Recurring concern

Inadequate food-allergen information and warnings for allergic consumers

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 8 Oct 2018•Latest report 21 Nov 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in food-product labelling, restaurant menus and comparable consumer-facing food-information controls to identify, disclose and prominently warn about relevant allergens, including incomplete allergen lists, misleading claims or insufficiently prominent allergen notices.

Not included

Excludes allergen training for food-service staff where consumer-facing allergen information is not itself deficient.
Excludes clinical recognition, treatment or emergency response for anaphylaxis after allergen exposure.
Excludes general food hygiene, food contamination and product-quality concerns unrelated to communicating allergen content.
Excludes generic public-health education or allergy advice that does not concern information and warnings about allergens in specific food products or menus.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 5
Date range: 2018–2022
Stated actions: 17

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs2

Department of Health and Social Care2

Food Standards Agency2

The British Society For Allergy & Clinical Immunology2

British Retail Consortium1

Byron Hamburgers Limited1

Food and Drink Federation1

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency1

National Trading Standards1

Pfizer Limited1

Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited1

Recipient name withheld1

Royal College of Pathologists1

UK Health Security Agency1

UKHospitality1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

21 Nov2022
Avon
Concerns raised1
1. Potentially misleading food-labelling wording and public understanding of allergen absence
This report raised 11 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 8
1. Action
  Developed and published guidance on manufacturing and labelling free-from products, with input from regulators and allergy charities.
  Stated by British Retail ConsortiumStated completed
2. Action
  Update allergen technical guidance to discourage combining precautionary allergen statements with same-allergen free-from statements.
  Stated by Food Standards AgencyStated in progress
3. Action
  Consult on the updated allergen technical guidance concerning precautionary allergen and free-from statements.
  Stated by Food Standards AgencyStated planned
1. Action
  Consider how best to promote current guidance to businesses producing foods with free-from and vegan claims.
  Stated by Food Standards AgencyStated planned
2. Action
  Produce industry guidance explaining appropriate use of free-from allergen claims and required risk controls.
  Stated by Food and Drink FederationStated completed
3. Action
  Publish guidance explaining the distinction between allergen-free and vegan claims and their implications for allergy safety.
  Stated by Food and Drink FederationStated completed
4. Action
  Make allergen-free and vegan claims guidance freely available and disseminate it to food businesses and wider audiences.
  Stated by Food and Drink FederationStated completed
5. Action
  Continue identifying ways to promote allergen-free and vegan claims guidance to companies.
  Stated by Food and Drink FederationStated in progress
Respondent positions 4
1. Position
  Individual retail businesses, rather than the trade association, are responsible for decisions about product labels and associated policies.
  Stated by British Retail ConsortiumRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  Practitioners and allergy clinicians should explain that free-from products are not safe for all allergic consumers after diagnosis.
  Stated by British Retail ConsortiumRedirects responsibility
2. Position
  The majority of allergic people can safely consume free-from products, so a universal warning could mislead consumers and restrict choices.
  Stated by British Retail ConsortiumDisputes the concern
3. Position
  FSA and HSE are responsible for food policy, while DHSC is responsible for nutrition and health campaigns.
  Stated by UK Health Security AgencyRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Celia Lindsey MARSH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Celia Lindsey Marsh died on 27 December 2017 after suffering fatal anaphylaxis caused by milk protein in a wrap she believed was safe to eat. The principal concerns included the investigation and retention of evidence in suspected anaphylaxis deaths, education for doctors and patients, systems for reporting anaphylaxis, and potentially misleading “dairy-free” and other allergen-labelling claims.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Potentially misleading food-labelling wording and public understanding of allergen absence
Wider context from the report
