6 ms·

> But there's a lot of things that say butter that don't contain "Milk". In the US, packaging is guaranteed to have an accurate "contains" section. The box of

by Alupis 2y ago

> But there's a lot of things that say butter that don't contain "Milk". In the US, packaging is guaranteed to have an accurate "contains" section. The box of Unsalted Butter already says "Milk" in the ingredients list. It does not need a second warning that says "Contains Milk". The article seem to be confusing the two - they are two different "labels" on the same packaging. Is there a human alive that would read the ingredients list and think to themselves, "Hmm, it says Milk is an ingredient, but I don't see a 'Contains Milk' warning, so it probably doesn't contain milk!"? That is the bureaucratic nonsense people are sick and tired of.

gkoberger 2y ago
I never look at "Ingredients". I look at "Contains". That's the important section for anyone with allergies. You clearly don't have a deadly food allergy. "Contains" is highly regulated ("Ingredients" is not), and everyone with a food allergy trusts "Contains". This isn't about this one particular situation, which admittedly is obvious. It's about maintaining the trust of the "Contains" section. Who is "sick and tired of" allergy labels being too strict? Is this really something people get up in arms about?
- Alupis 2y ago
  > Who is "sick and tired of" allergy labels being too strict? Is this really something people get up in arms about? People are sick and tired of nonsense bureaucracy - and this is a prime example. Destroying 80,000 pounds of perfectly fine butter so some bureaucrats can pat themselves on the back is pretty absurd. Nobody was harmed - nobody was saved. This is just waste because some piece of paper says it has to be wasted...
  - gkoberger 2y ago
    Why don't you place the blame on the company who knew the rules and made a mistake? I, as someone with an allergy, am grateful for the "faceless" people who show up every day for an unglamorous job and keep me alive.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      I am saying this rule is ridiculous, especially given the current situation. I would agree with you more if it was not a product where Milk was the only ingredient. This kind of bureaucratic action lacks common sense and protects no one. That's the kind of bureaucracy we don't need.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        If only you could rely on common sense! But companies have been allowed to run roughshod for so long and sell things that are deceptively labeled for so long that the law finally had to step in with bureaucracy. You can't apply common sense when companies are allowed to label things as X when they aren't X. Does something labeled "butter" contain milk? Does something labeled "milk" contain milk? This thread shows the answers to these questions are not straightforward and cannot be determined with common sense. We -have- to have strict labeling rules around allergens and destroy products that don't comply because if we didn't, it would just be the wild west like it is with products that are not allergens.
        pests 2y ago
        For example of why it's not always so easy - Vanilla ice cream is being sold in the UK with 0 vanilla, 0 milk and 0 cream. No minimum milkfat requirements - they can use any fat they want. Products are confusing, we shouldn't expect people to know how today's industrial food process works.
        anon373839 2y ago
        > We -have- to have strict labeling rules around allergens and destroy products that don't comply No, this is absurd. We don’t have to destroy products that can otherwise be put to good use. The minuscule number of people who are simultaneously deathly allergic to milk and unaware that cream is milk would be just as well served by a recall that said to destroy the product if you have a milk allergy. This is a black eye on the FDA, and at a time we can least afford the agency to have one. They should have worked out another solution with Costco.
      - 2y ago
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    80k pounds of butter is being destroyed because the private company who made it could not be assed to do proper QA over a batch. This isn't government overreach, this is a company trying to save money by doing less QA and getting bit for it. THIS TIME it was caught, and handled, and the company is seeing a negative outcome for their lack of diligence in making OUR FOOD. What about next time? Maybe companies should be discouraged from lacking QA like this?
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      This isn't QA over food. It's not like the butter was contaminated or something. It's QA over packaging. And you have no evidence that this was motivated by trying to "save money by doing less QA". US food manufacturers generally do their absolute best on QA because recalls are super expensive and the headlines are bad. But companies are made up of humans who are never going to be 100.0000000% perfect.
      - peddamat 2y ago
        shouldn't the question be, how the f does a manufacturer mess up the packaging of BUTTER. something they have presumably been selling for decades?
    - andy81 2y ago
      The government could apply a fine, and shops selling that butter could put up a sign warning that butter is made from milk. That achieves the same result without the destruction of perfectly good food.
      - II2II 2y ago
        Someone buys it, then resells it without the putting up the warning sign. Who is liable: the manufacturer or the person reselling it? (I've seen plenty of small convenience stores reselling food simply because their suppliers don't offer the same prices to them as they do to large grocery chains.)
  - mardef 2y ago
