Knowledge, practice, and views on precautionary allergen labeling for the management of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy--a survey of Australasian and UK health care professionals

Time to ACT-UP: Update on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL)

Background

Precautionary Allergen ("may contain") Labelling (PAL) is used by industry to communicate potential risk to food-allergic individuals posed by unintended allergen presence (UAP). In 2014, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) highlighted that PAL use was increasing, but often applied inconsistently and without regulation - which reduces its usefulness to consumers with food allergy and those purchasing food for them. WAO proposed the need for a regulated, international framework to underpin application of PAL. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations convened an expert consultation to address the issue of PAL, the outputs of which are now being considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL).

Objectives

To summarise the latest data to inform the application of PAL in a more systematic way, for implementation into global food standards.

Methods

A non-systematic review of issues surrounding precautionary labelling and food allergens in pre-packaged products.

Results

Approximately, 100 countries around the world have legislation on the declaration of allergenic ingredients. Just a few have legislation on UAP. Given the risks that UAP entails, non-regulated PAL creates inconvenience in real life due to its unequal, difficult interpretation by patients. The attempts made so far to rationalize PAL present lights and shadows.

Conclusions

At a time when CCFL is considering the results of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation 2020-2023, we summarise the prospects to develop an effective and homogeneous legislation at a global level, and the areas of uncertainty that might hinder international agreement on a regulated framework for PAL of food allergens.

Precautionary Allergen Labeling: Avoidance for All?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) suggests the risk of unintended allergen presence (UAP) in food but is unregulated in most countries and inconsistently applied by food manufacturers. This review evaluates the current use of PAL, its relevance to allergic consumers, and weighs possible advantages and disadvantages of avoiding products with PAL.

RECENT FINDINGS

In most countries, manufacturers are free to decide whether, when, and how to apply PAL resulting in inconsistencies and consumer confusion. Patients with food allergy often interpret PAL incorrectly and without guidance from their health care providers. Health care providers are also prone to misinterpreting PAL, indicating a need for better education. Consumers desire guidance on whether to avoid products with PAL or not. Until further regulatory guidance is available, shared decision-making between patient and provider is required to offer individualized, rather than one-size-fits-all, approaches to PAL.

Preventing food allergy fatalities

Fatal anaphylaxis to food is thankfully rare, but every death is a potentially avoidable tragedy. Usually, there will be a coronial inquest to establish the 'how and why' for each death. Reviewing these food allergy-related deaths identifies a number of common themes and risk factors. While some are non-modifiable (such as age, gender and ethnicity), others are and include delayed epinephrine administration and communication difficulties in allergen avoidance. This review highlights the key messages in food allergy-related fatality prevention for healthcare professionals and patients alike, and where available, we explain the evidence behind such recommendations. We describe the data behind the good practice points to facilitate their adoption in routine practice without generating additional anxiety for what is a comparatively rare event. We also propose an information leaflet for patients and carers, developed with patients and endorsed by two major allergy charities, to facilitate dissemination of the recommendations in this review.

Analytical Methods for Allergen Control in Food Processing

Food allergy and food-related anaphylaxis have become a growing public health and food safety issue worldwide [...]

Precautionary Allergen Labeling: What Advice Is Available for Health Care Professionals, Allergists, and Allergic Consumers?

In most countries, the use of precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) is not governed by regulation. PAL was initially identified as a judicious risk management measure to address instances of "unavoidable" cross-contact with priority food allergens during food processing. However, PAL has gradually been devalued in part due to overuse and inconsistent application by the food industry. Currently, most food products do not contain detectable allergen residue or contain only low concentrations of residue of the allergens declared using PAL; however, occasionally, high concentrations of allergen residue are reported, rendering it an ineffective risk communication tool for allergic consumers. In this context, several reasons exist that make the consumption of products bearing a PAL statement not advisable for people with food allergies. The main reason is that the risk is generally not correlated with the statement used by manufacturers. Because of the increased use of PAL on prepackaged food products, and to maximize food choices for allergic individuals, health care professionals increasingly advise some patients considered to be "not highly allergic" to consume products bearing a PAL statement. This article explains why the consumption of products with PAL is not advisable without having a full clinical evaluation and knowledge that an allergen risk assessment has been conducted. It also discusses the perspectives for a better use of PAL on the basis of the recent Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization recommendations on food allergens.

An International First: Stakeholder Consensus Statement for Food Allergen Management in Packaged Foods and Food Service for Australia and New Zealand

Food-allergic consumers encounter inadequate, confusing, and ambiguous allergen information for packaged and unpackaged foods. Key Australian and New Zealand allergy organizations convened multiple forums to facilitate discussions among consumers, food manufacturers, food retailers, regulatory bodies, researchers, and health professionals to develop a unified approach to improving food allergen management. The following stakeholder consensus statement provides a foundation for advocacy for improved food allergen management and safety. It is the responsibility of consumers to: 1. declare their food allergies and read food labels (including ingredient lists and allergen declaration statements), and 2. ultimately make their own judgment about the foods they choose to consume. We consider that to enable consumers to make informed decisions about their safety, It is the responsibility of packaged food manufacturers to: 1. follow robust allergen management practices including quantitative risk assessment, and 2. use clear, consistent labeling to inform consumers about that food's allergen content, including the possible presence of unintended allergens. It is the responsibility of food service establishments and providers to: 1. follow robust allergen management practices, and 2. ensure that staff understand and can inform consumers about the allergen content of the food they provide, including the possible presence of unintended allergens.

