Search

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.

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.

Background: Eliciting doses (EDs) of allergenic foods can be defined by the distribution of threshold doses for subjects within a specific population. The ED05 is the dose that elicits a reaction in 5% of allergic subjects. The predicted ED05 for peanut is 1.5 mg of peanut protein (6 mg of whole peanut). Objective: We sought to validate the predicted peanut ED05 (1.5 mg) with a novel single-dose challenge. Methods: Consecutive eligible children with peanut allergy in 3 centers were prospectively invited to participate, irrespective of previous reaction severity. Predetermined criteria for objective reactions were used to identify ED05 single-dose reactors. Results: Five hundred eighteen children (mean age, 6.8 years) were eligible. No significant demographic or clinical differences were identified between 381 (74%) participants and 137 (26%) nonparticipants or between subjects recruited at each center. Three hundred seventy-eight children (206 male) completed the study. Almost half the group reported ignoring precautionary allergen labeling. Two hundred forty-five (65%) children experienced no reaction to the single dose of peanut. Sixty-seven (18%) children reported a subjective reaction without objective findings. Fifty-eight (15%) children experienced signs of a mild and transient nature that did not meet the predetermined criteria. Only 8 (2.1%; 95% CI, 0.6%-3.4%) subjects met the predetermined criteria for an objective and likely related event. No child experienced more than a mild reaction, 4 of the 8 received oral antihistamines only, and none received epinephrine. Food allergy–related quality of life improved from baseline to 1 month after challenge regardless of outcome (η2 = 0.2, P < .0001). Peanut skin prick test responses and peanut- and Ara h 2–specific IgE levels were not associated with objective reactivity to peanut ED05. Conclusion: A single administration of 1.5 mg of peanut protein elicited objective reactions in fewer than the predicted 5% of patients with peanut allergy. The novel single-dose oral food challenge appears clinically safe and patient acceptable, regardless of the outcome. It identifies the most highly dose-sensitive population with food allergy not otherwise identifiable by using routinely available peanut skin prick test responses or specific IgE levels, but this single-dose approach has not yet been validated for risk assessment of individual patients.

Background The precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL® ) tools were designed by industry to assist consumers with selecting safe foods for consumption. However, a sizeable proportion of food products bear no label, and it is unclear whether these products are free from allergens and therefore safe to consume or have simply not undergone a risk assessment and therefore remain unlabelled for that reason. Objective To assess the prevalence of unlabelled products that have undergone a risk assessment process and to examine the factors influencing industry's uptake of the VITAL® process. Methods A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers. Results One hundred and thirty-seven Australasian manufacturers were contacted, and 59 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 43%). The respondents represented 454 different manufacturing sites. Manufacturers reported that 23% (95% CI 19-28) of products (n=102/434) that had been through the VITAL® risk assessment process had no PAL statement on the label. 34% (95% CI 30-38), (n=204/600) of products that had undergone another (non-VITAL® ) risk assessment process had no PAL statement. In examining the factors that influenced industry's uptake of the VITAL® process, 25 manufacturers reported on factors that influenced the uptake of the VITAL® process, 76% (CI 95% 55-91) reported that VITAL® was an effective tool because it was based on science; 52% (CI 95% 31-72) reported that it was too time-consuming and 36% (CI 95% 18-57) identified a concern with it not being endorsed by the government. Conclusion and clinical relevance Currently, we estimate that at least 30% of products may have been through a risk assessment process and yet bear no PAL statement on the label. Permissive labelling could be incorporated onto these products if they have been assessed to be safe for consumption.

Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) continues to be used by the food manufacturing industry to alert the food allergic consumer that cross-contact may have occurred during the supply chain for ingredients or the manufacturing process. This review will summarize recent evidence regarding use and interpretation of precautionary labels by industry, healthcare professionals, and food allergic consumers. Consumers find precautionary labels difficult to interpret and often distrust them as disclaimers of product liability. It is unclear from a clinician's perspective how healthcare professionals should advise their patients regarding these statements.Recent studies suggest that consumers do not always read food labels and that these labels are difficult to interpret and are often distrusted by consumers as disclaimers of liability. There is evidence to suggest that this behaviour occurs in all countries assessed that use PAL. The healthcare professional remains confused about the interpretation and value of the current PAL system as it is unclear whether foods that contain no advisory labels are safe to consume. There is a need for improvement in the value and use of precautionary labelling for allergen risk assessment for allergic consumers.New studies have shown the confusion that currently exists in regard to PAL for the healthcare professional and the consumer alike. The studies have also highlighted certain gaps in the literature that, once addressed, will improve the uniformity of PAL and provide the healthcare professional with appropriate advice which they can in turn relay to the allergic consumer. Because of the global supply of food products there is a need for an international approach in improving PAL.

Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) has resulted in consumer confusion. Previous research has shown that interpretive labels (using graphics, symbols, or colours) are better understood than the traditional forms of labels. In this study, we aimed to understand if consumers would use interpretive labels (symbol, mobile phone application and a toll-free number) with or without medical advice that was advocated by the food industry rather than the normal PAL. This is relevant information for industry and clinicians as it provides an insight into the food allergic perception regarding PAL.

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.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.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.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.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the prevalence and types of precautionary labelling statements for common food allergens on the packages of products for which these allergens were not listed as an ingredient and to investigate the uptake of the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling, a new risk management tool developed in Australia to assist with declaring the possible presence of allergens in food products by manufacturers. We also aimed to examine changes in the prevalence of precautionary labelling for egg, peanuts and tree nuts over a 3-year period. METHODS: All packaged processed goods in a large supermarket in Melbourne, Australia, were examined for precautionary labelling between May and July 2011. RESULTS: In total, 1355 products were investigated. Overall, 882 products (65%) had a precautionary statement for one or more allergens. The most common allergens listed on precautionary statements were tree nuts (36.2%) and peanuts (34.1%), followed by sesame (27.5%) and egg (22.6%). Of those that had precautionary statements, 'May contain traces of ?' was the most common type of precautionary label used on 392 products (29.0%). This was followed by 'May be present' on 172 products (12.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of precautionary labelling for peanut, tree nuts and egg remained high. The uptake of the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling 'May be present' statement was low in comparison with other precautionary statements, but there has been an increase since 2009.

Background Oral food challenge is the main tool for diagnosing food allergy, but there is little data on the reaction profiles of young children undergoing challenges, nor how these reactions compare to reactions on accidental ingestion in the community. Objectives To compare reaction profiles from food challenges and parent-reported reactions on accidental ingestion, and assess predictors of severe reactions. Methods HealthNuts is a longitudinal population-based cohort study of 5276 1-year-old infants. Infants underwent skin prick tests and those with identifiable wheals were offered food challenges. Food challenges were repeated at age 4 years in those with previous food allergy or reporting new food allergies. Community-reported reactions were ascertained from parent questionnaires. Results Food challenges were undertaken in 916 children at age 1 year and 357 children at age 4 years (a total of 2047 peanut, egg, or sesame challenges). Urticaria was the most common sign in positive challenges at both ages (age 1 year, 88.7%, and age 4 years, 71.2%) although angioedema was significantly more common at age 4 years (40.1%) than at age 1 year (12.9%). Anaphylaxis was equally uncommon at both ages (2.1% and 2.8% of positive challenges at ages 1 and 4 years, respectively) but more common for peanut than for egg (4.5% and 1.2% of positive challenges at ages 1 and 4 years, respectively). The patterns of presenting signs reported during community reactions were similar to those observed in formal food challenges. Serum food-specific IgE levels of 15 kU/L or more were associated with moderate to severe reactions but skin prick test was not. Conclusions There was a shift from the most common presenting reaction of urticaria during food challenges toward more angioedema in older children. Serum food-specific IgE levels were associated with reaction severity.

