30 Years Ago

A LOOK BACK AT JANUARY 1988

The January 1988 issue of HCB marked a step change in design and layout for the magazine, with bolder colour and glossier paper. Perhaps the increasing number of advertisers were demanding a higher standard of reproduction – though it may just have been that the title had taken on some younger staff with a more modern eye for design.

Whatever, it was a nice chunky start to the year, kicking off with the second part of HJK’s report on the August 1987 meeting of the UN Group of Rapporteurs in Geneva – at the time the Group played a similar role to today’s UN TDG Sub-committee, preparing the amendments for adoption by the parent Committee at the end of the biennium.

While the name of the body may have changed, some of the topics remain the same: in 1987 the IMO was concerned at a lack of consistency in the design of the Class 7 placard – in particular the width of the border around the image. There was also a proposal to amend the packing requirements for Division 6.2 infectious substances and three papers from the USSR on tank containers, one of which wondered if it might not be possible to come up with a code system to describe the type of tank, similar to that used in the IMDG Code.

There was also a lot of discussion of incoming provisions for the testing of reconditioned drums, including one piece from the appropriately named (for a January issue) Vincent Buonanno, ICDR chairman. Indeed, in many ways the new provisions that were taking effect at the end of the 1980s set the framework for those that are still with us. That included the performance testing of UN-specification packagings, both in Europe and, perhaps more revolutionarily, in the US. Producers of all types of packaging were working out how to comply with incoming rules and how to manage the regulations alongside the quality demands of their customers (and, presumably, the profit demands of their shareholders).

Another hot regulatory topic of the time was the arrival of Annex II to Marpol, which took effect in April 1987. The January 1988 issue carried a report from Rear Admiral Kime of USCG on how the US was approaching the implementation of the new provisions and, just as importantly, their enforcement. He noted that the list of chemicals being carried by sea was growing ever longer, meaning that USCG personnel had to have a deeper understanding of the business, and that there had been something of an increase in the number of older and lower quality chemical tankers calling at US ports. On the upside, he said, there were already more than 70 ports in the US complying with the requirement to provide adequate reception facilities.

Closer to home, we reported on practical difficulties being experienced by industry in applying the new Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc) Regulations, which had also come into force in April 1987. In particular, there was confusion over the size and shape of the new orange-coloured plates that had to be affixed to vehicles and how to cover them up at those times when the vehicle was not carrying dangerous goods. It seems simple now but back then it was quite a novelty.

FROM THE PORCH SWING

FRO YO, OH NO.

Maybe my fi rst taste came from a bad batch. I’d been so looking forward to a frozen yogurt. I love ice cream, and I love yogurt, so why wouldn’t a frozen yogurt be spectacular? Um, cuz it tasted like curdled, lumpy, sour milk, just smoother and colder. Gross. Every few years someone would talk me into trying another, but although none tasted exactly the same as that nasty fi rst one, the memories invoked were always so strong I usually had to fi ght not to spit it out. So, me plus fro yo equaled no go. Enter the power of free. A fancy new frozen yogurt place opened near us, and as part of the grand opening week, each customer was offered a free one. Wife and kids were excited, so I went along. I could still be the family chauffeur, even if I refused my free fro yo. The place was huge, the set-up elaborate, and the atmosphere electric. My children were jumping up and down, wide-eyed, as if on a sugar high, before we’d even had a spoonful. Grabbing bowls, my family got creative. A layer of one fl avor, a layer of fruit or nuts, followed by another fl avor, topped with a scattering of sugary sprinkles or crushed candy. Finally, the checkout counter where the concoctions were weighed and an exorbitant bill assessed. “But, but, but, …”, I stammered to the cashier, “…these are free”. “Yes”, the cashier wearily explained, “a small, plain, fro yo is free, but your family has vastly exceeded the small size limit, incurred add-on charges for the mixed in fruits and nuts, incurred add-on charges for the luxury-fl avored yogurts, and incurred add-on charges for the toppings.” The charges and add-ons together exceeded the amount we paid for an entire meal the previous time the family had gone out to eat, and this was only dessert, and without dad getting any to boot. I paid. Boy, did I pay. Discretely complaining to my wife on the way home while the children bounced joyfully around in the back of the minivan, I muttered that I now had two reasons to hate fro yo. (BTW, has there been a competent authority determination on whether it’s fro yo, froyo, or FroYo? Sometimes these fi ne points elude me.) Wisely, and politely, my wife pointed out that I was still back at only one reason, as my new objection was more about the add-ons than about the fro yo itself. Yeah, I considered, she was probably right. It may be add-ons that I’m not too fond of. Some transport regulations have add-ons, too. And for a change, I can’t point my fi nger