I think awareness of this kind of thing is important-- no worries about posting it.   

I'm pretty sure that it isn't helpful to the FA community, at least in this particular instance... since FALCPA took care of this kind of thing for the top 8.

Of course, this sort of thing is still a large problem for non-top 8 allergens likes seeds.   

I posted it simply to foster discussion.  Trying to venture out of OT a bit.  A person on my diabetes forum is all outraged at TJs for not honestly labeling sugar. 

I am not a fan of frivolous lawsuits.  I do think any labeling issue brought to court, for any reason, can impact our community, for better or for worse.  It it is true that the labeling is intentionally deceptive, it simply gives me more doubt on labeling, in general, specifically from Trader Joe's, a company I use for my FA child. 

Then, there is also the potential for this lawsuit and intense scrutiny causing them(and others who try to do it right) to go back to blanket labeling with may contain statements as a CYA policy.  That is of no help to our community. 

Exactly.

It's not that I don't see the point.  I do.

It's not that I don't think that it's misleading labeling, or that I don't see the connection between this and improved allergen labeling-- I do.

I just think that this mostly comes across as entirely frivolous-- and what it also does is make any similar lawsuits seem-- automatically-- similarly frivolous.

What about a class action suit against Amy's for unsafely and indiscriminately using "may contain" labels on some things and not on others, hmmm?   In the public's mind, it looks a lot like THIS lawsuit, and in my mind, see, those are way, way different things.  Maybe that's because an Amy's product is something that my child has reacted to.   

I do get what becca sees in it but unfortunately it's the type of thing that, IMHO, weakens our medical needs for labeling because this is largely a marketing issue regarding lifestyle. Don't want to attack the messenger.

Yeah, I'm sorry but this one I see as more than a wee bit frivolous.

Who was harmed here and how?

I mean, manufacturers routinely don't give a CRAP about cross-contamination that causes anaphylaxis as long as it is low enough that it doesn't show up when samples are pulled.

And I'm supposed to feel warm and fuzzy that someone is suing a company over not "playing fair enough?"  with labels for ingredients which are merely misleading, but actually accurate, when you get right down to it?  Huh. 

<yawn>  Sorry.  Can't do it.

I dunno. This borders on the likes of reading the MSDS for hydric acid and flipping out because it's unregulated and undisclosed use in organic fruit juice based on its other uses such as a coolant in nuclear power plants.

Snark too high? Turn my sensitivity switch on?

But isn't beet juice a natural ingredient?

I totally get what they are saying about calling cane juice  for what it is - sugar, but some of the complaints I don't understand.  Is caramel not natural?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/trader-joes-lawsuit-evaporated-cane-juice_n_2980706.html

Its focus is on evaporated cane juice for sugar, but of interest, in general, regarding deceptive labeling.