All well and good giving allergy advice, but factory contamination doesn't sit well with me. <snip>.
'contamination' is an emotive word.
Flavoured potato crisps are produced by passing unflavoured crisps through a flavouring system, this usually involves passing the crisps straight from the fryer through a revolving drum into which the flavouring powder is added. The powder 'sticks' to the crisps because they are still a little oily after the frying stage.
When they change from one flavour to another the 'old' flavour is usually purged through using an inert substance, such as plain salt, before the 'new' flavour is introduced. This is sufficient to remove the vast majority of the 'contamination' from the previous flavour. However, they cannot guarantee that absolutely all traces have been removed. Hence if swapping from cheese & onion to salt and vinegar some residual cheese & onion could possibly remain & the label will state 'may contain traces of milk'.
It is possible to clean the production line more thoroughly between flavours, but it takes longer & costs more money.
Factories are increasingly using allergen testing kits to verify whether cleaning procedures between products are sufficient to remove the need for 'may contain' labelling, but this, in itself, is expensive and is complicated by the kits having a 'limit of detection' that may not guarantee products are truly 'free from' allergens.
Exactly. Of course we all know a tin of fish contains fish, but they have to be consistent and label absolutely everything. It means we all know where we are and can trust food labelling.
People are not always as smart as you think - I've spoken to three different people recently who didn't know that margarine contained dairy!
So just curious but why is it the "law" to label some food allergies but not others.
Allergy of Onions for example doesn't tend to have a warning on any food packaging. Is it just not common enough? So you can let these small percentages suffer? Seems a little unfair to me.
So just curious but why is it the "law" to label some food allergies but not others.
Allergy of Onions for example doesn't tend to have a warning on any food packaging. Is it just not common enough? So you can let these small percentages suffer? Seems a little unfair to me.
Very good point. As far as I know it basically comes down to member states of the EU lobbying the European Commission, who then submit a request to the European Food Safety Authority for an opinion on whether labelling is required.
The list of foods which have been reported to be allergenic is much longer than the list of those required to be labelled.
Foods to be labelled do get added to the list, but only slowly - the original list did not include molluscs & lupin, for example, which have now been added.
Flavoured potato crisps are produced by passing unflavoured crisps through a flavouring system, this usually involves passing the crisps straight from the fryer through a revolving drum into which the flavouring powder is added. The powder 'sticks' to the crisps because they are still a little oily after the frying stage.
When they change from one flavour to another the 'old' flavour is usually purged through using an inert substance, such as plain salt, before the 'new' flavour is introduced. This is sufficient to remove the vast majority of the 'contamination' from the previous flavour. However, they cannot guarantee that absolutely all traces have been removed. Hence if swapping from cheese & onion to salt and vinegar some residual cheese & onion could possibly remain & the label will state 'may contain traces of milk'.
It is possible to clean the production line more thoroughly between flavours, but it takes longer & costs more money.
Factories are increasingly using allergen testing kits to verify whether cleaning procedures between products are sufficient to remove the need for 'may contain' labelling, but this, in itself, is expensive and is complicated by the kits having a 'limit of detection' that may not guarantee products are truly 'free from' allergens.
That's because peanuts aren't nuts, they're legumes. The nuts they're referring to are tree nuts, like hazelnuts, almonds etc. This sort of labelling is really important as I'm not allergic to peanuts but I am allergic to other nuts, which means I couldn't eat your bag of peanuts. Good grief, people really need educating here!
This thread was intended to be a light hearted appraisal of food labeling, but has turned out to be informative regarding the reasons why foods are labelled as such.
Thank you.
ETA. I wouldn't mind seeing ingredients labelled by name and percentage, rather than just being put in the highest order first.
So just curious but why is it the "law" to label some food allergies but not others.
Allergy of Onions for example doesn't tend to have a warning on any food packaging. Is it just not common enough? So you can let these small percentages suffer? Seems a little unfair to me.
To be fair they couldn't have a label big enough to put all the allergens in many cases. We would be buying a bag of crisps and a small book to go with it listing everything that could be in it !
