← Back to context

Comment by tracker1

4 years ago

I'm allergic (not deathly so) to legumes, cranberries and have trouble with wheat as well. Most of the time, I just try to minimize my exposure and live with not feeling well when I get wammied. Cranberries are my worst reaction, the only time I tend to get really nosy is actually BBQ sauce, because many tangy sauces will contain them.

In the end, I don't (and imho, shouldn't) expect the world to put padding on the sidewalk to protect my from myself.

I would be happy if labelling laws included a "Manufacturing facility handles (allergen list). This product may contain trace amounts." as a statement for what there might be trace amounts of in terms of allergens not intentionally part of the product.

It bugs me a bit that if a kid wants a PBJ they no longer are allowed to at school.

14 comments

tracker1

Reply
rhino369  4 years ago

Kids need extra protection since they can’t weigh risk and don’t understand how the world works. So I understand if my daughters can’t have peanuts in elementary school if their classmate has a real allergy.

But policies go above and beyond that now. They bar peanuts even if nobody has an allergy. Other places bar peanuts for self identified allergies (which cannot be confirmed 90% of the time by a doctor). That’s just bad policy driven by litigation fear.

moregrist  4 years ago

I’m pretty sure that allowing companies to slip legal liability with a “might contain” which just result in boilerplate for all allergies which isn’t helpful to anyone.

I’m glad your allergies aren’t so severe. But minimizing contact isn’t enough for people who are deathly allergic to peanuts or sesame, where the best case for exposure is an epi-pen shot and a trip to the ER. It’s not so much asking for padded walls as enough information to allow people to live without fear of dying because of something they ate.

Every kid deserves an education without fear of being killed by some other kid’s snack. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people to just eat their PB&J at home.

  • rhino369  4 years ago

    Why should they have legal liability in the first place for small amount of cross-contaminated ingredients?

    Regardless, listing ingredients they aren’t willing to affirm aren’t in their products is helpful. It identifies products that aren’t for sure safe which is what you want.

  • savingsPossible  4 years ago

    > I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people to just eat their PB&J at home.

    What's the cost benefit analysis here? That the kid does not get to share the food?

    Would touching someone that ate a PBJ be enough to trigger an episode? In what percentage of people?

    How can you just say something like that without also stating a model? Without percentages and numbers?

  • gameman144  4 years ago

    > I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people to just eat their PB&J at home.

    Totally get that. Others do think that's too much to ask though, and I'm sure there are cases where you'd disagree with their "not too much to ask" in return.

  • tracker1  4 years ago

    I didn't say boilerplate for all allergies... I specifically stated, that the mfg should list allergens the facility handles, but aren't ingredients. That warning should be sufficient to state that it may not be safe for the allergens in question.

    I'm sure actually adding allergens to food and labeling them is a much better solution after-all.

    Why, because nobody is going to make 10 mfg facilities each avoiding a different singular ingredient.

gedy  4 years ago

Wait, there are schools that don't allow non-allergic kids to eat peanut butter, etc?