News & Politics - Should Food Be Better Labelled for Allergies?

**sunnykerr** · 08-25-2008, 04:57 PM

FDA to consider rules for food allergy warnings

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's one of the biggest frustrations of life with food allergies: That hodgepodge of warnings that a food might accidentally contain the wrong ingredient.

The warnings are voluntary -- meaning there's no way to know whether foods that don't bear them really should. And they're vague: Is "may contain traces of peanuts" more reliable than "made in the same factory as peanuts?"

Now health officials in the U.S. and Canada are debating setting standards, amid increasing concern that consumers are so confused they're starting to ignore the warnings.

"Really, the safest thing you can do is make all your food at home from scratch, period," says Margaret Sova McCabe of Sanbornton, New Hampshire, whose son Tommie, almost 8, is allergic to peanuts, dairy, wheat and five other ingredients.

But she doesn't find that practical -- and repeatedly has spotted longtime favorite "safe" foods suddenly bearing new warnings that accidental contamination is possible after all.

(...)

"Advisory labeling may not be protecting the health of allergic consumers," the FDA acknowledged.

(...)

About 12 million Americans have food allergies. Severe ones trigger 30,000 annual emergency-room visits, and 150 to 200 deaths a year.

Starting in 2006, a U.S. law required that foods disclose in plain language when they intentionally contain highly allergenic ingredients such as peanuts or dairy.

Left out of the law are accidental-allergy warnings -- for foods that might become contaminated because they were made in the same factory, or on the same machines, as allergen-containing products. The FDA has said that a quarter of inspected food factories have the potential for such a mix-up.

More and more foods bear precautionary labels, but there's a disconnect. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, an influential consumer group, counts at least 30 different ways that the warnings are worded -- and consumers too often falsely assume that one food is riskier than another because its label sounds scarier.

Three-quarters of parents of food-allergic children surveyed by the group in 2006 said they would never buy a food with an accidental-allergy warning, down from 85 percent in 2003, when such labels were novel.

The FDA's own surveys found the allergic pay more attention to warnings that a food "may contain" an allergen than those "made in the same factory" labels.

Yet when University of Nebraska researchers tested nearly 200 products with various accidental-peanut warnings, they found that peanuts were more likely to have sneaked into products labeled "made in the same facility."

And Health Canada researchers recently discovered that some chocolate labeled as possibly containing "traces" of peanuts or tree nuts in fact contained up to six times the amount that the government considers a trace level.

FDA to consider rules for food allergy warnings - CNN.com

I have no idea how they're gonna go about this, but it would be such a relief. I have an allergy to all nuts. It's severe enough that I have to keep it in mind, but not severe enough to cause serious damage if I accidentally come in contact with nuts.

I've been denied desert several times at restaurants because of those stupid "may contain traces of" signs. I know, I know, not the more dire of treatments by any stretch, but I always figure it's a silly warning because I've never had a bad reaction at all. I've always thought of the warning in the same vein as I think of the warning in microwave oven manuals to not put your cat in there: Just taking unneccessary precautions so as to avoid civil actions.

If they were to make it more reliable as opposed to just something that was slapped on any given product, I think I'd follow it more closely.

What do you all think? Do we need yet more labelling on our food? Will this help at all?

'Beautiful Disaster' · 08-26-2008, 02:41 PM

Totally agree with what you've said - I'm a coeliac, meaning that I can't eat anything containing gluten, which is a shocking amount of things. Some totally unexpected things contain some form of gluten but it actually isn't on the packaging, which means I have to be hyper-careful and just eat what I KNOW doesn't. It's a nightmare...

So yes, clearer labeling would be brilliant as far as I'm concerned, though like you say, I have no idea how they'd go about doing it...

sum1 · 08-26-2008, 05:33 PM

Well, this shouldn't start with labelling. There's all these foods which do not contain commonly allergy-provoking substances but which are made in the same machines or factories as those substances. How about putting some money and effort into ensuring that they're NOT made in the same factories or machines? Then there wouldn't have to be a vague warning slapped on them and allergic people worrying about whether they're safe or not.

