That’s dumb. I understand restrictions on uncooked meats, but what harm could a cooked chicken breast do? This is what happens when officials blindly enforce rules without understanding the purpose of the rule in the first place.
It’s a genuine biosecurity risk in Australia. Australia (and NZ) are very susceptible to pathogens from outside so this kind of thing is taken very seriously in both countries.
You probably shouldn’t let any people in then.
“Nope, don’t worry about that. It’s the chicken sandwiches that are the problem.”
Brah so we should test all chicken breast coming into the country to make sure it’s cooked? Who the fuck is paying for that? Or maybe you just don’t bring a fucking chicken burger on the plane…
If you can’t tell the difference between raw chicken breast and a piece of fried chicken on sight, please don’t ever work anywhere near the food industry.
If you don’t know chicken can look cooked on the outside but be raw on the inside please don’t ever work anywhere near the food industry.
Who the fuck is smuggling half-cooked chicken breasts for this ‘gotcha’ of yours? Oh, that’s right, no one.
You understand most of risk DAFF is trying to mitigate is accidentally introduction of pests and dieses right?
And I can’t fathom how so many people think customs have the man power to check every hamburger passagers may be inclined to hide in their luggage. Unknown and unprocessed meat is a risk, cheapest and safest way to reduce the risk is to ban it.
But you know, you guys continue to enjoy your airplane hamburgers along with rabies, brown marmorated stink bugs, khapra beetles, giant african snails and all the other shit we manage to keep out with strict quarantine laws.
Okay, it is banned. Tell them to throw it away. Don’t fine the everliving shit out of them for a cooked sandwich.
I’ve worked in imports for 20 odd years and would have witnessed ABF & DAFF (and their previous 5 or 6 names) seize or hold hundreds of thousands of items. I’ve never seen a fine issued for a simple mistake, they’re normally reserved for when there is deceit or concealment.
That’s generally the rule - if you’re not sure, declare it, then if it’s not allowed, it’s binned. There are even signs all over the place through Aus (& NZ) customs saying exactly this.
If you don’t declare it and it’s found or it looks like you’ve tried to hide it (wrapped in luggage) then that’s when you get in trouble for it.
It’s a case of common sense. Obviously an accident, obviously cooked. Throw it in the trash and move on with life. You crazy black and white maniacs that think every rule has to be applied 100% in every case with no possibility of anything ever happening that maybe doesn’t make sense or isn’t the intention of the people who wrote the rule are like 50% of what’s wrong with society.
I have a feeling the granny probably pissed someone off along the way. I’m sure sometimes it gets thrown away and everyone moves on.
As a German I feel deeply insulted.
You and I obviously have no idea what happened at the security gate, or the extent to which she tried to argue about it or hide it. I’ve travelled in and made mistakes in the past and the result was a stern ticking off. I suspect there was more to this.
Us crazy black and white maniacs is why Australia doesn’t get to enjoy the wide array of pest and dieses the rest of the world has.
Fuck this gandma and her chicken burger. Entitled people like her are actually what’s wrong with society.
You can accomplish your goals while not being a dick about it.
You started with name calling and proceed to define others as dicks.
Yes I called the people who charged a grandma $2000 for accidentally bringing a sandwich that has zero chance of carrying avian influenza dicks. Why you’re choosing to take that personally is beyond me.
Avian influenza dicks are what I’d really would not be happy to see in a
sandwichburgerSo you’re ageist too. Got it.
You should be thankful it’s cooked.
If it’s undercooked? Believe it or not, straight to jail.
The link didn’t load for me, but this link has an interesting bit at the end-
“Meat has strict import conditions which can change quickly based on disease outbreaks,” the spokesperson said, adding that passengers can be fined up to 6,260 Australian dollars, or around $4,100, for bringing unauthorized food items into the country.
It’s not the first time a passenger has been fined for bringing an undeclared item through an Australian airport. In August, a passenger was fined $1,200 for walking with a rose at an airport in Australia. And in August last year, a passenger was fined $1,870 for packing McMuffin sandwiches on a flight from Bali to Australia.
That same info was also in the linked article.
Like I said, the link didn’t load for me.
Could it have something to do with it being Chinese state media? I’m not aware of any ad blocker that is that overzealous but it might be a possibility?
I was merely letting you know. There’s no need to downvote factual information.
I didn’t downvote anything.
@FlyingSquid @throws_lemy Who the hell declares a sandwich???
At the US Canada border crossing, if you don’t declare a pack of gum or a candy bar for a inspection it can be used as an “issue”
I was warned of this a few years ago as they asked me if I wanted to declare anything before they started their random vehicle inspection.
One time I was driving my Gf’s car and at some point a orange had rolled under her seat and had turned into a dried out black ball.
They let me off with a stiff warning that I was lucky since I didn’t declare and they could tell it was an accident. They have to be concerned about the orange crops (in Florida I guess?) I was told. I was crossing in Washington State though.
@WashedOver that’s insane
Crossing in Washington the guard got angry at us because one of us was from DC, one from Vegas, and one from Seattle. He was offended that we came from different places.
It sucks how people are left up to the whim of the guards working. If they are having a bad day, odds are you will too.
Apparently someone who doesn’t want Australia to fine them. The real question is why Australia doesn’t let people know this before they enter the country when the TSA easily lets people know about all the things they can’t bring on a plane with signs before they even go through a security checkpoint.
We do. There’s announcements on the flight and there’s signs everywhere.
The department spokeswoman pointed to biosecurity announcements on flights which told travellers what their declaration obligations were, as well as signage about it around arrivals areas in Australian airports.
Ok, so basically this woman didn’t pay attention to anything and got fined for it.
Moreover, she declared on her landing card that she had no plant or animal material on her possession. Being a New Zealander she should know better. What an idiot.
She’s 77 and she had probably planned to eat it on the flight. It was a cooked chicken sandwich. Think she planned on keeping it for like 6 hours in her purse?
Armstrong said she packed the sandwich in her bag before the flight
Yes, it sounds like she did.
It was probably a lack of attention combined with a genuine mistake. She claims she slept through the flight. Lots of people are also unaware how strictly we deal with it and think they’ll be fine instead of fined. We have an entire TV show about it.
I don’t want to be too harsh on her as it’s relatively minor and the fine amounted to 10% of their combined remaining life savings. It was her mistake.
there are signs all through the airport and she will be asked as well. she had opportunities to declare it
You aussies charged her $2,000 for a harmless cooked sandwich. It was too old to eat and just garbage by the time she arrived to Australia. Instead of simply tossing it…$2,000. Y’all suck.
Some of these rules are just silly and arbitrary. Once I was driving down to the USA from Canada and I had a banana sitting on the dash for a snack.
The customs agent angrily tells me “You can’t bring a banana into America”. So I chomped down the banana, and offered the peel for disposal.
“I don’t want the peel, you can keep the peel”
I looked confused and asked how the peel was any different from the whole banana, and he’s just like “move along, next vehicle”
I think he was just hungry and wanted to swipe my banana
My father visited the USSR in the late 80s. When he left, he was required by law to return all of the Soviet money he had exchanged. He offered all of his rubles and then he emptied his pockets and he had a handful of kopeks in them and put them on the desk. The customs guy looked down at them and said, “you keep kopek.” And that’s how I got a few Soviet kopeks as a kid to add to my coin collection.
I remember flying back from Spain one time and a young woman behind me in line to clear customs had two Spanish sausages, long ones, on top of her luggage. They were a no-no. Clearly, she did not give a fuck. Customs let her through.
“Don’t risk it for a Bisquit”
Bisquick has ruined your spelling.
Got me, apologies on this, but it was nesquick
Granny shoulda watched that show, “border security: Australia”
Funny thing is, NZ is actually stricter on this issue than Australia.
To make it worse, we have our own in New Zealand, which is the (worldwide) original of that format. The Aussie series is a spin-off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Patrol_(New_Zealand_TV_series)
“Flightless” for a reason, grandma.
That’s a chicken burger in the picture, love when there’s an article about aus/nz but using American nomenclature
It even converted to USD. But for real y’all call it a chicken burger?
Burger is ground meat and chicken sandwiches are often made of whole meat. Cheapo ones are mechanically separated which would count as ground, but the one in the photo is not.
Over here if it’s on a bun it’s a burger, if it’s on sliced bread it’s a sandwich, simple as
What about sandwiches made with rolls and bagels?
