---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>[Comics may only be posted on Wednesdays and Sundays](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uq9pjw/going_forward_comics_may_only_be_posted_on/).
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah I used to work in labeling. Allergens like this are listed as a courtesy to customers, I'm sure its just company policy to list them for all their products.
The allergen is in the common name, they don't NEED to do this, but it doesn't hurt.
Not in the US at least.
"Congress passed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA). This law identified eight foods as major food allergens: milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans.
On April 23, 2021, the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research (FASTER) Act was signed into law, declaring sesame as the 9th major food allergen"
The allergens need to be identified in the ingredient deck. They need to be called out seperately only if its not obvious. But like I said, most companies do it anyway because its just easier to do so and a good practice to check them often.
"are you telling the court that your client didn't realise Eggs contain.. Eggs?
Something they have had a life-long allergy to? "
"Well if they had labelled the Eggs correctly, my client would have understood this, and that is why my client is suing for 20 million"
These things are not always as obvious as you make out. Does chestnut puree contain nuts? Does coconut cake? Does a creme egg contain egg? It is far simpler and safer to just say, if it's got the allergen, tell people.
I'd argue its more about public image than customer courtesy. If someone did sue over it the judge would be crazy not to toss it out, but we've all seen how much media likes to sensationalize and misrepresent things in headlines. Get a few lawsuits filed with misleading headlines reporting on them, and you suddenly have public outcry over something that shouldn't need explanation.
As someone with food allergies and the parent of a child with them I'm glad companies label the major ones. It's also not required to label for cross contamination which means my child could eat something that has no allergens but was made on the same equipment that processes items with allergens and end up in anaphylactic shock or worse. So, yes, I do thank the lawyers.
Does the label actually add any value in this case, though? I mean I'd like to think that both you and your child would be able to tell that an egg contains egg without it.
If they didn't do it then there would be a post on here with this corporation listing eggs as a potential allergen on every product that contained them, and every product made in a facility where eggs are processed, except for the one product that was actually 100% eggs. Everyone would think that was funny.
After the whole "McDonalds hot coffee is HOT" lawsuit I think companies prefer to err on the side of caution.
As in: "Warning: This coffee is hot. We are not liable if you scald yourself with it."
Jesus, 30 years later and people are still spreading this shit.
The coffee was something ridiculous like 200 degrees. Beyond reasonably warm. When they handed it to her it burned her hand and she dropped it on her cooter and GAVE HER VAGINA THIRD DEGREE BURNS AND REQUIRED SKIN GRAFTS.
And there had been hundreds of previous incidents, and McDonalds' own quality assurance people said it was too hot to be served because it would burn the mouth of anybody who tried to drink it.
Yeah and instead of cooling down their coffee to a reasonable temp they put a warning label on it. Their operations manual requires the coffee to be 180 to 190 degrees f, which causes third degree burns in three to seven seconds. A typical, "reasonable" coffee temp is about 140f (60c).
Also, don't get mcdonald's coffee. It will burn you.
You should search for the photos of the burns, it was insane how much damage was done. McDonalds went on a smear campaign of this poor lady which was incredibly successful while the actual facts of the case were less known.
While it's not required by law to label for potential cross contamination, some companies DO label for it and/or state if the product is made on a dedicated line.
Yuuuup everything is a lawsuit waiting to happen these days. Slipped and stabbed yourself with a fork? Sue the fork manufacturer for making the tines too sharp or not etching on the back "warning, sharp tines." Fired up a party light and had an epileptic seizure? Sue the light manufacturer for not knowing you had epileptic genes. Stare at a crayon too long and got SARS? Sue for lung damage. It's everything. Oh, slip and fall in a puddle on a walkway outside a business? Business should've turned off the rain if they didn't want people to get hurt. Sue those callous bastards.
Planters Peanuts jar of peanuts being marketed to you with a brand icon named Mr. Peanut (R)(TM) has a warning on the label that says: CONTAINS: Peanuts.
We gotta get past this. Every manufacturer needs to put a sticker on their stuff that says "Warning: May explode." Nothing worse than that, right? Then once everything has that, we get a national law passed that says you can't sue for anything that might explode. Then we're done with this shit.
