3 ms·

The EU is doing its part. The UK media ridiculed and undermined it constantly for "red tape". Now we're leaving; things will only get worse.

thriftwy 9y ago
How about they stop demanding paperwork before any production is made, and instead go after actual trespassers by doing blind tests? Because, you know, as a consumer I fail to see how paperwork protects me from anything. Being expert at paperwork doesn't mean you're an expert of being a fair tradesman. Paperwork collectors mentality is precisely what we should beat off of bureaucracy.
- lukaslalinsky 9y ago
  Would you apply the same concept to drugs? Would you allow pharmaceutical companies to sell anything and catch them if they sell something that kills people? While it's not the same situation, the difference between food and drugs is not that great.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    I'm not sure about drugs, but the process they have right now also inspires zero confidence in me: * It costs billions effectively confining market for a few huge conglomerates. * It passes throuh drugs that turn out to not have any observable effect or which are worse than ones already on market. * It did allow pushing opioids for the epidemic. It's not pretty. It might be better than nothing in this extreme case, but that's a pretty low bar.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Interesting idea... Catching things with blind tests as a way to increase compliance while reducing the burden of documentation. If it could be done efficiently, that would certainly be better.. I suspect that tests might be expensive to scale, and not offer sufficient precision... Antibiotics might disappear over time, for example. IMO we should always strive to improve regulation and make it more efficient.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    If you're not doing tests know nothing about antibiotics in meat, who grew this meat and where, and whether it's meat at all. No amount of paperwork provides even a tiny bit of compliance. Just look at VW.

thriftwy 9y ago

How about they stop demanding paperwork before any production is made, and instead go after actual trespassers by doing blind tests? Because, you know, as a consumer I fail to see how paperwork protects me from anything. Being expert at paperwork doesn't mean you're an expert of being a fair tradesman. Paperwork collectors mentality is precisely what we should beat off of bureaucracy.

lukaslalinsky 9y ago
Would you apply the same concept to drugs? Would you allow pharmaceutical companies to sell anything and catch them if they sell something that kills people? While it's not the same situation, the difference between food and drugs is not that great.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  I'm not sure about drugs, but the process they have right now also inspires zero confidence in me: * It costs billions effectively confining market for a few huge conglomerates. * It passes throuh drugs that turn out to not have any observable effect or which are worse than ones already on market. * It did allow pushing opioids for the epidemic. It's not pretty. It might be better than nothing in this extreme case, but that's a pretty low bar.
jopsen 9y ago
Interesting idea... Catching things with blind tests as a way to increase compliance while reducing the burden of documentation. If it could be done efficiently, that would certainly be better.. I suspect that tests might be expensive to scale, and not offer sufficient precision... Antibiotics might disappear over time, for example. IMO we should always strive to improve regulation and make it more efficient.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  If you're not doing tests know nothing about antibiotics in meat, who grew this meat and where, and whether it's meat at all. No amount of paperwork provides even a tiny bit of compliance. Just look at VW.