Also, I see the aussie point, but, in the US, burger is short for hamburger, which refers to the meat itself. Do you only say ground beef too? Or is ground beef also called hamburger?
And also… Is a burger not considered a type of sandwich?
I hadn’t heard of this dialect difference. Fun stuff!
A bagel is a bagel. Two halves of a bagel with something on between are still a bagel. The same goes for a roll. A sandwich is two slices of bread with something in between.
The meat is beef mince or minced beef (not ground). It’s formed into and cooked as a patty, which is one component of a delicious hamburger.
I think most people would say yes to “is a burger a type of sandwich” but that’s a very different question to would you call a burger a sandwich, which an Aussie would not.
A roll is a roll and a bagel is a bagel, a sub is a sub, they’re not really called sandwiches here unless it’s on sliced bread
A Cuban sandwich is on a bun, is that a burger? Same goes for cheese steaks and French dips and subs, served on buns, is burger?
No, no, it has to be a round bun.
Precisely this. American terminology applies in America only.
I’m sorry, but we invented English. We say what words are valid in the language.
nope we’d call that a burger in aus/nz
What shitty article. No explanation of anything. Get this shit out of here.
ChatGPT at your service kind Sir.
“Chicken meat poses a significant biosecurity risk to Australia, particularly the risk of highly pathogenic notifiable avian influenza (HPNAI) virus which can cause severe disease and mortality across Australia’s poultry industry, and may also affect wild bird populations.”
We do have a reputation for taking these things very seriously, as we should. We were even going to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs at one point but settled for the “hostage video”. Despite that, it does seem excessive in this case and should have been overturned on appeal at the very least.
Thankfully someone stepped up and ended up paying the fine on their behalf.
Removed by mod
Great, then declare it and there shouldn’t be any problem. Where the problem comes in is people not declaring it. If it’s hidden somewhere in their luggage or on their person how is anyone supposed to know that?
Granted it is harsh in this case which I already said but customs has no interest in letting people skirt the rules just because.
Real talk, how did they find it if she didn’t ‘declare’ it?
They found it after they went through her backpack.
Extra info: if you declare everything, even if it’s something that’s definitely not allowed, you will not get into any trouble. I’m talking about food and stuff not drugs or guns. They just don’t want people to not be declaring things that then slip through without inspection. That’s why there’s a heavy fine if they have to “catch” you. A lot of things are okay’d to be brought in after inspection.
How’d they find it in her backpack?
Do they just search people’s luggage in addition to having them ‘declare’ things?
Random searches are a standard part of going through the green channel in most countries. There are also sniffer dogs. Several years ago I watched a lady get stopped because a softer dog had detected an apple in a Tupperware box in her luggage.
They do “random searches” just like any other country but I find it more likely in this situation that they saw something on the scanner which prompted them to search the bag. Even if you compare the process to the USA it’s pretty much identical. You still have to declare everything except the USA has even steeper fines than Australia.
Everyone is searched going through customs. There are also dogs trained to sniff out everything.
I hope the dog got to eat the sandwich.
Who in their right mind would think they need to declare a sandwich?
Don’t forget to declare your half-eaten bag of airplane peanuts as well.
You can either declare them or put them in the bio security bins in arrivals.
Don’t forget to declare any stuff that might get trapped on your shoes. Iirc people have been jailed for having “marijuana traces” on them.
EDIT: not sure why people are voting down but this actually happened: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18842015
The people who see the massive signs all the way through the arrival hall with pictures of stuff like sandwiches. Seriously, you can’t miss them
Never been in an aussie airport so I’ll take your word for it. Still though having to declare a sandwich is beyond absurd. I get the reasoning for raw foodstuffs but a cooked chicken sandwich isn’t carrying anything that granny couldn’t also just be carrying in her body.
You might find it absurd, but it is quite common. The same rules about cooked food now apply, for example when travelling from the UK to France - that sandwich could have been seized when travelling into Europe - there were some travellers who were caught out travelling to France following Brexit. https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-products-movements/personal-imports_en
And the same in the US except with ever larger fines than AU https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/agricultural-items
And you are told in a dozen languages even before stepping out of the plane. But everyone in this thread who’s never crossed a border think you can just go to other countries and do the fuck you want because they know better
Perhaps anyone listening to the plane announcements, looks at any one of the multitude of signs on arrival, or anyone (everyone) who fills out the incoming passenger card? It’s not at all unclear what you have to do when you’re there. They make it clear to declare everything at multiple points. There is no penalty for declaring something even if it’s not allowed in.
