|
Post by tyro on Mar 11, 2006 16:04:03 GMT -5
So, wearing my Drafted In To The Family Business hat, I'm going to write a letter, of some sort, to the folks on the kids with allergies web sites. Since we have a kid with allergies, who affected my ability to eat many things containing cow's milk, including chocolate, for many years. (I was left to suffer with only dark chocolate for some time, woe is me!)
I am thinking that for nursing moms of milk (or peanut, or other often added to chocolate things), making their own chocolate from scratch would be wonderful, but not especially feasible. (For nursing moms, with kids who react to peanuts or Cow's Milk protein, the proteins actually go into the mom's milk, to the nursing baby, so mom can't eat the problem food either!) For families with older kids with allergies, it might be doable depending on their level of interest in making things from scratch, etc.
All this led me to wonder whether any of you experienced home chocolate makers might be interested in making chocolate for any of these moms and or kids with allergies? The offer I'd put out, aside from directing them here and to Chocolate Alchemy, is that they'd have to buy the supplies needed - beans, goat or soy milk powder, molds if they wanted, say, Easter bunnies, etc. Then the stuff would be shipped to whoever had volunteered to do it, rather than to the purchaser. You get the fun of making another batch of chocolate -- which, considering how many batches get made here to "try" this that or the other thing, I'm pretty sure is a big part of why you do it. Then you send off the finished product to the person who wanted it. Chocolate Alchemy gets to sell the beans. You get to make the chocolate and help out someone who desperately misses it, or would like to have what "the other kids have", and they get to have "milk" chocolate without cow's milk in it, or dark chocolate made on equipment that is truly peanut free, or made without soy (the lecithin), or whatever else. It doesn't help for the theobromine, which can be a trigger for epileptic seizures for some people, but it covers a bunch of other bases.
So what do you folk think? Life would be easier if the families of the kids with allergies just got the equipment and everything and did it all themselves, but, if the kids are babies, or there are a few of them, it's hard for me to imagine that happening. I'm not quite sure how it happens in my house, even with only one kid. And that doesn't even take in to account the disposable income aspect of chocolate making at home. I'd love some feed back on both parts of the idea -- mild marketing to allergic to whatever folks, and whether any of you friendly folks want to take it upon yourselves to make chocolate for other people.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 12, 2006 15:39:57 GMT -5
Dear Tyro, I wouldn't mind doing something like that, but I would like a bit more practice making chocolate before I screw up someone else's. I don't think that I've made enough yet to take on such a task and feel competent enough. I think that towards the end of the year I might feel more up to the task. Something else I wonder about is related to the particular allergies. People who are allergic to peanuts, for example, can have severe reactions with very small amounts of peanut dust in foods. If I have used my equipment with cow's milk and soy before, I wonder if those who are allergic to these things would still have a reaction? I certainly wouldn't want to accidentally hurt/kill someone. I don't know the first thing about allergies to these products, but I guess I am a bit hesitant because of that too. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Mar 12, 2006 15:50:12 GMT -5
If allergenic material comes in contact with your equipment, it's my my near impossible to ensure with 100% certainty that you've removed it. For that matter, if you've even got, say, peanuts in your house, I'd likely not make a go of it. Incredibly small levels of allergenic material can kick off the allergic rxn - so much so that the materials need never be physically present on your equipment, but may be transferred there quite accidentally. For example, say you're cooking up a batch of pad thai using some pnut flour - when you open the pnut flavoring pack, you're going to aeresolize some of the pnut product - some of which may hang in the air for days, but it'll eventually settle out, and may settle on your santha or in your moulds. Another scenario may be that you may a pnut butter sandwich and some gets on your c ounter top - you lay a spatula on that counter the next day, it picks up some residual pnut product, and you put that spatula to work in your santha.
If you're going to be specifically making product geared towards folks who have life threatening medical conditions, you *really* need to ensure that you've taken the proper precautions...
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Mar 12, 2006 22:31:17 GMT -5
Tyro, as I was reading your page, alarms were going off in my head! Mothers, babies, allergies, this could be a major problem! Even deadly!!