To be fair they couldn't have a label big enough to put all the allergens in many cases. We would be buying a bag of crisps and a small book to go with it listing everything that could be in it !
That is fair enough and I was just curious, but if this is the case and you can't fit all the allergens on, then what do these people with allergens to certain foods, that are deemed unworthy of a mention, do when looking at the foods to buy? And if it is the case of just looking at the ingredients why can't these other allergen suffers do the same?
I am not trying to start an argument just curious.
That is fair enough and I was just curious, but if this is the case and you can't fit all the allergens on, then what do these people with allergens to certain foods, that are deemed unworthy of a mention, do when looking at the foods to buy? And if it is the case of just looking at the ingredients why can't these other allergen suffers do the same?
I am not trying to start an argument just curious.
As well as numbers of people with an allergy, I think they've taken severity of allergy into account. Of course it's possible to have a fatal allergic reaction to anything, but the highest risk foods seem to be those that are currently listed, like nuts, eggs, fish, wheat, dairy and soya, and it's possible to die from a trace of these if you're severely allergic. So we need a warning if the food is likely to contain traces of any of these. I'm allergic to garlic and cumin, neither of these are particularly common but also they're not that serious (for me) and I'm not aware that I've ever reacted to a trace of these in something. So I can avoid food that actually contains these by looking at the ingredents list, but I don't need to know if they may have come into contact with them at some point. But I do need to know if the product has been near any nuts or I'll be very ill.
That is fair enough and I was just curious, but if this is the case and you can't fit all the allergens on, then what do these people with allergens to certain foods, that are deemed unworthy of a mention, do when looking at the foods to buy? And if it is the case of just looking at the ingredients why can't these other allergen suffers do the same?
I am not trying to start an argument just curious.
I can only answer for myself and I cook from scratch putting only ingredients I know are safe into my food, I can't even buy bread now as something in shop bread when it is toasted sends me into anaphalaxis - hospital trip epipens and steroids etc so I just make my own with simple ingredients I can trust.
I can only answer for myself and I cook from scratch putting only ingredients I know are safe into my food, I can't even buy bread now as something in shop bread when it is toasted sends me into anaphalaxis - hospital trip epipens and steroids etc so I just make my own with simple ingredients I can trust.
Same here, Mollie. I spend half my weekend in the flippin' kitchen doing food for the week! It's worth it though, to be able to eat well and not in fear.
As well as numbers of people with an allergy, I think they've taken severity of allergy into account. Of course it's possible to have a fatal allergic reaction to anything, but the highest risk foods seem to be those that are currently listed, like nuts, eggs, fish, wheat, dairy and soya, and it's possible to die from a trace of these if you're severely allergic. So we need a warning if the food is likely to contain traces of any of these. I'm allergic to garlic and cumin, neither of these are particularly common but also they're not that serious (for me) and I'm not aware that I've ever reacted to a trace of these in something. So I can avoid food that actually contains these by looking at the ingredents list, but I don't need to know if they may have come into contact with them at some point. But I do need to know if the product has been near any nuts or I'll be very ill.
Not sure if that makes sense!
That does make sense, although as you said you can have a severe reaction to any allergen, so it does seem to come down to most common, and those in a smaller group have to fend for themselves.
That does make sense, although as you said you can have a severe reaction to any allergen, so it does seem to come down to most common, and those in a smaller group have to fend for themselves.
Well I'm not sure that's the case. You can read the ingredients list to see if what you're allergic to is in there or not. It's the 'may contain' bit that wouldn't have, say, onions. But the foods they do list are not only common allergens but also extremely common foods used in all sorts of things and so are likely to get into other things. I wouldn't expect to find onion in a chocolate bar or a box of cereal, but those things are really likely to have traces of dairy, nuts, soya and wheat. And it's the point that traces of those things cause severe reactions - traces of other foods that people are allergic to don't seem to produce the same severity of reaction.
