Perspectives in precautionary allergen labelling of prepackaged foods after the FAO/WHO consultation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the perspectives regarding precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) of prepackaged foods following the consultation conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the WHO. RECENT FINDINGS: The FAO/WHO consultation provided a comprehensive assessment of the current status and practices of PAL implementation worldwide. One of the key findings highlighted by the Expert Committee was the need for improvement in existing PAL systems. It was noted that many countries lacked uniformity in PAL practices, leading to inconsistencies in labelling and potentially misleading information for consumers. Furthermore, the consultation emphasized the importance of PAL being risk-based, taking into account both the amount and frequency of unintended allergen presence (UAP) in food products. SUMMARY: The FAO/WHO consultation shed light on various perspectives and challenges associated with PAL of prepackaged foods. Key findings emphasized the need for improvement in existing PAL systems, including the adoption of a risk-based approach, standardized regulations, and enhanced transparency. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between regulatory agencies, food manufacturers, and consumer advocacy groups will be essential in developing effective PAL strategies that prioritize consumer safety and well being.

Reactivity to allergenic food contaminants: A study on products on the market.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and severity of reactions in food-allergic consumers exposed to unintentional food allergen contamination during production is unknown. To warn allergic consumers, it has been suggested for pre-packaged foods to be precautionary labelled when the food allergen contamination may exceed the amount to which 1%-5% of the population could react (ED01-ED05). ED01 for hazelnut and milk have been estimated at 0.1 and 0.2 mg, respectively, by the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL) initiative. The respective reference doses recommended by the FAO/WHO Codex consultation are 3 and 2 mg. We evaluated the reactivity to potential traces of milk and hazelnut allergens in allergen-free pre-packaged products by children affected by severe allergies to milk and hazelnuts. METHODS: Oral Food Challenges with commercially available hazelnut-free wafer biscuits and milk-free chocolate pralines were administered to patients with severe food allergies to hazelnut and cow's milk, respectively. Contamination levels of milk or hazelnut allergens were measured using chromatographic separation interfaced with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. RESULTS: No hazelnut allergic patient showed allergic reactions to exposure to biscuits, nor any milk allergic patient displayed allergic reactions to the dark chocolate praline. While no hazelnut trace was detected in biscuits, the praline was found to be contaminated by milk at concentrations ranging between 8 and 35 mg total protein/kg food. In our dose model, these amounts exceeded 1.5-10 times the VITAL ED01 and reached the threshold suggested by the FAO/WHO Codex consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Upon the consumption of food products available on the market, many patients with severe food allergies tolerate significantly higher doses of allergen than reference doses indicated in the VITAL system used for precautionary allergen labelling. These doses support the safety of the FAO/WHO recommended reference doses.

Cow's milk and egg protein threshold dose distributions in children tolerant to beef, baked milk, and baked egg.

BACKGROUND: The use of eliciting doses (EDs) for food allergens is necessary to inform individual dietary advice and food allergen risk-management. The Eliciting Dose 01 (ED01) for milk and egg, calculated from populations of allergic subjects undergoing oral food challenges (OFCs), are 0.2 mg total protein. The respective Eliciting Dose 05 (ED05) is 2.4 mg for milk and 2.3 mg for egg. As about 70% children allergic to such foods may tolerate them when baked, we sought to verify the EDs of that subpopulation of milk and egg-allergic children. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed consecutive OFC for fresh milk and egg between January 2018 and December 2020 in a population of baked food-tolerant children. RESULTS: Among 288 children (median age 56 - IQR 36-92.5 months, 67.1% male) included, 87 (30.2%) returned positive OFC results, 38 with milk and 49 with egg. The most conservative ED01 was 0.3 mg total protein (IQR 0.03-2.9) for milk and 14.4 mg total protein (IQR 3.6-56.9) for egg. The respective ED05 was 4.2 (IQR 0.9-19.6) mg for milk and 87.7 (IQR 43-179) mg for egg. Such thresholds are, respectively, 1.5 (milk ED01), 1.75 (milk ED05), 72 (egg ED01), and 38.35 (egg ED05) times higher than the currently used thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The subpopulation of children allergic to milk and egg, but tolerant to baked proteins, displays higher reactivity thresholds than the general population of children allergic to milk and egg. Their risk stratification, in both individual and population terms, should consider this difference. In baked milk-tolerant children, milk causes reactions at lower doses than egg in our group of egg-tolerant children. This could be associated with the relative harmlessness of egg compared with milk in the determinism of fatal anaphylactic reactions in children.

