3 ms·

If it says it on the label, and you're allergic to it, then you shouldn't eat it. This doesn't harm consumers at all.

Detrytus 2y ago
It does harm consumers by severely limiting their choices, especially if companies start putting the warning on every product by default, instead of actually making reasonable effort to prevent contamination.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  Your definition of reasonable may differ greatly from those who must perform said efforts.
- starttoaster 2y ago
  You couldn't write a more perfect allegory for what has already happened due to California's Proposition 65. The common denominator here is that the government gives companies new rules to follow, and enforces severe penalties for breaking them, and so the companies minimized their risk by following them to the extreme. It's almost like if you want a different outcome, the government agencies involved need to step up and do a more thoughtful job of architecting these policies in a way where the companies are forced to follow the "spirit" of them. I can't be mad if I create a policy, and someone follows it. My intention should have been in the policy, not just implied.
  - inferiorhuman 2y ago
    The common denominator here is that the government gives companies new rules to follow, and enforces severe penalties for breaking them, and so the companies minimized their risk by following them to the extreme. Hardly. Prop 65 initially contained minimal guidance and essentially no teeth. So rather than identify problematic chemicals companies just slapped generic Prop 65 warnings on everything. architecting these policies in a way where the companies are forced to follow the "spirit" of them. Prop 65 was updated so that companies were required to put specifics on the warning label. The state even went so far as to start enforcing the requirements, and then… I can't be mad if I create a policy, and someone follows it. And then the state got sued because apparently labeling your products is simply more difficult than legal action.
    - Molitor5901 2y ago
      Prop 65 DOES contain teeth, of the worst possible kind. It works by an attorney finding a product without a Prop 65 label. Then the law firm sends a demand to the state that the product have the Prop 65 label. If the state does not take action, then the law firm may take private action by suing the company to force them to have the label, and get all of their legal expenses paid for by the state. It's lead to an entire industry of attorneys suing just to get the attorneys fees.
      - inferiorhuman 2y ago
        Can't tell if you're serious or not. Private complaints must be reviewed by the local AHJ and include a certificate of merit. Folks being sued privately have 2 weeks to add labels. This is, of course, after waiting 2 months for the government to take action. Hardly the worst kind of teeth.
- javier123454321 2y ago
  I suppose we have different definitions of harm. Providing a product which might contain an allergen and notifying you of that possibility is not harm in my book.
- thrill 2y ago
  And what is the FDA definition of "reasonable" that will keep the ambulance chasers away from their businesses?
zuminator 2y ago
If there's no way to disambiguate "actually contains allergen X" and "almost certainly doesn't contain allergen X," then rather than being extra-cautious, eventually consumers may come to carelessly disregard the warning text, assuming (correctly) that it most likely falls under the second case. The harm ensues when the heuristic fails.
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  That I feel is on the consumer as business just does a full disclosure. The business discloses, what was added as ingredients, and what contamination is possible. (Because production line is shard or similar) What more do you want? I guess results of regular random testing could be put online. Forbid using same knife to slice different things is another thing to be done.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    > What more do you want? That the labeling disambiguate "made in a factory that makes sesame products" and "actually contains sesame." What we now have with "may contain" could be either and everyone is worse off

It does harm consumers by severely limiting their choices, especially if companies start putting the warning on every product by default, instead of actually making reasonable effort to prevent contamination.

baggy_trough 2y ago
Your definition of reasonable may differ greatly from those who must perform said efforts.
starttoaster 2y ago
You couldn't write a more perfect allegory for what has already happened due to California's Proposition 65. The common denominator here is that the government gives companies new rules to follow, and enforces severe penalties for breaking them, and so the companies minimized their risk by following them to the extreme. It's almost like if you want a different outcome, the government agencies involved need to step up and do a more thoughtful job of architecting these policies in a way where the companies are forced to follow the "spirit" of them. I can't be mad if I create a policy, and someone follows it. My intention should have been in the policy, not just implied.
- inferiorhuman 2y ago
  The common denominator here is that the government gives companies new rules to follow, and enforces severe penalties for breaking them, and so the companies minimized their risk by following them to the extreme. Hardly. Prop 65 initially contained minimal guidance and essentially no teeth. So rather than identify problematic chemicals companies just slapped generic Prop 65 warnings on everything. architecting these policies in a way where the companies are forced to follow the "spirit" of them. Prop 65 was updated so that companies were required to put specifics on the warning label. The state even went so far as to start enforcing the requirements, and then… I can't be mad if I create a policy, and someone follows it. And then the state got sued because apparently labeling your products is simply more difficult than legal action.
  - Molitor5901 2y ago
    Prop 65 DOES contain teeth, of the worst possible kind. It works by an attorney finding a product without a Prop 65 label. Then the law firm sends a demand to the state that the product have the Prop 65 label. If the state does not take action, then the law firm may take private action by suing the company to force them to have the label, and get all of their legal expenses paid for by the state. It's lead to an entire industry of attorneys suing just to get the attorneys fees.
    - inferiorhuman 2y ago
      Can't tell if you're serious or not. Private complaints must be reviewed by the local AHJ and include a certificate of merit. Folks being sued privately have 2 weeks to add labels. This is, of course, after waiting 2 months for the government to take action. Hardly the worst kind of teeth.
javier123454321 2y ago
I suppose we have different definitions of harm. Providing a product which might contain an allergen and notifying you of that possibility is not harm in my book.
thrill 2y ago
And what is the FDA definition of "reasonable" that will keep the ambulance chasers away from their businesses?

zuminator 2y ago

If there's no way to disambiguate "actually contains allergen X" and "almost certainly doesn't contain allergen X," then rather than being extra-cautious, eventually consumers may come to carelessly disregard the warning text, assuming (correctly) that it most likely falls under the second case. The harm ensues when the heuristic fails.

stoperaticless 2y ago
That I feel is on the consumer as business just does a full disclosure. The business discloses, what was added as ingredients, and what contamination is possible. (Because production line is shard or similar) What more do you want? I guess results of regular random testing could be put online. Forbid using same knife to slice different things is another thing to be done.
- Spivak 2y ago
  > What more do you want? That the labeling disambiguate "made in a factory that makes sesame products" and "actually contains sesame." What we now have with "may contain" could be either and everyone is worse off