The Quorn Should be Outlawed.
Replies
-
People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.0 -
The point from the court documents linked in the OP is that the labeling is misleading or deliberately omitted the nature of the product in that it contains mould - a substance which was lethal to the poor kid who died as a result of eating the Quorn product.
It is alleged that the producers of Quorn may have deliberately concealed this fact as it could have a negative impact on profits.
that's awful:( If they deliberately concealed the fact it contained fungi (by referring to it as mycoprotein), they should be put out of business.0 -
People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
If this was peanuts these guys would have been arrested already. Yeah, companies have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to list this stuff, not just a moral responsibility. Somebody's baby died for godssakes...0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
If this was peanuts these guys would have been arrested already. Yeah, companies have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to list this stuff, not just a moral responsibility. Somebody's baby died for godssakes...
But they had included the ingredient "mycoprotein" - should that be considered to be adequate in all the circumstances?
(Just playing a little devil's advocate here to explore the issues the Court will consider)0 -
If you google mycoprotein?
I just don't know anyone with an anaphylactic child or relative who would ever dream of taking such a risk
It's on wiki and all other the internet
Something isn't right here
Do I think quorn hid the source of mycoprotein? No not really ..they possibly could be clearer
0 -
There may be a distinct marketing difference ..quorn has been available here since mid 90s ..it's well know. And available in all supermarkets0
-
People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
The onus is on the consumer to check the ingredients and know exactly what ingredients cause them a problem.
The onus is on the company to make sure all ingredients are listed as is standard in the industry - both a standard location and a standard name for the ingredient (this way the consumer can locate and identify them).
It sounds as though the consumer in this case was not educated sufficiently. Mycoprotein is the standard name for fungal-sourced proteins. In fact, 'myco' is the standard prefix for anything fungus-related, and not just in the food industry. Even if the customer had never seen the term mycoprotein before, any word starting with 'myco' should have been a giant red flag.0 -
Do I think quorn hid the source of mycoprotein? No not really ..they possibly could be clearer
But we know that companies are not above deliberately concealing information or or rigging products (like emission tests to give a recent example) so really it is what does the evidence substantiate.
And if, as you say, there are millions spent on marketing a product which presumably encompasses taking legal advice on the implications of wording on packaging, why were they not clearer? Was this incompetence or if it was deliberate was this a justifiable course of action and if so do they hold some degree of accountability for what has happened?
Interesting discussion. I will pop back if I have time later on.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Lots of things are known allergens. We don't outlaw them, we require appropriate labeling.
Why should something be outlawed just because some people are allergic to it?
THIIIIIIIIIS.
We don't ban peanut butter. The labeling on Q'uorn's boxes very much say they're made of a fungus.
They're also delicious and I love them, I'd cry if they banned Q'uorn because some people who were allergic didn't read the labels.0 -
People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
The onus is on the consumer to check the ingredients and know exactly what ingredients cause them a problem.
The onus is on the company to make sure all ingredients are listed as is standard in the industry - both a standard location and a standard name for the ingredient (this way the consumer can locate and identify them).
It sounds as though the consumer in this case was not educated sufficiently. Mycoprotein is the standard name for fungal-sourced proteins. In fact, 'myco' is the standard prefix for anything fungus-related, and not just in the food industry. Even if the customer had never seen the term mycoprotein before, any word starting with 'myco' should have been a giant red flag.
And if your child had a life threatening allergy you would know this
If not your medical team are also subject to lawsuit0 -
-
There may be a distinct marketing difference ..quorn has been available here since mid 90s ..it's well know. And available in all supermarkets
Middle aged American here. I shop and cook a lot. I wonder if it's new or newish here.
I've never heard of it and wouldn't have had a clue what mycoprotein is till you guys talked about.
Seems It should have an allergen statement on it.0 -
But they had included the ingredient "mycoprotein" - should that be considered to be adequate in all the circumstances?
(Just playing a little devil's advocate here to explore the issues the Court will consider)
No I don't think it should. It'd maybe be different if it was something a rather large group of human beings are not allergic to, but it is something at least a recognizable portion of the population IS allergic to. I feel, just visceral instinct, that calling it "mycoprotein" was a deliberate attempt to avoid the use of the word "fungus", which in one case, resulted in the death of a child. One death is, or should be, enough.If you google mycoprotein?
I just don't know anyone with an anaphylactic child or relative who would ever dream of taking such a risk
It's on wiki and all other the internet
Something isn't right here
Do I think quorn hid the source of mycoprotein? No not really ..they possibly could be clearer
Yeah, again, as someone who is severely allergic to mushrooms, and possibly other fungi, I saw hat word, didn't know the answer, and hit the google. I cannot imagine who with an allergy doesn't do that, or a parent with a child who has an allergy, doesn't do that. I'm not saying the mom/dad are ultimately responsible for their child's death, not at all, the onus of proof was on the company, but even so....
