3 ms·
No. Your rule explodes into "Label every vaguely-relevant allergen your food does not contain.". Not only is that a rule that's inevitably going to miss someth
by simoncion 2y ago
No.
Your rule explodes into "Label every vaguely-relevant allergen your food does not contain.". Not only is that a rule that's inevitably going to miss something in the long run, it's WAY more complicated than the "Label the allergens your food does contain." rule.
- hollandheese 2y agoNo. That's utterly ridiculous. Milk is already a listed ingredient of milk and butter. It does not need an extra label. Also, if a product claims to be Milk and it isn't, that fact should be stated to stop confusion.
- simoncion 2y ago> Also, if a product claims to be Milk and it isn't, that fact should be stated to stop confusion. Centuries of past labeling disagree with you here. Non-dairy "milks" have been called "milk" for ages. That's going to be impractical to change. > Milk is already a listed ingredient of milk and butter. It does not need an extra label. "Explicitly and separately listing allergen classes of a food product in addition to listing specific allergenic ingredients in the ingredients list." is the entire practice most of the folks in these threads are talking about. If you disagree that that practice has any value, then we are not going to have much of anything to agree on.