Are you saying that this can’t be done, or that the cost is not worth it?
This is basically Disability Rights 101. It’s saying “you are too expensive to accommodate: easier just to deny you full participation in society.” If that’s who we are, I’d rather we acknowledge that honestly.
(Edited to add that I don’t believe this to be the case: I think the current rules are to facilitate volume at speed, and thus profit, and I’m totally okay with cutting into profit for a cleaner, safer food supply).
I’d say that the cost would be pretty significant. It wouldn’t just be cutting into agri-buisness profit, it would be raising the price of everything at the store.
Though it would likely put quite a few small farmers out of business as well.
No, that’s not what that is saying. Not even close. This is a small number of products. Processed products that none of us should be eating anyway.
It would be more like saying that we can’t accommodate you on this roller coaster, but there are plenty of other rides in the park you can enjoy.
How much more are you willing to pay for all of your food to make sure that there is no sesame in the Tostitos?
Monsanto will be fine either way. They don’t care how much of their costs they pass onto consumers. You aren’t costing agri-business, you are costin people who consume food.
This is what I don’t get - from everything I’ve read,( including the article in hte OP) it’s just that sesame has now been labeled as a major allergen - like milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soybeans. And therefore the labeling requirements that previously applied to those other major allergens now apply to sesame. I don’t get why the manufacturers aren’t adding a little peanut to all cookies because "may contain peanut " is not good enough and it’s hard to guarantee no peanuts cross-contaminated the butter cookies.
And that’s the issue. You should understand why it’s a problem to add allergy ingredients that were previously not present. You seem to be under the idea that any amount of an allergen has the same effects. But it doesn’t.
There are many people who can tolerate a small amount of an allergen, but not too much. So if you previously had trace amounts of something, you might be able to eat it, but not if they actually deliberately added to it.
Take a look at this- a manufacturer making hamburger buns would have to potentially clean everything after 1:30 in the video if they wanted to certify that their non-seeded buns did not contain sesame.
They’d have to do it every batch that they ran of non-seeded buns, which may be multiple times a day.
That’s a massive pain in the ass, and for what? That tiny, tiny number of people who are allergic? Better for them, and for the company to just force them to be positive, and keep on producing buns without having to fool with the cleaning. Someone else can bake a totally sesame free burger bun if they think they can make money at it.
In this case I’m not in any danger at all because I’m not allergic to sesame seeds. I do know from my own experience with my own allergies (only one of which is the Big 9 that must be clearly labeled, so more fun for me I guess?) that is makes things progressively harder for anyone with that particular allergy.
This is NOT a matter of labeling more clearly, it’s a matter of companies deliberately adding an ingredient where they didn’t before.
Sorry, don’t buy it - companies already have to clean their machinery (or at least they’re supposed to do so), they already have to comply with OSHA, the department of health, USDA, FDA, and all the other alphabets. Yet they seem to be arguing that labeling for sesame seeds broke the system? That just doesn’t hold up.
You seriously can’t see the difference between rodents or insects which move of their own volition and actively seek out food and freakin’ seeds which just sit there until moved by an outside agency?
It’s different for sesame seeds because seeds don’t have legs to move themselves around, crawl into crevices, and otherwise insert themselves into a production line.
Adding allergens to food closes off more and more food products to those affected. That’s “protecting” people in the same way that confining women strictly to a locked harem protects them from rape: at the cost of living a full life.
I think you don’t understand the dimensions of the problem here.
Is commercially manufactured bread “processed food crap”? As just one example. I don’t think you realize just how restricting food allergies are under the best of circumstances, much less when manufacturers are deliberately adding a known allergen they didn’t before to entire production lines.
Sure, what the hell - let the supplier of school lunches add sesame to everything to simply things, right? But then the kid allergic to sesame can no longer eat any of the school lunches. Oh, right, so let’s have the kid’s parents pack a lunch for them every day… . but fuck any poor kids who up until now have been dependent on school lunches, they don’t need to eat anymore, right? What about people in soup kitchens? Oh, right, how dare poor people have medical problems.
That’s part of the problem - there are plenty of HEALTHY foods I am unable to safely eat. It’s not just a matter of processed foods. Not sure if I mentioned it up thread but I not only bake my own bread these days I have to be VERY careful about the flour I use because so many manufacturers of flour add barley to their flour. There is one and only one brand of All Purpose Flour in my area that does not contain barley flour as an additional ingredient. Just as well I like whole wheat flour, but even there “barley flour” shows up in some brands.
This doesn’t just affect crappy boxed meals from Stouffer’s or Marie Callendar or Boston Market or [insert brand name here]. It very much can affect ingredients. Which means cooking from scratch also becomes a minefield.
^ This. Very much this.
“Sorry, we can’t put in ramps for wheelchair users, it would cost too much. Can’t put in elevators for the mobility impaired, it would cost too much. And the crippled might get hurt using them, so it costs too much. This isn’t done to hurt you or restrict you, it’s not the fault of the building owners that you’re unable to walk so… too bad, stay trapped in your home and don’t have a life. It’s not their fault it sucks to be your and they don’t have to accommodate you.”
^ And this. But there’s no reason it can’t be both. And there’s no reason that the one can’t lead indirectly to the other.
Doesn’t hold up.
Only a very small minority of farms produce sesame seed. If a farm doesn’t produce it then there’s no chance the farmer’s crop will be contaminated with it.
It might be a problem at silos, and definitely an issue with transportation and storage, and definitely an issue at the factory. Should not be a problem for a small farmer. Or even most large ones.
No, it’s not.
Because items normally viewed as ingredients can also be affected by adding things, or cross-contamination.
Well, I’m already paying 2-3 times the cost of the most popular/cheapest flour on the shelf to keep my bread safe for me, so there is your answer in my case. I’d much rather ALL the food in the store be very clearly labeled and I’m definitely in favor of better sanitation and control all along the food chain.
^ This.
There are 8 other Big Allergens that were previously affected by these laws and none of these companies felt compelled to suddenly start adding any of them to products because of those laws. This does not make sense unless it’s push-back from companies tired of ensuring their products contain only what is on the label and are clearly labeled for what’s in the food.
Then run a batch of no-sesame buns for one day, a seeded batch the next, shut down and clean, and start again with no-sesame. Or make it no-sesame one week and sesame the next. Or, what the hell, have separate lines for buns with seeds and buns without. This is a solvable problem.
Every day at work I see buns of various sorts that have no seed, sesame seeds, poppy seeds, caraway seeds, chia seeds, and probably others. There are white buns, wheat buns, gluten-free buns, and so on. Companies are churning them out by the bajillions. The notion that this can’t be done is nonsense. It’s a lack of will and an attitude of “fuck them, they don’t matter”.
Why in the world should they care? They’re not going to sell enough extra buns to the tiny number of sesame-sensitive people to make it worth the time and money it would take to conform to the law and clean accordingly. So they don’t, and in fact, go out of their way to make sure there’s no question that their products are NOT allergy friendly. It’s a smart business decision, and in some sense, better than labeling as “may contain” for allergic people.
Maybe there’s someone out there who wants to cater to that market, and more power to them. But the big bakeries/food production companies don’t owe it to anyone to produce special food for allergic people.
Allergic people don’t need “special food”. In fact, thanks to labeling laws there is a fair amount of “processed crap” I CAN eat safely, not that I usually do, but it’s possible.
They also don’t need people deliberately adding allergens to foods that did not previously have them. That is deliberately making life more difficult for allergic people, not simply labeling foods.
How would you feel if food manufacturers decided that rather than deal with separate production lines they’d just dump sugar into everything. Hey, they don’t have to accommodate diabetics, right? Sucks to be them! Not the food manufacturer’s problem, right?
No, it’s not.
As already pointed out in this thread not everyone is equally allergic. There are people for whom microscopic bits of an allergen are tolerable but having it as an added ingredient is not. So no, it’s not better for those people.
You also assume that it is JUST the allergic who might want to avoid an ingredient. Not everyone likes sesame. Same reason rye bread is sold with and without caraway. Not everyone like caraway.
There are a lot of foods that are modified to lack an ingredient that are flying off the shelves. Clearly, that’s not an obstacle. If we live in a world with things like gluten-free soy sauce and gluten-free beer (which means it wasn’t made with barley) and dairy-free this and egg-free that, crackers guaranteed to be made without nuts and “Nut-Thins” guaranteed to be made with them then I really, really do not believe in the impossibility of producing “sesame-free” foods alongside those containing sesame.
It’s a function of the law, more than anything else. If it’s got to be yes/no, without any “maybe”, that implies that they are required to do that onerous level of cleaning between batches, etc… if they want to label their products “No”.
So they’re basically in the position of having to spend extra money (extra vs. before the law was passed) to conform with the law. They’ve basically got two options- go through the cleaning, etc… to ensure that they can label their products as “No”, or just add some sesame, and label it “Yes”.
Presumably their accountants have done the math on this, and the adding sesame is cheaper, even considering whatever loss of sales that may incur.
They probably assume that the allergic people will read the labels and avoid their products, and that some other manufacturer will produce sesame-free products in line with the law, if they choose to cater to that particular market segment. And I’d almost guarantee that someone will, and they’ll charge an arm and a leg for it in the bargain, because it’s a tiny niche market.
You seem to be making the assumption that the food companies care whether someone’s allergic, or whether this is annoying for them. Unfortunately, they DGAF. They care whether people buy their products, and the profit that they gain from selling those products. If they make more profit adding sesame, that’s what they’ll do.
I agree it’s not better to add sesame than to label the products as “may contain______” or "Processed in a facility that also processes ______ " .
But I don’t know why it has to be divided up into “guaranteed to contain ____” and "guaranteed not to contain ____ " . I mean, that’s part of why this happened , too . I don’t know why it happened with sesame and not nuts or soy - but I’m wondering who exactly, other than the FDA objects to products saying they may contain these allergens if they are not added intentionally but are made in a facility that uses those allergens. Do allergic people in general have a problem with a label saying “processed in a facility that also processes peanuts” ?
It’s not impossible to produce allergen-free foods - but it’s not the easiest thing in the world to absolutely guarantee that not one speck of sesame was left in the mixer between batches , that there was never one speck of sesame floating in the air to land on a machine after it was cleaned. It’s a lot easier to guarantee that the allergen is in the food - and the only thing that surprises me is that it took this long.
Except it is NOT that. This is the exact same law that for decades has allowed things like candy bars to say “may contain peanuts” or the like. The only thing that has changed is the addition of “sesame” to the list of allergens. The only change.
Again - it didn’t happen. “May contain sesame” would be just as valid as “may contain peanuts” or “may contain soy”.
Less of a problem than the potential for peanuts not being clear. People hypersensitive to microscopic amounts can err on the side of caution. Someone such as myself, who is allergic to peanut but not in a severe manner, can choose to eat the item or not.
Again - this is the exact same law that for decades has allowed things like candy bars to say “may contain peanuts” or the like. The only thing that has changed is the addition of “sesame” to the list of allergens. The only change.
My son is allergic to peanuts. We thus try to read labels fairly carefully. If something says “Produced on equipment that may have been in contact with peanuts”, we use our judgment (luckily, he has never had a problem with anything like that).
Why on earth don’t they just do the same for sesame?