open iwww.open-i.ca |
Smuggled Garlic |
For email notice of new copy contact open i .
Author's
comments
Note to Editors: While the information on
this website is copyrighted, you are welcome to use it as is
provided that you quote the source and notify the author. Caution: Be warned Opinion and Analysis like fresh fish and house guests begins to smell after a few days. Always take note of the date of any opinion or analysis. If you want an update on anything that has been be covered by the open i, contact the author . Opinion & Analysis: Opinion without analysis or reasoning and Analysis without opinion or conclusion are equally useless. So Opinion and Analysis are a continuum. Copy that puts emphasis on and quantifies reasoning is identified as Analysis. In the interest of readability the presentation of analytical elements may be abridged. If you require more than is presented, contact the author. Retro Editing: It is my policy generally not to edit material after it has been published. What represents fair comment for the time will be kept, even if subsequent events change the situation. Understanding the wisdom of the time is of value. Struck-out text may be used to indicate changed situations. Contact the author for explanations. The body of the text of anything that proves to be embarrassingly fallacious will be deleted, but the summary will be retained with comment as to why the deletion has occurred. This will act as a reminder to the author to be more careful. Contact:David Walker Edmonton, AB Canada phone: +01 780 434 7615 email: davidw@open-i.ca top of page |
While media attention is firmly focussed on financial woes in southern Europe, the European Commission, the European Union's administration in Brussels, and its Anti-Fraud Office has been busy taking care of some long delayed business on its northern flank. The EU has fined a member state, the UK, whose custom agents allowed 25,000 tonnes of fresh garlic imported from China to be declared as frozen product, thereby depriving the commission of the equivalent of $32 million. This is likely loose change in any commission budget. Further there might have been considered to be some advantage to this development if it had lead to an enhanced appreciation of this aromatic herb in the rather base cuisine on the north shore of the English Channel. The expectation there being that taste for the authentic French product would soon follow. The reality, however, was that 25,000 tonnes was equivalent to about a pound weight for every man, women and child in the UK at the time. This surely is more than the most diehard garlic enthusiast could have hoped of the meat and potatoes UK market. The implication of this was, possibly, that this fake product was finding its way across the English Channel and adulterating mainland European garlic supplies. And that would have been unforgivable. Once inside the EU borders its movement may not have contravened any EU statute but it was surely beyond the spirit of the common market. It is, therefore, not surprising that the European Commission has given the UK just two months to make good the loss to its budget resulting from the original deception, threatening to pass the matter onto the European Court of Justice if the response is not favourable. And was financial gain enough of an incentive for the Brits to do this? And here the timing might provide a clue. All this happened in 2005-06, pretty soon after the French had excluded British beef on the pretext that it was less healthy than the French product. Revenge is sweet, so it might seem. But only about a year ago the European Anti-Fraud Office "with the close cooperation of Polish police and customs authorities" intercepted six containers of smuggled fresh garlic disguised as onions. This garlic had a history having been shipped from China via Rotterdam. David Walker top of page Maintained by:David Walker . Copyright © 2011 David Walker. Copyright & Disclaimer Information. Last Revised/Reviewed: 111206 |