Araraukar wrote:Australian Republic wrote:Why? If you wish to avoid pork, then why does the reason behind it matter?
OOC: If you're going to have to put in a label of "may contain pork", why does it matter why you're slapping on the label?
Exactly, it doesn't. And for the same reason, why can't the label say "may contain nuts, eggs, pork and milk" instead of meaninglessly creating two sections, one which says "ALLERGY INFORMATION, may contain nuts, eggs and milk" and have a different section, which not only wastes precious, finite lable space, but also creates needless confustion that says "MAY CONTAIN PORK" having a seperate section could be dangerous, confusing and wastes precious finite space. Therefore this clause in the legislation is ridiculous, this clause in the legislation could be ultimately harmful, and this cause in the legislation will create meaningless and avoidable confustion. Furthermore, if the lable says "May contain nuts, pork, milk and eggs" (and this is seperate to the ingrediants list) then you are told that there is pork and eggs in the item. Whether or not you then avoid the item because your religion forbids pork, you're allergic to eggs, or because you're a vegan, it's irrelevant. There's pork in it, and there's egg in it. Some people don't eat pork, and some people don't eat egg. Under current legislation, there is one place where everyone can look to know not to buy this product, but under the proposed legislation, different people need to look at different places to search for what they're avoiding, which will ultimately lead to confusion. If this item says it contains this ingrediant, so if you avoid eating this ingrediant, don't buy it if you don't eat this ingrediant" it doesn't matter what the reason is why you don't eat that ingrediant, the point is that you don't eat that ingrediant, so seperating the two lists for no good reason is causing a lot of unneccassery confustion, and therefore, I oppose to this legislation because of that clause, and will outright say that if this legislation were enacted, this clause will be ultimately ignored by the government for violating common sense. Furthermore, vegans themselves may not find anything in the "Avoid for religious/consiencious reasons" ingrediants, and buy the product, only to find that later they read the allergy lable which says "may contain eggs" or pointlessly be forced to look into two different places. This clause is ultimately ridiculous and a reason in and of itself to justify me voting against the legislation
EDIT:
My question to you is, what is the point of creating a seperate section for allergy advice to the section which says "do not buy if (for whatever reason) you avoid eating" section? If you're not going to eat a certain ingrediant, then you're not going to eat it, the reason why you don't eat it is irrelevant, all you need to know is that this product contains it, and therefore don't buy product and aside from causing confusion, wastes valuable lable space, which the company needs in order to advertise/promote the product. Now if it's a case of "may contain traces of,"or "was made using the same equipmenty which handles" those kinds of warnings are a different story, and that kind of detail doesn't affect someone with a mild allergy in the first place. Nevertheless, those two specific labbels are important, especially to distinguish the product for those with mild allergies and non-allergy related opposition than folr those with server and extreme allergies, induced by the smallest trace, but those two lables can be handled by the common sense approach
And in ALL circumstances mentioned above, the list of ingrediants to avoid is a different list than the complete ingrediants list
Clause 5 would be better with a general common sense clause (with a few specific details to clear thiong up) than a specific clause, which makes everything needlessly over-complicated
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:17 am
)