I wonder how the frequency of random secondaries for American trusted travelers compares with the frequency of secondaries for folks participating in non-US trusted traveler programs.

Are Canadian NEXUS members treated to the same ambiguity when they bring back a chocolate bar? How about Privium members?

I had only ever been 'secondaried' once in my life prior to 2001. On that occasion, everyone got their carry-on bags searched, not just me.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the UK and Dutch equivalents are for passport control only. At EU airports they have the green, red, and blue lanes that travelers self select. There are occasional spot checks, but it's nothing like the US or Australia where there is sometimes a significant line to exit the customs hall.

Nexus members (I'm one) have to fill out the same customs declaration that everyone else fills in when entering Canada (and prior to GE/being given GE access, Canadians using NExus to enter the US had to fill out the same US customs declaration as everyone else). Canada has never listed the general "food" - only specific foods, similar to the list the US has on there (the obvious exception, as mentioned, is the lack of the word "food").

Now if you want to get technical, a chocolate bar likely contains dairy as an ingredient (and is derived from a cocoa plant, for that matter), and so if an officer wanted to, could probably issue a fine or revocation of TT based on that, probably could. Realistically, I doubt it would happen.

I don't have a problem with them asking about the generic food just wish they would keep it consistant - either ask about "food" or don't. Given it typically adds a minute or less when I clear (where they ask what I have, and then wave me through), its really not a big deal. If they did do a search every time, my opinion might be different.

I thought a "low risk" traveler was someone who didn't appear likely to have a penchant for engaging in smuggling. Not sure why you'd become higher risk just by visiting countries from which smuggling may be more likely to occur - you're just as trustworthy. If CPB were worried, then they should stop all GE members with greater frequency when they are returning from such high-risk countries.

Fully agree . . . remarkably the folks at IAD have routinely done it right - every time I've explained I have cookies, candy, a granola bar they wave me on with no delay.

And this should not be 100%. A random secondary should be thrown in every now and then despite declaring admissible items.

Fair enough . . . but it should be random, and not more likely because I declared a granola bar as food.

So what's going on with this? Is it to the specific question now or generic food question? Some airports one, others something else? Seems odd!

It's the generic food question. The problem is that some are getting scolded for declaring small things like candy bars whereas other officers say food is anything that goes in your mouth.

I think the only people who really care are the GE people. If a non-GE person doesn't declare a candy bar and gets caught, it's very likely no big deal. A person with GE does the same thing and risks getting GE revoked. It seems to be some of the agents who handle the GE interviews who are really taking a broad definition of 'food'. But who wants to take a risk?

Even the more specific words don't clarify much for me. I mean, I don't over-apply the "if it goes in your mouth rule" but I would be more confident checking "no" for aspirin if it uses specific words, but I will check "yes" for chocolates if it uses the word "dairy" despite the many manufacturing steps between milk and candy bar. If it has anything of a dairy nature on the ingredient list, I would check "yes", so I simply avoid having it. I did bring some birthday treat chocolates on a recent trip and hoped for a wave-through at secondary but I got a 10 minute queue to speak with an officer to report my chocolates. I would be more confident if they would list what types of "food" do NOT have to be reported but that isn't going to happen.

I commented on the whole 'food' thing to the officer processing me through the GE lane at YUL the other day. We had a brief chat on the subject. She told me what we all know -- declare food as per the question and ignore the suggestions of agents who tell us not to bother declaring chocolate and :other candy.

I've only had this happen once. And that's exactly what I did. What's the point in arguing at that point - they're letting you through anyway. Just say thank you, and be on your way.

I arrived at LAX today, and the food question hadn't changed in the last 5 weeks. What was different was that the CBP officer at the baggage exit specifically asked if I had any food. (I didn't have any.) One interpretation is that people are reading the questions carefully and checking yes to the food question such that many O receipts are being printed.

Same experience here, arriving on Dec 31: Kiosk said "food" so I clicked yes. Customs officer asked what kind of food, to which I said, "Dried fruit, snacks, cookies, roasted nuts..."

"Any fresh food?"

"Nope."

"Thanks."

I had an interesting one at CLT a few days ago - said "yes" to the food questions as I had chocolate and tea. Exit officer didn't even ask what the food was - just asked where I was coming in from (LHR), and said "you're good".

Maybe as someone else suggested upstream - they're getting a lot of "over declaration" from GE members.

Personally, I think that "trusted traveler" should include trusting the traveler to know what is admissible and what isn't. Although, as with a lot of things in the US these days, that would require a level of personal responsibility that the general public seem to have eschewed.

I can't see relying on individuals to know what can be a fairly complex set of rules where the answers can really matter and few people will voluntarily delay themselves if they are running late.

Sounds like some good equilibrium is in the making.

The point is that the questions used to be specific. A yes answer indicated that further questioning and possibly ag inspection was necessary. It didn't mean the items would be refused entry. With people declaring things like candy and chocolate or other packaged foods that are allowed in all circumstances, it inundates the system with O receipts. An O for answering yes to the 'food' question used to indicate you were bringing in meat, fruit, vegetables, or agricultural products that would need to be inspected to determine admissibility.

Yesterday, the GE kiosk at YUL asked the specific question, fruit, meat, etc. I haven't seen that in a while, and was able to answer "no". However we were still interrogated about our trip and occupations and hometown by the bored CBP agent. Quite a different experience from the usual GE wave through at our usual IAD. He also didn't seem to trust the fingerprint scan because he held up our passports for a while to really compare them to our faces.