    I just wanted to look so I had context. Annual production of butter in the US is over 2,060,000,000 pounds. These aren't new rules and are in place to literally save lives. Are people really "sick and tired" of .003% of the butter being recalled? I feel like repeating "80,000 pounds" is attempting to appeal to emotion over the destruction of some mass quantity when in reality it's a rounding error.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > I feel like repeating "80,000 pounds" is attempting to appeal to emotion... It's also attempting to appeal to rampant innumeracy!
  - staplers 2y ago
    People are sick and tired of nonsense bureaucracy Only when it's something that doesn't affect them. These same people whining and crying about macro-scale system bureaucracies will absolutely meltdown when the consequences of not having those systems in place hits (think supply chain issues during covid). So much is taken for granted in our modern world because so many are unwilling to surrender to complexities beyond their reasoning. They alone have the answer and all must know it.
  - II2II 2y ago
    It depends upon one's perspective. I would think that having it listed on the ingredients is sufficient. That said, some people who are allergic to something will not examine the list of ingredients when the regulations state they allergen must be listed under what the product contains. It is about trust, not bureaucrats patting themselves on the back.
  - 8note 2y ago
    Who's getting sick from this regulation? Presumably not people with allergies to the regulated items
  - amluto 2y ago
    I would guess that government bureaucracy is not actually forcing the destruction of the butter. Presumably Costco would be well within their rights to pull the butter off the shelves, relabel it, and sell it. Costco is making the call to trash the butter instead of fixing it. I, personally, am sick and tired of people complaining about various government functions without seriously contemplating said functions. Is there a way to ask for an exemption to a food labeling rule to avoid waste? I have no idea. But I can play pretend-management-consultant as well as the next person, and we’re talking about on the order of $200k of merchandise, and relabeling it would involve coordinating sending it back to the factory, applying the fixes (I can basically guarantee that, while the factory can efficiently package butter, it probably lacks the tooling to unpackage the butter), and getting it back to stores in time for the Feb-Mar 2025 best-by date. This is absolutely not worth it. And it’s not even worth the paperwork to as the FDA for some kind of exemption. What I would do if I worked at Costco is to see if I could legally sell it all in bulk to a very small number of very large buyers, and then offer it to some such buyers at a massive discount. “Hey, want 10k boxes of mislabeled butter? You need to sign some documents promising that you will either use or destroy all of it and not give it to anyone else in its present packaging, but you can have it for $5/box.” Even that might be a tough sell, since buyers on that scale probably don’t want their butter in 8oz sticks… If this were an order of magnitude larger, maybe it would be worth Costco’s energy to see if they could slap stickers on the outer packaging to solve the problem.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  If you look at a food package and don't see Contains how do you know if it's truly absent or if perhaps it's on a different part of the label and you missed it?
  - krisoft 2y ago
    On the practical personal safety level this is easy to answer. If you(or the person you are going to serve it to) have food alergy for any of the categories and you can’t find a “Contains” list then you don’t consume(serve) the item. Want to make it clear i’m not arguing with this against the current alergen labeling laws. I see it as a variant of Postel’s principle. The food manufacturers should label everything strictly, and consumers affected by any alergy should assume that where there is no information then the alergen they worry about is present. This way the system remains trustworthy while the customers can safely avoid where mistakes are made or packaging gets damaged or smudged or anything like that.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      > If you(or the person you are going to serve it to) have food alergy for any of the categories and you can’t find a “Contains” list then you don’t consume(serve) the item. Do food products with none of the major allergens need "Contains Nothing" on their packaging?
      - krisoft 2y ago
        I thought they do! But it seems i’m mistaken. At least a casual browse of the relevant law does not seem to mandate it.
- userbinator 2y ago
  "Contains" is highly regulated ("Ingredients" is not) Then maybe it should be Ingredients that is highly regulated as the source of truth? "Contains" is effectively redundant and incomplete.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    If we remove the cream from milk, is it now two different ingredients: low-fat milk and cream? What if they are combined again, is it milk? Take that example and apply it to every single ingredient used in food and cosmetics and supplements. Write that regulation please. Or we can stick to the one that only deals with like, 5 - 10 things.
  - ignormies 2y ago
    Oftentimes "ingredients" will be an incredibly long list. As someone that needs to pay attention to ingredients on food for a severe tree nut allergy, it's so so so much easier to quickly parse a two-item "contains" section than a 40 item "ingredients" section. I've made mistakes on food that has _just_ "ingredients", missing entries while scanning at the grocery store. Unfortunately, "contains" isn't required, and its location isn't always obvious. imo it should flatly be always required and always in a standardized layout/location (e.g. in a clear to read box).