Threshold of Reactivity and Tolerance to Precautionary Allergen-Labelled Biscuits of Baked Milk- and Egg-Allergic Children.

Extremely sensitive food-allergic patients may react to very small amounts of allergenic foods. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) warns from possible allergenic contaminations. We evaluated by oral food challenge the reactivity to a brand of PAL-labelled milk- and egg-free biscuits of children with severe milk and egg allergy. We explored the ability of proteomic methods to identify minute amounts of milk/egg allergens in such biscuits. Traces of milk and/or egg allergens in biscuits were measured by two different liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry methods. The binding of patient's serum with egg/milk proteins was assessed using immunoblotting. None of the patients reacted to biscuits. Egg and milk proteins were undetectable with a limit of detection of 0.6 µg/g for milk and egg (method A), and of 0.1 and 0.3 µg /g for milk and egg, respectively (method B). The immunoblots did not show milk/egg proteins in the studied biscuits. Milk/egg content of the biscuits is far lower than 4 µg of milk or egg protein per gram of product, the minimal doses considered theoretically capable of causing reactions. With high sensitivity, proteomic assessments predict the harmlessness of very small amount of allergens in foods, and can be used to help avoiding unnecessary PAL.

Impact of Omalizumab on Food Allergy in Patients Treated for Asthma: A Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of omalizumab on food allergy thresholds have been little studied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-life effects of omalizumab on food threshold tolerability in children treated for severe asthma. METHODS: In this observational, real-life, efficacy study, we reviewed the food allergen thresholds of patients with severe asthma, as well as their immediate reactions to 2+ foods before and after a 4-month treatment with omalizumab. We also evaluated their control of asthma and their quality of life, as measured by Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). RESULTS: Fifteen children, allergic to 37 foods, were evaluated. Omalizumab induced an increase in the allergen threshold for milk, egg, wheat, and hazelnut from a mean 1012.6 ± 1464.5 mg protein to 8727 ± 6463.3 eliciting dose (P < .001). A total of 70.4% of subjects tolerated the complete challenge dose after 4 months of treatment with omalizumab. These foods were reintroduced in the patients' diet without the need for any oral immunotherapy procedures. The remaining foods were partially tolerated. The number of reactions to the unintended ingestion of allergenic foods over 4 months dropped from 47 to 2. The PedsQL increased from 61 ± 5.32 to 87 ± 7.33 (parental judgment; P < .001) and from 65 ± 7.39 to 90 ± 4.54 (patients' judgment; P < .001). The mean cost of omalizumab was €1311.63 per month. CONCLUSIONS: During treatment with omalizumab for severe uncontrolled asthma, the food allergen threshold increases to 8.6 times its original value. The quality of life of patients also increased, due to a better asthma control and a reduction in dietary restrictions. The cost/benefit ratio of such treatment for selected cases of food allergy remains to be evaluated.

How to actively treat food allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the last years, food allergy treatment is moving away from food avoidance to interventional treatments. We review here the recent developments on immunotherapy with food allergens. RECENT FINDINGS: Oral immunotherapy remains the best studied form of food immunotherapy. In 2017, further evidence has been added to its efficacy. Its mechanisms of action are under scrutiny. To reduce its side effects, studies have been dedicated to the simultaneous use of biologics, in particular omalizumab. Among the other forms of food immunotherapy that are being developed, the epicutaneous application of food allergens is promising. SUMMARY: The immunologic trajectories of the development of food tolerance may be intercepted by different forms of food immunotherapy. Research efforts aim to make these therapies feasible at the clinical level.