I get that this seems like an overreach, but America is incredibly safe for people with allergies and it's because of enforcement like this. In my 36 years of being alive, I've never once had an allergic reaction in the US due to mislabeling (although I've had them in South America and Asia).
Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, there's 8 groups that MUST be labeled: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soybeans.
Everyone with an allergy knows to check that section of the packaging (it comes after the long list of ingredients), and you can trust it to be accurate. It can't just be right most of the time... it has to always be right.
If that trust is broken, America will be a much less safe place.
> Everyone with an allergy knows to check that section of the packaging (it comes after the long list of ingredients), and you can trust it to be accurate. It can't just be right most of the time... it has to always be right.
Right, so if you pick up a package that says "Unsalted Butter" and nothing else, who the hell is going to assume no milk was used? Even worse when the ingredients listed on the same box say Milk as literally the only ingredient.
Along the same lines, if you have a peanut allergy and you buy a jar that says Peanut Butter with an ingredients list that starts with "Peanuts", you kind of deserve to pay the stupid tax.
> If that trust is broken, America will be a much less safe place.
America can simultaneously be the safest place on earth for those with food allergies, while avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense.
Instead, to please some faceless career bureaucrats, 80,000 pounds of butter will be destroyed to "protect" the dumbest among us.
But there's a lot of foods that say butter that don't contain "Milk". Does "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" contain milk? Does Shea butter? Does Garlic butter? Are you so sure you're right about each of these that you'd risk someone's life over it?
In the US, packaging is guaranteed to have an accurate "contains" section. It's not just a nice-to-have; people's lives depend on it.
I get that this is a pretty clear example that it contains milk – but that's what makes it interesting. Lives may not be at stake here, but the trust in the "contains" label is. We can't leave it up to "well, most people should know" – it has to be consistently enforced, or it becomes completely useless.
Couldn't I say the opposite? "Instead, to please some faceless career Costco executives, the trust in the 'Contains' labeling will be destroyed to "protect" the people who mislabeled their product."
>Instead, to please some faceless career bureaucrats...
I own a food-manufacturing business. Such businesses aren't trying to please anyone; we're following regulations. There are plenty of other such safety regulations that might seem unnecessary or pointless, but they're in place and they exist to help make certain food remains safe.
>...80,000 pounds of butter will be destroyed to "protect" the dumbest among us.
Regulations like this are meant to make certain even those most in need of awareness are informed. You may think they're the "dumbest," while I see them as people just as qualified to be informed as any other consumer.
so if you pick up a package that says "Unsalted Butter" and nothing else, who the hell is going to assume no milk was used
Lots of people in the U.S. don't know that butter is made from milk. I have met plenty of people who don't know that cheese is a dairy product. I have met plenty of people who think that mayonnaise is a dairy product... Very few people know that American caramel is a dairy product...
while avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense.
This is not bureaucratic nonsense. Reporting ingredients has been table stakes for selling foodstuffs in the U.S. for several decades. A company that can't get something that basic right is also getting something else wrong. And that's the point of these seemingly bureaucratic rules: they're basically unit tests for the regulatory agencies to identify issues they require followup.
The whole point of the allergens section is so that people with allergies do not need to read the whole ingredient list every time they buy the product.
In the specific case of butter the whole ingredient list is small enough that reading it every time would be no big deal, but many food items contain dozens of ingredients and the manufacturers often make changes to the recipe. If people cannot rely on the allergen list at the bottom they would have to read the full ingredient list of everything every time.
Yeah, but the choice isn’t between 80k of butter being used and nothing. The other side of it is all allergy labels not being reliable. I was on the side of “don’t waste” but now that I know it’s only $400k worth I think I’m not as aggrieved. I think making allergy labels optional will cost more than $400k and I think developing newer rules will cost $400k.
Overall, this is the cheapest way to do things. Verifiable information transmission is usually harder than most things. It’s why we do things like reduce aerospace composite strength by riveting them - inspectability costs something but the value is higher.
The part that's out of whack is the part where they tell consumers who have already bought the butter to throw it away. In order to have received that direction, you must have already seen the recall notice itself, which tells you the butter has milk in it.
It's not so bad if they pull the stuff that hasn't sold.
I get when products have something harmful to people like when your favorite brand of ice cream has listeria or something else has e.coli and the product should not be used.
This is just a labeling/packaging issue where there is nothing harmful about the product itself.
