Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:00 PM Jun 2014

Nestle Recalls Ice Cream Due to Packaging Error (misses peanuts on the label of pb icecream)

I understand why peanut labeling needs to be done, but seriously, wtf? Peanut butter ice cream, especially a decent brand SHOULD contain peanuts. The label is for another type, but are people really that inept to not realize pb ice cream may have...peanuts?

Oh well. So here, recall announcement...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/nestle-recalls-ice-cream-due-packaging-error-24342746

Nestle USA is recalling 10,000 cartons of Haagen-Dazs chocolate peanut butter ice cream because the packages are mislabeled.

The company says the lids of the ice cream are labeled correctly, but the list of ingredients describes chocolate chip ice cream and does not say that the package contains peanuts. That could create a hazard for people with peanut allergies.

The recall affects 14-ounce cartons of ice cream with a best-by date of May 13, 2015. The ice cream was made on May 13 and has been distributed in Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington DC.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nestle Recalls Ice Cream Due to Packaging Error (misses peanuts on the label of pb icecream) (Original Post) uppityperson Jun 2014 OP
I agree that a person with peanut allergies customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #1
That is the other thing. I wonder how it happened, even though in this case it seems silly uppityperson Jun 2014 #3
Proofreading seems to be a lost art customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #4
amazon/kindle people have me on their "omg not again" list as I send in typos and wrong words uppityperson Jun 2014 #6
High five on that! n/t customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #8
It sounds like they used the bottom containers for a different flavor (chocolate chip)... Princess Turandot Jun 2014 #11
That makes sense customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #12
If they're capable of such an egregious error in labeling Cirque du So-What Jun 2014 #9
We used to sell honey-nut something or other where I work. johnp3907 Jun 2014 #2
I've got a bag of salted-in-the-shell peanuts right here in front of me. chollybocker Jun 2014 #5
one would hope salted in the shell peanuts may contain peanuts uppityperson Jun 2014 #7
Recently I was talking with a camp counselor, SheilaT Jun 2014 #10
Interesting. I think there are some parents who are so worried MineralMan Jun 2014 #13
That's one explanation jmowreader Jun 2014 #14
I think the preemptive position on peanuts is more likely. MineralMan Jun 2014 #15
The peanut containing snack bar SheilaT Jun 2014 #17
I got the origin of the snack bar jmowreader Jun 2014 #18
There is a theory laundry_queen Jun 2014 #19
Actually, you've nailed it. SheilaT Jun 2014 #20
As someone who had an Epi-pen-level food allergy, I will say that this kind of mislabeling sounds Brickbat Jun 2014 #16

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
1. I agree that a person with peanut allergies
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:06 PM
Jun 2014

would avoid this like the plague, but this labelling mishap reveals a level of extreme sloppiness on the part of the firm producing the packaging that calls into question what else they're forgetting to label correctly. Maybe Nestle needs to do a bit more proofreading before it accepts packaging materials from it's suppliers, and an expensive lesson is better than none at all.

Hopefully, other food products manufacturers will learn from this mistake, and not just assume that packaging doesn't need to be inspected regularly as it comes from suppliers.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
3. That is the other thing. I wonder how it happened, even though in this case it seems silly
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:08 PM
Jun 2014

In other cases, labeling may be, often is, much more important.

Too bad they are recalling them and not offering them at 99% off.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
4. Proofreading seems to be a lost art
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:12 PM
Jun 2014

I often check the ABC mobile application on my smartphone for news during my breaks, and it seems that every day I find at least three or four spelling or grammatical errors. A particularly amusing one was a reference to Mormons that used the term "Church of Ladder Day Saints". C'mon, can't they get at least that one right?

When it comes to things that affect people's health, there's no excuse for multi-million dollar firms to be anything other than 100% correct all of the time.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
6. amazon/kindle people have me on their "omg not again" list as I send in typos and wrong words
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:23 PM
Jun 2014

all the time. Once someone closed the shudders on their house in the evening. cringe. And overuse of the word "smirk". If someone is upset you are late to an appointment, they don't smirk in gratitude when you show up.

"Ladder Day Saints" is too funny though.

And yes, people's health needs to have labeling be correct all the time. Even though in this case it seems obvious, it is the other stuff that they might miss that is worrying.

Ladder Day Saints close the shudders on their houses at night and smirk at each other.

Princess Turandot

(4,784 posts)
11. It sounds like they used the bottom containers for a different flavor (chocolate chip)...
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:00 AM
Jun 2014

as opposed to the peanut butter ice cream ones being mislabeled. (The lids were for the right flavor.) Some kind of an operations snafu at the plant.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
12. That makes sense
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:34 PM
Jun 2014

Then, it's not right to blame the supplier. Of course, it is absolutely the responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure that things go out packaged properly. Again, a good lesson for the company making the foul-up, and for those who didn't, but are paying attention.

I always told my kids that you can learn from mistakes, and it's always cheaper to learn from someone else's mistake rather than your own.

Cirque du So-What

(25,812 posts)
9. If they're capable of such an egregious error in labeling
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:33 PM
Jun 2014

I hope their manufacturing practices are scrupulous enough to avoid getting peanuts mixed into other supposedly 'peanut-free' products. It only takes a miniscule amount to adversely affect some people.

johnp3907

(3,723 posts)
2. We used to sell honey-nut something or other where I work.
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:06 PM
Jun 2014

There was nothing close to any kind of nut in the ingredients. Not even so much as "artificial ____-nut flavoring" or anything. But under the ingredients was the standard caveat: "May Contain Nuts."

So you just never know.

chollybocker

(3,687 posts)
5. I've got a bag of salted-in-the-shell peanuts right here in front of me.
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:21 PM
Jun 2014

Under Ingredients, the package says: "Peanuts, salt."

Right under that, in red lettering, it says: "May contain peanuts."

I kid you not.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
10. Recently I was talking with a camp counselor,
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:46 AM
Jun 2014

who was telling me about how over the years the job has gotten more difficult because of things like food allergies. He related a story of one young lady camper who, so he was told, had a severe peanut allergy, and of course they were very careful to accommodate her needs. Somewhere in the middle of the session he discovered she was happily snacking on some sort of peanut snack bar. No apparent allergic results at all. He thought she ought to sue the snack bar maker, because it apparently didn't contain peanuts. My reaction was to think she wasn't peanut allergic in the first place.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
13. Interesting. I think there are some parents who are so worried
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:57 PM
Jun 2014

about their children that they say they have an allergy like a peanut allergy because they're afraid it could happen, even if there's no evidence of it. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

jmowreader

(50,451 posts)
14. That's one explanation
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:29 PM
Jun 2014

Another is they thought the camp would only have peanut-containing treats and didn't want her to have treats at camp, so they lied to the counselors. Which sounds petty to me but people would do that.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
15. I think the preemptive position on peanuts is more likely.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:42 PM
Jun 2014

I actually know some folks who claim their child has a peanut and tree nut allergy. They admit that there has never been any reaction to either for that child, but they want to "keep her from catching the allergy." So, her school and other organizations have all been warned about her "allergy," and have to take precautions.

I don't think this is a common thing, but I imagine there are some overly cautious parents who do this kind of thing.

On the other hand, I have a relative whose kids are allergic to multiple food items, and they have the skin test data to demonstrate it. Allergies are real and dangerous.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
17. The peanut containing snack bar
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:16 PM
Jun 2014

was one the camper herself brought into camp.

The camp supplied a reasonable number of snacks to the kids, and always work hard to accommodate special food requests. And even though there are some who are deathly allergic to peanuts, it is a vastly overblown issue.

jmowreader

(50,451 posts)
18. I got the origin of the snack bar
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jun 2014

Does anyone know the actual reason for the upswing in nut allergies over the past few years? Forty years ago very few people had a nut allergy. Now half the kids in America have them, or so it seems.

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
19. There is a theory
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:26 PM
Jun 2014

after some studies done, that the increase in allergies was due to more awareness of infant feeding, as well as an overly 'sterile' environment. Basically, the recommendation to put off feeding children common allergenic foods may have made things worse. In the old days, it wasn't unusual to see a toddler snacking on PB&J. Then there was an increase in allergies so the common school of thought was that if you delayed introduction of these allergens, the child would be less likely to be allergic. So they put out that recommendation. Allergies exploded. More parents delayed introduction of those foods out of fear, which made the situation worse. There is some evidence now to show that introducing these foods earlier actually builds up tolerance in children with genetic predispositions to allergies. There is a study here in Canada that showed how feeding children with confirmed allergies extremely tiny amounts of peanuts (like purified peanut protein in very very small amounts), and then very gradually building up to 2 peanuts a day, eliminated anaphylactic reactions. The new theory is that an infant's immune system needs practice with the allergen on a regular basis to 'recognize' it as 'safe'.

Where cleanliness also comes in is when an infant is in an overly clean environment, their immune system doesn't get a lot of practice to determine was is 'safe' and what isn't. There was a study done with Amish children who are raised helping out in the barn with animals and playing in the dirt basically from the time they can walk and it was found that being around dust, dirt and animals resulted in a marked reduction in allergies when compared with the rest of the population. The Amish kids' systems were learning what was 'safe' and what wasn't, and so when they tried foods like peanuts, their system was better able to discern that it was likely 'safe'. They still aren't sure WHY it works like this, but they know that exposure to dirt and allergens in infants in toddlers seems to inoculate their system against big allergic reactions later.

I find all this fascinating and did a bit of research on this because my brother has an anaphylactic allergy to fish and I was very worried about my kids inheriting a food allergy. Thankfully, my kids seem fine. They don't even have environmental allergies like their dad does, or asthma like I do. I did something right. I like to think it's my inferior housekeeping skills, LOL.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
20. Actually, you've nailed it.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:03 PM
Jun 2014

Our immune systems are designed to be challenged a great deal in our early years, hence childhood diseases which used to be treated rather casually. You're exposed, you usually recover, are permanently immune to those specific diseases. Environmental things, you're exposed, your immune system figures out what's safe and what's not, and you're okay.

Obviously I'm oversimplifying things, especially in regard to diseases. Take smallpox. It tended to have a pretty high death rate, but if you survived you were permanently immune. In fact, a much more benign and vastly less fatal form of smallpox came about right around the time we started seriously vaccinating people against the disease. This form also rarely caused scarring. Had the smallpox vaccination never been developed this new form probably would have pushed out the older, more dangerous form, and smallpox would have become just another one of the childhood diseases.

And people who seem to have well functioning immune systems can suddenly develop a life threatening allergy as an adult. A woman I know developed just such an allergy to shell fish when she was in her late 40's. To put it another way, our immune systems are weird.

Brickbat

(19,339 posts)
16. As someone who had an Epi-pen-level food allergy, I will say that this kind of mislabeling sounds
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:42 PM
Jun 2014

ridiculous but is really frustrating. I read every word on the label of everything I bought while I dealt with my allergy, and something inconsistent like this is a real drag. I missed certain products and flavors for a long time, and an unclear label could make me want to take the risk and try it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nestle Recalls Ice Cream ...