So maybe the FDA shouldn't have changed the rules if it significantly harms consumers?
And I don't see how it harms consumers. These foods that may contain traces of sesame, had always might have contained traces of sesame. So are traces of sesame dangerous or not? If they are, then consumers shouldn't have been eating these foods to begin with. If they aren't, why are the FDA forcing the labeling?
I have a friend who is allergic to sesame, this law was really frustrating for her. The brands who purposely added sesame to comply with the law she couldn't eat anymore, the brands that just added the label she also couldn't eat because she couldn't tell the difference between the two. Before the law if sesame wasn't listed it meant it was at worst trace amounts and if it was listed it was off limits.
She isn't "immediately dies on contact" allergic so to solve this problem we had a "loaf party" where we got one of every brand of bread in the grocery store, she would get to try all of them and each person goes home with the rest of a loaf. It was fun all things considered but silly that it was necessary.
So yeah, I have no idea why the fda did this, it seems worse for everyone involved.
And I don't see how it harms consumers. These foods that may contain traces of sesame, had always might have contained traces of sesame. So are traces of sesame dangerous or not? If they are, then consumers shouldn't have been eating these foods to begin with. If they aren't, why are the FDA forcing the labeling?