4 ms·

I thought this noteworthy because butter is made from milk as the sole ingredient

iefbr14 2y ago
Don't worry, they will stick a label on it and it will go back to the shops. It's a good lesson for the supplier making the mistake. And besides, one might think it ís a harmless milk substitute..
snarbles 2y ago
Not all recalls involve disposing of a product. Apparently in this case it does. I'd have thought they could just send out some correction stickers to slap on there, but I suppose food labeling laws could be too rigid to allow for this, or else concerns about stickers being misapplied.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
alsetmusic 2y ago
Which, I would expect, ought to be well known by anyone shopping with lactose issues. It’s like shipping peanut brittle without a label saying that it contains peanuts. How many people would really be harmed without the recall? I’m in favor of safety over profit. I’m just bummed at the unnecessary waste.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  a lot of the alternative product packaging looks very similar to traditional dairy butter packaging
  - assimpleaspossi 2y ago
    That sounds like an issue for the alternative people to solve.
- YeBanKo 2y ago
  It actually lists milk as an ingredient. So even if you are have doubts if its milkless butter, the ingredient list can clarify it.
  - 8note 2y ago
    If you see that on a product, you'd expect that the thing was made with milk, but does not contain any as far as you need to worry about allergens, and that it's tested to be safe. It's a valid case in the truth table where somebody with a milk allergy should be safe to eat it
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      Does any such food product actually exist? Not even just for milk, but for any of the FDA's nine major allergens?
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    You will find that even butter often does not have milk in the ingredients list. E.g. Kerrygold: "pasteurized cream, salt" In this case, the Kirkland's listed "sweet cream" and not milk.
jvanderbot 2y ago
It is occasionally difficult to tell from the label whether you are buying margarine or butter. And some margarine contains milk and is therefore not OK for lactose intolerant folks. But still, I agree this sounds crazy.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  But this wasn't margarine. It was butter. The package is labeled Kirkland Signature Butter.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    Where precisely did I go wrong here? We know it's butter, but a consumer might not, therefore a "contains whatever" label is not totally unjustified. Once you accept that as a rule, you have to enforce it. You don't just enforce it where it's ambiguous, you enforce it on all brands.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    I could believe that "Signature Butter" could be a substance that wasn't butter. It would be dumb, but I wouldn't give you odds it didn't happen if someone claimed it did. So putting milk in the ingredient list at least confirms that yes, this is butter, not "butter."
_3u10 2y ago
That's not really accurate, most butter has salt, water, and sometimes a few other ingredients like lactic cultures, but milk is definitely always an ingredient.

Don't worry, they will stick a label on it and it will go back to the shops. It's a good lesson for the supplier making the mistake. And besides, one might think it ís a harmless milk substitute..

snarbles 2y ago

Not all recalls involve disposing of a product. Apparently in this case it does. I'd have thought they could just send out some correction stickers to slap on there, but I suppose food labeling laws could be too rigid to allow for this, or else concerns about stickers being misapplied.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

alsetmusic 2y ago

Which, I would expect, ought to be well known by anyone shopping with lactose issues. It’s like shipping peanut brittle without a label saying that it contains peanuts. How many people would really be harmed without the recall? I’m in favor of safety over profit. I’m just bummed at the unnecessary waste.

bobthepanda 2y ago
a lot of the alternative product packaging looks very similar to traditional dairy butter packaging
- assimpleaspossi 2y ago
  That sounds like an issue for the alternative people to solve.
YeBanKo 2y ago
It actually lists milk as an ingredient. So even if you are have doubts if its milkless butter, the ingredient list can clarify it.
- 8note 2y ago
  If you see that on a product, you'd expect that the thing was made with milk, but does not contain any as far as you need to worry about allergens, and that it's tested to be safe. It's a valid case in the truth table where somebody with a milk allergy should be safe to eat it
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    Does any such food product actually exist? Not even just for milk, but for any of the FDA's nine major allergens?
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  You will find that even butter often does not have milk in the ingredients list. E.g. Kerrygold: "pasteurized cream, salt" In this case, the Kirkland's listed "sweet cream" and not milk.

jvanderbot 2y ago

It is occasionally difficult to tell from the label whether you are buying margarine or butter. And some margarine contains milk and is therefore not OK for lactose intolerant folks. But still, I agree this sounds crazy.

kstrauser 2y ago
But this wasn't margarine. It was butter. The package is labeled Kirkland Signature Butter.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Where precisely did I go wrong here? We know it's butter, but a consumer might not, therefore a "contains whatever" label is not totally unjustified. Once you accept that as a rule, you have to enforce it. You don't just enforce it where it's ambiguous, you enforce it on all brands.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  I could believe that "Signature Butter" could be a substance that wasn't butter. It would be dumb, but I wouldn't give you odds it didn't happen if someone claimed it did. So putting milk in the ingredient list at least confirms that yes, this is butter, not "butter."

_3u10 2y ago

That's not really accurate, most butter has salt, water, and sometimes a few other ingredients like lactic cultures, but milk is definitely always an ingredient.