It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Options
Replies
-
anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.0 -
But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?0 -
My children, same age, would helpfully pull cereal boxes off the shelves, "Get this one, mom, it's FREE!" Yes, labeling is targeted to ten year-olds and my husband. Children have their parents and my husband has got to muddle through on his own.
Children with life-threatening allergies are typically coached not to eat anything outside their bubble.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.
I agree for the most part, but nuts are not an ingredient used to thicken dairy or used to plump up chicken, etc. Carageenan on the other hand is fed to the masses without our knowledge in some cases which in turn make us sick. I don't see a need for it at all. It's not in it's natural state.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's an article about why certain processing aids don't need to be added to the label in the US: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/processing-aids-whats-not-on-the-label-and-why-zwfz1306zsal.aspx
Thank you, this information is on the FDA website.0 -
My children, same age, would helpfully pull cereal boxes off the shelves, "Get this one, mom, it's FREE!" Yes, labeling is targeted to ten year-olds and my husband. Children have their parents and my husband has got to muddle through on his own.
Children with life-threatening allergies are typically coached not to eat anything outside their bubble.
Yes, true.0 -
I beg to differ. Peanut flour is in everything. Well, not literally. I have to mention this because this is a very literal board.
I see nothing wrong with leavening, thickening, and texturizing ingredients like, say, gelatin, yeast, or baking soda. They may not contribute directly to the nutritional value but we still like them.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.
I agree for the most part, but nuts are not an ingredient used to thicken dairy or used to plump up chicken, etc. Carageenan on the other hand is fed to the masses without our knowledge in some cases which in turn make us sick. I don't see a need for it at all. It's not in it's natural state.
You don't need to add peanuts to anything either. And nothing is in its natural state because of millennia of purposeful breeding to make things have certain traits while reducing others. And even if it were, so what? Nature doesn't mean you any good. There's more things in nature that would kill you if you ate them than processed things made for the sole purpose of being eaten.0 -
I beg to differ. Peanut flour is in everything. Well, not literally. I have to mention this because this is a very literal board.
I see nothing wrong with leavening, thickening, and texturizing ingredients like, say, gelatin, yeast, or baking soda. They may not contribute directly to the nutritional value but we still like them.
I love that pic. That looks really good and I don't care for jello but that looks really good.
I agree that peanut flour could be in a lot of things but here in the U.S. we have recalls all the time for undeclared nuts, undeclared wheat or milk products, etc. Known allergens are required on the labeling.
Can I have the recipe for that?0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
I'm confused. What said "nacho cheese" for chips? The ingredients list for the cheese sauce just said "nacho cheese"? "Nacho cheese," by itself, isn't an ingredient. If an ingredient list just said "nacho cheese," I would think anyone with an allergy would want to avoid it because that is clearly not a sufficient ingredient list for a product.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
I'm confused. What said "nacho cheese" for chips? The ingredients list for the cheese sauce just said "nacho cheese"? "Nacho cheese," by itself, isn't an ingredient. If an ingredient list just said "nacho cheese," I would think anyone with an allergy would want to avoid it because that is clearly not a sufficient ingredient list for a product.
It's been a very long time, I do remember the can said, "Nacho Cheese for Chips", the picture had yellow cheese sauce pictured without any jalapenos. The ingredients list had everything you would expect for nacho cheese, but jalapeno was not listed. Nobody did anything wrong except the label. It's been years, I don't remember the brand or where they bought it. I just remember it happened and the people won't serve nachos anymore because they don't want to take a chance. I think it could be the manufacturer used the wrong label on the product, I don't know, that is only a guess, not direct knowledge. Around here you hear about something once or twice and then it disappears from public knowledge. Our news doesn't rehash things over and over like the national news stations do.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.
I agree for the most part, but nuts are not an ingredient used to thicken dairy or used to plump up chicken, etc. Carageenan on the other hand is fed to the masses without our knowledge in some cases which in turn make us sick. I don't see a need for it at all. It's not in it's natural state.
You don't need to add peanuts to anything either. And nothing is in its natural state because of millennia of purposeful breeding to make things have certain traits while reducing others. And even if it were, so what? Nature doesn't mean you any good. There's more things in nature that would kill you if you ate them than processed things made for the sole purpose of being eaten.
I can't argue with that but I have the decision on whether I eat peanuts or not, or a whole food, processed food or whatever else I decide I want to eat. I want to know what is in my food, and I have a right to have safe food available to me, everyone does. Carageenan is not safe for me, I want to know about it so I can avoid it.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
This isn't believable. Do you know the brand? Or do you mean on a menu, because ingredients must be listed on labels.0 -
Here's a representative recipe:
http://www.food.com/recipe/chicken-in-aspic-kyckling-i-gele-144193
And the source article (no recipe):
http://www.thisapronedlife.com/aspic-delightful-in-a-molded-pan/0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
This isn't believable. Do you know the brand? Or do you mean on a menu, because ingredients must be listed on labels.
See my response to JaneJellyRoll above.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
I'm confused. What said "nacho cheese" for chips? The ingredients list for the cheese sauce just said "nacho cheese"? "Nacho cheese," by itself, isn't an ingredient. If an ingredient list just said "nacho cheese," I would think anyone with an allergy would want to avoid it because that is clearly not a sufficient ingredient list for a product.
It's been a very long time, I do remember the can said, "Nacho Cheese for Chips", the picture had yellow cheese sauce pictured without any jalapenos. The ingredients list had everything you would expect for nacho cheese, but jalapeno was not listed. Nobody did anything wrong except the label. It's been years, I don't remember the brand or where they bought it. I just remember it happened and the people won't serve nachos anymore because they don't want to take a chance. I think it could be the manufacturer used the wrong label on the product, I don't know, that is only a guess, not direct knowledge. Around here you hear about something once or twice and then it disappears from public knowledge. Our news doesn't rehash things over and over like the national news stations do.
This story seems like it has some gaps, but if the issue is that the manufacturer put the wrong label on the can, the best labeling in the world wouldn't have avoided this.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions