Irish court rules Subway bread is not bread

[harmonica]

I DENOUNCE Subway

 

[norwegen]

I DENOUNCE Subway

I denounce Dublin.

 

[NoNukes]

Subway bread is not bread, Irish court rules

Judge finds that sugar content of US chain’s sandwiches exceeds stipulated limit and they should thus be classified as confectionery

www.theguardian.com

Too much sugar in it apparently.
5 times the legal limit.
Thats a bit naughty. They sell it as a healthy snack food.

So much for free health care you lying idiots

What does healthcare have to do with Subway bread? I live in Ireland and we have excellent health care.

 

[Blues Man]

Subway bread is not bread, Irish court rules

Judge finds that sugar content of US chain’s sandwiches exceeds stipulated limit and they should thus be classified as confectionery

www.theguardian.com

Too much sugar in it apparently.
5 times the legal limit.
Thats a bit naughty. They sell it as a healthy snack food.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

 

[Blues Man]

Reminds me of an insane ruling by our own Supreme Court here in the U.S., that ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

Same general madness —a ruling based on absurd regulatory criteria rather than on objective fact.

Ketchup makers in the US are limited on the amount of sugar they can put in their products. I thought that was bad enough - that government is telling people how to make their goods.

I didn't read the OP's link, but if the Irish government is telling Subway to change their recipe (and apparently they are), then they're just as bad as the US.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

If Subway thinks their bread is bread, and if their customers think their bread is bread, too, then why does Dublin think it can come and tell them any different? Does that country have a standardized definition for bread?

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would.

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

it's not cake.

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Subway bread is not bread, Irish court rules

Judge finds that sugar content of US chain’s sandwiches exceeds stipulated limit and they should thus be classified as confectionery

www.theguardian.com

Too much sugar in it apparently.
5 times the legal limit.
Thats a bit naughty. They sell it as a healthy snack food.

So much for free health care you lying idiots

What does healthcare have to do with Subway bread? I live in Ireland and we have excellent health care.

But nowhere near as good as in the UK and I was born in Dublin.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

You know what happened when Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake!" - all hell broke loose.

 

[NoNukes]

Subway bread is not bread, Irish court rules

Judge finds that sugar content of US chain’s sandwiches exceeds stipulated limit and they should thus be classified as confectionery

www.theguardian.com

Too much sugar in it apparently.
5 times the legal limit.
Thats a bit naughty. They sell it as a healthy snack food.

So much for free health care you lying idiots

What does healthcare have to do with Subway bread? I live in Ireland and we have excellent health care.

But nowhere near as good as in the UK and I was born in Dublin.

Well, today I have good healthcare.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Reminds me of an insane ruling by our own Supreme Court here in the U.S., that ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

Same general madness —a ruling based on absurd regulatory criteria rather than on objective fact.

Ketchup makers in the US are limited on the amount of sugar they can put in their products. I thought that was bad enough - that government is telling people how to make their goods.

I didn't read the OP's link, but if the Irish government is telling Subway to change their recipe (and apparently they are), then they're just as bad as the US.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

If Subway thinks their bread is bread, and if their customers think their bread is bread, too, then why does Dublin think it can come and tell them any different? Does that country have a standardized definition for bread?

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would.

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

I just edited my post, apparently while you were typing this one.

"More informed choices." Okay, take some of the sugar out of the bread and put it in the lettuce.

People want what they want.

I dont have a problem with that. We all eat and drink stuff that we shouldnt. But we should also be aware of the risks involved.

 

[norwegen]

Reminds me of an insane ruling by our own Supreme Court here in the U.S., that ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

Same general madness —a ruling based on absurd regulatory criteria rather than on objective fact.

Ketchup makers in the US are limited on the amount of sugar they can put in their products. I thought that was bad enough - that government is telling people how to make their goods.

I didn't read the OP's link, but if the Irish government is telling Subway to change their recipe (and apparently they are), then they're just as bad as the US.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

If Subway thinks their bread is bread, and if their customers think their bread is bread, too, then why does Dublin think it can come and tell them any different? Does that country have a standardized definition for bread?

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would.

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

I just edited my post, apparently while you were typing this one.

"More informed choices." Okay, take some of the sugar out of the bread and put it in the lettuce.

People want what they want.

I dont have a problem with that. We all eat and drink stuff that we shouldnt. But we should also be aware of the risks involved.

People can be aware, if they want to be, without government making them so.

You Europeans love your big brother, I know. Just like lefties everywhere.

