- Messages
- 35
- Location
- USA
Ah, he's just young and idealistic. There is the letter of the law and on legalistic grounds he's right. However, the law is proving impractical and unenforceable, at least in part.
Dave Q said:Having read all the posts the OP comes across as rather smug and little bit sad. The kind of person who'll rat out another person because they disagree with his point of view (and I imagine he has reported said vendors).
chris.hale said:Fine, awareness has been raised. I'm still going to buy the soaps while they're available.
I don't think Burgundy and I are going to see eye to eye on this one, so I'll bow out here.
Correct Norway isn't in the EU, but has signed up to a trade treaty that means they participate in everything that the EU does (free movement of labour, capital, goods etc - and to do that has to abide by all the relevant EU directives) pays handsomely for the privilege and has zero say on the future direction of travel.pjgh said:Norway is not in the EU, but Europe and Scandinavia (the rest of which is in the EU) was no doubt their natural market and so for Fitjar, the most effective route would no doubt have been to have the soap verified themselves for the EU market. I guess that cost (and effort) outweighed the worth.
If Fitjar had taken the stance of US "artisans" (are they artisans, or just soap makers because I've had some right crap from the US) and left the hassle and cost of these regulations to be dealt with by an importer, the outcome might well have been different. With Europe being their primary market, I think that's the difference - US soap makers have a domestic market and simply will not care about Europe or its regulations; their attitude being that importers can fathom that for their own markets or folks can buy direct.