Frogleg > wrote in message >. ..
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:30:40 GMT, (j.j.)
> wrote:
>
> >Hark! I heard "Tank" > say:
>
> >> It is in a small brown bottle, which looks like
> >> it has been reused. There is adhesive from a
> >> previous label under the label for the vanilla.
>
> >> To cap is a sealed, twist off kind. It is made of
> >> metal, the kind where there is a separate ring
> >> on the bottle, after you have opened it the first
> >> time.
> >
> >The bottle sounds interesting -- dump the contents down the
> >drain, and save it as a conversation piece...
>
> A recent post here (about sugar content in tomato sauce, I think)
> indicated that foods in Canada don't bear the same ingredient and/or
> nutrition labels we have in the US. So I guess we should dump all food
> items that haven't entered the USA with USDA approval labeling
> (sympathy to our northern neighbors). My Grenada spice basket
> includes a number of items in small plastic bags and a sort of
> hand-crafted label and info sheet. It never occurred to me to think
> these suspect because they were without US gov't-approved labeling. Or
> were labeled without a 4-color press.
The labeling doesn't have a thing to do with whether the contents are
suspect. Your analogies to Canadian foods or the Grenada spice basket
don't apply. Vanilla from an untrusted source is likely to be
adulterated; that is a fact of the vanilla trade, and there is no
analogy to canned goods from Canada or spices from Grenada or any
other red herrings you may wish to drag across the discussion. Since
the adulterants are dangerous, and it is not practical for a consumer
to determine whether vanilla has been adulterated, and more than a few
tourists are ignorant of the problem, the advice to dump the vanilla
was well taken and has nothing at all to do with the quality of the
label.
--
Chris Green