3 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoI'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.
- xocnad 2y agoThis is a strawman. It seems obvious the number of items covered is a balance between the size of the affected population and the size of the list. I use "it seems obvious" intentionally.