Also, how many people with milk issues would be confused by the missing info and think there's a new type of milk free butter?
If I pick up an item that should have an allergen that I’m used to seeing, and it’s not listed, I can safely trust it’s because they made it without that ingredient somehow.
That’s why they say to throw it out. 90% of people will ignore the recommendation. Some will dispose out of an abundance of caution, some will dispose because they had the thought I listed at the top of your comment.
You might know about the recall, but does someone visiting your house know that? Does a random chef who gets an allergy notification at a restaurant know about the recall?
EDIT: Again, people are trained to trust the labels – not to parse the marketing. That's why they exist. If someone in a kitchen says "grab the dairy-free butter", the most accurate way to check is to glance at the "Contains" label. Once that trust is broken, the label is useless.
Not who you’re replying to, but yes, because “alternative milks” like almond milk, oat milk, etc. do not contain (dairy) milk. Dairy farmers raised this objection and (temporarily?) forced producers of milk alternatives to stop using the standalone word “milk” on their packaging, but I still see it as part of a compound word on packaging.
Thus “chocolate milk” and “strawberry milk” mean milk mixed with chocolate or strawberries, while “oatmilk” and “almondmilk” may contain no milk at all. Though I’m not sure whether a product that mixed almond flavoring into dairy milk could be labeled “almond milk”.
People with dairy allergies shouldn’t be relying on the presence or absence of a space to determine if a product is safe for consumption.
Yes. There are many drinks that are labeled "milk" that don't contain milk proteins, but we now have "animal-free dairy milk", which does. I can absolutely see someone being confused as to whether a given product labeled as milk will trigger their allergies:
The matrix is big and will only continue to grow: lactose-free milk, animal-free dairy milk, almond milk, oat milk, strawberry milk, etc. Multiply that across milk-derived product analogues like butter and ice-cream and it becomes even more confusing. The meaning on the allergy label is quite specific!
Yes. Oat milk / almond milk / etc doesn't contain "milk". There's a section for both "ingredients" and "contains" on every label, and "contains" specifies if it includes "milk" as defined by the FALCPA.
I think they should have a full mass spec analysis given for it. I've tried lactose free milk and it turns out it's not just the lactose in milk I'm allergic to.
Starting in 2023, add sesame to that list. And then of course due to these labeling laws, you get allergens purposefully added to foods as the easiest and cheapest way to comply with the law: https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...
Does that help people with sesame allergies? Unclear overall as it both helps and harms them.
Speaking as someone who has a severe peanut allergy, it does help.
Like Dr. Gupta said in the article, it is "so disappointing" that companies add sesame to products that didn't originally have them (they've done this with peanut flour too), but it's absolutely worth the tradeoff of getting sesame added as a "must label" allergen.
There's so much uncertainty surrounding food allergy safety (particularly regarding children), and it can be heavy knowing that each meal could be your last.
Barring impossible-to-avoid circumstances like the 2015 cumin fiasco (where suppliers cut spices with ground-up peanut shells), it's a true weight off your back knowing that a product does not contain an allergen
So the government says "If you have an allergen and don't label it, you will be punished."
Industry decides "It would cost a little money to find out if we have sesame in our product, so instead just add a little sesame and then label it"
And you blame THE GOVERNMENT?! The one hurting allergic people here is the company putting sesame in everything so they don't have to give a shit about people with allergies.
I'm so tired of American companies taking the dumbest, most harmful routes to things, and all of you stand up and shout at THE GOVERNMENT, as if Biden himself told Nestle to just put sesame in everything.
Saner populations would correctly be angry at the companies making these overtly harmful decisions.
You could do that if your objective was to save the butter, but the butter is cheap and quick to replace. The time and labor required to distribute stickers and apply them to 47000 individual boxes--and this is Costco, which stocks by case--is more than it's worth.
But, if that's notably more expensive than tossing the butter in the trash, then tossing it in the trash makes sense. We have plenty of milk and cows. We can always make more butter.
I'm sympathetic to arguments about consistent labeling but don't sit there and pretend like there's no downsides. Enforcing rules to the point of absurdity damages people's trust in the FDA. That has consequences too.
What? I'm not a big regulation person, but rarely do I think you can go too far with food and drugs. This certainly just makes me trust the FDA more. (What bothers me is the annoying toothless orgs that make a big deal but can't do anything)
Requiring the extra labeling even when it seems redundant increases clarity for consumers and simplifies the rules. It's fine.
