>

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.
/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.