 

[martybegan]

Subway bread is not bread, Irish court rules

Judge finds that sugar content of US chain’s sandwiches exceeds stipulated limit and they should thus be classified as confectionery

www.theguardian.com

Too much sugar in it apparently.
5 times the legal limit.
Thats a bit naughty. They sell it as a healthy snack food.

So Irish soda bread is also not bread? That stuff has a ton of sugar in it.

 

[martybegan]

If they can call this bread, anything qualifies...

View attachment 395943

I grew up on that stuff, it's not great for cold cuts (rye works better) but for PB&J any other bread simply doesn't work.

 

[Likkmee]

I had Subway 2-3 times when I was drunk....back in the eighties

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Subway is trying to be exempt from the VAT tax, they are making shit up saying it's not bread to much sugar in it.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Tastes like cancer. But, it's still bread. A combination of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sugar.

Not in Ireland.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

Okay, I read the link. Ireland imposes a VAT (surprise, surprise - a European country), and has defined bread as having sugar of 2% or less weight than flour, and now wants to start taxing Subway more heavily.

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would, but at any rate, I hope instead of paying the extra tax, they just change their menu to say "confectionery" instead of "bread."

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

Ultimately, it seems to get down to the same logic that was behind our own infamous Nix v. Hedden case here in the U.S., where our Supreme Court ruled that a tomato is not a fruit, based on the desire of government to tax and regulate it less favorably as a “vegetable” than as a fruit. As a matter of undeniable, objective, scientific fact, a tomato is, in fact, a fruit; and it was insane to allow or accept our high court, or any other part of government, to attempt to dictate otherwise. About like allowing government the authority to dictate that two plus two equals ten.

I just spent some minutes wandering through various Wikipedia articles, to get some idea of what is and is not bread. Nothing that I saw in any of them supports any idea that to qualify as “bread” a product must have less than any arbitrary amount of sugar in it. In fact, as far as what unquestionably constitutes bread, there is a much wider range of various types, distinguished by far more characteristics of far more significance, than how much sugar they contain. Things that clear;y constitute bread range from the sort of yeast-leavened bread under discussion here, to various forms of other grain-based preparations from various type of unleavened flatbreads, (of which the most familiar to us Americans are Mexican-type tortillas (not to be confused with Spanish tortillas, which are something totally different than what we associate with the word)), to products that are leavened by methods other than years, including chemical leavening (such as baking soda or baking powder) or even steam-leavened, such as popovers and yorkshire puddings.

Though none of my Wikiwandering really said o, it seems clear to me that such things as cookies and cakes and crackers are really forms of bread as well. Given the wide variety of things that clearly are bread, it seems impossible to come up with any rational basis for denying that cookies/crackers/cake qualify as bread.


In any case, various forms of bread have been made and consumed for nearly all of known human history, in nearly all cultures and societies, since long before anything recognizable as Ireland's present government or any prototype thereof existed. I have to say that it is factually incorrect for the Irish government to presume to dictate that something is not bread, that thousands of years of human history have already determined otherwise.

There seems to be some underlying premise that Ireland's government is doing this out of concern for the health of its people. To that, I have to call bullshit. Ireland's government is doing this as an excuse to fleece it's people in higher taxes, on a blatantly false premise—in other words, to engage in fraud. This is the sort of skulduggery for which any entity other than government would be criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

 

[Blues Man]

Subway is trying to be exempt from the VAT tax, they are making shit up saying it's not bread to much sugar in it.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Tastes like cancer. But, it's still bread. A combination of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sugar.

Not in Ireland.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

Okay, I read the link. Ireland imposes a VAT (surprise, surprise - a European country), and has defined bread as having sugar of 2% or less weight than flour, and now wants to start taxing Subway more heavily.

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would, but at any rate, I hope instead of paying the extra tax, they just change their menu to say "confectionery" instead of "bread."

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

Ultimately, it seems to get down to the same logic that was behind our own infamous Nix v. Hedden case here in the U.S., where our Supreme Court ruled that a tomato is not a fruit, based on the desire of government to tax and regulate it less favorably as a “vegetable” than as a fruit. As a matter of undeniable, objective, scientific fact, a tomato is, in fact, a fruit; and it was insane to allow or accept our high court, or any other part of government, to attempt to dictate otherwise. About like allowing government the authority to dictate that two plus two equals ten.

I just spent some minutes wandering through various Wikipedia articles, to get some idea of what is and is not bread. Nothing that I saw in any of them supports any idea that to qualify as “bread” a product must have less than any arbitrary amount of sugar in it. In fact, as far as what unquestionably constitutes bread, there is a much wider range of various types, distinguished by far more characteristics of far more significance, than how much sugar they contain. Things that clear;y constitute bread range from the sort of yeast-leavened bread under discussion here, to various forms of other grain-based preparations from various type of unleavened flatbreads, (of which the most familiar to us Americans are Mexican-type tortillas (not to be confused with Spanish tortillas, which are something totally different than what we associate with the word)), to products that are leavened by methods other than years, including chemical leavening (such as baking soda or baking powder) or even steam-leavened, such as popovers and yorkshire puddings.

