I've been repeatedly asked by my readers whether or not some mineral products that list a "may contain" section on their ingredients are actually safe. I know which company was in question, but that is just drama (drama is such a weak word for what has happened) I'm not willing to get into.
Personally, I can't see the problem with "may contain" in my ingredients. It shows the company I'm buying from has a very clear understanding of ingredients, production contamination and labelling laws.
Let me illustrate an example within the food industry (which I'm more familiar with), that will hopefully clear up the issue for you. Please be aware, I have no idea about American food labelling laws.
-Company A makes product A. Company A does not make any products with nuts, nor does it have any on site.
-Company A buys ingredient B from Company B.
-Company B also makes ingredient C which contains nuts. Ingredient B does not use any nuts.
-Company B makes the two ingredients on the same production line, which is stripped and cleaned between producing the ingredients.
-Company A must label Product A as "may contain traces of nuts".
Where is the issue when it's food? I'm sure those with nut allergies would prefer the "may contain" label.
I agree Becky I'm sure people would rather be informed that the product 'May Contain' then they can make an informed decision. Also on the companies side they know that people wouldn't be able to complain about them for not telling people if a product contains something
ReplyDeleteGood point Becky! :) People with allergies would definitely prefer the "may contain" on any label really! :)
ReplyDeleteI really like your analogy! Thanks! And I totally agree with you. There are so many "traces of ______" just in our regular environment anyway.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. My organic chocolate truffles from Whole foods say 'may contain dairy' when they don't have dairy in them. But the warning is necessary for people who could have a reaction.
ReplyDelete