The Quorn Should be Outlawed.
Options
Replies
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
To the fair, the OP does seem to be calling for Quorn to be made illegal.
The ingredient is noted on the package. I know some people are arguing that they don't think "mycoprotein" is sufficient, but it is listed.0 -
The onus is on the person with the allergy to be educated, and to read labels thoroughly. If Quorn should be outlawed, peanuts would have to go first.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/peanut-allergy/basics/definition/con-200278980 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »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. 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.
The ingredients listing listed "mycoprotein". I'm just saying, if something is labeled as having "quiche" in it, we would still requires the company to list "contains eggs*" at the bottom. We ask them to list "this product was manufactured in a facility that also manufactures products containing soy, eggs, gluten, etc*". I dunno why we let a company say "mycoprotein" and not list "*contains fungus" under the ingredients list like literally every other product out there is required to do. I had NEVER seen that word before in my life. I googled it, so yay me, but how hard is it to just put a little asterisk and the word "fungus" which the general non-vegan population actually are familiar with?
I feel like the parents weren't careful enough, but this company wasn't careful enough at best, and they were negligent/purposefully manipulative at best. I mean it's a quarter inch of ink.... sounds to me like they didn't want people to hear the word fungus.0 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
To the fair, the OP does seem to be calling for Quorn to be made illegal.
The ingredient is noted on the package. I know some people are arguing that they don't think "mycoprotein" is sufficient, but it is listed.
Oh, I know, and I disagree with the OP, this comment was just a springboard for my little mini-rant:)0 -
From reading the complaint which details what was written on that particular box, the packaging does have an allergy warning although it doesn't specifically say 'mould', and the marketing does seem to insinuate that the mycoprotein is akin to mushrooms and truffles. I had a look at the top hit for mycoprotein and it does give the genus of the fungus:
"2 Is Fusarium venenatum a mushroom?
No. Common mushrooms are one type of fungi, of which more than 60,000 species have so far been identified. Mycoprotein is made from a blend of minerals, glucose and another nutritious member of the fungi family called Fusarium venenatum.
Fusarium venenatum is microscopic and very different in appearance from the fungi species one would buy in a greengrocer but it is unquestionably part of the fungi kingdom – a group of cellular plant organisms which lack chlorophyll."
So if you do look it up online then 'microscopic fungus' should probably make you think 'oh my kid with a mould allergy can't have it', but from the marketing I can see why someone would just assume that it's made from standard mushroom-style fungus rather than mould - I did. As someone else said, 'mmm tasty mould' isn't that marketable! Poor kid.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
To the fair, the OP does seem to be calling for Quorn to be made illegal.
The ingredient is noted on the package. I know some people are arguing that they don't think "mycoprotein" is sufficient, but it is listed.
Oh, I know, and I disagree with the OP, this comment was just a springboard for my little mini-rant:)
But the label does make the connection, at least in the US. Although I don't know when this label was put in place.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
To the fair, the OP does seem to be calling for Quorn to be made illegal.
The ingredient is noted on the package. I know some people are arguing that they don't think "mycoprotein" is sufficient, but it is listed.
Oh, I know, and I disagree with the OP, this comment was just a springboard for my little mini-rant:)
But the label does make the connection, at least in the US.
Yeah, see my photo comment.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
To the fair, the OP does seem to be calling for Quorn to be made illegal.
The ingredient is noted on the package. I know some people are arguing that they don't think "mycoprotein" is sufficient, but it is listed.
Oh, I know, and I disagree with the OP, this comment was just a springboard for my little mini-rant:)
But the label does make the connection, at least in the US.
Yeah, see my photo comment.
Sorry -- I missed your post. You're thinking too fast! :P0 -
they need to be specific on the packaging so that people with allergies can easily avoid it without having to search for small type.0
-
0 -
they need to be specific on the packaging so that people with allergies can easily avoid it without having to search for small type.
I don't know how much more specific they could be without coming to your house and slapping it out of your hand if you aren't supposed to eat it.
OP is saying that people are buying it thinking it is beef. If they aren't reading anything already on the package, I'm not sure what companies are supposed to do besides call it "NOT BEEF."0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
To the fair, the OP does seem to be calling for Quorn to be made illegal.
The ingredient is noted on the package. I know some people are arguing that they don't think "mycoprotein" is sufficient, but it is listed.
