I would suggest (if you can fit it onto one page) adding some personal example to the sample letter. Just like everyone else, our legislators may not 'get it.' We need to emphasize that it is a life or death thing, not just a convenience issue. I also mentioned in my letter that bad labelling costs $$$ in emergency room visits and insurance reimbursements. (Not that I would think that any of our fine legislators would be more interested in money than they are safety). Just a thought.

WOW! Thank you for this great info! I'm still new to this whole 'posting etiquitte' and stuff, but shouldn't we have something about this on the MAIN DISCUSSION BOARD as well? This is BIG STUFF and I think that most everyone would write a personal letter. (I have found this forum a little sleepy at times and don't always check here..) Hey Chris, what do you think? should there be a notice on the main board or one of those clicky-linky thingys?
(pardon spelling please, it's SO past my bedtime)

Melrose Mum
Someone can post on the Main Discussion Board and link to this thread, we should try to keep the discussion together.
This is an important issue and we need to be sure as many people see it as possible!
------------------
Stay Safe,
[email]Chris@PeanutAllergy.Com[/email]

I just sent my e-mails and will be sending written letters also.

Lots of questions --
Anyone have any connections with folks "on the hill" -- lobbyists, interns, whomever -- who could get us some info as to the names of major food companies who are IN FAVOR of this legislation & also those who are OPPOSED (and why). Where does FAAN stand on this legislation? (Not that I always agree with what FAAN has to say. . . ) What loopholes does the legislation's language afford food manufacturers?
Just some things to research & consider.
Am certainly all for food label legislation, but want it to be *tough* rules.
I also want to know which food companies to BOYCOTT PERMANENTLY -- those which are adverse to divulging their ingredients and/or exposing their dangerous cross-contaminating manufacturing processes.
Getting wordy & worked up. Going away now.
EB

Amie Rappoport of the Food Allergy Initiative(FAI) has been working on this project, maybe she would have that information. Also, here's a link that POFAK had posted that will take you to a form letter that you can e-mail to your congressmen. I've heard that a written letter is better, so I did both. I also e-mailed this link to family and friends and asked them to send in an e-mail as well. Don't forget that if you and dh/dw are both registered voters, each of you should send something to get the numbers up.
[url="http://www.foodallergyinitiative.org/section_switch.cfm?section_id=15"]http://www.foodallergyinitiative.org/section_switch.cfm?section_id=15[/url]
Another contact might be one of the bills' sponsors. There is likely to be a staff person in charge of tracking that information. It would be nice to know who's lobbying against us.

I have a question about the second item in the bill:
2. Manufacturers shall follow Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) that minimize, to the extent practicable, the unintentional presence of allergens in food. Manufacturers will not be permitted to use "may contain" labels unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that the required GMPs will not eliminate the unintentional presence of a known food allergen.
Manufacturers will not be permitted to use "may contain" labels unless.... It seems to me there has been a lot of discussion on these boards where people WANT things labeled as being on shared equipment etc, even if the manufacturer is pretty sure there is no cross-contamination. Some parents want the decision to be in their hands, not left with the manufacturer. Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that tests for cross-contamination do not measure a low enough level of allergen--that an even smaller level of allergen could cause a reaction in some people. So, not to start an argument (the bill basically sounds good to me) but is this good enough? Do we want HHS to deem the manufacturer's process "good enough" and then go by that? What does Canada do as far as "may contain" labels go?
So if this becomes law, will the foods that are labelled no longer be labeled? Will the cleaning process be better?
Here's a link to the Good Manufacturing Practices. There's nothing about allergens. It talks about contamination, but it seems to be referring to bugs and rat hairs and microorganisms, not other foods. I haven't read it all carefully, so if someone else sees something that I didn't, please point it out.
This bill still sounds pretty good--sounds like a company either has to prove their food isn't cross-contminated with an allergen, or they must label for it. That's a step in the right direction.
[This message has been edited by BENSMOM (edited June 03, 2002).]

I was the one who said that the cutoff the lab uses is higher than what it would take to cause a reaction in some people. I am all over these boards about the incident with WholeSoy (see my petition link). My daughter`s allergist clearly stated that the cutoff of 2.5 ppm that the University of Nebraska (the main food allergy testing lab in the United States) uses is higher than what it would take to cause a reaction in some people. This is confirmed in "The Peanut Allergy Answer Book" by Michael Young, M.D. My daughter is living proof of that fact when I gave her WholeSoy Glace and she had a reaction. The remaining product tested negative for peanut, again with a cutoff of 2.5 parts per million. If the product were in fact peanut free, she would not have had a reaction. My daughter`s CAP-RAST is Class IV, so there are people who are even more at risk than she is. See the post on the Main Board about the petition and it will clarify this. I had the same thoughts about the bill. It looks great except for the part of only putting may contain if there is real risk. That part scares me. For example, the owner of WholeSoy thinks there is no risk, and I SAVED MY DAUGHTER`S LIFE AFTER SHE ATE IT. That phrase will make manufacturers less likely to put on a may contain, and will get them off the hook. If only that part of the bill could be taken off, it would be great.

Getting a law passed is important, we can add to an existing law a lot easier than trying to get a new law passed that has what the opposition may call "extreme" conditions.
I think there was discussion (on the PeanutAllergy.Com discussion boards) on this years ago when this legislation was first started.
------------------