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

521–530 of 605 posts

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

#521

Post by LorenPechtel »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #512
radicality wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m European, and have been living in the US for a number of years and in Europe before that. It’s like some alternate reality here in the US, where peanuts, bread, and shrimp are out to kill a large part of the population. The article says they estimate 33M people in US to have food allergies which sounds insane to me. I fully agree on exposure to these allergens when young. Have your child eat wide variety of foods…

It seems like a cultural difference, that in America, corporations are trying to comply with the laws in the most malicious ways, and most customers get angry about the laws rather than about the corporations. Which of course, removes any incentive for the corporations not to act obnoxiously. Sometimes it doesn't even seem to make sense. For example, one might think naively, that if a website reacts to the law by thr…

And why do you assume this is dishonest labeling?

The problem is with possible cross-contamination. For some reason the FDA has gone stupid about what was the accepted practice that the label listed other standard allergens processed in the same facility. It worked. If hitting one of your problems could kill you you didn't touch anything with a cross contamination risk. If hitting a problem was simply an unpleasant time then you went ahead.

Companies originally reacted to the FDA insanity by deliberately adding trace amounts of the maybe items so it definitely contained (who benefits? Nobody!), I don't know the trigger for this latest bit of trouble.

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

#522

Post by LorenPechtel »

gwbas1c wrote: post #426
mgkimsal wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meaning that this kind of medical-lab-style cross contamination protocol will either raise the cost of the product or reduce the variety and choice. If the result is a safer population, why wouldn't we want this?

> If the result is a safer population, why wouldn't we want this? There's an anecdote that an AI was asked to make trains safer, and it decided that the trains should never leave the station. Quality of life involves some risk. IE, you need to exercise, but you might injure yourself doing it.

Remove the top and bottom stairs.

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

#523

Post by LorenPechtel »

hollerith wrote: post #498
postmodest wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same issue as Prop 65, and while we can all say "oh the law is bad" the real problem is _corporations are lazy_. Instead of making sure their products are safe, they just say everything is unsafe, because they know consumers will become numb to it. Our food shouldn't contain allergens, and our computer mice shouldn't give us cancer, but instead of taking the time to make sure of that, companies just tell…

>Our food shouldn't contain allergens Every protein is allergenic to somebody, and even some non-proteins are allergenic (e.g., they are small molecules that can get inside a somatic protein, which changes the somatic protein's shape, which makes the somatic protein allergenic).

Disagree. There are proteins that if you're allergic to them your body will turn on itself. You'll be dead and no longer care what you're allergic to.

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

#524

Post by LorenPechtel »

hot_gril wrote: post #518
Viliam1234 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's way too hard (aka expensive) to tell if you're compliant How hard is it to figure out whether you place cookies on other people's computers or you don't? Even if you can't read your own source code, you could simply install a new browser, visit your website, and then check the cookies on that browser. I don't think it's GDPR that is dumb.

Cookies alone don't make you non-compliant, it's what you (or anything embedded on your site) do with them. You can also be non-compliant without cookies, but that's not fixable with a banner.

The reality is any web analytics will make you non-compliant.

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

#525

Post by LorenPechtel »

beAbU wrote: post #318
lpolovets wrote: post #117

My understanding is this allergen over-labeling was inspired by the FDA in the first place. https://www.fastcompany.com/90830854/sesame-seed-allergen-fd... From the linked article (from Jan 2023): But sesame does differ in one distinct way from eggs, peanuts, shellfish, milk, and soy: The seeds are teeny tiny and hard to keep track of. This means they’re prone to “cross-contamination,” in food-allergy terms. If you o…

(Non US) On almost all food labels that I've seen for the last decade or so I've seen disclaimers like "this product is made in a factory that processes $ALLERGEN" Usually $ALLERGEN is "tree nuts".

Which is how it should be. But the FDA isn't allowing that anymore.

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

#526

Post by LorenPechtel »

mrweasel wrote: post #515
Jiro wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ensuring a "correct labeling and clean environment" is really expensive. I mean, really expensive. It's not going to be practical.

I quite frankly question if that is true. A family member is allergic to eggs, as in "he will die if eggs have been near food he consumes". Local bakers have absolutely no issue producing cakes and bread for events when he asks and the prices difference is negligible.

Because they aren't running a production line. And eggs don't make dust.

Produce an item, clean your utensils before the next time. Minimal cross-contamination issues.

A production line processing sesame will create a certain amount of sesame dust. Ensuring that dust gets nowhere near other production equipment is expensive.

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

#527

Post by jjmarr »

stoperaticless wrote: post #291
jjmarr wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Right now, a world where the food industry doesn't deliberately put sesame in food so they can dodge compliance with this legislation. Especially without notice to consumers.

To use the wheelchair ramp analogy, we don't allow businesses to decide to rip out existing wheelchair ramp installations because they're too costly to maintain.

Perhaps we need more prominent labelling on packaging or in stores when a company adds an allergen to a product that did not previously contain it. This would reduce the potential for surprises. Or right now, to address this problem that many people aren't aware of, much more prominent labelling of sesame to sunset in a few years.

Other methods I've heard proposed by industry is establishing a threshold for sesame to be listed as an ingredient.

https://www.fooddive.com/news/sesame-allergen-american-baker...

Most people with a sesame allergy won't have a negative reaction to traces of sesame. Drawing a distinction between a product that has traces of sesame and one that has sesame as an ingredient would allow for easier compliance.

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

#528

Post by LorenPechtel »

kalleboo wrote: post #293
jjallen wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s over regulation to everyone who doesn’t have sesame allergies. It’s lifesaving to those that do. Somehow bakeries in Switzerland are doing just fine with sesame being a declared allergen and keeping them separate but American ones just can’t be bothered to handle a life threatening ingredient thoroughly carefully.

https://www.coop.ch/en/brands-inspiration/diet/intolerances/... > In Switzerland, there are also the following rules regarding trace allergens when declaring allergens: in the event of possible contamination of more than one gram per kilogram of food, the note "May contain traces of ..." must be included. The limit for sulphur is 10 milligrams per kilogram and for gluten 200 milligrams It sounds like Switzerland does…

1g per kg is nowhere near enough to protect against bad reactions. Sounds like Switzerland is making a mostly laughable attempt, not doing much.

I have had a rather unpleasant day due to an unknown contaminant in approximately 10mg of material as part of a day's food. Obviously the contaminant was well under 10mg.

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

#529

Post by hollerith »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #523
hollerith wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Our food shouldn't contain allergens Every protein is allergenic to somebody, and even some non-proteins are allergenic (e.g., they are small molecules that can get inside a somatic protein, which changes the somatic protein's shape, which makes the somatic protein allergenic).

Disagree. There are proteins that if you're allergic to them your body will turn on itself. You'll be dead and no longer care what you're allergic to.

Replace "protein" with "non-self protein", then, or "any protein in food".

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

#530

Post by LorenPechtel »

nox101 wrote: post #298
sangnoir wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your thoughts on mandatory wheelchair ramps, fire extinguishers or AED machines? Most of society won't make use of those either.

I think like everything, there's good and bad. You didn't translate your previous comment into braille so should I sue you for not catering to the needs of my blind mother? Having wheelchair ramps at corners, especially new ones, big chains, large institutions, seems great. Forcing the new 1 person boutique down the street to spend $250k+ to add every possible accommodation for language and accessibility, doesn't see…

Yup. Mandating the inclusion of such features in new construction should be required. Retrofitting is another matter that very well might involve pretty much tearing down structures and most certainly shouldn't be required.

(And note that in some cases "new" construction must work with existing constraints. I'm thinking of a sign I saw in Carlsbad Cavern saying no wheelchairs past this point. The loop that was denied wheelchairs contained a pinch point a wheelchair couldn't go through. Man made the path, nature put the rocks there.)

Post reply on HN