Though none of my Wikiwandering really said o, it seems clear to me that such things as cookies and cakes and crackers are really forms of bread as well. Given the wide variety of things that clearly are bread, it seems impossible to come up with any rational basis for denying that cookies/crackers/cake qualify as bread.


In any case, various forms of bread have been made and consumed for nearly all of known human history, in nearly all cultures and societies, since long before anything recognizable as Ireland's present government or any prototype thereof existed. I have to say that it is factually incorrect for the Irish government to presume to dictate that something is not bread, that thousands of years of human history have already determined otherwise.

There seems to be some underlying premise that Ireland's government is doing this out of concern for the health of its people. To that, I have to call bullshit. Ireland's government is doing this as an excuse to fleece it's people in higher taxes, on a blatantly false premise—in other words, to engage in fraud. This is the sort of skulduggery for which any entity other than government would be criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Wow you sure have a lot of time on your hands today

Thanks for the info. I would have never gone through the trouble

 

[Correll]

Subway is trying to be exempt from the VAT tax, they are making shit up saying it's not bread to much sugar in it.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Tastes like cancer. But, it's still bread. A combination of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sugar.

Not in Ireland.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

Okay, I read the link. Ireland imposes a VAT (surprise, surprise - a European country), and has defined bread as having sugar of 2% or less weight than flour, and now wants to start taxing Subway more heavily.

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would, but at any rate, I hope instead of paying the extra tax, they just change their menu to say "confectionery" instead of "bread."

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

Ultimately, it seems to get down to the same logic that was behind our own infamous Nix v. Hedden case here in the U.S., where our Supreme Court ruled that a tomato is not a fruit, based on the desire of government to tax and regulate it less favorably as a “vegetable” than as a fruit. As a matter of undeniable, objective, scientific fact, a tomato is, in fact, a fruit; and it was insane to allow or accept our high court, or any other part of government, to attempt to dictate otherwise. About like allowing government the authority to dictate that two plus two equals ten.

I just spent some minutes wandering through various Wikipedia articles, to get some idea of what is and is not bread. Nothing that I saw in any of them supports any idea that to qualify as “bread” a product must have less than any arbitrary amount of sugar in it. In fact, as far as what unquestionably constitutes bread, there is a much wider range of various types, distinguished by far more characteristics of far more significance, than how much sugar they contain. Things that clear;y constitute bread range from the sort of yeast-leavened bread under discussion here, to various forms of other grain-based preparations from various type of unleavened flatbreads, (of which the most familiar to us Americans are Mexican-type tortillas (not to be confused with Spanish tortillas, which are something totally different than what we associate with the word)), to products that are leavened by methods other than years, including chemical leavening (such as baking soda or baking powder) or even steam-leavened, such as popovers and yorkshire puddings.

Though none of my Wikiwandering really said o, it seems clear to me that such things as cookies and cakes and crackers are really forms of bread as well. Given the wide variety of things that clearly are bread, it seems impossible to come up with any rational basis for denying that cookies/crackers/cake qualify as bread.


In any case, various forms of bread have been made and consumed for nearly all of known human history, in nearly all cultures and societies, since long before anything recognizable as Ireland's present government or any prototype thereof existed. I have to say that it is factually incorrect for the Irish government to presume to dictate that something is not bread, that thousands of years of human history have already determined otherwise.

There seems to be some underlying premise that Ireland's government is doing this out of concern for the health of its people. To that, I have to call bullshit. Ireland's government is doing this as an excuse to fleece it's people in higher taxes, on a blatantly false premise—in other words, to engage in fraud. This is the sort of skulduggery for which any entity other than government would be criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Agreed. If the motive was to protect the Irish Citizens from unhealthy food, and the rules were applied evenly on domestic manufactures, I would support it.


But this is just an attempt to tax food at a higher rate.



I would like to see if this practice is done to domestic food producers too.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But this is just an attempt to tax food at a higher rate.

On a blatantly false premise—that something that everyone knows is bread, is not bread.

That makes it fraud—a criminal act in any other context than government trying to do it to its own people.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Subway is trying to be exempt from the VAT tax, they are making shit up saying it's not bread to much sugar in it.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Tastes like cancer. But, it's still bread. A combination of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sugar.

