Poor understanding of allergen labelling by allergic and non-allergic consumers.

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumers' interpretation of allergy information is crucial for effective food safety policies. We evaluated consumer understanding of allergy information on foods in controlled, experimental studies. METHOD: Using 18 packaged foods, we evaluated consumer understanding of information about allergens in two experiments: First, a comparison of foods with no stated allergen versus allergen as a stated ingredient versus a precautionary allergen label (PAL); second, a comparison of three common variants of PAL. In each experiment, consumers with and without self-reported food allergy were asked to estimate the risk of allergic reaction and to rate the comprehensibility of the allergen information. In the second experiment, consumers were also asked which form of PAL they preferred. RESULTS: Risk of reaction was assessed as high and low for foods with the allergen stated as ingredient, or without any mention of allergen. However, risk assessment for PAL varied and was judged as higher by non-allergic than allergic participants (82% vs. 58%, p < .001). Understanding of risk associated with PAL also varied by health literacy (p < .001). Both allergic and non-allergic consumers judged all forms of allergy information to be unclear, especially products with no allergy information for non-allergic consumers. Products with a 'Produced in a Factory' PAL were perceived as less risky than 'May contain' or 'Traces of' PALs (p < .001), less than 40% of participants judged PAL information to be comprehensible, and participants preferred 'May contain' over the other PALs. CONCLUSION: Both allergic and non-allergic consumers find allergen information difficult to interpret on packaged foods and misunderstand PAL, incorrectly distinguishing different risk levels for different PAL wording. Clearer allergy information guidelines are called for, and the use of only one PAL wording is recommended.

Allergen labelling: Current practice and improvement from a communication perspective.

BACKGROUND: Allergen information on product labels is crucial in food allergy management, though inadequacy in current labelling practices is one of the major causes for accidental reactions upon consuming prepacked food products. OBJECTIVE: This study analyses current status of communicating allergen information on food labels and provides practical recommendations for improving the label format based on communication theory. METHODS: Product labels (N 288) of seven food categories from private label products and brands were obtained at three retailers in the Netherlands. Information regarding the 14 EU-regulated allergens was evaluated by the frequency of emphasizing allergens in the ingredient list, use of precautionary allergen labelling (PAL), icons and an allergen information section. Effectiveness of communication was assessed evaluating readability and findability of information on allergens using principles of Gestalt and Cognitive Load theories. RESULTS: As requested by EU regulation 1169/2011, emphasizing allergens in the ingredient list was almost 100%, all other presentations of information on allergens on labels was highly diverse. A separate allergen information section was present on most private label products. This section could, but not necessarily did, repeat allergens from the ingredient list and/or give a PAL. Brands often provided a PAL at the end of the ingredient list. Part of the products displayed an icon at different locations of the label. Label background, a lack of cohesion and variation in location of topics hamper the identification of relevant information on allergens by (allergic) consumers. Recommendations include a standardized order for mandatory and voluntary topics on the label and a separate allergen information section. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall, consumers encounter a wide and inconsistent range in ways of presentation of allergen information on labels. Standardization according to basic design principles can improve usability and support safe food purchases for allergic consumers.

Allergen risk assessment: Food intake levels of the general population represent those of food allergic patients.

Unintentional intake of allergens through food products poses a daily risk for allergic patients. Models estimating the risk of reactions mostly use intake data from general population surveys. Our study evaluates the comparability of food intake levels in the general population to those in the food allergic population. Data were collected by a 24-h recall method on 2 non-consecutive days in 38 cow's milk and/or hen's egg and 35 peanut and/or tree nut allergic adult patients. All products were assigned to food groups previously developed for allergen risk assessment. Food intake distributions from the allergic populations and a matched sample from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey were compared, and risk assessments were performed. Food intake data was obtained for 92% of the food groups. Comparison of the intake showed no statistically significant differences between either of the two allergic populations and the general population. Consequently, only small variations in estimated risks were found, that would not result in different risk management decisions. In conclusion, food intake data from the general population can be used for food allergen risk assessment and will not lead to a relevant under- or overestimation of the risk for the food allergic population.

Potential cofactors in accidental food allergic reactions are frequently present but may not influence severity and occurrence.

BACKGROUND: Cofactors, such as physical exercise and alcohol intake, might be associated with the severity or occurrence of food allergic reactions. OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the frequency of presence of potential cofactors in accidental food allergic reactions in adults and to what extent these factors influence the severity and occurrence of allergic reactions. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted, with a 1-year follow-up in adult patients with a physician-diagnosed food allergy. Patients were required to fill in a questionnaire after every accidental allergic reactions to food over a 1-year period. The primary outcome measure was the frequency that potential cofactors were present in these allergic reactions. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were included, of which 46% reported a total of 153 reactions during a 1-year follow-up period. In 74% of the reactions, ≥1 potential cofactor was reported to be present: tiredness (38%), alcohol intake (16%), stress (14%), symptoms of pollinosis (16%), symptoms of asthma (9%), sickness/flu (3%), physical exercise (3%) and use of analgesics (2%). More than one potential cofactor was reported in almost half of all reactions (47%). There was no significant difference in the presence of these factors between mild, moderate and severe reactions (P = 0.522). In the total study population, 9% of the patients used medication that might act as cofactor (antacids, angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs]) on a daily basis, which however did not influence the occurrence of reactions. Furthermore, 38% daily used allergy-suppressing medication. CONCLUSIONS: Although factors suggested to be cofactors were frequently present during accidental food allergic reactions, we found no evidence for an association between the potential cofactors examined and reaction severity, in a population where most reactions were of mild to moderate severity.

Accidental food allergy reactions: Products and undeclared ingredients.

BACKGROUND: Accidental allergic reactions to food are frequent and can be severe and even fatal. OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the culprit food products and levels of unexpected allergens in accidental reactions. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in adults (n = 157) with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of food allergy. During a 1-year follow-up, 73 patients reported accidental allergic reactions and the culprit food products. Food samples received (n = 51) were analyzed for a wide range of suspected noningredient allergens, and risk was quantified. RESULTS: A very diverse range of food products was responsible for the unexpected allergic reactions. Thirty-seven percent (19/51) of products analyzed had 1 to 4 culprit allergens identified that were not supposed to be present according to the ingredient declaration. Concentrations varied from 1 to 5000 mg of protein of the allergenic food per kilogram of food product and were greatest for peanut, milk, and sesame. Milk proteins posed the highest estimated risk for objective allergic reactions. The intake of culprit allergens by patients varied considerably. For those cases in which culprit allergens were detected, the intake of at least 1 allergen exceeded the reference dose or a culprit allergen with a yet unknown reference dose was present. Both patient neglect of precautionary allergen labeling statements and omission of using a precautionary allergen labeling statement by food manufacturers seem to contribute to accidental reactions. CONCLUSION: A wide range of food products are causing accidental reactions in patients with food allergy. Eight different allergens not declared on the ingredient lists were detected in the culprit food products, all of which were representative of allergens regulated in the European Union.