chollie

??? What mistake?

I was using GE, I declared food (chocolates). I follow the rules, I declared anything (even a pack of gum) because I was told 'food' is 'anything you put in your mouth'. When the agent asked what specifically I was carrying, I answered: chocolates. He asked me why I was wasting his time, chocolates are allowed.

Yes, they are allowed and I know that, but the rules require you to declare any food product, whether or not it is allowed.

Prior to GE (and prior to the change on the kiosk), many people didn't bother declaring chocolates or cookies. Prior to GE, if you got a secondary for any reason, CBP didn't make a big deal about chocolates or candy. They were allowed, no big deal.

Now, if you fail to declare and are randomly secondaried, you risk losing GE. That's a much bigger risk than non-GE people face if the chocolates are found during a random secondary.

Some people really have a reading comprehension problem. No one said you automatically get secondaried if you declare food products on the kiosk (or the blue slip). No one said it will lead to significant delays. At this point, two things are clear: 1) the wording on the kiosk has changed and 2) no one (outside CBP) knows what the impact of this change will be. It is too soon to tell.

drewguy

I was responding to your point about risk of using GE vs. not. If you are enrolled in GE, but use the regular lane, and end up failing to declare something you still risk your GE membership. So, the right question to ask is whether it's worth enrolling in GE, not whether once you're enrolled you shouldn't use it.

chollie

Then you misunderstood me.

I am pointing out that the penalty for a GE user is much harsher than for a non-GE user, even for something trivial like not declaring allowed chocolates.

I say 'trivial' because if it was important, I wouldn't have a CBP agent grumbling and asking me why I was wasting his time by declaring the small box of chocolates. His organization makes the rules and assigns the penalties, not me.

Until recently, I could have answered 'no' on the kiosk because the questions were more specific, ie, detailed specific food stuffs. The only reason I always declare everything, even an uneaten energy bar that has gone from the US abroad and back again, is because some CBP agents will tell you that 'anything that goes in your mouth' must be declared. Even at that, it is clear that some CBP agents take a more...relaxed attitude than others. Strictly speaking, a few months ago someone who had GE and had never encountered a strict agent might have checked 'no' on food stuffs if carrying chocolates and probably been OK. Now checking 'no' (and confirming it) leaves one wide open to revocation of GE if an agent wants to take a hard line.

drewguy

Truly ridiculous - whatever the right answer, CBP officers should not get upset about declaring things that don't need to be when the guidance provided by CBP is so utterly missing as to what they do and don't consider to be "food".

If they can all agree that coffee beans aren't food, teabags are food, and chocolate candy is okay unless it's Kinder Eggs, why not just publish an interpretation that says "The following common edible items are not considered to be food: [X], [y], [z]""

GUWonder

I've had CBP roll their eyes when I've "over-declared", but I've never had them get upset at me for declaring stuff that they thought was ok and didn't need inspection but which I considered to be food that may need inspection.

flyquiet

It often seems silly when in the context of the presumed reason, of keeping potential threats away from US crops, to interfere with some gummy worms. I always have to remind myself that "declare" is not the same as "not allowed to bring". Most of the food is permitted, and just has to be declared. However, I generally choose not to bring food across the border, so that I can answer the "food" question honestly in a way that does not require secondary inspection.
I did find myself in the line of cars waiting to cross the US border when I realized I still had a banana - and tropics; fruits are not allowed, I believe. I hastily ate the banana and did not declare the peel. I really don't know how the interior of the banana is more threatening than the outside, but in the end, I wasn't asked "do you have any inedible remnants of food?" so I let sleeping dogs lie.

emcampbe

[QUOTE=flyquiet;22827344
I did find myself in the line of cars waiting to cross the US border when I realized I still had a banana - and tropics; fruits are not allowed, I believe. I hastily ate the banana and did not declare the peel. I really don't know how the interior of the banana is more threatening than the outside, but in the end, I wasn't asked "do you have any inedible remnants of food?" so I let sleeping dogs lie.[/QUOTE]

I was once told the only fruit that absolutely, in all cases, was never allowed into the US is citrus fruits. Of course, everything else they want to inspect to determine whether it should be allowed - an apple from Canada might not pass while one from NZ might.

My guess, the reason is because most travelers have no idea what the law is, and even if they did, wouldn't understand much of it as written. So by saying "food" it is pretty clear, then the officer can make a decision. In the old days before GE, I used to bring stuff like homeade cookies or brownies across - always checked the box, and at primary they'd ask, I'd tell them and they'd just say that's fine and send me through. If I had an apple, I'm sure it would be a different story.

drewguy

Yeah, if they delineate there's too much room for people to claim "I didn't realize that was food". Of course, they seem to want people using GE to make that determination so as not to waste their time.

BTW, on banana peel I probably would have said "I have a banana peel from a banana I ate earlier - do you need the peel for proper disposal?" But, I agree, no likely harm from that peel.

Imagine747

What, exactly, is the problem with the toy inside the Kinder Eggs? I've been bringing those home for my kids for years and have never had anyone question it. I have declared I had chocolate and been waved through, but it never entered my head that the toy inside was a problem. I think the last one I brought in was an Easter Egg that had a paper hat, a whistle, a plastic figurine and some stickers....how subversive is that?

RadioGirl

As I understand it, there's a concern that a child would swallow the toy while eating the chocolate and choke on it. And apparently this has happened a few times. So there's a US regulation to the effect that confectionery which contains non-edible items is not allowed.

Not that I agree with the regulation - the rest of the world manages to survive Kinder Eggs. Either American kids* are more stupid/greedy/unsupervised and therefore more likely to eat the toy , or the American gov't just cares sooooooooo much more about children than other gov'ts . Or something.

*And I write this as a former "American kid"

drewguy

That's the idea: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia...alert_107.html


CBP also mentions it: http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-me...kinder-egg-ban

I had no idea of this other than for the fact the CBP person doing my GE interview used it as an example of zero tolerance - some woman was caught with undeclared Kinder Eggs and booted from the program. It struck me as particularly harsh given it's not quite so obvious as undeclared (illegal) drugs, cash >$10k, hams, etc.

FlyingHoustonian

While agree it is a goofy rule and I would not ban them, and I even bought some on US Military bases stateside that somehow got through, some children in Europe have died due to the toys.

chollie

It's a perfect example of why everything is to be declared, even if you think it's allowed. Who would suspect that one very specific type of chocolate candy was prohibited?

It is very important to note that she didn't get booted for the Kinder Eggs, she got booted for not declaring them. Had she been non-GE, she'd have gotten a lecture and the candy would have been confiscated. She wouldn't necessarily even have been flagged for secondaries every subsequent time she travels for the rest of her life.

Zero tolerance.

Imagine747

So, a couple of children in Europe have died due to the toys (7 deaths, worldwide, in 20 years), but they have not been banned in Europe. No children in the US have died, but they're banned here? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

My kids are well passed the age of 3 but I don't suppose that matters to anyone. As I said in the earlier post, I have always declared I had chocolate and nobody has ever asked what kind of chocolate. I wonder if I'll look guilty when I return to from this current trip, with the Kinder Eggs I bought in Prague a couple of days ago....think I'll go through regular lines. I wonder what else I have been unknowingly smuggling into the country....

FlyingHoustonian

I hope that ire is not directed at me; I was simply stating a fact from the some of the government postings. I agree the ban is goofy, especially since more children are injured by swallowing coins. Maybe I am misreading your quotes though...