    - userbinator 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tzs 2y ago
        I've seen enough comments from you on technical computing subjects over the last decade to know that you have a firm grasp of concepts such as caching and other related ways to take advantage of usage patterns to optimize things. Just as caches are useful in computing even if they are too small to hold everything so too is a contains section that only lists the top 9 allergens. That covers 90% of food allergies in the US.
      - 2y ago
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  "Ingredients" is highly regulated. https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Food-Labeling-Guide-(PDF).pdf https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Food-Labeling-Guide...
IanCal 2y ago
You are arguing for a much more complicated set of rules that now have to define what's obvious and what isn't. Is your preferred rule that they don't have to list allergens if they're already in the ingredients? Is it a custom cutout for butter? One ingredient items? I'd say the recall is probably more pointless, who is going to check this at home?
- dudus 2y ago
  Maybe we could introduce some nuance on the law. Maybe just issue a warning and a fine, not necessarily a full on recall. Why do we have only the nuclear recourse?
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Why do we have only the nuclear recourse? If you set punishments at the "cost of doing business" level, then businesses will choose [0] to take the punishment, rather than complying with the regulation. This is a food safety regulation of the sort where some people will die if it's not compiled with. It's also a food safety regulation that's easy to comply with... if the manufacturer is aware of what's in their food. IMO, noncompliance with this is a sign that something's fucking wrong with the company and maybe shouldn't be in charge of making food for people to eat. Remember that one band that had the "no brown M&Ms in the band's candy bowl" clause in their performance contracts? While I can't claim that this is a "canary" regulation, it sure smells like it could serve as a pretty solid one given how easy it is to comply with. [0] Not always, but more often than "never", and probably more often than not.
    - phil21 2y ago
      A packaging mistake for a single truckload of butter is now a signal of something "fucking wrong" with a company who otherwise has a pretty stellar track record of consumer protection? A packaging mistake that likely happens many times over by lesser brands and products but is never caught because they don't have the same amount of exposure and customer base as Costco? The recall makes sense for stuff still on the shelves. It's a bit silly, but rules are rules. Pull it and stuff it in different packaging, or pay a crew of a couple folks in each store to pull it out of the boxes and donate to a local food kitchen. The FDA telling people at home to throw it away - after they are made aware of the issue in the first place or they wouldn't have known to be told to throw it away - is utter ridiculousness and the government workers here should absolutely know better. They are undermining their authority and don't even realize it. This will be used as a very effective tool against the institution in the future. It was a stupid tone-deaf call. They could have simply worked with Costco and put out a generalized notice to the public to be aware of the situation. Nuance matters. This is an unnecessary own-goal by a government agency that doesn't need such things at the moment. It has done more damage to public health than it will ever have hoped to gain - which would be correctly estimated at zero.
phonon 2y ago
> The box of Unsalted Butter already says "Milk" in the ingredients list. No it doesn't, it says "Cream". That's the issue.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Are there English speaking humans that are deathly allergic to milk who would think that cream is OK? To be clear, I'm fine with the recall because you want stuff like this to have clear lines, I just don't think there is any actual real danger in this case.
  - amluto 2y ago
    I was once at an event where a mother fed their kid food, and it was approximately this obvious that the food in question contained the thing their kid was allergic to. At least the kid wasn’t deathly allergic.
  - phonon 2y ago
    If English is not your first language, you may not realize "cream" has milk (arguably) as there are many types of non-dairy creams....
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      There are more types of non-dairy milks. I still just can't believe that anyone with a severe milk allergy is going to scarf down "sweet cream butter" and then end up in the hospital and say "If only the label said 'contains milk', I wouldn't be here!"
      - consteval 2y ago
        They very well might, particularly if English isn't their first language, which is very common. I'm in Texas, so I know how it is - there's a ton of people who don't speak English but have become accustomed to the rules and processes in place and work with those. For example, they can read road signs. If you put up a new road sign that means the same thing as a previous one, they won't be able to read it. If you replace a "Stop" sign with a "Brake" sign, they won't stop. Because they don't read "Stop" - they know the sign means they should stop. I'm sure there's thousands of Americans accustomed to reading the "contains:" label who would be blindsided by this. Particularly because today a lot of, maybe most, "dairy" product don't contain milk.

