From the exact same article (emphasis added):

>If the ingredients DON'T include sesame, companies MUST take steps to prevent the foods from coming in contact with any sesame, known as cross-contamination.

And as far as "may contain", also from the exact same article:

>Some companies include statements on labels that say a food "may contain" a certain product or that the food is "produced in a facility" that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they DO NOT absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.

So the government has created a situation where anything without sesame is apparently vastly more expensive, or impossible, to manufacture now in the facilities they previously were. But the public would never tolerate banning sesame entirely just for some fraction being allergic, so of course it's still allowed as an actual intended ingredient in which case it must merely be labeled.

Obvious result of this is obvious: in attempting to unrealistically force a new level of isolation on previously "best effort" products, and with no compensation, the result is people cease bothering with those now actively punished efforts. Bad unfunded mandate driven by activists without consulting with actual producers from the sound of it.

A better approach might have been to support/reward the construction of new dedicated allergen free production facilities that could be devoted exclusively to those foods. But whatever the approach, it has to take into account actual demand vs costs.

--------

Edit: I didn't do a good enough job in elaborating on the result for parent poster, and plenty in the overall thread seem not to see how this leads to wanting to actively add sesame, so copying my response post from farther down:

Say we consider bakers. Essentially before the law there were 3 classes of bakers wrt sesame: known contaminated (actively using it as an ingredient), regular (not actively using it, but make no promises either way), and medical (actively promise to ensure no contamination as a product feature). This law banned regular bakers, and it did it in such a way that they all become medical bakers by default, because if they don't actively use sesame then they must meet the medical standard. But that's TERRIFYING for a regular baker for good reason. Before if they cooked both sesame goods (lots of delicious ones in high demand) and non-sesame goods (same) they could make reasonable efforts and that's fine. But medical means they now look at blame and liability for some child or adult having a serious reaction or even dying. And meeting that level of liability and standards may simply be impossible in an existing mixed normal facility. There is no funding for this mandate either.

The obvious reaction to do is to switch to the "known contaminated" class instead. For the cost of adding a minuscule untasteable amount of sesame flour to everything, now they effectively return back to being regular bakers again. They can keep all their existing cooking, in their existing (very expensive, potentially impossible to move from) facilities. Like, what did anyone expect would happen here?