Precautionary allergen labeling: Current communication problems and potential for future improvements

While there are EU laws for priority allergenic ingredients information on food product packaging, there is no legislation about Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL) for unintended allergen presence (UAP). As a result, PAL is used in different ways by different manufacturers and retailers, which hampers consumers’ interpretation of the information in the PAL. Previous research has focused on the forms of PAL that are used and on the way they are interpreted and used by consumers. This study adds the perspective of producers, retailers and branch organizations. Thirteen interviews with QA- and QC-professionals were conducted to find out more about the reasoning behind their PAL-use and to find out how PAL could be optimized. Results show that harmonization is needed, on different levels: in the way information on UAP is shared between parties involved in the food chain; in the way PAL is presented and phrased; and in the rules and regulations on PAL. More research is needed on possible ways to share (updates on) information on UAP with consumers

Precautionary allergen labeling: Current communication problems and potential for future improvements

While there are EU laws for priority allergenic ingredients information on food product packaging, there is no legislation about Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL) for unintended allergen presence (UAP). As a result, PAL is used in different ways by different manufacturers and retailers, which hampers consumers’ interpretation of the information in the PAL. Previous research has focused on the forms of PAL that are used and on the way they are interpreted and used by consumers. This study adds the perspective of producers, retailers and branch organizations. Thirteen interviews with QA- and QC-professionals were conducted to find out more about the reasoning behind their PAL-use and to find out how PAL could be optimized. Results show that harmonization is needed, on different levels: in the way information on UAP is shared between parties involved in the food chain; in the way PAL is presented and phrased; and in the rules and regulations on PAL. More research is needed on possible ways to share (updates on) information on UAP with consumers

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved

A systematic review of the effect of thermal processing on the allergenicity of tree nuts

Background: Allergenicity of foods can be influenced by processing. Tree nuts are an important source of nutrition and increasingly consumed; however, processing methods are quite variable and data are currently lacking on the effects of processing on allergenicity. Objective: To perform a systematic literature review on the effects of food processing on the allergenicity of tree nuts. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed, with screening of references, related articles and citations. Studies were included if they assessed the allergenicity or immunogenicity of processed nuts. Results: The search resulted in 32 articles suitable for analysis. Clinical studies indicate that roasting reduces the allergenicity of hazelnut in individuals with a birch pollen allergy and reactivity to raw hazelnut. Thermal processing may reduce the allergenicity of the PR-10 protein in hazelnut and almond in vitro. The majority of the in vitro studies investigating the allergenicity of nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) and seed storage proteins in hazelnut, almond, cashew nut, Brazil nut, walnut, pecan nut and pistachio nut show heat stability towards different thermal processing methods. Conclusion: Thermal processing may reduce allergenicity of PR-10 proteins in hazelnut and almond, in contrast to nsLTPs and seed storage proteins. This has important implications for source materials used for IgE testing and food challenges and diet advice