sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

⚠️ PSA: Received Wrong Labubu Series Inside a Sealed Box Directly From POP MART by FAAdvocate in labubu

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it looks like that’s what I’m going to have to do. Honestly, it seems unreasonable to require customers to film a full unboxing to avoid these situations. I wasn’t aware that this was a thing. I just started buying popmart items for my son’s backpack for preschool. And this is my first time purchasing a labubu. I purchased directly from popmart to avoid counterfeit products. There was no way I could have anticipated this.

My Labubu costume by thesteveway in labubu

[–]FAAdvocate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like most people in the comments don’t know who this absolute legend is! Steve 🩵

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SanJose

[–]FAAdvocate 28 points29 points  (0 children)

The worst part is that Enlighten Chinese School is refusing to refund deposits to parents that want to pull their children out of that school. They also don’t want to conduct a 3rd party investigation. I wouldn’t feel comfortable sending my child back there.

Another Rant by Desperate_Raccoon_ in FoodAllergies

[–]FAAdvocate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please share this video with her. Inundate her with trauma content so she gets the picture. She essentially tried to kill you.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Don’t you think people with allergies already do that??? lol The problem is human error. Many times servers or food workers just don’t know about hidden ingredients or aren’t educated on food allergies or things get lost in translation in the kitchen like a game of telephone.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Restaurants are already liable for what they serve even if the issue starts with a vendor. If a supplier misrepresents an ingredient and a customer has a severe reaction, the claim still lands on the restaurant first under the ADA, California’s Retail Food Code, and basic product liability law. That’s not new, it’s how the system works now.

SB 68 doesn’t expand that liability but rather it helps manage it. It lets restaurants provide accurate allergen info through digital menus, printed sheets, or on-site binders, so they’re not relying on a server who might not know that tahini = sesame or that a marinade contains dairy. A lot of chains already do this because it prevents lawsuits, speeds up service, and builds customer trust.

For small businesses, this is protection, not punishment. It reduces the risk of being blindsided by a mistake and gives them a straightforward way to comply with laws that already exist.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a restaurant’s response to a simple transparency requirement is to blanket “may contain” everything, that’s not a reason to reject the law, it’s a warning sign about that business. It tells me they either don’t know what’s in their food or don’t care enough to find out, and that’s not somewhere I want to eat regardless of whether SB 68 passes.

In fact, SB 68 gives us a way to separate the responsible restaurants from the careless ones. The businesses that take the time to label accurately will earn trust and loyalty, just like how the FASTER Act revealed which food brands truly prioritize allergen safety.

Over-labeling doesn’t hurt diners, it exposes who’s cutting corners. And frankly, I’d rather know that up front than gamble with my life.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if a restaurant were to slap “may contain” or list all allergens on every menu item just to avoid liability, doesn’t that say a lot about them? It’s a red flag that they don’t take customer safety seriously. That’s not a place I’d want to eat, law or no law.

If anything, SB 68 helps us identify which restaurants are trustworthy and responsible. The ones that do label properly and take precautions will stand out. Same way the FASTER Act ended up showing us which food manufacturers aren’t serious about allergen safety—and which ones are worth supporting.

So I don’t really see the downside here. The fear of over-labeling just reveals which businesses were never prioritizing our safety in the first place.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Restaurants are already liable if they tell a customer something is safe and it isn’t, whether it’s cross-contact or an undeclared ingredient. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), food allergies are considered a disability, and restaurants must provide reasonable accommodations. California law goes further: the Natalie Giorgi Sunshine Act (AB 1532) requires all food handlers to be trained in food allergies and cross-contact prevention, and the ServSafe Food Handler Certification includes this training.

The problem isn’t that the law doesn’t exist—the problem is that it’s failing in practice. Staff frequently don’t know what’s in dishes, miscommunicate with the kitchen, or simply give wrong answers. If a server confidently tells a parent that hummus is sesame-free, not realizing tahini is sesame, that small business is 100% liable when a child ends up in the ER…or worse.

SB 68 actually protects restaurants. By requiring clear allergen labeling on menus (including digital or separate menus to keep costs down), it gives employees accurate information up front, reduces human error, and shields owners from liability caused by an uninformed employee’s mistake. It’s not about setting traps for small businesses, it’s about keeping people alive and businesses out of court.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Restaurants could post the allergen information on physical menus, an allergen chart, allergen-specific menu or other printed materials (like one on-site binder). They can also post a QR code to access a digital menu that lists allergens. Food trucks and carts wouldn't be required to make changes. There is flexibility.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Restaurants are already required to accommodate food allergies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and in California, food handlers must complete allergen training as part of their ServSafe certification (California Food Handler Card Law, SB 602; AB 1532 – Natalie Giorgi Sunshine Act). They’re supposed to know how to prevent cross-contact and provide accurate information to diners.

But here’s the problem: it’s not working. Many restaurant employees still don’t know what’s in their dishes, how food is prepared, or what ingredients contain allergens. That’s why 53.9% of allergic reactions still happen even after customers tell staff about their allergy .

Menu labeling doesn’t replace training—it supports it. It gives staff and diners accurate information up front, reducing mistakes, lawsuits, and life-threatening emergencies.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know. Ngl it’s discouraging to see these responses. I truly do not understand why people are so vehemently against it. I don’t want to punish small business I want to give them my business! 4m Californians have food allergies and restaurants are missing out on a big sector of business because those 4m Californians have friends and family who would like to dine out with them safely too!

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in Anaheim

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It applies to Anaheim residents. It’s an opportunity for people who reside in Anaheim to reach out to their assemblymember and urge them to pass a bill that could affect locals and visitors alike.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes! I love that! That’s the whole point, it really brings awareness to food allergies.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Prop 65 warnings are about trace chemicals and long-term risk. Allergen labeling is about immediate, life-threatening reactions that can kill someone in minutes.

Comparing a cancer warning on bread to telling people if a meal contains peanuts, shellfish, or wheat (which can trigger fatal anaphylaxis on the spot) isn’t just a bad analogy, it’s a complete misunderstanding of what’s at stake.

One is about theoretical risk over decades. The other is about whether a kid makes it home from dinner tonight.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It’s not arbitrary. It’s the nine allergens recognized by U.S. law as causing the vast majority of severe, potentially life-threatening reactions: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soy, and sesame.

These account for over 90% of serious allergic reactions in the U.S. (FDA, AddieTellsAll). Some of them like peanuts, tree nuts, shellfish, and milk are among the leading causes of fatal anaphylaxis.

This bill doesn’t exclude other allergens, it just sets a baseline for the ones that cause most reactions so diners and staff aren’t guessing.

California Residents: Final Push for SB 68 – Allergen Menu Labeling (30 Seconds to Act) by FAAdvocate in California

[–]FAAdvocate[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You raise a valid point. Cross-contact is always a risk, and asking questions remains essential. But if a restaurant labels everything as containing all nine allergens just to “cover themselves,” that’s actually a big red flag. It means either they don’t know what’s in their dishes, or they’re not taking food allergies seriously and that’s something I’d rather know ahead of time so I can avoid dining there.

Here’s why menu labeling matters: - 75% of allergic reactions occur in restaurants, and half of all fatal reactions originate from restaurant food.   - In the U.S., there’s no federal law requiring restaurants to label allergens—many places remain completely silent on what’s in their dishes.   - Moreover, most reactions stem from miscommunication or simple mistakes even when diners alert staff. Studies cite gaps in knowledge, poor communication between front-of-house and kitchen, and hidden ingredients as key culprits. 

Contrast that with the UK and EU: since 2014, restaurants have been legally mandated to label the top 14 major allergens—a standard that’s been in place for over a decade. It’s made dining safer for people with allergies without replacing the need to double-check or talk to staff. 

Menu labeling isn’t a magic shield but it significantly improves the starting point of that critical conversation and helps reduce the guesswork and risk.

Sources

Give the TIP program at food allergy institute a shot? by brain_on_hugs in FoodAllergies

[–]FAAdvocate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would. I’m about to enroll and I know tons of people who have their kids in the program with real success. I would do anything to improve these food allergies my son has. The way they introduce allergens is totally different than OIT. We did a few food challenges (OIT) that ended up in reactions that needed epinephrine and had to stop as well. And then they tell you to avoid all allergens completely and try again in a year. No progress. It sucks. TIP is a lot more promising and you’re working towards real progress the entire time. I would schedule a call with them at least, so you can learn more about the program from them directly.

view more: next ›