And how would you suggest that your assumption be proven? I'm sure that the foie gras lovers around the world await your answer with interest.

Read the sentence you highlighted very slowly. Foie gras is not a threat to aviation security. C-4 may be a threat, but foie gras is not. It is because of the TSA's lack of technology implementation, TSA's belief in nonsensical assumptions about liquid bombs and TSA's inability to do a sensible risk analysis that you drink the Kool-Aid that foie gras is assumed to be dangerous.

And can't you even admit that quite a bit of foie gras is not a paste?

Prove that it is foie gras and not a paste explosive. Please. While your at it, make some suggestions on how we are to do that kind of verification in a checkpoint environment. Time for you to be a “part of the solution”.

I know only what I have seen in the James Bond movies about foie gras, and they depict it as a paste on a cracker. I have never claimed otherwise. Foie gras could be shaped like flying cars for all I know, so admitting that it is not a paste is meaningless from me. I wouldn’t know a good foie gras if it jumped up and ripped my leg off, or a bad one for that matter.

Isn't that your job?

Are we on the honor system now?

But you did claim otherwise. You say that you were not a real fan, which implies that you have seen and tasted it. You say that it "has the consistency of paste" as a matter of fact statement. But now your total knowledge basis is what you have seen in James Bond movies?

You miss my point and that is because of your mindset. Foie gras is not a threat to aviation security. You are coming from a perspective that everything is dangerous until proven otherwise. I am not worried that when I buy foie gras at the grocery store that it is going to explode in my shopping cart. Should I be?

A security officer who has to ask his supervisor whether a plastic knife is allowable doesn't give me confidence in the process. Not even talking about the legitimacy of the criteria, just whether the front line know how to apply the criteria they're given. (this was flying UA out of CDG a year ago, don't know which terminal).

And here we are back at the beginning, again. What it says on the outside of the jar/can/whatever, does not mean that is what is inside. Just because you "say" that it is foie gras does not mean that it is. We "know" that explosives come in paste form, just as they come in liquid form, rope form, block form, powder form, and a whole bunch of other types of forms. Just because it says "Water" on the outside, or foie gras, does that mean that what is inside must be what the package tells us?

Are you saying that we should believe the word of everyone about the things they bring through the checkpoint? "Gee, that’s not a chainsaw, it’s a pillow!"? "That’s not a gun, it’s a lighter." Are you of the opinion that when faced with a TSO at the checkpoint that everyone is going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

You may be naive enough to buy that, but please don’t assume that I or my fellow TSO’s are.

When you dispose of these seized items, do you treat them as potential high explosives? Why not?

Do you detain the passenger until you can make an analysis of the contents? Why not?

We don’t “seize” these things, the passenger is given several options on how they would like to take care of the items. Ranging from walking them away from the sterile area, to placing them in checked baggage, to abandoning them to the TSA. Only one option ends up with the TSA having to dispose of the items, and if they are hazardous materials then they are disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s requirements.

TSA does not have the authority to detain people. Nor do we have the ability at the checkpoints to analyze the contents of most items coming through. And we would not even if we did. Current technology does not allow for a full analysis of substances in the checkpoint environment or in the time constraints available.

Wrong on both counts ronnie. Try walking away from a checkpoint and see what happens. From what others have posted here and at other places on the web confiscation is the appropriate word. Nice try though.

No AMy, I am 100% correct.

These are the options that the SOP requires that we provide the passenger with. Not all of them, but certainly some of them. And quite frankly, what you read on the web should be taken with a good sized grain of salt, for most of it is unverified opinion and posturing. Just like your comments above. No insult intended.

If these options are not provided to the passenger when prohibited items are found in their bags then the TSO in question is not doing their job appropriately or within the confines of SOP. Bring their actions to the attention of the checkpoint supervisor.

FYI, there is a difference between prohibited items and contraband. Most contraband requires a LEO response as a general rule of thumb.

Nice try though.

Ron, I'll keep this simple: it's multiple choice. Only one of the following can be true. One of the following MUST be true. You just have to pick one:
a) You, personally, have never had a passenger "voluntarily surrender" an oversize liquid item such as a bottle of water or shampoo to you.
b) All oversize liquids which have been voluntarily surrendered to you were tested (after the passenger left the checkpoint) to determine whether they were explosives or just the water or shampoo that the label said.
c) Oversize liquids which have been voluntarily surrendered to you and which were not tested to determine whether they were explosives have been collected by an EPA HazMat team and taken away from the checkpoint immediately.
d) The EPA recommends that explosives should be tossed into a regular garage can and taken out with other rubbish from the checkpoint at the end of a shift.

With regard to option (b), recall that you just said:
Awaiting your answer.

None of the above are an accurate representation of the situation, so I hope you dont mind if I dont choose any of them. Even if you do mind.

Ron,

I´ll keep it even more simple: We are innocent unless proven guilty.

That means you have to accept that what we want to take with us is what we say it is unless you can prove it isn´t. Unless you can prove that it is a paste explosive, you must accept it is foie gras. The burden of proof is on the TSA.

No, Ron, I don't mind, because your non-answer just shows you don't know what you're talking about. Either you have direct experience with liquids at the checkpoint or you don't (option a). If you don't, then you can't really claim to know anything about how they're handled.

If you do have direct experience with liquids at the checkpoint, either they're all tested to see if they're explosives (option b) or not. If they are tested before any further action is taken, the question arise "why not test them while the passenger is still there?" at least in the case of Mr Gel-packs or someone with expensive duty-free perfume or liquor.

If they're not all tested (options c and d), then you don't know (as you've been saying repeatedly about foie gras) that the item is what the label says or whether it's a dangerous explosive. In which case, it must be treated as if it's an explosive. So either a HazMat team deals with it (option c) or you claim that tossing it in a garbage bin is standard EPA protocol for explosives (option d).

I expected you to weasel out of this but I'll give you a chance to provide "an accurate representation of the situation" instead of just claiming that none of this is true. You were the one who made the claim that
Are you now saying that's not true?