<html><div> Reacting to an article entitled "Why Foods Need Hashgacha: The Differences Between<br>Recommended and Non-Recommended Hashgachos," RMartin Brody wrote, in response to the article's statement that "Good examples of issues in Kashrut which the lay person might not be aware<br>of including: processing ingredients not required to be listed in the ingredients list," </div><div> </div><div>>*Misleading.Any substance used in machinery that can migrate to the food<br>product must be listed*<</div><div> </div><div> However, the quote from the article is in no way misleading, The following is from the FDA's website:</div><div> </div><div>"<strong>Is it necessary to declare trace ingredients?</strong></div><div style="margin-left: 3em; font-weight: normal;"><strong>Answer: </strong>It depends on whether the trace ingredient is present in a significant amount and has a function in the finished food. If a substance is an incidental additive and has no function or technical effect in the finished product, then it need not be declared on the label."</div><div> </div><div> He also took issue with the statement in the article that "natural flavors means the source is natural and it has flavor (e.g.natural vanilla flavor could come from a chicken, not a vanilla bean, and<br>still be called natural vanilla flavor)," and wrote<br><br>>*Again, misleading. Natural vanilla flavor could indeed come from chicken,<br>but if it does, then the chicken is a significant ingredient and MUST be<br>listed, as any major component of "natural flavors" must be.<</div><div> </div><div> If vanilla were to be derived from chicken, it does _not_ make chicken a significant ingredient. The chicken is not itself in the product; something derived from the chicken is, but its source need not be listed. Witness glycerin: it can be derived from sources as disparate as animals and petroleum; no source is ever listed. So, too, in this hypothetical case: vanilla would have to be listed, but its source wouldn't.</div><div> </div><div> Finally, adressing the article's statement that "canned products may require technical issue resolution (e.g. bugs, bishul akum)," he comments</div><div> </div><div>>* Still misleading. Look for bugs yourself. If you can't see them, they are<br>not there. And as for bishul akum, not sure what product he is talking<br>about, not fit for a kings table or can be eaten raw take care of<br>everything I can think of, but even if there is something, steaming and<br>smoking is not cooking*<<br><br> While bugs which can't be seen because of their size are consider "not there," if they are big enough but cannot be seen because their color is the same as that of the food, such as the thrips in vegetables, they are most definitely there, and are prohibited. As for bishul aku"m, is he asserting that there are no canned foods in the pantry in Buckingham Palace?</div><div> </div><div>EMT</div></html>