The prevalence of precautionary labelling remains high. This prevalence restricts food choices, in some cases perhaps unnecessarily, for food allergic consumers. During processing, cross-contamination does often occur in food products due to the way that modern processing facilities operate; however, zero risk of cross contamination is not a realistic expectation. There is evidence to suggest that threshold levels below which reactions are not provoked in allergic individuals do exist and these have been established in the literature for peanuts. Additional information such as understanding threshold levels will be important to this field of research. The data that will be obtained from future clinical trials will help to underpin action plans for precautionary labelling. This paper will review the current literature that is available regarding: consumer behaviour and attitudes regarding precautionary labelling; risk to the consumer and analytical results of products that bear advisory labelling; the current debate regarding whether a tolerable level of risk can be obtained in food allergy; and finally, the newly introduced Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL) system operating in Australia.

In 2008, we undertook a survey of food products that carried precautionary labeling within the Australian supermarket setting. We then repeated the same survey in 2011 to examine changes in the prevalence of precautionary labeling over a 3-year period. Our results showed that overall 65% of products contained 1 or more precautionary statements to any of the nine most common food allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, egg, milk, sesame, crustaceans, fish, wheat, and soy). We also have recently examined consumers’ behavior, perceptions, and opinions about precautionary labeling, which showed that even those with a history of anaphylaxis to food appeared to be complacent for avoidance of foods with precautionary labeling, perhaps because of their ubiquity or because the perceived risks are low.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the behaviour and perception of parents of food-allergic children with and without a history of anaphylaxis in relation to precautionary labelling on packaged foods and to understand consumers' perception of the "may be present" statement advocated by VITAL (voluntary incidental trace allergen labelling). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaire-based study of parents of a consecutive series of 497 children who attended the Department of Allergy and Immunology at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, from 1 August to 31 October 2011, of whom 293 met our criteria of having an existing medically diagnosed food allergy, and of whom 246 had enough information provided to be included in our analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Parents' responses about their behaviour and perceptions relating to precautionary food labels, and a comparison between parents of children with a past history of anaphylaxis and those with a past history of mild to moderate IgE allergic reactions. RESULTS: Avoidance of foods with precautionary labels differed depending on the wording of the precautionary statement, with 74 parents (65%) ignoring the statement "made in the same factory" compared with 24 (22%) for "may be present". There was no evidence of a difference in participants' behaviour or perceptions depending on whether or not their child had a history of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers are choosing a gradient level of risk based on the wording of the precautionary statements and appear to be complacent about precautionary labelling. Many statements are now being disregarded by a sizeable proportion of parents of food-allergic children, including those caring for children with a past history of anaphylaxis. This may be due to inadequacies in food labelling legislation. Policies that promote greater clarity and consistent use of precautionary statements may help to deal with this complacency.

Background Food allergy has been associated with lower weight and height in cross-sectional studies in children; however, this has not been investigated in longitudinal studies to explore growth over time, and previous studies have not accounted for coexisting eczema. Objective The objective of this study was to examine the association of IgE-mediated food allergy and eczema with anthropometric measures at 1 and 4 years of age. Methods In the HealthNuts population-based cohort, infants recruited at age 1 year underwent a skin prick test to egg, peanut, and sesame; those sensitized had oral food challenges. Food challenges repeated at 4 years determined food allergy persistence or resolution. Eczema was defined as parent report of eczema diagnosis. Parent-reported weight and height and child health record data were used to calculate age- and sex-adjusted percentiles from World Health Organization charts. Multivariable linear regression models were fitted to examine the effect of food allergy and eczema on weight and height controlling for potential confounders. Results Children with both food allergy and eczema at age 1 had lower percentiles for mean weight (51.3 vs 58.3 percentile, P = .001) and height (48.4 vs 53.4, P = .028) at age 1 compared with those with neither condition. There was no difference for children with only food allergy or eczema at age 1. By age 4, children with persistent food allergy and persistent eczema, but not those with resolved food allergy, were still shorter and lighter. Conclusions Children with both food allergy and eczema were shorter and lighter throughout early childhood, with more pronounced differences in those with persistent food allergy.

