I work for FDA companies and they only have to list on the label what their bill of material says not what actually happens on the shop floor. For example when they process Milk by default it should have a certain percentage of fat, protein and calcium but each cow will give different results. They test those results but on the labeling they list the generic results and some will be higher and some lower but they don't make a different label for each time they process it. Same goes for ingredients that's why they have labels that list might have (apples/pears/peaches) because they will substitute those in but if a byproduct or a non-normal ingredient gets in that they feel doesn't effect the outcome they don't have to make note of it (for examples bugs that get processed in with the food) they aren't going to list has 3% bugs.



>I am not completely naive about food production, but this seems beyond the pale. What is particularly appalling is how clearly they emphasize cost control over food safety. The labeling issue is also disturbing. I thought that was one thing we were doing right, for those who care to read it. The hamburger that paralyzed this woman, sold as Angus beef, had everything but the bathroom plunger in it yet was labeled with only one ingredient: beef.
>
>I also did not know the USDA's dual role. And you can see which one they emphasize.