“Concerns were raised in relation to the immediate investigation into a suspected death from anaphylaxis, that the evidence obtained at this time, with the right approach, can be invaluable to preventing deaths, but that to achieve this changes are required. This would need changes in the death investigation process and the wider investigation which would need assistance from the Food Standards Agency (FSA). I was made aware that there needs to be better education both to doctors and to patients in risk groups to prevent future deaths I was also advised that whereas the FSA would be required to assist with the above areas it could also assist in relation to the current practices of food labelling. Firstly in relation to Pathology, I am told that the current guidance is 10 years old, the suggestion is for this to be revisited and specifically: • If bloods are taken at hospital that they are not destroyed in a suspected case but retained for testing • That an early blood sample is taken after death and stored for late analysis • That the possibility that a death is due to anaphylaxis is raised with the Senior Coroner for the area where the death occurred at the earliest opportunity • That an early blood sample is taken after death • The post mortem examination should be prioritised. • At the post mortem examination: that stomach contents are taken and frozen to enable testing and that tissue samples are taken A standard protocol should be available to ensure appropriate samples are taken at the correct time to assist later investigation. In relation to doctors/patients: • To highlight, through public awareness and to the medical profession, that while the majority of food-allergic individuals are at very low risk of fatal reactions, a small subset of food-allergic individuals may be at significantly higher risk. These persons must be given appropriate advice as to the dangers of inadvertent exposure, since there may be no detectable safe level of allergen that can be present in a product for this group. • To be aware that avoidance of foods in adults does not improve eczema and may result in more severe allergy to the food avoided particularly to cow’s milk but tolerance can be maintained by continued regular exposure. In relation to the FSA, the UK Health Security Agency and the Department of Health and Social Care: • To establish a robust system of capturing and recording cases of anaphylaxis, and specifically, fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis, to provide an early warning of the risk posed to allergic individual by products with undeclared allergen content. • Such a system could involve mandatory reporting of anaphylaxis presenting to hospitals, analogous to the current system used for notifiable diseases (including some food-borne illnesses) whereby registered medical practitioners have a statutory duty to notify the ‘proper officer’ at their local council or local health protection team of suspected cases of certain infectious diseases. An example of such a reporting system for anaphylaxis already exists in the state of Victoria in Australia, and also allows for rapid alerts of serious cases to public health authorities to expedite investigation and evaluate the public health risk. In relation to the FSA, the British Retail Consortium, Food and Drink Federation and British Hospitality: • The wording used on food products, and the public’s understanding of these phrases in terms of implying the absence of a particular allergen, can be potentially misleading. Examples include: “free-from” and “vegan”. Foods labelled in this way must be free from that allergen, and there should be a robust system to confirm the absence of the relevant allergen in all ingredients and during production when making such a claim. • With respect to those with the most severe food allergies, it may be necessary in the interim to clarify that foods labelled “free-from [X allergen]” may not be safe to consume. In relation to the FSA: • A hotline to the FSA to provide guidance in fatal cases due to suspected anaphylaxis, although a mandatory reporting system (suggested above) would address this need. • Nationally recognised best practice and technical advice to assist those investigating such cases; ”
Source location
Celia Lindsey MARSH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Developed and published guidance on manufacturing and labelling free-from products, with input from regulators and allergy charities.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In the absence of more specific requirements, the BRC, jointly with the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), worked on a guidance document on how to manufacture and label ‘free-from’ products**. The Food Standards Agency and allergy charities were consulted during the development process of the document. The document is used by our members and is publicly available for other companies to use.”

Source location
Response from British Retail Consortium
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Update allergen technical guidance to discourage combining precautionary allergen statements with same-allergen free-from statements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We are in the process of updating our allergen technical guidance to say that precautionary allergen statements should not be used in combination with a ‘free from’ statement for the same allergen. This work is ongoing and will be put out for further consultation shortly.”

Source location
Response from Food Standards Agency
Page 4 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Consult on the updated allergen technical guidance concerning precautionary allergen and free-from statements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We are in the process of updating our allergen technical guidance to say that precautionary allergen statements should not be used in combination with a ‘free from’ statement for the same allergen. This work is ongoing and will be put out for further consultation shortly.”

Source location
Response from Food Standards Agency
Page 4 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Consider how best to promote current guidance to businesses producing foods with free-from and vegan claims.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We will consider how best to promote the current guidance to businesses producing foods with these claims to encourage best practice more widely and continue to consider it alongside our work on precautionary allergen labelling.”

