>

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