Now that someone has been arrested for making people sick after knowingly providing gluten-containing food to celiacs while labeling it, "gluten-free," I wonder how far this line of logic would go..
Let's say you make cereal or flour. You test it, and it comes back at 20 ppm or 200 ppm. Then you slap a "gluten free" label on it in, because that is a definition somewhere. So far so good, right?
But then you have some Celiacs get sick from eating the product. Which law would "win"-- the law that defines what you can call gluten free or the law that says you can't sell products that make people ill? Could someone follow the definition and still end up arrested?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment