There are thousands of European standards. There are the important ones, the essential ones, even the vital ones and the others... Most of the time these initiatives start from a good intention, but they sometimes border on the ridiculous like the one which legislates on the rectangular shape that a package must have. of cigarettes or even the ban on having the slightest piece of tomato skin in a can of tomato coulis, including the obligation to have
“transparent doors that do not slide”
on your premises. construction site.
For a long time now, Europeans have complained that the EU generates too much
“administrative hassle”
. In 2017, Senator Jean Bizet warned in an information report:
“If we want a Europe closer to citizens, European legislation must also respond to real needs”
and add to the necessary simplification of European law.
“We want a Europe refocused on the essentials. We must therefore refuse useless texts through which the European Union drifts towards a bureaucratic temptation,”
he added.
What remains of this note? A few months before the European elections,
Le Figaro
returns to these standards still in force which can be perceived as disconnected from reality.
“Organized racket”
It must have been a market day like any other for these Marseille fishmongers, located in the Old Port. But, on June 14, 2018, these maritime professionals were fined, between 400 and 1,500 euros, for
“deceptive commercial practice”
by the Departmental Directorates of Territories and the Sea, Population Protection (DDPP) and DREETS (Regional Directorate of the Economy, Employment, Labor and Solidarity), for not having displayed the Latin name of the fish they were selling. The surprise was total. Annoyance too.
The fact remains that since the adoption, in December 2013, of European Regulation No. 1379/2013, a binding legal act, fishmongers are now supposed to know all the Latin names of their merchandise like the back of their hand to display them in the face of their customers. A particular European requirement. But not without justification.
This specific regulation, which seeks above all to establish rules for the common organization of fisheries markets, also aims to strengthen transparency and information for consumers. In fact, it is mentioned, in article 38, that traders must
“contribute to the traceability of fishery products and access to clear and complete information for consumers”
by indicating
“the commercial name of the product”. 'species and its scientific name'
,
de facto
in Latin.
It's doing checks for bullshit. There is excessive sanction from intransigent agents.
Pierre-Luc Daubigney, general secretary of OPEF
“Scientific names in Latin are internationally recognized and understandable by scientists and professionals around the world, regardless of native language,”
explains the European Commission to Le
Figaro.
In summary, the use of Latin names would help ensure clear and precise communication.
A regulation, which in fact, looks more like an
“organized racket”
, according to Pierre-Luc Daubigney, secretary general of the Organization of Scaled Fishmongers of France (OPEF).
“It’s doing checks for bullshit. There is excessive punishment from intransigent agents
,” he is indignant. According to OPEF, several checks per year or even per month take place, depending on the region, generating considerable
“pressure”
on professionals who must update their labels very regularly. To help fishmongers, the federation even called on a member of the National Museum of Natural History to keep a table up to date with the names of all fish species in Latin.
Food waste
This example is far from being an isolated case since each year between 1500 and 2000 standards are adopted by the European Union with the aim of
“protecting public health, consumer safety and the environment”
. For many years, the European Union had strict regulations governing the size, shape and appearance of marketed fruits and vegetables. This led to significant food waste, as many perfectly edible but
“imperfect”
products were rejected by retailers. These standards were relaxed in 2009.
However, standards for bananas still exist. Indeed, according to regulation 1333/2011 of December 19, 2011, bananas must measure 14 cm and be 2.7 cm wide. They must also be
“free from malformations and abnormal curvature”
. Degrees of tolerance are nevertheless allowed
“in terms of quality and size”
in each delivery crate as long as 90% of the bananas are compliant. If this is not the case, the entire cargo is thrown away.
This regulation was seen by many as excessive regulation that has little to do with food safety. On the side of the European Union, we insist on the relaxation of these standards by highlighting
“increasing awareness”
of food waste.
Simplifying European legislation
Other regulations may be seen as particularly counterintuitive. This is the case of Regulation 1170/2011, which prohibits mineral water manufacturers from writing on their bottles that
“regular consumption of water can reduce the risk of dehydration”.
The genesis of this standard starts from a question that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an agency affiliated with the European Commission, will ask itself: does water
“effectively prevent dehydration”
?
The EFSA then published a scientific opinion in 2011 which concluded that, although water consumption plays an essential role in maintaining hydration, there was insufficient scientific evidence to support this claim. Shortly afterwards, the European Commission adopted the regulation and set this ban in stone. For some, this standard is interpreted as a simple denial that dehydration can be prevented by drinking water.
For the European Union, the truth is more nuanced.
“EFSA's intention was to emphasize the need for precise, evidence-based formulation rather than contesting the role of water in hydration,”
we are told. In any case, it is difficult to know whether this standard served more to inform consumers or to penalize manufacturers.
The European Commission, however, remains aware of this excess of standards. In May 2015, the
“Better regulation”
program was implemented. A group of experts is tasked with examining whether existing laws can effectively achieve their goals if they help, not hinder, citizens and businesses.
In nine years, the platform has made several hundred suggestions to the Commission to withdraw draft texts. A figure still too low to have an impact on the 2000 standards adopted each year since 2015.