Here's what you said:

And when I asked where that came from you said:

But I couldn't find a copy of the regulation containing that last sentence so asked you for it.

I'm not querying the cited dimensions at all, I'm asking where you got a particular sentence from, your comprehension is appalling!

It may have been necessary when the industry requested it, otherwise why would they request it?

And I believe I qualified that by relating it to RETAILERS, and stating that wholesalers bought them to use in their cooked/prepared products!!

Erm- I also believe that you are referring to the 'size' qualifications that I referred to. Despite your bleatings - I think that sensible people would deem it to be a A STUPID REGULATION - whether it was requested or not is irrelevant, because that doesn't mean it wasn't useless in the way it was presented.

Well, what I remember is what I quoted. So where does it say that sentence only applies to retailers?

And if, in your extensive experience of the cucumber supply chain, you think that standard wasn't necessary at the time, you should blame your colleagues in the cucumber supply chain businesses who requested it.

It exists but in typical DS forum and right wing selective editing doesn't explain that the regulation was to class cucumbers in terms of development and freshness. What it was attempting to do was stop the public getting ripped off.

The fm you quote is probably one of the following, a Sun reader, a Mail reader or a greengrocer. Failing that a gullible tory.

http://publications.europa.eu/en/pub...1f/language-en

Oh I know the regulation exists, it was requested by the industry. What I asking the poster is where he got the line " "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." from, he referred me to the regulation when i first asked but i can't find any copy of the regulation with that line in.

He's dissembled ever since.

Liar .....just because, unlike yourself , I don't 'Live' on the forum like you, or apply devious twists to change the issue - I will remind you that that this issue arose because YOU requested one example of a needless regulation - I quoted an apparently incorrect claim that the abnormal curvature stated by the EU had been dimensioned - but they hadn't been , however, the ridiculously needless 'abnormal Curvature' regulations , were so ridiculed that the two regulations ( bananas - and cucumbers) were repealed . A clear example of ' needless' regulation - but, in your usual ignorant fashion, you refuse to acknowledge that real issue of providing an example of needless ' regulation has been made, and instead, you fatuously remain selectively blind to the real issue.
Incidentally,
'From EU regulations, that you may already have come across!!....
The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape".[1][4] This is not true, however, of the size specifications; sale of bananas below the minimum size is almost always prohibited[/quote]
So it certainly is the situation that some bananas have been banned from sale.

I guess you must be a gullible Labourite! The fact that there is an 'abnormal curvature' , ( undimensioned), is absolutely irrelevant ----- is that supposedly making the product inedible?? Customers are able to decide for themselves whether or not the shape would put them off.......but I'd bet that they would sell easily if the price was reduced instead of being ridiculously banned!

No, you quoted "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." and, when challenged, told me to look at the standard.

I'd already looked at the standard and couldn't find that sentence and am still waiting to hear where you got it from.

It's nothing to do with dimensioning and certainly nothing to do with bananas you keep trying to divert to.

So, "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold."; where did that come from and why did you waste my time arrogantly pointing towards the standard that didn't contain it?

The industry asked for this standard primarily to make transportation easier and more efficient.

So what?? https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulations

Why the hell would a standard be 'required' at the time - but not now???
You just don't talk sense.....the 'bendy' regs were examples of ridiculous regulations - which is why they were repealed.

Again - so what? Read on. I posted a quote that was clearly inaccurate. Bid deal - I have now provided another source which DOES accurately quote the 'allowed curvature'

Read the new reference provided.

Your usual ignorant waffling repetition is yet again just being used to camouflage your reluctance to accept that your request for an example of needless EU regulation has been provided. However,
Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold. unquote!!

So complain to the industry that requested it.

But where was it from?

Lol - so the EU has now put the 'industry' back into their less efficient state because of repealing the regulations!!!
Priceless.

I've provided it .......and from a different source too.
Again-----
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulations

I've no need to complain - they provided me with a great example to show gullible Europhiles a classic example of the EU's needless regulatory capability.

So if it wasn't needed why did the industry ask for it?

I missed your first source. I didn't realise you had more than one source of info you let lie to you. Have you learnt anything from this?

If it was, why was it repealed?

No longer necessary I assume. Times change, cucumber sorting machines get better transport costs fall, you'd need to ask someone in the industry wot asked for it.

Still, we could go back to the good old days of the BSi, only 40,000 withdrawn standards there:

http://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigate-by...awn-standards/

Well, just because you are always at a loss to provide a credible response when awakened to reality, you really will need to contribute far more that your usual inane, and arrogant bleating of 'lies' to convince anyone that because YOU are unaware, or just fatuously dismissive of any claim that contradicts your gullible EU -MUST- BE- GOOD- FOR- THE- UK- DESPITE THE- RIDICULOUS -ASSOCIATED -COSTS beliefs.

Then again, your pompous and puerile dismissal of reality is now so ingrained I suspect you are way beyond redemption.

But your clueless response, (par for the course), merely illustrates yet again , your inherent inability to sensibly debate an issue.
I suggest you remain in you nursery for a while longer - until you sufficiently mature, (mentally), such that you can sensibly debate issues without claiming that contrary arguments to yours , even from credible sources, must be lying.

I'm sorry, are you saying that "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." quote was genuine or not?

I didn't start by claiming it was a lie, just asking where it came from. That you dug your hole deeper by referring to the standard that it wasn't in only shows why you should get your information from better sources.

No-one can "sensibly debate issues" if one side is presenting made up facts such as "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold."

No need for you to apologise for your notoriously abject failure to fully comprehend the written word, (and presumably the spoken word too!!), but I have now twice quoted a source from an international policy council, so if you believe they are lying, then a) endeavour to prove it, and b) take it up with them as you are accusing them of lying.

Whether you started by claiming that it was a lie or not is, as is most of what you post, absolutely irrelevant - because you DID claim it - but instead of asininly bleating, the onus is upon YOU to back up what you are claiming - as well as discrediting the source with 'facts' rather than your opinion.

?? I actually agree with you - so, I look forward to seeing your 'factual evidence' to support your claim that it WAS a lie - and I have already indicated that some produce has been banned from sale by the EU for not meeting required physical properties - such as 'dimension'.

Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.

If you can't (or won't) provide the proof, not only can we all ignore your claim, but we can also quite rightly assume that it is without merit and false. At least until you provide proof.