Not in Ireland.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

Okay, I read the link. Ireland imposes a VAT (surprise, surprise - a European country), and has defined bread as having sugar of 2% or less weight than flour, and now wants to start taxing Subway more heavily.

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would, but at any rate, I hope instead of paying the extra tax, they just change their menu to say "confectionery" instead of "bread."

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

Ultimately, it seems to get down to the same logic that was behind our own infamous Nix v. Hedden case here in the U.S., where our Supreme Court ruled that a tomato is not a fruit, based on the desire of government to tax and regulate it less favorably as a “vegetable” than as a fruit. As a matter of undeniable, objective, scientific fact, a tomato is, in fact, a fruit; and it was insane to allow or accept our high court, or any other part of government, to attempt to dictate otherwise. About like allowing government the authority to dictate that two plus two equals ten.

I just spent some minutes wandering through various Wikipedia articles, to get some idea of what is and is not bread. Nothing that I saw in any of them supports any idea that to qualify as “bread” a product must have less than any arbitrary amount of sugar in it. In fact, as far as what unquestionably constitutes bread, there is a much wider range of various types, distinguished by far more characteristics of far more significance, than how much sugar they contain. Things that clear;y constitute bread range from the sort of yeast-leavened bread under discussion here, to various forms of other grain-based preparations from various type of unleavened flatbreads, (of which the most familiar to us Americans are Mexican-type tortillas (not to be confused with Spanish tortillas, which are something totally different than what we associate with the word)), to products that are leavened by methods other than years, including chemical leavening (such as baking soda or baking powder) or even steam-leavened, such as popovers and yorkshire puddings.

Though none of my Wikiwandering really said o, it seems clear to me that such things as cookies and cakes and crackers are really forms of bread as well. Given the wide variety of things that clearly are bread, it seems impossible to come up with any rational basis for denying that cookies/crackers/cake qualify as bread.


In any case, various forms of bread have been made and consumed for nearly all of known human history, in nearly all cultures and societies, since long before anything recognizable as Ireland's present government or any prototype thereof existed. I have to say that it is factually incorrect for the Irish government to presume to dictate that something is not bread, that thousands of years of human history have already determined otherwise.

There seems to be some underlying premise that Ireland's government is doing this out of concern for the health of its people. To that, I have to call bullshit. Ireland's government is doing this as an excuse to fleece it's people in higher taxes, on a blatantly false premise—in other words, to engage in fraud. This is the sort of skulduggery for which any entity other than government would be criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Its about Subway trying to claim a tax break that they are not entitled to.
Basic staple food are exempt from tax so that poorer folk can afford the. Subways will be tax exempt whhen they reduce the sugar. They dont have to reduce the sugar at all. They can continue to make their rolls as they do now. But they will lose the tax break.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Subway is trying to be exempt from the VAT tax, they are making shit up saying it's not bread to much sugar in it.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Tastes like cancer. But, it's still bread. A combination of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sugar.

Not in Ireland.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

Okay, I read the link. Ireland imposes a VAT (surprise, surprise - a European country), and has defined bread as having sugar of 2% or less weight than flour, and now wants to start taxing Subway more heavily.

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would, but at any rate, I hope instead of paying the extra tax, they just change their menu to say "confectionery" instead of "bread."

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

Ultimately, it seems to get down to the same logic that was behind our own infamous Nix v. Hedden case here in the U.S., where our Supreme Court ruled that a tomato is not a fruit, based on the desire of government to tax and regulate it less favorably as a “vegetable” than as a fruit. As a matter of undeniable, objective, scientific fact, a tomato is, in fact, a fruit; and it was insane to allow or accept our high court, or any other part of government, to attempt to dictate otherwise. About like allowing government the authority to dictate that two plus two equals ten.

I just spent some minutes wandering through various Wikipedia articles, to get some idea of what is and is not bread. Nothing that I saw in any of them supports any idea that to qualify as “bread” a product must have less than any arbitrary amount of sugar in it. In fact, as far as what unquestionably constitutes bread, there is a much wider range of various types, distinguished by far more characteristics of far more significance, than how much sugar they contain. Things that clear;y constitute bread range from the sort of yeast-leavened bread under discussion here, to various forms of other grain-based preparations from various type of unleavened flatbreads, (of which the most familiar to us Americans are Mexican-type tortillas (not to be confused with Spanish tortillas, which are something totally different than what we associate with the word)), to products that are leavened by methods other than years, including chemical leavening (such as baking soda or baking powder) or even steam-leavened, such as popovers and yorkshire puddings.

