you will note that your summary of the regulation is quite disingenuous. establishing the maximum level of contaminants is not an approval, specifically your claim that every step of the supply chain is allowed up to a certain percent of contaminant and as long as nobody notices its “ok” is an obvious malinterpretation.
I usually just lurk on Lemmy, but I’ve been making an effort to try and comment more and thought I had something interesting to share in this case. No motive beyond that. I’m sorry it seems to have affected you in a way I did not intend.
specifically, compare your wording with the specific wording from the regulation:
Maximum levels
Food with levels of contaminants higher than those specified in Annex I to the regulation may not be sold. These maximum levels cover the edible part of food and also apply to compound, processed, dried or diluted foods, taking into account the appropriate processing factors.
The regulation also lays down the lowest maximum levels for contaminants that are reasonably achievable with good manufacturing practice or good agricultural practice (i.e. ‘as low as reasonably achievable’).
Ban on mixing
Foods complying with the maximum limits may not be mixed with other foods that exceed these limits.
Foods that must be sorted or subjected to other physical treatments to reduce the level of contamination may not be mixed with foods intended for direct human consumption or use as an ingredient in food.
(this is not how food safety regulations work here.)
Wow, where do you live?
Must not be in the EU: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/maximum-levels-for-certain-contaminants-in-food.html
Or Japan: https://www.maff.go.jp/e/policies/food_safety/attach/pdf/workshop_contaminants_2-17.pdf
Or the UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2228/made
you will note that your summary of the regulation is quite disingenuous. establishing the maximum level of contaminants is not an approval, specifically your claim that every step of the supply chain is allowed up to a certain percent of contaminant and as long as nobody notices its “ok” is an obvious malinterpretation.
I usually just lurk on Lemmy, but I’ve been making an effort to try and comment more and thought I had something interesting to share in this case. No motive beyond that. I’m sorry it seems to have affected you in a way I did not intend.
specifically, compare your wording with the specific wording from the regulation:
there’s no reason for your blatant fearmongering.