Legality of Food Allergens

[Tziva]

Contamination is understandable. But then, WHY advertise it as gluten free? If it's contaminated with gluten from other sources while being made, then it's not gluten free, and its very existence is utterly pointless. Why are they advertising it as gluten free, if people who NEED a gluten free diet (celiacs and people with allergies) can't have it? Why does it even exist?

Because there is a distinction between the two.

The example you see most frequently is with tree nuts. Products can be nut free but often include the warning label that they are processed on equipment that also processes tree nuts. The disclaimer doesn't contradict the former. The food item itself won't actually have nuts in the ingredient list but it's a warning that cross contamination on very minor levels is possible just because all the equipment isn't completely and thoroughly sterilised between items. For the majority of us with tree nut allergies, this information communicates that we can safely eat the food knowing it doesn't have nuts in it. However, for the rare people who have very extreme and severe reactions, it lets them know that they are taking a risk by eating the food because even though that brownie is walnut free, it's possible it touched a cookie that wasn't, which for them may be enough to threaten their lives. But the average person isn't going to have a reaction (or a dangerous one) in that situation.

I think it's fine, and it's not really false advertising. It's just a disclaimer that the environment the item was created it wasn't sterile. Generally, those of us who deal with food allergies are aware of what our personal tolerance level is and know how to interpret and made decisions based on those labels with regard to our own safety, whether that means we can partake or need to avoid entirely.

[smityx]

If you have sometype of food alergy gluten, peanuts, etc. you roll the dice when you don't prepare your own food. Most see the "glutten intolerant" types as mostly just a fad thing to be annoying.

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798

[Anoikis]

Is Celiacs covered under allergy laws and regulations? It was my understanding that Celiacs is not technically an allergy.

That's true. It's something between an allergy and an autoimmune disease and you don't get an anaphylactic shock if you're glutenintolerant.
There are different manifestations of gluten intolerance right up to full blown Celiacs. For diagnostic you need a blood test and a endoscopic tissue biopsy from the lower duodenum.

[Temp name]

Because there is a distinction between the two.

The example you see most frequently is with tree nuts. Products can be nut free but often include the warning label that they are processed on equipment that also processes tree nuts. The disclaimer doesn't contradict the former. The food item itself won't actually have nuts in the ingredient list but it's a warning that cross contamination on very minor levels is possible just because all the equipment isn't completely and thoroughly sterilised between items. For the majority of us with tree nut allergies, this information communicates that we can safely eat the food knowing it doesn't have nuts in it. However, for the rare people who have very extreme and severe reactions, it lets them know that they are taking a risk by eating the food because even though that brownie is walnut free, it's possible it touched a cookie that wasn't, which for them may be enough to threaten their lives. But the average person isn't going to have a reaction (or a dangerous one) in that situation.

I think it's fine, and it's not really false advertising. It's just a disclaimer that the environment the item was created it wasn't sterile. Generally, those of us who deal with food allergies are aware of what our personal tolerance level is and know how to interpret and made decisions based on those labels with regard to our own safety, whether that means we can partake or need to avoid entirely.

But there is a difference between having a product with no disclaimer, or having a disclaimer saying "Might contain traces of gluten" and having a product that literally says "Gluten free" that then includes gluten.

A bakery near where I live makes cakes.. As a bakery does. They also make gluten free cakes, but since they don't have the time or energy to sanitize the entire kitchen when they make them, they're just labelled as "Gluten reduced" which means that it *probably* won't contain any noticeable amount of gluten, but cross contamination is a real danger. Another bakery around here also makes gluten free stuff, but only on Wednesdays. And only by pre-order. They do this so they can make them first things in the morning when everything is clean, and then store them until the customer comes to pick it up in a safe environment where they won't be contaminated.
The first one, I don't shop at that often, because I can't be sure I won't feel sick afterwards, but the second one places such a high barrier to entry that sometimes I'm forced to take the chance.

The example the post you're quoting is talking about is a pizzaria claiming it's gluten free, not saying that it "might contain gluten". Which, to me, is a problem.

[Kaleredar]

Normally I don't post stuff like this, but I seem to be finding mixed reviews as to what to do.

