@Unique_Letterhead I am now unsure whether you mean me and why you are so angry. You didn’t quote me, but you refer to my link. It’s best to calm down first and read my post again carefully, if you were referring to me.
As I have already said: every country defines it differently, we live in a globalised world. Every country, every government, defines food safety differently. I don’t have to write any more about it, because I think you misunderstood my contribution and let your emotions guide you.
I actually agree with you on many aspects, but I have already mentioned these in my own comments. There is no point in arguing here, because the question must always be: Which country are we talking about and how is it defined in your country?
I sincerely hope that you read my comment again in peace, if your comment was at all related to me, after all? Apparently you forgot to write in the heat of the moment. The frequent editing doesn’t make it any better, come to calm down first.
Please do not post incorrect information as you can kill people like that.
No filament exists that is safe for food. None.
None you can use on your home printer - Because your home printers filthy by default - so none should be the correct answer and why every time someone asks as that is the truth.
Only the 150,000$ food printers that nobody here has, especially not in their garages, can print anything food safe and that filament for the those food printers doesn’t exist because those printers print actual food. food food. to eat. why they are actually “food safe nozzle sterilized” printers in a fully enclosed box to prevent bacteria.
Taking a printed bowl camping to put chips in is not the same as making a milk udder cap to drink / pour constantly from. The camping bowl will be recycled at the end of the day, you’ll be in the hospital with the other - regardless of the country.
I reply here because I don’t like seeing misinformation spread and put a stop to it. That’s all.
I won’t answer any more because you are deliberately trying to misunderstand my post, I don’t know why. Besides, it has nothing to do with the actual topic. You have your opinion, I have mine. It doesn’t suit you to try and stop me. Of course you can have your opinion, no problem, but to forbid other opinions, especially if I have justified them, is simply the wrong way in a forum. I’m happy to engage in a dialogue, but not this way.
You didn’t notice that I was talking only about “food-safe PLA”. As for the environment, e.g. whether your printer is dirty, I never talked about that, but posted the link for that very reason. So why are you accusing me of misinformation when I posted a link that anyone can look up?
I don’t know why you want to stress and deliberately misunderstand me. You’re probably just having a bad day and taking it out on me now, tomorrow will be a better day. I wish you all the best, but will block you.
I would like to reiterate that I did not write about whether your printer, nozzle or environment is food safe. Rather, I provided a link that defines this in more detail. It appears that you are repeating what the other user has already written, rather than what I have written.
To clarify, my statement was: There is PLA that is food safe. I have NEVER spoken of the printer or the environment, but therefore posted the link for those who want to read about it.
I’m referring to the material PLA. PLA can be categorised as GRAS (generally recognised as safe). However, subsequent contamination will determine whether it is categorised as food safe or not.
“In 1995, a team of scientists conducted on PLA (polylactic acid) and its food safety. They reached the conclusion that PLA is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for contact with food and food contact surfaces.”
Before accusations of spreading misinformation are made, it should be noted that the first link, as well as this one, clearly states what can contaminate PLA. Bambu’s filament is not food safe, and the origins of the false accusations against me are unclear.
It would be appreciated if all parties involved could read the written statement again, as it comprises two points: Firstly, PLA (the material) also exists in a food-safe variant, and secondly, there are different regulations depending on the country and government. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is speculation, including the user above you. The points about the environment, the nozzle, etc. are all assumptions. I don’t deny it; I agree with you 100% on those points and have never said anything else.
I can understand them not wanting to be the makerworld safety police, but this is their own advertising. I’m speechless. There are no words for this level of insanity.
This one would be against the law here in Australia. Helmets are mandatory and need to meet a particular safety standard (Australian Standard AS/NZS 2063) by undergoing testing etc. I guess lots of place won’t have these standards and they can be printed there.
“Hey, here’s an idea, what if we suggest to people they could 3d-print overpriced safety equipment? Think of all of the money they could save! You know, we could have a whole line of models, bike helmets, bulletproof vests, carabiners for rock climbing, why I bet we could even make a parachute harness!”
Literally any other company: “Bwa ha ha ha! Good one Joe! Can you imagine! Ok, but seriously, any other ideas?”
Bambu Lab: “Approved, get it to the art department.”
Wait…what?!?.. are you saying that Bambu’s got a whole art department…for real?!?.. damn, I could have sworn their R&D guys simply mixed stuff they’ve wrote on pieces of paper in a baseball cap, and the first 10 that were pulled out, were used to generate the final product appearance…
practically, more in line with the stone age approach …
Here are some highlights, I’ll leave it up to you if you find the representation trustworthy.
Disclaimer
The bicycle helmet has undergone and passed the tests related to stability, strength, impact absorption, and field of vision as specified in GB 811-2022 (which isequivalent to EN 1078). The test is sponsored by Makerworld, and the report has been uploaded to this model profile.
Equivalent to EN 1078? That’s the European standard! It passes the European standard, wow, great!
Not so fast. It is not “equivalent to” EN 1078 by a long shot. It is analogous to. The Chinese standard fulfills the roughly the same roll for China that the European standard fulfills for Europe, but they are different standards targeting different products. In many ways the Chinese standard is more rigorous, but in things likes absolute g-force impact absorption it is more lax. According to the numbers published in the attached report this helmet may not pass EN 1078 limits, but again they are different standards with different testing requirements and the numbers aren’t directly translatable. And…
So it was tested and passed GB 811-2022? Great!
Uh, again, not so fast. It was tested and passed “tests related to stability, strength, impact absorption, and field of vision as specified in GB 811-2022”, in other words a subset of them. Why be so evasive?
I’m reading and translating GB 811-2022 now, it’s 36 pages. I’m going out on a limb here, but based on my superficial one hour review of what I’ve read so far this would not meet the requirements of GB 811-2022, it’s not even close. It simply passed some of the tests. In other words it seems this would not be legal for sale even in China. Does that seem deceptive to you? It does to me.
You know after I read this I went to MakerWorld and searched for “Car Seat” to see if anyone had tried to enter the “Infant Safety” market. Thankfully no, no one… yet.
It was too early in the AM but I was going to mention that the “disclaimer” was kind of odd in that it wasn’t disclaiming anything. It wasn’t saying “the design ONLY passed some tests”, it was tooting it’s horn about the standard.
LOL…Some people are quick learners, some aren’t … This guy seems to have learned and adjusted fast to prevent any (potential) dispute or litigation. Good for him, though in his place, I’d take down any mention to completing GB/EN specific standards, as according to the attached report, that info ain’t entirely accurate…but then again, it’s his head (and reputation) on the wooden block, not mine.
For context: I hardly think this is about “learning” and “adapting” of a single person. The helmet is the showpiece in the trailer and the whole advertising campaign for H2D. Likewise, other bike parts such as the saddle. What someone does individually doesn’t matter in the overall context if the whole advertising campaign is about how you can print bike parts yourself.
It’s less about “this guy” than Bambu’s advertising campaign as a whole. If so, Bambu has to worry about legal claims: The helmet is shown in every advertisement. To be precise, it’s actually one of the main arguments for buying the printer, according to the advertising promise.
seen the video much later, after posting my reply.
The fact that it originates from Bambu doesn’t change the argument that it’s still irresponsible and dangerous to use such a device.
Exactly, it has even confirmed your argument if you have now seen the video. It’s not just about the helmet, but also about the bike saddle. It’s just as dangerous if it suddenly breaks off. To be precise: to make spare parts for the bike that are relevant to safety.
Imagine riding in the middle of traffic and the saddle breaks off. That’s why the context is so important: it’s not just about the helmet, but about the entire advertisement from the trailer to the website.
