Comment by Aperocky
4 years ago
Well now they are clearly labeled as containing the allergen, people can steer clear of these products! Seems like a win.
4 years ago
Well now they are clearly labeled as containing the allergen, people can steer clear of these products! Seems like a win.
This sucks. As someone with a mild to moderate peanut allergy, I’ve been able to gladly eat whatever “may contain peanuts” food that I want, but with laws like this, it’ll cut off a huge portion of what I can enjoy. All my friends with severe peanut allergy never ate these foods to begin with, so it’s not helping them either.
Why can’t the government just let us decide what risks we want to take? I’m sick of this shit. I don’t need the government to regulate which port is on my phone or the direction I wipe my ass or the snacks I can eat. Just let me freely live in peace goddamnit.
Plus, so many foods list what they "may contain" traces of X, but never really quantify how much of a trace. Which actually may be a good thing about intentionally adding sesame, because at least it makes the amount consistent.
I was allergic to peanuts as a kid, way back before it was cool, and didn't know why M&Ms gave me a mild version of the burning sensation and nausea I would get from eating peanuts. Later it turned out, famously, that non-peanut M&M shells contain some "reprocessed" material from the peanut M&M line. (And still do as far as I can tell.)
Nothing else with the "may contain" label has ever given me trouble! But I still get nervous that I'll find out 2 hours into a bike ride that I just fueled up on an extra peanutty "may contain" Clif bar.
Now I'm concerned about sesame. I can eat hamburger buns just fine but I discovered sometime in my 20s that sesame noodles make me sick, and the last time I was at a Korean restaurant my face puffed up just from the air.
So, oddly, one positive of the trend described in the story is that if processed food X lists sesame as an ingredient, and I can nibble on it and then eat the whole thing without getting sick, then I know whether or not I can eat that food, because it's presumably made with a consistent amount of sesame every time. Whereas with a "may contain" label, I'm never really sure if some batch might have lots of sesame and I just tested a non-sesame batch.
> Plus, so many foods list what they "may contain" traces of X, but never really quantify how much of a trace. Which actually may be a good thing about intentionally adding sesame, because at least it makes the amount consistent.
I mean, they don’t usually… know? They know that the assembly line for product X is physically near an assembly line for product Y that contains peanuts, and so X may have some peanut particulate floating through the air and landing on it. It would be a different amount of particulate at different times of day, different humidity, etc; and so different individual bars of product X could end up with different amounts of trace contaminants. (Almost always none, since they do try to avoid these effects; they just can’t guarantee that they’ve been successful, or that they’ll be successful in perpetuity.)
Or alternately, if the manufacturer is a job-shop (produces different things for different customers, retooling between each job) then they can’t guarantee that they’ve cleaned out a perfect 100% of traces of previous job materials out of their assembly line when they start up a new production run. (The theoretically perfect way to solve this is to have separate job-shops that only deal with jobs containing allergen X — but with the combinatorial number of allergens, and a shop having to dedicate itself to only processing a particular combination [A, B, not-C, not-D], that’s mostly impractical.)
1 reply →
But you do need the government to mandate that allergens are accurately reported on packaging. Without government regulations on food packaging, some of your friends with severe peanut allergies would be dead now, because most manufacturers would not label trace amounts of peanut contamination.
It sounds like this law was very poorly written, in that rather than pushing manufacturers to a) be more careful about cross-contamination and b) accurately label, it pushes them to deliberately add sesame to the foods.
This is not because government "interference" in food is fundamentally bad; it's because this law is very poorly written.
The problem is that "may contain sesame" is not a legally valid excuse for containing sesame, but "does contain sesame" is. And the part about "may contain X" not being an excuse comes from existing precedent, not from the new law.
2 replies →
Exactly, I was sarcastically replying to the parent comment who still defended this change. I feel your plight and I hope this can be reverted to some degree.
The problem is that there is a (sadly) large group of people who believe that its the governments job to right every wrong that there ever was, fix any and every inequality that exists, and smooth out any randomness that exists.
In other words - control, control, control.