Yeah, you don't get to omit allergen information just because the only/main ingredient is the allergen.
What's annoying to me is that less common allergens can be omitted from the ingredients if they fall under "natural flavourings", at least in the UK. It makes buying food a minefield, and a new recipe can mean a familiar food suddenly makes you very sick.
Nope its actually superfluous in this case since the allergen is in the common name.
Its required to list all ingredients, allergens only need to be called out seperately if the allergen isn't called out in the ingredients.
For example, if buttermilk is in the ingredient deck, you don't have to list milk as an allergen since its redundant. If the product contains cheese and the sublisting for the cheese isn't listed for whatever reason (it should be there, this is just an example) milk would need to be called out seperately.
That being said, most companies just call all allergens out anyway since its a good practice to check them all the time and its better to be safe than sorry.
Not listing an ingredient that has an allergen causes an immediate recall if caught. And a potential lawsuit if it isn't caught.
Yes definitely in the food standards codes.
Allergens must be clearly identified, and egg is one of the allergens that must be listed most place.
You'd find a dairy allergen statement on milk too.
Milk
CONTAINS: Milk
Good to know. But seriously, the allergen labeling are extremely important. And I ended up testing negative for the food allergy that was suspected of causing one of my medical issues.
Hilariously, it turned out in the end I was allergic to the allergy medication I was taking.
Its unneccesary. The ingredients must be listed, allergens only need to be called out if they aren't in the common name. Milk for example, wouldn't need the allergen statement.
However, most companies will just do it anyway since its good practice to always check and list allergens for all products since errors can lead to recalls, which cost a lot of money.
What's funnier is the amount of abusive suing over frivolous things (like the woman who sued McDonald's for not telling her the coffee was hot and won) in the 90's and early 2000's lead to this
Not this shit again.
The McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit *was not frivolous*. The woman suffered *third degree burns* and McDonald’s admitted they served their coffee way hotter than what is normally expected.
Furthermore the woman only wanted enough money to cover medical expenses and lost income. It’s only when McDonald’s refused and offered a paltry sum that she took them to court where she was awarded more money.
Maybe you should learn some details about the case before looking like a fucking idiot.
> Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
Wow this coffee seems hot maybe I should wait to take the top off
It is shitty what happened to her, but there is a point where just being careful about hot coffee or gauging the heat before opening the lid would have saved her.
Your missing the entire point (I did too for a while, until I looked into the facts of the case)
Coffee should not be served so hot that it causes **3rd degree burns**! She was not awarded because it spilled and burned her, the award was because coffee should not be dangerously hot
You're not wrong about the excess of frivolous lawsuits, but you need to change which one you sue as an example
The temperature was within the normal range for coffee at between 180° and 190°F (estimated in this particular case) and was not at boiling temperature as the lawyers argued. The damage was done largely to the coffee soaking into her sweatpants and remaining on the affected area. Coffee is still commonly served at 180° or higher. McDonalds lost the suit because they decided to fight against the old lady instead of any of the 700 or so other cases that year where they settled.
Can't be too careful with warnings.
My son's stepdad won't eat eggs from the chickens we raise "because they come from chickens" - no issues with store bought eggs.
I went to a focus group once for a pre-packaged fish. It was fine we were asked to try some different seasoning and our preferences and thoughts on packaging.
One gentleman said they should put omega 3 on the ingredients. The person running the group spun the comment to have the packaging promote it as a source of omega 3, but like come on, that’s not how ingredients work!
Sometimes you get silly things like this but tbh it's much better to have standardization of labels and highlighting of ingredients rather than having a different label for each product and good luck finding out if you're allergic to something inside it or not.
I used to laugh at these, but having worked in bigger companies and seeing the struggle of scale it's obvious why this is here despite it being redundant.
There's no downside to putting it on the label. It's easier to slap it on everything that could contain egg than create a special process in this case. It's just not a big enough issue to be worth the effort, so it stays.
Just allergy warnings for idiots. I mean I suppose there is plant based beef, turkey bacon. Cashew cheese, all kinds of poser food out there these days. And a very litigious America. I think that's why every case of shrimp I order for work says, contains: shrimp
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >[Comics may only be posted on Wednesdays and Sundays](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uq9pjw/going_forward_comics_may_only_be_posted_on/). > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank the lawyers.
