Who is in and who is out?

[paulm]

I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.

Very interesting Chas and continues the background story of large corporate and other vested interests lobbying for and achieving changes and regulations to protect and further their own interests at the expense of smaller independents and individuals, such as the recent rules on vacuum cleaner power and soon to be extended to other domestic appliances.

Always dressed up though with a fig leaf of moral or green or other self serving justification !

Was there not a similar situation a while ago with regard to horticulture and testing and registration of different plant seeds resulting in many traditional heritage varieties of vegetables and similar being lost due to the excessive, unreasonable and uneconomic requirements forced on them to become licensed and permitted ? Maybe it was all UK self inflicted though, I stand to be corrected as I can't recall the details.

What else is in the pipeline in similar vein I wonder ?

 

[RobinBHM]

I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.

Even making for a big allowance for the commercial bias, it makes for fascinating if scary reading.

Regulations such as these stop small companies being able to compete. It means the consumer has ever less and less choice as the market becomes more and more dominated by large organisations.

And what is the EU......a large, very very large organisation.

 

[Jake]

92% of businesses.

ONS estimates that 89.2% of all businesses do not export at all.

 

[Jake]

Even making for a big allowance for the commercial bias, it makes for fascinating if scary reading.

Regulations such as these stop small companies being able to compete. It means the consumer has ever less and less choice as the market becomes more and more dominated by large organisations.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/09 ... e-law.html

 

[Rhossydd]

Some on here do, regularly, look at Rhossydd's recent thread on Yandles and other nonsense on here !

Nothing made up, but if you don't like supportive posts of good businesses that have gone through some trying times.........

 

[Jake]

Was there not a similar situation a while ago with regard to horticulture and testing and registration of different plant seeds resulting in many traditional heritage varieties of vegetables and similar being lost due to the excessive, unreasonable and uneconomic requirements forced on them to become licensed and permitted ? Maybe it was all UK self inflicted though, I stand to be corrected as I can't recall the details.

That was the Commission getting it all wrong. it got nixed by the European Parliament.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... regulation

And then dropped

https://www.euroseeds.eu/commission-wit ... u-seed-law

 

[Phil Pascoe]

92% of businesses.

ONS estimates that 89.2% of all businesses do not export at all.

That ties up - I've read 92% and 86%.

 

[Jake]

92% of businesses.

ONS estimates that 89.2% of all businesses do not export at all.

That ties up - I've read 92% and 86%.

86% is probably from the same data - adding up exporters of both goods and services individually gives a figure of around 15% of businesses, but the ONS de-duplicates for the businesses that export both good and services to get to 10.8% of businesses which export (at all). So seems likely someone has been a bit careless or is seeking to exaggerate the 3% into a 6%. Either way, it is a long, long way shy of 92%!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Was there not a similar situation a while ago with regard to horticulture and testing and registration of different plant seeds resulting in many traditional heritage varieties of vegetables and similar being lost due to the excessive, unreasonable and uneconomic requirements forced on them to become licensed and permitted ? Maybe it was all UK self inflicted though, I stand to be corrected as I can't recall the details.

That was the Commission getting it all wrong. it got nixed by the European Parliament.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/n ... regulation

And then dropped

https://www.euroseeds.eu/commission-wit ... u-seed-law

I think the regulation Paul was referring to was one passed some years ago requiring all seeds sold commercially to be trialled and entered on a National List. That was fine for seeds sold in 'normal commercial' quantities (most nurserymen would trial new varieties as a matter of course before commercial release, though the additional cost of adding the variety to the National List probably wasn't particularly welcome). However, there was at least one small company selling heritage varieties of vegetable seeds in very small quantities, but a great number of varieties; the regulation killed their business. The point that the varieties were of great age and therefore 'proven' didn't fit the new regulation.

It was probably inadvertent on the part of the EU, but it nonetheless killed a small business, with no increase at all in safety of the public or environment. To get round the problem, a seed library was set up under the auspices of Garden Organic ( http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/hsl ), so members can still swap seeds. However, the general public can't just buy a packet or two of obscure Victorian varieties as they used to be able to.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Actually, just to pick up on CHJ's post, and extend the seed example above - why do these things need to be regulated? If something is proven to do harm, by all means ban it for the common good. However, if it does no harm, why does it need regulating?

Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.

Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is - but that's the mentality of the people who think everything needs regulating. Alternative health products and heritage seeds today, unusual hand tools tomorrow - then what? Do we really want to live in a sanitised world were only items deemed approved by a remote, unaccountable committee somewhere in Brussels are permitted?

Think about it.

 

[Jake]

I think the regulation Paul was referring to was one passed some years ago requiring all seeds sold commercially to be trialled and entered on a National List. That was fine for seeds sold in 'normal commercial' quantities (most nurserymen would trial new varieties as a matter of course before commercial release, though the additional cost of adding the variety to the National List probably wasn't particularly welcome). However, there was at least one small company selling heritage varieties of vegetable seeds in very small quantities, but a great number of varieties; the regulation killed their business. The point that the varieties were of great age and therefore 'proven' didn't fit the new regulation.

Ah OK fair enough. Would be interesting to know if that was Whitehall doing its regrettable habit of gold-plating, but it does sound heavy handed.

I guess the commercial point of regulating it will be the equivalent of IP for seed producers, but there ought to be exceptions for things which are long outside of the IP-equivalent.

Heritage seed people I have sympathy with. Quacks who sell dying people fake cancer treatments I hope get regulated out of existence by someone.

 

[Jake]

Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.

Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is.

I agree with that too. Especially the last bit. There's nothing like taking a concept and running into the distance with it!

