oh wow! i am with you. i don't know what to say. speechless.

i'll be sure to keep a look-out on those darn omelettes. you'll never know if there's an egg or two in there or not. i'd better stay away from coffee, black tea and green tea, too. it might contain caffeine that might keep me up all night ;)

LOL!

Reply

I think this coincides with Wegman's philosophy of "please don't sue us." I saw their recent pull of cigarettes as more of a ploy to keep from being sued than as one to "help" consumers. None of this really surprises me, especially in litigious northern Virginia.

Reply

"I have no idea what to say about this, but it seems further proof to me that food has gone from pleasure and nourishment to a substance needing regulation, brightly-colored barriers and warning signs. "

Well.... considering an entire industry has grown up to try and sell you food, it's not surprising that as a result, people are now having a backlash and saying, "oh crap, eating all this crap will make you fat and could kill you!"

Not to mention litigation culture.

Imagine if McDonald's spent billions trying to get you to buy healthy food, and people understood that extremely severe food allergies naturally preclude you from partaking in the exact same situations as other people - when in groups - ... the world would be a different place.

Reply

I don't hate this idea. Not all kids understand their allergies. My friend's kid ate what the teacher gave him and ended up in the hospital on the first day of school this year. He knew he was allergic to the multiple things he is allregic to, he just didn't know those things were in that particular treat.

Plus, how about the idea that kids should have guidence over what they eat, regardless of allergies, in order to learn to make good decisions about food.

Reply

I'm a fan of Slashfood, but I don't understand how anyone can be flippant about this topic. As the parent of a child who has a life-threatening peanut allergy, I think more of these warnings are needed, not fewer. My son has already had two close calls that could easily have resulted in death, so going anywhere that serves food is already stressful. I'd rather see a sign and know for sure that allergens may be present than have to rely on some kid behind the counter who doesn't understand the implications when he casually tells me, "there are no nuts."

Reply

That sign is warning customers that the food may contain or come in contact with the Big 8 allergens out there. Any responsible parent has to assume that when they take their child out into public to eat, that, unless specified, that food could potentially contain or come in contact with one of the major allergens. I seriously doubt that any company that sells food to the general public would be willing to make any claims that they are completely free of peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs, wheat, fish or shellfish. THAT is a liability unto itself.

Reply

Perhaps parents who have allergic children should be paying more attention to the raw food products rather than the processed ones, and seek legislation in that area rather than trying to curb ALL of us to your child's standards. Have a severly allergic children so I understand but still, my child is my responsibility and not anyone elses--especially not the nanny-state.

You do not have the right to take away others' rights to save your child as much as the mother tiger in you wishes that to be so.

If Monsanto, GE et al hadn't started mucking up the food DNA chain (in the interest of money--not feeding the world--I was researching this before the web existed), perhaps your child's DNA would still recognize peanuts et al as food and be fine. Plenty of studies showing a corelation, of course, you might have to go to Europe to get access to them thanks to your Corpo-friendly FDA.

Sometimes people cannot see the forest for the trees.

Reply

At first, when I read this article, I thought the idea was stupid. Then, as I read some of the comments from concerned parents, I changed my mind on that and realized that maybe this isn't a bad idea at all. However, they should make it for, say, kids 12 and under or something like that. Teens should be able to recognize their food allergies if they have any.

Reply

If you have a problem with this sign, you are ignorant. Read up on food allergies. Looks like they're trying to save a life, not make your life miserable....you morons.

Reply

I totally agree with Poster #9. As the parent of a teen with food allergies, I applaud the companies that are making allergy awareness a priority. At our local supermarket they have a cookie "club" whereby they hand out free cookies at their deli. Well for a child like mine with milk, egg, nut and peanut allergies this is a dangerous situation. Yes, my son was taught from age 2 not to accept any foods without my approval, some other children do--they might say--does this have nuts? and have an unaware staff person tell them no even if was made on equipment that do contain nuts...so, it doesn't get in the way of the average consumer--why can't a kid wait for parental consent to get their sandwich? Really!

Reply

Tom,
Look up food allergies in conjunction with genetically modified foods and contend with your own ignorance...

The sign is not the problem, the food is the problem--or rather, in the same vein as above comments, how our society (or those that dictate societal choices) treats and views foods.

There is no law or regulation in the United States requiring testing for allergenicity or toxicity of GM foods prior to them being licensed for consumption. In fact, in the USA it is ILLEGAL to label your Non-GM food "as" non GM food so that you do not prejudice your customers against your competitors (and if that doesn't raise a red flag then your warning system has officially been disabled).

Taco bell uses GM corn almost exclusively--notice any labels?

