Vegan labelling gone downhill. Anyone else noticed?

[dreama]

I've been to Marks and spencers hoping to get some indian snacks. I used to eat a lot of these while they were labeled as vegan but then I discovered yogurt in the ingrediats of some pakora's that waitrose sold. Also they've stopped labelling the sainsbury ones. Anyway when I asked at Marks and spencers about indian snacks suitable for vegan the assistant who was helping me with shopping told me there wasn't any. Yet I know they do sell some. I just can't be sure enough to buy them without a sighted vegan there to check them out for me.

Also I emailed waitrose recently to ask if their 'ben and Jerry' sorbet's were suitable for vegan but they said no as it wasn't labelled as such but that isn't a guarantee.

So has anyone else noticed this trend of not labelling. Is this some sort of conspiracy to try and get us so hungry that we give up on veganisn altogether. Not that it will work with me. I only miss eating indian snacks as the one earth shop doesn't sell them.

[green woman]

I've noticed inconsistencies with vegan labelling. Some items are labelled as suitable for vegans while others that contain obviously vegan ingredients aren't. Very frustrating.

[harpy]

I hadn't really noticed myself, dreama, but it does sound annoying. Maybe it's related to this worry about being sued by people with allergies if things are cross-contaminated?

Have you seen the Green and Black's thread: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19651

[littlemiss]

Yes shopping is taking longer as I have to keep checking all the ingrediants each time something says improved as nothing says vegan. Two weeks ago I bought some sainsburys dark choc(which did used to say not suitable for milk allergys but was not in the ingrediants so I went with it), which I have bought before. It did not have any indication the recipe had changed on the packet but after eating 2 squares at home I noticed the packet said contains milk! They added whey powder. Being lactose intolerant this resulted in me being ill half an hour later. I'm going to get paranoid about label checking now as its not just that I choose not to eat dairy, I cant eat dairy. I cook as much from scratch as I can but it is nice to pick up something ready made and know you can eat with a clean conscience. Now its going to be lots of reading ingrediants to make sure.

[Pob]

The frozen indian snacks are still labelled vegan in Sainsburys. And the frozen samosas are much nicer than the chilled ones

[fiamma]

It's annoying because it seems to indicate a lack of interest/sensibility on the part of food manufacturers, when in fact the opposite should be true, what with the increase in veganism, lactose intolerance and other allergies.
I was surprised the last time I flew BA. My bf is diabetic and I'm vegan and there was nothing for either of us; everything was full of sugar and milk. Here I can think of one item in the supermarket carrying vegan labelling and that's it! I'm so used to checking labels, but it amazes me how often they sneak milk into things, especially bread, crackers and dark chocolate

[Cumin]

Dreama, I agree. It is getting harder.
I think that as usual, they are just trying to avoid complaints and litigation. It's easier for them to say it's not vegan, than to say it is, but be wrong.
Laziness, basically.

[Gorilla]

^ +1

many things that were labelled vegan aren't any more, it could well be to do with worries about being sued. it's getting quite irritating.

[Mr Flibble]

Also I emailed waitrose recently to ask if their 'ben and Jerry' sorbet's were suitable for vegan but they said no as it wasn't labelled as such but that isn't a guarantee.

They are listed on the Ben and Jerry's website as being vegan, but not labelled on the carton. Quite tasty, but expensive (I'd say overpriced).

[Zero]

M&S Samosas were vegan previously, hopefully they still are. Not much there is though, they seem to have a passion for putting unessacary animal dervied ingredients into their products - take their Stuffed Vine Leaves for example, pretty much anywhere else you can buy them they are vegan, however at M&S they contain Lactose from dairy, why?.

I'm the same as the rest of you, even if it's listed "vegan" I still read the ingredients list, unless it's a company I can trust like Plamill or Redwood.

[LGBunny]

Yes - I've noticed both bad labelling, but also foods which used to be labelled that aren't anymore. But with no change in the ingredients. I think it may have a lot to do with manufacturers paranoia about trace ingredients.

[dreama]

They are listed on the Ben and Jerry's website as being vegan, but not labelled on the carton. Quite tasty, but expensive (I'd say overpriced).

Thanks for letting me know about that.