At least, I doubt that you can write a set of rules for declaring allergens that is shorter if you do include exceptions to the labeling requirements. And I think there's a pretty strong argument that treating the ingredients and allergens as separate sections makes the allergens easier to interpret than sometimes requiring reading both.
> Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, there's 8 groups that MUST be labeled: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soybeans.
Nine groups, since 2023: the FASTER Act mandates labeling sesame as well.
"America can simultaneously be the safest place on earth for those with food allergies, while avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense."
"I get that this seems like an overreach, but America is incredibly safe for people with allergies and it's because of enforcement like this."
In my 40+ years of life in India, and among the many people that I've seen or interacted with in 5 Indian states (among 28 States), I've rarely heard someone say they have allergies the way they have in the US. In US, people have allergies to almost everything.
In my 40+ years of life in India, and based on the various supermarkets that I've visited across 4 heavily crowded metro cities, I've rarely seen "Allergy" medicines/prescriptions occupy the shelf like they do in the US.
Also in the same period of my existence in this third world country, I've rarely seen people concerned about the ingredients in a restaurant menu or labels printed on food packets or containers that there are allergy causing ingredients in there.
Like George Bush once cruelly remarked, "India is the cause of shortage of food in the world", because we eat everything, and rarely check the labels or need them, or less allergic to any food. We are just short of food.
I went to Europe from the US and all my stomach issues disappeared. When I told my doctor she said, “Move to Europe”.
My sister, who lives in AZ, gets boils when she eats gluten. She went to Europe last month, freely ate everything, had zero outbreaks. Got an outbreak on her return flight.
I can’t scientifically identify the mechanism here, but I believe it’s real. Our food system in the US is a problem. Things that don’t work here work elsewhere.
I’m literally planning a move because of stomach discomfort.
Yeah I don't understand this either, because the same is true in Latin American countries. What's worse is immigrants who never had allergies in their country of origin come here and develop all sorts of seasonal allergies.
The real problem here is that the FDA is recommending throwing out the butter purely based on the labels.
If they said, "throw out the butter if you (or whomever would have consumed it) have an allergy to milk as this is dairy milk-based butter", or if Costco said, "return it because it was not clear this was a dairy based butter" it would make more sense.
I don’t think the Forbes article is accurate when it suggests that FDA is urging consumers to “toss your butter in the trash” for this recall.
According to FDA: “Recalls are actions taken by a firm to remove a product from the market. Recalls may be conducted on a firm's own initiative, by FDA request, or by FDA order under statutory authority.” [1]
This particular recall [2] was “Voluntary: Firm initiated” and classified as “Class II” meaning low probability of serious adverse health consequences. The mislabeled product will be removed from the shelves, but I don’t think FDA is recommending throwing out the butter as the Forbes article implies.
It's a recall. You want to avoid any further confusion. You go with the simplest instructions possible. Just because they recommend you throw it away doesn't mean you actually _have_ to.
> "return it because it was not clear this was a dairy based butter"
What value does returned butter have? It's not something we can refurbish. It would be ultimately be thrown away anyways.
(Notice also that it's a manufacturer-initiated recall.)
Am I missing an FDA press release about the recall?
Also:
> or if Costco said, "return it...
Costco doesn't want the butter back. It would cost way more to verify that it's still sellable than it would be to simply offer a replacement product to affected customers who ask for one.
> General guidelines from the FDA advise consumers who have purchased any recalled food to dispose of the product or return it to the retailer for a full refund.
Which is a bit of a different statement… general guidelines would have to cover things like a recall for E. coli … and isn't perhaps the best advice here. But I'm wondering, did that get twisted into TFA's
> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is urging customers to check their refrigerators for specific product codes and to follow its disposal instructions if they find affected butter.
…when no specific urging for this is taking place, which is what I think most readers would think?
(But holy heck. Why do those recall notices not appear on the FDA recalls[1] page?)
You aren't missing anything. I tried to find the FDA's press release, including to what the article links to when they're supposedly summarizing what the "FDA alert" says. The linked website is just a general list of FDA alerts, and doesn't list kirkland butter at all.
The same link you posted (FDA event listing) is the only thing I can find directly from the FDA on it, and they don't say "throw out the butter". They just say they're issuing a recall due to mislabeled product, that's it.