I read sebastian's post and I am glad to see that I am not the only one who has a serious red alert condition going on! The sensitivity of people to some proteins is unbelievable. Despite my best efforts to clean everything, I've been unable to produce products that are completely free of reactions in those with severe allergies to gluten, either in a home or commercial environment that had previously processed gluten-rich foods. (I would never try to do this commercially, but I was curious so I conducted a few controlled personal tests.) The only sure solution is a dedicated facility and fresh equipment.
I could only ever think this idea could be remotely possible for people who are sensitive, NOT allergic, to a specific protein. If Chocolate Alchemy is involved in terms of business, I would be especially wary because one bad reaction could put you in a big mess, especially if you have not created a corporation for your business to protect you from personal liability.
You might consider encouraging members to exchange contact information with a disclaimer, and little further. Among those with allergies, the only people even remotely suitable to prepare chocolate for them would be those with the same allergies. And even then, I still wouldn't entirely trust them if the allergy is really serious. So... have extreme caution.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 13, 2006 10:32:27 GMT -5
Thanks to both of you for the info.
So, it seems like my hesitation has merit. I guess that I would not feel comfortable doing this then.
There must be another way to do such a thing though; such as the suggestion above of starting a collective of allergic people that can help each other out by splitting the cost of the equipment.
Alan
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 14, 2006 5:28:58 GMT -5
I've gone down the road of establishing a small chocolate factory in Australia, which is strictly nut-free, and soy-free (i.e. we don't use lecithin).
It's been a very serious undertaking, involving lots of research, signage on site, and education for anyone who sets foot on the premises. We believe that the only way we can assure people that our products are nut and soy free is by ensuring that these allergens never, ever come on site.
There's also the question of trust, and credibility. For instance, I've visited a chocolate factory which manufactures chocolate containing peanuts and macadamia nuts, and yet they still claim on their packaging that their plain chocolate is "Free of traces of peanuts and nuts".
To my mind, this whole issue is fraught with peril, and needs to be taken VERY seriously.
Sam
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Mar 14, 2006 5:44:04 GMT -5
There are significantly varying laws regarding allergen-free statements. I don't think you could get away with that in the states. And if you did, someone would eventually sue your rear out of business!
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 14, 2006 6:02:19 GMT -5
The product I'm referring to is sold in the USA.
Sam
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Mar 14, 2006 7:00:31 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to be that company when some kid dies from an allergic reaction. It will happen sooner or later. The lawsuit would be huge, and the publicity could be worse than lawsuit. I also suspect they may be violating labeling laws, though I do not generally deal with "no allergen" claims on products - not my focus - so I don't recall the labeling laws in this department off hand.
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Mar 14, 2006 12:32:20 GMT -5
on 12/9/05 a new us law went into effect called FALCPA (food allergen labelling and consumers protection act). It's very explicit in that if allergens from the big 8 are present, or even come in contact with your food, then you must affirmitively label them (ie if your packaging uses soy based ink, you have to label soy allergens). What you indicate clearly is a violation of at least two US laws, and I imagine one of their competitors or consumers will call them on it sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha Madell on Mar 14, 2006 18:12:40 GMT -5
Sebastian, thanks for that very specific information. I did a search on the net, and discovered that the act you mention came into force on January 1, 2006, and that manufacturers have been given a period of grace, whereby they don't have to change the labels on products that were packaged prior to January 1. Furthermore, reading a Q&A about FALCPA at: www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrguid.htmlI discovered that the act only applies to "foods that CONTAIN certain food allergens" (as an ingredient), and that the act does NOT require food manufacturers to label their products with advisory statements, such as "may contain [allergen]" or "processed in a facility that also processes [allergen]" One of my cousins has a baby with a life-threatening nut allergy, so this issue is very important to me. I think the rather frightening lesson here is that consumers can't just take statements like "Free of traces of peanuts and nuts" at face value. Sam
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Mar 14, 2006 18:53:06 GMT -5
Sorry, my bad - there were multiple pieces of legislation that went into effect around the same time that had major impacts on the food industry - the 12/9 date i refer to was actually a provision of the bioterrorism act that requires food manufacturers to be able to track their food, and alll components of processing (packaging, ingredients, processing aids) both one step forward and one step back. Sorry about that.
