Food Standards Agency advises consumers with dairy and fish allergies to check labels carefully
Archived version: https://archive.ph/fUYev
‘May contain’ should never have been allowed in food labelling. It’s lazy and dangerous and out there as a get out of jail free card for food manufacturers
Cross-contamination is always a risk in shared factories, hence why “May contain” needs to exist - they’re listing known allergens the factory is handling. The vegan / vegetarian labelling supports a dietary choice rather than allergy advise.
As the article highlights, “free-from” labelling has more stringent controls and requirements to eliminate cross-contamination. It’s the “free-from” products labels people should be seeking if they require it to be allergen-free.
It’s “may contain” because the factory producing it also produces other products that do contain milk, nuts and whatever. The production line will be cleaned according to the (inter)national standards when switching production, but that doesn’t mean there is 0% chance of cross contamination. It’s just extremely low chance.
Source: factory tour at Norway’s largest chocolate producer
deleted by creator
Wait why not? Or do you mean that the terminology is off or? And how is it get out of jail free card? If the label is there then it has been made in a factory where the manufacturer cannot guarantee cross-contamination free product. Seems perfectly fine to me, most people have no issue with that. If you are very allergic to dairy for instance then obviously you should not use these products. Same as with tons of allergies.
In fact, many allergy charities view it as badly flawed, so I don’t know who the ‘most people’ are that you are talking about.
https://www.narf.org.uk/blog/we-have-a-big-problem-with-may-contain-labels
https://www.godairyfree.org/food-and-grocery/may-contain-statements
So none of the links say that the statement is “badly flawed”. Two of them are about consultation on this labeling or in allergens in general, and two mention that the labeling is a problem because it is not required / there is no clear policy behind it.
Sure, I agree that there should be a policy about when the label is required.
Edit. most people being people without life threatening or severe allergies.
It wasn’t a quote.
In any event, people can read and decide for themselves
As someone who prays to see a ‘may contain’ statement alongside a ‘contains’ statement on the potentially risky food I’d like to eat: I vehemently disagree. “May contain” seems to always mean “contains some”. Without it, I’d have no way to know if there’s a real risk of cross contamination.
may contain traces of cockroach
Yeah you’re getting called out Cadbury. “Vegan” chocolate bar that has a warning might contain milk.
Try new Completely Free of Nuts!
*May contain nuts
Veganism is an ethical decision moreso than a dietary decision. If you’ve truly adopted veganism, and not just doing it for “cool guy” points, you’ve already understood how the food manufacturing industry operates. You’ve already made strides to avoid eating anything that may be processed in the same facility as animal products. You largely eat whole ingredients that you buy and prepare personally. And you would probably never touch a pre-made meat substitute. Being vegan isn’t just about saving cute animals, it’s a conscious decision to reduce your total impact on the environment and that generally means not buying (or not buying as many) things made by the large producers (Nestle, Unilever, etc)
You’ve already made strides to avoid eating anything that may be processed in the same facility as animal products.
But why? This would just make it much harder for (smaller) companies to bring vegan products to market.
You largely eat whole ingredients that you buy and prepare personally. And you would probably never touch a pre-made meat substitute.
Most vegans I know eat meat substitutes rather regularly. Eating a whole food diet is primarily motivated by health. Some vegans also try to be as healthy as possible, sure, but many don’t really care about that.
Ethical veganism is about not financially supporting the commodification of animals, especially on factory farms, nothing more.
Because as a vegan, you know that in order to remain ethical, you do not buy mass produced crap that was produced in the same facility as dairy products. You wouldnt support that company.
I like how they tried to argue against your point but actually agreed without realising it
Ethical decision of not eating animals or facilitate their captive farming for by-products doesn’t imply an ethical decision to avoid some big corpo. It has almost nothing to do with avoiding food being produced in the same room as non-vegan products, and you could ethically argue, you shouldn’t avoid that. Same goes for substitutes. Most of all, 0.1% of some vegan chocolate bar containing miniscule amount of diary that however could trigger someone’s allergy definitely couldn’t count as an ethical violation of vegan philosophy.
What you describe is some overall lifestyle choice that combines ethical reasoning with superstition. Might apply to a lot of vegans out there, but does not define veganism.
No superstition. This is why most people have trouble being vegan. It requires vigilance and research. It requires being conscious of consumer food products.
Literally everyone replying to my original comment projected their own meaning onto it and are arguing against points I didnt make.
The point was: vegans are more aware of food production practices and what companies make what, then they change their buying habits accordingly. The factory didnt start making dairy products all of a sudden, that would require insane amounts of expensive retrofitting.
deleted by creator
