SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
And Just Like That, Goth-Friendly Charcoal Foods Were Canceled
It turns out those highly Instagrammable, pitch-black "goth" foods were far edgier than we could have ever imagined. According to a new report in Eater, the Department of Health says that activated charcoal is currently banned from all food- and drink-serving establishments in NYC. A spokesperson for DOH told Eater that the rule isn't new, but enforcement has increased.
Morgenstern's Finest Ice Cream, that NYC ice cream shop that caused a mini frenzy in 2016 over their popular jet-black ice cream, reportedly had to dump "$3,000 worth of product during a routine inspection," per owner Nick Morgenstern. The ice cream shop posted a cryptic Instagram in late May that hinted something was afoot. The ice cream, which they've been making since 2015, uses coconut ash—a form of activated charcoal. "I don't see any evidence that this is actually a question of public health safety," Morganstern told Eater. "I would challenge someone to identify the public health safety risk of that ingredient."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11 2018, @01:54PM (7 children)
Does a local health department have the right to tell you what you can eat, when the national authority in charge, the FDA, has not prohibited it. Should it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Monday June 11 2018, @02:11PM
The People - the state - the federal government for all matters interstate
That's the chain of command.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday June 11 2018, @02:14PM
If you insist that only national authorities can take certain actions, then those actions will only be taken at massive scale with no testing at smaller scales first. Or not at all. I'm guessing you're pulling for the latter, Mr. Regulatory Capture.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11 2018, @02:23PM (1 child)
They're not telling anybody what they can and can't eat. They're telling people what they can and can't serve to customers. Those are very different things.
But, then again, small government people tend to be complete dipshits that will put random things in their mouths because freedom. It's somewhat ironic that it's the same people that are too ignorant to know how to protect themselves are also the same people that fight hardest against any effort to limit the unsafe things in the environment to something reasonable.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Monday June 11 2018, @02:41PM
It's a fine line. Should unsafe things be available? Absolutely, positively yes. Should restaurants serve them with fries and a salad? No. That's evil.
Is charcoal unsafe? Debatable. It's safe and non-toxic in meal quantities, dangerous in excess (like water). I've seen much more unsafe things served in buffet lines that didn't violate any specific punitive rules.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday June 11 2018, @02:30PM (1 child)
That's the US system of government working exactly as it is intended to work. I fail to see the problem here...
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 11 2018, @05:21PM
Exactly. I'm always a bit shocked at how many people are willing to cede their rights to a huge unresponsive bureaucracy, but they get concerned when local government takes action, where they are much more likely to have a voice and direct access to local government representatives to have an influence on policy.
And if you don't like what NYC does (which is nothing new in this sort of policy), you can actually choose to move elsewhere to a community with a government that is more congenial to your standards and wishes. If the FDA sets policy, though, you have nowhere to go unless you want to quit the US entirely.
The authors of the Constitution would be appalled that the FDA even exists, given their massive constraints on federal power that they built in. Well, actually, I assume many of them would accept with the realities of modern society that we might need federal policy on some things the FDA does... BUT they would have required a Constitutional amendment to grant that power.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday June 11 2018, @02:37PM
Okay. On the subject of yummy gritty charcoal, we assume that
Now. A few questions come up. Fair questions.
No. Nor are they. You can eat what you want. But they have the right to regulate what restaurants can serve and under what conditions. That's their purpose, in fact.
Should they have the right to regulate what restaurants can serve and under what conditions? Arguably, yes: That's their purpose, in fact.
-----
* It's best not to trust the FDA blindly, given efforts such as their evidence-free emotional attacks on mitragina speciosa ("kratom"), anyway.