OPINION

Allergen labelling and attitudes – a time for change?

By Sterling Crew

- Last updated on GMT

Sterling Crew: ‘Individual product labelling may well have prevented Ednan-Laperouse’s death’
Sterling Crew: ‘Individual product labelling may well have prevented Ednan-Laperouse’s death’
Sterling Crew, strategic adviser at Shield Safety Group, believes the two recent Pret allergen deaths expose a ‘worrying weakness’ in food labelling rules.

There has been blanket media coverage of the tragic death of teenager Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died on 17 July 2016 from anaphylaxis caused by eating sesame.

Ednan-Laperouse died after eating a Pret a Manger artichoke and olive tapenade baguette. She had severe allergies to many foods including sesame seeds, which had been baked into a baguette that was bought at a Pret airport outlet. The ingredients were not listed on the packaging. She collapsed during a flight from Heathrow to Nice, despite her father administering two EpiPen injections.

Pret, one of the country’s biggest food retailers, confirmed at the time of Ednan-Laperouse’s death that products would not have been individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information, and that this was within regulations.

The company relied on UK law that permits no allergen labelling on products that are not prepacked, or are prepacked on the premises where they are sold. A ‘prepacked food’ legally refers to food that cannot be altered without opening or changing its packaging, as opposed to foods packed on the sale premises at the customer’s request or prepacked for direct sale.

Instead of labelling on the packaging itself, the retailer is permitted to prompt consumers to ask about allergens. This is done by ‘signposting’ with a label attached to the food, or on an easily seen notice where the intending purchaser chooses their food.

At Ednan-Laperouse’s inquest, the acting senior coroner for west London Dr Sean Cummings said that ‘it seems strange’​ that a local sandwich shop can benefit from that regulation but ‘that an organisation that sold  218 million items a year could also benefit’​. He added that ‘a cynic might think it was almost a device to get round regulation relating to information on food allergens’​.

Six previous allergic reactions

Cummings also questioned Pret’s handling of sesame at a time when there were six previous allergic reactions involving the same bread in the previous year. Responding to ‘serious concerns’​, he will write to Pret about its practices around collecting information on allergic reactions.

Cummings will also report to government on whether large businesses should be able to benefit from regulations that allowed reduced food labelling for products made in shops.

Environment secretary Michael Gove has already said the family of Ednan-Laperouse was ‘absolutely right’​ in its belief the law needed to be changed. He has instructed civil servants to investigate such a change.

The Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST), meanwhile, has called for cultural change and a review of allergen labelling legislation so that people with allergies can readily find the information they need to keep safe.

I believe Ednan-Laperouse’s case has exposed worrying weaknesses in rules around food labelling. When businesses are fully complying with the regulations and such tragic cases still occur, the law needs to be reviewed.

The case for reviewing food labelling regulations becomes even more compelling when you consider those food chains preparing high volumes across multiple individual sites. The law was designed to reduce the burden on smaller businesses – it doesn’t seem logical that the law treats large multinational companies with their more extensive resources and capabilities in the same way as a local sandwich shop.

Individual product labelling is the most effective way of communicating vital information for people with food allergies, and it may well have prevented Ednan-Laperouse’s death.

The importance of vigilance

For those living with serious allergies, it’s still important to be vigilant. Some have argued caveat emptor​ – in other words, the buyer alone should be responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made. However, I feel the food industry should do all that is reasonable and practicable to ensure that it gives the buyer its support.

It is worth reminding ourselves that sandwiches sold in supermarkets, which are prepared off site in manufacturing operations, fully label their products with the 14 allergens that consumers must be made aware of when they are used as an ingredient in food. The sites often have Global Food Safety Initiative​-accredited allergen management systems and have to meet strict retailer requirements.

The incident has highlighted how such tragic cases can tarnish even one of the country’s most loved and popular wholesome brands. The case generated a barrage of negative media criticism amid accusations that the company was trying to get away with doing the least they could and evading the spirt of the legislation.

It is a stark reminder to food business of the importance of the court of public opinion and the exposure to reputational risk. It’s a point not lost on Pret chief executive Clive Schlee, who recognises there is much more his company can do. Pret is to start trialling new labels that show full ingredients, including allergens, on packaging from next month. Schlee says this will be rolled out to all UK shops as ‘quickly as possible’​.

Pret found itself on the defensive again after it subsequently emerged that a second customer, 42-year-old Celia Marsh, collapsed and died on 27 December last year after eating a vegan super-veg rainbow flatbread allegedly contaminated with milk protein, which she was allergic to. An inquest has yet to be held and there is a dispute between Pret and its supplier CoYo as to the root cause.

This case will raise questions for Pret and its supplier about whether there were adequate audits and checks on ingredients. Whatever the outcome of the coroner’s inquest, it will once again put allergen management and labelling on the front pages of our newspapers.

Related topics: Food Safety, Chilled foods, Food Labelling

Related news

Show more

4 comments

Show more

EU law was broken

Posted by Bob Salmon,

The guidance on the EU law on allergen labelling was clarified in their document of 30 April 2014 where the exemption is only for foods "pre-packed on the sales premises with competent staff directly available to provide information to consumers. Any food sold through "self-service" without direct intervention of competent sales staff should bear all the necessary information for consumers, in which case rules for pre-packed foods shall apply".
Sadly the FSA guidance does not make this clear. This case obviously broke EU law and the UK officials should know that.

Report abuse

Prepacked for Direct Sale

Posted by Iain Ferris,

Article 2.2(e) of 1169/2011 says that 'prepacked for direct sale' is not prepacked. FSA and Defra guidance says that PPDS is where the product is wrapped and sold by food business. It is expected that the consumer can ask about the product at the place of purchase. Foods packaged in sandwich shops for the grab and go market are PPDS similarly if I made jam at home then sold it at a farmers market this would be PPDS also.
What I disagree with is this view that the exemption was intended for small businesses. The exemption relates to the difference between catering outlets and food manufacturers. A food manufacturer usually has a limited range of products and will have validated procedures for controlling the risk of allergens. Whereas in a caterer it is much more difficult. Sandwich chains, pub companies etc. are essentially a large group of smaller businesses with the same controlling mind. Some things will clearly be better such as training but at a local level you still have similar risks of the kitchen staff making an individual error. Hence the safest procedure is to ask a caterer to produce something for you. If the caterer does not have adequate facilities for doing so then they should refuse to provide an allergen free food. If the exemption was intended to apply only to small businesses then the legislation could easily have defined this and there are plenty of examples where this is the case. Alternatively official guidance could have made this clear but they didn't.

Report abuse

Allergen labelling

Posted by Bob Salmon,

If the product were bought packed, then it should have an allergen declaration. there are some exemptions for packaging with less than 10 sq cm but that does not apply to allergens. We wrote the EU Regulation carefully to make sure allergen listing is all in the same place (principle field of vision) and "emphasised" in the list of ingredients. This is EU regulation 1169/2011. The only exemption is for food sold unpackaged or wrapped in front of the customer. In these cases there must be a notice telling the customer to ask. It would thus appear that this baguette contravened the rules.

Report abuse

Post your comment

We will not publish your email address on the website

These comments have not been moderated. You are encouraged to participate with comments that are relevant to our news stories. You should not post comments that are abusive, threatening, defamatory, misleading or invasive of privacy. For the full terms and conditions for commenting see clause 7 of our Terms and Conditions ‘Participating in Online Communities’. These terms may be updated from time to time, so please read them before posting a comment. Any comment that violates these terms may be removed in its entirety as we do not edit comments. If you wish to complain about a comment please use the "REPORT ABUSE" button or contact the editors.

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more