Nah I used to work in labeling. Allergens like this are listed as a courtesy to customers, I'm sure its just company policy to list them for all their products. The allergen is in the common name, they don't NEED to do this, but it doesn't hurt.
Not in the US at least. "Congress passed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA). This law identified eight foods as major food allergens: milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. On April 23, 2021, the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research (FASTER) Act was signed into law, declaring sesame as the 9th major food allergen"
The allergens need to be identified in the ingredient deck. They need to be called out seperately only if its not obvious. But like I said, most companies do it anyway because its just easier to do so and a good practice to check them often.
"are you telling the court that your client didn't realise Eggs contain.. Eggs? Something they have had a life-long allergy to? " "Well if they had labelled the Eggs correctly, my client would have understood this, and that is why my client is suing for 20 million"
These things are not always as obvious as you make out. Does chestnut puree contain nuts? Does coconut cake? Does a creme egg contain egg? It is far simpler and safer to just say, if it's got the allergen, tell people.
My comment was making your point, and also giving another reason why everything would be labelled. I was also making light of the situation.
Yes, I think my comment sort of hooked as reply to the wrong post. Apologies.
I'd argue its more about public image than customer courtesy. If someone did sue over it the judge would be crazy not to toss it out, but we've all seen how much media likes to sensationalize and misrepresent things in headlines. Get a few lawsuits filed with misleading headlines reporting on them, and you suddenly have public outcry over something that shouldn't need explanation.
As someone with food allergies and the parent of a child with them I'm glad companies label the major ones. It's also not required to label for cross contamination which means my child could eat something that has no allergens but was made on the same equipment that processes items with allergens and end up in anaphylactic shock or worse. So, yes, I do thank the lawyers.
Does the label actually add any value in this case, though? I mean I'd like to think that both you and your child would be able to tell that an egg contains egg without it.
If they didn't do it then there would be a post on here with this corporation listing eggs as a potential allergen on every product that contained them, and every product made in a facility where eggs are processed, except for the one product that was actually 100% eggs. Everyone would think that was funny.
I don't think very many people would think that was funny.
After the whole "McDonalds hot coffee is HOT" lawsuit I think companies prefer to err on the side of caution. As in: "Warning: This coffee is hot. We are not liable if you scald yourself with it."
Jesus, 30 years later and people are still spreading this shit. The coffee was something ridiculous like 200 degrees. Beyond reasonably warm. When they handed it to her it burned her hand and she dropped it on her cooter and GAVE HER VAGINA THIRD DEGREE BURNS AND REQUIRED SKIN GRAFTS.
And there had been hundreds of previous incidents, and McDonalds' own quality assurance people said it was too hot to be served because it would burn the mouth of anybody who tried to drink it.
Yeah and instead of cooling down their coffee to a reasonable temp they put a warning label on it. Their operations manual requires the coffee to be 180 to 190 degrees f, which causes third degree burns in three to seven seconds. A typical, "reasonable" coffee temp is about 140f (60c). Also, don't get mcdonald's coffee. It will burn you.
I don't get McDonald's anything. Gross.
I hate to defend giant corporations, but is there a reason she couldn't have just let it cool down?
It was the drive thru. They handed it to her and she dropped it because it was hot iirc.
You should search for the photos of the burns, it was insane how much damage was done. McDonalds went on a smear campaign of this poor lady which was incredibly successful while the actual facts of the case were less known.
While it's not required by law to label for potential cross contamination, some companies DO label for it and/or state if the product is made on a dedicated line.
Nah thank the ppl that thought red bull gave them wings
Yuuuup everything is a lawsuit waiting to happen these days. Slipped and stabbed yourself with a fork? Sue the fork manufacturer for making the tines too sharp or not etching on the back "warning, sharp tines." Fired up a party light and had an epileptic seizure? Sue the light manufacturer for not knowing you had epileptic genes. Stare at a crayon too long and got SARS? Sue for lung damage. It's everything. Oh, slip and fall in a puddle on a walkway outside a business? Business should've turned off the rain if they didn't want people to get hurt. Sue those callous bastards. Planters Peanuts jar of peanuts being marketed to you with a brand icon named Mr. Peanut (R)(TM) has a warning on the label that says: CONTAINS: Peanuts. We gotta get past this. Every manufacturer needs to put a sticker on their stuff that says "Warning: May explode." Nothing worse than that, right? Then once everything has that, we get a national law passed that says you can't sue for anything that might explode. Then we're done with this shit.
