So I was doing groceries and I thought some edamame would be nice. There was store brand, and also one with a label in Japanese, which I mistakenly assumed meant that it was imported from Japan.

Now I happen to like Japanese food from Japan better than Japanese food from America, so I went with the bag with the Japanese label.

Well, I pulled it out today to cook some and noticed that it has a Proposition 65 label mentioning lead exposure. I’m not used to seeing this on food. I also thought it was strange, because Japanese goods usually have better quality than this.

As it turns out, it’s not from Japan at all. It was imported from China!

On its own, importing soybeans from China doesn’t sound that awful. But they didn’t just import soybeans. They called them Edamame, which is specifically the Japanese word for soybeans. Not only that, but they wrote “Mukimi Edamame” in big Japanese letters at the top of the front of the packaging, to fool unsuspecting shoppers like me into thinking it’s a product of Japan.

If it weren’t for the lead contamination, then this would only be a simple matter of cultural appropriation, and possibly false advertising. But no, apparently they contain lead. Why are US stores even allowed to sell this? Why was it allowed through customs? What US distributor decided to import a bunch of lead contaminated soybeans?

This is not okay!

A bag of frozen vegetables labeled "Mukimi Edamame" in Japanese characters

The back side of the same bag, with a label that says "Warning: Consuming this product can expose you to chemicals including lead, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/food"

Another view of the back side of the bag, with a label that says "Product of China"

  • @jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 day ago

    Turns out everything has some association with cancer https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.047142

    So when one group introduces a law saying we should label anything with a cancer risk, nobody can argue against it… but once the law is in place, it’s now a tool which people can use against their pet peeves, and since everything has some association with cancer, you get the label on everything.

    • wonderingwandererOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 day ago

      This is why I’ve always been against “excess of caution.” It reminds me of that spongebob episode where he breaks his butt and becomes a recluse to avoid danger. It’s no way to live.

      Even the term “excess” implies that it’s too much, it’s being taken too far.

      There will always be risk. It can’t be eliminated. We can mitigate it, but there’s no sense in trying to minimize it beyond a reasonable degree. It will only create unforeseen issues. Such as making warning labels meaningless, resulting in people ignoring them even when they matter.