>

Only ones that visibly commit to full ingredient transparency and allergen handling procedures.
Most people I know who have allergies that could hurt or kill them rarely eat out.
/u/LentilDrink (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Isn't the problem that they don't KNOW their likelihood of contamination?  That as a result of a complex chain of vendors involved in the food with many ingredients coming through a long process, that they cannot guarantee every vendor was properly careful, and as such they'd simply label everything 'may contain' because they cannot be sure otherwise?
It seems like making your recipe available to fewer people would be bad business, and a restaurant would prefer to do otherwise where it could; and hence economic opportunity for people to find an affordable and verifiable fix.
Another possibility is that rather than the FDA loosening rules; restaurants should be required, under the ADA, to ensure some options exist for those with restricted diets where it's feasible to do so. >


likelihood of contamination? That as a result of a complex chain of vendors involved in the food with many ingredients coming through a long process, that they cannot guarantee every vendor was properly careful, and as such they'd simply label everything 'may contain' because they cannot be sure otherwise?

Well thats the label I'm asking for, not "1.3% or something".   Also not asking for a change in ingredients lists

rather than the FDA loosening rules; restaurants should be required, under the ADA, to ensure some options exist for those with restricted diets where it's feasible to do so.

That wouldn't change anything about the FDA though.  If someone has a sesame allergy, providing a guaranteed sesame-free option doesn't really change the fact that she might want the cheese pizza and needs to know if the cheese pizza is particularly risky >

I don't understand what the label you're asking for is then.
Can you clarify what exactly you want the label to say?  Because right now it seems liek the issue is the company just doesn't know, and you want them to say something they can't know.
If you just want them to say 'may contain' when you're not sure; then that seems useless, because then you just get 'may contain' on everything, resulting in the same basic problem: a person with an allergy can't select anything because it's all labeled 'may contain'.
It might not change anything about the FDA to have an ADA rule; but ultimately the issue is ensuring people can have food.
"particularly risky" is not something a company reliably attest to in every store with the supply chain complexities, that seems to be the whole underlying point. >

It's not primarily about the supply chain that part isn't as hard as you think.  It's primarily that you want to make some goods with sesame a few feet from stuff without, or using equipment with less onerous cleaning between, etc.
You can absolutely make sesame free stuff and many companies want to in order to cater to more customers.  But for some products it's going to be more expensive to do this, and it would be worthwhile for them to be able to say "may contain" or "shared equipment" etc rather than to add in sesame. >

So, you want companies to be able to say 'may contain' or 'shared equipment', indicating that something might contain a potentially fatal amount of sesame, and the company just doesn't know, or have any real estimate of the amount of risk?
That doesn't seem like it's much of any better for someone with a severe allergy; it's just saying 'you can gamble with your life'
It seems to merely reinforce my point that the solution isn't lax regulations, it's to require companies to not be jerks about it. >

This whole post confuses me.  A lot of products say they are made on same equipment with allergens.  Why would they need to add the allergens instead of saying that? >

This rule is good because it means that children will be exposed to more sesame at a young age, making them less likely to be allergic later on. >

!delta that's a silver lining.  Not the optimum I want but at least a little benefit I hadn't considered >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Alternative-Pea-9729 (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Why should the FDA do anything? Surely your view ought to be that food producers shouldn't be using loopholes to avoid fulfilling dietary requirements!
It seems an odd move too, its not like they put a bit of shellfish in everything to cover their bases so they don't need to avoid contamination with that. >

Totally different because sesame is in so many things and shellfish isn't.  It's easy to keep food away from shellfish.
And the FDA is the one making the rules, rules should be improved don't call people responding to incentives "using loopholes". >

That's what would make sense.  They are actually now about to deliberately purchase and add sesame flour >

That's flour, not sesame oil which may be present in other areas. Are you suggesting there is zero sesame and they are introducing it out of spite? >

I think there is close to zero sesame and they have to choose to remove many things from the menu, follow expensive precautions, or add sesame to comply.  And adding sesame is the most efficient path to compliance with FDA regulations.  No spite whatsoever, just poorly thought out regulations. >

