An official website of the United States government.
<p>Five hundred and eight pre-packed processed foods were purchased in duplicate (two samples with identical batch/production codes giving a total of 1,016 products) from a range of retail outlets across the UK, including major and smaller national supermarkets as well as independent retailers. . Products with allergen advisory statements and an equal number of comparable products without such statements were purchased.</p>
<p>Samples were tested for the unintentional presence and quantity of one or more of the following four major food allergens: milk, gluten, peanut and hazelnut. These allergens were chosen due to the large number of incidents the FSA received over the past few years and because of their importance to public health.</p>
<p>The survey examined the different types of advisory statements used on pre-packed foods and compared the use of these phrases to the levels of allergens present. It was anticipated this may help to establish whether the use of certain advisory statements are linked to the level of allergen present and indicate whether different types of statements convey different levels of risk to the consumer. In addition, the survey examined whether the suggested advisory labelling statements set out in the FSA’s Best Practice Guidance were being used by industry.</p>
<p>Background: The current regulatory framework within the European Union mandates the declaration of 14 allergens as constituent ingredients (i.e. peanuts, nuts, soybeans, mustard, eggs, lupin, milk, fish, cereals containing gluten, sesame, celery, sulphur dioxide, molluscs and crustaceans) in pre-packed foods. This legislation does not cover unintentional cross-contamination with allergens or the resultant use of advisory labelling.</p>
<p>The FSA introduced ‘best practice’ guidance on managing food allergens in 2006 to assist the food industry in the use of advisory labelling. However, due to the lack of standardisation in allergen risk assessment methodology and inconsistencies in allergen management practices, the application of advisory labelling varies in the way it is presented to consumers.</p>
<p>These variations have led some allergic consumers to believe that different types of advisory statements convey different levels of risk (i.e. ‘made in a factory that also handles X allergen’, versus ‘made on a line that also handles X’ allergen).</p>
<p>It was anticipated that the results of this survey will help to inform the development of proportionate risk based allergen management thresholds (known as action levels). It was envisaged that action levels will be used by the food industry as well as by regulatory and enforcement bodies to inform decisions about allergen management, and enable the appropriate use of allergen advisory statements, such as ‘not suitable for those with X allergy’ on pre-packed foods. Furthermore, it was anticipated that action levels will help food businesses make evidence-based decisions on the use of factual statements about whether or not a food is suitable for consumption by someone with a food allergy.</p>