Also thanks for letting me know about the frozen samosas still being vegan. The sainsbury I used to shop at solihul is fairly small. I tend to go to birmingham city centre these days anyway since I have the one earth shop there. This is one shop that takes out the headache of constantly asking 'is it vegan' It's well worth the journey. If only they would sell more supplies though.

I can't read labels and feel nervous buying anything if I'm told it's not vegan. Which limits things.

[Rakey]

I bought Ben and Jerry's Mango Berry Swirl last week, and there was a vegan logo on the back of the carton. Boring as I am, I seem to be sticking to Sainsburys own brand stuff because if it is vegan it's labelled on the front. I did buy be good to yourself naan bread which last month which was labelled vegan last month but when i looked on Sunday the vegan symbol was taken away because it states on the packaging that there is a risk of cross contamination (probably because of the fact it's made in the same factory as the other naan), which is unfair because now there is no naan bread or chapatti sold in the store that is vegan!

It makes me so mad, the indians don't made naan bread with milk traditionally, and they don't put glycerin in chapatti so why do it???

Maybe i'll go hunting for recipes to make naan and chapatti

[LGBunny]

The problem is partly fueled by overzealous vegans (sorry if that offends, but i'm not sorry to say it) such as those found at plamil:

http://www.plamilfoods.co.uk/petition.htm

[Rakey]

I can see how some people have a worry about cross contamination.. I wouldn't want to eat something that had been made on the same belt as a dead animal, but...thats not very likely, plus you would hope that belts get cleaned, etc.
Unless Plamil start making everything, or we as vegans make everything from scratch, we're a bit limited (even more so) as to what we can buy.
If there was a vegan supermarket near me...then of course I would shop there, but while there isn't, I have to go to a supermarket, as greengrocers and H&B don't sell half the stuff I need to cook with.

[Elahiya]

apart from the fact that i think it´s disgusting when something had been made on the same production line, i also am allergic and have therefore to worry a lot about cross contamination. moreover, i don´t trust the producers that they clean it good enough and i already had an reaction after eating something that "may have contain traces of..." but i still am able to get a lot without cross contamination risks. it also depends how strictly vegan you are. some mind and some just don´t. i do mind it a lot to be honest.

[jj]

Sainsburys have taken the vegan labels off many products over the last 6 months. Some new ones have appeared on new products though.

Things like tomato sauce were vegan now have dairy in them, chilled samosas etc have had the labels on & off for the last year.

Crazy


jj

[Rakey]

More to the point really, why do you need dairy in tomato sauce in the first place if it wasn't there before??? I feel like manufacturers stick things into products just for the sake of it sometimes!!

[jj]

its to preserve em, make em last longer etc

same with bread - long life bread is full of fat, sugar & sometimes dairy simply to make it last longer

Its also done for cheapness sometimes to pad things out etc

I agree a lot of things should naturally be vegan.
I have found sometimes the cheaper budget brands in supermarkets are better as the dairy, egg & sugar is not added.
I know asda & tesco used do this with baked beans, the cheaper brands had less or none of these in but the mid priced & high priced had more rubbish in.
Fruit juice was the same, smart price had less sugar added although it didnt state any was added

even worse is when they add in sweeteners when they are not needed

jj

[Mr Flibble]

They are listed on the Ben and Jerry's website as being vegan, but not labelled on the carton. Quite tasty, but expensive (I'd say overpriced).

Just spotted that they are owned by Unilever - those bastards.

[Elahiya]

lucky me, i´ve never bought anything of them since i´m in the uk. don´t like unilever and nestle as well...

[bryzee86]

I did not know that!

Thanks for the heads up, Mr. F.

[Mr Flibble]

Interestingly unilever say on packaging (if not have their logo) if it's one of their brands. Thus based on ingredients I currently have 4 tubs in my freezer (half price in morrisons). According to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_and_Jerry

it is unilever however, so won't be getting it again. In terms of taste, it isn't worth the full retail price anyway.

[robbo]

The problem is partly fueled by overzealous vegans (sorry if that offends, but i'm not sorry to say it) such as those found at plamil:

http://www.plamilfoods.co.uk/petition.htm

That's a shocking thing to say, given that all Plamil are doing is abiding by Trading Standards/FSA guidelines and applying best practice according to EC regulations. Plus they were the UK's first vegan company, and had the first VS trademark. You may not like their chocolate, but don't knock there products - most chocolate companies are vast users of dairy - they're not exactly helping animals!!!!

[Zero]

How exactly do you mean

abiding by Trading Standards/FSA guidelines and applying best practice according to EC regulations

They are going beyond that in my opinion, the Vegan Society are following the Food Standards Agency guidelines and have sought advice from them from the very beginning, but Plamil are trying to push the VS Logo to a place where it would be so strict that only vegan run companies with all their own equipment (of which there are very very few) would be able to get the trademark, this would cripple the VS and our best source of vegan outreach information and education would be gone.

Yes, many chocolate companies are vast users of dairy but when more and more people are buying the non-dairy chocolate less dairy is used, it's simple supply and demand economics, we need to keep vegan options alive within the mainstream companies too.

I love that Plamil are a vegan run company but they are creating problems for the Vegan Society where there is simply no need to.

Please see the message from Colm at the Vegan Society in this thread:
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21177

[robbo]

I mean that the FSA guidelines explicitly state:

"Manufacturers, retailers and caterers should be able to demonstrate that foods presented as 'vegetarian' or 'vegan' have not been contaminated with non-vegetarian or non-vegan foods during storage, preparation, cooking or display." See: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/vegitermsgn.pdf

This means that no product will be labelled as vegan unless it is not contaminated, which is why we are seeing a lot of manufacturers removing their 'suitable for vegans' labelling. Of course the VS trademark is not labelling it as 'suitable for vegans' (as this is not explicitly stated - although it is implicitly stated, of course, hence this debate) and that is their justification.

Thank you for pointing to Colm's post which was interesting. His first point is true regardless of Plamil's stance on the trademark - products cannot be labelled as Vegan unless they are not contaminated anyway (but can have the VS trademark - see above).

His second point is true, but no-one (not even Plamil!) is asking for total removal of cross contamination from any source and I think everyone agrees this is unwanted/unachievable (until the EC say it's got to be done!). However given his first point it would be much clearer to the world if all maunufacturers who wanted to cater for vegans did adopt the EC allergy regulations because then the product could be clearly labelled as being 'suitable for vegans' and carry the VS symbol.

His third point is a shameless attack on Plamil and scaremongering with little substance, especially the statement 'would devastate our trademark scheme'. The information about who are trademark holders and which products are trademarked are publically available on the VS website. Taking a look through these it would appear that there are only a handful of chocolate manufacturers with the trademark, and of these all but two would continue unabated by the change proposed by Plamil (my reckoning is that it would cost the VS about £150 in lost revenue per year!!).

The unfortunate truth is that the labelling changes that have been introduced over the past few years, along with FSA/Trading Standards guidance and allergy best practice, means that manufacturers of both dairy and vegan products can no longer label there products as vegan unless they take the appropriate steps, and despite what the VS say there are hundreds of 'free-from' products available which have managed to be manufactured somewhere and don't have to have a 'may contain' statement on them.

The VS shouldn't shoot the messenger just because the real situation is an unpalatable truth - it smack of desperation (especially given that Plamil could quite easily drop the logo and write 'suitable for vegans' on their products instead).

Meanwhile looks like Viva! has spotted an opportunity to fragment this small market even more (Vegan logo and no cross contamination see - http://www.viva.org.uk/businesses/vi...businesses.doc).

[threeheadedpuppy]

Labelling is always going to be a problem when they are trying to cover a broad spectrum of people with one word. There are quite a few different requirements from different peoples vegan diets, and so enevitably, after enough people complain, the only place you'll see the vegan stamp is on completely "safe" food, which is not going to be many products...
What I would like to see is a slightly more complicated label, but more consistent. Just one symbol, which is colour/braille encoded in a way which would tell everyone which standards are met:
- gluten free
- dairy free
- vegetarian
- vegan

At the moment, there is a too much of a fine line between "completely dairy free", "may be contaminated with dairy", and "probably has a fair amount in it, even though we didn't add it", and each person has their own grey area when it comes to which one is acceptable. Maybe what we need is an analogue scale on the side of the box to represent how vegan something is, from completely dairy free, to vegetarian.

[robbo]

Interesting idea. The Vegetarian and Vegan foundation's scheme also wants to take into account how 'healthy' something is, as well as being suitable for either vegetarian, vegans or being dairy-free (see http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/symbol/ ). Maybe 'healthy' could be added into the mix too?

In the end, it's a grey area in terms of the opinion of the vegan consumer, many of whom will eat products that have a 'may contain' statement currently (and that's entirely up to them). However this alone does not mean that the VS should 'lower' it's own standards to those below FSA/Trading/EC standards. I think the devil is in the detail, and that in reality the number of vegan products would not dwindle with more exacting criteria for the Vegan trademark, but that it would be treated with more respect than it will with a 'may contain' statement next to it.

[treaclemine]

Unless Plamil start making everything ...

The Food and Drug Administration in the USA will only investigate chocolate for excessive contamination by insect fragments if they find:

"the average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined"

OR

"any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments"

I believe the permitted level of contamination of cocoa by insect fragments in the EU is similar ... so even Plamil can't avoid it.

[treaclemine]

However this alone does not mean that the VS should 'lower' it's own standards to those below FSA/Trading/EC standards.

As I've said over in the Vegan Society Trademark thread - I've checked this at source, and the Vegan Society Trademark criteria have always allowed potential accidental cross-contamination, as along as all measures possible and practical have been taken to avoid this.

Where this is from potential allergens, the Vegan Society Trademark has always been permitted to appear alongside statements such as 'may contain traces of ... [non-vegan allergen]'.

This is not a change, the Vegan Society standards have not been lowered.

[robbo]

The Food and Drug Administration in the USA will only investigate chocolate for excessive contamination by insect fragments if they find:

"the average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined"

OR

"any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments"

I believe the permitted level of contamination of cocoa by insect fragments in the EU is similar ... so even Plamil can't avoid it.

No ones talking about insect fragments. We're talking about cross contamination from other ingredients used in the factory on the same line, such as milk.

[Zero]

No ones talking about insect fragments. We're talking about cross contamination from other ingredients used in the factory on the same line, such as milk.

Treaclemine is

Not sure if perhaps you missed the post after that, which does talk about milk, perhaps you were typing your posts at the same time, but see above

[robbo]

As I've said over in the Vegan Society Trademark thread - I've checked this at source, and the Vegan Society Trademark criteria have always allowed potential accidental cross-contamination, as along as all measures possible and practical have been taken to avoid this.

Where this is from potential allergens, the Vegan Society Trademark has always been permitted to appear alongside statements such as 'may contain traces of ... [non-vegan allergen]'.

This is not a change, the Vegan Society standards have not been lowered.

Despite your protestations I have never seen a product with the VS trademark or labelled as vegan that DOES have a 'may contain' statement. Contamination from other non-vegan ingredients used in the same factory can be stopped if all measures possible and practical are taken and the resulting product would then meet FSA/Trading standards regulations for carrying a 'suitable for vegans' label. Currently under the VS proposal a product could have the VS symbol but not carry the term 'suitable for vegans'. How crazy is that?

[treaclemine]

We are talking about the labelling of food when there is a risk of contamination from non-vegan substances. To my mind at least, that includes insect fragments in cocoa beans.

[Zero]

FSA/Trading standards regulations for carrying a 'suitable for vegans' label. Currently under the VS proposal a product could have the VS symbol but not carry the term 'suitable for vegans'. How crazy is that?

They are not regulations, they are guidelines.

The Allergen management and advisory labelling guidance, which is voluntary, uses examples of 'best practice' to help businesses of all sizes provide appropriate advisory labels that are clearer for consumers to understand.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news.../allergenguide

[treaclemine]

Despite your protestations I have never seen a product with the VS trademark or labelled as vegan that DOES have a 'may contain' statement. Contamination from other non-vegan ingredients used in the same factory can be stopped if all measures possible and practical are taken and the resulting product would then meet FSA/Trading standards regulations for carrying a 'suitable for vegans' label. Currently under the VS proposal a product could have the VS symbol but not carry the term 'suitable for vegans'. How crazy is that?

These are not protestations. Nor are they proposals.

It is a matter of historical fact that the Vegan Society Trademark rules have always allowed 'may contain traces ...' statements on Trademarked products. This is still the case.

It is a matter of reported fact that the Food Standards Agency accept that a food can be labelled as both 'suitable for vegans' and as 'may contain traces ...' at the same time.

The Food Standards Agency have recently clarified their advice on this matter. Here's the quote from them:

"As you are aware there is no legal definition of the term vegan, but the Agency's voluntary guidance on use of the terms vegetarian and vegan in food labelling advises that foods labelled as vegan should not contain milk and contains some advice on cross contamination."

"Although the Agency advice suggests that "Manufacturers, retailers and caterers should be able to demonstrate that foods presented as 'vegetarian or vegan' have not been contaminated with non-vegetarian or non-vegan foods during storage, preparation, cooking or display" we would not be against a food that is labelled as vegan carrying a warning on the label that it is produced in a factory or on a line where certain dairy products or allergenic foods are also handled and used. We would also not be against a 'may contain ...' warning. In fact we would consider it to be advantageous. It is important for safety reasons that consumers to know that possible allergens may be present."

The Food Standards Agency clearly understand that even after all reasonable precautions have been taken traces of non-vegan material can still cross-contaminate any vegan food.

[robbo]

We are talking about the labelling of food when there is a risk of contamination from non-vegan substances. To my mind at least, that includes insect fragments in cocoa beans.

1 .Cocoa beans will contain insect fragments and it won't contain milk. Fact.

2. Cross contamination of milk into a product will occur because of manufacturing processes that allow it to. Fact.

3. It is possible to produce vegan chocolate without cross-contamination from milk under FSA/Trading standards/EC regulations, even in factories that process dairy. Fact.

4. The VS trademark can be applied to a product which cannot be labelled 'suitable for vegans' under FSA/Trading standards regulations. Fact.

We can all read labels and all take decisions as to what we think is suitable based on our own criteria. There are many who would like the VS trademark only to apply to products that can also be labelled 'suitable for vegans' bringing the trademark into line with current regulations.

[Gorilla]

Despite your protestations I have never seen a product with the VS trademark or labelled as vegan that DOES have a 'may contain' statement.

i've said this before and i'll say it again, i have definitely bought products with the Vegan Society logo that also have a 'may contain traces of milk' warning. one example of this is Mother Hemp bars which i was buying years ago (in fact i don't know if they're even being made any more).

this argument seems to be going round in circles.

[treaclemine]

3. It is possible to produce vegan chocolate without cross-contamination from milk under FSA/Trading standards/EC regulations, even in factories that process dairy. Fact.

4. The VS trademark can be applied to a product which cannot be labelled 'suitable for vegans' under FSA/Trading standards regulations. Fact.

Your points 3 and 4 are not true.

On 3: The Food Standards Agency has information about chocolate with no intentional milk ingredients but which is produced on the same lines as milk chocolate after best practice cleaning has been applied. The dark chocolate has been shown to still contain a detectable level of milk at the level of a few parts per million.

On 4: The FSA guidelines do allow a product to be labelled as both 'may contain traces ...' and 'suitable for vegans', as you can see from their statement which I've included above.

[Zero]

4. The VS trademark can be applied to a product which cannot be labelled 'suitable for vegans' under FSA/Trading standards regulations. Fact.

Again..... guidelines not regulations, these words are not interchangeable.

[robbo]

These are not protestations. Nor are they proposals.

The Food Standards Agency have recently clarified their advice on this matter. Here's the quote from them:

"As you are aware there is no legal definition of the term vegan, but the Agency's voluntary guidance on use of the terms vegetarian and vegan in food labelling advises that foods labelled as vegan should not contain milk and contains some advice on cross contamination."

"Although the Agency advice suggests that "Manufacturers, retailers and caterers should be able to demonstrate that foods presented as 'vegetarian or vegan' have not been contaminated with non-vegetarian or non-vegan foods during storage, preparation, cooking or display" we would not be against a food that is labelled as vegan carrying a warning on the label that it is produced in a factory or on a line where certain dairy products or allergenic foods are also handled and used. We would also not be against a 'may contain ...' warning. In fact we would consider it to be advantageous. It is important for safety reasons that consumers to know that possible allergens may be present."

The Food Standards Agency clearly understand that even after all reasonable precautions have been taken traces of non-vegan material can still cross-contaminate any vegan food.

As I said the FSA's own guidelines clearly state that contamination with non-vegan foods should not take place during manufacture. The rest is interesting, but where can I see this publically? (at the moment is sounds as if this advice has been given directly, perhaps to the VS?? )

[alisont]

Dreama - I have brought Icelands Indian snack pack a couple of times - after work got them in for a picnic as they were vegan for me.

They dont say vegan on there as Iceland dont ever put vegan on their products but Ive checked the ingredients and they do seem to be ok for vegans.

I find they are really nice and tasty, very spicy too, and the mango dip and tomato dip are dairy free too.

Its £5 for a big box with 75 items in - all frozen, found in the party foods section. Not sure if there is an Iceland in Solihull?

I agree Its getting so hard to find whats ok and whats not

[dreama]

Dreama - I have brought Icelands Indian snack pack a couple of times - after work got them in for a picnic as they were vegan for me.

They dont say vegan on there as Iceland dont ever put vegan on their products but Ive checked the ingredients and they do seem to be ok for vegans.

I find they are really nice and tasty, very spicy too, and the mango dip and tomato dip are dairy free too.

Its £5 for a big box with 75 items in - all frozen, found in the party foods section. Not sure if there is an Iceland in Solihull?

I agree Its getting so hard to find whats ok and whats not

Thanks. Sounds good but unfortunately I have no idea how to get to an iceland.

[alisont]

Hi Dreama Im afraid Im not able to go to Zeros birthday meet up so cant help out there, dont know if anyone else could get a box for you?

Il try to find out where the nearest Iceland is to you, do you have anyone who could go and get a box for you?

Just looked and nearest stores are Yardley, Acocks green, Sheldon, Shirley, Chelmsley Wood, Kings Heath, Erdington and Handsworth.

Its called the Indian platter and is in the party food section.

[RossClement]

Hi all. I'm an intermittent participant in this group.

I've also noticed vegan symbols appearing and disappearing. The chilled sainsbury's samosas were a case in point. They weren't vegan. Then they were vegan. Then they weren't vegan again. I wouldn't be surprised if the recipe and method of manufacture hadn't changed at all.

Sainsbury's vegetable chili disappeared for a while, then returned as vegetarian rather than vegan. I haven't looked carefully to see if the recipe has changed or whether the change in labelling is simply the same as frequently mentioned in this thread.

I sometimes wonder if labelling such as "vegan recipe, cannot guarantee animal product free", similar to the current "nut free recipe, cannot guarantee nut free" wouldn't be a solution.

Once upon a time Waitrose had a vegan list and their three flavour foccacia thing (whatever they called it) was on it. That was, IMHO, delicious.

I've never heard of Sainsbury's frozen samosas. I'll have a look.

[bradders]

a problem is shellac which is often used as a coating on fruit and veg that are then used to make food. An example is fruit juice in co-op certain of their own brand juices say vegan others just say vegetarian. In sainsbury's too this has been an issue.
The decrease in vegan labels may be due to the use of shellac coated foodstuffs being used in these products which would make them not vegan.

[Zero]

Another reason is that companies are finding it easier to just remove the word vegan from their packaging rather than spend a lot of time answering people who are writing them letters and emails stating that something can't be vegan if it has a "may contain traces" of diary, egg etc.

[Cumin]

a problem is shellac which is often used as a coating on fruit and veg that are then used to make food. An example is fruit juice in co-op certain of their own brand juices say vegan others just say vegetarian. In sainsbury's too this has been an issue.
The decrease in vegan labels may be due to the use of shellac coated foodstuffs being used in these products which would make them not vegan.

I agree that Shellac coated fruit is a hidden danger as it's never declared. However - why would having shellac make it vegetarian rather than vegan. Using shellac would make it neither.

[bradders]

on the contrary shellac is a resin produced by the living female lac beetle and is not crushed beetles like cochineal and would be generally considered vegetarian. The main issue with shellac is that living beetles get caught in the resin frequently during harvesting and end up in the manufacturing process etc and is of course exploitation of the beetle and forcing them to produce more resin than they would naturally so do

[bradders]

Another reason is that companies are finding it easier to just remove the word vegan from their packaging rather than spend a lot of time answering people who are writing them letters and emails stating that something can't be vegan if it has a "may contain traces" of diary, egg etc.

I agree this is another issue and led to the removal of 'vegan' from westons cider for a time. In this case much of it was due to ill informed letters.