I was recently perusing the corresponding Canadian declaration form that asks if you have "meat, fish, seafood, eggs, plants, flowers, wood, animals, birds, insects, and any parts, products or by-products of any of the foregoing".
We've all been told to declare gum, "better safe than sorry", when as far as I can tell, it's little more than chemicals, and certainly no agricultural danger. Salt (clearly a "food") would not be included in any of those categories, but strictly speaking, a cotton T shirt is a "product" of "plants". It gave me a headache, and I decided to worry about it tomorrow.

YYZ T1 GE on 30 December listed generic food in the question. Truth be told I can't remember the last time I saw the more specific question.

My wife declared the pre-packaged energy bars she'd taken out of the country then back in recently--as the question did indeed just ask about generic "food" at the end of the long list of other items.

"So what are you declaring today?" the officer asked when she presented the chit to him. "Granola bars," she said. The officer had to look something up in a book, but stamped her form and waved her on through.

If they were granola bars that originated in the US, and were in sealed packages the entire time they were out of the country, I would not have declared them because they were not foreign-acquired.

If you're bringing them int:o the country -- regardless of the source -- they need to be declared.

This.

Try buying a banana in the US, doing an international turn, and returning with said banana intact.

But that's logic. It does not apply to the way customs works. ;)

The question doesn't ask about origins; the items were brought outside the US, and are being brought back in. Better to go ahead and declare and at worst have a CBP agent scold you for wasting his or her time than to get a bag dump and an agent claiming to have the "big catch" when GE is zero-tolerance...

I agree. If the CBP agents were going to believe you when you said you bought whatever in the US before you left some folks would try to use that to bring in stuff that had actually been bought abroad.

It also comes back to one critical point: you have to declare everything, even if you know perfectly well that it is allowed.

Even if you bought a sealed box of granola bars before leaving the US and had the receipt with you and know they are allowed, you still have to declare them.

How else is CBP going to find and confiscate dangerous contraband like KinderEggs (old prohibited version) and ramen with meat/dairy products in the flavor packet?

So long as the approach is CBP being reasonable in asking the question "what type of food" rather than sending people to secondary screening, I'm all for an open ended question that lets me explain it to the CBP guy. Better than the risk from incorrectly parsing a detailed questions after a 14+ hour international flight.

In terms of making a Global Entry kiosk declaration, resulting in the "O", is it a matter usually of the customs agent asking "What've you got to declare?" "Tea, coffee, cookies" followed by OK and a motion to continue, adding a few seconds? Or is there a chance of actual screening from that?

If you have something simple, like "candy," no extra screening is likely. If you say "Black truffles," baggage check awaits. And that should not not result in too lengthy a delay.

I think (hope) CBP is getting its act together on this one.

It seems like there was a lack of co-ordination and planning between the back office and the front lines when GE was rolled out. GE interviewers were emphasizing CBP's zero tolerance policies and a hard line on foods that have to be declared - "anything that goes in your mouth". At the same time, CBP started monkeying around with the format of the relevant question on the kiosk.

No one co-ordinated all this with the front lines. I got snapped at by a CBP agent who asked me why I was 'wasting his time' because I followed the rules and declared chocolates and candy. Some folks were sent for various forms of 'secondary'; I had to wait 20+ minutes for an 'agriculture xray' at ORD when I declared my usual cookies and candy.

Let's face it, in the past, no one lost sleep worrying about forgetting to declare a granola bar. Anyone with GE, however, faced revocation of GE (and possibly NEXUS) if caught.

It seems, anecdotally, that perhaps the front lines (at least some of them) have decided to quit blaming super-cautious GE pax and start adopting a more reasonable frontline policy.

There's still confusion surrounding the changing questions on the kiosk. According to CBP, you have to declare any and all food, even if you are sure it is allowed. The kiosk question makes it sound like you only have to declare the listed foods.

I declare "food" about 50% of the time, getting the O. Almost always, it's candy or chocolate. I've had responses of rolled eyes, "well, you enjoy them!", "is that all?", "where are you coming from?" ... but never a secondary screening.

I entered via GE for the first time yesterday. I checked yes to the food question (mostly candy, but also some condiments, including honey) and also to the "have you been on a farm" and "have you had direct contact with livestock" questions (I'd been visiting relatives who have farms, and yes, had to go pet the sheep.)

Got the O, went to secondary as instructed. The CBP agent asked if my declared food included meat or dairy. When I responded no, he sent me on my way. No bag check, no x-ray, and he didn't even ask about my affirmative replies to the farm and livestock questions.

This was at FLL.

You mean these are now allowed??!!


M:ore to the point, those granola bars could have become the home to nasty critters that should not be brought back.

My first trip overseas involve actually staying on a farm as a guest. At customs on my return, I truthfully answered that I had been on a farm. The officer was disgusted that I had said yes, because I had not done any farm work nor come in contact with any animals.

I declared "food" at YYZ preclearance GE, got sent to secondary, and when they asked what, I said M&M's. (I cannot remember why I was taking M&M's. Coals to Newcastle, and all.)
I had to wait 10 minutes, and when the agent finally got to me, he asked "which bag?" and I indicated which bag, and he opened the OTHER bag and rummaged through it thoroughly, all the while being perfectly professional and friendly and all (but not trying to get my attention, or anything - I'm twice his age). In the end he found nothing, and sent me along.
While "most of the time" I imagine they'll wave certain food through on verbal description, after doing that once, 95% of the time, I just don't take food any more.

I've been sent to Ag Inspection at SFO, IAD, and EWR for the food question, FWIW. At SFO and EWR, they x-rayed my bag and sent me on my way (at SFO once, they did debate whether dry dog food was allowable, but ultimately ruled it was), and at IAD, the Ag Inspection station seemed to have been peeved the CBP guy sent me over and didn't even x-ray--they just took my slip and sent me on my way.

Both. Usually waved through, sometimes sent for a bag x-ray.

I read somewhere there's a US-compliant version.