BSACI 2021 guideline for the management of egg allergy

This guideline advises on the management of patients with egg allergy. Most commonly egg allergy presents in infancy, with a prevalence of approximately 2% in children and 0.1% in adults. A clear clinical history will confirm the diagnosis in most cases. Investigation by measuring egg-specific IgE (by skin prick testing or specific IgE assay) is useful in moderate-severe cases or where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Following an acute allergic reaction, egg avoidance advice should be provided. Egg allergy usually resolves, and reintroduction can be achieved at home if reactions have been mild and there is no asthma. Patients with a history of severe reactions or asthma should have reintroduction guided by a specialist. All children with egg allergy should receive the MMR vaccine. Most adults and children with egg allergy can receive the influenza vaccine in primary care, unless they have had anaphylaxis to egg requiring intensive care support. Yellow Fever vaccines should only be considered in egg-allergic patients under the guidance of an allergy specialist. This guideline was prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and is intended for allergists and others with a special interest in allergy. The recommendations are evidence based. Where evidence was lacking, consensus was reached by the panel of specialists on the committee. The document encompasses epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and co-morbid associations.

Real-world tree nut consumption in peanut-allergic individuals

BACKGROUND

Individuals with peanut allergy often avoid tree nuts, yet true rates of tree nut allergy in peanut-allergic individuals are as low as 7%.

OBJECTIVE

To examine tree nut sensitization patterns in peanut-allergic individuals, patient and family choice regarding tree nut consumption, and factors that influence consumption of tree nuts.

METHODS

All patients presenting for peanut allergy evaluation to an outpatient allergy office were included during a 4-month period. In addition to demographic information, sensitization to tree nuts and tree nut consumption were collected. Logistic regression was performed to generate odds ratios with 95% CIs in univariate and multivariate analyses for variables that predict tree nut consumption.

RESULTS

A total of 258 individuals with peanut allergy were enrolled. Ninety-five (36.8%) consumed all tree nuts ad libitum, 63 (24.4%) consumed some but not all tree nuts, and 100 (38.8%) consumed no tree nuts. Of the 100 electively avoiding all tree nuts, the most commonly reported reason was fear of cross-contact (50%). Although there was no difference between rates of sensitization between individual tree nuts (P = .056), cashew and pistachio had higher serum specific IgE levels compared with other tree nuts (P < .001). The tree nut most commonly consumed by peanut-allergic individuals was almond (P < .001). Consumption of foods with precautionary labeling was the strongest predictor of tree nut consumption in peanut allergic individuals (P < .001) CONCLUSION: Our data highlight the potential for safe introduction of tree nuts in peanut-allergic individuals and indicate that peanut-allergic individuals who consume foods with precautionary labeling are most likely to consume tree nuts.

Anaphylaxis to packaged foods in Australasia

AIMS

To examine reports of anaphylaxis in Australasia from consumption of packaged food products with or without precautionary allergen labelling (PAL), where the known allergen triggers were not a listed ingredient.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to all members of the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (n = 548). Participants were asked to complete a survey reporting whether they have had seen any patients over the last 3 months reporting anaphylaxis following ingestion of a packaged food where the suspected food allergen was not a listed ingredient.

RESULTS

Of the n = 548 members approached, n = 198 responded (response rate 36.1%).There were 14 reports of anaphylaxis to packaged foods (where the suspected allergen was not a listed ingredient), which met the case definition from a total of 198 respondents over the 9-month period. Of those reactions, 50.0% (confidence interval 95% 21-78) were reported from foods that did not have a PAL statement, and 50.0% (confidence interval 95% 21-78) were due to peanuts.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis to undeclared allergens was not rare and did not appear to depend on whether the product was labelled with precautionary advice. There is currently no reliable labelling system that can inform food-allergic consumers of safer food choices. Improvements in the regulation of food labelling with PAL are required.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice - 2016 Year in Review

As editors, we concluded that it would be helpful to our readers to write a Year in Review article that highlights the Review, Original, and Clinical Communication articles published in 2016 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. We summarized articles on the topics of asthma, rhinitis/rhinosinusitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug allergy, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Diagnostic tools described include history, skin tests, and in vitro tests. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help you, our readers, consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of your patients.

[Allergen management in the food industry]

Due to the lack of causative immunotherapies, individuals with food allergies have to rely on correct labelling for even minute amounts of allergenic constituents. It is not relevant to the allergic whether the source of the culprit food is an ingredient or an allergen that entered the food unintentionally, as is the case with so-called cross-contacts or hidden allergens.Efficient allergen management is the manufacturer's prerequisite for coping with allergenic foods in the food production environment and handling them in a way that avoids cross-contact. If it is technically not feasible to eliminate cross-contacts entirely, it must be ensured that these cross-contacts do not enter the final product without being detected.This article discusses measures that should be considered in allergen management. Examples include recording all relevant allergens in the production facility, staff sensitization and training, and taking into account all areas of production from incoming raw materials to outgoing goods.For the evaluation of unavoidable cross-contacts, it is possible today to draw on data from clinical trials for many of the substances that are subject to labelling. This data can be used to assess the risk of the final product.However, the data from threshold studies is not legally binding, so it is left to the manufacturer to assess the level up to which the food is safe for the allergic. In particular the non-harmonized approach of the EU member countries' food safety authorities currently represents a major obstacle, as this can lead to food recalls even though existing levels were evaluated as being safe according to the risk assessments performed.