Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by conro1108 1211 days ago
I don’t understand. Why would the suppliers change the recipe to _add_ sesame? Is it not just that they accepted the “may contain sesame” label instead of removing (or proving the lack of) sesame?
6 comments

Because apparently that doesn't count and they still have to prevent cross-contamination.

>Some companies include statements on labels that say a food “may contain” a certain product or that the food is “produced in a facility” that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.

Basically the options are redo your production process so that there are no traces of sesame or add enough to put it on the ingredients list.

You aren't allowed to put things on the ingredients list which aren't actually in the food, and the new regulation doesn't let they say that there _might_ be sesame.
I've definitely seen foods that the ingredients list says "ingredient a or ingredient b"
That is different than "may contain".

There's two conflicting laws here - one says you MUST label if you have allergens (this one allows the "may or may not contain the devil's seeds") and another says you cannot imply or state your product has something it does not have (this appears to be the one banning "may or may not").

"May contain x" is not part of the ingredients list, though. An ingredient is something intentionally in the product. The warning is just telling you that there's a chance that x accidentally got in.
They're made in the same bakery that other goods that have sesame and other seeds and nuts. You can't guarantee there won't be any so add the tiniest amount for labeling purposes... yes it could be more expensive not to.

Of course this is the exact opposite of what TFA had to say.

"may contain" is legally meaningless, apparently.

You either follow difficult procedures to avoid cross-contamination, or you make it an ingredient. There is no option in between.

That's kind of weird. I see "may contain" all the time for other allergens and it's pretty accurate - it's a crapshoot whether or not I get an allergy (it seems m&m's warning is very accurate, whereas my local deli it's more of a cya statement). If I don't see "may contain" it's also safe to eat.

There must be something different about sesame and it's role in the food pipeline that makes it harder to deal with compared to other common allergens.

I think the permissible "may contain" is the "this product was produced in a facility that also handles tree nuts" kind of warning, which is not technically an ingredient.
That sounds suspiciously like an impossible standard to meet in a factory setting.
you can just not put in any and write on the package that you optionally might have.
You could add a homeopathically-diluted 1/2^256 fraction of sesame essential oil. At that point, the FDA would likely never accept the claim that it isn't an ingredient; and yet there literally won't be any in there to hurt anyone.
That gets really weird to communicate to a customer, though.
That's odd. The EU is usually more strict than the USA on food standards, and indeed sesame had to be labelled at least as far back as 2004. But the "may contain" or "produced in a facility that handles" labelling still seems to be allowed.

There's some explanation here:

https://www.tuvsud.com/en/press-and-media/2018/january/tuv-s...

> Why would the suppliers change the recipe to _add_ sesame?

Control and consistency.

If you don't measure an ingredient, you are at the mercy of a zillion different things for how much of that ingredient is present and your consistency is terrible. In addition, people who are only weakly allergic to said ingredient can never be sure if there is too much of it. People who go into anaphylaxis have to avoid your stuff altogether, anyhow.

If, however, you measure the ingredient, now the amount is precisely controlled. People who are only weakly allergic can test and now know from that point on that they are okay (or not).

The people who are jumping up and down are the people who are strongly allergic. They expected the adopted law to cause manufacturers to have to pristine clean their lines when, in reality, the precise opposite occurred--the manufacturers added the ingredient and made their lines "dirtier".

The article linked by an ancestor (https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...) seems to contradict this comment (and I think this comment is mere armchair speculation):

> If the ingredients don’t include sesame, companies must take steps to prevent the foods from coming in contact with any sesame, known as cross-contamination.

> Food industry experts said the new requirements aren’t simple or practical.

> Some companies include statements on labels that say a food “may contain” a certain product or that the food is “produced in a facility” that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.

> Instead, some companies have taken a different approach. Officials at Olive Garden said that starting this week, the chain is adding “a minimal amount of sesame flour” to the company’s famous breadsticks “due to the potential for cross-contamination at the bakery.”