dislike or disagree with out of hand while instantly believing any old rubbish that confirms your prejudices?<br /><br />*sarcastic applause*Nosemonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10770646488422232541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-55701541095790565462010-07-04T17:37:01.179+01:002010-07-04T17:37:01.179+01:00"Read the whole article HERE. This is not wri..."Read the whole article HERE. This is not writte[sic] by a tabloid journalist or a partisan blogger. It's written by the editor of The Grocer. Think on that."<br /><br />I wonder though whether you've read the legislation that the author of that article claims to have read. If not then you're simply taking someone's word. Personally, I prefer several sources including the original one. Many commenters here have pointed out the error by referring to the actual legislation which I have browsed and agree. You can't argue facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-938875138653609262010-07-04T16:25:00.555+01:002010-07-04T16:25:00.555+01:00This is what Dale wrote:
EU Abolishes a Dozen Egg...This is what Dale wrote:<br /><br /><b>EU Abolishes a Dozen Eggs</b><br /><br /><i><b>No longer will we be able to buy eggs by the dozen...shopkeepers will be forced to sell them by weight. </b></i><br /><br />And that, my friends, was, and remains, pure cack.Mike Powerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861051860231257924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-81802804590258515062010-07-04T16:21:36.178+01:002010-07-04T16:21:36.178+01:00I have emailed this link to Iain:-
http://ec.euro...I have emailed this link to Iain:-<br /><br />http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/proposal_regulation_ep_council.pdf<br /><br />Page 66 clearly states under ANNEX VIII...<br />NET QUANTITY DECLARATION<br />1. The net quantity shall not be mandatory in the case of foods:<br />(a) which are subject to considerable losses in their volume or mass and which are<br />sold by number or weighed in the presence of the purchaser; or<br />(b) the net quantity of which is less than 5 g or 5 ml; however, this provision shall<br />not apply to spices and herbs.<br /><br />So that's clear then. You can sell 6 eggs, half a dozen eggs or however many eggs you want!<br /><br />So will this get past moderation Iain?Rossahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06121831076599069841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-44118257899109945742010-07-04T16:18:22.588+01:002010-07-04T16:18:22.588+01:00Two weeks ago we took delivery of 6 ex battery hen...Two weeks ago we took delivery of 6 ex battery hens from the Battery Hen welfare Trust Charity.<br /><br />They were a sorry lot - basically in total shock.<br /><br />Since then they have blossomed, they are now exploring the whole garden and we are rewarded every day with at least 4 eggs...<br /><br />It's the best thing we have done for a long time.... Anyone interested in rehoming an ex battery hen(s), please check this out - <br />http://www.bhwt.org.uk/Alfiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04135869751268396259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20850062351813930272010-07-04T16:13:55.952+01:002010-07-04T16:13:55.952+01:00but the point of the article seems to be that eggs...<i>but the point of the article seems to be that eggs (etc) would be sold, not by number as at present, </i><br />Not true, you can sell the eggs how you like, by the number of atoms contained within if you so wish, as long as the weight is displayed on the box - very much like now.<br /><br />This is the regulation <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/proposal_regulation_ep_council.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, page 36:<br /><br /><i>1. The net quantity of a food shall be expressed, using litres, centilitres, millilitres,<br />kilograms or grams, as appropriate:<br />(a) in units of liquid in the case of liquids;<br />(b) in units of mass in the case of other products.</i><br /><br />You just have to list the weight of the eggs on the box, there's nothing there banning the selling of anything by a number. <br /><br />It's actually reducing the amount of regulation when compared to <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20545/50293" rel="nofollow">this summary</a> of what is required now.TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-85157123752772346892010-07-04T16:08:46.462+01:002010-07-04T16:08:46.462+01:00It might be possible to put something like "m...It might be possible to put something like "minimum weight xxx pounds" on the box but why go to all the bother and expense of changing the regulations if this is the case? <br /><br />Also it only needs one Trading Standards department, wanting to make a name for themselves, to prosecute someone. They won't take on Tesco, it will be some small trader who cannot afford to defend himself.<br /><br />Also someone selling eggs loose might have to weigh each bag or box. What does that achieve?<br /><br />I notice the article mentions croissants. Can anyone imagine the French bothering to weigh every croissant sold?<br /><br />Presumably it will also apply to cakes, pies, pasties etc sold loose in a shop, they will have to be weighed and priced by weught.JMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13862227988978988383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-28111532579762377892010-07-04T16:02:28.447+01:002010-07-04T16:02:28.447+01:00This debate can be ended simply and easily. All we...This debate can be ended simply and easily. All we need is a link to the relevant section of the draft legislation that states eggs will no longer be able to be sold by the dozen/ half dozen. I look forward in anticipation.Atticus Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12070313665724500386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88750074651877895912010-07-04T15:51:05.772+01:002010-07-04T15:51:05.772+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Atticus Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12070313665724500386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60519000105200021692010-07-04T15:42:09.319+01:002010-07-04T15:42:09.319+01:00BLS is that what the proposed legislation says? Do...BLS is that what the proposed legislation says? Do you have a link to it, would be interested to read it.Atticus Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12070313665724500386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-56401614215066563702010-07-04T15:27:03.541+01:002010-07-04T15:27:03.541+01:00Of course we shall still be able to buy a dozen or...Of course we shall still be able to buy a dozen or half dozen of anything; but the point of the article seems to be that eggs (etc) would be sold, not by number as at present, but by weight, so that each carton of, say, six eggs would have to be weighed individually and priced exactly according to the weight of those particular six eggs inside it, treating them the same as a lump of cheese. Plain daft, and as usual, people are not trusted to use their common sense. When can we leave?<br />(Did you notice that the £7 million being denied to the Queen represents 4 hours' worth of our membership of the EU?)Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73045950539539295072010-07-04T15:27:03.542+01:002010-07-04T15:27:03.542+01:00Atticus, I look forward to your demonstration that...Atticus, I look forward to your demonstration that there is no truth in this posting.john in cheshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179825507377423624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-63518080960431219172010-07-04T15:18:17.287+01:002010-07-04T15:18:17.287+01:00You're waiting for Sunny Hundal to apologise t...You're waiting for Sunny Hundal to apologise to you?<br /><br />This could be a very long wait. I'll get a few year's supplies of food and medicine.The Grim Reaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15190441504002736960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-51833090118932683552010-07-04T15:06:04.653+01:002010-07-04T15:06:04.653+01:00If you're accused of being a gullible idiot, i...If you're accused of being a gullible idiot, it's no defence to say that someone else is just as much a gullible idiot as you are.David Boothroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01161970886471901426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-43679420160700896242010-07-04T14:46:04.533+01:002010-07-04T14:46:04.533+01:00I have looked at the draft regulations.
I regret ...I have looked at the draft regulations.<br /><br />I regret that Iain has erred.<br /><br />There is simply no prohibition on eggs being sold by the dozen.Jack of Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00519002603649560097noreply@blogger.com