File the article in the url below under the category of unintended consequences (see also Strategic CSR – Jevons Paradox; Strategic CSR – Dodd-Frank; and Strategic CSR – Unintended consequences). The issue is sesame allergies in children, and the responsibilities companies have to clearly label their food products with all ingredients and prepare them in a way that is consistent. On January 1, this year, the government introduced legislation in the U.S. that was designed to strengthen these responsibilities. In other words, if there was no sesame in the ingredients, companies were compelled to adequately clean their equipment to eradicate the possibility of contamination. Crucially, the new higher standards only applies to products that already have sesame as an ingredient. Straightforward, right?
"On Jan. 1, a law intended to safeguard the more than 1.5 million Americans with a sesame allergy … took effect. The law mandates, among other things, careful cleaning to prevent cross-contact between food products with and without sesame."
Apparently not. Because the companies felt a zero-tolerance approach to compliance was too difficult for them to guarantee, they instead started adding small amounts of sesame to products that normally did not have any as a way of skirting the law. This change has had predictable consequences for children who have sesame allergies:
"The result? Foods that sesame-allergic kids and adults have eaten safely for years are now potentially life-threatening."
What is interesting about this legislation, though, is that it is far from unique:
"The Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education and Research (Faster) Act mandates careful cleaning of manufacturing equipment to ensure foods are sesame-free or clear labeling of all foods with sesame — many foods previously were labeled only as containing tahini, which is made from ground sesame, for instance. Similar laws have protected millions of Americans allergic to peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, fish and shellfish for nearly two decades. Like those foods, sesame can provoke allergic reactions from mild to life-threatening."
Whatever the explanation, companies are being explicit about the response they made, seemingly with little concern for the implications for those who the legislation was intended to protect – allergic children:
"Some in the food industry say adding sesame flour is the safest path forward. They contend that they can't sufficiently clean their equipment to guarantee it is free of sesame, as the Faster Act requires. And, under federal labeling rules, they can't state that their products contain sesame unless the items actually contain it — so they're adding sesame and labeling it."
And, of course, they are not doing anything illegal. There is nothing to say that a product cannot contain sesame, as long as it is clearly labelled. The frustrating thing for parents of children with these allergies, however, is that they are now forced to re-check all the food products they had previously determined were safe for their kids. Needless to say, the companies do not advertise their change; they simply alter the ingredients listed on the label:
"Because companies are adding sesame in the form of flour, not seeds, the added allergen is invisible to the eye, making it more dangerous — especially when food is served in group settings, like schools and summer camps, where labels aren't nearby, advocates say."
The fact that legislation like this is far from unique makes the corporate response more frustrating is it appears to be the first time it is happening (whereas, previously, they complied). It could be that the legislation is more onerous in this case, but that is not suggested in the article. More likely, it seems the companies just could not be bothered to comply and that adding a little bit more of another ingredient to the product (even though there is no beneficial impact in terms of that product) was the easiest response:
"'There was no hint that this would happen, because companies had not done this with the other eight allergens [specified in federal law], and this isn't happening in other countries that label for sesame,' said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the bill's co-sponsors."
As a result, the only reason that sesame flour is now an ingredient in many products (there are lots of examples in the article) is because it helps companies avoid complying with a law that would increase their costs. The companies themselves, of course, are presenting their response to the legislation as an attempt to increase customer safety:
"The American Bakers Association did not respond to questions about adding sesame flour. Instead, it provided a statement from Lee Sanders, its senior vice president of government relations and public affairs: 'The wholesale baking sector prioritizes consumer safety. Baking companies are working with their customers, including restaurants, to transparently disclose any allergen labeling changes to help ensure consumer safety.'"
The response of parents with allergic children who are now threatened, is slightly different:
"Manufacturers 'could have done the right thing, and they didn't,' said Brubaker-Flood, the mom from Michigan. 'They had ample time to come up with new procedures to prevent cross-contamination, and instead they took the crazy route and deliberately added an allergen instead.'"
For more on this issue, see the article in the second url below.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
To comply with a new sesame allergy law, some businesses add – sesame
By Karen Weese
April 11, 2023
The Washington Post
Sesame Labels Backfire for Allergic
June 15, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A6
