Do you mean things strangulated? From what I know, no, we do not eat things strangulated due to St. Paul's teaching not to eat anything strangulated or offered to idols. I don't think we needed a council for that, although I wonder whether St. Paul meant that literally or if it had something to do with pagan worship. As Egyptians it's also culturally unacceptable. When animals are killed, they make sure most of the blood is drained through the neck, whether Muslim or Christian.
As for Constantinople, as far as I'm aware, it's been understood that it was never meant or understood to be an ecumenical council when it was held. Later on in history, I'm not sure about Ephesus II, but certainly Ephesus III gave most OO's an idea that this is one of the councils we MUST accept, along with Nicea, Ephesus I, and Ephesus II. Likewise, for the EO's, Constantinople was considered ecumenical in Chalcedon as well.
There was no mention of Constantinople in Ephesus I (431), only Nicea, which made some people think there were only two ecumenical councils accepted by that time. Only mid to late fifth century have Constantinople been given mention as an ecumenical council. Let's not forget the importance of this council in adding part of the Creed that pertained to the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the General Resurrection, as well as the condemnation of the heresies of Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius, which were probably universally accepted even before mentioning Constantinople as ecumenical. The only issue about Constantinople that may have delayed its acceptance was probably the idea that Constantinople would be considered as "New Rome" equal in honor to Western Rome.