Adding sesame was easier than following the regulations to assert their foods were sesame free, so now food that used to be safe is now dangerous for anyone with a sesame allergy.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90830854/sesame-seed-allergen-fd...
What did everybody expect was going to happen? That companies were magically going to sterilize their production lines?
Wheat was already on the major allergens list, the regulatory burden of keeping aerosolised flour from contaminating other products doesn't seem to have been much of an issue.
The article also seems to make the case that sesame allergens were making their way into foods, with presumably disastrous effects but that was fine because companies didn't have to think about it.
The preferred solution to the intentional adulteration of products should be to fine the companies and throw their executives in jail. It might make them more amenable to complying with the spirit of the law. In fact, society would be better off in general if executives went to jail more often.
The reason the regulation, and the commercial response to it, is controversial is that companies cannot simply print "may contain sesame" and be done with it.
"Statements such as 'may contain [allergen]' ... can be used to address unavoidable 'cross-contact,' only if manufacturers ... have taken every precaution to avoid cross-contact"
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/food-allerg...
This is a counter-intuitive, and presumably unintended consequence of the regulation that sucks if you're allergic, but fining or jailing executives for complying with it is silly. Hopefully, enough other companies will see a competitive advantage in retooling their processes to deliver sesame-free products.
> This is a counter-intuitive, and presumably unintended consequence of the regulation that sucks if you're allergic, but fining or jailing executives for complying with it is silly.
They're not complying, they're skirting. People who play these kinds of games are a weight around society's neck. The purposefulness and agency over their actions is what should see them in jail. See the attempts of past Uber executives to obstruct the investigation of their illegal activities for an egregious, and relatively well known example of people who need a stern lesson on how to behave in society.
So, the insurmountable task is either maintaining completely seseme free manufacturing lines, or cleaning manufacturing lines between recipes to the point of guaranteeing no seseme cross-contamination.
Does it really follow that executives should be jailed for adding seseme to their company recipes? I imagine many of the companies that made this change were previously voluntarily listing seseme as a possible contaminant, but had to stop because of the law.
My mistake. Since 2004, Major food allergens have come with a requirement that manufacturers take steps to avoid cross contamination. The addition of sesame to the list requires it to be treated in the same way.
> and must not contain any seseme.
The manufacturer must follow "current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs)"[0] as described by the FDA. These should already be in place to prevent cross contamination of the existing major allergens.
> So, the insurmountable task is either maintaining completely seseme free manufacturing lines, or cleaning manufacturing lines between recipes to the point of guaranteeing no seseme cross-contamination.
The insurmountable task is to do the same thing they're already required to do to make sure enriched breads, containing milk and eggs, were not cross contaminating merely leavened products or to make sure that wheat flour doesn't contaminate non-wheat products.
> Does it really follow that executives should be jailed for adding seseme to their company recipes?
Yes. Any executive that added sesame to their product in response to this law should be in jail. I'm tired of executives facing no consequences when they intentionally cause harm in their pursuit of profit.
> I imagine many of the companies that made this change were previously voluntarily listing seseme as a possible contaminant, but had to stop because of the law.
Presumably part of the reason sesame was added as a major allergen was because companies weren't doing a great job disclosing it as an ingredient.
You can go to places where food is essentially unregulated, as even if there are laws, they aren't enforced. I guarantee people will warn you against eating the local food, and those warnings will be from experience.
It’s not that they’ve added sesame where there was none before, it’s that they’re having to declare that sesame might be there. It’s great news for people with sesame allergies and has no effect on those that don’t.
The law requires you either have no sesame contact at all (as in not even having sesame based products travel on the same belts), or you list sesame as an ingredient.
But you can't just list ingredients that aren't in your food: "travelled on the same belt as sesame" isn't enough. So they actually went and added sesame.
Though it's weird that the FDA don't just allow a 'may contain traces' warning, many countries do.
they've added sesame where there was none before
If it was obvious it was none there wouldn't be an issue.
