Jump to content

EU Directives we should ditch or keep


tomdhu

Recommended Posts

The chlorinated chicken fiasco on another thread prompted me to create this one. It will give us the chance to discuss and evaluate what legislation is worthwhile to keep or discard.


Horse passports.

Yes, under EU law all horses must have a "passport" which is an identification record which show whether that the particular horse can be used for food at the end of their life. This has arisen because under a EU law, it is illegal for people to eat pet horses but they are still allowed to eat other types of horses.


Europeans who raise and slaughter horses for meat must not pass them off as pets in a bid to dodge food safety rules.


https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_14_1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water does not hydrate you

In 2011 the EU banned drink manufactures from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.


EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove drinking water prevents dehydration.


Producers of bottled water are forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict.


The move was criticised as being both at odds with science and common sense.


The NHS, which says dehydration occurs ?when your body loses more fluid than you take in?, advises drinking fluids to help ward off dehydration.


from the Express

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effra Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> from the Express


it doesn't matter what the rest of the post says - this bit overrides :) and I'd say bottled water does not hydrate you any better than tap water.


Express readers have also been moaning about the colour and quality of the new blue passports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a vegetarian the very idea of eating a horse

> repulses me.



Not eaten meat for decades but why does this repulse you? Unless you are repulsed by eating all flesh. I'd add grey squirrel to the list that meat eaters should consume. Rat, dog but probably not cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effra Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Water does not hydrate you

> In 2011 the EU banned drink manufactures from

> claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

>

> EU officials concluded that, following a

> three-year investigation, there was no evidence to

> prove drinking water prevents dehydration.

>

> Producers of bottled water are forbidden by law

> from making the claim and will face a two-year

> jail sentence if they defy the edict.

>

> The move was criticised as being both at odds with

> science and common sense.

>

> The NHS, which says dehydration occurs ?when your

> body loses more fluid than you take in?, advises

> drinking fluids to help ward off dehydration.

>

> from the Express


Have you actually read the EU decision? It is in relation to a specific food advertising claim put forward - not for a real product mind you - but by two people who have been very critical of the EU's oversight of food safety. They were upfront in saying the wording was designed to get the ruling that it did.


The claim made was: The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.


The ruling made absolutely clear that the EFSA supported claims that drinking water is good for normal physical and cognitive functions. If the wording had said that, they would have approved it. However, this particular wording was rejected because water on its own can't prevent dehydration and because it isn't the regularity of drinking water but drinking water at the times you need it which prevents dehydration.


From a personal perspective - I think the EU does some things really well and some things poorly, but just repeating "curated" anti-EU content without context drives me insane. There's lots you can criticise the EU for without relying on this sort of bullshit article (with apologies to admin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vacuum cleaners.


The EU dictated that vacuum cleaners should have a maximum power of 850 watts on the basis that it would save energy.


It is acknowledged in the industry that the optimum power is around 1200Watt as this gives worthwhile suction. With 850W it takes twice as long to do a decent job - so the energy saving argument is negated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is acknowledged in the industry that the optimum power is around 1200Watt as this gives worthwhile suction. With 850W it takes twice as long to do a decent job - so the energy saving argument is negated."


This sounds like a load of hot air


Nobody sane genuinely takes twice as long to vacuum their house since and I've not noticed ANY difference at all - you are manufacturing outrage


(and again you try and lift this navel-gazing nation's attention and speak to friends and family in other eu countries - no outrage. No bother. so what IS it about the English and their outrage at the EU eh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly we have lost sight that the UK punched above their weight in negotiating EU Law. It's easy to knock, such as urban myths like the banning of bent bananas,


Not everything was right, for example the banning of Incandescent light bulbs before LED ones on the shelf. Bit do you remember those dreadful things, bloody hot, the smell of burning plastic from the fitting, blowing every few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What would I do about cyclists?  The failed Tory manfesto commitment to train all kids was an excellent proposal.  Public information campaigns aimed at all road users, rather than singling some out, to more considerately share the road, as TfL have done, is welcome too. As for crunching vehicles.  I'd extend this to illegal ebikes, illegal e-scoooters (I think some local authorities have done this with the latter) but before that I would (a) legislate that the delivery companies move away from zero hours contracts to permanent employees and take responsibility for their training, vehicles and behaviour on the road.   More expensive takeaways are a price worth paying for safer roads and proper terms and conditions (b) legislate to register all illegal e-bikes and scooters so that when they are found on the road the retailer takes a hit, and clamp down on any grey markets.  If you buy an e scooter say from Halfords this comes with a disclaimer that it can only be used on private land with the owner's permission.
    • I know a lot of experts in the field and getting a franchise was a license to print money, that is why Virgin were so happy to spend lots of dosh challenging government ten years ago when they lost the West Coast franchise.  This will not be overnight, rather than when the franchise has come to the end. Government had previously taking over the operator of last resort when some TOCs screwed up. Good, at last some clear blue water between the parties.  Tories said they were going to do a halfway house, but I've not noticed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways   : "On 19 October 2022, Transport Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan announced that the Transport Bill which would have set up GBR would not go ahead in the current parliamentary session.[15] In February 2023, Transport Secretary Mark Harper re-affirmed the government's commitment to GBR and rail reform.[16] The 2023 King's speech announced the progression of a draft Rail Reform Bill which would enable the establishment of GBR, although it has not been timetabled in the Parliamentary programme.[5] The Transport Secretary Mark Harper later told the Transport Select Committee that the legislation was unlikely to reach Royal Assent within the 2023-2024 parliamentary session.[17]"
    • Can't help thinking that regardless of whether Joe wanted to be interviewed, the 'story' that Southwark News wanted to write just got a lot less interesting with 'tyre shop replaced with ... tyre shop'! 
    • Labour are proposing to nationalise the railways, (passenger trains but not fright)  Whilst it removes them from shareholders control, and potential profit chasing, is it workable or will it end up costing tax payers more in the long run?  On paper the idea is interesting but does it also need the profitable freight arm included to help reduce fares,? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...