3 ms·

It’s the corporations actually poisoning people though no? What’s the alternative, a status quo of occasional accidental poisoning due to poor hygiene? This sor

It’s the corporations actually poisoning people though no? What’s the alternative, a status quo of occasional accidental poisoning due to poor hygiene? This sort of corporate malfeasance is not a uniquely American thing, but it has a libertarian streak that feels all too familiar. Maybe corporations could spend some profits on figuring out food safety for the public good, too much to ask I guess.

bell-cot 4y ago
Saying "Corporations" gets more clicks for the Washington Post, but there's no reason to think that Kate & Carol's Corner Bakery isn't in the exact same bad situation. Also, the "...instead of conducting the careful cleaning required for foods without sesame..." reason sounds fishy to me. Any facility processing food at scale already has to do a lot of careful cleaning. My first guess - the "cleaning" standard in the new sesame regulation is so strict that it would require "never attempted anything like this before" levels of effort. Second guess - perfect cleaning won't actually cover your regulatory butt if your supply chain has sesame problems...and there are severe sesame problems in their supply chains.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  >Saying "Corporations" gets more clicks for the Washington Post, but there's no reason to think that Kate & Carol's Corner Bakery isn't in the exact same bad situation. Small businesses supported gluten allergies well before any large corporations did. It's much easier to control small batches than large ones. > Also, the "...instead of conducting the careful cleaning required for foods without sesame..." reason sounds fishy to me. Any facility processing food at scale already has to do a lot of careful cleaning. My first guess - the "cleaning" standard in the new sesame regulation is so strict that it would require "never attempted anything like this before" levels of effort. Second guess - perfect cleaning won't actually cover your regulatory butt if your supply chain has sesame problems...and there are severe sesame problems in their supply chains. You clearly didn't take the time to read the regulation or even the article before replying.
kspacewalk2 4y ago
That's a lot of outrage, but ultimately, why should a bakery have to sell products without sesame?
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Pure sophistry. The problem isn't selling items with sesame in it, it's improperly labeling that sesame is in an item in the first place. Did you read the article?
  - lkbm 4y ago
    The issue here isn't people adding sesame and not mentioning it. The problem is that if there were something else with sesame using the same machinery, anywhere along the line, you can't simply say "this item might have traces of sesame" (you're still liable, per the FDA) and you can't say "this item has sesame" (because it doesn't; it just has possible sesame cross-contamination). You have to either have fully eliminated the possibility of cross-contamination or make sesame an explicit ingredient. One is free; one is expensive.
    - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
      So we return to the beginning: corporations unwilling to practice basic food safety.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    No, that is not the problem at all. There's no allegation of improper labelling. Rather, the problem instead is that the law regulating proper labelling leaves those with sesame allergy worse off, because it incentivises adding small amounts of sesame flour, labelling the product as "contains sesame" and being done with it. There's nothing wrong or improper with doing that - your labels are all correct, the law is followed.
    - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
      How is not labeling a product as containing something that it does through cross contamination not mislabeling? If they can prove that it is not poisonous to those with allergies then there is no issue.

bell-cot 4y ago

Saying "Corporations" gets more clicks for the Washington Post, but there's no reason to think that Kate & Carol's Corner Bakery isn't in the exact same bad situation. Also, the "...instead of conducting the careful cleaning required for foods without sesame..." reason sounds fishy to me. Any facility processing food at scale already has to do a lot of careful cleaning. My first guess - the "cleaning" standard in the new sesame regulation is so strict that it would require "never attempted anything like this before" levels of effort. Second guess - perfect cleaning won't actually cover your regulatory butt if your supply chain has sesame problems...and there are severe sesame problems in their supply chains.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
>Saying "Corporations" gets more clicks for the Washington Post, but there's no reason to think that Kate & Carol's Corner Bakery isn't in the exact same bad situation. Small businesses supported gluten allergies well before any large corporations did. It's much easier to control small batches than large ones. > Also, the "...instead of conducting the careful cleaning required for foods without sesame..." reason sounds fishy to me. Any facility processing food at scale already has to do a lot of careful cleaning. My first guess - the "cleaning" standard in the new sesame regulation is so strict that it would require "never attempted anything like this before" levels of effort. Second guess - perfect cleaning won't actually cover your regulatory butt if your supply chain has sesame problems...and there are severe sesame problems in their supply chains. You clearly didn't take the time to read the regulation or even the article before replying.

kspacewalk2 4y ago

That's a lot of outrage, but ultimately, why should a bakery have to sell products without sesame?

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Pure sophistry. The problem isn't selling items with sesame in it, it's improperly labeling that sesame is in an item in the first place. Did you read the article?
- lkbm 4y ago
  The issue here isn't people adding sesame and not mentioning it. The problem is that if there were something else with sesame using the same machinery, anywhere along the line, you can't simply say "this item might have traces of sesame" (you're still liable, per the FDA) and you can't say "this item has sesame" (because it doesn't; it just has possible sesame cross-contamination). You have to either have fully eliminated the possibility of cross-contamination or make sesame an explicit ingredient. One is free; one is expensive.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    So we return to the beginning: corporations unwilling to practice basic food safety.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  No, that is not the problem at all. There's no allegation of improper labelling. Rather, the problem instead is that the law regulating proper labelling leaves those with sesame allergy worse off, because it incentivises adding small amounts of sesame flour, labelling the product as "contains sesame" and being done with it. There's nothing wrong or improper with doing that - your labels are all correct, the law is followed.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    How is not labeling a product as containing something that it does through cross contamination not mislabeling? If they can prove that it is not poisonous to those with allergies then there is no issue.