2 ms·

First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. The Trade Deal also doesn't change legislation around the Food

First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. The Trade Deal also doesn't change legislation around the Food Safety Standards Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). They always cry about everything, even while doing very well. So complaining about an unfair advantage for Brazilian farmers is not an argument to take very seriously In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young"

LunaSea 10mo ago
> In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young" Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?
like_any_other 10mo ago
> First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports. > Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). "Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing/cap-expenditure_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing... Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation: "No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to" Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not. "It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?" I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.
- hermanzegerman 10mo ago
  No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to And the final goods are held to the same food safety standards as the foods created inside the EU with regards to residues inside. > then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported You can spray them with pesticides in an early stage, and don't have measurable residues in the end product. It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway? Also I'd argue that most consumers only care if it is contained in the final product.
  - clickety_clack 10mo ago
    In that case, why not allow European farmers to follow the same relaxed farming standards?
    - hermanzegerman 10mo ago
      Because these pesticides might be harmful for European workers, working on these farms, or the ecosystem surrounding it? Saying "Look we don't want any of these pesticides in the final product delivered to us" is easier in negotiations than forcing them to accept all EU Regulations regarding farming for Mercosur
      - like_any_other 10mo ago
        Well that's great for the EU consumer, but citizens have interests beyond those of mere consumers, and this doesn't help put their farmers on equal footing.
StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
That's simply wrong. The minimum limit for products ban in the EU but actually sold to Mercosur countries by Bayer is above zero. That's the heart of the French disagreement. The deal doesn't contain mirror close. We are allowing the Mercosur country to sell us products that would be banned in the EU.

LunaSea 10mo ago

> In Germany there is the saying "Why do farmers give their children always shoes to small? So their children learn crying young" Does that saying also apply to non-competitive car companies and solar panel makers?

like_any_other 10mo ago

> First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides. You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports. > Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income). "Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing/cap-expenditure_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing... Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation: "No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to" Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not. "It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?" I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.

hermanzegerman 10mo ago
No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to And the final goods are held to the same food safety standards as the foods created inside the EU with regards to residues inside. > then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported You can spray them with pesticides in an early stage, and don't have measurable residues in the end product. It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway? Also I'd argue that most consumers only care if it is contained in the final product.
- clickety_clack 10mo ago
  In that case, why not allow European farmers to follow the same relaxed farming standards?
  - hermanzegerman 10mo ago
    Because these pesticides might be harmful for European workers, working on these farms, or the ecosystem surrounding it? Saying "Look we don't want any of these pesticides in the final product delivered to us" is easier in negotiations than forcing them to accept all EU Regulations regarding farming for Mercosur
    - like_any_other 10mo ago
      Well that's great for the EU consumer, but citizens have interests beyond those of mere consumers, and this doesn't help put their farmers on equal footing.

StopDisinfo910 10mo ago

That's simply wrong. The minimum limit for products ban in the EU but actually sold to Mercosur countries by Bayer is above zero. That's the heart of the French disagreement. The deal doesn't contain mirror close. We are allowing the Mercosur country to sell us products that would be banned in the EU.