State The Obvious Food Labelling

Forums › Off topic › State The Obvious Food Labelling

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#169737 24-Mar-2015 13:34

OK, so we all know that some people have allergies and where a product has ingredients that may trigger those but it may not be obvious they are in there, then they should make it known on the packaging.

Some things, however, just seem to go too far. I just had a very nice piece of Sea Lord hot smoked salmon for lunch.

On the packaging (With 'Hot Smoked Salmon written all over it in big letters) it says...."Contains Fish".

No s**t, Sherlock.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1266771 24-Mar-2015 13:49

Fish is an allergen, and the law requires allergens to be clearly identified separately from ingredients.

It's the same reason a pack of peanuts contains nuts.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266772 24-Mar-2015 13:52

I appreciate the reason. However, if you cannot work out that salmon contains fish or that peanuts contain nuts, I am not sure printing those facts elsewhere on the packet will help you at all...!!

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266775 24-Mar-2015 13:54

Geektastic: I appreciate the reason. However, if you cannot work out that salmon contains fish or that peanuts contain nuts, I am not sure printing those facts elsewhere on the packet will help you at all...!!

It's a legal protection thing.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1266798 24-Mar-2015 13:58

How many people have to be allergic to something before it is necessary to label it?

Can we look forward to "New Zealand beef Rump steak - contains beef" or "Potato Chips - contains potato" - or perhaps "Ground coffee - contains coffee"?

What kind of morons come up with rules requiring that sort of thing?

Completely understand that "Chicken curry - may contain peanuts" is useful as it is not necessarily clear, but "peanuts - contains nuts" in indeed just that: nuts.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1266833 24-Mar-2015 14:34

Geektastic: OK, so we all know that some people have allergies and where a product has ingredients that may trigger those but it may not be obvious they are in there, then they should make it known on the packaging.

Some things, however, just seem to go too far. I just had a very nice piece of Sea Lord hot smoked salmon for lunch.

On the packaging (With 'Hot Smoked Salmon written all over it in big letters) it says...."Contains Fish".

No s**t, Sherlock.

Maybe because some products that look like they maybe fish, may not contain any fish. Plus you they are also writing these labels for the lowest intellects.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1266835 24-Mar-2015 14:38

Geektastic: How many people have to be allergic to something before it is necessary to label it?

Can we look forward to "New Zealand beef Rump steak - contains beef" or "Potato Chips - contains potato" - or perhaps "Ground coffee - contains coffee"?

What kind of morons come up with rules requiring that sort of thing?

Completely understand that "Chicken curry - may contain peanuts" is useful as it is not necessarily clear, but "peanuts - contains nuts" in indeed just that: nuts.

does it really affect your life that the label states what could be an allergen?
Some of the allergies can kill very fast, it could save a life though.

huckster

842 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1266923 24-Mar-2015 15:40

On an domestic Air NZ flight last week. Got a coffee and a muffin as a snack. Muffin was sealed in a clear plastic wrapper with the words "Contains one muffin" on it.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

rb99

3422 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1266927 24-Mar-2015 15:44

Have to admit with food labelling it annoys me more that quite often companies are required to put on so much info, its so small you can't actually read it (though that might be more of a comment on my eyesight, but never mind that....)

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1266930 24-Mar-2015 15:47

Geektastic: How many people have to be allergic to something before it is necessary to label it?

Can we look forward to "New Zealand beef Rump steak - contains beef" or "Potato Chips - contains potato" - or perhaps "Ground coffee - contains coffee"?

What kind of morons come up with rules requiring that sort of thing?

Completely understand that "Chicken curry - may contain peanuts" is useful as it is not necessarily clear, but "peanuts - contains nuts" in indeed just that: nuts.

the true irony is that peanuts aren't actually nuts. They are legumes.

Still, people who are allergic to nuts are often allergic to peanuts too.

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#1266931 24-Mar-2015 15:48

sbiddle: It's the same reason a pack of peanuts contains nuts.

Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes so I'd be very annoyed if my packet of roasted, salted peanuts was full of nuts.

Of course I'm just having a moan because it is Tuesday afternoon :)

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1266948 24-Mar-2015 16:04

sbiddle: Fish is an allergen, and the law requires allergens to be clearly identified separately from ingredients.

It's the same reason a pack of peanuts contains nuts.

Does that mean that if a product contains gluten, this needs to always be explicitly stated in the allergen statement?

I've only recently been advised I may have a gluten allergy, so looking out for what's safe and what's not is still a learning experience for me. While I'm aware of the more common sources, there are other more obscure ones that I'm learning about from time to time.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1266951 24-Mar-2015 16:09

sbiddle: Fish is an allergen, and the law requires allergens to be clearly identified separately from ingredients.

It's the same reason a pack of peanuts contains nuts.

I guess a pack of peanuts may contain traces of nuts, but isn't the peanut a legume, not a nut?

Whoops - I see I'm about the third person to make that observation! Sorry for the repeat...

Also, a bit outside the intention of this thread, but... last winter I bought a pack of Cup-A-Soup to keep at work so I could have something on those days I couldn't get away from my desk at lunchtime. On the front of the packet was a picture of a mug containing said soup, with a caption saying "Serving Suggestion". Well duh.

Tinshed

278 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1266953 24-Mar-2015 16:13

Not doubt it also contained "local and imported ingredients".

Tinshed
Wellington, New Zealand

trig42

5809 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1266991 24-Mar-2015 16:27

Same reason that McDonalds tells you the contents of your hot coffee may be hot (and your hot apple pie for that matter). So they can't be sued (I don't think it really applies in NZ with the ACC) when you burn yourself/die of a peanut or fish allergy.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1266995 24-Mar-2015 16:44

Geektastic:

Can we look forward to "New Zealand beef Rump steak - contains beef" or "Potato Chips - contains potato" - or perhaps "Ground coffee - contains coffee"?

No. Because none of those are allergens.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4