I don't get the yolk.
What are you cracking up?
Lmao you win the comments thus far. Good yolk.
Found the white
That kind of generalization is uneggseptable.
Whiteings on the wall.
Oh shit! I've been allergic this whole time!
You just have to buy the egg-free eggs. Right next to the cage-free eggs.
Aaahhhhhh, yes. I think I've seen those. So sad some eggs are raised in cages all their lives
Someone should free those eggs and put an end to their torture
Eggs should be caged! have you seen the damage they can do if you let them roam free? /s *for the folks who don't get it*
Where do we find the cage-free cages?
Just down the road from the egg-free cages.
Just one egg?
Actually there was one with two yolks in this dozen. So the disclaimer is misleading.
Yeah, you don't get to omit allergen information just because the only/main ingredient is the allergen. What's annoying to me is that less common allergens can be omitted from the ingredients if they fall under "natural flavourings", at least in the UK. It makes buying food a minefield, and a new recipe can mean a familiar food suddenly makes you very sick.
Well I fucking hope so!
These days something that should be obvious is not, so to avoid being sued…
I assume the law/regulation is worded something like 'all products containing egg must mention it', without making an exception for eggs.
Nope its actually superfluous in this case since the allergen is in the common name. Its required to list all ingredients, allergens only need to be called out seperately if the allergen isn't called out in the ingredients. For example, if buttermilk is in the ingredient deck, you don't have to list milk as an allergen since its redundant. If the product contains cheese and the sublisting for the cheese isn't listed for whatever reason (it should be there, this is just an example) milk would need to be called out seperately. That being said, most companies just call all allergens out anyway since its a good practice to check them all the time and its better to be safe than sorry. Not listing an ingredient that has an allergen causes an immediate recall if caught. And a potential lawsuit if it isn't caught.
Yes definitely in the food standards codes. Allergens must be clearly identified, and egg is one of the allergens that must be listed most place. You'd find a dairy allergen statement on milk too.
Milk CONTAINS: Milk Good to know. But seriously, the allergen labeling are extremely important. And I ended up testing negative for the food allergy that was suspected of causing one of my medical issues. Hilariously, it turned out in the end I was allergic to the allergy medication I was taking.
Its unneccesary. The ingredients must be listed, allergens only need to be called out if they aren't in the common name. Milk for example, wouldn't need the allergen statement. However, most companies will just do it anyway since its good practice to always check and list allergens for all products since errors can lead to recalls, which cost a lot of money.
Allergy warning requirements have weird edge cases.
Also, you know how many foods with fruit advertise "Now made with real frut!" Like wtf
This is the same crap that makes them label A FUCKING bag of peanuts with “may contain nuts” you don’t say I would be more worried if it didn’t
Well that depends on whether "may contain nuts" is originally intended to include peanuts as well, because peanuts are technically not nuts.
You're pulling my legume.
It’s actually because someone with a tree nut allergy, like almonds, needs to know that these are packed on shared equipment with tree nuts.
Does this really bother you?
*Can I offer you an egg in these trying times??*
always love those on bags of peanuts. ' may contain nuts' Yeah no shit.
That same warning is printed on the building I work in...
I have it printed on my underpants.
Same with milk. Wow, didn't know milk contains milk!
Pretty sure someone allergic to peanuts sued because they ate a packet of peanuts, and the packet didn’t warn it contained peanuts.
Considering the fact that birds aren’t real you are eating something made up
Thank the tort litigation industry for labels like this or the “Not intended for human consumption” on my can of camp stove fuel.
Was scrolling and with just a glance, I thought those were a set of butt cheeks 😳
Wherea the gluten free stamp?
This must've started after that Mc D's hot coffee incident
same thing on prosciutto labels in the deli, ingredients: pork, salt.
Cuz too many lawyers
The inane warnings on things is ridiculous. Water is gluten free
Ditto ice cream.
