4 ms·

It's honestly kinda amazing how much stuff is forbidden via FDA for "safety". I bet FDA bureaucrats would get a stroke if they knew millions of Germans are regu

It's honestly kinda amazing how much stuff is forbidden via FDA for "safety". I bet FDA bureaucrats would get a stroke if they knew millions of Germans are regularly eating raw, ground pork on bread rolls.

jorvi 4y ago
The strange thing is that generally EU regulatory agencies will do preventative policy, putting controlling regulations on something because there is reasonable suspicion it will cause harm, whereas US agencies will do reactive policy, where it is basically a free-for-all until significant harm has been demonstrated.
kube-system 4y ago
Most of these customs prohibitions are not to protect people eating it -- it's to protect disease from being spread to local agriculture.
- VHRanger 4y ago
  It's often to protect local producers from global competition
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    New Zealand has battled this with its meat and dairy industries in the EU and US. Don’t be the small player.
- callmeal 4y ago
  >Most of these customs prohibitions are not to protect people eating it -- it's to protect disease from being spread to local agriculture. It's the other way around - these prohibitions are to prevent the unsanitary conditions at slaughterhouses from causing outbreaks. It's these conditions that cause the US to be the only country in the world that dunks slaughtered chickens in bleach before selling them. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/us-trade-deal-mean-food-chlorine-washed-chicken-hormone-beef/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/us-trade...
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I'm speaking generally about agricultural customs restrictions
connicpu 4y ago
There's certain parts of America that regularly eat raw ground beef on slices of bread! The FDA/USDA can't really do much once the product leaves the well regulated grocery stores
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  More importantly, the USDA/FDA seem to significantly draw back what they consider their duty by the time the product leaves a distributor. You can order a nearly raw burger, or straight up tartare at plenty of restaurants, with the only heads up being a small notice in fine print that it could kill you, which I'm not even sure is a regulation but possibly instead a liability thing. The FDA/USDA is just trying to stop giant companies from distributing only shit products with no alternatives like it was (supposedly) in the 20s. If you buy a cow and drink it's milk straight from the udder, the FDA does not care.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The FDA won't stop anybody from eating raw pork in America. They stop you from selling something like that to other people, because experience has showed that corporations cannot be trusted with something like that.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  They'll prevent you from importing foodstuffs and prescriptions as well, even if it's just for personal use. Such is the case with Kinder Eggs, baby food, and foreign insulin. It has nothing to do with corporations.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    The ban on Kinder Eggs is depressing. I can't even argue at this point that we aren't so dumb that we'd confuse a plastic toy for food. If the ban were lifted, I'm sure many stupid children and adults really would die or require medical attention.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Kinder eggs were invented decades after the law that bans them; the law doesn't target Kinder eggs specifically and wasn't motivated by Kinder eggs. They're banned because this (generally sensible) ban on putting inedible things inside of food doesn't have an exemption for kinder eggs. A blanket ban on the practice is easier than getting into the weeds of which specific inedible inclusions are safe and which aren't. And seeing as we're talking about candy, I don't think fixing this is high on many people's list of priorities.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        Well, some people have much stronger feelings about the candy than I do (https://freetheegg.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/cpsc-responds-to-my-email/ https://freetheegg.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/cpsc-responds-to...) although for what it's worth their change.org petition went nowhere. I have enjoyed a few Kinder Eggs though and thought the toys were way better compared what you'd find in cracker jack boxes these days. Considering billions of people outside of the US have very few problems surviving Kinder Egg, I'd like to think a sensible compromise could be reached to allow them here, but I'd agree that there are larger problems with US food safety going unaddressed which would have a bigger impact.
googlryas 4y ago
That actually more appropriately describes the EU safety mindset: "Ban it, unless we can show it is safe", whereas the US is more "Allow it, unless we can show it is unsafe". All sorts of things, like random food colorings, are banned by the EU, even though they have no ability to show anyone has ever been even remotely harmed by them. I think what you're pointing out may just come down to a differing view as to what are acceptable losses for eating raw pork. And, in fact, Germany has regulations for handling mett(which I assume you're talking about), indicating it can only be served on the day it is made, and you can't make it out of previously frozen pork.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  Someone should make a web application for banned foods. Like, you would select "I am from country X, and I am travelling through country Y", and the page would list all foods that are illegal at X but legal at Y, so that you have the opportunity to try them.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Or, so you don't get get a $2000 fine for carrying some emergency egg McMuffins: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/passenger-fined-1846-bringing-mcmuffins-australia/story?id=87823626 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/passenger-fined-1846-bringin...
- markdown 4y ago
  How did the EU handle toxic cookware coatings like Teflon and similarly toxic alternatives? Since they were newly invented molecules, there was no safety data.

jorvi 4y ago

The strange thing is that generally EU regulatory agencies will do preventative policy, putting controlling regulations on something because there is reasonable suspicion it will cause harm, whereas US agencies will do reactive policy, where it is basically a free-for-all until significant harm has been demonstrated.

kube-system 4y ago

Most of these customs prohibitions are not to protect people eating it -- it's to protect disease from being spread to local agriculture.

VHRanger 4y ago
It's often to protect local producers from global competition
- lostlogin 4y ago
  New Zealand has battled this with its meat and dairy industries in the EU and US. Don’t be the small player.
callmeal 4y ago
>Most of these customs prohibitions are not to protect people eating it -- it's to protect disease from being spread to local agriculture. It's the other way around - these prohibitions are to prevent the unsanitary conditions at slaughterhouses from causing outbreaks. It's these conditions that cause the US to be the only country in the world that dunks slaughtered chickens in bleach before selling them. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/us-trade-deal-mean-food-chlorine-washed-chicken-hormone-beef/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/us-trade...
- kube-system 4y ago
  I'm speaking generally about agricultural customs restrictions

connicpu 4y ago

There's certain parts of America that regularly eat raw ground beef on slices of bread! The FDA/USDA can't really do much once the product leaves the well regulated grocery stores

mrguyorama 4y ago
More importantly, the USDA/FDA seem to significantly draw back what they consider their duty by the time the product leaves a distributor. You can order a nearly raw burger, or straight up tartare at plenty of restaurants, with the only heads up being a small notice in fine print that it could kill you, which I'm not even sure is a regulation but possibly instead a liability thing. The FDA/USDA is just trying to stop giant companies from distributing only shit products with no alternatives like it was (supposedly) in the 20s. If you buy a cow and drink it's milk straight from the udder, the FDA does not care.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The FDA won't stop anybody from eating raw pork in America. They stop you from selling something like that to other people, because experience has showed that corporations cannot be trusted with something like that.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
They'll prevent you from importing foodstuffs and prescriptions as well, even if it's just for personal use. Such is the case with Kinder Eggs, baby food, and foreign insulin. It has nothing to do with corporations.
- autoexec 4y ago
  The ban on Kinder Eggs is depressing. I can't even argue at this point that we aren't so dumb that we'd confuse a plastic toy for food. If the ban were lifted, I'm sure many stupid children and adults really would die or require medical attention.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Kinder eggs were invented decades after the law that bans them; the law doesn't target Kinder eggs specifically and wasn't motivated by Kinder eggs. They're banned because this (generally sensible) ban on putting inedible things inside of food doesn't have an exemption for kinder eggs. A blanket ban on the practice is easier than getting into the weeds of which specific inedible inclusions are safe and which aren't. And seeing as we're talking about candy, I don't think fixing this is high on many people's list of priorities.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Well, some people have much stronger feelings about the candy than I do (https://freetheegg.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/cpsc-responds-to-my-email/ https://freetheegg.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/cpsc-responds-to...) although for what it's worth their change.org petition went nowhere. I have enjoyed a few Kinder Eggs though and thought the toys were way better compared what you'd find in cracker jack boxes these days. Considering billions of people outside of the US have very few problems surviving Kinder Egg, I'd like to think a sensible compromise could be reached to allow them here, but I'd agree that there are larger problems with US food safety going unaddressed which would have a bigger impact.

googlryas 4y ago

That actually more appropriately describes the EU safety mindset: "Ban it, unless we can show it is safe", whereas the US is more "Allow it, unless we can show it is unsafe". All sorts of things, like random food colorings, are banned by the EU, even though they have no ability to show anyone has ever been even remotely harmed by them. I think what you're pointing out may just come down to a differing view as to what are acceptable losses for eating raw pork. And, in fact, Germany has regulations for handling mett(which I assume you're talking about), indicating it can only be served on the day it is made, and you can't make it out of previously frozen pork.

Viliam1234 4y ago
Someone should make a web application for banned foods. Like, you would select "I am from country X, and I am travelling through country Y", and the page would list all foods that are illegal at X but legal at Y, so that you have the opportunity to try them.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Or, so you don't get get a $2000 fine for carrying some emergency egg McMuffins: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/passenger-fined-1846-bringing-mcmuffins-australia/story?id=87823626 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/passenger-fined-1846-bringin...
markdown 4y ago
How did the EU handle toxic cookware coatings like Teflon and similarly toxic alternatives? Since they were newly invented molecules, there was no safety data.