7 ms·

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 thi

by 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...
mort96 4y ago
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?
- rewgs 4y ago
  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.
  - jackmott 4y ago
    [dead]
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    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?
    - rewgs 4y ago
      I just mean that the ingredient list is otherwise fine. It's completely ruined by "may contain something that you're allergic to."
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Yeah, I've been seeing "this product was manufactured in a facility that processes food containing tree nuts" for over a decade now.
    - rewgs 4y ago
      That doesn't bother me, even with a severe almond allergy I've rolled that dice many a time and it's been fine. The problem is "may contain tree nuts." Like, okay, does it or doesn't it? What's even worse is the ingredient "spices." Which spices? Even smelling mustard can send me to the ER, but basil is one of my favorite foods. How these kinds of not-even-half measures are legal is beyond me.
      - wardedVibe 4y ago
        "spices" is the worst. are they worried that someone is going to steal their recipe if they happen to list all the ingredients?
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    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".)
- Thorrez 4y ago
  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.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Because that label doesn’t meet the requirement for the law.
  - dantheman 4y ago
    It's a bad law.
janalsncm 4y ago
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.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  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.
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    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.
tehwebguy 4y ago
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.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Can't they just write "contains sesame" without actually adding any sesame? Then they will be sued by sesame lovers, I see.
HWR_14 4y ago
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!
- JelteF 4y ago
  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?

by 323 4y ago

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...

mort96 4y ago

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?

rewgs 4y ago
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.
- jackmott 4y ago
  [dead]
- Thorrez 4y ago
  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?
  - rewgs 4y ago
    I just mean that the ingredient list is otherwise fine. It's completely ruined by "may contain something that you're allergic to."
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  Yeah, I've been seeing "this product was manufactured in a facility that processes food containing tree nuts" for over a decade now.
  - rewgs 4y ago
    That doesn't bother me, even with a severe almond allergy I've rolled that dice many a time and it's been fine. The problem is "may contain tree nuts." Like, okay, does it or doesn't it? What's even worse is the ingredient "spices." Which spices? Even smelling mustard can send me to the ER, but basil is one of my favorite foods. How these kinds of not-even-half measures are legal is beyond me.
    - wardedVibe 4y ago
      "spices" is the worst. are they worried that someone is going to steal their recipe if they happen to list all the ingredients?
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  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".)
Thorrez 4y ago
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.
cortesoft 4y ago
Because that label doesn’t meet the requirement for the law.
- dantheman 4y ago
  It's a bad law.

janalsncm 4y ago

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.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
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.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  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.

tehwebguy 4y ago

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.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

Can't they just write "contains sesame" without actually adding any sesame? Then they will be sued by sesame lovers, I see.

HWR_14 4y ago

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!

JelteF 4y ago
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?