Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Talk about micromanagementIts about Subway trying to claim a tax break that they are not entitled to.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.
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.
Which domestic products get treated differently ?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 local bakery ?Which domestic products get treated differently ?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.
If a small, localized Irish bakery produces and sells bread that has a higher sugar content than that which the Irish government absurdly wants to define, would that bread also be defined as “not bread”, and taxed at a higher rate, the same way Subway's bread is being treated?
Which domestic products get treated differently ?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.
Oh, poor fucking Subway. Only $10bn in U.S. sales alone last year. Y'know when you go to their website they store their cookies in your hardware without asking.. but these evil taxy govts, OMG!
Boo hoo hoo
Which local bakery ?Which domestic products get treated differently ?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.
If a small, localized Irish bakery produces and sells bread that has a higher sugar content than that which the Irish government absurdly wants to define, would that bread also be defined as “not bread”, and taxed at a higher rate, the same way Subway's bread is being treated?
If not bread, does the sugar make it cake?
Not "bread" as defined by Irish law. Don't like the local laws? Great, sell your junk elsewhere!“The argument depends on the acceptance of the prior contention that the Subway heated sandwich contains ‘bread’ as defined, and therefore can be said to be food for the purposes of the second schedule rather than confectionery,” he ruled. “Since that argument has been rejected, this subsidiary argument must fail.”
Not "bread" as defined by Irish law. Don't like the local laws? Great, sell your junk elsewhere!
How mentally impaired are you?Not "bread" as defined by Irish law. Don't like the local laws? Great, sell your junk elsewhere!
So, if a locality enacts a law that declares that two plus two equals ten, then how many spots are there here?
••••
That's two plus two. If the law says the sum is ten, what is the sum?
How mentally impaired are you?
It has the power and the ability so it can and does. The Irish people disapproving would be a consideration, not your personal, foreign belief regarding what may constitute absolute truth(s). Jesus Christ, man. So Subway has to pay a higher tax rate on its hoagie rolls or whatever.. Who the hell really cares?Bread has been around since long before the Irish government existed, and no part of that government has any more power to declare that what everyone knows is bread, isn't, any more than it can declare that two plus two equals ten.
The prevailing political philosophy of the new Whig Government was laissez-faire — in other words, government had no place interfering with or regulating the economy. This approach held that markets would provide the food needed and they halted the previous government's food and relief works.
{...snip...}
the governance of the country did not respond to the needs of the population being governed. This is particularly apt when one considers that Ireland was still exporting food to Britain during the famine. Governmental indifference, neglect, or deliberate inaction all contributed to the death toll of the Irish Famine.
“I didn't read the OP's link…”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.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.
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.
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 confectionerywww.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.
“I didn't read the OP's link…”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.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.
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.
Hence the willfully ignorant conservative.
Necessary, proper regulatory policies enacted at the behest of the people – reflecting the will of the people – are perfectly appropriate and warranted; particularly given the fact that corporations are more than willing to place profit over the health and safety of consumers.
And save the rot about how consumers should stop going to Subway if they don’t like how the bread is prepared to ‘force’ Subway to change or drive Subway out of business – such rightwing dogma is as ridiculous as it is wrong.
