It was supposed to make eating safer and easier. Instead, it has made it more confusing and frustrating.
When the FASTER Act was signed into law in 2021, sesame allergy families like mine rejoiced. Finally, food manufacturers would have to disclose if their products contained sesame. No more guessing. No more being told allergen information was “proprietary.” My family would be able to buy food knowing whether the recipe contained sesame based on the packaging.
On January 1, 2023, the long-awaited law went into effect. But by that time, it had already become evident the law had unintended consequences. Some manufacturers had already begun adding sesame to products to avoid having to make procedural changes to limit allergen cross-contact. Others started labeling products as ‘containing’ sesame, even when the product didn’t (i.e., as a substitute for a ‘may contain’ statement).
To make things more confusing, multiple reports to a large sesame allergy support group indicate some of these companies have simultaneously told consumers that these products were still safe and would never contain the allergen, despite that label. Since the deadline, this issue has only gotten worse. Compounding the problem, certain manufacturers have seemingly decided not to comply with the labeling deadline (if emails shared within the previously noted group are to be believed).
The problem isn’t limited to food manufacturers, either. Multiple large restaurant chains have also started adding small amounts of sesame to certain foods to avoid having to actively work to prevent cross-contact. Less serious, but still frustrating, other chains have not brought their policies into line with the new law (a problem usually identified by viewing the corporate allergen matrices only to find sesame not listed alongside the remaining Top 9).
The result of these changes has been more confusion than existed prior.
Before January 1, we knew any product could contain sesame unless companies either didn’t use it at all or promised to label it. Today, even some of our prior safe brands have either acknowledged adding sesame or indicated on their label they have. Despite undergoing OIT, my child now has limited safe foods because we have no idea if companies are labeling for sesame due to theoretical contamination or actual inclusion, and if it is included, whether it is trace as some claim (which would be safe for my son), or a lot, which would still constitute a high risk.
I understand the need for businesses to minimize liability and that some of these products may have had cross-contact risks that were unknown to us due to a lack of labeling. That said, food allergies are a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are more accurate ways to label for cross-contact risk (like ‘may contain’ or ‘shared lines/facilities’ statements). Adding sesame, or labeling it when it isn’t in the product, is lazy and discriminatory. While food allergies aren’t a joke and shouldn’t be treated as a headache to accommodate, they also should be recognized for what they are- disabilities deserving of inclusion.
The consequences of this work goes beyond mere inconvenience. Per multiple heartbreaking anecdotes shared within the food allergy community, the shortcuts taken instead of following the spirit of the law have meant the inability to eat certain school meals. For students who rely on free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch, these changes may leave children without a healthy meal that day, given the role the program plays in reducing food insecurity.
Food is essential for human survival. It is time we stop treating it like a privilege- whether through prohibitive costs, limited access (see food deserts), or actively excluding large classes of people for convenience or business reasons (such as what happens with food allergy patients).
