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

591–600 of 605 posts

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

#591

Post by account42 »

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.

Ok, we can agree that food should't contain human meat Mr. Pendant.

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

#592

Post by account42 »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #524
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.

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

It isn't hard at all not to have web analytics though.

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

#593

Post by account42 »

hot_gril wrote: post #499
bigyikes wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the law doesn’t take into account human and corporate behavior, it’s not a good law. It may ultimately be the corporation’s “fault” but that doesn’t change the fact that the law created perverse incentives. I hear the same argument for the GDPR laws that have resulted in annoying cookie banners everywhere. Sure, it’s technically the website owner’s fault for spying and adding a shitty banner, but… those banners di…

GDPR is the dumbest recent law I can think of. Even if a website has no intent to track users, it's way too hard (aka expensive) to tell if you're compliant without slapping on a banner.

The only dumb thing about the GDPR are hot takes like yours.

It's pretty easy to not needlessly track and accumulate data about your users. It's harder when your users are not your customers but a product you are trying to sell to third-parties but discouraging that is a good thing.

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

#594

Post by account42 »

lukan wrote: post #495
detaro wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you assume literal translations capture 100% of the details, "kochen" has multiple meanings. One of them is "boiling", another is "cooking" in the general sense of "preparing meals".

Well Wikipedia says there is a narrow definition, that necessarily involves boiling of a liquid. This is the one I always used. But in the broader sense, it seems to also mean the preparing of meals, but I never encountered it like this. "Kochen (von lateinisch coquere, „kochen, sieden, reifen“ entlehnt) ist im engeren Sinne das Erhitzen einer Flüssigkeit bis zum und am Siedepunkt, im Weiteren das Garen oder Zubereit…

Der Koch darf auch braten.

The wider meaning is pretty common in German to the point I find it hard to believe any native speaker wouldn't ever have used "kochen" to refer to something other than literally boiling water.

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

#595

Post by account42 »

ehnto wrote: post #553
kragen wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have misunderstood the situation and are suggesting that they enact the regulation that they did actually enact, which is the one that led to this situation

No I didn't, I understand what they have done to skirt the regulations but that is what I mean. It's so easy to get around the regulations, even the new one, they have no teeth. It's clear the companies are acting in bad faith but there is no recourse. If it weren't for companies acting in bad faith, they wouldn't have to play regulator cat and mouse. If you removed the regulations altogether, your big bakers would b…

So what regulation do you want? One that outlaws sesame bread? No thanks.

As long as making sesame bread is allowed while making bread without sesame is prohibitively expensive (because you need to ensure there are not even trace amounts present) it's obvious what most companies will choose.

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

#596

Post by account42 »

dwallin wrote: post #413
simonbarker87 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s such a pain in the but for those of us with a mild sesame problem. If it says “may contain” then I’m fine. If it’s listed as an ingredient then I can’t risk having it. For people who can’t have any at all you’ve not improved the situation but at the cost of making it significantly worse for people with a mild reaction.

Although by adding small amounts of possible allergens to a bunch of common food items you help reduce the frequency of future generations developing the same allergy. So it's a bit of a mixed bag there.

Or even the currently growing generation - allergies are often not genetic and early exposure can help prevent them.

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

#597

Post by Gormo »

account42 wrote: post #590
Gormo wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're not -- they're paid lots of money to satisfy the demand that actually exists in the market.

But they are not even doing that - see: false advertising, captive markets, monopolies, etc.

But those things are not what consumers are paying for. It's totally appropriate to hold firms accountable when they are doing manipulative things instead of satisfying demand, but restricting them from fulfilling the demand that actually exists on account of some third party's ideological prescriptions about what the market should be demanding is unacceptable.

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

#598

Post by [deleted] »

account42 wrote: post #593
hot_gril wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is the dumbest recent law I can think of. Even if a website has no intent to track users, it's way too hard (aka expensive) to tell if you're compliant without slapping on a banner.

The only dumb thing about the GDPR are hot takes like yours. It's pretty easy to not needlessly track and accumulate data about your users. It's harder when your users are not your customers but a product you are trying to sell to third-parties but discouraging that is a good thing.

[deleted]

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

#599

Post by [deleted] »

account42 wrote: post #593
hot_gril wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is the dumbest recent law I can think of. Even if a website has no intent to track users, it's way too hard (aka expensive) to tell if you're compliant without slapping on a banner.

The only dumb thing about the GDPR are hot takes like yours. It's pretty easy to not needlessly track and accumulate data about your users. It's harder when your users are not your customers but a product you are trying to sell to third-parties but discouraging that is a good thing.

[deleted]

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

#600

Post by [deleted] »

account42 wrote: post #593
hot_gril wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is the dumbest recent law I can think of. Even if a website has no intent to track users, it's way too hard (aka expensive) to tell if you're compliant without slapping on a banner.

The only dumb thing about the GDPR are hot takes like yours. It's pretty easy to not needlessly track and accumulate data about your users. It's harder when your users are not your customers but a product you are trying to sell to third-parties but discouraging that is a good thing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN