Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.

New York City Bans Use of Activated Charcoal in Food and Drink-Serving Establishments

posted by mrpg on Monday June 11 2018, @05:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the but-coal-is-ok dept.

takyon writes:

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."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
New York City Bans Use of Activated Charcoal in Food and Drink-Serving Establishments | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 46 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday June 11 2018, @02:30PM (1 child)

    by urza9814 (3954) on Monday June 11 2018, @02:30PM (#691399) Journal

    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?

    That's the US system of government working exactly as it is intended to work. I fail to see the problem here...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 11 2018, @05:21PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 11 2018, @05:21PM (#691489) Journal

    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.