Look into the studies of people who were non-allergic to soy, unknowingly becoming allergic to thanks to tinkering with Brazil nut genes. Now, 89% of the world soy crop is this GM allergen and it is used in 91% of the soy feed. Some day soon, those allergic to nuts may actually be in danger from eating a hamburger from a cow fed GM soy, if they aren't already.

That is if BSE doesn't get us first.

Reply

Mick--love your balanced view of respecting other's rights and needs while still being attentive to those of your child. Parents (or the allergic individual) is responsible for managing his or her health. I speak from experience.

Reply

You should be responsible enough to know enough about your own food allergies and read packages. I am so sick of corporations having to pad walls and round corners for the idiots of America. It's just natural selection.

Reply

Putting aside for the moment the "parents are responsible for thier kids", which, for the record, I agree with. I look at this sign, on balance, to be a very good thing. As the parent of a food allergic child, I appreciate the increasing awareness of food allergies and that there is more willingness to share ingredients. Of course, having said that, I have seen that many places do go for the CYA "may contain or come in contact with". But, from my perspective, more information is better. So, if you put aside that middle section, then I think the sign is a really good thing.
Also, I am in favor of rules that require food to go through the parents. While I would let my kindergarter go to the store alone, I do appreciate that many stores have policies not to give samples directly to kids. Is my 3 year old going to say no to a cookie from a well-meaning grown-up because it might contain eggs or nuts? I hope so, but I am not willing to bet his life on it. Do I let him roam free in the store? No, but again, it could happen-- he is now getting too big for those puny shopping cart seats and I have resisted chaining him to me.

Reply

Obviously I'm not alone in thinking this isn't such a bad idea. As a parent of a kid with an egg allergy who once ate an omelette because never having had one he didn't know it had eggs in it (he was 7 at the time), I shudder at the thought of him ordering something like a tuna melt (which we make at home sans mayo) without realizing that it's gonna come chock full of egg-filled mayo.

I try to give him all the information he needs to make the best choices when I'm not around, as well as informing adults he is with, but even those in the know can feed him something with egg in it. Although this may be a CYA move by Wegmann, as a concerned parent, I'm all for it. I'd say teens are probably going to be able to make safe decisions, but kids younger than 12-13 should have a parent helping them avoid allergens.

I don't think this is a sign that food is not "food" anymore, but perhaps a sign that the methods of food production (more heavily processed foods and foods which have been modified with other foods -like those fishy tomatoes) may be causing more food sensitivities and reactions

Reply

It makes sense to me considering how many kids are on restricted diets these days.

Reply

I think a lot of people in the comments have it right, and a lot are wrong only because (I assume) they don't live with allergies. They can't help it because they just don't know! The poster, no doubt, just doesn't understand how living with a food allergy, especially nowadays when everything is processed and cross-contaminated to hell, can rule your life. I envy people who can eat whatever they want and have the only side effect be a stomach ache if they had too much. Actually, if anyone reading this has no allergies and wonders why people make such a fuss over it, here's a game. Pretend for a day that you are allergic to a main allergen (eggs, soy, dairy, peanuts and/or tree nuts, wheat, citrus....) and try to cut it out of your diet without changing your daily routine (or even just read the labels on packages in your freezer - there's some pretty scary stuff in preserved foods). Now... imagine trying to tell a four year old that they have to live that way for the rest of their life. Trust me, it sucks.

It's all well and good for an adult to feel coddled and restricted by a sign like that - you're old enough to make the decision to eat something even if you know it will make you sick. However, as someone who has lived their entire life with food allergies, I see this as a friendly way of saying "at your own risk." If I go to a restaurant and order something and am told that there is no guarantee it will not be contaminated, I appreciate that and will either get something else or go eat elsewhere - it's kind of important when your life might be in danger from something that is completely innocent to other people.

Children don't have that distinction. Even if a child is told, "you will die if you eat this" or even "you will be very sick if you eat this" they will most likely still try to eat it at some point in their childhood.

All that aside, in this day and age when people sue other people for the most ridiculous things, all that sign means is "our asses are covered."

Reply

I'm not sure how I feel about this. What happened to just throwing together a quick sandwich and enjoying it? I do suppose it is a good idea for those that are allergic. If my child was allergic, I would definately appreciate the warning.

http://thecajunchef.blogspot.com/

Reply

Those signs are not for selling, but for sampling. I work in the cheese department, and we have them there too. You'd be surprised how many parents just send their (rather young) kids over to me to eat free food. Luckily, they've mostly been understanding about the need to approve the sample. Also, there's a lot of cross-contamination that customers don't know about. I might be giving out a slice of cheese and bread, but that sign will (and often has) alerted a customer to ask me if there are any allergens present. There are many allergens people don't expect, like flour or eggs in cheese rinds and nuts and soy in deli meats. (Although the large CAUTION: ALLERGEN-MILK on some cheese labels does make me laugh.)

Reply