20 ms·

Sesame allergen labeling law has unintended effect: sesame in more foods

244 points by 4ad 4y ago

h2odragon 4y ago
> requirements are so stringent that many manufacturers, especially bakers, find it simpler and less expensive to add sesame to a product — and to label it — than to try to keep it away from other foods or equipment with sesame. That's why I always carry explosives when traveling by air: what are the chances that there's two bombs on a plane?
- gattr 4y ago
  I remember this one from a youth mathematics book. 10⁻⁴ chance of one bomb, and 10⁻⁸ of two (assuming the other one is an independent event — which it would be, as you're certainly not in collusion with any actual bomber).
  - dismalpedigree 4y ago
    Potentially catastrophic false assumption made at the end there.
  - meindnoch 4y ago
    Conditional probability doesn’t work like that. If you always have a bomb with you, then the probability of you sitting on a plane with a bomb is 1, and thus the probability of you sitting on a plane with another bomb is again 10^-4.
    - 542458 4y ago
      Yes, the post you’re replying to was recounting a joke :)
      - gattr 4y ago
        Indeed. Hmm, but what if I roll a D20 before each flight and take a bomb only if I get a "1"? Do I decrease the average two-bombs probability to 5·10⁻⁶?
        meindnoch 4y ago
        Yes. But the conditional probability of the plane having a bomb that’s not yours will still be 10^-4.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  Those to examples are not at all comparable. The problem with having to keep completely separate facilities for products made with, and products made without sesame is a real problem. And if the law requires that food that is not labeled to have sesame mustn’t be baked in the same oven as products without, then it seems like the easy choice to deliberately add a bit and label it, rather than having to buy new ovens.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Wow, great example of unintended consequences.
luxurytent 4y ago
What makes sesame such a significant allergen?
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  Probably some combination of lack of exposure in early age, sterility hypothesis in the west and something in the way the food industry makes highly processed foods.
  - james_pm 4y ago
    We discovered our kid's sesame allergy when I fed some hummus on a pita at age 18 months resulting in a serious reaction that almost had me calling 911. It wasn't lack of early exposure.
    - ziml77 4y ago
      It's entirely possible that the allergy will go away though. The immune system can shift and change over time in ways that cause it to not overreact to the allergen anymore.
  - Retric 4y ago
    More likely the underlying causes are genetic. Identical twins have 70% chance to share same allergic diseases vs 40% for non identical twins, and both of which is vastly more common than their prevalence in the general population. Though this also demonstrates environmental factors play a significant role. That said, the human immune system includes significant randomness so environment may be even less important than generally assumed.
    - rwmj 4y ago
      But why would it have apparently increased so much in the relatively recent past if the cause was genetics?
      - 4y ago
jacknews 4y ago
requirements are so stringent that many manufacturers, especially bakers, find it simpler and less expensive to add sesame to a product — and to label it — than to try to keep it away from other foods or equipment with sesame. I don't see how that follows. Surely they can just label it 'might contain traces of sesame' rather than actually adding sesame unnecessarily, and presumably at extra cost, or just add 'traces of sesame' as an ingredient.
- vinaypai 4y ago
  "such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination."
- xoa 4y ago
  From the exact same article (emphasis added): >If the ingredients DON'T include sesame, companies MUST take steps to prevent the foods from coming in contact with any sesame, known as cross-contamination. And as far as "may contain", also from the exact same article: >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. So the government has created a situation where anything without sesame is apparently vastly more expensive, or impossible, to manufacture now in the facilities they previously were. But the public would never tolerate banning sesame entirely just for some fraction being allergic, so of course it's still allowed as an actual intended ingredient in which case it must merely be labeled. Obvious result of this is obvious: in attempting to unrealistically force a new level of isolation on previously "best effort" products, and with no compensation, the result is people cease bothering with those now actively punished efforts. Bad unfunded mandate driven by activists without consulting with actual producers from the sound of it. A better approach might have been to support/reward the construction of new dedicated allergen free production facilities that could be devoted exclusively to those foods. But whatever the approach, it has to take into account actual demand vs costs. -------- Edit: I didn't do a good enough job in elaborating on the result for parent poster, and plenty in the overall thread seem not to see how this leads to wanting to actively add sesame, so copying my response post from farther down: Say we consider bakers. Essentially before the law there were 3 classes of bakers wrt sesame: known contaminated (actively using it as an ingredient), regular (not actively using it, but make no promises either way), and medical (actively promise to ensure no contamination as a product feature). This law banned regular bakers, and it did it in such a way that they all become medical bakers by default, because if they don't actively use sesame then they must meet the medical standard. But that's TERRIFYING for a regular baker for good reason. Before if they cooked both sesame goods (lots of delicious ones in high demand) and non-sesame goods (same) they could make reasonable efforts and that's fine. But medical means they now look at blame and liability for some child or adult having a serious reaction or even dying. And meeting that level of liability and standards may simply be impossible in an existing mixed normal facility. There is no funding for this mandate either. The obvious reaction to do is to switch to the "known contaminated" class instead. For the cost of adding a minuscule untasteable amount of sesame flour to everything, now they effectively return back to being regular bakers again. They can keep all their existing cooking, in their existing (very expensive, potentially impossible to move from) facilities. Like, what did anyone expect would happen here?
genocidicbunny 4y ago
Seems somewhat par for the course. As the article notes, many other foods have intentionally added allergens as well, presumably to move the needle from 'may contain allergen X' to 'definitely contains allergen X' and shed some legal liability?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ReptileMan 4y ago
what is with all the food allergies lately? Why so many people unlock them. I doubt that you will find 13 people allergic to sesame in whole of Asia, North Africa and the Mediterranean. And 1.3 million in the US.
- Kye 4y ago
  Science is just now starting to figure out what's going on with gut biomes, but it probably has something to do with diet. To roll with your example, look up lactose intolerance in Asia.
  - sp332 4y ago
    Most adult mammals are lactose intolerant. It's not an allergy.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      That’s missing the point.
      - Kye 4y ago
        My point wasn't very clear. Downside of posting at 9 am and 9 degrees.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    That’s different - Northern European tolerance to lactose is actually a mutation/adaptation. There’s probably some processed food or medicine that triggers these severe allergies in babies.
    - Xelynega 4y ago
      And the allergies can't also be a mutation/adaptation? Wouldn't some "processed food or medicine that triggers these severe allergies" be a "mutation/adaptation"? I'm confused on the distinction you're trying to make it it's not "Americans are bad haha".
jasonhansel 4y ago
Unfortunate that we're doing so little to stop the massive increase in food allergy rates that has occurred over the past few decades. Labeling is good, but we should invest in prevention also.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  Prevention would ideally be reducing the rates of food borne allergies, in as much as it is possible to do so. After having two flights recently where our food service was cancelled due to a flyer with a nut allergy, I’m ready for us to invest whatever it takes to reverse this trend.
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    How long was the flight? I can see this being an issue for people with some other health conditions - type 1 diabetics come to mind. If it's a long flight and they assume food service and then it's removed and they have nothing to eat for their blood sugar, that's not great.
    - denimnerd42 4y ago
      you can always ask the flight attendant for food. they have something
      - Mezzie 4y ago
        I mostly feel bad for the flight attendants. "Why is HE getting food and I'm not?" etc. People suck.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      If getting food on a flight is a medical issue, someone should be bringing their own food.
      - Mezzie 4y ago
        Yeah, they should, but if someone with that severe an allergy is on the plane, would that be allowed? Also people are stupid and don't think ahead or plan for contingencies: I can see people reading there will be food service and deciding they don't need to bring their own.
bonney_io 4y ago
Corporations are evil. Do worse for the consumer to cover their own butts.
- elgoblino 4y ago
  Government forcing random small-time businesses to handle extreme edge cases is pretty evil to me.
  - washadjeffmad 4y ago
    If they added an impact clause of, say, greater than 10,000 individuals affected, could you think of any ways around that? My initial feeling is that it could protect small and local businesses and possibly encourage investments from large nationals who would find it less expensive to pay others to produce certain products.
    - halefx 4y ago
      If the labeling is not consistent, it's not useful
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    'Sesame is the ninth most common food allergy among children and adults in the U.S. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sesame allergy is considered common among children who already have other food allergies. According to research reported by NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a study found that approximately 17 percent of children with food allergies also are allergic to sesame.' I'm not sure whether 17% of child food allergies counts as an edge case? Food allergies are serious stuff.
    - danaris 4y ago
      They are, but that's a potentially misleading statistic, on two counts: First, it doesn't give any indication of the percentage of children with food allergies. Is it also about 20% (which would mean sesame allergies affect approximately 4% of children)? Or is it more like 4% (which would mean sesame allergies affect approximately 0.8% of children)? Second, it doesn't say anything about the severity of the allergy. My brother-in-law has a severe, anaphylactic allergy to peanuts. Traces of peanut in anything he eats could kill him. On the other hand, I have a close friend with an allergy to tree nuts...that makes his throat kinda itchy for a while if he eats too many. Yes, we need to be mindful of food allergies, and properly label foods for them. But that doesn't mean we should be using incomplete or misleading statistics to inform our decisions about how prevalent serious problems with certain foods could be.
whiddershins 4y ago
This makes no sense. I can understand adding sesame to the label, but not actually adding more sesame to the products. I think this reporter is confused.
- leephillips 4y ago
  You mayn’t claim that the thing contains sesame unless it does. The only option is to really add the real seed, and proclaim it.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  No. The article is very clear why: if the products don't contain sesame, they are required to prevent cross contamination, which they can't do. They can't simply label them as "may contain sesame", as it doesn't absolve them of needing to prevent cross contamination. Their only reasonable choice is to just add sesame.
  - whiddershins 4y ago
    That’s insane.
  - Xelynega 4y ago
    The other reasonable choice is to not produce non-seasame items in ways that can potentially cross-cobtaminate with sesame items, or vice versa. If a bakery is jumping through hoops just to make a batch of sesame buns daily, I think there's some misdirected effort.
james_pm 4y ago
As a parent of a kid with a sesame allergy, I wish it got the same treatment as peanut allergies do. It's common here (Canada) to have a school that will throw your lunch snacks away if they aren't labelled "peanut safe" but will have sesame buns at a school bbq lunch and just tell the kids with sesame allergy to bring their own lunch and avoid touching it.
- spacephysics 4y ago
  I don’t know, I feel this is a slippery slope. I don’t want everything to be on the same level of caution as peanuts, let’s look at root cause for this stuff. Most likely could being an over-sterilized environment during pregnancy or at birth, some chemical in common products, or something else effecting the micro biome or immune system.
  - kqr 4y ago
    It's not a slippery slope. There's a small list of known deadly allergens. Those need to be taken seriously.
    - bestcoder69 4y ago
      Ha it's like saying speed limits are a slippery slope, and we'll trend closer to 0 mph over time. It's not a slope, it's a dial!
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s tremendously slippery, but I do think it’s a slope. It’s hard to imagine the government ever removing an allergen from the mandatory labeling list - if they did, a lot of people who got used to having it would find themselves in more trouble than if it had never been there.
      - savingsPossible 4y ago
        If speed limits aren't, it is just because of the distribution of benefits With speed limits, almost everyone suffers and almost everyone benefits. Of course, some people are more likely to be walking, and other driving, but it is not a core part of their identity. Whenever something makes a specific small group much safer and around 100% of the people pay the cost, giving in and making those people safer is a slippery slope. There are infinite such cases, the system points towards more safety because of lawsuits, and careful cost benefit analysis is harder because there is no one person for which cost and benefit are similar -- for some it is just a small cost, for others just a gigantic benefit. You'll get a small percentage doing a lot of activism and a large majority harmed, but not enough to fight it.
shkkmo 4y ago
> "At some point, someone is going to feed an allergic child sesame," Fitzgerald said. "It makes me think the laws need to change to show that this is not an acceptable practice." I don't see how you do this without overly burdensome regulation. It seems to me you in would have to either ban sesame altogether or at least tax it at levels significant enough to counter balance either the liability risk or cost of upgrading facilities to support the needed cleaning processes. Perhaps instead of another layer of regulation, concerned citizens should start a non-profit that provides grants to companies to upgrade their facilities?
hitpointdrew 4y ago
Why can’t they just do what they have done with peanut? “May contain peanut.” It’s not a listed ingredient but it’s also isn’t ruled out since the product was manufactured at a plant that also makes product with peanut and the manufacturer cannot guarantee that there aren’t trace elements of peanut.
- donatj 4y ago
  It says in the article that marking as “may contain” doesn’t actually cover them legally in cases of cross contamination.
- metaphor 4y ago
  From the article: > 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.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    ”The unfortunate reality is that our equipment and bakeries are not setup for allergen cleanings that would be required to prevent sesame cross-contamination and was not an option for us"
  - asvitkine 4y ago
    So why hasn't the same effect happened with peanuts?
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      It has. There was a small controversy in 2016 when Kellogg's started adding peanut flour to some snacks to avoid cross-contamination concerns; one that's still around is their cheese crackers (https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/products/austin-cheese-crackers-with-cheddar-cheese-product.html https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/products/austin-cheese-cracke...). The source article focuses a lot on bread bakeries, where peanuts are rare and sesame is extremely common.
lettergram 4y ago
As someone with a sesame allergy I was wondering why suddenly 90% of the bread options had it. Effectively, I have 1 option now, that’s it. No hotdog or hamburger buns. Is what it is, going to improve my baking game.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  I’ll take the opportunity and recommend my favorite pretzel burger bun recipe. Found this to make for great buns, every time. https://www.hefe-und-mehr.de/en/2017/04/pretzel-burger-buns/?noredirect=en_GB https://www.hefe-und-mehr.de/en/2017/04/pretzel-burger-buns/...
- aliasxneo 4y ago
  I resonate with you, I've had to remove bread from my diet, except for homemade options (which, luckily for me, my spouse is great at making). Sesame has a majorly debilitating effect on me, so it's not something I can even begin to flirt with.
323 4y ago
> 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. How did we end up in a place where you need to make food in pharma-grade cleanliness facilities unless you want to be sued into bankruptcy.
- Xelynega 4y ago
  Because people have food allergies, and should have a right to know whether or not the food they're consuming has been cross-contaminated by allergens? How did we end up in a place where the companies aren't putting the cross-contamination ingredients in the ingredients list, and instead put them in a non-standard warning label.
  - 323 4y 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.
    - willnonya 4y ago
      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.
    - savingsPossible 4y ago
      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...
ada1981 4y ago
I think I’m a jerk because I found this industry response satisfying. Perhaps this creates an opportunity for certified allergen free foods companies to get into the game in a bigger way.
- somehnacct3757 4y ago
  This is my thought too. We are reading articles like this at the onset of a new law because it plays well to crowds who want to have Online Opinions about government oversight. If the problem is as bad as these articles claim, then these facilities will need to clean up their act or willfully hand over a slice of the market to competitors. We've even already seen this play out in the bread industry with gluten. A bunch of new brands started taking shelf space away from the big brands and a few years later those big brands have their own gluten-free lines. The same could happen with sesame in time. To form an opinion on the new law this early is a recipe for sour milk.
jschveibinz 4y ago
Based on the apparent demand and critical nature of the allergy, somebody needs to invent: 1. Sesame test strip 2. Sesame neutralizer
aliqot 4y ago
stop labeling anything and let it work itself out.
bikeformind 4y ago
Classic perverse incentive failure. Most famous example is called the “cobra effect.” In the 1800’s some towns in India had a problem with cobra infestation, so the governement offered a bounty for dead cobras. People started farming cobras to collect the bounty. Eventually too many dead snakes were being turned in, so the government stopped paying. As a result, the newly made “cobra farmers” just released all the cobras on to the streets, doubling the population.
- viscountchocula 4y ago
  Is it, though? By making disclosure a requirement, the market for sesame-free items is highlighted and elevated. It may find a profitable niche or it may not, but consumers are now better able to choose.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    Allergy labeling is likely a bit like support for people with disabilities: We regulate because the market doesn't work in these cases. The number of people who require accommodations are smaller than the value to make accommodating their needs profitable, so we use regulate because it's the right thing to do.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      To be clear, we do it through the government because it’s otherwise inefficient: it imposes a bigger collective cost on society than the benefit to the individuals. Whether “it’s the right thing to do” is a moral construct. European countries, for example, have much narrower requirements for accommodation of people with disabilities than the ADA.
      - magicalist 4y ago
        Though maybe more pertinent, the EU has required sesame allergen labeling since 2003.
    - coryrc 4y ago
willnonya 4y ago
This is textbook unintended consequences of government action. If there were a market for this then the products would already exist. By moving beyond an ingredient disclosure to the elimination of all possible sources of contamination the incentives are changed and this is the result. Rather than incurring the cost required by the law businesses found a different solution. As a result the people the law tried to help are now harmed. The blame here doesn't rest with the businesses but with the lawmakes who drafted this unnecessary nonsense.
simonbarker87 4y ago
I think sesame makes me violently throw up for about 8 hours. The last three times I’ve knowingly eaten it this has happened. But it doesn’t show up on an allergy test and all three were 6 months apart so could have just been a flare up of something else. But it was the exact same symptoms each time. So now I just avoid sesame, it’s really tricky to do as it gets in to all sorts of things, but for seemingly no reason. Even ordering a burger is tricky, why are there sesame seeds on a burger bun?
- bestcoder69 4y ago
  This has been my struggle. From my POV it's such a dumb allergy to have -- like I feel so stupid bringing it up. But on the other hand, are sesame seeds really that awesome that my food needs to be able to kill me.... for what exactly? Now, sesame oil - fine. That's great. But the seeds... the seeds are just there to insult me.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I love the taste and texture of sesame seeds. I snack on black and white sesame seeds all the time.
  - ei8ths 4y ago
    I dont think they do anything to the bun. My kid has a sesame allergy, its pretty dumb when you pick up something, read sesame and you wonder why, we are seriously struggling finding hamburger buns at the grocery store that do not contain sesame - after this new federal law change to include sesame. They have a seed flavor but seriously could get that from another type of seed. Luckily he doesnt have a sever reaction only irritates his tongue and throat a little. very minor.
  - InDemoVeritas 4y ago
    Hummus. Halva. Tahini. Sesame would be a difficult allergy. My condolences.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  Texture and visually appealing I assume?
bestcoder69 4y ago
I was excited to be able to eat more commercially-produced foods without wondering if it had sesame or not. Ah well. I guess rather than wondering, I now _know_, my food is contaminated, which might be better? Small restaurants have ignored me about my allergy, which TBH worries me more, given the false sense of safety. Now, I just hope for my family's sake if a restaurant kills me, that they're huge and it's their fault.
- ffggvv 4y ago
  if you have a deadly allergy like that, is eating at small restaurants really worth risking your life?
  - LesZedCB 4y ago
    Try saying no to eating out for 6 months every time and see how it feels. Every time your buddy wants a beer, your sisters birthday, after work celebration dinner for a late evening. You don't understand, it's not necessarily as simple as "if I eat out, I die." there are manageable risks with probabilities weighted against being alone again and missing out
    - TiredOfLife 4y ago
      Try not being able to afford eating out.
- TreeRingCounter 4y ago
  Why don't you just stop eating at restaurants and/or take appropriate steps to protect yourself?
  - LesZedCB 4y ago
    I _promise_ you people with allergies know about this "tactic." What all you who suggest it fail to empathize with is that it's the only option most of the time. being completely removed from the social scene of eating out is extremely alienating, and eating out is very common especially for young adults. So you concede, you look up the menu online ahead of time, decide "hey this probably looks safe, I can risk it" Boom, you accidentally eat something you didn't account for, try not to make a scene in front of your friends and the other patrons, go out to your car take Benadryl and pass out. Night over.
AnonC 4y ago
After reading this report, it’s not clear to me what the federal government ought to have done or should’ve done differently. Not regulate food labeling at all? Or not regulate food labeling if less than 1% of the population is impacted by an issue? Remove prior food labeling laws for other allergens? Provide incentives to prevent companies from simplifying their processes and keeping costs lower (especially during a time of high inflation and rising interest rates)? Punish companies that are bypassing the spirit of the law and compel them to create and maintain facilities and processes to prevent cross contamination (and make products that don’t have allergens)?
- ghayes 4y ago
  The best answer would be to absolve them of liability if they properly state the cross-contamination risk.
  - savingsPossible 4y ago
    I hazard a guess that, then, they would state the cross-contamination risk in everything. Laywers, optimization an all that...
  - bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
    This will just lead to another case of California’s Prop 65
theptip 4y ago
Perhaps I’m missing it, but I see no attempt to quantify what proportion of foods are actually adding sesame in this way. This could be happening at the margin, and the law could also on net be helping lots of people avoid allergens in the rest of the food that didn’t get adulterated. If it’s 1/1000 products getting sesame added this story is likely a nothing-burger. But yes, at the margin, actors are sensitive to incentives. This story provides a(nother) nice clear example of that, if one was wanting such.
asah 4y ago
Prop 65 all over again. https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65 https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65 https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65+unintended https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65+unintended
ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
Why are we linking to trash like Fox News on HN?
- calebegg 4y ago
  The local fox network affiliates aren't generally strongly connected to the news/misinformation cable channel. It would be like boycotting The Simpsons because of fox news.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    Sinclair begs to differ.
raymondh 4y ago
Summary: A new law substantially increases liability for making a sesame free product. The predictable result was that there are now fewer sesame free products. Now, everyone is worse off.
- Drblessing 4y ago
  Well stated. Bring back personal responsibility.
  - drewrv 4y ago
    How can someone be "personally responsible" if there are not accurate food labeling laws?
- wardedVibe 4y ago
  No, there's so much secret sesame that you don't know is there that even with the range of hypothetical options lessened, there are more foods you know are safe now. My partner, who has a sesame allergy, had basically sworn off preprepared food because there's no way to tell. At least now she knows what's safe.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    Mandating a "may contain traces of sesame" would provide just as much protection without requiring adding the sesame and denying it to those of us that aren't going to be killed by a bit of cross contamination.
    - bsder 4y ago
      Without quantifying and controlling the amount of sesame, that's not useful information. That's why these foods added the sesame--now it's measured, quantified, and controlled. Someone with a mild allergy can try the food and see what the reaction is. If it's fine, then that food can be eaten knowing that the sesame level likely will be consistent. People with severe allergies will avoid that food like always. This is a good thing and the complaints make me facepalm. "Gee, now we can experiment and know what this food will do to us as opposed to playing Russian roulette every time. This upsets us and we're going to complain." Oh, gee, what you really wanted was everybody to surgically clean their manufacturing lines but not pay them any extra money for doing so? So sorry, that's not how this works.
Drblessing 4y ago
Bureaucracy strikes again! FDA needs to allow "may contain" or "produced in a facility that contains" and let individuals with these allergies to choose if they want to eat those foods and accept all liability for illness and/or death
jeff_tyrrill 4y ago
This is just a syndication of https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc846f2a19d87b03440848f1 https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc.... Can the URL be changed to that?
tehjoker 4y ago
Note: This is capitalism always finding ways to make money at the expense of public health.
daveoc64 4y ago
Seems like a the labelling rules overall are bad. How things work in the UK (and presumably the EU too) seems pretty good to me. Allergens have to be highlighted in bold (or uppercase) in the ingredients list. If a product may contain an allergen, that's normally listed separately. If you have a mild allergy or intolerance, or avoid particular food for other reasons (e.g. milk because you're Vegan), then the "may contain" risk may not bother you and you can enjoy the product.
- adventured 4y ago
  The US is on a slope of increasingly extreme nannyism. Which, if you know the history of the US (both its present culture and its common historical beliefs about itself), that has to be a fairly amusing thing to observe from the outside. For numerous reasons, the US culture has been fractured by a tiny, very loud, hyper triggered minority that screams from the rooftops 24/7 on social media. The virtue signaling brigade. Also known as the squeaky wheel getting the grease (attention in this case). They work hard & persistently at it, they're loud, they often band together for pet causes, and they get the government and companies to bend to their pressure routinely. It's leading to a very mentally fragile nation, of emotionally stunted individuals that can't deal with reality and require aggressive shielding from reality. This type of mediocre labeling outcome is indicative of the broader cultural erosion. It's simply no longer good enough to label that something "may contain" risk. It's going to get worse yet before it bottoms out.
  - culi 4y ago
    [flagged]
kapildev 4y ago
I think (and there are studies to back this too) that the more you eschew an allergen the more violent your reaction against it would be. I am from a third-world country and I know no-one from my country that has allergies related to foods like peanuts, sesame or gluten. The only other explanations for this would be: a) These allergies occur so rarely that I haven't heard from the minority of the people. b) Or, the people who had this allergies have already died without diagnosis. c) Or, people have these allergy but choose to hide them for fear of social shame. d) Or, people don't get medical checkup that allows the discovery of these allergies. But I think the case that people being accustomed to the allergens due to forceful conditions is the best explanation for this.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  Those aren't the only explanations, there are dozens of other possible explanations, all worth investigating. And it's not just allergies, there's been an unexplained spike in multiple autoimmune conditions [see google scholar]. The hygiene hypothesis for one.
- culi 4y ago
  There was a big "medical reversal" around this where a very large seemingly well-conducted study led to doctors advising patients to avoid their allergens. Later studies failed to replicate this result however and doctors have reversed course as evidence has built up that avoiding the allergen can indeed worsen it over time However, I don't really think this is all relevant. Allergen immunotherapy is not as simple as just exposing yourself to the allergen and requires medical oversight. Even if someone is trying to work through this process without a medical professional, they still have a right to know which foods do and don't contain this allergen that could still kill them in large amounts
  - pwnmonkey 4y ago
    Do you happen to have a link to the new study?
- viraptor 4y ago
  > accustomed to the allergens due to forceful conditions is the best explanation for this. While desensitization works https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(medicine) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(medicine) you can't really just force expose someone and hope for the best. It's a bit correlated to developed countries, but not completely https://waojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1939-4551-6-21 https://waojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1939-4... I'd propose a mix of everything but also: e) People don't call things allergies unless they know it's that. I said for decades that I can't eat spinach or I'll have diarrhoea, but learned later that also classifies as an allergy. f) More developed countries have more difference in available cuisines. For example I've not seen a shellfish until I moved out of home, so wouldn't know if I'm allergic to them. g) (probably lots of other factors)
dragonwriter 4y ago
The solution to this is to add a supplemental tax on foods intentionally containing major allergens, that is cumulative per allergen, sufficient to offset the benefit sought by adding it as malicious compliance with labelling and cross-contamination laws.
- karatinversion 4y ago
  I don’t think you can do this without basically outlawing, say, pizza (intentionally contains wheat and dairy).
greenthrow 4y ago
This article is clearly red meat for right wing anti-regulation types. It is not something interesting to general people in tech.

244 points by 4ad 4y ago

> requirements are so stringent that many manufacturers, especially bakers, find it simpler and less expensive to add sesame to a product — and to label it — than to try to keep it away from other foods or equipment with sesame. That's why I always carry explosives when traveling by air: what are the chances that there's two bombs on a plane?

gattr 4y ago
I remember this one from a youth mathematics book. 10⁻⁴ chance of one bomb, and 10⁻⁸ of two (assuming the other one is an independent event — which it would be, as you're certainly not in collusion with any actual bomber).
- dismalpedigree 4y ago
  Potentially catastrophic false assumption made at the end there.
- meindnoch 4y ago
  Conditional probability doesn’t work like that. If you always have a bomb with you, then the probability of you sitting on a plane with a bomb is 1, and thus the probability of you sitting on a plane with another bomb is again 10^-4.
  - 542458 4y ago
    Yes, the post you’re replying to was recounting a joke :)
    - gattr 4y ago
      Indeed. Hmm, but what if I roll a D20 before each flight and take a bomb only if I get a "1"? Do I decrease the average two-bombs probability to 5·10⁻⁶?
      - meindnoch 4y ago
        Yes. But the conditional probability of the plane having a bomb that’s not yours will still be 10^-4.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
Those to examples are not at all comparable. The problem with having to keep completely separate facilities for products made with, and products made without sesame is a real problem. And if the law requires that food that is not labeled to have sesame mustn’t be baked in the same oven as products without, then it seems like the easy choice to deliberately add a bit and label it, rather than having to buy new ovens.

lr4444lr 4y ago

Wow, great example of unintended consequences.

luxurytent 4y ago

What makes sesame such a significant allergen?

ReptileMan 4y ago
Probably some combination of lack of exposure in early age, sterility hypothesis in the west and something in the way the food industry makes highly processed foods.
- james_pm 4y ago
  We discovered our kid's sesame allergy when I fed some hummus on a pita at age 18 months resulting in a serious reaction that almost had me calling 911. It wasn't lack of early exposure.
  - ziml77 4y ago
    It's entirely possible that the allergy will go away though. The immune system can shift and change over time in ways that cause it to not overreact to the allergen anymore.
- Retric 4y ago
  More likely the underlying causes are genetic. Identical twins have 70% chance to share same allergic diseases vs 40% for non identical twins, and both of which is vastly more common than their prevalence in the general population. Though this also demonstrates environmental factors play a significant role. That said, the human immune system includes significant randomness so environment may be even less important than generally assumed.
  - rwmj 4y ago
    But why would it have apparently increased so much in the relatively recent past if the cause was genetics?
    - 4y ago

jacknews 4y ago

requirements are so stringent that many manufacturers, especially bakers, find it simpler and less expensive to add sesame to a product — and to label it — than to try to keep it away from other foods or equipment with sesame. I don't see how that follows. Surely they can just label it 'might contain traces of sesame' rather than actually adding sesame unnecessarily, and presumably at extra cost, or just add 'traces of sesame' as an ingredient.

vinaypai 4y ago
"such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination."
xoa 4y ago
From the exact same article (emphasis added): >If the ingredients DON'T include sesame, companies MUST take steps to prevent the foods from coming in contact with any sesame, known as cross-contamination. And as far as "may contain", also from the exact same article: >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. So the government has created a situation where anything without sesame is apparently vastly more expensive, or impossible, to manufacture now in the facilities they previously were. But the public would never tolerate banning sesame entirely just for some fraction being allergic, so of course it's still allowed as an actual intended ingredient in which case it must merely be labeled. Obvious result of this is obvious: in attempting to unrealistically force a new level of isolation on previously "best effort" products, and with no compensation, the result is people cease bothering with those now actively punished efforts. Bad unfunded mandate driven by activists without consulting with actual producers from the sound of it. A better approach might have been to support/reward the construction of new dedicated allergen free production facilities that could be devoted exclusively to those foods. But whatever the approach, it has to take into account actual demand vs costs. -------- Edit: I didn't do a good enough job in elaborating on the result for parent poster, and plenty in the overall thread seem not to see how this leads to wanting to actively add sesame, so copying my response post from farther down: Say we consider bakers. Essentially before the law there were 3 classes of bakers wrt sesame: known contaminated (actively using it as an ingredient), regular (not actively using it, but make no promises either way), and medical (actively promise to ensure no contamination as a product feature). This law banned regular bakers, and it did it in such a way that they all become medical bakers by default, because if they don't actively use sesame then they must meet the medical standard. But that's TERRIFYING for a regular baker for good reason. Before if they cooked both sesame goods (lots of delicious ones in high demand) and non-sesame goods (same) they could make reasonable efforts and that's fine. But medical means they now look at blame and liability for some child or adult having a serious reaction or even dying. And meeting that level of liability and standards may simply be impossible in an existing mixed normal facility. There is no funding for this mandate either. The obvious reaction to do is to switch to the "known contaminated" class instead. For the cost of adding a minuscule untasteable amount of sesame flour to everything, now they effectively return back to being regular bakers again. They can keep all their existing cooking, in their existing (very expensive, potentially impossible to move from) facilities. Like, what did anyone expect would happen here?

genocidicbunny 4y ago

Seems somewhat par for the course. As the article notes, many other foods have intentionally added allergens as well, presumably to move the needle from 'may contain allergen X' to 'definitely contains allergen X' and shed some legal liability?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ReptileMan 4y ago

what is with all the food allergies lately? Why so many people unlock them. I doubt that you will find 13 people allergic to sesame in whole of Asia, North Africa and the Mediterranean. And 1.3 million in the US.

Kye 4y ago
Science is just now starting to figure out what's going on with gut biomes, but it probably has something to do with diet. To roll with your example, look up lactose intolerance in Asia.
- sp332 4y ago
  Most adult mammals are lactose intolerant. It's not an allergy.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That’s missing the point.
    - Kye 4y ago
      My point wasn't very clear. Downside of posting at 9 am and 9 degrees.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  That’s different - Northern European tolerance to lactose is actually a mutation/adaptation. There’s probably some processed food or medicine that triggers these severe allergies in babies.
  - Xelynega 4y ago
    And the allergies can't also be a mutation/adaptation? Wouldn't some "processed food or medicine that triggers these severe allergies" be a "mutation/adaptation"? I'm confused on the distinction you're trying to make it it's not "Americans are bad haha".

jasonhansel 4y ago

Unfortunate that we're doing so little to stop the massive increase in food allergy rates that has occurred over the past few decades. Labeling is good, but we should invest in prevention also.

atdrummond 4y ago
Prevention would ideally be reducing the rates of food borne allergies, in as much as it is possible to do so. After having two flights recently where our food service was cancelled due to a flyer with a nut allergy, I’m ready for us to invest whatever it takes to reverse this trend.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  How long was the flight? I can see this being an issue for people with some other health conditions - type 1 diabetics come to mind. If it's a long flight and they assume food service and then it's removed and they have nothing to eat for their blood sugar, that's not great.
  - denimnerd42 4y ago
    you can always ask the flight attendant for food. they have something
    - Mezzie 4y ago
      I mostly feel bad for the flight attendants. "Why is HE getting food and I'm not?" etc. People suck.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    If getting food on a flight is a medical issue, someone should be bringing their own food.
    - Mezzie 4y ago
      Yeah, they should, but if someone with that severe an allergy is on the plane, would that be allowed? Also people are stupid and don't think ahead or plan for contingencies: I can see people reading there will be food service and deciding they don't need to bring their own.

bonney_io 4y ago

Corporations are evil. Do worse for the consumer to cover their own butts.

elgoblino 4y ago
Government forcing random small-time businesses to handle extreme edge cases is pretty evil to me.
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  If they added an impact clause of, say, greater than 10,000 individuals affected, could you think of any ways around that? My initial feeling is that it could protect small and local businesses and possibly encourage investments from large nationals who would find it less expensive to pay others to produce certain products.
  - halefx 4y ago
    If the labeling is not consistent, it's not useful
- kevingadd 4y ago
  'Sesame is the ninth most common food allergy among children and adults in the U.S. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sesame allergy is considered common among children who already have other food allergies. According to research reported by NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a study found that approximately 17 percent of children with food allergies also are allergic to sesame.' I'm not sure whether 17% of child food allergies counts as an edge case? Food allergies are serious stuff.
  - danaris 4y ago
    They are, but that's a potentially misleading statistic, on two counts: First, it doesn't give any indication of the percentage of children with food allergies. Is it also about 20% (which would mean sesame allergies affect approximately 4% of children)? Or is it more like 4% (which would mean sesame allergies affect approximately 0.8% of children)? Second, it doesn't say anything about the severity of the allergy. My brother-in-law has a severe, anaphylactic allergy to peanuts. Traces of peanut in anything he eats could kill him. On the other hand, I have a close friend with an allergy to tree nuts...that makes his throat kinda itchy for a while if he eats too many. Yes, we need to be mindful of food allergies, and properly label foods for them. But that doesn't mean we should be using incomplete or misleading statistics to inform our decisions about how prevalent serious problems with certain foods could be.

whiddershins 4y ago

This makes no sense. I can understand adding sesame to the label, but not actually adding more sesame to the products. I think this reporter is confused.

leephillips 4y ago
You mayn’t claim that the thing contains sesame unless it does. The only option is to really add the real seed, and proclaim it.
DannyBee 4y ago
No. The article is very clear why: if the products don't contain sesame, they are required to prevent cross contamination, which they can't do. They can't simply label them as "may contain sesame", as it doesn't absolve them of needing to prevent cross contamination. Their only reasonable choice is to just add sesame.
- whiddershins 4y ago
  That’s insane.
- Xelynega 4y ago
  The other reasonable choice is to not produce non-seasame items in ways that can potentially cross-cobtaminate with sesame items, or vice versa. If a bakery is jumping through hoops just to make a batch of sesame buns daily, I think there's some misdirected effort.

james_pm 4y ago

As a parent of a kid with a sesame allergy, I wish it got the same treatment as peanut allergies do. It's common here (Canada) to have a school that will throw your lunch snacks away if they aren't labelled "peanut safe" but will have sesame buns at a school bbq lunch and just tell the kids with sesame allergy to bring their own lunch and avoid touching it.

spacephysics 4y ago
I don’t know, I feel this is a slippery slope. I don’t want everything to be on the same level of caution as peanuts, let’s look at root cause for this stuff. Most likely could being an over-sterilized environment during pregnancy or at birth, some chemical in common products, or something else effecting the micro biome or immune system.
- kqr 4y ago
  It's not a slippery slope. There's a small list of known deadly allergens. Those need to be taken seriously.
  - bestcoder69 4y ago
    Ha it's like saying speed limits are a slippery slope, and we'll trend closer to 0 mph over time. It's not a slope, it's a dial!
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      I don’t think it’s tremendously slippery, but I do think it’s a slope. It’s hard to imagine the government ever removing an allergen from the mandatory labeling list - if they did, a lot of people who got used to having it would find themselves in more trouble than if it had never been there.
    - savingsPossible 4y ago
      If speed limits aren't, it is just because of the distribution of benefits With speed limits, almost everyone suffers and almost everyone benefits. Of course, some people are more likely to be walking, and other driving, but it is not a core part of their identity. Whenever something makes a specific small group much safer and around 100% of the people pay the cost, giving in and making those people safer is a slippery slope. There are infinite such cases, the system points towards more safety because of lawsuits, and careful cost benefit analysis is harder because there is no one person for which cost and benefit are similar -- for some it is just a small cost, for others just a gigantic benefit. You'll get a small percentage doing a lot of activism and a large majority harmed, but not enough to fight it.

shkkmo 4y ago

> "At some point, someone is going to feed an allergic child sesame," Fitzgerald said. "It makes me think the laws need to change to show that this is not an acceptable practice." I don't see how you do this without overly burdensome regulation. It seems to me you in would have to either ban sesame altogether or at least tax it at levels significant enough to counter balance either the liability risk or cost of upgrading facilities to support the needed cleaning processes. Perhaps instead of another layer of regulation, concerned citizens should start a non-profit that provides grants to companies to upgrade their facilities?

hitpointdrew 4y ago

Why can’t they just do what they have done with peanut? “May contain peanut.” It’s not a listed ingredient but it’s also isn’t ruled out since the product was manufactured at a plant that also makes product with peanut and the manufacturer cannot guarantee that there aren’t trace elements of peanut.

donatj 4y ago
It says in the article that marking as “may contain” doesn’t actually cover them legally in cases of cross contamination.
metaphor 4y ago
From the article: > 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.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  ”The unfortunate reality is that our equipment and bakeries are not setup for allergen cleanings that would be required to prevent sesame cross-contamination and was not an option for us"
- asvitkine 4y ago
  So why hasn't the same effect happened with peanuts?
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    It has. There was a small controversy in 2016 when Kellogg's started adding peanut flour to some snacks to avoid cross-contamination concerns; one that's still around is their cheese crackers (https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/products/austin-cheese-crackers-with-cheddar-cheese-product.html https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/products/austin-cheese-cracke...). The source article focuses a lot on bread bakeries, where peanuts are rare and sesame is extremely common.

lettergram 4y ago

As someone with a sesame allergy I was wondering why suddenly 90% of the bread options had it. Effectively, I have 1 option now, that’s it. No hotdog or hamburger buns. Is what it is, going to improve my baking game.