If the product details in the recall notice match the details on the food product you have at home, do not open or consume the product. Instead, do one of the following: + Return the product to the place of purchase for a refund. + Dispose of the product following the instructions provided in the recall notice to make sure no one will consume it.
I haven't been able to find a source for the FDA actually making any kind of statement on this recall at all.
If that's their official default recommendation, and they didn't say something to the contrary specifically for this recall, then that is what they're recommending for this recall.
Which, I would expect, ought to be well known by anyone shopping with lactose issues. It’s like shipping peanut brittle without a label saying that it contains peanuts. How many people would really be harmed without the recall?
I’m in favor of safety over profit. I’m just bummed at the unnecessary waste.
That's not really accurate, most butter has salt, water, and sometimes a few other ingredients like lactic cultures, but milk is definitely always an ingredient.
Not all recalls involve disposing of a product. Apparently in this case it does. I'd have thought they could just send out some correction stickers to slap on there, but I suppose food labeling laws could be too rigid to allow for this, or else concerns about stickers being misapplied.
It is occasionally difficult to tell from the label whether you are buying margarine or butter. And some margarine contains milk and is therefore not OK for lactose intolerant folks.
Don't worry, they will stick a label on it and it will go back to the shops. It's a good lesson for the supplier making the mistake. And besides, one might think it ís a harmless milk substitute..
The recommendation to throw it out is crazy though. Couldn't they just offer exchanges for any households with a lactose intolerant person that rely on correct labeling.
I do want to point out that this is not about lactose intolerance. This is about a milk allergy. Different things. Upset tummy vs anaphylaxis.
But the recommendation to throw it out is insane. There's nothing wrong with it besides the label. And what person who can't eat dairy is running around buying butter?
I guess people who bought it and can't use it could exchange it, and you have to throw that out because it lost the chain of cold, but the ones in the shelves? Simply putting a [CONTAINS MILK] sticker on each package should be less wasteful, but the ways of retail might have mysteries I ignore.
Imagine the labor required to individually sticker 47000 individual boxes of butter (approximately an entire 53' trailer) vs. just setting it aside for your regular food waste recycler to pick up. That's the equation they'd be looking at.
A lot of the comments here, and the article itself, are missing an important detail.
The name of the product is "Kirkland Signature Sweet Cream Butter". The ingredient list on the package lists cream, it just doesn't have the required language "contains milk".
Are there actual humans that are so deathly allergic to milk but somehow don't know what cream is? E.g. there is a comment in this thread that states:
>"Would you toss your butter in the trash if the label left out one critical detail?"
> yes, if that 'one critical detail' could in fact fucking kill me...
I mean, imagine if someone had an allergy so allergic to milk it could "fucking kill them", are they somehow loading up on "Sweet Creamy Butter" and are then shocked that it contains milk??
I get why, bureaucratically, you want to have hard lines, so I understand the recall. I just think this article and some comments that there is actual potential danger in this case are laughably ridiculous.
Is this the Tesla sense of the word recall? Do they just slap a "CONTAINS: MILK" sticker on each and consider it successfully recalled? And of course, refund any customer who brings it back, but they do that for any reason already.
I've used a grocery store sticker gun. You just load a roll in and pull the trigger. I bet I could recall 300 butters per minute (BPM). Remember, this is costco, so it's probably a 50 lb cube of butter.
IMHO this is getting close to the most surprising example of bureaucratic-red-tape-gone-wild I've seen, which is a "may contain traces of peanuts" warning on a jar of peanut butter.
That’s not stupid though. It might seem obvious, but then you have things like sun butter, which are specifically designed to imitate peanut butter while not having peanuts.
Sure, you can look at all the words on the package and ingredients and figure out if something probably contains allergens, but the point of the rule is that it gives you one standardized line of text that you can read and be 100% certain whether something is safe for you to eat or not.
It is not at all difficult to imagine a situation where a restaurant worker is trained to do something like the following when an allergen is raised as an issue by a customer:
1. Check the labels of any items used in the dish
2. substitute or leave out anything listing the allergen
This may seem...basic. However, if the restaurant has an incident with an allergen affecting a customer that notified them, and they show they followed these instructions, they can shift liability to whichever food producer left the allergen off the label.
Regulations and liability don't care about common sense. In fact, they supersede common sense.
> Regulations and liability don't care about common sense. In fact, they supersede common sense.
