you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I hate to be "that guy" but in theee cases, it just makes more sense to have some extraneous labeling rather than have special clauses in the regulation dictating when it's obvious enough that the label can be omitted.

Keeping the rules as simple as possible reduces the chances of loopholes and ambiguity, at the expense of sometimes resulting in things like a jar of peanut butter stating "contains peanuts" on the label.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It makes no sense and it's a side effect of an over litigious society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It only makes no sense until you stop and consider how to define and implement a better rule, when the only real benefit would be to prevent people snarking about milk having a "contains milk" labeling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Labeling for ingredients and possible cross contamination concerns doesn't require that milk warns about milk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Do you think that someone sits down and makes a list of all items that need to be labeled as containing X, which is then updated each time a new food or recipe hits the store shelves?

    Or is it more likely that regulators simply state that all foods for human consumption containing more than some percent by weight of X must be labeled as containing X?

    If your goal is to ensure that consumers are alerted to certain ingredients for allergy or other purposes, you care very much about a product not getting labeled properly, and you don't really care if something obvious gets the label.

    I'm not really sure why this is so hard to grasp...

  • source
  • parent