[ehnto]

If the regulations had teeth and they weren't allowed to cross contaminate at all, they would build a process that achieves that. Instead they get to put a few labels on there and just accept that they'll lose some customers who are allergic, save some money not building a new process.

[kragen]

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

[ehnto]

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 be even more lax with allergens and people would get sick.

[account42]

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.

[WrongAssumption]

You aren’t following what is hsppening. The regulation does exactly that, not allow any cross contamination. So they are adding sesame as an ingredient and labeling it as such.

[ehnto]

I did understand that. The regulations have no teeth not because they lack penalties, it's because they are ineffectual atat achieving the goal.

It is clear what the outcome of the regulations was supposed to be, products with sesame and products without. But they were poorly planned regulations, and the companies are more than happy to work to the letter of the law.

But maybe this is actually fine, because a company willing to cleanly process allergen free product can capture that market segment.