But it seems logical that the rules would define contamination, as including any ingredients not listed on the packaging.
That said. Issuing an "Urgent ‘do not eat’ warning ". Seems like an over reaction. Rather than warning folks of the error. Returns will be refunded and listing the real ingredients.
Issuing an "Urgent ‘do not eat’ warning ". Seems like an over reaction. Rather than warning folks of the error.
There are some people who have serious food allergies, though I agree that for the great majority of people, eating one dish rather than the other is probably not a big deal.
If someone sees a don’t eat warning. They will also see a potential allergy warning or contains fish warning. In. The same place.
So informing people of the error and refunding any returns. Is no more risk then the initial sale was. And also produces a little less food and packaging waste then this.
So save n humans. Or save the same number if humans plus kill the earth less.
Can only guess.
But it seems logical that the rules would define contamination, as including any ingredients not listed on the packaging.
That said. Issuing an "Urgent ‘do not eat’ warning ". Seems like an over reaction. Rather than warning folks of the error. Returns will be refunded and listing the real ingredients.
There are some people who have serious food allergies, though I agree that for the great majority of people, eating one dish rather than the other is probably not a big deal.
Hence why I said. Warn folks about the error…
If someone sees a don’t eat warning. They will also see a potential allergy warning or contains fish warning. In. The same place.
So informing people of the error and refunding any returns. Is no more risk then the initial sale was. And also produces a little less food and packaging waste then this.
So save n humans. Or save the same number if humans plus kill the earth less.