A food allergy occurs when the immune system reacts abnormally to certain foods by misidentifying one or more of their components as harmful. In many cases, the reaction is mild, but in others, it can be severe or even trigger a life-threatening anaphylactic shock. Its incidence has increased alarmingly over the last 20 years for reasons as yet unknown, although hypothetically it could be due to environmental changes, increased consumption of new and ultra-processed foods, excessive cleanliness, or factors that impoverish the diversity of our intestinal microbiota.
Food labels are a fundamental tool for conveying essential information to consumers. For this reason, the European Union has been applying very strict legislation to food manufacturers requiring that labelling easily identifies the 14 allergens that are now considered a priority: nuts (such as almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts, cashew nuts), peanuts, celery, cereals containing gluten (such as wheat, rye, barley, and oats), milk and dairy products, eggs, soya, fish, crustaceans (such as shrimps, crabs, and lobsters), molluscs (such as mussels, oysters, and clams), lupins, sesame, mustard, and sulphites. Clearly, this regulation has been a major step forward in protecting consumers’ health. But challenges remain.
The obligation to inform about allergens extends to any operator offering food, whether packaged or not, including restaurants, cafeterias, caterers, or, in general, any establishment offering food. But the method of information is not as strict as that required of the manufacturer, as it is left too much in the hands of the operator, who can choose between several options, such as including icons or other indications on the menu card (recommended), but also leaflets, posters, or even oral information (supported by less accessible information), which is why it is an aspect of the legislation that could be improved.
On the other hand, the voluntary nature of “precautionary allergen labelling” (PAL), which is often used, for example, when several foods, some containing allergens, are produced on the same premises, or utensils are shared when preparing different foods, is abused. Warnings such as “may contain traces of x” are intended to protect consumers with allergies, but their abusive application reduces their usefulness while their inconsistency increases the risk that they will be ignored. In addition, abuse of PALs unfairly limits consumer choice.
The PAL should be indicative of lower food quality, as it is voluntary, its use is confusing, and its absence does not exclude cross-contamination with allergens. The reality is that PAL is abused as an alibi to “cover one’s back” in order to reduce costs, instead of applying more costly but higher-quality alternatives, such as using different facilities or utensils when dealing with allergens. To regain its full protective meaning, the absence of PAL should guarantee the exclusion of cross-contamination, fully accredited and identified by an allergen quality label.
Leave A Comment