Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

431–440 of 605 posts

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

#431
post #115

This seems like splitting hairs on the part of the FDA. FDA officials acknowledged Tuesday that statements that a product “may contain” certain allergens “could be considered truthful and not misleading.” Bimbo officials have until July 8 to identify steps taken to remedy the issue — or to explain why the labeling doesn't violate FDA standards. So a baker.. who adds (insert allergy ingredient here), in minute quantit…

America has decided that able-bodied consumers should subsidize people with disabilities; companies are generally expected to make their products accessible even if there's not enough market demand for that to be profitable . Food allergies are a disability. Some people with food allergies cannot consume sesame. If you're a baker selling bread where sesame is not an ingredient, slapping "this product may contain sesa…

Great point. We should remove all the ramps too, to ensure we remain ideologically pure while having cheap, possibly allergenic bread.

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

#432
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we should repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act then?

Yes? If the government can find a better way to help people with disabilities, great. But small business being sued because a booth is 6 inches too small, or universities having to take down lectures because they lacked close captioning seems to clearly go to far to me. People seem to have a terrible time understanding diffused societal costs and opportunity costs.

I don’t think either of those things is in the spirit of the ADA. ADA requires reasonable accommodation. So if it would be unreasonable, the law says the accommodation isn’t necessary. What I see in those two instances is judicial overreach and a college not wanting to appear insensitive.

Some day if you find yourself with limited mobility you will be thankful the ADA requires the things it does, because you would find it challenging to live in society without it. The market of “disabled people wanting to shop in a store” is vanishingly small and totally unserved without at least some regulation. I’m sure it offends your free market principles, but the free market isn’t the best thing for all of us.

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

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a straw man if you look at the spirit of the argument.

Yes, that's exactly what strawmanning is: "Ignore the stated argument, discuss my weaker mischaracterization of it instead."

What happened to the idea we should take the most charitable interpretation of a post? I thought that was in the community guidelines here.

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

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What world do you foresee? A world where sesame is banned from food industry? If no (which I assume), then what is the proposal? “No contaminants” does not seem realistic even in a cleanroom.

> “No contaminants” does not seem realistic even in a cleanroom. If the contaminants don't enter the room or touch the equipment, it's quite realistic. It's weird how many people buy into the silly "why are we forcing industry to do this impossible thing?" train of thought even though the thing is clearly not impossible (and it's been shown to be a self-serving lie on the part of some industry players). We're talking…

So each factory is purpose built to its ingredients OR you pray you don't get thrown in jail because a crumb of sesame was missed in the deep clean and some dysgenic child had an asthma attack?

What's weird is you pretending your model of the world is tied to reality when all it is tied to is ideology. Make bullying legal again.

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

#435
[1] "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the prevalence of food allergies has increased by 50 percent since the 1990s, making it a serious public health concern."

The labeling and laws around them seem to be tricky business, however, it should be time to treat the disease and not just the symptoms. The above quote from the CDC tells me that medical advice to new parents and/or diet has created a monster, and it's time to undo the harm. I have 5 children from age 5 to 27 from two different women, and not one has food allergies. I realize it is anecdotal data, but I also don't recall there being so many people with various allergies growing up, and parents I have spoken to that seem to have done the same with doctors and dietary choices for their children don't have children with allergies. So, does this mean in my youth, either kids with allergies died, didn't have allergies, or avoided whatever allergens were out there and were such a small percentage it didn't register? Personally, we didn't give our children antibiotics every time they had cold-like symptoms, or go to the doctor often, and we introduced solids at a very early age along with nuts (in paste form - peanut butter, tahini when they were very young), and a diverse diet. There were families around us that had one of their kids on antibiotics once or more a year for years, and they wouldn't question it, and they were early on the gluten thing before it became a thing.

I think it would be horrific to have a life-threatening allergy to even being exposed to the trace amount of anything. On the other side, I am so tired of not being able to find "normal" food without warnings, and the trend-of-the-day nutrients overcrowding the shelves and displacing other choices. It seems in the US at least, if you say something is good for you, it winds up everywhere in massive quantities. Remember the initial Quinoa boom? Quinoa cereals, buns, drinks, tablets, in pasta, salads, etc. I know it's a grain like wheat is omnipresent, but one day the supermarket shelves get loaded with it until the next health trend comes along - Acai this, Acai that, Avocado this, that, Olive oil, Matcha, Gingko, Ginseng (80s!), Almonds (to the point of overcultivation), etc... Nothing in moderation or common sense, but marketing overload, and the public literally eats it up. I can't even find full-fat yogurt that easy now. My local ShopRite has almost 95% low-fat, no-fat, yogurts on the shelves with 5% or full-fat yogurt, and supposedly fat is good again, it's sugar that's the main culprit for obesity and diabetes and other related diseases in the US.

PS: Imagine trying to run a business in a litigious society where now 50% more people have food allergies to so many things that you need a mass spectrometer or other instrument to make bread to ensure it has what seems to be an undefined trace of one of many related food elements. Life has gotten ridiculous.

[1] https://irp.nih.gov/blog/post/2023/05/digging-up-the-roots-o...

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

#436

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…

So maybe the FDA shouldn't have changed the rules if it significantly harms consumers? And I don't see how it harms consumers. These foods that may contain traces of sesame, had always might have contained traces of sesame. So are traces of sesame dangerous or not? If they are, then consumers shouldn't have been eating these foods to begin with. If they aren't, why are the FDA forcing the labeling?

I have a friend who is allergic to sesame, this law was really frustrating for her. The brands who purposely added sesame to comply with the law she couldn't eat anymore, the brands that just added the label she also couldn't eat because she couldn't tell the difference between the two. Before the law if sesame wasn't listed it meant it was at worst trace amounts and if it was listed it was off limits.

She isn't "immediately dies on contact" allergic so to solve this problem we had a "loaf party" where we got one of every brand of bread in the grocery store, she would get to try all of them and each person goes home with the rest of a loaf. It was fun all things considered but silly that it was necessary.

So yeah, I have no idea why the fda did this, it seems worse for everyone involved.

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

#437
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > 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. So yes, to avoid having to prevent cross-contamination, they started intentionally introducing trace amounts of allergens.

That seems like the actions of a psychopath to be honest. I struggle to comprehend that someone would care that much about profit that they would intentionally introduce a "contamination", rather than ensuring a correct labeling and clean environment, making their product safe to consume to those with certain allergies.

It has nothing to do with profit, as it'll just increase the price of the goods to the consumer.

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

#438
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No where in the article does it say allergens were added. If they were then the labelling could not possibly "misbranded".

From the article: > 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. So yes, to avoid having to prevent cross-contamination, they started intentionally introducing trace amounts of allergens.

Ah genuniely missed that line, though as the FDA states is legal.

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

#439
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our food shouldn't contain allergens, and our computer mice shouldn't give us cancer These things are not comparable. While adding sesame to everything to circumvent a law is certainly not fair, it is a reasonable ingredient to some products (whereas mice that give us cancer is, at the very least, not a goal). I like sesame buns! And, for young children, it's actually quite important to expose them to a range of al…

Shawn Woods... now my hero youtuber!

What does this mean?

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

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think prop 65 is super useful but I don’t get why people think it’s meaningless. I’ve definitely seen prop 65 on things that made me pause because nothing about the object (like a food bowl) should give me cancer and often I won’t buy it.

That's kind of the point. There very well could be nothing wrong with that food bowl and someone slapped a label on it for no reason at all. Literally without meaning.

Except because of prop 65, I learned that some bowls actually do have some lead in them due to their glazes or coloring…

And that the label was probably correct.

Post reply on HN