Tensu wrote:
But would you agree that an exception should exist for cases such as this?
No. Regulation should be as simple for businesses to comply with as possible. A rule that says, "you must identify the potential presence of any of these 14 allergens on your package," is simple and easy to implement.
A rule that says, "must identify the potential presence of any of these 14 allergens on your package, unless 60% or more of the package will be tranparent when placed in a retail display setting and the transparency provides clear and unambiguous notice to the customer of the contents therein," becomes more cumbersome.
eric76 wrote:
How about the Wales ruling that "Welsh Dragon Sausage" was misleading because it does not actually contain dragon?
But do they contain meat? My understanding is that all processed meat products (as opposed to raw and cooked cuts of meat identified as such) must indicate that they contain meat, beyond the mandatory ingredient list. Given the number of vegetarian and vegan meat substitutes, a product that does not unambiguously demonstrate that it contains meat might well fall afoul of such a regulation. A regulation too far? Perhaps. But not quite so irrational as we might expect.
_________________
--James