FALCPA pertains to all food in the US, not just those with the big 8 allergens on it. FALCPA will be expanded, as advisory labelling (may contain) was a HUGE point of contention, and one of the reasons this legislation came into being to begin with. Originally, the laws indicated that the advisory labelling would no longer be permitted - it would be affirimitive labelling - either it contains it or it doesn't. Period. However, it was soon realized that industry was not in a position to absolutely conform to that today, and as such was removed for the time being. It will return, a few dates have been suggested; however we probably won't know for some years what the actual date will be.
The main point of this legislation, at this time, is that if the food does contain one of the big 8 allergens, it must be clearly indicated as such on the labelling. If the ingredient is related to an allergen that the consumer may not readily identify (ie when protein is from milk, but many consumers might not realize that) it has to be clearly identified (ie whey protein (MILK)). As of 1/1/06, any products produced in the US are required to comply with this legislation.
|
|
|
Post by tyro on Mar 14, 2006 23:03:45 GMT -5
Gosh, give you folks an inch and you jump off a cliff.
As the mother of an infant alergic to cows milk protein, I knew that if I ate a piece of chocolate with milk in it, I was likely to have a colicy unhappy baby within a few hours. My child didn't have a serious reaction, fortionately. Most mothers do know the degree of their childs reaction and how careful they need to be. My daughter's peanut allergy has not been a problem with food made using equipment that also processes peanuts, another place she has been lucky. But a detail I, as her mother, know and am fairly speciffic about when checking ingreedients in foods to find out whether she can eat them. I'd expect that anyone arranging an exchange would make clear those details.
Where did the idea of selling chocolate to anyone come from. I didn't think anyone was at the level of chocolate making to have a kitchen set up to FDA standards for selling to begin with, but I'm not particularly reading here, just doing what I can to keep the cocoa bean business afloat.
So I won't suggest to parents of alergic children that they look for friendly chocolate makers to barter with. I'll suggest they look in to what's involved to make their own at home, as others of you are.
Do you folks jump off all subjects to this extent, or did I just write particularly badly?
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Mar 15, 2006 11:16:45 GMT -5
Well, no but you did say you wondered if some of those here were interested in making products for kids with allergies. Almost everyone who believes they have allergies, in fact, do not - for example, from the info you provide, your child likely has an intolerance or a sensitivity, not an allergy (immuno responses are categorized, largely, into one of 4 areas - true allergies are considered a type 2 immuno response). If they were truely allergic to the protein, there would be a much more significant resopnse than having a collicky child. For those who truely are allergic to these materials, it is very much a life or death situation, and if you're representing materials to be allergen free, specifically for that small subpopulation that is truely allergic, you literally run the risk of killing them. The medical and pharma communities, however, have for all intents and purposes lumped all these together into one comprehensive 'allergy' category, as educating the general populace on these differences is incredibly difficult, and frankly hardly anyone cares - what they do care about is that the symptoms go away, regardless of what it's called. Plus it's easier for everyone to say 'allergy' as opposed to 'type 3 immuno activated IgG mediated response' Now, since it appears that you were speaking about those who have intolerances or sensitivities to these groups of foods (and that may be incorrect, again, i'm connecting the dots from the limited info you've provided), then yes, this discussion is probably way overboard. Given the seriousness of the impact in this area, however, it prudent to be overcautious rather than undercautious...
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Mar 17, 2006 13:28:06 GMT -5
Two factors have contributed to this strong reaction: -The key phrase "allergy" which is totally different than "intolerance" or "sensitivity" -People involved with the food industry who know just how serious allergies and food can be
So... yes, we did freak out, because people die from stuff like that, and as people involved with the food industry, deaths related to products are... well, unacceptable.
I believe that a wide range of chocolates are already available for sensitive / intolerant individuals, though it may require a little digging. I'm curious exactly what types of chocolate you're looking to produce through this maker / consumer chocolate exchange that aren't already available.
|
|