4 ms·

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 c

by 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.

by lkbm 4y ago

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.