Source location
Response from Food Standards Agency
Page 5 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Produce industry guidance explaining appropriate use of free-from allergen claims and required risk controls.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In 2015, aware that a growing number of food business operators - including manufacturers, retailers and caterers - were making such claims for their food products, the FDF produced industry guidance in conjunction with the BRC to explain the appropriate use of “free-from” claims in relation to food allergens. The guide clarifies that a “free-from” claim is the absence of a specific food allergen in any food and must be based on a comprehensive risk assessment accompanied by rigorous controls (which should include analytical testing). This is to ensure that the claim is valid and not misleading.”

Source location
Response from Food and Drink Federation
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Publish guidance explaining the distinction between allergen-free and vegan claims and their implications for allergy safety.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Subsequently with the rapid growth and development of vegan suitable food products, it became clear there was potential for consumers to be confused by vegan claims in terms of their allergy safety. In 2020, the FDF published subsequent guidance on ‘allergen’-free and vegan claims to explain the important difference between them. It aims to dispel any misunderstanding that a vegan claim automatically means a food product is safe and suitable for an allergic consumer, as this is not the case. Each claim communicates to different consumer groups, with only the allergen absence claim being food safety information and subject to stringent substantiation.”

Source location
Response from Food and Drink Federation
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Make allergen-free and vegan claims guidance freely available and disseminate it to food businesses and wider audiences.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The ‘Allergen’-Free & Vegan Claims guidance includes a foreword from the FSA and has been commended by the Anaphylaxis UK and Vegan Society. We have made this guidance freely available so that all food businesses can access it, regardless of whether they are a member of the FDF. It has been widely shared and well received across the UK and internationally, and we will continue to look at ways of promoting this to companies.”

Source location
Response from Food and Drink Federation
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue identifying ways to promote allergen-free and vegan claims guidance to companies.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The ‘Allergen’-Free & Vegan Claims guidance includes a foreword from the FSA and has been commended by the Anaphylaxis UK and Vegan Society. We have made this guidance freely available so that all food businesses can access it, regardless of whether they are a member of the FDF. It has been widely shared and well received across the UK and internationally, and we will continue to look at ways of promoting this to companies.”

Source location
Response from Food and Drink Federation
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Individual retail businesses, rather than the trade association, are responsible for decisions about product labels and associated policies.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We support our members with their decision process on what appears on labels and associated policies, but it is their individual company responsibility to make the decision.”

Source location
Response from British Retail Consortium
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Practitioners and allergy clinicians should explain that free-from products are not safe for all allergic consumers after diagnosis.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Regarding the second recommendation - including a statement that ‘free-from’ products are not safe for all allergic consumers - we believe such an explanation should be given by practitioners and allergy clinicians, after patient diagnosis, when explaining and guiding allergic patients on how to manage their diets. The statement could have unintended consequences confusing customers and potentially contradicting what their medical teams have advised and limiting their food choices.”

Source location
Response from British Retail Consortium
Page 2 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The majority of allergic people can safely consume free-from products, so a universal warning could mislead consumers and restrict choices.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Regarding the second recommendation - including a statement that ‘free-from’ products are not safe for all allergic consumers - we believe such an explanation should be given by practitioners and allergy clinicians, after patient diagnosis, when explaining and guiding allergic patients on how to manage their diets. The statement could have unintended consequences confusing customers and potentially contradicting what their medical teams have advised and limiting their food choices.”

Source location
Response from British Retail Consortium
Page 2 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
FSA and HSE are responsible for food policy, while DHSC is responsible for nutrition and health campaigns.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) hold responsibility for food policy related matters. When Public Health England (PHE) became UKHSA the responsibility for nutrition and health campaigns transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).”

