Coffee is “harmful” to humans, the European Union has said in a regulation banning the use of caffeine as a pesticide, prompting fears of a coffee ban. The Telegraph has the story.
Brussels bureaucrats said there was scientific evidence to back up claims that “caffeine is harmful to humans if swallowed”.
Their report said the substance, a central component of coffee, could cause adverse effects on the heart, hydration and body temperature, as well as triggering anxiety and sleep problems.
There was not sufficient research to judge whether caffeine is a risk for people who work with it or live near where it is processed, it added.
The report was produced to reinforce a decision to ban caffeine from being used to kill snails and slugs around cabbage and potato patches.
But it has prompted fears that Brussels regulations could one day target coffee, a staple of the European way of life.
Anders Vistisen, a Danish MEP and chief whip of Patriots for Europe said: “More unwelcome and needless inference from meddling bureaucrats in Brussels!
“What is this all leading to? Are they seriously going to eventually force us to drink decaffeinated coffee? It’s becoming ridiculous.
“Nobody thinks smoking and whiskey are good for you, but they add pleasure to many people’s lives,” he added.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Braverman seems like one of the better ministers – not that the competition is fierce
If only Braverman had a position of authority
Toby, I believe you’re a good guy, but please get off the fence. It was only a few weeks ago that you were insisting a multicultural Britain was a good thing because, as far as I understood it, there were more culinary options. I believe that a multicultural Britain could work, but only if those adopting Britain as their home integrated into our culture – the one you say doesn’t exist, but also say does. We are in a multitude of wars and we need people like you – intelligent, decent, articulate, honest – to come off the fence before it really is too late.
The state has no business recording “non crime hate incidents”. Chinese social credit score anyone?
What else can it be if not a form of social credit?
They want to turn us (even more) into domesticated pets.
I think the government and other political parties urgently need to clarify what they mean by “hate” and “protest”. If I pray silently, I don’t consider that I am protesting or harassing anyone or committing a thought crime. If I politely suggest that men, regardless of how in touch with their feminine side they may be, should nonetheless stay out of women’s toilets and women’s refuges and women’s prisons, I don’t consider I am being hateful towards anyone, and I would suggest that most sensible people would agree.
It is absolutely not good enough for our lawmakers to simply say that if anyone says that they feel harassed by someone then (so long as their accuser is on the favourite’s list) that person is guilty of harassment. I’d go so far as to say that this country risks becoming a tyranny if this isn’t sorted out.
I don’t think the police should be involved at all in policing “hateful” behaviour. It’s either criminal or it’s not. If not then their role should be limited to keeping the peace so for example if there are two groups obviously about to kick off violently send them away in opposite directions.
I don’t want to read only about Braverman’s thoughts on this outrage, nor that she is writing a couple of letters, I want to know what she will actually do.
She could start by hauling in some senior plods and having them put out statements confirming any more of this sharia nonsense and the perps will be arrested.
If we do not put a stop to this Sharia crap we are on a very dangerous path, not that the current trajectory is not already exceedingly dangerous.
Furthermore, the Christian churches need to see if they can find a pair and start to speak out in favour of the nominally majority religion, and that does not include the Satanic, treasonous Jelly Welby.
Good on Toby for getting the FSU on the case. The response from West Yorkshire’s finest should be interesting.
I would argue that it is the very establishment of the Church of England that sends out the wrong message in a country that is a long way towards secularism, it’s a long time past the point at which we should disestablish the church and then there would be a level playing field with no apparent bias towards any religion.
You mean the church of Darwin, shit happens, nominalism and relativism I assume.
I am not interested in a level playing field. I am not interested in Islam. We are supposedly a Christian country and it’s about time it was reasserted.
Provide a level playing field for Muslims and before we know it there will be sharia sheriffs on every street corner. No thanks.
Our Constitution is rooted in Christianity, hence we are a Christian country even if many of the folk who live here aren’t practising Christians. The rhythms of our culture are based on Christianity.
Exactly.
I must admit I’m a supporter of antidisestablishmentarianism. It’s not like the Church is dictating our law, and I think it is important that voices outside of the political parties are heard. To just disestablish and not replace with anything of substance so that the stranglehold of the established political parties further increased wouldn’t help anyone. Very easy to knock something down, much harder to build something up, and I tend to be cautious about radical constitutional change which can often have unintended consequences. Just look at the “supreme court”, and the state of the House of Lords, which is more a tool of the establishment than it has ever been since they reduced the hereditary peers.
Stop Press 2: According to the Mail on Sunday, the 14 year-old autistic boy had to move out of his home last week following arson threats.
I wonder, is it too much to ask to start deporting foreign nationals who make such threats in these circumstances?
I wonder, is plod investigating the arson threats.
I maintain that Welby is ‘treasonous’ by virtue of him being a gnostic, not a Xian.
“The lodestar of our democracy is freedom of speech.”
Depends on the topic, apparently…
All topics can be spoken about freely, but some can be spoken about more freely than others.
Yes, good point Marcus.
That was the most impressive, morally unambiguous and and courageous statement by a major politician that I have come across in decades
Those who have viewed the Daily Sceptic as fertile ground for attacking and undermining liberal democracy (whether from a pro-Russian Federation / CCP or generally fascistic / marxist basis) take note.
No matter what the temporary setbacks cooperative and tolerant coexistence will always win out over bullying tyranny.
To be more explicit, this is magnificent (although I would replace the nationalistic localised terminology with universal alternatives):
“We do not have blasphemy laws in Great Britain, and must not be complicit in the attempts to impose them on this country. There is no right not to be offended. There is no legal obligation to be reverent towards any religion.
The lodestar of our democracy is freedom of speech. Nobody can demand respect for their belief system, even if it is a religion. People are legally entitled to reject – and to leave – any religion. There is no apostasy law in this country. The act of accusing someone of apostasy or blasphemy is effectively inciting violence upon that person.
Everyone who lives here has to accept this country’s pluralism and freedom of speech and belief. One person’s freedom to, for example, convert from Islam to Christianity is the same freedom that allows a Muslim to say that Jesus was a prophet but not God Incarnate.
This freedom is absolute. It doesn’t vary case by case. It can’t be disapplied at a local level. And no one living in this country can legitimately claim that this doesn’t apply to them because they belong to a different tradition.”
Power speaks truth.
Yes. My comment is awaiting approval from the censor committee, in which I point out that Braverman is at last speaking the silent part out loud – that we live under Cultural Pluralism, not Multiculturalism.
Everyone who lives here has to accept this country’s pluralism and freedom of speech and belief.
Pluralism. I hope this is a nod to cultural pluralism. As in “Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, whereby their values and practices are accepted by the dominant culture, provided such are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. [wikipedia]
There is cultural pluralism is this country, not multiculturalism. It seems various minority groups may be operating under this confusion?
Quite right, Toby, there is no blasphemy law, not should there be, nor is there a right not to be offended, not should there be. But it’s not a bad thing to have respect for other people and their beliefs, and it’s entirely appropriate for an institution such as a school to censure what they consider to be bad taste. Would you defend the free speech of critics of Judaism in the same way as critics of Islam, or would you be more delicate?