A friend of mine has celiacs, which means she can't eat most things with gluten. During our game night, she has her own separate dinner from us, something she got from a local restaurant. A Shrimp/Quinoa dish, of which the label "ALLERGEN NOTE - NO WHEAT - WHEAT ALLERGY". Partway through the dish, she realizes that there were small wheat noodles mixed in with the mushrooms (which is weird for the dish). At that point she realized that most of the stuff she was eating probably came in contact with this, and had to throw the entire dish out. She's now going to spend the next few days miserable for it.

My question is this: Is there anything that can/should be done about this? Should she contact the company? The manager? Ask for 'compensation'? It seems like a lot of instances are basically "They probably wont do anything but simply apologize" but it sort of pisses me off that she'd go through the hoops to ensure it, and they still screw it up. It's one thing to have cross contamination, it's another to have a label indicating that it can't have that, and then still does. That just seems like negligence, not accident. Or is this a case of "That sucks but its just something you gotta deal with"?

Your friend might get their money back, but that's about it.

I have celiac disease; I was diagnosed in the mid 90s when it was far more difficult to find gluten free foods. While the new "health fad" has certainly made buying gluten free things in a store a lot easier, (if a packaged product is labeled Gluten free it has to be by law) it's also created situations in a made-to-order or food prepped context where people don't take it seriously or only do it from a "contains no gluten ingredients" perspective while using the same utensils or preparation space as something with gluten in it, which obviously causes issues. In essence, it is indeed "something you gotta deal with."

My go to for eating or ordering out at restaurants is... don't. Unless it's a dedicated gluten free restaurant or a chain with dedicated gluten free menu (Outback, P.F. Chang's come to mind, and I've never had a problem at in-n-out burger) or something exceptionally simple like a plain steak, I frankly don't trust it (I wouldn't normally eat something I couldn't see every ingredient in). And if I eat gluten I'm not one of the lucky ones that just breaks out in hives or has dirrahea; I go full projectile vomit about two hours after ingestion, so it's not worth the risk to me.

If I'm casually hanging out with friends who go somewhere to eat, I'll prepare myself some food beforehand or just go without food simply because, from my experience, most people don't understand it. They don't understand the severity of cross contamination (I've had my own family members unwittingly screw it up before) and they don't understand how much "hidden" gluten there is in things or are simply unaware. (I once had a server at a Fast food restaurant insist that flour tortillas were gluten free because they were made with "flour," not "wheat.") And yes, I've gotten sick from things that a (non-chain) restaurant claimed were gluten free on their menu. So I don't bother anymore, and do the afformentioned bring food or wait to eat later.

I don't want to tell your friend how to live their life, OP, but that's the way it's worked out best for me (I haven't been "glutened" in going on 7 or so years). I don't raise a fuss at restaurants, I don't beleaguer my friends to find gluten free places for me to eat; I just handle it all on my own time.

If nothing else, it helps keep one quite skinny.

[Master Guns]

Guess its too much for a company to scrutinize if the meat is not spoiled they are cooking either? The milk is not kept proper temperature. That raw meat doesn't cross-contaminate other food?

If something is advertised as gluten free, dairy free, or without apples in it. Then there shouldn't be gluten, dairy, or apples in it.

Nice hyperbole there, lol. I never said any of those things, I said what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

My opinion is...

Companies can't be bothered to be so scrutinized by such things as this. I mean, it's a kitchen, for God's sake. Eat out/order takeout at your own discretion? Have you ever worked in a kitchen? If so you realize how chaotic it can be and how messy things are.

You can't possibly be held accountable for every little thing that happens to anyone with "x allergy" or "y problem". It's too much. Discretion.

No, you absolutely can be held accountable when it comes to something as important as food preparation when one of the possible outcomes from improper preparation is death. It isn't too much to ask for accountability, if you can't handle that type of pressure then you shouldn't be working in any job that involves handling food.

[Logwyn]

Nice hyperbole there, lol. I never said any of those things, I said what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

Dunk and Cover. Duck and Cover.

[Master Guns]

Dunk and Cover. Duck and Cover.

I don't think you quite grasped what I said, which is normal for a basic level troll such as yourself lol.

I'll break it down for you, though. You hit me with a list of scenarios and events that literally have nothing to do with anything I said. You're using your own terrible reverse logic to make me seem like I said such heinous things, when in fact, I didn't. That's called hyperbole.

So..yeah. 0/10