Search

As part of a European Union-funded project (FP7) developing 'Integrated approaches to food allergen and allergy management', a database was constructed based on publicly available information on food allergen recalls in Europe, North America, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand. Over 2000 entries were made into the database. The database covers a 4-year period from 2011 to 2014 and each entry is categorised into food type (two different classifications), identified allergen and cause where indicated by the authorities. Across different authorities, by far the biggest incidence of undeclared allergens occurred in the food categories of prepared dishes and snacks (range = 12-53%), and cereals and bakery products (range = 14-25% of all recalls and/or alerts). The biggest incidence of undeclared allergens, according to the information from most authorities, occurred for milk and milk products (16-31% of all products with recall or alert), followed by cereals containing gluten (9-19%), soy (5-45%), and egg and egg products (5-17%). Although 42-90% of the products with recalls/alerts were explained as being 'Not indicated on the label', this is a generic explanation of cause and does not provide much insight into the causes of the recall/alerts. However, 0-17% of products with recalls/alerts could be coded as caused by the unintended presence of an allergen as the probable result of cross-contact in production. Construction of the database of allergen recalls has provided some important lessons and recommendations to the authorities are made in this paper in terms of the harmonisation of the reporting of allergen recalls into a more standardised format.

Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the possibility of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. However, in its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies. This review aims to summarize the perspectives of all the key stakeholders (including clinicians, patients, food industry and regulators), with the aim of defining common health protection and risk minimization goals. The lack of agreed reference doses has resulted in inconsistent application of PAL by the food industry and in levels of contamination that prompt withdrawal action by enforcement officers. So there is a poor relationship between the presence or absence of PAL and actual reaction risk. This has led to a loss of trust in PAL, reducing the ability of consumers with food allergies to make informed choices. The result has been reduced avoidance, reduced quality of life and increased risk-taking by consumers who often ignore PAL. All contributing stakeholders agree that PAL must reflect actual risk. PAL should be transparent and consistent with rules underpinning decision-making process being communicated clearly to all stakeholders. The use of PAL should indicate the possible, unintended presence of an allergen in a consumed portion of a food product at or above any proposed action level. This will require combined work by all stakeholders to ensure everyone understands the approach and its limitations. Consumers with food allergy then need to be educated to undertake individualized risk assessments in relation to any PAL present., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Allergen detection and quantification is an essential part of allergen management as practiced by food manufacturers. Recently, protein MS methods (in particular, multiple reaction monitoring experiments) have begun to be adopted by the allergen detection community to provide an alternative technique to ELISA and PCR methods. MS analysis of proteins in foods provides additional challenges to the analyst, both in terms of experimental design and methodology: (1) choice of analyte, including multiplexing to simultaneously detect several biologically relevant molecules able to trigger allergic reactions; (2) choice of processing stable peptide markers for different target analytes that should be placed in publicly available databases; (3) markers allowing quantification (e.g., through standard addition or isotopically labeled peptide standards); (4) optimization of protease digestion protocols to ensure reproducible and robust method development; and (5) effective validation of methods and harmonization of results through the use of naturally incurred reference materials spanning several types of food matrix.

Food allergies represent an important health problem in industrialized countries. Undeclared allergens as contaminants in food products pose a major risk for sensitized persons. A proposal to amend the European Food Labelling Directive requires that all ingredients intentionally added to food products will have to be included on the label. Reliable detection and quantification methods for food allergens are necessary to ensure compliance with food labelling and to improve consumer protection. Methods available so far are based on protein or DNA detection. This review presents an up-to-date picture of the characteristics of the major food allergens and collects published methods for the determination of food allergens or the presence of potentially allergenic constituents in food products. A summary of the current availability of commercial allergen detection kits is given. One part of the paper describes various methods that have been generally employed in the detection of allergens in food; their advantages and drawbacks are discussed in brief. The main part of this review, however, focuses on specific food allergens and appropriate methods for their detection in food products. Special emphasis is given to allergenic foods explicitly mentioned in the Amendment to the European Food Labelling Directive that pose a potential risk for allergic individuals, namely celery, cereals containing gluten (including wheat, rye and barley) crustaceans, eggs, fish, peanuts, soybeans, milk and dairy products, mustard, tree-nuts, sesame seeds, and sulphite at concentrations of at least 10 mg kg(-1). Sulphites, however, are not discussed.

Undeclared peanut allergens as contaminants in foodstuffs represent a major health problem for sensitized persons. Various immunochemical techniques are employed to detect and quantify peanut allergens. There is an urgent need to compare and standardize those test systems to enable comparable allergen analyses of foodstuffs, comparable studies, and consequent and consistent measures against the presence of hidden peanut allergens. The present study compared commercially available peanut ELISA kits with human sera-based immunoassay techniques (dot blotting and Western blotting), enabling semiquantitative and quantitative detection, and identification of peanut contaminants in foodstuffs. Additionally, the effect of conventional roasting conditions on the detection and quantification of peanut with the selected methods was investigated.