Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004

(2004). Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004.

Type

Legislation

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2004

Link

https://www.fda.gov/food/food-allergensgluten-free-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/food-allergen-labeling-and-consumer-protection-act-2004-falcpa

Cited from

communication_media_studies

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Boundary Disclosure Card
  • Schemas evolve under incident pressure: new slots are added when a class of incidents reveals a previously absent disclosure, as allergen lists expanded after fatal incidents and model-card sections expanded after bias incidents.

    This sourceAdded mandatory plain-language declaration of the major food allergens, an example of a disclosure slot expanded under incident pressure.

    Supported in partVerified against the work's full text

    The statute's text shows Congress mandating declaration of major food allergens in ingredient labelling — the allergen-disclosure half of the claim only; it says nothing about model cards or about incidents driving the change.

    “in some cases, the common or usual name of an ingredient may be unfamiliar to consumers, and many consumers may not realize the ingredient is derived from, or contains, a major food allergen”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

• Allergen Segregation Plan
  • The plan starts by naming the taint precisely — peanut protein, one of the major declared allergens under labeling law

    This sourceNaming allergens specifically — rather than as a single category — is what makes the labeling and the separation rules operable.

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:02a978d85f06 · see in the full table