I'm not sure exactly what penalties may be applied, but tracing back from Commission Regulation 2257/94 quoted above, to previous texts on which it is based, we go from Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993, that refers back to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1319/85 of 23 May 1985, that refers back to:

Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables

<...> Whereas, to ensure compliance with the quality standards and to secure uniform application, provision must be made for supervision and for obligatory penalties in case of non-compliance <...>

TITLE I Common standards

Article 2

1. Common standards (hereinafter called "quality standards") may be established, by product or group products, for products to be delivered fresh to the consumer.

Article 3

1. When quality standards have been established, products to which they apply may not be displayed or offered for sale, sold, delivered or marketed in any other manner within the Community unless they conform to the standards.

On that basis, it's clear these are not just guidelines.Whatever doesn't measure up to the standards (as currently defined) is not authorized for sale. The later rules do make it clear, however, that there's a "guiding" function involved, since they point out the need to improve quality, and they provide for support to producer organizations that encourage better practice among their members.

Common then Single Market

What struck me in looking back over these regulations, is that they seem to have sprung from needs felt at junctures when the EEC was enlarging and the market becoming therefore common to more countries, before becoming the Single Market. So, the 1972 Regulation precedes the January 1973 enlargement (UK, Ireland, Denmark, temporarily Norway). And the next major step, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1319/85 of 23 May 1985 on the reinforcement of supervision of the application of Community rules on fruit and vegetables precedes the entry of Spain and Portugal and the move towards the Single Market -- in application of which, along with the Treaty of Maastricht, comes more regulatory activity in the early '90s. As far as the "bent" banana is concerned, the important text is the Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas

Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993

<...> Whereas there currently exist within the Member States of the Community producing bananas national market organizations which seek to ensure that producers can dispose of their products on the national market and receive an income in line with the costs of production; whereas these national market organizations impose quantitative restrictions which hamper achievement of a single market for bananas; whereas some of the Member States which do not produce bananas provide preferential outlets for bananas from the ACP States while others have liberal importation rules, which even in one case include a privileged tariff situation; whereas these different arrangements prevent the free movement of bananas within the Community and implementation of common arrangements for trade with third countries; whereas, for the purposes of achievement of the single market, a balanced and flexible common organization of the market for the banana sector must replace the various national arrangements; [my bold]

The references here are clear: it seems necessary to harmonise the different regulations and practices of an increasing number of Member States, so that goods may circulate in a single market. And it was on the basis of this regulation from the Council (the governing body of the EU, composed of the heads of government and ministers of the Member States), that the Commission wrote the detailed quality standard specifications that the Europhobes seized on.

It's perhaps worth remembering who championed the Single Market: none more than the Thatcher-led UK. Not that Thatcher wanted a regulated single market; not that she cared all that much about fruit and veg anyway. She stated her views on the single market in Bruges in 1988:

Margaret Thatcher on Britain and Europe - Wikisource

working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy.

Indeed, it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, some in the Community seem to want to move in the opposite direction.

We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super­state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.

<...>

The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 1970s and 1980s is that central planning and detailed control don't work, and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State­-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth; and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results.

The aim of a Europe open to enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market by 1992. By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a Europe­wide scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and the other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.

And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention. Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade.

Britain has been in the lead in opening its markets to others.

The City of London has long welcomed financial institutions from all over the world, which is why it is the biggest and most successful financial centre in Europe.

<...>

Regarding monetary matters, let me say this. The key issue is not whether there should be a European Central Bank. The immediate and practical requirements are:

to implement the Community's commitment to free movement of capital - in Britain we have it; and to the abolition throughout the Community of the exchange controls - in Britain we abolished them in 1979;
to establish a genuinely free market in financial services, in banking, insurance, investment;
to make greater use of the ecu. Britain is this autumn issuing ecu­denominated Treasury bills, and hopes to see other Community governments increasingly do the same.

These are the real requirements because they are what Community business and industry need, if they are to compete effectively in the wider world. And they are what the European consumer wants, for they will widen his choice and lower his costs.

Well, it's all there, and I won't comment on its almost innocent hubris. The point is that no provision is to be made, in this Anglo version of the Single Market, for the practical details of allowing goods to circulate under the same conditions throughout the zone: finance and big business are the only concerns, and they require deregulation. Laissez faire (the big money), and to the devil with the rest.

Was it necessary, all the same, to go to such detail in the banana quality specs? Why, don't all specifications go into detail? What the market fundies want is simply no specifications at all. The current Commission seems to agree with them:

Agriculture and Rural Development - Newsroom

23/07/2008 Repeal of fruit and vegetable marketing standards moves a step closer

European Union Member States yesterday held a preliminary vote on Commission proposals to repeal specific marketing standards for 26 types of fruit and vegetables. While not binding, the vote gives a strong indication that these standards will be repealed when the formal vote is taken later in the year. The Member States did not reach a qualified majority either for or against the proposal. If, after allowing time for appropriate scrutiny by our trading partners, this vote were repeated later in the year, the rules would be repealed under the Commission's responsibility. The Commission's initiative to get rid of these standards followed a declaration made last year during the reform of the Common Market Organisation for fruit and vegetables. It is a major element in the Commission's ongoing efforts to streamline and simplify the rules and cut red tape. The proposal would also allow Member States to exempt fruit and vegetables from specific marketing standards if they are sold with a label "products intended for processing" or equivalent wording. Such products could be either misshapen or under-sized and could for example be used by consumers for cooking or salads etc. In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them. "This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through," said Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. "It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators. It will also cut down on unnecessary waste and benefit consumers." The proposals would maintain specific marketing standards for 10 products which account for 75 percent of the value of EU trade: apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes, tomatoes. Member States could exempt even these from the standards if they were sold in the shops with an appropriate label. They would abolish specific standards for 26 products: apricots, artichokes, asparagus, aubergines, avocadoes, beans, Brussels sprouts, carrots, cauliflowers, cherries, courgettes, cucumbers, cultivated mushrooms, garlic, hazelnuts in shell, headed cabbage, leeks, melons, onions, peas, plums, ribbed celery, spinach, walnuts in shell, water melons, witloof/chicory, while setting new general minimum standards for the marketing of fruit and vegetables. For practical reasons, all of these changes would be implemented from 1 July 2009.

The proposal would also allow Member States to exempt fruit and vegetables from specific marketing standards if they are sold with a label "products intended for processing" or equivalent wording. Such products could be either misshapen or under-sized and could for example be used by consumers for cooking or salads etc

If there are no more standards, anything goes, right? So what's with the "exemption" and the special labelling? And "intended for processing" means, er, "could be used for cooking or salads". Apart from eat them cooked or raw, what else can you do with fruit and veg? (Please, no links to specialised web sites). As for "throwing away" and "destruction", this has mostly been done (organized and paid for) in periods of glut, especially when European farming was over-producing, which is no longer the case.

So it boils down to the indomitable Fischer Boel saying, pretty much, what Maggie said: "It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things". Well, it's a point of view. Pity that in fact, then, as the press release above shows, regulations will remain for 75% of EU fruit and veg trade.

And, however the Sun and Telegraph may crow, bananas are not on the list of 26 products for which specific standards may be abolished. They may get "new minimum standards", but they'll still be regulated.

Europe is incorrigible. The Euro-bashers are not going to be out of a job.... And Fischer Boel is posturing?

Or did Europe have its eye on the wrong ball in regulating foodstuff quality standards?