Though none of my Wikiwandering really said o, it seems clear to me that such things as cookies and cakes and crackers are really forms of bread as well. Given the wide variety of things that clearly are bread, it seems impossible to come up with any rational basis for denying that cookies/crackers/cake qualify as bread.


In any case, various forms of bread have been made and consumed for nearly all of known human history, in nearly all cultures and societies, since long before anything recognizable as Ireland's present government or any prototype thereof existed. I have to say that it is factually incorrect for the Irish government to presume to dictate that something is not bread, that thousands of years of human history have already determined otherwise.

There seems to be some underlying premise that Ireland's government is doing this out of concern for the health of its people. To that, I have to call bullshit. Ireland's government is doing this as an excuse to fleece it's people in higher taxes, on a blatantly false premise—in other words, to engage in fraud. This is the sort of skulduggery for which any entity other than government would be criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Its about Subway trying to claim a tax break that they are not entitled to.
Basic staple food are exempt from tax so that poorer folk can afford the. Subways will be tax exempt whhen they reduce the sugar. They dont have to reduce the sugar at all. They can continue to make their rolls as they do now. But they will lose the tax break.

Your bread sucks, end of story

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Subway is trying to be exempt from the VAT tax, they are making shit up saying it's not bread to much sugar in it.

They are telling Subway that they can't label it as bread. Subway are changing the recipe because they have been caught lying to their customers.

Tastes like cancer. But, it's still bread. A combination of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sugar.

Not in Ireland.

Maybe it's the government who's now lying to Subway's customers.

Okay, I read the link. Ireland imposes a VAT (surprise, surprise - a European country), and has defined bread as having sugar of 2% or less weight than flour, and now wants to start taxing Subway more heavily.

Seems like a sandwich maker would have a better definition for bread than a government would, but at any rate, I hope instead of paying the extra tax, they just change their menu to say "confectionery" instead of "bread."

Its a cake not bread.Food needs to be labelled honestly so that the consumer can make informed choices. Big food fights that every step of the way.

Who wants to live in a country where they place a "legal limit" on ingredients in any food?

Bread is nothing but water yeast flour and yes sugar and even butter or some kind of oil.

WHat does it matter if one person's recipe has a little more sugar?

Cakes have a much higher fat content than breads and don't use yeast as a leavening agent.

Ultimately, it seems to get down to the same logic that was behind our own infamous Nix v. Hedden case here in the U.S., where our Supreme Court ruled that a tomato is not a fruit, based on the desire of government to tax and regulate it less favorably as a “vegetable” than as a fruit. As a matter of undeniable, objective, scientific fact, a tomato is, in fact, a fruit; and it was insane to allow or accept our high court, or any other part of government, to attempt to dictate otherwise. About like allowing government the authority to dictate that two plus two equals ten.

I just spent some minutes wandering through various Wikipedia articles, to get some idea of what is and is not bread. Nothing that I saw in any of them supports any idea that to qualify as “bread” a product must have less than any arbitrary amount of sugar in it. In fact, as far as what unquestionably constitutes bread, there is a much wider range of various types, distinguished by far more characteristics of far more significance, than how much sugar they contain. Things that clear;y constitute bread range from the sort of yeast-leavened bread under discussion here, to various forms of other grain-based preparations from various type of unleavened flatbreads, (of which the most familiar to us Americans are Mexican-type tortillas (not to be confused with Spanish tortillas, which are something totally different than what we associate with the word)), to products that are leavened by methods other than years, including chemical leavening (such as baking soda or baking powder) or even steam-leavened, such as popovers and yorkshire puddings.

Though none of my Wikiwandering really said o, it seems clear to me that such things as cookies and cakes and crackers are really forms of bread as well. Given the wide variety of things that clearly are bread, it seems impossible to come up with any rational basis for denying that cookies/crackers/cake qualify as bread.


In any case, various forms of bread have been made and consumed for nearly all of known human history, in nearly all cultures and societies, since long before anything recognizable as Ireland's present government or any prototype thereof existed. I have to say that it is factually incorrect for the Irish government to presume to dictate that something is not bread, that thousands of years of human history have already determined otherwise.

There seems to be some underlying premise that Ireland's government is doing this out of concern for the health of its people. To that, I have to call bullshit. Ireland's government is doing this as an excuse to fleece it's people in higher taxes, on a blatantly false premise—in other words, to engage in fraud. This is the sort of skulduggery for which any entity other than government would be criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Agreed. If the motive was to protect the Irish Citizens from unhealthy food, and the rules were applied evenly on domestic manufactures, I would support it.


But this is just an attempt to tax food at a higher rate.



I would like to see if this practice is done to domestic food producers too.

Which domestic products get treated differently ?