Xylakant 4y ago
I’ll take the opportunity and recommend my favorite pretzel burger bun recipe. Found this to make for great buns, every time. https://www.hefe-und-mehr.de/en/2017/04/pretzel-burger-buns/?noredirect=en_GB https://www.hefe-und-mehr.de/en/2017/04/pretzel-burger-buns/...
aliasxneo 4y ago
I resonate with you, I've had to remove bread from my diet, except for homemade options (which, luckily for me, my spouse is great at making). Sesame has a majorly debilitating effect on me, so it's not something I can even begin to flirt with.

323 4y ago

> 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. How did we end up in a place where you need to make food in pharma-grade cleanliness facilities unless you want to be sued into bankruptcy.

Xelynega 4y ago
Because people have food allergies, and should have a right to know whether or not the food they're consuming has been cross-contaminated by allergens? How did we end up in a place where the companies aren't putting the cross-contamination ingredients in the ingredients list, and instead put them in a non-standard warning label.
- 323 4y 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.
  - willnonya 4y ago
    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.
  - savingsPossible 4y ago
    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...

ada1981 4y ago

I think I’m a jerk because I found this industry response satisfying. Perhaps this creates an opportunity for certified allergen free foods companies to get into the game in a bigger way.

somehnacct3757 4y ago
This is my thought too. We are reading articles like this at the onset of a new law because it plays well to crowds who want to have Online Opinions about government oversight. If the problem is as bad as these articles claim, then these facilities will need to clean up their act or willfully hand over a slice of the market to competitors. We've even already seen this play out in the bread industry with gluten. A bunch of new brands started taking shelf space away from the big brands and a few years later those big brands have their own gluten-free lines. The same could happen with sesame in time. To form an opinion on the new law this early is a recipe for sour milk.

jschveibinz 4y ago

Based on the apparent demand and critical nature of the allergy, somebody needs to invent: 1. Sesame test strip 2. Sesame neutralizer

aliqot 4y ago

stop labeling anything and let it work itself out.

bikeformind 4y ago

Classic perverse incentive failure. Most famous example is called the “cobra effect.” In the 1800’s some towns in India had a problem with cobra infestation, so the governement offered a bounty for dead cobras. People started farming cobras to collect the bounty. Eventually too many dead snakes were being turned in, so the government stopped paying. As a result, the newly made “cobra farmers” just released all the cobras on to the streets, doubling the population.

viscountchocula 4y ago
Is it, though? By making disclosure a requirement, the market for sesame-free items is highlighted and elevated. It may find a profitable niche or it may not, but consumers are now better able to choose.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  Allergy labeling is likely a bit like support for people with disabilities: We regulate because the market doesn't work in these cases. The number of people who require accommodations are smaller than the value to make accommodating their needs profitable, so we use regulate because it's the right thing to do.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    To be clear, we do it through the government because it’s otherwise inefficient: it imposes a bigger collective cost on society than the benefit to the individuals. Whether “it’s the right thing to do” is a moral construct. European countries, for example, have much narrower requirements for accommodation of people with disabilities than the ADA.
    - magicalist 4y ago
      Though maybe more pertinent, the EU has required sesame allergen labeling since 2003.
  - coryrc 4y ago

willnonya 4y ago

This is textbook unintended consequences of government action. If there were a market for this then the products would already exist. By moving beyond an ingredient disclosure to the elimination of all possible sources of contamination the incentives are changed and this is the result. Rather than incurring the cost required by the law businesses found a different solution. As a result the people the law tried to help are now harmed. The blame here doesn't rest with the businesses but with the lawmakes who drafted this unnecessary nonsense.

simonbarker87 4y ago

I think sesame makes me violently throw up for about 8 hours. The last three times I’ve knowingly eaten it this has happened. But it doesn’t show up on an allergy test and all three were 6 months apart so could have just been a flare up of something else. But it was the exact same symptoms each time. So now I just avoid sesame, it’s really tricky to do as it gets in to all sorts of things, but for seemingly no reason. Even ordering a burger is tricky, why are there sesame seeds on a burger bun?

bestcoder69 4y ago
This has been my struggle. From my POV it's such a dumb allergy to have -- like I feel so stupid bringing it up. But on the other hand, are sesame seeds really that awesome that my food needs to be able to kill me.... for what exactly? Now, sesame oil - fine. That's great. But the seeds... the seeds are just there to insult me.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I love the taste and texture of sesame seeds. I snack on black and white sesame seeds all the time.
- ei8ths 4y ago
  I dont think they do anything to the bun. My kid has a sesame allergy, its pretty dumb when you pick up something, read sesame and you wonder why, we are seriously struggling finding hamburger buns at the grocery store that do not contain sesame - after this new federal law change to include sesame. They have a seed flavor but seriously could get that from another type of seed. Luckily he doesnt have a sever reaction only irritates his tongue and throat a little. very minor.
- InDemoVeritas 4y ago
  Hummus. Halva. Tahini. Sesame would be a difficult allergy. My condolences.
MattGaiser 4y ago
Texture and visually appealing I assume?

bestcoder69 4y ago

I was excited to be able to eat more commercially-produced foods without wondering if it had sesame or not. Ah well. I guess rather than wondering, I now _know_, my food is contaminated, which might be better? Small restaurants have ignored me about my allergy, which TBH worries me more, given the false sense of safety. Now, I just hope for my family's sake if a restaurant kills me, that they're huge and it's their fault.

ffggvv 4y ago
if you have a deadly allergy like that, is eating at small restaurants really worth risking your life?
- LesZedCB 4y ago
  Try saying no to eating out for 6 months every time and see how it feels. Every time your buddy wants a beer, your sisters birthday, after work celebration dinner for a late evening. You don't understand, it's not necessarily as simple as "if I eat out, I die." there are manageable risks with probabilities weighted against being alone again and missing out
  - TiredOfLife 4y ago
    Try not being able to afford eating out.
TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Why don't you just stop eating at restaurants and/or take appropriate steps to protect yourself?
- LesZedCB 4y ago
  I _promise_ you people with allergies know about this "tactic." What all you who suggest it fail to empathize with is that it's the only option most of the time. being completely removed from the social scene of eating out is extremely alienating, and eating out is very common especially for young adults. So you concede, you look up the menu online ahead of time, decide "hey this probably looks safe, I can risk it" Boom, you accidentally eat something you didn't account for, try not to make a scene in front of your friends and the other patrons, go out to your car take Benadryl and pass out. Night over.