by Alupis 2y ago

gkoberger 2y ago

I never look at "Ingredients". I look at "Contains". That's the important section for anyone with allergies. You clearly don't have a deadly food allergy. "Contains" is highly regulated ("Ingredients" is not), and everyone with a food allergy trusts "Contains". This isn't about this one particular situation, which admittedly is obvious. It's about maintaining the trust of the "Contains" section. Who is "sick and tired of" allergy labels being too strict? Is this really something people get up in arms about?

Alupis 2y ago
> Who is "sick and tired of" allergy labels being too strict? Is this really something people get up in arms about? People are sick and tired of nonsense bureaucracy - and this is a prime example. Destroying 80,000 pounds of perfectly fine butter so some bureaucrats can pat themselves on the back is pretty absurd. Nobody was harmed - nobody was saved. This is just waste because some piece of paper says it has to be wasted...
- gkoberger 2y ago
  Why don't you place the blame on the company who knew the rules and made a mistake? I, as someone with an allergy, am grateful for the "faceless" people who show up every day for an unglamorous job and keep me alive.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    I am saying this rule is ridiculous, especially given the current situation. I would agree with you more if it was not a product where Milk was the only ingredient. This kind of bureaucratic action lacks common sense and protects no one. That's the kind of bureaucracy we don't need.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      If only you could rely on common sense! But companies have been allowed to run roughshod for so long and sell things that are deceptively labeled for so long that the law finally had to step in with bureaucracy. You can't apply common sense when companies are allowed to label things as X when they aren't X. Does something labeled "butter" contain milk? Does something labeled "milk" contain milk? This thread shows the answers to these questions are not straightforward and cannot be determined with common sense. We -have- to have strict labeling rules around allergens and destroy products that don't comply because if we didn't, it would just be the wild west like it is with products that are not allergens.
      - pests 2y ago
        For example of why it's not always so easy - Vanilla ice cream is being sold in the UK with 0 vanilla, 0 milk and 0 cream. No minimum milkfat requirements - they can use any fat they want. Products are confusing, we shouldn't expect people to know how today's industrial food process works.
      - anon373839 2y ago
        > We -have- to have strict labeling rules around allergens and destroy products that don't comply No, this is absurd. We don’t have to destroy products that can otherwise be put to good use. The minuscule number of people who are simultaneously deathly allergic to milk and unaware that cream is milk would be just as well served by a recall that said to destroy the product if you have a milk allergy. This is a black eye on the FDA, and at a time we can least afford the agency to have one. They should have worked out another solution with Costco.
    - 2y ago
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  80k pounds of butter is being destroyed because the private company who made it could not be assed to do proper QA over a batch. This isn't government overreach, this is a company trying to save money by doing less QA and getting bit for it. THIS TIME it was caught, and handled, and the company is seeing a negative outcome for their lack of diligence in making OUR FOOD. What about next time? Maybe companies should be discouraged from lacking QA like this?
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    This isn't QA over food. It's not like the butter was contaminated or something. It's QA over packaging. And you have no evidence that this was motivated by trying to "save money by doing less QA". US food manufacturers generally do their absolute best on QA because recalls are super expensive and the headlines are bad. But companies are made up of humans who are never going to be 100.0000000% perfect.
    - peddamat 2y ago
      shouldn't the question be, how the f does a manufacturer mess up the packaging of BUTTER. something they have presumably been selling for decades?
  - andy81 2y ago
    The government could apply a fine, and shops selling that butter could put up a sign warning that butter is made from milk. That achieves the same result without the destruction of perfectly good food.
    - II2II 2y ago
      Someone buys it, then resells it without the putting up the warning sign. Who is liable: the manufacturer or the person reselling it? (I've seen plenty of small convenience stores reselling food simply because their suppliers don't offer the same prices to them as they do to large grocery chains.)
- mardef 2y ago
  I just wanted to look so I had context. Annual production of butter in the US is over 2,060,000,000 pounds. These aren't new rules and are in place to literally save lives. Are people really "sick and tired" of .003% of the butter being recalled? I feel like repeating "80,000 pounds" is attempting to appeal to emotion over the destruction of some mass quantity when in reality it's a rounding error.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > I feel like repeating "80,000 pounds" is attempting to appeal to emotion... It's also attempting to appeal to rampant innumeracy!
- staplers 2y ago
  People are sick and tired of nonsense bureaucracy Only when it's something that doesn't affect them. These same people whining and crying about macro-scale system bureaucracies will absolutely meltdown when the consequences of not having those systems in place hits (think supply chain issues during covid). So much is taken for granted in our modern world because so many are unwilling to surrender to complexities beyond their reasoning. They alone have the answer and all must know it.
