the data
| finding | documentation |
|---|
| same brands, different ingredients | european parliament investigation (2017-2019) |
| eastern formulas often inferior | joint research centre testing |
| price parity or higher in east | despite lower quality |
| systematic pattern | not isolated incidents |
laboratory testing confirmed the pattern. this isn’t speculation.
documented cases
food products
| product | western formula | eastern formula |
|---|
| nutella | higher cocoa/hazelnut content | more palm oil, less cocoa |
| coca-cola | standard formula | higher fructose variants |
| fish sticks | higher fish content | more filler |
| instant coffee | certain blend | different blend |
non-food products
| product | pattern |
|---|
| detergents | different active ingredient concentrations |
| personal care | formula variations documented |
| cleaning products | effectiveness differences |
testing methodology: joint research centre (eu body), national authorities.
the geographic pattern
| affected countries | superior product countries |
|---|
| slovakia, czech republic, hungary | germany, france, austria |
| bulgaria, poland, romania | benelux |
| historical category | dual-quality affected |
|---|
| former eastern bloc | yes |
| 2004/2007/2013 accession | yes |
| ”old europe” | no |
| higher gdp members | no |
the correlation is not subtle.
corporate responses
| industry claim | the problem |
|---|
| ”local taste preferences” | same branding implies same product |
| ”local sourcing” | doesn’t explain quality reduction |
| ”same nutritional value” | ignores ingredient quality |
| ”not misleading” | identical packaging is misleading |
the business model:
- build brand reputation in wealthy markets
- charge premium based on that reputation
- sell inferior version in poorer markets
- maintain price parity
- extract maximum margin from each market
regulatory response
| action | year | outcome |
|---|
| investigation launched | 2017 | confirmed problem |
| omnibus directive passed | 2019 | banned practice (on paper) |
| enforcement mechanism | - | weak |
| penalty structure | - | unclear |
the practice was banned. compliance monitoring is limited.
the hierarchy
| tier | characteristics |
|---|
| core (germany, france, benelux) | policy power, superior products |
| semi-periphery (italy, spain) | variable position |
| periphery (eastern members) | policy takers, inferior products |
| historical pattern | eu pattern |
|---|
| different products for colonies | different products for east |
| premium extraction | margin extraction |
| wealth flows to center | wealth flows to center |
connected disparities
| factor | west vs east |
|---|
| minimum wages | 3-5x higher in west |
| posted worker exploitation | eastern workers in west |
| product quality | documented inferiority for east |
the feedback loop:
- lower wages in east
- corporations see “price sensitivity”
- sell inferior products
- justify with “local market conditions”
- extract value both ways (labor and consumption)
what this suggests
| eu rhetoric | observable practice |
|---|
| ”single market” | tiered markets |
| ”equal treatment” | systematic inequality |
| ”consumer protection” | weak enforcement |
| ”cohesion” | extraction continues |
the internal pattern mirrors the external pattern: hierarchy obscured by equality rhetoric.
sources
- european parliament. dual quality investigation documents (2017-2019).
- joint research centre. testing reports.
- slovak ministry of agriculture. national testing.
- czech consumer protection authority. findings.
- eu omnibus directive (2019/2161). text.
rune.ᛞ
