3 ms·

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.