- II2II 2y ago
  It depends upon one's perspective. I would think that having it listed on the ingredients is sufficient. That said, some people who are allergic to something will not examine the list of ingredients when the regulations state they allergen must be listed under what the product contains. It is about trust, not bureaucrats patting themselves on the back.
- 8note 2y ago
  Who's getting sick from this regulation? Presumably not people with allergies to the regulated items
- amluto 2y ago
  I would guess that government bureaucracy is not actually forcing the destruction of the butter. Presumably Costco would be well within their rights to pull the butter off the shelves, relabel it, and sell it. Costco is making the call to trash the butter instead of fixing it. I, personally, am sick and tired of people complaining about various government functions without seriously contemplating said functions. Is there a way to ask for an exemption to a food labeling rule to avoid waste? I have no idea. But I can play pretend-management-consultant as well as the next person, and we’re talking about on the order of $200k of merchandise, and relabeling it would involve coordinating sending it back to the factory, applying the fixes (I can basically guarantee that, while the factory can efficiently package butter, it probably lacks the tooling to unpackage the butter), and getting it back to stores in time for the Feb-Mar 2025 best-by date. This is absolutely not worth it. And it’s not even worth the paperwork to as the FDA for some kind of exemption. What I would do if I worked at Costco is to see if I could legally sell it all in bulk to a very small number of very large buyers, and then offer it to some such buyers at a massive discount. “Hey, want 10k boxes of mislabeled butter? You need to sign some documents promising that you will either use or destroy all of it and not give it to anyone else in its present packaging, but you can have it for $5/box.” Even that might be a tough sell, since buyers on that scale probably don’t want their butter in 8oz sticks… If this were an order of magnitude larger, maybe it would be worth Costco’s energy to see if they could slap stickers on the outer packaging to solve the problem.
tedunangst 2y ago
If you look at a food package and don't see Contains how do you know if it's truly absent or if perhaps it's on a different part of the label and you missed it?
- krisoft 2y ago
  On the practical personal safety level this is easy to answer. If you(or the person you are going to serve it to) have food alergy for any of the categories and you can’t find a “Contains” list then you don’t consume(serve) the item. Want to make it clear i’m not arguing with this against the current alergen labeling laws. I see it as a variant of Postel’s principle. The food manufacturers should label everything strictly, and consumers affected by any alergy should assume that where there is no information then the alergen they worry about is present. This way the system remains trustworthy while the customers can safely avoid where mistakes are made or packaging gets damaged or smudged or anything like that.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    > If you(or the person you are going to serve it to) have food alergy for any of the categories and you can’t find a “Contains” list then you don’t consume(serve) the item. Do food products with none of the major allergens need "Contains Nothing" on their packaging?
    - krisoft 2y ago
      I thought they do! But it seems i’m mistaken. At least a casual browse of the relevant law does not seem to mandate it.
userbinator 2y ago
"Contains" is highly regulated ("Ingredients" is not) Then maybe it should be Ingredients that is highly regulated as the source of truth? "Contains" is effectively redundant and incomplete.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  If we remove the cream from milk, is it now two different ingredients: low-fat milk and cream? What if they are combined again, is it milk? Take that example and apply it to every single ingredient used in food and cosmetics and supplements. Write that regulation please. Or we can stick to the one that only deals with like, 5 - 10 things.
- ignormies 2y ago
  Oftentimes "ingredients" will be an incredibly long list. As someone that needs to pay attention to ingredients on food for a severe tree nut allergy, it's so so so much easier to quickly parse a two-item "contains" section than a 40 item "ingredients" section. I've made mistakes on food that has _just_ "ingredients", missing entries while scanning at the grocery store. Unfortunately, "contains" isn't required, and its location isn't always obvious. imo it should flatly be always required and always in a standardized layout/location (e.g. in a clear to read box).
  - userbinator 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tzs 2y ago
      I've seen enough comments from you on technical computing subjects over the last decade to know that you have a firm grasp of concepts such as caching and other related ways to take advantage of usage patterns to optimize things. Just as caches are useful in computing even if they are too small to hold everything so too is a contains section that only lists the top 9 allergens. That covers 90% of food allergies in the US.
    - 2y ago
Ferret7446 2y ago
"Ingredients" is highly regulated. https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Food-Labeling-Guide-(PDF).pdf https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Food-Labeling-Guide...

