Comment by bell-cot

>I'm thinking there is no realistic level of subsidy which could make it rational for Bob's Bakery (with 1, maybe 2 or 3 modest retail locations) to build a separate no-Sesame production facility. And a separate no-Peanut production facility. And a separate... And how could Bob afford the extra staffing, property taxes, utilities, etc. for all those?

Sure? If the standard is "0.5% of the population gets perfect medical grade alternatives to literally everything including purely local tiny producers of a common food item" then no that's not going to happen. But if the problem is merely having at least 1-2 national brands on the major super market shelves so that everybody always can buy something safe and nutritious (if not the most exciting), well that strikes me as doable. After all, it's not as if these products had sesame in them anyway, and they are plenty popular with everyone. Some of them are in large enough national volume to justify their own production facilities at the national level. It's "just" a capital expenditure hump and coordination problem for those, which is precisely something the government can help with. Both with the capex side, and with things like taxes of course (which you brought up). I think this is actually easier then some, this isn't like a medicine where only those who need it will consume it, it's making something mass consumed already.

So maybe the real first step that should have been done would have been to actually get all stakeholders together and get a consensus on what the real final realistic goal is here, then craft law to help realize that in a deliberate manner.

Why does bobs bakery need 2-3 retail locations with 2 seperate baking facilities each for a community to have access to a seasame and non-seasame options

We already have a working model for gluten free bakeries where they are independently owned and operated entirely gluten free to prevent the situation you describe where a small Baker needs multiple facilities.

Why are you strawmanning a future that's wholly unkind to the point you're responding rather than drawing parallels from reality?

Ps. With Kellogg's, obviously it's cheaper to add peanut flour. People with allergies already aren't purchasing the products, so it costs them nothing to prevent fines, I don't really see the relevance of this, other than to say Kellogg's doesn't think the demand exists for peanut-free Kellogg's products that already may contain peanuts.