Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few thousand kids? -- Proof, please! The issue itself wasn't noticed until a few years ago. .
In the first place, I never said a few thousand a year or a month or a decade so I have nothing to prove to you, but 2.5% of kids in the US are allergic to peanuts, and kids do die from food allergies every year.
Many of those kids have a severe allergy and their parents have to ensure that the kids don't eat foods containing peanuts or cooked in peanut oil. Take those warnings away and you can make a reasonable assumption that deaths from food allergies will increase.
Well this isnt a warning its a forced omission. And yes it is an interference with the property rights of the affected business, but I also don't want bureaucrats determining what I see or read. Are you unable to make decisions for yourself or grandchildren? Who is in charge in your life?
I think it might be tough for a parent to test every prepared food product that they give their children for the presence of peanuts, don't you? But it's not just about labeling foods with peanuts, FDA requires listing several food allergens on food products and lists the reasoning behind that in their regulations
Quote:
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
21 USC 343 note.
Congress finds that--
(1) it is estimated that--(A) approximately 2 percent of adults and about 5 percent of infants and young children in the United States suffer from food allergies; and(B) each year, roughly 30,000 individuals require emergency room treatment and 150 individuals die because of allergic reactions to food;
(2)(A) eight major foods or food groups--milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans-- account for 90 percent of food allergies;(B) at present, there is no cure for food allergies; and(C) a food allergic consumer must avoid the food to which the consumer is allergic;
(3)(A) in a review of the foods of randomly selected manufacturers of baked goods, ice cream, and candy in Minnesota and Wisconsin in 1999, the Food and Drug Administration found that 25 percent of sampled foods failed to list peanuts or eggs as ingredients on the food labels; and(B) nationally, the number of recalls because of unlabeled allergens rose to 121 in 2000 from about 35 a decade earlier;(4) a recent study shows that many parents of children with a food allergy were unable to correctly identify in each of several food labels the ingredients derived from major food allergens;
(5)(A) ingredients in foods must be listed by their ``common or usual name'';(B) in some cases, the common or usual name of an ingredient may be unfamiliar to consumers, and many consumers may not realize the ingredient is derived from, or contains, a major food allergen;
In the first place, I never said a few thousand a year or a month or a decade so I have nothing to prove to you, but 2.5% of kids in the US are allergic to peanuts, and kids do die from food allergies every year.
Many of those kids have a severe allergy and their parents have to ensure that the kids don't eat foods containing peanuts or cooked in peanut oil. Take those warnings away and you can make a reasonable assumption that deaths from food allergies will increase.
But let me ask you this, let's say that labeling saves 2 lives a year, does that justify eliminating it?
Given our increasingly liability- and lawsuit-conscious society, the problem will resolve itself, as the restauranteurs post notices or modify their menus -- without another layer of bureaucracy (something the nanny-staters want because a no-work job in the "dietary police" seems more desirable than the low-potential retail jobs to which an open market is likely to limit them).
Given our increasingly liability- and lawsuit-conscious society, the problem will resolve itself, as the restauranteurs post notices or modify their menus -- without another layer of bureaucracy (something the nanny-staters want because a no-work job in the "dietary police" seems more desirable than the low-potential retail jobs to which an open market is likely to limit them).
Tell me that if you end up with a loved one with a food allergy, or if your health premiums keep going up because of increasing obesity. Labeling does not get in the way of your right to kill yourself, it simply provides you with the information you need to make a rational choice.
Not listing soda on a kids menu but allowing kids to order it and drink it is not a usurpation of their rights in any way, shape or form. Most of the restaurants I go to have a separate wine list, and many times I have to ask for it - shouldn't it be my 'right' to have wine listed on the regular menu, by not including wine on the regular menu are they trying to interfere with my right to drink wine
Given our increasingly liability- and lawsuit-conscious society, the problem will resolve itself, as the restauranteurs post notices or modify their menus -- without another layer of bureaucracy (something the nanny-staters want because a no-work job in the "dietary police" seems more desirable than the low-potential retail jobs to which an open market is likely to limit them).
we just went from taking soda off of a kids menu to killing retail jobs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