**sunnykerr** · 08-26-2008, 06:17 PM

Well, yeah, putting things in different factories would be the actual sane solution. Man, I wish they would just do that.

In the meantime, though, if they could just make the stupid labelling more reliable... My step-mother also has celliac disease. It's a pain. And, as someone who has to deal with labelling as well, I do fell annoyed on her behalf that every little thing she eats has to come under this huge microscope.

I mean, sure we could all just make every single article of food we eat. But we don't all live on farms anymore; some of us don't live anywhere near them either. At some point, you have to go to the grocery store and trust that the package is telling you the truth about what goes into stuff.

It's a pain.

*Ledi* · 08-27-2008, 12:17 PM

I'm not allergic to anything, so I can't really relate to people who worry about foods. However, I feel for them and I do think that companies should do a better job at labeling their products. I feel like that's a no brainer.

**sunnykerr** · 08-27-2008, 06:45 PM

It certainly would make life a heck of a lot easier, that's for sure.

**Mio** · 08-29-2008, 06:58 PM

ABSOLUTELY!

I have recently developed an almond and walnut allergy. Can you believe the allergic reactions I am having because they're not listed properly. When it says "Processed in a plant where NUTS are" doesn't cover what nut exactly, they need to be more specific.

**TheAngel** · 08-29-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mio (View Post)

ABSOLUTELY!

I have recently developed an almond and walnut allergy. Can you believe the allergic reactions I am having because they're not listed properly. When it says "Processed in a plant where NUTS are" doesn't cover what nut exactly, they need to be more specific.

I think the general idea is that if people have any kind of nut allergy, they should stay away from them.
I agree that products should be better labeled. I'm lucky enough not to have food allergies but I have other allergies so I know how bad a reaction can be. I hope they figure something out.

*Ledi* · 08-29-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mio (View Post)

ABSOLUTELY!

I have recently developed an almond and walnut allergy. Can you believe the allergic reactions I am having because they're not listed properly. When it says "Processed in a plant where NUTS are" doesn't cover what nut exactly, they need to be more specific.

I can't even imagine being allergic to nuts. I love them too much, and I'm currently eating chocolate with hazelnuts, too.

I feel bad for you guys who are allergic to nuts.

**sunnykerr** · 08-31-2008, 05:08 PM

But nut allergies are tricky, that's the thing.

I've been allergic my whole life. To all nuts. When I was a kid, two plain M&Ms sent me to the ER in complete respitory arrest because (at the time, anyway) they contained some peanut oil or something in them.

But, as I've grown older, so has my resistance. I'll still get ill if I eat nuts, or if I eat like a stir-fry that's been fried on the same spot where something was just stir-fried in peanut oil. You get the idea. It needs actual contact.

Thus far, "may contain traces of" and "packaged in the same factory where stuff with nuts was packaged" has never had any sort of effect one way or another on me.

And when you realize how omnipresent those labels are... They're everywhere. And you know most of them are there so that people can't sue if they get sick. So I tend to take my chances.

At the same time, my cousin developed his allergy to all nuts as an adult. He is doomed. Can't go anywhere near a nut, near anything that might have come in contact with stuff that came in contact with stuff that touched a nut.

Obviously, he can't go anywhere anything labelled "may contain traces of nuts." But, even then, that's because his reactions are so much more severe, actually life-threatening. It's not because he's ever had an adverse reaction to them.

**vc318** · 09-06-2008, 05:33 AM

I agree - warnings need to be diplayed better. But I'm even more concerned about how the FDA allos some places like dollar stores and Big Lots to keep expired cans of food on their shelves! How is that even legal?

**sunnykerr** · 09-07-2008, 07:21 PM

I do know that some products have no real date of expiration. Dairy and meat are obviously not among these products. But, for things like sports drinks and granola bars... I don't think a week or two in either direction is really going to affect the quality of the product.

I know what my dad always says, which is "'Best before' doesn't mean 'no good after.'" And we've never had a problem.

Like I said, certain things, meat and dairy and the like, you shouldn't mess with. But, otherwise...