Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

It was done massively in the UK, there were many cases of prominent criticism of "EU regulations" that we'd either actively championed, or were optional and chosen to adopt, or that we had actually oped out of anyway.

View on HN

As an example, Boris Johnson infamously claimed in the runup to brexit that "Prawn Cocktail" flavour crisps were being banned by the EU. It turned out that the UK had simply forgotten to submit this flavour to the list of flavourings when it was being compiled. This error was quietly corrected (by the UK).[1]

[1] From the FT but here's a non-paywalled link https://archive.is/p4H9X

Why the hell is there a list of crisp flavors at the EU? What if I want to make and sell my own original one?

Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public?

Here's a classic for you, one of the early incidents which lead to this kind of regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning

Here's some more contemporary links:

https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/add...

https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/fla...

Which includes an answer to your question: "The procedure for authorisation of a flavouring substance is common to the one established for food additives and enzymes under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008."

The fact that something called "flavouring substance" is a thing makes me shake my head.

>Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public?

Are these the same regulators that allowed Olestra to be used? sidebar--just to check the spelling of Olestra, I used the Mac's force click dictionary access: "Origin 1980s: from (p)ol(y)est(e)r + the suffix -a." WTF? Seriously? We dropped some letters from polyester and called it food ingredient?

Yeah, sounds like some "regulations will save us" doesn't work as expected.

As I can't find when olestra products were sold in the EU, the answer seems to be “no”. Don't hesitate to prove me wrong though.

Sure, the EU definitely seems to be better about what it considers food. The United States of Greed definitely needs to do better. I'm constantly flabbergasted at what is considered edible and passes as food in the US. The fact that being required to put on the package the words "anal leakage" doesn't immediately stop someone from using it as an ingredient just shows how little corp food cares about what it puts into the "food products" it manufactures/sales.

>Here's a classic for you, one of the early incidents which lead to this kind of regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning

I don't see how said regulation would have helped in this case, the shop owner simply mistook fake sugar for arsenic, it's not like he decided to sell arsenic-flavored candies.

Correct. He was selling candies filled with (what he thought was) gypsum. Yum.

(He didn't mix up the sugar with arsenic. He mixed up the gypsum.)

>What if I want to make and sell my own original one?

Then you're free to do so if you aren't putting artificial sweeteners in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Directive_91/71/EEC

I'd say that there's two different styles of legislation here. AFAIK in the US (and maybe UK too) a producer can put whatever they want into their products but can be sued to death in case sth goes wrong. Most EU countries have a different flavor such that they try to tightly control products and their ingredients upfront. Imho both styles have their pros and cons.

Food in Europe > USA. Even the fast food.

Depends on where you go. You can eat better in NYC than in Vienna, and better in Barcelona than Pittsburgh.

Then there's Boris as London Mayor in 2014 decrying the UK government obstructing EU legislation to make lorries safer. Then 2018 Boris decrying the UK supposedly being held up waiting for EU regulations on lorry safety. All the while despite the fact there was nothing to stop the UK implementing rules on the same issues, which a later London Mayor ended up doing anyway.

I only skimmed the article but we (UK) have our own nearly identical GDPR.

So Italy's concerns might also apply to us, and every EU nation with EU GDPR.

BUT let's not kid ourselves there is huge pressure to stop OpenAI from techphobes to pearl-clutching techphiles and of course ruthless rivals who want a breather to catchup.

>> and of course ruthless rivals who want a breather to catchup

This was the bit i wondered about, there’s at least an incentive for this kind of jiggery pokery lobbying but little transparency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com