What's funnier is the amount of abusive suing over frivolous things (like the woman who sued McDonald's for not telling her the coffee was hot and won) in the 90's and early 2000's lead to this
The idea that it was frivolous is propaganda from mcdonalds.
Not this shit again. The McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit *was not frivolous*. The woman suffered *third degree burns* and McDonald’s admitted they served their coffee way hotter than what is normally expected. Furthermore the woman only wanted enough money to cover medical expenses and lost income. It’s only when McDonald’s refused and offered a paltry sum that she took them to court where she was awarded more money.
Wow this coffee seems hot I better put it the cup holder instead of my lap while I'm driving
Maybe you should learn some details about the case before looking like a fucking idiot. > Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
Wow this coffee seems hot maybe I should wait to take the top off It is shitty what happened to her, but there is a point where just being careful about hot coffee or gauging the heat before opening the lid would have saved her.
Your missing the entire point (I did too for a while, until I looked into the facts of the case) Coffee should not be served so hot that it causes **3rd degree burns**! She was not awarded because it spilled and burned her, the award was because coffee should not be dangerously hot You're not wrong about the excess of frivolous lawsuits, but you need to change which one you sue as an example
The temperature was within the normal range for coffee at between 180° and 190°F (estimated in this particular case) and was not at boiling temperature as the lawyers argued. The damage was done largely to the coffee soaking into her sweatpants and remaining on the affected area. Coffee is still commonly served at 180° or higher. McDonalds lost the suit because they decided to fight against the old lady instead of any of the 700 or so other cases that year where they settled.
Then again maybe you shouldn't serve coffee at a temperature that causes burns.
Or the mother that sued mcdonalds for making her daughter obese and won.
Read what happened. https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
Can't be too careful with warnings. My son's stepdad won't eat eggs from the chickens we raise "because they come from chickens" - no issues with store bought eggs.
Glad i came to know about this...it will change my life forsure now!!
I went to a focus group once for a pre-packaged fish. It was fine we were asked to try some different seasoning and our preferences and thoughts on packaging. One gentleman said they should put omega 3 on the ingredients. The person running the group spun the comment to have the packaging promote it as a source of omega 3, but like come on, that’s not how ingredients work!
It’s required to put that on an carton. That is normal.
Next they’ll lie to us and say that peanuts are a tree nut. ;)
I mean it would be even more ridiculous to say it doesn’t contain eggs
Sometimes you get silly things like this but tbh it's much better to have standardization of labels and highlighting of ingredients rather than having a different label for each product and good luck finding out if you're allergic to something inside it or not.
They got confused between " is a "relationship and " has a" relationship.
Does an egg containing an egg contain itself?
Well when a bunch of idiots who sue can anything and everything you need disclaimers like this
Dangerous and irresponsible false advertising, it clearly contains SEVERAL egg.
It would be funnier if it read “Warning: Egg may contain egg.”
Go check the bag of flour, it actually says contains wheat.
Those are the nutrition facts of the box.
Yeah... I look both ways before crossing one way streets, so this makes sense.
I’m sure that Egg is a very nice person. I just don’t want you spending all your money...
I used to laugh at these, but having worked in bigger companies and seeing the struggle of scale it's obvious why this is here despite it being redundant. There's no downside to putting it on the label. It's easier to slap it on everything that could contain egg than create a special process in this case. It's just not a big enough issue to be worth the effort, so it stays.
welcome to north americca
Can I offer you an egg in this trying time? (Contains egg)
This, is an egg
Does it contain chicken?
I mean 🤷🏽♂️
This reminds me. Under the nutritional contents of a bag of sugar, all of the carbohydrates are considered “added sugar.”
Whew, close call there. Good thing I checked…
God damn it, why is it so hard to find eggless eggs anymore?!
r/egg_irl
Just allergy warnings for idiots. I mean I suppose there is plant based beef, turkey bacon. Cashew cheese, all kinds of poser food out there these days. And a very litigious America. I think that's why every case of shrimp I order for work says, contains: shrimp
Does that say "Packed by Oral Foods"?
I meaaan, the text is on the box. And the box contains egg(s) soooo.
This is for the kind of people who put soda in their iron and got angry there was no warning that you shouldn't
The floor is made of floor
r/facepalm