FARE Changes Corporate Sponsorship Page After Test Results and ContentChecked Admission

After learning the results of tests performed by SnackSafely.com and the subsequent admission by ContentChecked that their app ignores “may contain” and other cross-contact warnings, Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE) has altered the Corporate Partners page on their website. The advocacy no longer displays language that could be construed as a tacit approval of ContentChecked, replacing it with a general disclaimer that “FARE does not review, test, sponsor, endorse or recommend any products or services that may appear on our website.

SnackSafely.com continues efforts to reach users of ContentChecked who may be relying on the app to determine the allergy content of foods. In tests, ContentChecked declared a series of common food products “free from peanuts” despite clearly visible “may contain peanuts” warnings on their labels. Users relying on the app put themselves and their children at risk of adverse reactions and anaphylaxis.

The company has so far ignored calls by SnackSafely.com to remove their app from the marketplace until its deficiencies are addressed, instead continuing to advertise that “you can feel confident when you are shopping with ContentChecked.”

A recent video published by the company shows actor Ricky Schroder relying on ContentChecked to determine that a brownie mix is gluten free for one of his dinner guests with dietary restrictions. The video does not disclose that Mr Schroder must also check the label for “may contain” warnings not recognized by ContentChecked to ensure the safety of his guest.

FARE has yet to issue an advisory regarding the ContentChecked app as it does with food products containing undisclosed allergens. ContentChecked poses a similar but opposite hazard to the food allergy community, instead masking potential allergen content that is explicitly declared by manufacturers on the label.

SnackSafely.com is in the process of initiating actions with Consumer Reports, the Better Business Bureau, and the NJ Attorney General’s Office. We urge FARE and other food allergy advocates to reach out to their respective audiences to warn them of the potential hazard reliance on the ContentChecked app poses.

Print or share this article
Click to visit sponsor

4 COMMENTS

  1. I’ve seen content checkeds site and its have the waring and on their blogg a response to the first snavksafely post is posted. I’m confused as you write that they ignore you?
    What happens to whazinnit? You seem to have an issue and agenda with content checked only?
    I looked at the fare link, this in fact also says the don’t stand by any product or service, that includes sunbutter, enjoy life etc, you fail
    To mention this in your blogg post. Is this really a nuanced article then?
    Do you have your facts in order?

    • Kris, I’m smiling because no one has ever accused me of being nuanced before 😉

      This posting is about FARE changing their policy solely because ContentChecked, as their corporate partner, markets an app that has been demonstrated to pose a danger to the food allergy community. That’s why there’s no mention of Wazinit or FARE’s other corporate partners.

      Unfortunately for the other partners, their descriptions were also removed by FARE. This was certainly not our intention as THOSE companies have demonstrated a clear resolve to protect the community from anaphylaxis.

      We are pushing ahead with action against ContentChecked because we are concerned that their app, despite the firm’s mea culpa on their blog, could potentially cause another tragedy if a consumer relies on it to determine the safety of a food product. The firm has many video ads with testimonials and language on their site that imply that ContentChecked will keep the consumer safe from dangerous allergens, when in fact it could put them in jeopardy by ignoring cross-contact warnings and reporting products as “free from”.

      Beta does not mean “unsafe because we haven’t implemented all our checks yet.” And I’ve never heard of a company charging for an app that was in Beta.

      I am calling on ContentChecked to remove their app until such time as it provides reliable results that will not put the user or the user’s family in jeopardy.

      In closing, Kris, I assure you my facts are indeed in order. I am passionate about this topic because I know better than to rely on the ContentChecked app to keep my daughter safe from products that are dangerous for her. My concern is for the consumers who pay for this app under the assumption that it will help keep THEIR children safe from dangerous products.

  2. Dave,

    Thank you for the work that you have done! It will save lives. It’s not easy calling out a company, but I’m glad you did. I’m sad that they did not come forth and say OOPS! We made a huge mistake. I down loaded their app to check it out and I will most likely be asking for a refund. I only played with in in my own pantry, was was safe!

    Again and again, thank you!

  3. Thank you for staying on top of this important issue! The public needs to be aware of the limitations of these apps. They simply are too unreliable and pose a true safety hazard. I fear that this will lead to a tragedy. Let’s hope that this story ends in the companies creating an app that actually works.

LEAVE A REPLY