|
|
|
|
|
|
by ergocoder
725 days ago
|
|
|
There is no penalty for over-labeling. Maybe some lost sales. Not a big deal. But there is a huge potentially downside for under-labeling e.g. people dying. There is an ethic issue here as well even if we ignore money. Also, the production pipeline is not 100% perfect. They produce millions of items each year. Even with 0.001% defect / cross-contamination, it could be troublesome. More importantly, the exec who decides to under-label might end up in jail if people die from their decision. Basic game theory really. If I'm an exec who is paid millions of dollars a year, I wouldn't risk it. Big deal if I earn a little less. Unless FDA tips the scale and provides some guarantees, this warning means nothing. If FDA really wants to punish for over-labeling, I'd start adding a really small allergen, so the warning becomes accurate lol. |
|
|
Those for whom X is fine/those for whom X is undesirable/those for whom X is deadly.
We used to have three categories:
contains/may contain/doesn't contain.
Draw this as a 3x3 matrix.
Those for whom X is fine don't care, they can eat any row.
Those for whom X is undesirable generally do not care about cross contamination. The risk * loss is low enough not to be important.
Those for whom X is deadly will not eat from the may contain category.
The FDA appears to have declared war on the may contain category. Who wins? Nobody. Who loses? Those for whom X is undesirable who are now no longer able to know that the item is probably fine.
I think they are operating under the fantasy that removing may contains means companies will ensure it isn't there, but that's an expensive endeavor that the marketplace simply doesn't call for.