Oh, I know, and I disagree with the OP, this comment was just a springboard for my little mini-rant:)
But the label does make the connection, at least in the US.
Yeah, see my photo comment.
Sorry -- I missed your post. You're thinking too fast! :P
I will be sure to stop ingesting sugar, I hear that will slow my brain down
0 -
It's up to the medical community in combination with the individual to make certain they have adequate education.
What if the consumer can't read (either at all, or just doesn't know the language)? OK, you could put a picture of the problem ingredient (despite the fact that just about every ingredient is a problem for someone in the world). But what if they can't see? Then they'd need to find someone to look at the packaging for them - which by the way also works for people who can't read.
The company cannot be expected to cover all eventualities - that is why there are standards for what is expected of them. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a single product on the shelves. Just about all ingredients are an allergen or disease-exacerbating substance to someone in the world. That is why a comprehensive ingredient list is mandatory.0 -
It's a very small percentage who are allergic. I'm allergic to penicillin and found out the hard way, but it benefits the majority.0
-
they need to be specific on the packaging so that people with allergies can easily avoid it without having to search for small type.
I agree, but many do not. My formaldehyde allergy: most personal care products do not put it on the label because it isn't actually added to the product, it is released by the preservatives they use (Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Methylisothiazolinone, DMDM Hydantoin, Diazolidinyl and Imidazolidinyl Urea are the worst offenders) which is why people who have allergies need to educate themselves rather than trust manufacturers to inform them.
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »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. 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.
The ingredients listing listed "mycoprotein". I'm just saying, if something is labeled as having "quiche" in it, we would still requires the company to list "contains eggs*" at the bottom. We ask them to list "this product was manufactured in a facility that also manufactures products containing soy, eggs, gluten, etc*". I dunno why we let a company say "mycoprotein" and not list "*contains fungus" under the ingredients list like literally every other product out there is required to do. I had NEVER seen that word before in my life. I googled it, so yay me, but how hard is it to just put a little asterisk and the word "fungus" which the general non-vegan population actually are familiar with?
I feel like the parents weren't careful enough, but this company wasn't careful enough at best, and they were negligent/purposefully manipulative at best. I mean it's a quarter inch of ink.... sounds to me like they didn't want people to hear the word fungus.
My problem here is that the company can't be negligent if they followed legal standards. Maybe standards need to change, but it's not right to have a set of standards that a company follows to the letter and then claim the company is negligent.
Honestly, I can't imagine having a problem with ingesting fungus and not knowing that 'myco' anything would be something to avoid - at least until I could check it out in detail.
I'll also comment that I don't believe that molds are fungi is particularly common knowledge. If this child was specifically allergic to mold, and the label listed 'mycoprotein [derived from fungi]' as you suggest, it may not have made any difference.0 -
There's also the risk that packaging becomes so wordy as to not help anyone!
As a consumer you have a responsibility to yourself, if you know you have allergies then perhaps avoid products with unfamiliar ingredients until you know more? We can't be spoon fed absolutely everything and then sue because we're incapable of a little self education.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »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. 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.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »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. 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.
The ingredients listing listed "mycoprotein". I'm just saying, if something is labeled as having "quiche" in it, we would still requires the company to list "contains eggs*" at the bottom. We ask them to list "this product was manufactured in a facility that also manufactures products containing soy, eggs, gluten, etc*". I dunno why we let a company say "mycoprotein" and not list "*contains fungus" under the ingredients list like literally every other product out there is required to do. I had NEVER seen that word before in my life. I googled it, so yay me, but how hard is it to just put a little asterisk and the word "fungus" which the general non-vegan population actually are familiar with?
I feel like the parents weren't careful enough, but this company wasn't careful enough at best, and they were negligent/purposefully manipulative at best. I mean it's a quarter inch of ink.... sounds to me like they didn't want people to hear the word fungus.
Because Mycoprotien is type of fungus. It's why in my edit I put it should be labeled in brackets because even people who are looking after those with severe allergies either can't be bothered or not educated well enough to know it is one. If you have someone with THAT severe of an allergy you'd be really careful. They clearly weren't.
Also the quiche thing doesn't work because that's a product made of many ingredients. Mycoprotien is a type of fungus but not all fungus is Mycoprotien. It's the same with peanuts. They are a type of nut but not all nuts are peanuts.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »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.
I just want to point out to your sister in law that Quorn is not a vegan food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions