I just don't have much hope on this front when even REGULAR consumers (that is, those who haven't been
fried desensitized, if you'll pardon the phrase, by years of dismissive/cavalier treatment by high-handed food manufacturers) can't get very angry at a company that can't even TRACK where it's sources come from in enough time to stop people from dying from pathogens.
(See "peanut butter contamination" parts I, II, and III... a recall effort that SHOULD have taken at most 72 hours with proper source-materials tracking took, instead, several MONTHS. Months where people continued to unknowingly eat contaminated food that had been made with the tainted product.)
The FDA is so grossly understaffed and underfunded for such efforts that the foxes
are minding the chicken coop and have been for many years.
We're a minority, and therefore, we're even LOWER priority than general consumers. If nobody can muster enough concern to care about that peanut butter recall and what it signifies about our food processing industry standards, then I'm pretty confident that food allergic consumers are less than insignificant, our physicians and advocacy organizations aside.
I advocate trying, of course. But I also disagree that it isn't helpful to point out the sheer scope of the
problem that the FDA is looking at trying to solve. Oh, sure-- it's pointing out that we don't have a
horse donkey, on our way to tilt at the windmill. Granted. But it's a start, and since it's all tilting at windmills to begin with, I don't really see where there's a lot of harm. I don't think that the FOOD INDUSTRY is listening either way. So I figure that comments are directed not at them, but at the researchers and maybe the science/research arm of the Feds; they need to know what our concerns ARE, not what they think that they 'should be.' Until they can get buy in from allergic consumers, they
aren't going anywhere, and they won't get that by patting people on the head.
I'd point out that the survey
did not ask "would it be a good idea to measure cross-contamination in foods?"
If it had, the answer would have been immediate and obvious. Heck, even if they'd asked about what kind of cross-contamination (not labeling) would make consumers comfortable, THAT would have given useful information.
Here's what I think needs asking:
a) what kind of threshold are you living with?
b) what evidence do you have to support that belief?
c) what kind of comfort zone do you have? (this
was included on the survey)
d) what would you like for food labels to tell you that they currently don't?
e) in what ways does inadequate food labeling have an adverse impact on you/your family?
f) would you be okay with such an effort being voluntary, at least inititially?
Where I object to the surveys that I have seen thus far is that they don't really parse out the fact that there are WAY different groups here-- with vastly different needs. The
average allergic consumer finds labeling to be onerous because of a perception that advisories are merely CYA, and that "nobody" is "that sensitive" and that such labels force them to do one of two things:
i) ignore the warnings on the basis of past experience and hope for the best, or
ii) avoid the food-- probably unnecessarily.
I get that. I get that improving labeling NOW would make life much, much, much better for those people.
Here's my problem with this, though-- if you take that group, make THEM happy, then they lose
all motivation to improve labeling for the very tiny minority whose lives are still on the line.We're a small enough minority as it is. Who is going to listen to just 1% of the 5% in another ten years, hmmm? That puts consumers like my DD in the position of needing an orphan drug, basically. No leverage. None. So this gets back to (for me, anyway) a Faustian choice between making life "better" for the majority by reducing their stress and widening their horizons... or being selfish and saying "you know, this doesn't help us, and in fact, it introduces additional hubris into things which is likely to prove dangerous."
We've been treated to some of that attitude in the past five years since so many challenges have shown higher thresholds. Yep. Right back to "but I
know that you're LYING, because that isn't POSSIBLE..." It's been disheartening. In other words, the ONLY way that people believe my DD's threshold is when she proves it to them by reacting to the "impossible."