Comment by 323
4 years ago
But article states something else - a company can't say "this product might not be safe for people with food allergies", they can still be sued. So the only thing left for the company is to actually intentionally put the alergen in and they say "this product is 100% not safe for people with food allergies". The end result is the decrease of alergen free food.
This is it. The labeling isn't the problem it's the extra processes and cost required to eliminate the potential for any cross contamination. This problem, cost and liability goes away by just adding the ingredient.
I don't understand why they can't just label the product as "might contain sesame"? Why do they need to change the recipe when it sounds like a labelling change would do the job?
When you have life-threatening food allergies, "may contain" is the same as "does contain."
I suddenly developed two dozen food allergies at age 30 after a lifetime of eating whatever I wanted. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy. Out of all the numerous ways in which it's horrible, seeing "may contain" on the ingredients list of a food that, based on the ingredients I can confirm it has would otherwise be fine, is one of the most soul-killing.
But there are also those of us whose issues aren't life threatening.
Something like sesame should be labeled, but they should permit the "made in a facility that uses <x>" type labeling. I'll take a chance on such things because I know that at worst I'm in for an unpleasant day and it's very unlikely to even do that--my reactions are dependent both on dose and frequency. "Contains sesame"--I'm not touching it. "Made in a facility that uses sesame"--I wouldn't care.
Besides, their definition of "contains" is flawed, anyway. They're obsessed about what the manufacturer puts in, but as far as I can tell there are no rules at all about listing what they fail to take out. Occasionally you see the origin of certain materials listed but that's rare. I've had several encounters with situations where the failed-to-remove ingredient has been an issue for me, but the only cross-contamination I've ever had an issue with was pretty blatant (Chinese wok cooking typically does not wash between dishes. It's hot enough that this isn't a disease threat and such cooking is active enough that there will be no issue of stuck-on food--thus for most purposes this is fine. However, it's just asking for cross contamination between dishes.)
They also permit my #1 nemesis: "artificial flavors". I have no idea which ones I'm sensitive to because they're not individually listed. (Lest you think I'm one of the chemical-phobic nuts, my #2 nemesis is "natural flavors".)
4 replies →
What do you mean you can confirm it? What if it's made in a factory with various conveyor belts, and some dust from one could get into another?
1 reply →
Yeah, I've been seeing "this product was manufactured in a facility that processes food containing tree nuts" for over a decade now.
2 replies →
[dead]
According to the article, that's not good enough for the FDA. As for why the FDA says it's not good enough, I don't know.
>Some companies include statements on labels that say a food "may contain" a certain product or that the food is "produced in a facility" that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.
Because that label doesn’t meet the requirement for the law.
It's a bad law.
Because if I can just right "this product might not be safe for people with food allergies" on a package and not have to worry about legal consequences, why wouldn't I? Magic anti-lawsuit boilerplate on every box!
Because then people with those allergies won't buy your product. And you want people to buy your product. So if you're sure that the allergens are not in your product, then why would you tell people with those allergies not to buy it?
Why was the disclaimer "this product might not be safe" added, though?
And why did the courts decide it was not binding/not enough to protect from liability?
It seems the kind of thing a lawyer would want on pretty much every product. Then the courts would respond by making it null.
IDK if this is what happened, but then the problem would be harder...
Can't they just write "contains sesame" without actually adding any sesame? Then they will be sued by sesame lovers, I see.
They can still say it, but it's vague enough to have essentially no meaning. So it makes sense that this meaningless statement wouldn't somehow absolve them from all responsibility for only including the ingredients on the label.
Let’s say a bottle of water had the following label:
“This product might not be safe for people sensitive to dysentery or cholera.”
Would you drink the water? It might not give you cholera. Of course not, no one should drink that water.
The label feels like a cop-out on the part of the food manufacturer. Either it’s safe or it’s not. If someone takes their chances and gets cholera, the statement has passed responsibility on to the consumer.
This is a silly analogy, cholera or dysentery aren't safe for anyone. But the vast majority of people handle sesame just fine.
There is a big difference. Sometimes trace cross-contamination occurs, just how it goes.
It’s not silly. For the people who have no food allergies the label is meaningless, and for those who are allergic they have to treat it as if the allergen is definitely there. Trace contamination doesn’t tell you anything about the dose.