Exactly. And there's a result in economics called the "Coase theorem" that basically says that as long as there's clear liability assignment, the negative externality (serious allergic reactions) can be efficiently avoided, in theory. So having regulations that make it unambiguous who is responsible for each step creates a better outcome for society (fewer deaths from allergic reactions).
Readit News
Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, there's 8 groups that MUST be labeled: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soybeans.
Everyone with an allergy knows to check that section of the packaging (it comes after the long list of ingredients), and you can trust it to be accurate. It can't just be right most of the time... it has to always be right.
If that trust is broken, America will be a much less safe place.
Right, so if you pick up a package that says "Unsalted Butter" and nothing else, who the hell is going to assume no milk was used? Even worse when the ingredients listed on the same box say Milk as literally the only ingredient.
Along the same lines, if you have a peanut allergy and you buy a jar that says Peanut Butter with an ingredients list that starts with "Peanuts", you kind of deserve to pay the stupid tax.
> If that trust is broken, America will be a much less safe place.
America can simultaneously be the safest place on earth for those with food allergies, while avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense.
Instead, to please some faceless career bureaucrats, 80,000 pounds of butter will be destroyed to "protect" the dumbest among us.
But there's a lot of foods that say butter that don't contain "Milk". Does "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" contain milk? Does Shea butter? Does Garlic butter? Are you so sure you're right about each of these that you'd risk someone's life over it?
In the US, packaging is guaranteed to have an accurate "contains" section. It's not just a nice-to-have; people's lives depend on it.
I get that this is a pretty clear example that it contains milk – but that's what makes it interesting. Lives may not be at stake here, but the trust in the "contains" label is. We can't leave it up to "well, most people should know" – it has to be consistently enforced, or it becomes completely useless.
Couldn't I say the opposite? "Instead, to please some faceless career Costco executives, the trust in the 'Contains' labeling will be destroyed to "protect" the people who mislabeled their product."
I own a food-manufacturing business. Such businesses aren't trying to please anyone; we're following regulations. There are plenty of other such safety regulations that might seem unnecessary or pointless, but they're in place and they exist to help make certain food remains safe.
>...80,000 pounds of butter will be destroyed to "protect" the dumbest among us.
Regulations like this are meant to make certain even those most in need of awareness are informed. You may think they're the "dumbest," while I see them as people just as qualified to be informed as any other consumer.
Lots of people in the U.S. don't know that butter is made from milk. I have met plenty of people who don't know that cheese is a dairy product. I have met plenty of people who think that mayonnaise is a dairy product... Very few people know that American caramel is a dairy product...
while avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense.
This is not bureaucratic nonsense. Reporting ingredients has been table stakes for selling foodstuffs in the U.S. for several decades. A company that can't get something that basic right is also getting something else wrong. And that's the point of these seemingly bureaucratic rules: they're basically unit tests for the regulatory agencies to identify issues they require followup.
In the specific case of butter the whole ingredient list is small enough that reading it every time would be no big deal, but many food items contain dozens of ingredients and the manufacturers often make changes to the recipe. If people cannot rely on the allergen list at the bottom they would have to read the full ingredient list of everything every time.
Deleted Comment
Perhaps they are a vegan and think it is (e.g.) almond butter:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_butter
Overall, this is the cheapest way to do things. Verifiable information transmission is usually harder than most things. It’s why we do things like reduce aerospace composite strength by riveting them - inspectability costs something but the value is higher.
Dead Comment
It's not so bad if they pull the stuff that hasn't sold.
This is just a labeling/packaging issue where there is nothing harmful about the product itself.
Also, how many people with milk issues would be confused by the missing info and think there's a new type of milk free butter?
That’s why they say to throw it out. 90% of people will ignore the recommendation. Some will dispose out of an abundance of caution, some will dispose because they had the thought I listed at the top of your comment.
EDIT: Again, people are trained to trust the labels – not to parse the marketing. That's why they exist. If someone in a kitchen says "grab the dairy-free butter", the most accurate way to check is to glance at the "Contains" label. Once that trust is broken, the label is useless.
Do you believe milk should be labeled with "contains milk"
Thus “chocolate milk” and “strawberry milk” mean milk mixed with chocolate or strawberries, while “oatmilk” and “almondmilk” may contain no milk at all. Though I’m not sure whether a product that mixed almond flavoring into dairy milk could be labeled “almond milk”.
