How do peanut and nut-allergic consumers use information on the packaging to avoid allergens?

BACKGROUND: Recent legislation has sought to improve the information printed on packaged foods relevant to the safety of food allergic consumers. We aimed to understand the complex risk assessment decisions made by peanut and nut-allergic adults when purchasing food, with particular reference to use of printed package information. METHODS: The behaviour and 'thinking aloud' of 32 participants were recorded during their normal food shop, followed by a semi-structured interview. During the interview they were given 13 potentially problematic packaged foods, and asked if they would purchase the product and what their reasons were. Transcribed data from the shop, interview and 13-product task were analysed to explore use of allergy advice boxes, ingredients lists and other packaging information. RESULTS: Some participants used the ingredients list as their primary check for allergens, but most used the allergy advice box. Package-based information was generally considered reliable, but some supermarket and brand labels were trusted more than others. Images and product names were used to draw inferences about the presence of nuts. A number of improvements were suggested by participants, particularly a request for more 'nut free' labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Food labels were used in conjunction with nonpacket-based strategies (e.g. previous experience) to make choices. External factors (e.g. trust of manufacturer) informed interpretation of and confidence in labels. Images and product names, not intended by manufacturers as an allergen risk assessment aid, were also used to inform choices.

The challenges for nut-allergic consumers of eating out.

BACKGROUND: For individuals with a nut allergy, the avoidance of allergens is particularly challenging in situations where they are not preparing their own food. Many allergic reactions occur when eating outside the home. OBJECTIVE: To identify and explore the challenges faced by nut-allergic individuals (NAIs) when they are eating in restaurants and other eating establishments. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted with 32 adults with a clinical history of allergy to peanuts and/or tree nuts. RESULTS: The main strategies that participants adopted to manage the risk of allergic reactions when eating outside the home were avoidance and communication. They avoided types of restaurants, meal courses or particular foods. Seeking familiarity was a key strategy that enabled NAIs to reduce uncertainty and anxiety. Language differences were a major barrier to confident communication about food content. The need to check whether the food on offer may contain nuts was a source of social embarrassment for many participants and the desire to avoid this sometimes led to increased risk taking. Some did not disclose their allergy to restaurant staff as they feared a conservative reaction that would further constrain food choices. NAIs often have to plan where to eat out. The consequent lack of spontaneity was a source of regret to some. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Communication patterns of nut-allergic adults are often grounded in legitimate everyday social considerations around embarrassment, choice and spontaneity. Education and training strategies are needed that recognize and take account of this. Focusing on communication deficits of NAIs may be unhelpful; responsibility for food safety must be shared with the food industry.