5 ms·

"May contain" labeling seems like the better solution to this problem. This should be allowed for allergens that are present in the manufacturing or packing fac

by Zak 5d ago

"May contain" labeling seems like the better solution to this problem. This should be allowed for allergens that are present in the manufacturing or packing facility but not intended to be ingredients in the product.

GloriousKoji 5d ago
That's part of the problem. "May contain" doesn't provide legal protection and then if you make it a standard there needs to be testing for compliance which ends up as the same original problem and you just add compliance tits to your food product. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211
- Zak 5d ago
  "May contain" should provide legal protection. It may be compliance tits in some cases, but that's better than forcing the addition of a compliance ingredient.
- Dylan16807 5d ago
  > "May contain" doesn't provide legal protection Yes, this causes problems. > and then if you make it a standard there needs to be testing for compliance Why would there need to be any additional testing? If anything I'd expect "may" foods to need less testing than an accident-prone "no" food.
HWR_14 5d ago
Then there would never be a reason not to list "may contain sesame". Just like every product causes cancer in california.
- what 5d ago
  The door to one of the hospitals in SF has a prop 16 warning. Even hospitals give you cancer!