Allergic reaction

When Leon co-founder John Vincent wrote a blog about the company’s work on communicating allergen information last month, he could not have predicted the strength of the response.

After laying out all of the steps Leon was taking to ensure its allergens processes were robust, Vincent added the seemingly reasonable caveat that as all its kitchens use ingredients that contain nuts, peanuts and sesame, anyone with a serious reaction to those allergens “should consider carefully whether you choose to dine with us.

Perhaps the message was mistimed, with the debate sparked by the inquest into Natasha Ednan-Laperouse still at a febrile point. Still, the accusations that the chain was abdicating its responsibility verged on the hysterical.

This week the chain tentatively broached the subject again, with another letter from Vincent and a longer explanation about the wider strategy. Within this, the group stressed that it did “not believe that food safety should be a competitive advantage” and that maximum co-ordination was required across everyone who works in this industry.

The group has also started liaising with spokespeople for allergy sufferers about how it can make its communication clear and easy to understand.

This debate will continue to rumble on, seemingly hinging on the argument of to what extent operators should assume the mantle of responsibility from allergy sufferers.

Much will hinge on the outcome of an ongoing Government consultation on possible legislation for food pre-packaged for direct sale. The scope of the legislation takes in any food packaged for sale prior to the customer placing the order, including in chiller cabinets or under hot lamps.

The four policy options presented in the Government’s supporting documents are a non-regulatory approach of promoting best practice; mandatory “ask the staff” notices on packaging; labels displaying the name of the food and which of the 14 allergenic ingredients it intentionally contains and full ingredient labelling.

The Government said continuing fatalities and effects on public health had raised the issue of whether the current regulatory framework is robust enough to ensure customers are making informed choices.

It is estimated that 1% to 2% of adults and 5% to 8% of children in the UK have a food allergy, equating to two million people. There is evidence that the number of allergy sufferers is increasing – or at least more are being recorded – with a five-fold increase in the number of peanut allergy sufferers between 1995 and 2016.

There were 5,357 admissions of critically ill patients due to a food reaction in 2017, compared to 4,162 in 2015, and while there are only around 10 allergy-related deaths a year compared to 500 from food poisoning, these too are on the rise. Last year saw widespread coverage of two of the most high profile allergy deaths in Ednan-Laperouse, who died after eating a Pret baguette and Owen Carey who died from a suspected allergic reaction after eating both at McDonald’s and Byron.

At MCA’s Food To Go Conference last month, Tim Smith, the former Food Standards Agency chief executive who is now leading Pret’s food advisory panel, issued a stark warning to the industry that it must take action on allergens now, or lose the trust of millions.

He said that he understood the concerns of peers around the precedents Pret is setting with its rollout of full ingredient information on all freshly-made products, but insisted that the industry has been failing allergy sufferers for a number of years.

Smith’s presentation to the conference revealed that Pret was only notified about Ednan-Laperouse’s death nine months after the event – a situation he said was “completely unacceptable”.

Talking about his work at Pret, he said it was clear that food information needed to be improved across not just pre-packaged food but also products sold loose, hot foods and soups and barista-prepared drinks.

He said it was essential that the whole industry joined Pret in responding to widespread consumer concern about the quality of food information currently available.

He said: “That means showing leadership to do the right thing, rather than waiting to be regulated into taking action.

“Our starting point should be that this is not insurmountable. This is a problem which can be fixed. With the public gaze firmly on the issue, and many of Britain’s finest medical experts looking into it, I am confident we’ll be able to understand the root causes.

“In the meantime, it is up to us – the industry – to work with the Government, campaigners, our suppliers, and the whole allergy community to make sure that every consumer can make a safe choice.

“I would say that right now, we are falling short, and have been for some years. Living with a food allergy is difficult enough without us all making it more difficult.”

He went on to say it was important that the industry does not settle for precautionary labelling that allergens may be present, saying this pushed too much responsibility back onto the consumer.

He said: “In the end, it’s about trust. Giving people confidence and empowering them to make the right decisions. We can either take action now, or start to lose the trust of millions of consumers because in the end, warning signs won’t wash when two million people in the UK have food allergies. We need to listen and we need to do the right thing.”

Jamie Cartwright of law firm Charles Russell Speechlys said it was important for operators to be mindful that labelling was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to allergens.

He said: “Labelling is one part of what ought to be an inter-linking allergen protocol. That needs to take in training and guidance, ordering procedures, kitchen audits and supply chain management.

“There is scope for the industry as a collective to engage with the narrative, especially around the issue of cross-contamination. Part of this is giving transparency on processes to give consumers full visibility, which ultimately creates trust.”

On the backlash against operators such as Leon, Cartwright said: I have significant sympathy for that message because it’s an issue we all face and it is absolutely right that those sort of statements are made. No one can guarantee something 100% and is not helpful to suggest they can.”