Source location
Response UK Health Security Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2022
Open published response
30 Sep2019
Inner South London
Concerns raised3
1. Lack of statutory requirements for the appearance of restaurant allergen notices
2. Lack of complete allergen information on the face of restaurant menus
3. Insufficient prominence of allergen notices on restaurant menus
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 7
1. Action
  Increase the prominence and size of allergen notices on restaurant menus.
  Stated by BYRONStated completed
2. Action
  Update business guidance to clarify effective allergen information and readily discernible notices.
  Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Department of Health and Social Care and Food Standards AgencyStated in progress
3. Action
  Research how businesses and consumers understand, communicate and use allergen information to inform further guidance updates.
  Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Department of Health and Social Care and Food Standards AgencyStated in progress
1. Action
  Introduce food-menu allergen filtering on the website and provide tablets for restaurants to replicate it on site.
  Stated by BYRONStated in progress
2. Action
  Use more detailed descriptions for all menu items to improve allergen signposting.
  Stated by BYRONStated completed
3. Action
  Ask every customer about allergies before taking a food order.
  Stated by BYRONStated completed
4. Action
  Prompt staff to confirm allergy discussions before entering orders and communicate allergies to the kitchen.
  Stated by BYRONStated completed
Respondent positions 7
1. Position
  Food safety and allergen regulation do not fall within the respondent’s remit.
  Stated by National Trading StandardsOutside remit
1. Position
  Local authorities are responsible for food safety enforcement in their respective areas.
  Stated by National Trading StandardsRedirects responsibility
2. Position
  The Food Standards Agency is responsible for allergen legislation, policy and managing national food incidents.
  Stated by National Trading StandardsRedirects responsibility
3. Position
  Food businesses bear primary legal responsibility for ensuring food safety and providing accurate allergen information.
  Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Department of Health and Social Care and Food Standards AgencyRedirects responsibility
4. Position
  Local authorities are responsible for assessing restaurant allergen compliance and taking corrective or enforcement action where necessary.
  Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Department of Health and Social Care and Food Standards AgencyRedirects responsibility
5. Position
  Catering-establishment staff training falls outside the organisation’s remit.
  Stated by The British Society For Allergy & Clinical ImmunologyOutside remit
6. Position
  Existing oral or written allergen information and customer-server discussion are considered sufficient, so menus need not contain all key allergen information.
  Stated by BYRONExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Owen Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