AnonC 4y ago

After reading this report, it’s not clear to me what the federal government ought to have done or should’ve done differently. Not regulate food labeling at all? Or not regulate food labeling if less than 1% of the population is impacted by an issue? Remove prior food labeling laws for other allergens? Provide incentives to prevent companies from simplifying their processes and keeping costs lower (especially during a time of high inflation and rising interest rates)? Punish companies that are bypassing the spirit of the law and compel them to create and maintain facilities and processes to prevent cross contamination (and make products that don’t have allergens)?

ghayes 4y ago
The best answer would be to absolve them of liability if they properly state the cross-contamination risk.
- savingsPossible 4y ago
  I hazard a guess that, then, they would state the cross-contamination risk in everything. Laywers, optimization an all that...
- bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
  This will just lead to another case of California’s Prop 65

theptip 4y ago

Perhaps I’m missing it, but I see no attempt to quantify what proportion of foods are actually adding sesame in this way. This could be happening at the margin, and the law could also on net be helping lots of people avoid allergens in the rest of the food that didn’t get adulterated. If it’s 1/1000 products getting sesame added this story is likely a nothing-burger. But yes, at the margin, actors are sensitive to incentives. This story provides a(nother) nice clear example of that, if one was wanting such.

asah 4y ago

Prop 65 all over again. https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65 https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65 https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65+unintended https://www.google.com/search?q=prop+65+unintended

ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago

Why are we linking to trash like Fox News on HN?

calebegg 4y ago
The local fox network affiliates aren't generally strongly connected to the news/misinformation cable channel. It would be like boycotting The Simpsons because of fox news.
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  Sinclair begs to differ.

raymondh 4y ago

Summary: A new law substantially increases liability for making a sesame free product. The predictable result was that there are now fewer sesame free products. Now, everyone is worse off.

Drblessing 4y ago
Well stated. Bring back personal responsibility.
- drewrv 4y ago
  How can someone be "personally responsible" if there are not accurate food labeling laws?
wardedVibe 4y ago
No, there's so much secret sesame that you don't know is there that even with the range of hypothetical options lessened, there are more foods you know are safe now. My partner, who has a sesame allergy, had basically sworn off preprepared food because there's no way to tell. At least now she knows what's safe.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  Mandating a "may contain traces of sesame" would provide just as much protection without requiring adding the sesame and denying it to those of us that aren't going to be killed by a bit of cross contamination.
  - bsder 4y ago
    Without quantifying and controlling the amount of sesame, that's not useful information. That's why these foods added the sesame--now it's measured, quantified, and controlled. Someone with a mild allergy can try the food and see what the reaction is. If it's fine, then that food can be eaten knowing that the sesame level likely will be consistent. People with severe allergies will avoid that food like always. This is a good thing and the complaints make me facepalm. "Gee, now we can experiment and know what this food will do to us as opposed to playing Russian roulette every time. This upsets us and we're going to complain." Oh, gee, what you really wanted was everybody to surgically clean their manufacturing lines but not pay them any extra money for doing so? So sorry, that's not how this works.

Drblessing 4y ago

Bureaucracy strikes again! FDA needs to allow "may contain" or "produced in a facility that contains" and let individuals with these allergies to choose if they want to eat those foods and accept all liability for illness and/or death

jeff_tyrrill 4y ago

This is just a syndication of https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc846f2a19d87b03440848f1 https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc.... Can the URL be changed to that?

tehjoker 4y ago

Note: This is capitalism always finding ways to make money at the expense of public health.

daveoc64 4y ago

Seems like a the labelling rules overall are bad. How things work in the UK (and presumably the EU too) seems pretty good to me. Allergens have to be highlighted in bold (or uppercase) in the ingredients list. If a product may contain an allergen, that's normally listed separately. If you have a mild allergy or intolerance, or avoid particular food for other reasons (e.g. milk because you're Vegan), then the "may contain" risk may not bother you and you can enjoy the product.

adventured 4y ago
The US is on a slope of increasingly extreme nannyism. Which, if you know the history of the US (both its present culture and its common historical beliefs about itself), that has to be a fairly amusing thing to observe from the outside. For numerous reasons, the US culture has been fractured by a tiny, very loud, hyper triggered minority that screams from the rooftops 24/7 on social media. The virtue signaling brigade. Also known as the squeaky wheel getting the grease (attention in this case). They work hard & persistently at it, they're loud, they often band together for pet causes, and they get the government and companies to bend to their pressure routinely. It's leading to a very mentally fragile nation, of emotionally stunted individuals that can't deal with reality and require aggressive shielding from reality. This type of mediocre labeling outcome is indicative of the broader cultural erosion. It's simply no longer good enough to label that something "may contain" risk. It's going to get worse yet before it bottoms out.
- culi 4y ago
  [flagged]

kapildev 4y ago

I think (and there are studies to back this too) that the more you eschew an allergen the more violent your reaction against it would be. I am from a third-world country and I know no-one from my country that has allergies related to foods like peanuts, sesame or gluten. The only other explanations for this would be: a) These allergies occur so rarely that I haven't heard from the minority of the people. b) Or, the people who had this allergies have already died without diagnosis. c) Or, people have these allergy but choose to hide them for fear of social shame. d) Or, people don't get medical checkup that allows the discovery of these allergies. But I think the case that people being accustomed to the allergens due to forceful conditions is the best explanation for this.

zug_zug 4y ago
Those aren't the only explanations, there are dozens of other possible explanations, all worth investigating. And it's not just allergies, there's been an unexplained spike in multiple autoimmune conditions [see google scholar]. The hygiene hypothesis for one.
culi 4y ago
There was a big "medical reversal" around this where a very large seemingly well-conducted study led to doctors advising patients to avoid their allergens. Later studies failed to replicate this result however and doctors have reversed course as evidence has built up that avoiding the allergen can indeed worsen it over time However, I don't really think this is all relevant. Allergen immunotherapy is not as simple as just exposing yourself to the allergen and requires medical oversight. Even if someone is trying to work through this process without a medical professional, they still have a right to know which foods do and don't contain this allergen that could still kill them in large amounts
- pwnmonkey 4y ago
  Do you happen to have a link to the new study?
viraptor 4y ago
> accustomed to the allergens due to forceful conditions is the best explanation for this. While desensitization works https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(medicine) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(medicine) you can't really just force expose someone and hope for the best. It's a bit correlated to developed countries, but not completely https://waojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1939-4551-6-21 https://waojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1939-4... I'd propose a mix of everything but also: e) People don't call things allergies unless they know it's that. I said for decades that I can't eat spinach or I'll have diarrhoea, but learned later that also classifies as an allergy. f) More developed countries have more difference in available cuisines. For example I've not seen a shellfish until I moved out of home, so wouldn't know if I'm allergic to them. g) (probably lots of other factors)

dragonwriter 4y ago

The solution to this is to add a supplemental tax on foods intentionally containing major allergens, that is cumulative per allergen, sufficient to offset the benefit sought by adding it as malicious compliance with labelling and cross-contamination laws.

karatinversion 4y ago
I don’t think you can do this without basically outlawing, say, pizza (intentionally contains wheat and dairy).

greenthrow 4y ago

This article is clearly red meat for right wing anti-regulation types. It is not something interesting to general people in tech.