We aimed to assess the prevalence and types of precautionary labelling statements for common food allergens on the packages of products for which these allergens were not listed as an ingredient and to investigate the uptake of the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling, a new risk management tool developed in Australia to assist with declaring the possible presence of allergens in food products by manufacturers. We also aimed to examine changes in the prevalence of precautionary labelling for egg, peanuts and tree nuts over a 3-year period.All packaged processed goods in a large supermarket in Melbourne, Australia, were examined for precautionary labelling between May and July 2011.In total, 1355 products were investigated. Overall, 882 products (65%) had a precautionary statement for one or more allergens. The most common allergens listed on precautionary statements were tree nuts (36.2%) and peanuts (34.1%), followed by sesame (27.5%) and egg (22.6%). Of those that had precautionary statements, 'May contain traces of …' was the most common type of precautionary label used on 392 products (29.0%). This was followed by 'May be present' on 172 products (12.7%).The use of precautionary labelling for peanut, tree nuts and egg remained high. The uptake of the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling 'May be present' statement was low in comparison with other precautionary statements, but there has been an increase since 2009.

Background Epidemiological evidence has shown that pediatric food allergy is more prevalent in regions further from the equator, suggesting that vitamin D insufficiency may play a role in this disease. Objective To investigate the role of vitamin D status in infantile food allergy. Methods A population sample of 5276 one-year-old infants underwent skin prick testing to peanut, egg, sesame, and cow's milk or shrimp. All those with a detectable wheal and a random sample of participants with negative skin prick test results attended a hospital-based food challenge clinic. Blood samples were available for 577 infants (344 with challenge-proven food allergy, 74 sensitized but tolerant to food challenge, 159 negative on skin prick test and food challenge). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured by using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Associations between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and food allergy were examined by using multiple logistic regression, adjusting for potential risk and confounding factors. Results Infants of Australian-born parents, but not of parents born overseas, with vitamin D insufficiency (≤50 nmol/L) were more likely to be peanut (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 11.51; 95% CI, 2.01-65.79; P = .006) and/or egg (aOR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.08; P = .025) allergic than were those with adequate vitamin D levels independent of eczema status. Among those with Australian-born parents, infants with vitamin D insufficiency were more likely to have multiple food allergies (≥2) rather than a single food allergy (aOR, 10.48; 95% CI, 1.60-68.61 vs aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.38-8.77, respectively). Conclusions These results provide the first direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency may be an important protective factor for food allergy in the first year of life.

Background The eliciting dose (ED) for a peanut allergic reaction in 5% of the peanut allergic population, the ED05, is 1.5 mg of peanut protein. This ED05 was derived from oral food challenges (OFC) that use graded, incremental doses administered at fixed time intervals. Individual patients’ threshold doses were used to generate population dose-distribution curves using probability distributions from which the ED05 was then determined. It is important to clinically validate that this dose is predictive of the allergenic response in a further unselected group of peanut-allergic individuals. Methods/Aims This is a multi-centre study involving three national level referral and teaching centres. (Cork University Hospital, Ireland, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Australia and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, U.S.A.) The study is now in process and will continue to run until all centres have recruited 125 participates in each respective centre. A total of 375 participants, aged 1–18 years will be recruited during routine Allergy appointments in the centres. The aim is to assess the precision of the predicted ED05 using a single dose (6 mg peanut = 1.5 mg of peanut protein) in the form of a cookie. Validated Food Allergy related Quality of Life Questionnaires-(FAQLQ) will be self-administered prior to OFC and 1 month after challenge to assess the impact of a single dose OFC on FAQL. Serological and cell based in vitro studies will be performed. Conclusion The validation of the ED05 threshold for allergic reactions in peanut allergic subjects has potential value for public health measures. The single dose OFC, based upon the statistical dose-distribution analysis of past challenge trials, promises an efficient approach to identify the most highly sensitive patients within any given food-allergic population.