People with dairy allergies shouldn’t be relying on the presence or absence of a space to determine if a product is safe for consumption.
https://perfectday.com/blog/why-animal-free-dairy-still-cont...
The dairy industry has always fought the FDA on this, arguing that anything besides milk from a cow should not be allowed to be labeled as milk:
https://agfundernews.com/dairy-farmers-urge-fda-to-crack-dow...
https://www.nmpf.org/on-almonds-dont-lactate-anniversary-dai...
The matrix is big and will only continue to grow: lactose-free milk, animal-free dairy milk, almond milk, oat milk, strawberry milk, etc. Multiply that across milk-derived product analogues like butter and ice-cream and it becomes even more confusing. The meaning on the allergy label is quite specific!
Does that help people with sesame allergies? Unclear overall as it both helps and harms them.
Like Dr. Gupta said in the article, it is "so disappointing" that companies add sesame to products that didn't originally have them (they've done this with peanut flour too), but it's absolutely worth the tradeoff of getting sesame added as a "must label" allergen.
There's so much uncertainty surrounding food allergy safety (particularly regarding children), and it can be heavy knowing that each meal could be your last.
Barring impossible-to-avoid circumstances like the 2015 cumin fiasco (where suppliers cut spices with ground-up peanut shells), it's a true weight off your back knowing that a product does not contain an allergen
Industry decides "It would cost a little money to find out if we have sesame in our product, so instead just add a little sesame and then label it"
And you blame THE GOVERNMENT?! The one hurting allergic people here is the company putting sesame in everything so they don't have to give a shit about people with allergies.
I'm so tired of American companies taking the dumbest, most harmful routes to things, and all of you stand up and shout at THE GOVERNMENT, as if Biden himself told Nestle to just put sesame in everything.
Saner populations would correctly be angry at the companies making these overtly harmful decisions.
But, if that's notably more expensive than tossing the butter in the trash, then tossing it in the trash makes sense. We have plenty of milk and cows. We can always make more butter.
At least, I doubt that you can write a set of rules for declaring allergens that is shorter if you do include exceptions to the labeling requirements. And I think there's a pretty strong argument that treating the ingredients and allergens as separate sections makes the allergens easier to interpret than sometimes requiring reading both.
Nine groups, since 2023: the FASTER Act mandates labeling sesame as well.
Don't worry, if RFJ jr. is to be believed, you won't have a FDA soon. The free market will take care of the problem.
"America can simultaneously be the safest place on earth for those with food allergies, while avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense."
"I get that this seems like an overreach, but America is incredibly safe for people with allergies and it's because of enforcement like this."
In my 40+ years of life in India, and among the many people that I've seen or interacted with in 5 Indian states (among 28 States), I've rarely heard someone say they have allergies the way they have in the US. In US, people have allergies to almost everything.
In my 40+ years of life in India, and based on the various supermarkets that I've visited across 4 heavily crowded metro cities, I've rarely seen "Allergy" medicines/prescriptions occupy the shelf like they do in the US.
Also in the same period of my existence in this third world country, I've rarely seen people concerned about the ingredients in a restaurant menu or labels printed on food packets or containers that there are allergy causing ingredients in there.
Like George Bush once cruelly remarked, "India is the cause of shortage of food in the world", because we eat everything, and rarely check the labels or need them, or less allergic to any food. We are just short of food.
My sister, who lives in AZ, gets boils when she eats gluten. She went to Europe last month, freely ate everything, had zero outbreaks. Got an outbreak on her return flight.
I can’t scientifically identify the mechanism here, but I believe it’s real. Our food system in the US is a problem. Things that don’t work here work elsewhere.
I’m literally planning a move because of stomach discomfort.
48 United States 79.46
123 India 72.24 73.86 70.73
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
If they said, "throw out the butter if you (or whomever would have consumed it) have an allergy to milk as this is dairy milk-based butter", or if Costco said, "return it because it was not clear this was a dairy based butter" it would make more sense.
According to FDA: “Recalls are actions taken by a firm to remove a product from the market. Recalls may be conducted on a firm's own initiative, by FDA request, or by FDA order under statutory authority.” [1]
This particular recall [2] was “Voluntary: Firm initiated” and classified as “Class II” meaning low probability of serious adverse health consequences. The mislabeled product will be removed from the shelves, but I don’t think FDA is recommending throwing out the butter as the Forbes article implies.
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/safety/industry-guidance-recalls/recalls...
