Tuesday
(0)Just who are these people going around saying that a decadent, post-historic, senescent Europe is no longer capable of galvanising in response to dangerous threats?
Nothing could be further from the truth:
Jelly mini-cup sweets have been banned by the European Commission because of a risk of children choking.The sweets are packaged in plastic cups and designed to be swallowed in one.
The commission said they were a risk because of their "consistency, shape and form" and that warnings alone were not enough to protect children.
Though I do think that diplomacy and negotiation should have been tried before embarking on such unilateralist and aggressive actions.
I don't speak British, so I'm a tad confused... When the article says that the snack is meant to be "swallowed in one," do they mean that one consumes it by simply squeezing the entire thing into one's mouth, then swallowing (as opposed to scooping out parts with a spoon), or does the "in one" mean, "in the aforementioned plastic cups?"
Because the former seems to defy one of the major reasons of having a snack (the taste of said snack), and the latter seems to be inherently a choking hazard regardless of the consistency of the jellied treat in question (swallowing the treat and its plastic cup is already obviously unwise, without the need for a governmental edict).
Posted by Flakbait at April 13, 2004 07:48 PM
Unilaterlist?
http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/topics/konjac.html
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/323319
And
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/bannedsweets
The sweets contain the additive konjac. Jelly sweets made with this ingredient do not dissolve easily and can result in the sweets becoming stuck in a child's throat.
and just to emphasis the point.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/08/25/daily16.html
Posted by Codepope at April 13, 2004 07:49 PM
Hmm... Perhaps I should actually read in its entirety the linked article.
Well, my "what's the point of an eat-in-one-bite sweet" protestation remains.
Posted by Flakbait at April 13, 2004 07:52 PM
Well there are a lot of foods that don't dissolve easily and are just as likely to come lodged as any other. The article didn't even allude to any statistical information as a basis for the condemnation of the product. I suppose we've come to the time when it isn't even necessary to gage the threat. If it's conceivable, it is banished from existence.
Local authorities have reported children's deaths from choking in the United States associated with this type of jelly candy. There have also been reports of deaths in other countries.
And the rate as compared to foods in general?
There have been six deaths associated with this type of candy throughout the United States in recent years.
Well that's specific enough for me! How many years? What is 6 deaths by this food compared to others?
All in all, the cited links do not indicate the threat of this candy as compared to the risks posed by any food. It looks like an example of 'group think' that permeates the State; when one gets a hold of something, it spreads throughout others without any real evidence of a disportionate hazard. It is the culture of Good Deeds are never ending. Three children have died in a population of millions! We must flush millions of dollars of resources down the drain! What? Why? How can you even ask such a question? Don't you know children have died?
It always makes me chuckle how these endless Good Deeds always involve children and the elderly as if a youngish adult were involved it's par for the course. As soon as I see such language I know it is Statism with a pretty pink bow on it to make it sell.
Posted by toolkien at April 13, 2004 08:33 PM
