Global patterns in anaphylaxis due to specific foods: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are increasing global data relating to prevalence of food allergy and food-induced anaphylaxis; however, this is often based on surrogate measures of sensitization rather than objective symptoms at food challenge. In terms of protecting food-allergic consumers from reactions, to our knowledge, there has been no global survey assessing geographic differences in the proportion of anaphylaxis triggered by specific foods.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify common triggers for food-induced anaphylaxis and how these vary from country to country.

METHODS

Systematic review of relevant reports published between January 2010 and November 2020. Results were reported following PRISMA guidelines. Publications were screened and data extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and the risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies (encompassing 41 countries and all 6 regions as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) were included. Significant regional variations in the most common triggers of food anaphylaxis were seen; however, in general, there was good agreement between local legislative requirements for allergen disclosure and the most common allergens for each region or nation.

CONCLUSIONS

Local legislation for allergen disclosure generally reflects those allergens commonly responsible for food anaphylaxis. Cow's milk and crustaceans appear to cause a higher proportion of anaphylaxis compared to peanut in some regions.

Understanding Precautionary Allergen Labeling (PAL) Preferences Among Food Allergy Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Food allergy (FA) is an increasing public health concern in the United States, affecting approximately 8% of children and 11% of adults. The United States currently lacks clear requirements for the use of precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) on packaged foods, such as "may contain" or "made on shared equipment." This lack of specific governmental policy results in inconsistent labeling practices and confusion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand current knowledge and preferences for PAL statements among FA stakeholders.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was sent to FA stakeholders. Descriptive statistics and associations from logistic regressions were used to assess respondents' knowledge of PAL policy, shopping habits, and preferences around PAL.

RESULTS

Of 3008 respondents, 24.2% were able to correctly answer 4 questions surrounding PAL policies. When asked about their shopping habits, the majority of respondents never purchase products with a "May contain traces of allergen" label (85.5%) in comparison with never purchasing products with a "Good manufacturing practices used to segregate ingredients in a facility that also processes allergen" label (35.0%). Their top preferences for a PAL statement were "Not suitable for people with 'blank' allergy" (29.3%) and "May contain" (22.1%). Health care provider discussions around PAL varied and were strongly associated with purchasing behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that FA consumers are not aware of PAL policies and make decisions based on the words in the PAL. They prefer having clearer, more specific, and consistent labeling on products, indicating that explicit PAL policies are needed to allow customers to easily identify safe foods.