372
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
372 points (98.2% liked)
Not The Onion
12561 readers
310 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ITT: lots of people wondering why this is an issue at all when obviously butter contains milk.
It’s because the company can effectively print whatever they like for the name of the product with no regard to the actual ingredients. A consumer needs to know what they’re actually buying because of things like allergies and intolerances.
In this case, and depending on the severity of the allergy, that missing ingredient warning could cause someone a bad case of the farts or something as serious as anaphylactic shock.
This being said, I’d still agree that people not wanting to consume milk should stick to products with positive confirmation that it is milk-free.
That is not true at all. There are laws that determine what you can actually put on your products, especially on food.
Yes. And Costco (inadvertently) broke them here. Hence the recall.
That was the point. If we let companies ignore the law when it "should be obvious", that gives them a lot of wiggle room to really fuck us over. And nobody wants that
Ok fine, yes you are correct in that you can’t advertise a packet of staples as a frozen turkey crown, but you’re also arguing about a different scope. Apologies for speaking like a human on lemmy and not some sort of weird internet law robot.
This is a demonstration of what I’m talking about. To save you the click, this pack of ‘deli fresh’ turkey breast makes no mention of the cornstarch, dextrose or vinegar listed on the ingredients label. ‘Deli fresh’ is itself artistic license, as the product is packaged in plastic and not being served fresh from a deli.
So maybe like a package of butter that doesn’t have milk in the ingredients list?
It actually does contain it in the ingredient list (I.e. sweet cream). It just that the FDA requires an additional label warning of allergens, like contains nuts or milk, which is what this was missing.
Any reason you conveniently left out the start of the sentence you’ve quoted? Because the bit you’ve left out changes the tone pretty significantly.
In this particular situation I’d deem positive confirmation to be something like a vegan certification, as opposed to the absence of something.
Combine the absence of milk from the ingredients on something advertising itself as butter with no other distinguishing information and that adds up to suspicion for me.
That's not a positive confirmation.