5 ms·

> under federal labeling rules, they can’t state that their products contain sesame unless the items actually contain it — so they’re adding sesame and labeling

> under federal labeling rules, they can’t state that their products contain sesame unless the items actually contain it — so they’re adding sesame and labeling it This is the crux of it. Here in the UK, it's common for food to be labelled “May contain traces of milk” and other allergens, when the ingredients list doesn't include those allergens.

celdon25 4y ago
> under federal labeling rules Anyone know what the specific regulation is? Seems the article missed an opportunity to provide actionable information instead of the usual doomsaying
- msla 4y ago
  > Seems the article missed an opportunity to provide actionable information instead of the usual doomsaying The action the article wants you to take is to be mad and keep clicking.
colanderman 4y ago
This is common in the US too. The text of the bill [1] literally just adds sesame to a list of allergens. There is some important fact the article is not reporting on -- why manufacturers simply don't add "may contain sesame" like they do for other allergens is unanswered. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/578/text/pl https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/578...
- TylerE 4y ago
  The labeling I usuaully see is something like "Processed in a facility that also processes <x>"
- lkbm 4y ago
  I remember some discussion in January when this first hit the news. Here's the money quote: "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."[0] [0] https://www.dallasnews.com/food/restaurant-news/2022/12/29/so-disappointing-chick-fil-a-olive-garden-add-sesame-to-foods-ahead-of-new-allergy-law/ https://www.dallasnews.com/food/restaurant-news/2022/12/29/s...
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    In other words, the whole "we have to add sesame because the law forces us to" is a bald-faced lie.
    - lkbm 4y ago
      Uh...no, it's the opposite. THis quote explains why what they're saying is true and an actual consequent of the rules. Per the FDA, it's not enough to just say "it may contain traces". You need to do full, expensive, cross-contamination protection, or actually have sesame as an ingredient, so that's what companies are doing.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        Right. Which means the law isn't stopping them. They just want to avoid cleaning.
        lkbm 4y ago
        I mean...yeah, obviously? What specific statement did they make that you think is a lie? No one says, or would believe for a second "the law requires that all food have sesame added no matter what".
        JohnFen 4y ago
        There are a bunch of comments here saying that the law is forcing them to do this. That's what's not at all true. The law is forcing no such thing.
        zaphar 4y ago
        You are correct. No one is forcing them to add sesame. They are just forcing them to pick between doing one of two extremes an expensive and a cheap one. The middle road is not longer available. A large portion of the companies are as one would expect choosing the cheaper one. You can then decide that makes them immoral. Certainly your prerogative to do so. However the fact remains that this result was 1) predictable and 2) likely not what the stated intent was which means it is also someones prerogative to call the creators of the law and associated regulations did a spectacularly bad job as well.
OJFord 4y ago
My favourite is 'may contain nuts', on a bag of nuts.
- cyral 4y ago
  "Contains egg" on a clear package of two hard boiled eggs at the Publix deli
tailspin2019 4y ago
In the UK, as a kid with a severe (at the time) nut allergy, I developed a borderline eating disorder at one point by just being scared to eat a LOT of foods because the manufacturer would just slap “may contain traces of nuts” on almost everything to get out of any possible liability. My young brain learned to believe (incorrectly) that most foods contained “traces of nuts” and I developed a kind of paranoia - especially when eating at other people’s houses where I couldn’t check packaging as easily. Industry practices seems to have gotten a lot worse since then. I find this extremely aggravating. Thankfully for me, I eventually got over the paranoia but I now probably take more risks than I should given how utterly useless nut allergy warnings have become.
HillRat 4y ago
In the US, advisory labeling (i.e., "may contain...") isn't codified in law or regulation; it's something that the FDA basically recommends as a good practice when cross-contamination may occur even though good manufacturing practices (GMPs) are being followed. For example, you might have a line that processes milk and dark chocolate, which you sanitize according to GMP, but which may still contain traces of milk. Crucially, the FDA expects that advisory labeling will not be used to get around practices such as sanitizing equipment, segregating allergens from other foodstuffs, and so on; they exist as a "we've done our best to make sure you won't die of anaphylactic shock, but caveat emptor nonetheless" warning. So what you've got here are companies that haven't had to comply with GMP requirements; decided that they don't want to; so instead just slapped a major allergen into their existing products with functionally no warning to consumers who believed the products to still be allergen-free. Which, sure, GMP compliance isn't cheap and it is complex, but this is a pretty cold-blooded way -- somewhere these companies surely have PowerPoints that do a mortality, legal, and financial risk analysis of their decisions -- to do an end-run around laws and regulation.
JohnFen 4y ago
Here in the US, I see the label "Has been processed on machinery used to process <X>". So apparently that's allowed, and I think would be adequate.
- beerandt 4y ago
  That was voluntary, and the FDA now says it isn't sufficient.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    As I understand it, this isn't some new interpretation from the FDA. It's always been that way. The only new thing here is adding "sesame" to the list of recognized allergens.
    - beerandt 4y ago
      Adding an item to a list with much stricter rules absolutely changes the rules for those products and ones processed in the same facility. You can argue semantics, but the very premise of the article is that the change caused an outsized reaction in the industry. That rarely happens outside of regulatory compliance. It also goes to show how little regulators know sometimes about the very thing they claim expertise at regulating.

