Insufficient warning. Nothing about it not being suitable for people or animal who are lactose intolerant; and contains no soy, coconut or almond products. It should, also, be accompanied with the appropriate MSDS. Further, the bottom of the cup should have a warning telling people not to tip the cup over as that creates a spilling hazard, which could cause slippery surfaces.
In California you’d have to add the warning that it’s a suspected carcinogen. That warning probably needs to be printed on the cups of all bikini tops and bras, also. On the plus side, guys would be able to claim “I’m near sighted and just trying to read the fine print.”
wfjag you’re actually onto something….doubtless the “contains milk” warning is due to so much “milk” (soy milk, coconut milk, almond milk) not containing cow’s milk.
But shouldn’t the warning say “contains cow milk”? Or just dairy? Yeah I’m a lawyer trying to get precise.
If I’m reading the FDA FAQ correctly (https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAllergens/ucm530854.htm), and admittedly this is the FAQ and not the actual law, you have to have the fairly precise eight words (“milk”, “eggs”, “fish”, “crustacean”, “tree nuts”, “peanuts”, “wheat”, “soy”) in the warning. Granted the FAQ also says that if the name of the ingredient contains the allergen you don’t need a separate warning, so that doesn’t help this particular signmaker.
Milk processing usually takes milk from multiple cows and puts it all together. So it is not milk from an individual cow (cow milk), it is properly cows milk as denoting sourcing from multiple bovines. Cow’s milk, as denoting milk belonging to cows is also a technically correct alternative.
7 Comments
Insufficient warning. Nothing about it not being suitable for people or animal who are lactose intolerant; and contains no soy, coconut or almond products. It should, also, be accompanied with the appropriate MSDS. Further, the bottom of the cup should have a warning telling people not to tip the cup over as that creates a spilling hazard, which could cause slippery surfaces.
Heaven help us if this milk was in California….!
In California you’d have to add the warning that it’s a suspected carcinogen. That warning probably needs to be printed on the cups of all bikini tops and bras, also. On the plus side, guys would be able to claim “I’m near sighted and just trying to read the fine print.”
“Also contains Hot.”
wfjag you’re actually onto something….doubtless the “contains milk” warning is due to so much “milk” (soy milk, coconut milk, almond milk) not containing cow’s milk.
But shouldn’t the warning say “contains cow milk”? Or just dairy? Yeah I’m a lawyer trying to get precise.
If I’m reading the FDA FAQ correctly (https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAllergens/ucm530854.htm), and admittedly this is the FAQ and not the actual law, you have to have the fairly precise eight words (“milk”, “eggs”, “fish”, “crustacean”, “tree nuts”, “peanuts”, “wheat”, “soy”) in the warning. Granted the FAQ also says that if the name of the ingredient contains the allergen you don’t need a separate warning, so that doesn’t help this particular signmaker.
Milk processing usually takes milk from multiple cows and puts it all together. So it is not milk from an individual cow (cow milk), it is properly cows milk as denoting sourcing from multiple bovines. Cow’s milk, as denoting milk belonging to cows is also a technically correct alternative.