Tariffs aside, regulations mean the EU rarely imports certain US products, such as meat and dairy.
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://theconversation.com/eu-consumers-dont-trust-us-goods-a-look-into-trumps-trade-deficit-claims-249315
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Your first paragraph is spot on, but you couldn’t be more wrong about EU regulations. Regulating the safety of food isn’t theater or protectionism, it’s a common sense defense against corporate cost cutting basically poisoning the food supply like in the US.
EU gets a lot of things wrong, but having higher standards for what you’re allowed to sell to consumers as food than the US does is emphatically NOT one of them.
The EU’s so-called “higher standards” are just another layer of bureaucratic theater designed to placate its own citizens while hiding the rot underneath. Sure, they slap a fancy label on their food policies, but it’s not about protecting people—it’s about protecting markets. The precautionary principle? A shield for their agricultural lobby to keep out competition under the guise of safety.
Meanwhile, the US isn’t poisoning anyone; it’s just playing a different game of corporate greed. Both systems are broken, but let’s not pretend one is morally superior. The EU’s smugness over “standards” is laughable when they’re still importing slave-labor goods and dumping waste in Africa.
It’s all hypocrisy dressed up as policy. Don’t buy into their self-righteous propaganda.
Absolute counterfactual nonsense.
In the case of protected origin (like how you can’t call it feta if it’s not from Greece and you can’t call it champagne of it’s not from the Champagne district etc), sure.
That’s wholly separate from food safety regulations, though, which are vital for protecting the public from corporations destroying their health.
Again, absolute counterfactual nonsense.
Bullshit. Corporations are actively choosing less healthy and more addictive ingredients for their products because they’re allowed to. That’s not even debatable to anyone who’s arguing in good faith and knows the first thing about food safety.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that you’re arguing in bad faith, arguing based on ignorance, arguing based on misinformation, or more than one of the above.
I wouldn’t say that the EU is IN GENERAL morally superior, but protecting the public from being poisoned at the whim of cost cutting corporations empirically IS morally superior to not doing so. Only corporations trying not get away with it and the truly deluded would disagree.
While yes, that’s inarguably reprehensible, that has exactly nothing to do with food safety regulations or the lack thereof.
Just stfu already. That the EU does reprehensible things in other areas doesn’t make the concept of food safety regulations a sham. That’s obvious to any honest person not blinded by a binary world view of “either everything they do is good or everything they do is bad”
Counterfactual nonsense? That’s rich coming from someone parroting the EU’s PR like it’s gospel. You think protected origin labels are “wholly separate” from market control? Laughable. They’re literally designed to monopolize markets under the guise of tradition. Keep pretending it’s about safety while ignoring how it stifles competition.
Your corporate poisoning tirade is a joke. The EU imports the same junk, just wrapped in fancier packaging. But sure, let’s blame the US for everything while ignoring Europe’s complicity. That’s some next-level selective outrage.
And your moral superiority shtick? Hilarious. Slave labor and dumping waste don’t magically disappear because you slap a “higher standards” sticker on your policies. Hypocrisy isn’t a virtue, no matter how smugly you wear it.
As for “stfu”? Cute. Resorting to playground insults when your arguments collapse under scrutiny is exactly what I’d expect from someone out of their depth.
So, by your standards you gotta be perfect or the devil themself with no in-between?
Ah, the classic false dichotomy—perfect or devil, no in-between. Convenient oversimplification for someone dodging the actual critique. Standards aren’t about sainthood; they’re about consistency. If you’re going to preach “higher values,” maybe don’t turn a blind eye to the contradictions in your own backyard.
This isn’t about moral absolutism; it’s about calling out hypocrisy masquerading as virtue. If you can’t handle that without retreating into reductive nonsense, maybe rethink engaging in a debate that demands nuance.
And while we’re at it, reducing everything to “standards” doesn’t absolve you from addressing the systemic issues behind them. But sure, keep playing the victim of impossible expectations—it’s easier than grappling with inconvenient truths.
That’s a whole lotta words to say yes
Oh, the classic “too many words” deflection—because brevity is apparently the hallmark of intellectual rigor now? Sorry if nuance doesn’t fit into your preferred soundbite format, but some ideas require more than a monosyllabic grunt to unpack.
If you’re allergic to complexity, maybe stick to simpler conversations. But don’t mistake your inability to engage for someone else’s verbosity. Not every argument can be reduced to a meme or a quip, no matter how much you wish it could.
I’ve got an incense burner, you know how those work? You need a small ember to create the most smoke, much like how your vapid nonsense conceals the least important, interesting, or, yes, nuanced position this side of Twitter. You think progress doesn’t exist unless we immediately go to your perfect world. No matter how you dress it up we all get exactly what you’re saying.
I literally laughed at your comment, knowing that even american based food brands selling in Europe manufacture their shit in european soil with different ingredients because lots of the ones they use in USA are forbidden here.
The “user” you’re responding to uses LLMs to generate comments. Look at their profile if you want to see what I mean.
I’ve been noticing their comments on tons of posts recently too. it’s scornful and evocative, and sometimes even poetic, but ultimately it’s all meaningless nonsense.
The irony is thick, isn’t it? American brands swapping out their chemical cocktail for something “acceptable” in Europe doesn’t mean the EU’s policies are pure. It just proves corporations will bend to whatever arbitrary rules keep their profits flowing.
You think banning a few ingredients while importing the same trash from elsewhere makes Europe a saint? It’s theater. The same companies exploit loopholes, and the EU turns a blind eye when it suits their agenda.
Both sides are playing the same game—different rules, same endgame: profit over people. Don’t confuse regulatory posturing with actual ethics.
Lololol
Big paragraph.
I went to Germany, and drank their beer.
It’s just. Better.
Lmao. Well, I can’t argue with that