On the first side of the incoming passenger card, half of it is taken up by the question:
Are you bringing into Australia:
[…]
-
Meat, poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy, fruit, vegetables?
-
Grains, seeds, bulbs, straw, nuts, plants, parts of plants, traditional medicines or herbs, wooden articles?
-
Animals, parts of animals, animal products including equipment, pet food, eggs, biologicals, specimens, birds, fish, insects, shells, bee products?
The tourists are all made of raw meat!
And the same applies! You have to be declared. If you try and smuggle a human in there’s probably steep fines associated if you’re caught.
-
We were even going to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs at one point but settled for the “hostage video”.
Let me guess, it’s because he was rich and famous.
I think it was more about sending a message. In a way yes because he is famous, but in the way that they wanted to leverage that as a deterrence. It wasn’t about “letting him off the hook”. It was about using him as a platform to say to the world “we do not fuck around when it comes to this”. If you’ve seen the hostage video you know what I mean 🤣
I have not seen this hostage video.
Is it easy to find?
Here’s a short news story about it with some additional context https://youtu.be/4a7ExWd698w
Here’s the original clip https://youtu.be/Q2BDtdkyxFk
If you search Johnny Depp hostage video you will find it. We don’t talk about she who must not be named.
Thank you!
I can see how this might be a win-win for both parties. Yeah, JDepp gets off cause of his fame. But the AU government also gets to use that fame to send a message to everyone else.
They were never really going to kill the dogs. The full context was along the lines of “well you can do the right thing, or we will have no choice but to…”. I’m not aware of any cases where they’ve actually euthanised a pet, famous or no. It’s an absolute last resort as they would rather just quarantine them. But yeah, pretty funny and a win for the government.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4a7ExWd698w
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
In Australia under a rightwing government? No, they wouldn’t have given a shit about that.
It was because he broke biosecurity laws. Something we take seriously here after witnessing how rabbits, foxes, and canetoads fucked up the environment.
We were even going to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs at one point but settled for the “hostage video”.
That was just Barnaby Joyce grandstanding and making a big deal out of ‘we apply the rules to everyone, no matter if they’re rich or famous’. No fucking way he would have ever laid hands on those dogs. The man was and still is a fucking embarrassment to politics and Australia.
Agreed and I made a similar point in a few of my other comments. If you look at the original context it was more of a “well you have to abide by the rules and the dogs should be quarantined but if you’re not willing to do that then we would have no other option”.
deleted by creator
Do you have a passport? You shouldn’t visit Europe either - similar restrictions
Yep no meat no dairy. Which also applies to the UK, yet another Brexit dividend.
The chance that any random sandwich carries something nasty is small, but there’s two other factors: a) If it does carry something nasty, the implications are huge and, certainly not least, b) you don’t need to bring a sandwich. Noone needs to bring a sandwich. Get one once you arrive. And if you just can’t stand airline food then be vegan for a couple of hours it won’t kill you. Live solely off chocolate during your flight if you want.
And what I got from other commenters is that their countries hate pieces of gum and shrivelled blackened oranges. It’s not unique to Australia although as an island nation especially prone to biosecurity threats we do have a reputation for taking it more seriously. It’s not a difficult thing to get caught with if you’re paying any sort of attention. You can make mistakes and accidentally (or even purposefully) bring stuff in as long as you own up to it. There’s signage everywhere explaining in words and pictures what is and is not allowed. The custom agents ask you. There’s literally every chance to declare.
It’s not as harsh as it sounds, it’s only when you get caught that it becomes a big deal. It’s like if you got pulled up by the cops. If you try and lie or simply don’t even recognise that you were speeding you’ll probably get a ticket. The analogy breaks down in the “admit fault” side of things because the cop can ticket you anyway, where under our biosecurity law you cannot be punished for declaring goods that would not be allowed in.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The very next sentence says:
The analogy breaks down in the “admit fault” side of things because the cop can ticket you anyway
