Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 605 posts

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#41

Post by ASalazarMX »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #3
isaacfrond wrote: post #2

It's may favorite example of unintended consequences. FDA orders bakers to list allergens. There are stiff penalties if you are allergenic but don't list the allergen. So? Bakers claim their product contains allergens, even if they don't. FDA doesn't like it. So? Bakers add allergens on purpose, so they can rightly claim it contains them.

I don't know in the US (though it is mentioned at the end of the article) but here, UK, they tend to warn to the product "may contain ..." if there is any chance of contamination and that indeed appears a lot on bakery products and sandwiches.

It's much cheaper than taking precautions against cross-contamination, but weasel words should not be part of disclaimers.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#42

Post by VBprogrammer »

underseacables wrote: post #32

This seems overkill. We should want to encourage food manufacturers to list all possible contaminants.

The driver should be to give people with allergies the information they need to know whether they can eat something safely.

Allowing companies to list every possible contaminant regardless of how likely it is to be in a product doesn't help anyone. It just leads to the "contents may be hot" problem on a coffee.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#43

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

umvi wrote: post #34

At this point it seems like it might be more effective to mandate the opposite: labels that indicate that the product is allergen free for X class of allergen. That way the default (no label) = might contain allergens, and the presence of the label guarantees your safety. Companies that take allergen cross contamination seriously can tout the label (and win the business of the allergic), companies that don't won't re…

This makes sense from a practical standpoint, but from a litigative standpoint not having the warning label on those products with allergens exposes the company to liability.

I also suspect that if there is an incident, this company might be able to have the government found liable for preventing it from warning customers.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#44

Post by kayodelycaon »

autoexec wrote: post #30
eulgro wrote: post #16

I used to work in a cookie factory, we often made products for private brands and in some recipes we purposefully added eggs so that it would appear as an ingredient and not "may contain traces of".

Exactly the kind of thing the FDA has a problem with: > "Because it can be difficult and expensive to keep sesame in one part of a baking plant out of another, some companies began adding small amounts of sesame to products that didn't previously contain the ingredient to avoid liability and cost. FDA officials said that violated the spirit, but not the letter, of federal regulations." It seems that they prefer the "…

“May contain“ often refers to cross-contamination. For some people small amounts of allergens will not cause a problem.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#45

Post by Detrytus »

underseacables wrote: post #35
utensil4778 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about sesame. Last year or so, the FDA changed the rules about sesame as an allergen. Some bakeries then decided to just slap "may contain traces of sesame" on everything so they didn't have to pay the cost of actually ensuring there's no cross-contamination. This has significantly harmed consumers who are actually allergic to sesame. Now there's effectively no way to know if a baked product will actually con…

If it says it on the label, and you're allergic to it, then you shouldn't eat it. This doesn't harm consumers at all.

It does harm consumers by severely limiting their choices, especially if companies start putting the warning on every product by default, instead of actually making reasonable effort to prevent contamination.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#46

Post by kurthr »

When Bimbo first changed Orowheat ingredients in their oat wheat bread (pre-pandemic) they didn't announce it.

I searched the web to figure out what happened since even the weight of the bread was noticeably off (tried weighing it on a scale). The new on-line label of ingredients, nutrition, and weight were ~10% off (over an oz), but they were still using the old labeled bags and upc/barcode.

I returned some to the grocery and let them know that all the ones on the shelf were also not the labeled weight. They were very annoyed.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#47

Post by mrspuratic »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #3
isaacfrond wrote: post #2

It's may favorite example of unintended consequences. FDA orders bakers to list allergens. There are stiff penalties if you are allergenic but don't list the allergen. So? Bakers claim their product contains allergens, even if they don't. FDA doesn't like it. So? Bakers add allergens on purpose, so they can rightly claim it contains them.

I don't know in the US (though it is mentioned at the end of the article) but here, UK, they tend to warn to the product "may contain ..." if there is any chance of contamination and that indeed appears a lot on bakery products and sandwiches.

"precautionary allergen labeling" [1]. In EU it's still up to individual countries to regulate it, e.g. Ireland [2]

> Use of a ‘may contain….’ statement, or similar, to indicate that the product may contain an allergen as a result of possible cross-contamination, must not take the place of good manufacturing practices (GMPs) in a food business.

> GMPs must be in place to prevent cross-contamination

[1] https://www.efanet.org/news/news/4327-efa-responds-to-codex-...

[2] https://www.fsai.ie/business-advice/labelling/labelling-alle...

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#48

Post by owenpalmer »

I wonder if claiming non-existent ingredients could be an actual health risk as well. For example, if someone had unrelated but similar symptoms after eating the product. I wouldn't be surprised if certain medications cause harm if taken by someone who is not actually having the allergic reaction they are intended to treat.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#49

Post by baggy_trough »

Detrytus wrote: post #45
underseacables wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it says it on the label, and you're allergic to it, then you shouldn't eat it. This doesn't harm consumers at all.

It does harm consumers by severely limiting their choices, especially if companies start putting the warning on every product by default, instead of actually making reasonable effort to prevent contamination.

Your definition of reasonable may differ greatly from those who must perform said efforts.

Re: FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

#50

Post by esd_g0d »

fragmede wrote: post #14
ganzuul wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's evil.

It's the market being efficient. Markets solve everything, yay!

What do you propose instead in this case? Not trying to be snarky, just to get the discussion rolling.

Asking everyone to "play nice" or "don't be evil" also often does not work in practice. I mean I'd love it if it did, but such is life.

Post reply on HN