celdon25 4y ago

> under federal labeling rules Anyone know what the specific regulation is? Seems the article missed an opportunity to provide actionable information instead of the usual doomsaying

msla 4y ago
> Seems the article missed an opportunity to provide actionable information instead of the usual doomsaying The action the article wants you to take is to be mad and keep clicking.

colanderman 4y ago

This is common in the US too. The text of the bill [1] literally just adds sesame to a list of allergens. There is some important fact the article is not reporting on -- why manufacturers simply don't add "may contain sesame" like they do for other allergens is unanswered. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/578/text/pl https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/578...

TylerE 4y ago
The labeling I usuaully see is something like "Processed in a facility that also processes <x>"
lkbm 4y ago
I remember some discussion in January when this first hit the news. Here's the money quote: "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."[0] [0] https://www.dallasnews.com/food/restaurant-news/2022/12/29/so-disappointing-chick-fil-a-olive-garden-add-sesame-to-foods-ahead-of-new-allergy-law/ https://www.dallasnews.com/food/restaurant-news/2022/12/29/s...
- JohnFen 4y ago
  In other words, the whole "we have to add sesame because the law forces us to" is a bald-faced lie.
  - lkbm 4y ago
    Uh...no, it's the opposite. THis quote explains why what they're saying is true and an actual consequent of the rules. Per the FDA, it's not enough to just say "it may contain traces". You need to do full, expensive, cross-contamination protection, or actually have sesame as an ingredient, so that's what companies are doing.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Right. Which means the law isn't stopping them. They just want to avoid cleaning.
      - lkbm 4y ago
        I mean...yeah, obviously? What specific statement did they make that you think is a lie? No one says, or would believe for a second "the law requires that all food have sesame added no matter what".
        JohnFen 4y ago
        There are a bunch of comments here saying that the law is forcing them to do this. That's what's not at all true. The law is forcing no such thing.
        zaphar 4y ago
        You are correct. No one is forcing them to add sesame. They are just forcing them to pick between doing one of two extremes an expensive and a cheap one. The middle road is not longer available. A large portion of the companies are as one would expect choosing the cheaper one. You can then decide that makes them immoral. Certainly your prerogative to do so. However the fact remains that this result was 1) predictable and 2) likely not what the stated intent was which means it is also someones prerogative to call the creators of the law and associated regulations did a spectacularly bad job as well.

OJFord 4y ago

My favourite is 'may contain nuts', on a bag of nuts.

cyral 4y ago
"Contains egg" on a clear package of two hard boiled eggs at the Publix deli

tailspin2019 4y ago

In the UK, as a kid with a severe (at the time) nut allergy, I developed a borderline eating disorder at one point by just being scared to eat a LOT of foods because the manufacturer would just slap “may contain traces of nuts” on almost everything to get out of any possible liability. My young brain learned to believe (incorrectly) that most foods contained “traces of nuts” and I developed a kind of paranoia - especially when eating at other people’s houses where I couldn’t check packaging as easily. Industry practices seems to have gotten a lot worse since then. I find this extremely aggravating. Thankfully for me, I eventually got over the paranoia but I now probably take more risks than I should given how utterly useless nut allergy warnings have become.

HillRat 4y ago

In the US, advisory labeling (i.e., "may contain...") isn't codified in law or regulation; it's something that the FDA basically recommends as a good practice when cross-contamination may occur even though good manufacturing practices (GMPs) are being followed. For example, you might have a line that processes milk and dark chocolate, which you sanitize according to GMP, but which may still contain traces of milk. Crucially, the FDA expects that advisory labeling will not be used to get around practices such as sanitizing equipment, segregating allergens from other foodstuffs, and so on; they exist as a "we've done our best to make sure you won't die of anaphylactic shock, but caveat emptor nonetheless" warning. So what you've got here are companies that haven't had to comply with GMP requirements; decided that they don't want to; so instead just slapped a major allergen into their existing products with functionally no warning to consumers who believed the products to still be allergen-free. Which, sure, GMP compliance isn't cheap and it is complex, but this is a pretty cold-blooded way -- somewhere these companies surely have PowerPoints that do a mortality, legal, and financial risk analysis of their decisions -- to do an end-run around laws and regulation.

JohnFen 4y ago

Here in the US, I see the label "Has been processed on machinery used to process <X>". So apparently that's allowed, and I think would be adequate.

beerandt 4y ago
That was voluntary, and the FDA now says it isn't sufficient.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  As I understand it, this isn't some new interpretation from the FDA. It's always been that way. The only new thing here is adding "sesame" to the list of recognized allergens.
  - beerandt 4y ago
    Adding an item to a list with much stricter rules absolutely changes the rules for those products and ones processed in the same facility. You can argue semantics, but the very premise of the article is that the change caused an outsized reaction in the industry. That rarely happens outside of regulatory compliance. It also goes to show how little regulators know sometimes about the very thing they claim expertise at regulating.