6 ms·
It's may favorite example of unintended consequences. FDA orders bakers to list allergens. There are stiff penalties if you are allergenic but don't list the a
by isaacfrond 2y ago
It's may favorite example of unintended consequences.
FDA orders bakers to list allergens. There are stiff penalties if you are allergenic but don't list the allergen.
So? Bakers claim their product contains allergens, even if they don't.
FDA doesn't like it.
So? Bakers add allergens on purpose, so they can rightly claim it contains them.
- mytailorisrich 2y agoI don't know in the US (though it is mentioned at the end of the article) but here, UK, they tend to warn to the product "may contain ..." if there is any chance of contamination and that indeed appears a lot on bakery products and sandwiches.
- gumby 2y agoThis is common in the US as well, typically worded as "manufactured in a facility that also processes" although the wording you wrote is common too.
- chaostheory 2y agoI believe that was the status quo until now.
- ASalazarMX 2y agoIt's much cheaper than taking precautions against cross-contamination, but weasel words should not be part of disclaimers.
- mrspuratic 2y ago"precautionary allergen labeling" [1]. In EU it's still up to individual countries to regulate it, e.g. Ireland [2] > Use of a ‘may contain….’ statement, or similar, to indicate that the product may contain an allergen as a result of possible cross-contamination, must not take the place of good manufacturing practices (GMPs) in a food business. > GMPs must be in place to prevent cross-contamination [1] https://www.efanet.org/news/news/4327-efa-responds-to-codex-consultation-on-precautionary-allergen-labelling-such-as-may-contain https://www.efanet.org/news/news/4327-efa-responds-to-codex-... [2] https://www.fsai.ie/business-advice/labelling/labelling-allergens https://www.fsai.ie/business-advice/labelling/labelling-alle...
- fred_is_fred 2y agoThe next iteration will be adding 1 mg of almond flour, 1 mg of peanuts, and 1 mg milk to every ton of dough they make. Then it really will have the allergens.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gus_massa 2y agoIt already happened: "New federal food label law has unintended effect: Sesame now in more foods" https://www.fox9.com/news/new-us-food-label-law-unintended-effect-sesame-more-foods https://www.fox9.com/news/new-us-food-label-law-unintended-e... (HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211 (244 points | Dec 2022 | 420 comments))
- washadjeffmad 2y agoWhen a friend whose son has tree and ground nut allergies told me this, I didn't believe it, but to her, it made perfect sense. With the thresholds for anaphylactic response so low, it's costlier not to be able to guarantee that there's no cross contamination than to just add the allergen.
- jokethrowaway 2y agoAnd imagine that it probably happens for every instance of centralisation and regulation in our society - with few people connecting the dots and tracing things back by some well-meaning but clueless bureaucrats
- llamaimperative 2y agoThis happens all over the place in private industry too. Nothing unique about regulation or bureaucracy that produces effects like this. If anything, centralization is the best tool to detect and avoid issues like this. Locally, every decision is completely reasonable. It’s only zoomed out that it doesn’t make sense.
- L-four 2y agoCentralization is better for most on average or even mean. Often leaving those on the fringe much worse off.
- lylejantzi3rd 2y agoIt's closer to: FDA orders bakers to list allergens. There are stiff penalties if you are allergenic but don't list the allergen. So? Bakers look at their production processes and determine there's a chance that enough allergens get into the product due to cross contamination to list it on the label, just in case. FDA doesn't like it. They expect the bakers to fix their cross-contamination issues at great expense to themselves. So? Bakers add allergens on purpose, so they can rightly claim it contains them. It's cheaper than setting up a clean room for every product line.
- starttoaster 2y agoIt's closer to: FDA orders bakers to list allergens. There are stiff penalties if you are allergenic but don't list the allergen. So? Bakers look at their production processes and determine there's a chance that enough allergens get into the product due to cross contamination to list it on the label, just in case. FDA doesn't like it. They expect the bakers to fix their cross-contamination issues at great expense to themselves. So? Bakers add allergens on purpose, so they can rightly claim it contains them. It's cheaper than setting up a clean room for every product line. FDA doesn't like it.