[2]: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm?Event=...
It's a recall. You want to avoid any further confusion. You go with the simplest instructions possible. Just because they recommend you throw it away doesn't mean you actually _have_ to.
> "return it because it was not clear this was a dairy based butter"
What value does returned butter have? It's not something we can refurbish. It would be ultimately be thrown away anyways.
I think this kind of messaging is on the way out. Direct communication is possible, and more than ultra simple details can be conveyed.
For the same reason that some people know to avoid certain allergens, others can decide for themselves if they need to.
Are they recommending that? This is the ONLY data from the FDA I can find regarding this recall:
<https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm?Event=...>
(Notice also that it's a manufacturer-initiated recall.)
Am I missing an FDA press release about the recall?
Also:
> or if Costco said, "return it...
Costco doesn't want the butter back. It would cost way more to verify that it's still sellable than it would be to simply offer a replacement product to affected customers who ask for one.
I found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/costco-butter-recall/
That links to the two recall notices. (You have found one already.)
The article goes on to say,> General guidelines from the FDA advise consumers who have purchased any recalled food to dispose of the product or return it to the retailer for a full refund.
Which is a bit of a different statement… general guidelines would have to cover things like a recall for E. coli … and isn't perhaps the best advice here. But I'm wondering, did that get twisted into TFA's
> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is urging customers to check their refrigerators for specific product codes and to follow its disposal instructions if they find affected butter.
…when no specific urging for this is taking place, which is what I think most readers would think?
(But holy heck. Why do those recall notices not appear on the FDA recalls[1] page?)
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety...
The same link you posted (FDA event listing) is the only thing I can find directly from the FDA on it, and they don't say "throw out the butter". They just say they're issuing a recall due to mislabeled product, that's it.
https://www.foodsafety.gov/recalls-and-outbreaks
If the product details in the recall notice match the details on the food product you have at home, do not open or consume the product. Instead, do one of the following: + Return the product to the place of purchase for a refund. + Dispose of the product following the instructions provided in the recall notice to make sure no one will consume it.
I haven't been able to find a source for the FDA actually making any kind of statement on this recall at all.
Throwing out the food is insane, so is trying to justify such a thing.
Deleted Comment
I’m in favor of safety over profit. I’m just bummed at the unnecessary waste.
Deleted Comment
But still, I agree this sounds crazy.
So generally butter is not a problem for people with lactose intolerance anyway.
But the recommendation to throw it out is insane. There's nothing wrong with it besides the label. And what person who can't eat dairy is running around buying butter?
The name of the product is "Kirkland Signature Sweet Cream Butter". The ingredient list on the package lists cream, it just doesn't have the required language "contains milk".
Are there actual humans that are so deathly allergic to milk but somehow don't know what cream is? E.g. there is a comment in this thread that states:
>"Would you toss your butter in the trash if the label left out one critical detail?"
> yes, if that 'one critical detail' could in fact fucking kill me...
I mean, imagine if someone had an allergy so allergic to milk it could "fucking kill them", are they somehow loading up on "Sweet Creamy Butter" and are then shocked that it contains milk??
I get why, bureaucratically, you want to have hard lines, so I understand the recall. I just think this article and some comments that there is actual potential danger in this case are laughably ridiculous.
Sure, you can look at all the words on the package and ingredients and figure out if something probably contains allergens, but the point of the rule is that it gives you one standardized line of text that you can read and be 100% certain whether something is safe for you to eat or not.
The absence of that one standard line of text would not be enough for me if my life were on the line.
It is not at all difficult to imagine a situation where a restaurant worker is trained to do something like the following when an allergen is raised as an issue by a customer:
1. Check the labels of any items used in the dish 2. substitute or leave out anything listing the allergen
This may seem...basic. However, if the restaurant has an incident with an allergen affecting a customer that notified them, and they show they followed these instructions, they can shift liability to whichever food producer left the allergen off the label.
Regulations and liability don't care about common sense. In fact, they supersede common sense.
Regulations and liability don't care about common sense. In fact, they supersede common sense.
That's the problem, and why more than half the country voted to want it solved.
Exactly. And there's a result in economics called the "Coase theorem" that basically says that as long as there's clear liability assignment, the negative externality (serious allergic reactions) can be efficiently avoided, in theory. So having regulations that make it unambiguous who is responsible for each step creates a better outcome for society (fewer deaths from allergic reactions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem