Bioterrorism Act

May 19, 2004 23 Replies

Have any of you had to deal with the new "Prior Notice of Imported Foods" regulation being imposed by the FDA.

formatting link



The regulation is still open for comment by the public. Some of you adventurous Tax Payers who order foodstuffs from abroad may want to leave a comment!

formatting link



Simply placing an order for tea from another country now requires that this form be submitted by either the sender or the receiver. Having just registered on the FDA site and submitted one of these things I have found it to be a major pain in the A**. They want to know details like what ship is it coming in on, what day will it arrive, what port city is it coming into, etc.



"What information must be included in the prior notice? The prior notice must be submitted electronically and contain the following information:



Identification of the submitter, including name, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and firm name and address Identification of the transmitter (if different from the submitter), including name, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and firm name and address Entry type and CBP identifier The identification of the article of food, including complete FDA product code, the common or usual name or market name, the estimated quantity described from the smallest package size to the largest container, and the lot or code numbers or other identifier (if applicable) The identification of the manufacturer The identification of the grower, if known The FDA Country of Production The identification of the shipper, except for food imported by international mail The country from which the article of food is shipped or, if the food is imported by international mail, the anticipated date of mailing and country from which the food is mailed The anticipated arrival information (location, date, and time) or, if the food is imported by international mail, the U.S. recipient (name and address) The identification of the importer, owner, and ultimate consignee, except for food imported by international mail or transshipped through the United States The identification of the carrier and mode of transportation, except for food imported by international mail Planned shipment information, except for food imported by international mail "



Now imagine you are sending a box of cookies to China, you wrap it up and send it via UPS or Fedex (which is NOT considered International Mail). Now China asks you which port it will arrive in, what day it will arrive, and ship it is coming in on. Do you really think UPS or Fedex will give that information.



The FDA is going over the edge here. It is my understanding that they have the right to return the package if this document has not been submitted. "Food that is imported or offered for import with inadequate prior notice is subject to refusal and holding at the port or in secure storage."


Mike Petro snipped-for-privacy@pu-erh.net

formatting link
remove the "filter" in my email address to reply


I checked it out and then fired a zinger off to the FDA. Bunch of pettifogging bureaucrats. If adopted into "law" it should require additional bureaucrats to administer the program. Hey, let's hire everyone for gov. employment and that will take care of the unemployment situation!

Most data are easy to provide, it is mostly losing time filling a form.

That is the concern. You'll soon find that your puer tea has no FDA product code. Then to have it get a FDA code, it will be a 10 year process. At the end of which they will decide any tea but Lipton yellow is unsafe for American consumers. Just what they've done with foie gras.

Well, you have elections sometimes.

Kuri

ccc8i4nk$jvc$ snipped-for-privacy@bgsv5647.tk.mesh.ad.jp5/20/04 07: snipped-for-privacy@spam.com

snip snip snip

Calls for a special tax; after all, aged pu-erh courtesy of the US government. You never can tell.

Foie gras is perfectly safe for American consumers; it is, however, somewhat detrimental to the health of geese.

In fact, we do. But, they apparently don't count for much. Democracy is a complex business; I'm sure we'll catch on in time.

Michael

Sure. I'm an *individual* consumer (not a commercial importer) - but if I order something from Sikkim or Yunnan, I'd now be expected to keep track of which *ship* the stuff is coming in on, and which day that ship docks at which port. Easy! ;-)

mikus

On 20/05/04 15:51, "Michael Plant" écrivut:

Contrary to common belief, foie gras is the result of a natural process and not a disease. Liver steatosis is not cell-degenerative and quite different from cirrhosis. It is common in migrating birds like wild geese who overfeed before Winter in order to live through it and fly long distances. After Winter, the wild birds' liver regains its original size. Man has only been reproducing this natural process to make foie gras. Geese and ducks actually look forward to feeding time.

SophieBCD3E00A.FCB% snipped-for-privacy@free.fr/21/04

10: snipped-for-privacy@free.fr

If I were a goose, which in some circles I'm considered, I'd be hard put to appreciate force feeding, if you catch my drift.

Michael

Michael Plant wrote in news:BCD39895.1BE00% snipped-for-privacy@pipeline.com:

Mm. Particulary if you are armed with the foreknowledge that it's being done to harvest a tasty bit of your innards, though geese are spared this aspect at least; unless they know something I don't know they know.

On 21/05/04 17:25, "Michael Plant" écrivut:

FIne, but you're not a goose...

Foie gras producers never have to run after geese to catch and feed them. Sometimes, the geese do wait in line :-)

Sophie, please read this

formatting link

I don't know that this is particularly helpful. The court's considerations are mostly pragmatic, and they have to rule in the absence of definitive scientific knowledge, which they take on advice anyway. If we want to know whether it's possible to produce foie gras without cruelty to geese, we shouldn't ask the court. We should ask those whom the court asks; the veterinary community, the scientific community, etc.

Cheers,

- Joel

SophieBCD4DADF.120F% snipped-for-privacy@free.fr/22/04

04: snipped-for-privacy@free.fr

I don't doubt the veracity of this for a minute. Nonetheless, an animal can be programmed behaviourally to act in a manner detrimental to itself, even to the point of pain and suffering. That is my last word. If you choose to respond, the ultimate word is yours. Didn't mean to push your buttons, but my sympathies fall on the side of the geese.

Michael

People, for example. So turn off the TV, turn on the kettle, drop in a few leaves...

On 24/05/04 14:10, "Michael Plant" écrivut:

Quite true, but there really is no evidence that this is the case with geese and force-feeding. I can assure you that if geese in the French Southwest had ever shown the slightest sign of pain or suffering at feeding time, this would certainly have been noticed a long time ago. And anyone who knows about geese and their very special temper also knows that programming them behaviourally to act in a manner detrimental to itself would by no means be an easy task...

Oh, so do mine. Especially with a little marinade of madeira, truffle and black pepper, perhaps a fine dusting of gingerbread crumbs, and a glass of jurançon on the side. You didn't push any buttons, I only mentioned a much-overlooked zoological fact.

On 24/05/04 04:36, "Joel Reicher" écrivut:

Although this document was slightly :-) boring, I searched in vain for a single occurrence of the word "steatosis". Likewise, I searched for "cirrhosis" with equal results. No mention is made of the feeding habits of geese in the wild, and there is quite a good deal of confusion. I didn't see much scientific argumentation there, and not that much actual care for animal welfare, but a strong expression of human insecurity and fears, once again through a tendency to "humanize" animal live.

Geese invented the beer-bong.

We get to eat the foie gras.

I'm over it.

--Blair "What they do to the greens at the golf course...now THAT is painful..."

I don't think the court is an appropriate forum for scientific argumentation -- it would be a waste of their time and other resources

-- so it's no surprise that's absent from the document.

I believe there might be good reason to humanise animal life, however. The only way we can comprehend how animals might have rights (to welfare, at least) is to relate an animal's situation to the way we claim rights for ourselves. I don't think there's any other way to proceed.

Cheers,

- Joel

Joel Reicherrn7juskoi4.fsf_- snipped-for-privacy@cindy.panacea.null.org5/31/04

22: snipped-for-privacy@panacea.null.org

Joel,

Are you suggesting that those sentient beings in a position to put forward an argument on behalf of the welfare of those who are not in a position to put one forward on their own behalf have an obligation to do so?

Michael Drinking a red Yunnan

Do we fight for the rights of children? And not just kin, but children at large?

Not quite what you meant, perhaps, but it could be the best way of making the point.

Cheers,

- Joel

Joel Reicherrnvfibo0m0.fsf_- snipped-for-privacy@cindy.panacea.null.org6/1/04

09: snipped-for-privacy@panacea.null.org

That was just my way of saying that I agree with you completely.

Michael

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required