Sorry, I've completely derailed this thread, I'll shut up now!:D
Well I'm not sure that's the case. You can read the ingredients list to see if what you're allergic to is in there or not. It's the 'may contain' bit that wouldn't have, say, onions. But the foods they do list are not only common allergens but also extremely common foods used in all sorts of things and so are likely to get into other things. I wouldn't expect to find onion in a chocolate bar or a box of cereal, but those things are really likely to have traces of dairy, nuts, soya and wheat. And it's the point that traces of those things cause severe reactions - traces of other foods that people are allergic to don't seem to produce the same severity of reaction.
Sorry, I've completely derailed this thread, I'll shut up now!:D
As a fellow sufferer I think we have to derail a few threads just to get the message across when I first started showing symptoms I was 47 I was completely naive about a lot of the problems I would face. 2 years on I am still learning.
As a fellow sufferer I think we have to derail a few threads just to get the message across when I first started showing symptoms I was 47 I was completely naive about a lot of the problems I would face. 2 years on I am still learning.
Same for me - I've had these problems for 2 years, they came on when I was 36. I've always had a lot of allergies but nothing like this and there seems to be no real understanding about why some people get it in adulthood.
Well hopefully people at least now know why a bag of peanuts says 'may contain nuts'!
Well I'm not sure that's the case. You can read the ingredients list to see if what you're allergic to is in there or not. It's the 'may contain' bit that wouldn't have, say, onions. But the foods they do list are not only common allergens but also extremely common foods used in all sorts of things and so are likely to get into other things. I wouldn't expect to find onion in a chocolate bar or a box of cereal, but those things are really likely to have traces of dairy, nuts, soya and wheat. And it's the point that traces of those things cause severe reactions - traces of other foods that people are allergic to don't seem to produce the same severity of reaction.
Sorry, I've completely derailed this thread, I'll shut up now!:D
I think it is interesting, so I am happy to learn new things, although I would say cross contamination of onions in sauces is quite common, I have found onions in a few sauces that didn't have it anywhere in the ingredients.
That bit in bold I would have to disagree, allergies of almost any kind can have the same severity, but it is less common, for example it is rare but an onion allergy can be fatal (sorry for coming back to the onion allergy all the time ) which to me would be considered quite severe.
So to me I still keep coming back to uncommon allergies are left to look after themselves
I would be surprised if Natural Mineral Water was labelled as anything else, given the hassle in getting a source recognised so it can legally be called Natural Mineral water.
because if what i saw made me decide not to buy i would feel bad about damaging something I wasn't buying.
You aren't damaging the packaging. You can pull it back, read it and then place it back. Trust me its fine. I work for them and we have no issues with that.
Comments
'contamination' is an emotive word.
Flavoured potato crisps are produced by passing unflavoured crisps through a flavouring system, this usually involves passing the crisps straight from the fryer through a revolving drum into which the flavouring powder is added. The powder 'sticks' to the crisps because they are still a little oily after the frying stage.
When they change from one flavour to another the 'old' flavour is usually purged through using an inert substance, such as plain salt, before the 'new' flavour is introduced. This is sufficient to remove the vast majority of the 'contamination' from the previous flavour. However, they cannot guarantee that absolutely all traces have been removed. Hence if swapping from cheese & onion to salt and vinegar some residual cheese & onion could possibly remain & the label will state 'may contain traces of milk'.
It is possible to clean the production line more thoroughly between flavours, but it takes longer & costs more money.
Factories are increasingly using allergen testing kits to verify whether cleaning procedures between products are sufficient to remove the need for 'may contain' labelling, but this, in itself, is expensive and is complicated by the kits having a 'limit of detection' that may not guarantee products are truly 'free from' allergens.
So just curious but why is it the "law" to label some food allergies but not others.
Allergy of Onions for example doesn't tend to have a warning on any food packaging. Is it just not common enough? So you can let these small percentages suffer? Seems a little unfair to me.
Very good point. As far as I know it basically comes down to member states of the EU lobbying the European Commission, who then submit a request to the European Food Safety Authority for an opinion on whether labelling is required.
The list of foods which have been reported to be allergenic is much longer than the list of those required to be labelled.
