• rotten@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    I saw it reported both ways. The outrage way, where “OMG, the stupid government is wasting food” and at first the recall way, where you must return the butter because it will kill you and there is something wrong with it. There shouldn’t be a recall at all, just an announcement that the butter wasn’t labeled properly for people allergic to milk products.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      News is a product, and hype is marketing. Getting you to consume their content is a sale, and they are comfortable lying to you to get you to read it. But notice that in both cases, the message is that government is ineffective. Either it is an overreaction or an utter failure at protecting consumers. Both are lies.

      There shouldn’t be a recall at all, just an announcement that the butter wasn’t labeled properly for people allergic to milk products.

      That’s a recall. Even if it’s just an announcement with no further action, it’s called a recall. In this case, it is a Class 2 recall, which means low risk and minimal effort. Retailers and distributors cannot continue to sell an improperly labelled product, so they are returning it to the manufacturer so it can be relabelled and sold, or discarded. Consumers are told they can discard it if they have a milk allergy, or they can use it because there’s nothing else wrong with it. If there is waste, it is the manufacturer’s fault. The system is working as intended with good effect.

      There should be a recall, because the butter wasn’t properly labelled and they need to let people know, even if there is minimal risk.