No, we are complaining about the way the government handles allergen labeling.
It used to be that companies could slap a "may contain [allergen]" label on things that didn't contain it but were produced in a factory where cross contamination was a possibility. Such labels are *widespread*.
I don't understand the government's incentive in trying to stop this--the actual result was when cross contamination was a possibility the companies reacted by deliberately adding the offending material.
The problem is that it's being looked at in a binary sense. Either it contains the offending material and poses a danger to those affected, or it doesn't and is safe. However, in the real world there's a third population--those who are sensitive to the offending ingredient but not dangerously so. Possibility of cross contamination? That is not going to be a deterrent to me as the worst case outcome is merely unpleasant. Does contain? I'm going to treat it with great skepticism.
It used to be that companies could slap a "may contain [allergen]" label on things that didn't contain it but were produced in a factory where cross contamination was a possibility. Such labels are *widespread*.
I don't understand the government's incentive in trying to stop this--the actual result was when cross contamination was a possibility the companies reacted by deliberately adding the offending material.
The problem is that it's being looked at in a binary sense. Either it contains the offending material and poses a danger to those affected, or it doesn't and is safe. However, in the real world there's a third population--those who are sensitive to the offending ingredient but not dangerously so. Possibility of cross contamination? That is not going to be a deterrent to me as the worst case outcome is merely unpleasant. Does contain? I'm going to treat it with great skepticism.