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

601–605 of 605 posts

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

#601

Post by hot_gril »

immibis wrote: post #557
hot_gril wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the EU doesn't jump straight to the maximum penalty and gives you plenty of warnings to sort it out if you accidentally don't comply in a subtle way. If it's noncompliant in a subtle way that doesn't actually cause a problem they certain won't even notice. Look how blatantly Apple ignored the DMA and how long it's taken the EU to pursue real enforcement action. It seems clear: there is no need to *fear* EU penalt…

If this isn't a written policy, it's not a good enough guarantee. If you're only judging based on Apple: Just because it takes long to be penalized doesn't mean you won't be, and Apple has a lot more legal resources than most companies.

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

#602

Post by immibis »

hot_gril wrote: post #601
immibis wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the EU doesn't jump straight to the maximum penalty and gives you plenty of warnings to sort it out if you accidentally don't comply in a subtle way. If it's noncompliant in a subtle way that doesn't actually cause a problem they certain won't even notice. Look how blatantly Apple ignored the DMA and how long it's taken the EU to pursue real enforcement action. It seems clear: there is no need to *fear* EU penalt…

If this isn't a written policy, it's not a good enough guarantee. If you're only judging based on Apple: Just because it takes long to be penalized doesn't mean you won't be, and Apple has a lot more legal resources than most companies.

Nothing is a good enough guarantee. They don't exist. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Stop looking for guarantees that don't exist, and start doing business with fuzzy logic - successful businessmen know they are constantly testing the boundaries of the rules. A negative result (this thing isn't allowed) from a test isn't a failure, if you do it right - it's just a negative result. Apple is on the path to severe penalties because they were repeatedly told something wasn't allowed and then kept doing it, even going so far as to do it in ways that seen to be mocking the decision.

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

#603

Post by bumby »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #519
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…

This is the same issue as 65--setting an unreasonable standard and then blaming business when the standard isn't met. It used to be that when companies produced products in the same facilities that produced products on the allergen list they would label them as "may contain". Not something they added, but not something they promised it did not inadvertently contain. A company is free to produce products in facilities…

>Instead, put a QR code.

Please, no. Tech is not the solution to everything. Every time you put an additional layer between the consumer and information, and more prone to breaking. Software tech is notoriously unreliable in the consumer space because of the sheer number of interfaces. It makes the overall system less good for the consumer. I don't want to have to go through a decision tree on a phone, or a QR code, to get information that was previously available by just opening my eyeballs. I don't want to have to use my smartphone to get the directions for my presciption medication, or to see the price of gas or groceries. Those systems are designed to make the corporations life easier at the expense of the consumer.

There are many cases where tech makes things easier for the consumer. I don't think this is one of them.

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

#604

Post by tracker1 »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #292
tracker1 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... the FDA won't allow companies to just list "may contain" for sesame, they have to have effectively multiple plants in complete isolation, or... add a tiny bit of sesame to everything and affirmatively state so. In this case, I prefer the "may contain" verbiage... saying something "does not contain" is a practical minefield. If you're that sensitive to something, find a producer that makes what you're asking f…

> If you're that sensitive to something, find a producer that makes what you're asking for, or if you can tolerate a small amount, or make your own food from basic ingredients. The group of people for whom "we take proper control of allergens" is a selling point is a very small one. One of the reasons government exist is to protect people who's interests would not be commercially viable - regulating that building are…

Would you rather have nobody able to buy bread? Regulation can make entire industries unviable too.. then nobody gets any.

I say this as someone allergic to soy/legumes... It's in everything. I don't expect all food suppliers to stop using or handling it. I'm also willing to forgo bread because of my allergies.

Much like people with gluten allergies shouldn't expect the govt to force everyone to stop producing bread with gluten.

Every plant has someone allergic to it. At some point you have to be responsible for yourself. "May contain" means may contain, or: processed or stored near... That should have been good enough.

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

#605

Post by hot_gril »

immibis wrote: post #602
hot_gril wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this isn't a written policy, it's not a good enough guarantee. If you're only judging based on Apple: Just because it takes long to be penalized doesn't mean you won't be, and Apple has a lot more legal resources than most companies.

Nothing is a good enough guarantee. They don't exist. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Stop looking for guarantees that don't exist, and start doing business with fuzzy logic - successful businessmen know they are constantly testing the boundaries of the rules. A negative result (this thing isn't allowed) from a test isn't a failure, if you do it right - it's just a negative result. Apple is on the path to sever…

Tell this to the huge number of websites that use cookie banners, not me.
Post reply on HN