IanCal 2y ago

You are arguing for a much more complicated set of rules that now have to define what's obvious and what isn't. Is your preferred rule that they don't have to list allergens if they're already in the ingredients? Is it a custom cutout for butter? One ingredient items? I'd say the recall is probably more pointless, who is going to check this at home?

dudus 2y ago
Maybe we could introduce some nuance on the law. Maybe just issue a warning and a fine, not necessarily a full on recall. Why do we have only the nuclear recourse?
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Why do we have only the nuclear recourse? If you set punishments at the "cost of doing business" level, then businesses will choose [0] to take the punishment, rather than complying with the regulation. This is a food safety regulation of the sort where some people will die if it's not compiled with. It's also a food safety regulation that's easy to comply with... if the manufacturer is aware of what's in their food. IMO, noncompliance with this is a sign that something's fucking wrong with the company and maybe shouldn't be in charge of making food for people to eat. Remember that one band that had the "no brown M&Ms in the band's candy bowl" clause in their performance contracts? While I can't claim that this is a "canary" regulation, it sure smells like it could serve as a pretty solid one given how easy it is to comply with. [0] Not always, but more often than "never", and probably more often than not.
  - phil21 2y ago
    A packaging mistake for a single truckload of butter is now a signal of something "fucking wrong" with a company who otherwise has a pretty stellar track record of consumer protection? A packaging mistake that likely happens many times over by lesser brands and products but is never caught because they don't have the same amount of exposure and customer base as Costco? The recall makes sense for stuff still on the shelves. It's a bit silly, but rules are rules. Pull it and stuff it in different packaging, or pay a crew of a couple folks in each store to pull it out of the boxes and donate to a local food kitchen. The FDA telling people at home to throw it away - after they are made aware of the issue in the first place or they wouldn't have known to be told to throw it away - is utter ridiculousness and the government workers here should absolutely know better. They are undermining their authority and don't even realize it. This will be used as a very effective tool against the institution in the future. It was a stupid tone-deaf call. They could have simply worked with Costco and put out a generalized notice to the public to be aware of the situation. Nuance matters. This is an unnecessary own-goal by a government agency that doesn't need such things at the moment. It has done more damage to public health than it will ever have hoped to gain - which would be correctly estimated at zero.

phonon 2y ago

> The box of Unsalted Butter already says "Milk" in the ingredients list. No it doesn't, it says "Cream". That's the issue.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Are there English speaking humans that are deathly allergic to milk who would think that cream is OK? To be clear, I'm fine with the recall because you want stuff like this to have clear lines, I just don't think there is any actual real danger in this case.
- amluto 2y ago
  I was once at an event where a mother fed their kid food, and it was approximately this obvious that the food in question contained the thing their kid was allergic to. At least the kid wasn’t deathly allergic.
- phonon 2y ago
  If English is not your first language, you may not realize "cream" has milk (arguably) as there are many types of non-dairy creams....
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    There are more types of non-dairy milks. I still just can't believe that anyone with a severe milk allergy is going to scarf down "sweet cream butter" and then end up in the hospital and say "If only the label said 'contains milk', I wouldn't be here!"
    - consteval 2y ago
      They very well might, particularly if English isn't their first language, which is very common. I'm in Texas, so I know how it is - there's a ton of people who don't speak English but have become accustomed to the rules and processes in place and work with those. For example, they can read road signs. If you put up a new road sign that means the same thing as a previous one, they won't be able to read it. If you replace a "Stop" sign with a "Brake" sign, they won't stop. Because they don't read "Stop" - they know the sign means they should stop. I'm sure there's thousands of Americans accustomed to reading the "contains:" label who would be blindsided by this. Particularly because today a lot of, maybe most, "dairy" product don't contain milk.