• Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yes I’m sure that decision isn’t a massive waste of tax money. I’m sure there aren’t more pressing matters at hand, like the rise of fascism, or the need to bolster Europe’s defences, or the rising cost of living. No forcing Quorn to rename their sausages to “retextured mycoprotein cylinders” or some nonsense is definitely top priority.

    • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Not only a waste of public money, but an unfair burden on ethical food producers who now need to replace all of their packaging and marketing materials at their own cost, while flesh-peddlers are burdened with no such expenses.

    • thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Firstly food regulation including provenance, naming and packaging is very much at the core of the EU - if it wasn’t the EU would already have a free trade deal with Australia (it’s literally the only sticking point).

      Secondly a parliament with hundreds of representatives can in fact (metaphorically) “walk and chew gum” at the same time. There is absolutely no reason there can’t be (and in fact there are) multiple committees looking at all sorts of things simultaneously.

      I wish I could say that they’re doing something about the rise of fascism (they’re not afaict) but the presence or absence of the food regulation committee won’t change that. They are at least bolstering European defences and increasing spending, I suspect we both would like them to be doing more and faster, but they are in fact working on it as well