Egg on my facebook

Of course I do not mind eating my words every now and then. Especially not when I am this relieved. I felt such dismay when I was under the impression that the current draft regulations (No. R. 658 of 11 June 2009 relating to the FOODSTUFFS, COSMETICS AND DISINFECTANT ACT, 1972 (ACT 54 OF 1972)) required that “[coffee] must have a kick” that discovering this to be completely untrue is of far greater value than my embarrassment over the flying off the handle over a half-baked bun in the oven. I am so relieved I am randomly mixing my metaphors.

I really thought for a moment that our minster of health and with him, perhaps, the whole world, had gone completely insane.

The article on IOL reported that “[coffee] had better have caffeine in it, even if the package says decaffeinated” (my emphasis), and this was repeated, subsequently, by Jenny CW. It turns out that this was one of the best examples ever of how you must never believe everything that you read in the newspaper. Du-uh. What was I thinking?

I should know by now that when reports sound like they were penned by an imbecile, they most likely were. Maybe I just had too much coffee that day.

I did say in my post (mounting a sort-of defence here) that I was going to look into the whole thing. Unfortunately I only managed to do that today – thanks Fil for the info – as I have been subjected to the horrors of regular employment, for up to 10 hours a day, since I got so excited by the craziness of the story as reported and was so rude to Mr. Motsoaledi. (Look, I stand by my comments on the NHI… explain THAT, please… eh… sir.)

But to clarify for everybody, here follow the draft regulations verbatim:

Decaffeinated Ground Coffee

2. Decaffeinated ground coffee shall not contain more than 0.1 % caffeine and shall be labelled “decaffeinated ground coffee”.

Decaffeinated Instant Coffee

3. Decaffeinated instant coffee shall not contain more than 0.3 % caffeine and shall be labelled “decaffeinated instant coffee”.

This does, of course, make complete sense, as it protects the consumer from unscrupulous vendors who only pretend to sell decaf coffee. I am sure the folk who do see the sense of taking the caffeine out of coffee are happy to know that, by law, they will soon be able to get their money back if their phony decaf has kept them up all night. But seeing that they say you can never catch up on the sleep, I would personally recommend that they just have a cup of Rooibos tea instead.

The regulations appear to be firmly in the interest of the anti-caffeine consumer. Apparently your average Starbucks decaf can contain up to 2% caffeine. Those Americans are so deluded, I think. I support the regulations with the same conviction that I opposed them before I knew what the hell they actually were. If the label says decaf, the contents should be decaffeinated. This is what I believed all along. (I think it is time to let this go now.)

So that is all for today. I was going to write about Julius Malema and his beef with Sonke Gender Justice Network but I thought the erratum should take precedence. There is not much to say about Julius anyway. Apparently he refused again to apologise today (for saying that the woman who laid a case of rape against JZ had a “nice time”), because the hate speech case against him was driven by whites who are against black leaders. He is such a crazy shit. And frankly, counter-revolutionary.

And I might as well admit that even though I SWORE that I would never ever post a profile on facebook, I have now done so. Well, my mother has always said why do you have a mind if you can’t change it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s