 

[Jake]

I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.

Article 44

1. [irrelevant snip]

2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:

(a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);

(b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.

3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:

(a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;

(b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.

That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)

 

[RogerS]

If you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.

Chas..many thanks for posting this. It has helped me make up my mind.

Out!

 

[RogerS]

I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.

Interesting indeed. The objection seems to be that quackery is not allowed. Quacks for Brexit!

Absolutely... I mean to say ...all that ayurvedic medicine that's been practised in India for centuries, that's quackery and must be banned. Might as well ban yoga as well...codswallop. Pilates? Ban that too. EU - way to go.

God, I'm beginning to sound like Jacob !

 

[RogerS]

Actually, just to pick up on CHJ's post, and extend the seed example above - why do these things need to be regulated? If something is proven to do harm, by all means ban it for the common good. However, if it does no harm, why does it need regulating?

Let's imagine that regulations are put in place to List approved woodworking hand tools. Tools can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so regulation might save somebody from injury. A rare late 18th century Kenyon handsaw comes to light, and is offered for sale - obviously there would be interest from collectors. However, that particular design of saw is not entered on the National List, so selling it would be illegal. The authorities step in, confiscate the saw and scrap it to ensure public safety.

Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is - but that's the mentality of the people who think everything needs regulating. Alternative health products and heritage seeds today, unusual hand tools tomorrow - then what? Do we really want to live in a sanitised world were only items deemed approved by a remote, unaccountable committee somewhere in Brussels are permitted?

Think about it.

Exactly my point from way, way back.

The EU dogma - 'Thou canst only do what we say you can do'

The Uk approach - 'Thou canst do whatever you like unless we say you can't'

 

[RogerS]

I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.

Article 44

1. [irrelevant snip]

2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:

(a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);

(b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.

3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:

(a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;

(b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.

That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)

Even if Whitehall over-egged things, why did the EU bother to legislate this in the first place? Heavy-handed and unnecessary and typical of the EU's mentality.

Where are we now? On Friday, 6th March 2015, Garden Organic learned that the current EU Seed Regulation legislation has been withdrawn, this was confirmed the following day when the official notification was posted on the EU official journal.

But someone hasn't alerted Defra https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-marketi ... -varieties

On digging a bit further, Jake is spot-on and Defra have done their usual 'Let's screw things up again'. If you look at the relevant page on the Defra site, it says..

If you want to market the seeds of the main varieties of agricultural crops or vegetables in England and Wales, you must:

have a licence for your business to market seed
have successfully applied to have your seeds certified - this shows that they meet EU quality standards

They then go on to provide a list. But this list is not varietal specific but generic. Take, for example, the carrot, Daucus carota L. That is the generic for a carrot. Which means that if you have a heritage variety - if it's a carrot - then it needs to be registered etc and tested etc - otherwise you can't market it. But if the EU hadn't introduced this in the first place then there is a good chance that Defra would not either.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I think this must be the relevant bit of the earlier seed directive re national lists and heritage varieties.

Article 44

1. [irrelevant snip]

2. Specific conditions shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 46(2) to take account of developments in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing of seed of:

(a) landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and threatened by genetic erosion without prejudice to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(8);

(b) varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions.

3. The specific conditions referred to in paragraph 2 shall include in particular the following points:

(a) in the case of paragraph 2, point (a), the landraces and varieties shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. In particular the results of unofficial tests and knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use and the detailed descriptions of the varieties and their relevant denominations, as notified to the Member State concerned, shall be taken into account and, if sufficient, shall result in exemption from the requirement of official examination. Upon acceptance of such a landrace or variety, it shall be indicated as a "conservation variety" in the common catalogue;

(b) in the case of paragraph 2, points (a) and (b), appropriate quantitative restrictions.

That seems to like a right to have an exemption for heritage varieties to me. The next step would be to check what Whitehall then made of it (they often over-egg things, and we aren't getting rid of them in a hurry!)

Jake - try reading it. In order to exempt a variety from Listing, somebody still has to put together a load of documentation (for each variety) proving it's heritage, describing it exactly, recording practical experience of it's cultivation - that's a lot of work. It's just bureaucracy for no real benefit.

You may also care to re-read CHJ's link - http://www.thefinchleyclinic.com/PHPLis ... upplements - particularly the bits lower down about the EU Clinical Trials Directive and subsequently. This looks very much like a rather more serious restriction of freedom to me, and it's a good indication of what I was trying to say - heritage seeds and woodworking hand tools today, restricting the ability of doctors in the NHS to carry out clinical trials without needing the direct involvement of big pharmaceutical companies the next - and other serious problems. Who, exactly, does that benefit?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I you make due allowance for the fact that there is a commercial reason for this company highlighting some of the facts relating to the NHS there are some in depth facts that are worth a consideration.

Interesting indeed. The objection seems to be that quackery is not allowed. Quacks for Brexit!

Absolutely... I mean to say ...all that ayurvedic medicine that's been practised in India for centuries, that's quackery and must be banned. Might as well ban yoga as well...codswallop. Pilates? Ban that too. EU - way to go.

God, I'm beginning to sound like Jacob !

Naahh ... impossible ...
Anyway, I dare say ayurvedic medicine would be banned if it were sold as "curing cancer". It's the misselling that's a no no, not so much the product. http://www.thefinchleyclinic.com/PHPLis ... upplements was probably a poor example to make to make a good point.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Irrespective of who wins, it's time to be realistic about laws - maybe every time a new one is brought in regardless of from where it came it should be law that two laws are scrapped? The statute books are full of archaic laws that have never been repealed, to start with.