It's a pretty obvious thing, I believe. Frying your french fries in bacon grease is a pretty common thing in my area. If she really cared, then she would ask and the vendor should tell her.
Ah okay. That's kind of what I'd figured, but I'd never bothered to confirm that that's the kind of oils used. I know some places (like five guys) use peanut oil, but the rest it was up in the air. I've never had a bacony-tasting fry though. It doesn't sound pleasant
I'm actually deathly allergic to mammal meat due to a tick bite, so if it wasn't listed on the sign it would cause me an ER visit. (Sorry if this seems aggressive, I just don't know how long it last and I miss normal food a lot)
15
deleted
· 5 years ago
I'm sorry but the way you worded that makes me think that you're some kind of alien.
A lone star tick I assume? That sucks. You're like 1 in 3 million though... can't really blame the vendor because if they put a warning on everything that had a 1 in 3 million chance of killing you it would be like .00003% menu and then just a bunch of warnings.
My name's Maisie, I'm from Indiana and my symptoms include; full body rash, stomach pain, swelling of the lips and face, blotchy skin, and in the worst case so far, anaphylactic shock.
That sucks. I lived with a woman for a while who had the same thing.
Also, you are legally required to disclose what is in food. However, for the most part a sign that reads something like "this faculty contains allergens and no food can be guaranteed allergen free" will protect a business from lawsuits. Cross contamination is very real and difficult to avoid when you prepare so much food.
Unfortunately people with deathly allergies just need to be really careful and distrustful of eating out most places.
I'm sorry guest, and @thekaylapup, but it's not the Vendor's job to tell you if you're going to be allergic to something. They are only required to tell you if you ask. If the food is pre-packaged, then they are required to warn you because you won't be in a position to ask. It may seem like a hassle to you, but it's better than the alternative of asking if each and every person has an allergy which would be perceived as an invasion of privacy to some people which includes me.
And cross contamination is a big deal. If you're allergic to seafood, you aren't even allowed inside of some places (Like my local Japanese place) simply because there is absolutely no chance of it not beng contaminated in some way.
@spiderwoman Vendors, atleast in the United states, are required to provide nutritional information to customers. Including ingredients. Granted, you may have to ask, they are required to provide the information. Most restaurants post this online anymore.
McDonalds actually fell under a lot of controversy over this a while ago, because they posted their nutrition information, and then hid it behind other posters.
Except in cases where the indirect food is one of the 12 common allergens. In which case you see phrases like "Made in a factory that also processes peanuts".
Moreover, frying grease is a direct ingredient. You wouldn't be required to list something like chicken breading in your fries cooked in the same oil, but the the oil itself is a direct ingredient.
Pre-package has its requirements of nutritional, calories, and allergen reporting on the package. Restaurants have lesser requirements. Calories and some major allergens only from what I can tell.
That could be. I know restaurants are still required to provide information, but I've never really researched exactly the differences between what they are expected to provide VS prepackaged.
That being said, I've never been told no when asking for more information from a restaurant. Usually whenever I've asked about something they will tell me what's in it, and even let me see the ingredients label on the packaged food they used as ingredients. Not surprisingly, restaurant owners and employees don't want their customers having allergic reactions.
As for the OP: Clearly your customer isn't allergic, nor committed enough to her lifestyle choices to bother looking into this. Obviously from a business perspective if you tell her she won't continue to eat your fries. And while you are legally required to provide some information (possibly not even this information) you are not required to ensure customers know this information.
Ethically speaking, this is a bit more complicated.
Obviously, she believes that she shouldn't eat meat. And that should be her decision, just like she should respect others decisions to eat meat. And, her decision should be respected even if she isn't being respectful about others.
That being said, I'd like to make a case for willful ignorance. I think people have the right to know what's in their food if they want to. I also think that people have the right to decide they don't want to know. I know that I have dozens of things to worry myself about, and well I don't always agree with the practices of the food industry, food made by companies with better practices is more expensive. I'd rather not know how my chicken lived, or how many cows are in my burger. And I think that sometimes others want this too.
I feel as though telling her, at this point, may be forcing her to to know things she didn't want to know. Provided she didn't ask (obviously). And maybe that seems like a cheap justification for profit, but it's what I think.
Also, you are legally required to disclose what is in food. However, for the most part a sign that reads something like "this faculty contains allergens and no food can be guaranteed allergen free" will protect a business from lawsuits. Cross contamination is very real and difficult to avoid when you prepare so much food.
Unfortunately people with deathly allergies just need to be really careful and distrustful of eating out most places.
And cross contamination is a big deal. If you're allergic to seafood, you aren't even allowed inside of some places (Like my local Japanese place) simply because there is absolutely no chance of it not beng contaminated in some way.
McDonalds actually fell under a lot of controversy over this a while ago, because they posted their nutrition information, and then hid it behind other posters.
Moreover, frying grease is a direct ingredient. You wouldn't be required to list something like chicken breading in your fries cooked in the same oil, but the the oil itself is a direct ingredient.
That being said, I've never been told no when asking for more information from a restaurant. Usually whenever I've asked about something they will tell me what's in it, and even let me see the ingredients label on the packaged food they used as ingredients. Not surprisingly, restaurant owners and employees don't want their customers having allergic reactions.
As for the OP: Clearly your customer isn't allergic, nor committed enough to her lifestyle choices to bother looking into this. Obviously from a business perspective if you tell her she won't continue to eat your fries. And while you are legally required to provide some information (possibly not even this information) you are not required to ensure customers know this information.
Ethically speaking, this is a bit more complicated.
That being said, I'd like to make a case for willful ignorance. I think people have the right to know what's in their food if they want to. I also think that people have the right to decide they don't want to know. I know that I have dozens of things to worry myself about, and well I don't always agree with the practices of the food industry, food made by companies with better practices is more expensive. I'd rather not know how my chicken lived, or how many cows are in my burger. And I think that sometimes others want this too.
I feel as though telling her, at this point, may be forcing her to to know things she didn't want to know. Provided she didn't ask (obviously). And maybe that seems like a cheap justification for profit, but it's what I think.