I say the onus of proof is on the company, I mean it should be. We demand that anyone who comes on here praising probiotics or juicing or animal horns or whatever provide proof their thing A. Is safe and B. Is good. I don't know why on earth we don't make that demand of corporations. Especially food and drug corporations, because they hold people's lives in their hands daily.0 -
People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
The mother should have looked up definitions of ingredients she wasn't familiar with. I am sorry that she lost her child, but she she made the decision to purchase a food item for her child without educating herself on unfamiliar terminology. The prefix "myco" is a huge hint that it's fungus based. I read all the labels of items I am about to purchase for the first time and if there is something in there I am not familiar with I look it up - takes less than a minute. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but when you're dealing with a severe allergy you know you have to be vigilant. If something is questionable move on to a different product. How much more transparent should the company have been as they listed mycoprotein?0 -
It's a know allergen? Like that means anything
If you're not allergic it's fine
You didn't know it was fungus?
Personally I like beef but there's nothing wrong with quorn if you don't have a reaction to it
Me? I find egg yolk and prawns to be "known allergens" for me
Me? I have no food allergies but I have to be really careful around new clothes and many personal care products because I am allergic to formaldehyde. Should we ban the majority of shampoos, conditioners. lotions, cosmetics, etc because they contain a known allergen?0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
If this was peanuts these guys would have been arrested already. Yeah, companies have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to list this stuff, not just a moral responsibility. Somebody's baby died for godssakes...
The problem with your argument is it was labeled. They just didn't realise that the name they were reading was a fungi.
The onus to label it was fullfiled but a lack of knowledge led to this tragic death. Should it be dumbed down to prevent this happening again. I'd say yes. For example by putting Fungi in brackets next to Mycoprotien.
However you should educate yourself so you always know what you and your child is eating
I know in the UK allergens now have to be bolded on labels, so it'd be interesting to know if it's bolded.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
But they had included the ingredient "mycoprotein" - should that be considered to be adequate in all the circumstances?
(Just playing a little devil's advocate here to explore the issues the Court will consider)
No I don't think it should. It'd maybe be different if it was something a rather large group of human beings are not allergic to, but it is something at least a recognizable portion of the population IS allergic to. I feel, just visceral instinct, that calling it "mycoprotein" was a deliberate attempt to avoid the use of the word "fungus", which in one case, resulted in the death of a child. One death is, or should be, enough.If you google mycoprotein?
I just don't know anyone with an anaphylactic child or relative who would ever dream of taking such a risk
It's on wiki and all other the internet
Something isn't right here
Do I think quorn hid the source of mycoprotein? No not really ..they possibly could be clearer
Yeah, again, as someone who is severely allergic to mushrooms, and possibly other fungi, I saw hat word, didn't know the answer, and hit the google. I cannot imagine who with an allergy doesn't do that, or a parent with a child who has an allergy, doesn't do that. I'm not saying the mom/dad are ultimately responsible for their child's death, not at all, the onus of proof was on the company, but even so....
I say the onus of proof is on the company, I mean it should be. We demand that anyone who comes on here praising probiotics or juicing or animal horns or whatever provide proof their thing A. Is safe and B. Is good. I don't know why on earth we don't make that demand of corporations. Especially food and drug corporations, because they hold people's lives in their hands daily.
I think "mycoprotein" is less an attempt to evade than an attempt to describe exactly what it is. "Fungus" is a huge category and it isn't very specific. "Mycoprotein" is more specific. It's the difference between "carrot" and "vegetable," I think.0 -
There may be a distinct marketing difference ..quorn has been available here since mid 90s ..it's well know. And available in all supermarkets
Middle aged American here. I shop and cook a lot. I wonder if it's new or newish here.
I've never heard of it and wouldn't have had a clue what mycoprotein is till you guys talked about.
Seems It should have an allergen statement on it.
Young American here, and I agree, I have only heard of this because my sister in law went vegan and likes it when we all go to vegan/vegetarian restaurants together (she's desperately trying to convert us). That one time in that one place was the only time I have ever even heard of it, I don't shop at whole foods, cause $$$$$$$$ so I have never encountered it in the package.0 -
Bad photo off the web of the back of a Quorn mince package notes the potential allergic reaction to mycoprotein.0 -
It's a know allergen? Like that means anything
If you're not allergic it's fine
You didn't know it was fungus?
Personally I like beef but there's nothing wrong with quorn if you don't have a reaction to it
Me? I find egg yolk and prawns to be "known allergens" for me
Me? I have no food allergies but I have to be really careful around new clothes and many personal care products because I am allergic to formaldehyde. Should we ban the majority of shampoos, conditioners. lotions, cosmetics, etc because they contain a known allergen?
No way. That's the same nonsense as banning peanut butter (schools are different, children don't understand and we constantly get on their little butts to "share", it's totally different) market-wide. But we do demand, as we should, that companies who put egg whites in their shampoos list it so people don't end up with no hair.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions