3 ms·

Surely, you aren't complaining of peanuts in peanut butter, so can you share an example, and why the allergen presumably shouldn't be there?

taeric 3y ago
Apologies, I should have included a link. I am referring to https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc846f2a19d87b03440848f1 https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc.... Mayhap that is overblown? I confess I have not followed it too heavily. Very thankful that I am not allergic to anything in my adult life.
- hermitdev 3y ago
  I don't have any food allergies, either, so I admittedly don't pay much attention to allergens (or even listed ingredients most of the time). I'm genuinely curious, too.
swsieber 3y ago
I had the same questions and found this article: https://snacksafely.com/2016/06/kelloggs-unintended-consequences-and-the-death-of-may-contain/ https://snacksafely.com/2016/06/kelloggs-unintended-conseque... Basically, there were stricter measures put in place called HARPC. From my linked article: > The new directives mandate that the “Top 8 allergens” identified by FALCPA (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish, and crustacean shellfish) must either be ingredients of the product and identified as such, or the manufacturer must take extra care (and cost) to ensure that there is no cross-contact with them. There is no middle ground or “out” for the manufacturer, which is why we believe “May contain” type label advisories are heading for extinction. And that poses a problem, at least in the short term. > companies, when faced with the added burden of instituting and documenting cross-contact prevention measures as dictated by HARPC, may instead choose to add trace amounts of the allergen to the product, as doing so makes the allergen an ingredient of the product and obviates the need for preventative cross-contact measures for that allergen. > it means that manufacturers will either take stricter measures to prevent cross-contact or add a trace amount of the allergen and list it in the ingredient list, thus eliminating the ambiguity that currently plagues us all. > A compromise that might have avoided the unintended consequences of companies like Kellogg’s adding traces of allergens to their products is to have offered them a third option: A mandatory “May contain” label advisory for any product made on shared equipment or in shared facilities that did not meet the FSMA threshold for cross-contact prevention. Such label advisories are voluntary today, rendering them ambiguous at best, but a definitively worded and located advisory statement included on all such products would have provided a way for manufacturers to meet the requirements of HARPC without resorting to the addition of allergens. So I'd be surprised if it was happening on an ongoing basis, but I can definitely see why people would be irked.
hguant 3y ago
The penalty for having an allergen present is steep, and the process of certifying that yes, you are in fact allergen free, is expensive and difficult, while the cost of adding an allergen into your process, for pretty much any foodstuff, is cheap, and the cost of slapping a "may contain peanuts" label on is cheaper. I believe the original comment was complaining about the perverse incentive there.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  And if may contain is not enough or allowed, may as well throw some amount of peanuts in and list it. And cover all the bases.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
No, we are complaining about the way the government handles allergen labeling. It used to be that companies could slap a "may contain [allergen]" label on things that didn't contain it but were produced in a factory where cross contamination was a possibility. Such labels are *widespread*. I don't understand the government's incentive in trying to stop this--the actual result was when cross contamination was a possibility the companies reacted by deliberately adding the offending material. The problem is that it's being looked at in a binary sense. Either it contains the offending material and poses a danger to those affected, or it doesn't and is safe. However, in the real world there's a third population--those who are sensitive to the offending ingredient but not dangerously so. Possibility of cross contamination? That is not going to be a deterrent to me as the worst case outcome is merely unpleasant. Does contain? I'm going to treat it with great skepticism.

taeric 3y ago

Apologies, I should have included a link. I am referring to https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc846f2a19d87b03440848f1 https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc.... Mayhap that is overblown? I confess I have not followed it too heavily. Very thankful that I am not allergic to anything in my adult life.

hermitdev 3y ago
I don't have any food allergies, either, so I admittedly don't pay much attention to allergens (or even listed ingredients most of the time). I'm genuinely curious, too.

swsieber 3y ago

I had the same questions and found this article: https://snacksafely.com/2016/06/kelloggs-unintended-consequences-and-the-death-of-may-contain/ https://snacksafely.com/2016/06/kelloggs-unintended-conseque... Basically, there were stricter measures put in place called HARPC. From my linked article: > The new directives mandate that the “Top 8 allergens” identified by FALCPA (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish, and crustacean shellfish) must either be ingredients of the product and identified as such, or the manufacturer must take extra care (and cost) to ensure that there is no cross-contact with them. There is no middle ground or “out” for the manufacturer, which is why we believe “May contain” type label advisories are heading for extinction. And that poses a problem, at least in the short term. > companies, when faced with the added burden of instituting and documenting cross-contact prevention measures as dictated by HARPC, may instead choose to add trace amounts of the allergen to the product, as doing so makes the allergen an ingredient of the product and obviates the need for preventative cross-contact measures for that allergen. > it means that manufacturers will either take stricter measures to prevent cross-contact or add a trace amount of the allergen and list it in the ingredient list, thus eliminating the ambiguity that currently plagues us all. > A compromise that might have avoided the unintended consequences of companies like Kellogg’s adding traces of allergens to their products is to have offered them a third option: A mandatory “May contain” label advisory for any product made on shared equipment or in shared facilities that did not meet the FSMA threshold for cross-contact prevention. Such label advisories are voluntary today, rendering them ambiguous at best, but a definitively worded and located advisory statement included on all such products would have provided a way for manufacturers to meet the requirements of HARPC without resorting to the addition of allergens. So I'd be surprised if it was happening on an ongoing basis, but I can definitely see why people would be irked.

hguant 3y ago

The penalty for having an allergen present is steep, and the process of certifying that yes, you are in fact allergen free, is expensive and difficult, while the cost of adding an allergen into your process, for pretty much any foodstuff, is cheap, and the cost of slapping a "may contain peanuts" label on is cheaper. I believe the original comment was complaining about the perverse incentive there.

Ekaros 3y ago
And if may contain is not enough or allowed, may as well throw some amount of peanuts in and list it. And cover all the bases.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

No, we are complaining about the way the government handles allergen labeling. It used to be that companies could slap a "may contain [allergen]" label on things that didn't contain it but were produced in a factory where cross contamination was a possibility. Such labels are *widespread*. I don't understand the government's incentive in trying to stop this--the actual result was when cross contamination was a possibility the companies reacted by deliberately adding the offending material. The problem is that it's being looked at in a binary sense. Either it contains the offending material and poses a danger to those affected, or it doesn't and is safe. However, in the real world there's a third population--those who are sensitive to the offending ingredient but not dangerously so. Possibility of cross contamination? That is not going to be a deterrent to me as the worst case outcome is merely unpleasant. Does contain? I'm going to treat it with great skepticism.