Is this something all restaurants are doing? Is KFC adding sesame? McDonald's?
Could you please link to the story you are reading this from so I can understand, as I feel we may be talking about different things? >

Yes, so there is already sesame in the kitchen. Path of least resistance is to make sure that everything is clear! >

Everything being clear would be saying there could be trace amounts from cross contamination. The FDA is removing that option by saying sesame has to either be an ingredient in the breadsticks, or they have to have no chance of cross contamination. If it was the path of least resistance, they could continue saying there could be cross contamination. This allows people who have no adverse affects from trace amounts to continue enjoying them. Since avoiding contamination is unrealistic in this environment, they are intentionally adding it which makes it not consumable for people who had a more mild allergy and adds an unnecessary ingredient at best, or even makes the breadsticks worse. >

How about this: the FDA should tighten restrictions even further so that if a group if caught retooling a food to purposefully contaminant it, even if it's labeled, they get worse fines than an accident? >

So they have to add more and say it's a new and improved flavor? >

Cool, so the FDA then subpoena's them to find their notes and smack them down even harder for lying. >

How's it lying?  They genuinely run a flavor study >

Because either, they did it as a end run, or for the flavor.  If it's for the flavor, there should be evidence.  If it's the end run to get around labeling, that will be clear as well.  All the notes about "we aren't going to be able to guarentee that" followed suddenly by "what about if we change the flavor so we don't have to?" >

That's a weird dichotomy, they presumably take both flavor and cost into account.  And should. >

Yeah, and the cost of fines should be taken into account then as well, right?  So they are incentivised not to add sesame flour just to not have to deal with a regulation?
Remember, it's not that they "took cost into account" it's that the evidence shows that the "cost" they were taking into account was not two flavors, but the cost of complying with the regulation's spirt, vs purposefully contaminating food.  That is what the fine is doing.  They are fining the proof (as shown by the company talking about complying with regulations and then going "well...if we just do this, we can get around it.") which shows that they aren't doing it for the flavor, but to get around regulations. 
In short, i'm saying fine the bad behavior we want to discourage MORE than we fine them for messing up when trying in good faith. >


, it's not that they "took cost into account" it's that the evidence shows that the "cost" they were taking into account was not two flavors, but the cost of complying with the regulation's spirt, vs purposefully contaminating food. 

That makes no sense.   Ingredients aren't contamination, "spirit" is vague and unclear, and the cost of complying with a regulation is a perfectly valid cost to consider.  If there's a regulatory burden cost associated with not having sesame that's relevant to consider in selecting a recipe. Trying to make that illegal creates even more perverse incentives. >

The solution you propose would have the exact same result. Companies would add sesame to get the “may contain sesame” rating because it’s easier than trying to earn the “shared equipment” rating.
The issue is that there’s a greater economic incentive to include allergens in food than to prove you haven’t done so. >

I don't regard "overstated the likelihood of contamination" and "changed the recipe to include more allergens" as the same result. >

But what I’m saying is they have the same incentive to add the ingredient under your system as the current one. >

How does that incentivize them to add the ingredient? >

The manufacturer has a choice. They can either:
A) prove they don't have the ingredient and earn designation A
or B) include the ingredient and earn designation B
Pretty much any company would choose option B, because that's more cost-effective than option A. If you want them to change their minds, you have to find a way to make A more cost-effective than B. >

Yes this is my complaint.  But adding the ingredient and stating "contains sesame" is not cheaper than omitting the sesame and stating "may contain sesame". >

The FDA does currently allow companies the option to say a product "may contain sesame" and exclude it as an ingredient. The issue is that doing so doesn't protect them from lawsuits.
It sounds like what you're advocating is that the FDA protects companies from allergen lawsuits as long as they use such a warning label. Is that accurate? >

No I'm suggesting they do what you think they are doing and not change it on January 1 2023 as they plan to do.
Starting Jan 1 if sesame is not an ingredient manufacturers must use expensive processes to ensure it is not present and can not rely on labeling. >

As of January 1, food makers will still be able to exclude sesame from their ingredient list, and also add a label saying that the product "may contain sesame." The reason they're not doing so is that they could then be sued if their food contains contamination of sesame. >

You are missing that expensive manufacturing process changes are also required.
These are a much bigger deal than lawsuits because sesame related injuries are rare and the lawsuits are not as expensive as many other lawsuits. >

If someone has a major allergy, is it really better for them if sesame is in fewer dishes but there’s also no standards against cross contamination? >

Also yes standards for labeling >

A label where all the same products go from “contains sesame” to “maybe sesame”? >

What?  No, the January changes are causing people to deliberately add sesame. >

They wouldn’t be adding it if there wasn’t a risk of contamination to begin with. If sesame is nowhere near the process it’s easy to comply. >

Do you have a source for that?  Would be surprising if true
That said, unrelatedly, there's also frequently a tiny risk. >

There are a few arguments that can be made to change your view on this topic.
First, it's important to consider the potential risks and consequences of loosening restrictions on dietary allergens. Allergies can be serious and even life-threatening for some people, and it's important to ensure that products are labeled accurately and clearly so that people with allergies can make informed decisions about what they eat. By loosening restrictions on allergens, there may be a greater risk of exposure to allergens for people who are sensitive to them, which could lead to serious health consequences.
Additionally, it's important to consider the potential impact on public health of loosening restrictions on allergens. Allergies are a significant public health issue, and it's important to take steps to minimize the risk of exposure to allergens. By allowing companies to be more relaxed about their labeling and precautions, there may be a greater risk of exposure to allergens for the general public, which could lead to increased health problems.
Finally, it's worth considering the impact on the food industry of loosening restrictions on allergens. Allowing companies to be more flexible about their labeling and precautions may make it easier for them to produce products, but it could also lead to confusion and uncertainty for consumers. Clear and accurate labeling is important for helping people make informed decisions about what they eat, and loosening restrictions on allergens could potentially make this more difficult.
Overall, while it may be tempting to loosen restrictions on allergens to make things easier for the food industry, it's important to consider the potential risks and consequences for public health and consumer confidence. It may be more effective to focus on improving labeling and education efforts to help people with allergies make informed decisions about what they eat. >

Improving labeling would be the best way to go about it in my opinion. If you have any kind of food sensitivity eating out is a massive pain in the ass since you pretty much have to play russian roulette or rely on server's hearsay about what's actually in the food. It's ridiculous.
Dishes at restaurants should be required to have a "nutrition facts" label + ingredients just like any other food you'd buy at the grocery store. Most people wouldn't use it, but those who need it would finally be able to figure out what they can eat without unintended consequence. >

Someone who is allergic to sesame today is not able to safely consume products that might contain traces of sesame.
The FDA says "if your product doesn't purposely contain sesame, you need to guarantee it is free from potential sesame ceoss-contamination.
The manufacturer knows that retooling their production facility and all their raw material suppliers to verifiably prevent sesame cross-contamination would be incredibly disruptive, expensive, or potentially impossible. So, they do the thing that prevents that situation. 
That manufacturer wasn't selling products that could be eaten by people allergic to sesame before. The same is true today. >

Depends on your definition of "safe", but certainly a number of products today exist that don't meet the FDA's requirements, such that the walk to the kitchen is more dangerous than the risk of a sesame reaction.
Now they're adding sesame, which would make the risk of a sesame reaction much larger. >


Now they're adding sesame, which would make the risk of a sesame reaction much larger.

The people who can't eat sesame already can't buy those foods, though. >

They can and do though, without being harmed >

If they are being responsible in managing their allergy, they absolutely do not. I understand that technically what you said is true with luck, but literally everyone with a nut or similar allergy who I know, avoids anything that isn't verifiably free of contaminants. >

Nut allergies are very different and much more likely to cause harm than sesame allergies despite having so far been treated much more seriously (labeling and manufacturing requirements) than sesame until next year. >

The people I know who cannot eat sesame don't play around. That's all I can tell you. >

Do they eat at restaurants?