Identifying key priorities for research to protect the consumer with food hypersensitivity: A UK Food Standards Agency Priority Setting Exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers' wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. METHODS: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance-the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. RESULTS: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties ('indicative questions') for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. DISCUSSION: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization.

Are current analytical methods suitable to verify VITAL® 2.0/3.0 allergen reference doses for EU allergens in foods?

Food allergy affects up to 6% of Europeans. Allergen identification is important for the risk assessment and management of the inadvertent presence of allergens in foods. The VITAL® initiative for voluntary incidental trace allergen labeling suggests protein reference doses, based on clinical reactivity in food challenge studies, at or below which voluntary labelling is unnecessary. Here, we investigated if current analytical methodology could verify the published VITAL® 2.0 doses, that were available during this analysis, in serving sizes between 5 and 500 g. Available data on published and commercial ELISA, PCR and mass spectrometry methods, especially for the detection of peanuts, soy, hazelnut, wheat, cow's milk and hen's egg were reviewed in detail. Limit of detection, quantitative capability, matrix compatibility, and specificity were assessed. Implications by the recently published VITAL® 3.0 doses were also considered. We conclude that available analytical methods are capable of reasonably robust detection of peanut, soy, hazelnut and wheat allergens for levels at or below the VITAL® 2.0 and also 3.0 doses, with some methods even capable of achieving this in a large 500 g serving size. Cow's milk and hen's egg are more problematic, largely due to matrix/processing incompatibility. An unmet need remains for harmonized reporting units, available reference materials, and method ring-trials to enable validation and the provision of comparable measurement results.

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.

Evidence-based approaches to the application of precautionary allergen labelling: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy is a major public health concern with avoidance of the trigger food(s) being central to management by the patient. Food information legislation mandates the declaration of allergenic ingredients; however, the labelling of the unintentional presence of allergens is less defined. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the risk of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. In its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies as there is no standardized approach to applying PAL. Foods with a PAL often do not contain the identified food allergen while some products without a PAL contain quantities of common food allergens that are capable of inducing an allergic reaction. Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) was an EU-funded project that aimed to improve the management of food allergens by the food industry for the benefit of people with food allergies. Within iFAAM, a clinically validated tiered risk assessment approach for food allergens was developed. Two cross-stakeholder iFAAM workshops were held on 13-14 December 2016 and 19-20 April 2018. One of the objectives of these workshops was to develop a proposal to make PAL effective for consumers. This paper describes the outcomes from these workshops. This provides the basis for the development of more informative and transparent labelling that will ultimately improve management and well-being in consumers with food allergy.

Prioritisation of allergenic foods with respect to public health relevance: Report from an ILSI Europe Food Allergy Task Force Expert Group.

Regulators and risk managers in general need to decide whether an allergenic food or ingredient is of such public health importance that it needs to be actively managed. There is therefore a need to scale the relative allergenicity of foods and ingredients according to the hazards they pose. Objective criteria increase transparency and trust in this decision-making process and its conclusions. This paper proposes a framework that allows categorisation and prioritisation of allergenic foods according to their public health importance. The challenge is to find a basis on which the allergenicity of foods can best be described and a method to combine the relevant measures of allergenicity into a scoring system that prioritises allergenic foods on the basis of their public health relevance. The framework is designed in accordance with the generic risk analysis principles used in food safety and can be used by regulators to decide whether or not a specific allergenic food or ingredient is of sufficient public health importance that it warrants regulation (i.e. mandatory labelling) when used in the production of food products.

A multi-laboratory evaluation of a clinically-validated incurred quality control material for analysis of allergens in food.

A dessert matrix previously used for diagnosis of food allergies was incurred with pasteurised egg white or skimmed milk powder at 3, 6, 15 and 30 mg allergen protein per kg of dessert matrix and evaluated as a quality control material for allergen analysis in a multi-laboratory trial. Analysis was performed by immunoassay using five kits each for egg and milk (based on casein) and six 'other' milk kits (five based on ß-lactoglobulin and one total milk). All kits detected allergen protein at the 3 mg kg(-1) level. Based on ISO criteria only one egg kit accurately determined egg protein at 3 mg kg(-1) (p=0.62) and one milk (casein) kit accurately determined milk at 6 (p=0.54) and 15 mg kg(-1) (p=0.83), against the target value. The milk "other" kits performed least well of all the kits assessed, giving the least precise analyses. The incurred dessert material had the characteristics required for a quality control material for allergen analysis.

Food allergy: stakeholder perspectives on acceptable risk.

We have reached a point where it is difficult to improve food allergy risk management without an agreement on levels of acceptable risk. This paper presents and discusses the perspectives of the different stakeholders (allergic consumers, health professionals, public authorities and the food industry) on acceptable risk in food allergy. Understanding where these perspectives diverge and even conflict may help develop an approach to define what is acceptable. Uncertainty about food allergy, its consequences and how to manage them is the common denominator of the stakeholders' views. In patients, uncertainty is caused by the unpredictability of reactions and the concern about whether avoidance strategies will be effective enough. Variability of symptoms and the lack of markers do not allow stratification of patients according to their reactivity, and force health professionals to give the same advice to all patients despite the fact that the risk to each is not identical. Regulators and the food industry struggle with the fact that the lack of management thresholds forces them to make case-by-case decisions in an area of uncertainty with penalties for under- or over-prediction. As zero risk is not a realistic possibility, consensus on acceptable risk will be needed.

Development of a species-specific recA-based PCR test for Burkholderia fungorum.

The genus Burkholderia comprises over 28 species and species-specific, recA-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are available for several species, but not for some soil-inhabiting species including B. fungorum. Previous analysis of several novel rhizospheric, environmental isolates belonging to the B. cepacia complex suggested they may be closely related to B. fungorum. To discover any relationship between these isolates and B. fungorum we set out to clone and sequence a portion of the B. fungorum recA gene in order to design species-specific primer pairs for use in a recA-based PCR assay. Using a similar procedure we extended the recA-based PCR assay to identify B. sacchari and B. caledonica, two additional soil-inhabiting Burkholderia spp.