According to the actionable checkpoint, what should a consumer default to if a product looks like food but lacks the "fit for human consumption" term?
Answer
Default to the product's primary intended use (e.g., pet food).
If the term is absent on a product resembling food, the consumer must default to assessing the product's primary intended use, such as being marketed for pets, unless the 'human-grade' designation is present.
Related Questions
What does the phrase "fit for human consumption" fundamentally imply about a substance?How does the definition of "fit for human consumption" change in a legal or contractual setting?According to the RCW section mentioned for Washington State, what factor can render meat adulterated even if the ingredients are safe?When a product is labeled as *not* fit for human consumption and intended for animals, what does this typically signal?What does the term "human-grade" usually imply beyond merely being "fit for human consumption"?In figurative usage, what does stating information is *not fit for public consumption* imply?What characteristic often defines food served in institutional settings sometimes labeled as substandard (but still safe)?Which scenario represents an administrative reason for a food item being marked "not fit for human consumption"?If a batch of meat becomes *not* fit for consumption due to bacterial growth from lack of refrigeration, where does the failure primarily lie?According to the actionable checkpoint, what should a consumer default to if a product looks like food but lacks the "fit for human consumption" term?