- rufus_foreman 2y agoThe only way to fix cross-contamination issues is to have a different production facility for every possible combination of allergens. Which is insane. I worked in a factory that packaged food, if one product contained an allergen, there was no way you could guarantee that a tiny amount of that allergen wouldn't get into some amount of the next product on that production line. No way. Not any possible way. You can clean all you want, you can do whatever you want, you can mandate whatever procedures you want, but there's just no way. Even if every half-awake half-sober completely uncaring third shift production worker (like 1990's era me) does everything exactly right, which they won't, even if they actually cared to, which they won't. The FDA is putting manufacturers in an impossible position, and it's insane. I have food allergies, believe me, I get it. But there's just no way. If a manufacturing facility produces products with tree nuts, someone with an allergy to tree nuts has to treat every product produced in or near that facility as though it contains tree nuts. That's reality. The FDA is not dealing with reality. The problem here is the US federal government.
- JohnMakin 2y agoThat is pretty funny, in a really sad way.
- ganzuul 2y agoIt's evil.
- fragmede 2y agoIt's the market being efficient. Markets solve everything, yay!
- esd_g0d 2y agoWhat do you propose instead in this case? Not trying to be snarky, just to get the discussion rolling. Asking everyone to "play nice" or "don't be evil" also often does not work in practice. I mean I'd love it if it did, but such is life.
- fragmede 2y agoI want the FDA to get meta and be empowerd to say if you add sesame to everything just to work around our rules, we'll fine you, because we're not idiots.
- kbelder 2y agoMarkets respond to regulation, and are distorted by it. It's not a problem with the market.
- morsch 2y agoEfficient markets enforcing centralized mass manufacturing of low quality baked goods is what caused the problem in the first place.
- llamaimperative 2y agoThis is a really counterproductive way to try to understand problems like this. No one is trying to do anything evil. Every step is individually quite reasonable and well within ethical bounds. The issue is that you can produce systems comprised solely of reasonable and ethical decisions that nonetheless yield an outcome that every actor would describe as bad. That is a useful way to interpret this situation and others, because you don’t waste your time looking for a boogeyman to call Evil and instead it prompts you to zoom out and operate on the bigger picture.
- brookst 2y agoCalifornia proposition 65 is the classic example. Since it requires buildings to warn visitors if they contain cancer-causing substances, and since no landlord can possibly know every substance that even tenant or visitor might have, every building has a "this building may or may not contain cancer-causing substances" placard. It's surreal and awesome.
- Molitor5901 2y agoMy favorite is the Marriott in downtown Monterey. This building may contain substances which is known ... Utter crap.
- flutas 2y agoMy favorite one is in Anaheim. Everyone ready for a trip to the happiest place on earth? One of the first things you see walking in... > The Disneyland Resort contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. https://i.redd.it/utw067xgroh11.jpg https://i.redd.it/utw067xgroh11.jpg
- wccrawford 2y agoWe saw this on our trip there and had a good laugh about it.
- userbinator 2y agoThey should just have huge "The state of California contains..." signs all around the state borders.
- nonameiguess 2y agoThe problems with Prop 65 go beyond that. The legislation itself effectively made no attempt to define what it means for something to cause cancer. The commission put in charge of enforcement ultimately decided it would mean anything that current scientific evidence suggests has a 1 in 100,000 risk of eventually causing cancer if you are exposed to it for an entire lifetime. Subsequent lawsuits clarified that a substance must be included even if the risk is only proven to exist in non-human animals. Ironically, I never even knew this, but apparently the proposition only exists because Jane Fonda thought it would draw left-leaning voters to the polls to hopefully vote for Tom Bradley over George Deukmejian in the 1986 race for California governor. She and the other proponents didn't even think the proposition itself would pass. But the proposition did pass and Bradley wasn't even elected!
- Molitor5901 2y agoNow the FDA is saying adding those allergens on purpose is wrong. Figuratively, it's nuts. I suspect this will end up in court.