Foods to be labelled do get added to the list, but only slowly - the original list did not include molluscs & lupin, for example, which have now been added.
This thread was intended to be a light hearted appraisal of food labeling, but has turned out to be informative regarding the reasons why foods are labelled as such.
Thank you.
ETA. I wouldn't mind seeing ingredients labelled by name and percentage, rather than just being put in the highest order first.
To be fair they couldn't have a label big enough to put all the allergens in many cases. We would be buying a bag of crisps and a small book to go with it listing everything that could be in it !
That is fair enough and I was just curious, but if this is the case and you can't fit all the allergens on, then what do these people with allergens to certain foods, that are deemed unworthy of a mention, do when looking at the foods to buy? And if it is the case of just looking at the ingredients why can't these other allergen suffers do the same?
I am not trying to start an argument just curious.
As well as numbers of people with an allergy, I think they've taken severity of allergy into account. Of course it's possible to have a fatal allergic reaction to anything, but the highest risk foods seem to be those that are currently listed, like nuts, eggs, fish, wheat, dairy and soya, and it's possible to die from a trace of these if you're severely allergic. So we need a warning if the food is likely to contain traces of any of these. I'm allergic to garlic and cumin, neither of these are particularly common but also they're not that serious (for me) and I'm not aware that I've ever reacted to a trace of these in something. So I can avoid food that actually contains these by looking at the ingredents list, but I don't need to know if they may have come into contact with them at some point. But I do need to know if the product has been near any nuts or I'll be very ill.
Not sure if that makes sense!
I can only answer for myself and I cook from scratch putting only ingredients I know are safe into my food, I can't even buy bread now as something in shop bread when it is toasted sends me into anaphalaxis - hospital trip epipens and steroids etc so I just make my own with simple ingredients I can trust.
Same here, Mollie. I spend half my weekend in the flippin' kitchen doing food for the week! It's worth it though, to be able to eat well and not in fear.
That does make sense, although as you said you can have a severe reaction to any allergen, so it does seem to come down to most common, and those in a smaller group have to fend for themselves.
Well I'm not sure that's the case. You can read the ingredients list to see if what you're allergic to is in there or not. It's the 'may contain' bit that wouldn't have, say, onions. But the foods they do list are not only common allergens but also extremely common foods used in all sorts of things and so are likely to get into other things. I wouldn't expect to find onion in a chocolate bar or a box of cereal, but those things are really likely to have traces of dairy, nuts, soya and wheat. And it's the point that traces of those things cause severe reactions - traces of other foods that people are allergic to don't seem to produce the same severity of reaction.
Sorry, I've completely derailed this thread, I'll shut up now!:D
As a fellow sufferer I think we have to derail a few threads just to get the message across when I first started showing symptoms I was 47 I was completely naive about a lot of the problems I would face. 2 years on I am still learning.
Same for me - I've had these problems for 2 years, they came on when I was 36. I've always had a lot of allergies but nothing like this and there seems to be no real understanding about why some people get it in adulthood.
Well hopefully people at least now know why a bag of peanuts says 'may contain nuts'!
I think it is interesting, so I am happy to learn new things, although I would say cross contamination of onions in sauces is quite common, I have found onions in a few sauces that didn't have it anywhere in the ingredients.
That bit in bold I would have to disagree, allergies of almost any kind can have the same severity, but it is less common, for example it is rare but an onion allergy can be fatal (sorry for coming back to the onion allergy all the time ) which to me would be considered quite severe.
So to me I still keep coming back to uncommon allergies are left to look after themselves
What about a bag of mix nuts? Should the warning be on that packaging too?
Keep going. You've provided some very useful information.
where is this label? On the bottom. Thanks for that!
There are specific definitions delineating the difference between 'Natural Mineral Water' & 'Spring Water' in the UK
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/mineralwater2006gn.pdf
I would be surprised if Natural Mineral Water was labelled as anything else, given the hassle in getting a source recognised so it can legally be called Natural Mineral water.
You aren't damaging the packaging. You can pull it back, read it and then place it back. Trust me its fine. I work for them and we have no issues with that.