Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spectre_ertceps t1_j42uztc wrote

Reply to comment by onioning in Companies Are Adding Sesame to Foods. It's an Unintended Consequence of a New Allergen Label Law by Kodiak01

so they aren't actually adding sesame, they are just saying they are? so now the label becomes completely meaningless?

3

onioning t1_j42vnpv wrote

If you add sesame it's listed in the ingredients. "May contain" doesn't add anything. It's a nominally true statement so it's permitted, but it is not an ingredient listing. If it says "may contain" but the ingredient is not listed then that means there's a cross contamination risk. Communicating that risk does not get them out of controlling for it.

Say you have a soy allergy. You eat a food that does not have soy listed as an ingredient, but does say that it may contain soy. As it turns out it does, you suffer health consequences, and you successfully sue the manufacturer. The presence or lack of a "may contain" statement makes no difference.

3

spectre_ertceps t1_j4329he wrote

my understanding was that if it says "may contain" you know that if you have a sensitivity you can eat it, but if you have an allergy, you can't

I don't remember seeing "may contain" in the EU, i remember seeing "may contain traces of" which is information rich, it lets you know that there was that allergen in the factory for some other product so if you have that allergy don't eat it

1

onioning t1_j432rcu wrote

That is the idea. The point is to discourage those who have the greatest risk. If you can stop people with allergies from eating your products in the first place any cross contamination will never be relevant.

>I don't remember seeing "may contain" in the EU, i remember seeing "may contain traces of" which is information rich, it lets you know that there was that allergen in the factory for some other product so if you have that allergy don't eat it

Those are essentially the same statements. Just very slight variations of syntax.

The important thing though is that these statements do not mean the producer doesn't have to control for allergens. In both the US and the EU they do. It's a hedge to reduce risk.

3

Chance_Wylt t1_j4311bn wrote

> and you successfully sue the manufacturer.

The hanger for me is the lawsuits wouldn't be successful at all. You were duly warned and proceeded right along anyway.I don't see any entitlement for compensation.

−1

onioning t1_j432c2d wrote

You would be. It's a slam dunk even. Producers have legal obligations. When they don't meat those legal obligations it makes litigation extremely easy. In the eyes of the law they were not duly warned.

This is my actual industry. This isn't some hypothetical. It's one of the main ways that enforcement happens. There's inspection, which is more or less significant depending on what it is, but for most foods they rely on consumer action for enforcement. This scenario is actually super clear cut. Just need to have damages so you can have standing.

And it has to be this way too. Otherwise all food would contain a "may contain" statement and all the relevant regs about labeling and controlling contaminants would be irrelevant. You can't magic words your way our of not having to follow regulations.

4