>The blame is put squarely on Europe but do these countries that import have no responsibility for themselves?
Poorer countries are a lot more vulnerable that richer ones. It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank for lacking personal responsibility for his food poisoning.
It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank for lacking personal responsibility for his food poisoning.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think this is a bad example: presumably, the rotten food is no one's fault. Someone gets sick, there's uproar, rules and regulations are put in place, and next thing you know it's difficult or restrictive to even provide food at a food bank. Everyone is worse off. This isn't a stretch, we see it all the time.
No, the difference is these countries are aware that the pesticide is banned in Europe. Last I checked they don't have a label saying "food poisoning" at food banks.
Ok, let me rephrase my example. If you wouldn't sell poison to your own people, why would you in good conscience sell poison to others who are "OK" with it?
We allow people to poison themselves with narcotics. We are legalizing this more and more knowing it's poison. The argument is people can make their own determination --but here the argument is whole countries can't make a determination?
We, the US, allow things to be imported to the US which are banned in The EU too. We ban but sell to them things they don't ban. It's up to each jurisdiction to make their own determination. All countries have access to the toxicity information on things they import and can do what they want with that information.
I don't think using the US as an example here is very strong for your position. The US has fewer restrictions than the EU for exactly the same reason the EU sells poisonous shit to poorer countries: there's a lot of money to be made that way.
It’s more like your average lower income family eats more fast food than average high income families
We could ban fast food because it increases cancer risk and say the poor people don’t understand the risk so we need to save them from themselves. Meanwhile they just lost their main source of low cost food.
Europe is more stringent about sunscreens too. They publish these standards. Each country has to set its own standards, and there are plenty to follow if they want a starting point...
If exporting said pesticide was banned, people would be blaming EU for famine instead. Regarding your example, I have a concrete counterexample: Companies are already receiving blame for throwing expired food in the trash compactor instead of donating it to food banks.
You know why throwing away even good food is preferable to donating it? Because if you throw it away you just account for it as a loss, but if you donate it you still owe the government the VAT just like if you sold it.
I know it's how it works in Portugal and I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of some EU tax directive that it's like that. There are some exceptions, ofcourse.
That's surprising! So say I buy a bunch of produce from a farmer for my shop in Portugal. In the case where I sell it I'd expect to pay VAT on my margin. But how would my accounting differ between putting it in trash bags and putting it in a box labeled "free"?
Comments
>The blame is put squarely on Europe but do these countries that import have no responsibility for themselves?
Poorer countries are a lot more vulnerable that richer ones. It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank for lacking personal responsibility for his food poisoning.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think this is a bad example: presumably, the rotten food is no one's fault. Someone gets sick, there's uproar, rules and regulations are put in place, and next thing you know it's difficult or restrictive to even provide food at a food bank. Everyone is worse off. This isn't a stretch, we see it all the time.
No, the difference is these countries are aware that the pesticide is banned in Europe. Last I checked they don't have a label saying "food poisoning" at food banks.
Ok, let me rephrase my example. If you wouldn't sell poison to your own people, why would you in good conscience sell poison to others who are "OK" with it?
We allow people to poison themselves with narcotics. We are legalizing this more and more knowing it's poison. The argument is people can make their own determination --but here the argument is whole countries can't make a determination?
We, the US, allow things to be imported to the US which are banned in The EU too. We ban but sell to them things they don't ban. It's up to each jurisdiction to make their own determination. All countries have access to the toxicity information on things they import and can do what they want with that information.
I don't think using the US as an example here is very strong for your position. The US has fewer restrictions than the EU for exactly the same reason the EU sells poisonous shit to poorer countries: there's a lot of money to be made that way.
Bad analogy.
It’s more like your average lower income family eats more fast food than average high income families
We could ban fast food because it increases cancer risk and say the poor people don’t understand the risk so we need to save them from themselves. Meanwhile they just lost their main source of low cost food.
I don't think these companies are donating Chlorpyrifos, so this analogy is not quite right.
Europe is more stringent about sunscreens too. They publish these standards. Each country has to set its own standards, and there are plenty to follow if they want a starting point...
If exporting said pesticide was banned, people would be blaming EU for famine instead. Regarding your example, I have a concrete counterexample: Companies are already receiving blame for throwing expired food in the trash compactor instead of donating it to food banks.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You know why throwing away even good food is preferable to donating it? Because if you throw it away you just account for it as a loss, but if you donate it you still owe the government the VAT just like if you sold it.
I'm sure this is not how VAT works where I live. You only owe tax on the value you added. If you give it away, value added is zero. It's in the name!
I know it's how it works in Portugal and I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of some EU tax directive that it's like that. There are some exceptions, ofcourse.
That's surprising! So say I buy a bunch of produce from a farmer for my shop in Portugal. In the case where I sell it I'd expect to pay VAT on my margin. But how would my accounting differ between putting it in trash bags and putting it in a box labeled "free"?