Why Does France Suck so Bad?

[KrazyHorse]

Quebec margarine laws, actually.

Coincidence? I think not...

[Flubber]

For those not up on the issue

Canada's conflicted relationship with margarine

CBC News Online | March 18, 2005


Canada's two-margarine policy is just fine with the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 17, 2005, Canada's highest court ruled that Quebec regulations forcing margarine producers to make their margarine colourless are reasonable.

Unless Quebec changes its rules in the future, the province will remain the only jurisdiction in North America to regulate the colour of margarine.



Even Ontario repealed its Oleomargarine Act back in 1995. Until then, it was technically illegal for companies to make or sell margarine that was coloured yellow, making it look suspiciously like butter. Even with that law on the books, no one had ever been charged with trafficking in butter-coloured margarine.

The battle over butter-coloured margarine has been a long one. Until 1948, it was illegal to sell margarine of any colour in Canada. That year, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted a ban that had been in place since 1886, the same year the U.S. imposed a heavy tax on the non-dairy spread.

As part of the First World War effort, Canada temporarily lifted its ban on margarine from 1917 to 1923 because of dairy shortages during the war.

When the Supreme Court removed the ban permanently, Newfoundland, still a British colony, was churning out bootleg margarine for the Canadian market at about half the price of butter.

The Newfoundland Butter Company was established in 1925 and, despite the name, produced margarine exclusively. Food giant Unilever bought the company from the Crosbie family in 1937. Unilever had been producing margarine in Europe since 1878, when it was originally made from whale oil.

When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, the Newfoundland Butter Company earned a special mention in the Terms of Union. It would become Canada's first margarine manufacturer, and the name changed to the Newfoundland Margarine Company shortly afterwards. (Unilever closed the plant in March 2004 and moved the operation to Ontario.)

On Oct. 16, 1950, the courts ruled that margarine laws were a provincial jurisdiction – and not the domain of the federal government.

Provincial governments quickly moved to protect consumers who might become confused between margarine and butter. They regulated its colour. But the regulations varied from province to province.

In some provinces, margarine had to be bright yellow. In others, it was sold colourless. Some margarines were sold in a plastic sack that came with a tab. Pressing the tab released a yellow dye into the margarine. Squishing the sack for 20 minutes or so would mix the dye into the margarine.

Dairy farmers were incensed when the Supreme Court lifted the margarine ban, arguing it would cause butter sales to plummet. That would lead farmers to cut back production, possibly causing a milk shortage.

Quebec's strong dairy lobby was able to persuade the government to protect the population from margarine until 1961. But margarine did manage to make its way to morning toast in the province. The dairy lobby, though, was determined to make sure that Quebecers would not be confused and buy margarine if they were really after butter.

The dairy lobby persuaded Premier Robert Bourassa to ban coloured margarine in 1987. At the time, most other provinces had either dropped their prohibition of butter-coloured margarine or had stopped enforcing laws against it.

Big Margarine went after Quebec's ban on coloured margarine. Unilever challenged the law on the basis that it violates the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization rules. Unilever claimed that being forced to make two types of margarine – colourless for Quebec and coloured for the rest of Canada – meant a million-dollar hit for the company's bottom line.

In 1997, Unilever declared war on the ban. In November, the company imported 480 containers of yellow margarine it had manufactured in the U.S. and delivered them to a retail distributor in Quebec.

On Nov. 24, 1997, the government fought back. It sent in inspectors from the Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation. They seized 384 containers of the offending product. Outraged, Unilever went to Superior Court to have the seizures quashed. It also asked the court to declare the law banning coloured margarine "null, unconstitutional, invalid, inoperable, unreasonable and contrary to Canadian federalism."

The court mulled over the case and ruled in 1999 that the law was valid, although the judge did concede that the ban violates interprovincial trade rules.

The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2003. A year later the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the butter battle.

On March 17, 2005 – a day when many were thinking green – Unilever lawyer Gerald Tremblay argued for an hour that Quebec's ban on coloured margarine was unreasonable, contrary to the rules of federalism, violates charter guarantees of freedom of expression, and is contrary to North American and world trade rules.

The justices let Tremblay go on for an hour. They refused to hear arguments from lawyers for the government of Quebec, and Quebec Dairy Producers.

Quebec's law stands, they ruled.

While the rest of Canada must wade through countless choices of butter-coloured spreads for their toast, Quebecers continue to know that if it's yellow and melts on toast, it's butter. If it's white, it's margarine.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
In fifty years when you're being crushed under the iron heel we're going to have to come rescue you from yourselves. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

If I'm still there I welcome you with some nice real baguettes

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Quebec margarine laws, actually.

Coincidence? I think not...

It used to be more provinces IIRC but now its only Quebec

[KrazyHorse]

See? We're moving forward. The Euros are regressing.

[Elok]

I'm going to assume KH is trolling here or something. You can still get machine-made bread whenever you want, you just have to go to a different shop. It would make more sense to just require them to put big labels on the machine-made ones that say "Pain pour les Canadiens" or something, rather than forbidding shops with a certain name to sell bread that doesn't have traces of authentic Frankish skin cells in it, but what do you expect? They're French.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro
They aren't forced to buy baguettes.

Bread is a staple yet they made it illegal to mix bread using a bread machine.

If people want to buy traditional bread then shops will cater to that demand but outlawing competition because you personally like one type better is idiotic.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Bread is a staple yet they made it illegal to mix bread using a bread machine.

Nope, read Spiffs post.

[Geronimo]

this may be a stupid question but why is it not possible to automate the bread making process to get bread that tastes like the much lauded baguettes Parisians currently enjoy?

Everybody points out that the machine made bread was inferior but wouldn't the solution just be to improve the process and only patronise businesses that make authentic tasting bread by whatever means they prefer?

[SlowwHand]

Because the goal is to legislate the Hell out of everything.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's called a slippery slope, son.

Pretty soon you're living in 1984

That is sig material.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro


Nope, read Spiffs post.

And you need to read this post: http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...17#post4703817

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tassi

Throughout history, we can notice that whenever the label "baguette" is regulated, the nation collapses into despotism shortly thereafter

Exactly! FREE THE MACHINE MADE BAGUETTES NOW! STOP THE HAND MADE BAGUETTE OPRESSION!

(Incidentally, the law is still retarded. I suspect it was passed mainly as a make work measure since automation would mean fewer bakers would be needed to bake the same amount of bread.)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
this may be a stupid question but why is it not possible to automate the bread making process to get bread that tastes like the much lauded baguettes Parisians currently enjoy?

Everybody points out that the machine made bread was inferior but wouldn't the solution just be to improve the process and only patronise businesses that make authentic tasting bread by whatever means they prefer?

The anwser is the bread is not inferior. At least not when the same ingredients are used. I suspect what is occuring is that the super cheap bread only uses one type of flour (which ever is cheapest) while the expensive bread uses multiple types of flour. This is backed up by what was said in the OP.

The bread just needs to be kneeded and it really doesn't matter how it gets kneeded. The process isn't the issue here so much as the ingredients. Since France has a high unemployment rate and the government is well known for coming up with stupid regulations solely to make work and lower efficiency (Anyone remember the stupid 35 hour work week which was supposed to "share" the available work amoung more workers?) thus this was likely just an anti-automation measure designed to make more bakery positions.

[Dinner]

BTW the bakery at the supermarket by my house offers a number of freshly baked breads including machine made baguettes for just $0.39 or $0.89 if you want the fancy artisan kind. All freshly baked in the store.

Capitalist efficiency.