4 ms·
> For a large company this is a millions of dollars The FDA was expecting that companies spend millions to ensure that the products are free of sesame to help
by wolpoli 2y ago
> For a large company this is a millions of dollars
The FDA was expecting that companies spend millions to ensure that the products are free of sesame to help people with allergies, but companies realize that it's easier to just add sesame into their products.
I am not sure the government could do now to help people with sesame allergies. Ban sesame outright from certain products? Mandate that certain companies produce sesame-free products?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- VBprogrammer 2y agoAdding an allergen in quantities where it has no meaningful effect is attempting to flout a regulation. It's like bringing money into the country by spitting it among fellow travellers. In a functioning system the authorities would have the power to investigate and use discovery to identify cases where allergens are being added deliberately for no other reason than flouting rules. They should then be able to issue substantive fines to encourage actual compliance. Its not like adding small amounts of an allergen is a victimless. Lots of people with moderate to serious allergies eat things every day which "may contain" their allergen.
- robertlagrant 2y agoIt's not flouting a regulation at all. It's the opposite of flouting. It's complying.
- fullspectrumdev 2y ago“Malicious compliance” can be read as “flouting” in some cases. Eg: transaction structuring which is illegal in most places.