On 22 April 2017, Owen Carey ate food at Byron restaurant at the O2 centre despite making serving staff aware of his dairy allergy. The chicken contained buttermilk, causing a severe food-induced anaphylactic reaction from which he died. Concerns included the adequacy of allergen training, the prominence and effectiveness of allergen notices and information on menus, and the absence of a national register for severe food anaphylactic reactions.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of statutory requirements for the appearance of restaurant allergen notices
Wider context from the report
“(2) The effectiveness of the current placement and appearance of allergen notices on restaurant menus to trigger an allergen discussion between a customer and serving staff: I was told, and accept, that it was more important to trigger a discussion between a customer and member of serving staff about allergens than to have a menu which included complete allergen information on its face. However, the prompt for this discussion on the Byron O2 menu at the time was: (i) on the side of the menu which appeared to focus solely on a ‘special’, namely a Kim Cheese burger, (ii) at the very bottom and distant from all the main food options, (iii) in very small font and (iv) on a royal blue background in black ink. I was told that this placement and appearance was not outwith the ‘general approach of the restaurant industry as a whole and that the current Food Information Regulations did not, unlike with prepacked food, specify the location and / or font size and / or prominence of such an allergen notice. It concerns me that such little prominence appears to be given industry wide to a notice which is intended to trigger what could potentially be a lifesaving discussion between a customer and member of serving staff. It further concerns me that there are no statutory requirements regarding the appearance of such an allergy notice. ”
Source location
Owen Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of complete allergen information on the face of restaurant menus
Wider context from the report
“(3) The lack of key allergen information on the face of restaurant menus and therefore their potential to be falsely reassuring: In my findings I concluded that Owen and his brother would have been falsely reassured with the menu description of Owen's order because on its face the Byron O2 menu in place at the time did not readily identify that the chicken would have been marinated in buttermilk or at all. I was shown a more up to date menu from Byron O2 and note that where buttermilk is now used to marinate chicken it is identified. However, the prompt for this change was one of ‘food fashion’ I was told rather than a move to make the menu more allergen friendly. Although I accept that triggering a discussion between a customer and member of serving staff about allergens is of key importance (as indicated above), the absence of any simple allergen words or symbols on the face of a restaurant menu is of concern, particularly when one takes into account (i) what I was told about the latest figures demonstrating how a significant proportion of customers may be naturally shy/ reluctant about sharing their allergies with serving staff and (ii) that restaurants, like Byron O2, tend to attract younger diners dining alone (i.e. school age children without their parents). It also concerns me that at the time there were symbols on the menu depicting the use of peanuts, but not other allergen, which in my view could also have potentially falsely reassured diners that allergens were being identified on the face of the menu when in fact they were not. ”
Source location
Owen Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient prominence of allergen notices on restaurant menus
Wider context from the report
“(2) The effectiveness of the current placement and appearance of allergen notices on restaurant menus to trigger an allergen discussion between a customer and serving staff: I was told, and accept, that it was more important to trigger a discussion between a customer and member of serving staff about allergens than to have a menu which included complete allergen information on its face. However, the prompt for this discussion on the Byron O2 menu at the time was: (i) on the side of the menu which appeared to focus solely on a ‘special’, namely a Kim Cheese burger, (ii) at the very bottom and distant from all the main food options, (iii) in very small font and (iv) on a royal blue background in black ink. I was told that this placement and appearance was not outwith the ‘general approach of the restaurant industry as a whole and that the current Food Information Regulations did not, unlike with prepacked food, specify the location and / or font size and / or prominence of such an allergen notice. It concerns me that such little prominence appears to be given industry wide to a notice which is intended to trigger what could potentially be a lifesaving discussion between a customer and member of serving staff. It further concerns me that there are no statutory requirements regarding the appearance of such an allergy notice. ”
Source location
Owen Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Increase the prominence and size of allergen notices on restaurant menus.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Both the prominence and size of the allergen notice on the latest Byron Menu launched on October 2nd have increased. There is a reference to allergens on both sides and the message takes up one third of a page Since 2018 over and above our legal allergen requirements which we have always adhered to, we have also added the extra safeguards into our business to increase allergy awareness;”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-Byron
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Update business guidance to clarify effective allergen information and readily discernible notices.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Regardless of the method chosen, the information must be accurate and up-to-date. We are currently updating our guidance for businesses and will ensure that these”

Source location
2019-0335-Joint-response-from-FSA-DEFRA-and-DHSC-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Research how businesses and consumers understand, communicate and use allergen information to inform further guidance updates.

Verbatim wording from the response
“requirements remain clear, including the requirement for notices (on menus and elsewhere) to be readily discernible. We want to be sure that businesses are communicating allergen information to consumers in the most effective ways, and we are currently undertaking further research into how businesses understand and act on their responsibilities and how consumers receive and use this information. This research will inform any further updates to business guidance.”

Source location
2019-0335-Joint-response-from-FSA-DEFRA-and-DHSC-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Introduce food-menu allergen filtering on the website and provide tablets for restaurants to replicate it on site.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Byron is now working with Ten Kites to introduce a filtering system for the food menu on the website. Restaurants will soon be receiving tablets to be able to replicate this on site.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-Byron
Page 3 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Use more detailed descriptions for all menu items to improve allergen signposting.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We have reached out to both the family of Owen Carey and the FSA to initiate a meeting and commence a consultative process between them and industry colleagues, which I want to lead, but have had no response yet. We have also ensured that menus moving forward are as descriptive as possible without eliminating the need for the guest to consult the allergy guide. At the time being a specialist burger / one product restaurant, it was industry standard that a plain burger meant a burger with no toppings such as onion, mayo, tomato and lettuce rather than that the meat/contents themselves were plain. As articulated above to try and reassure guests as much as possible we now have more detailed descriptions on all our menu items.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-Byron
Page 3 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Ask every customer about allergies before taking a food order.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Each customer is asked if they have an allergy at the table before a food order is taken”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-Byron
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Prompt staff to confirm allergy discussions before entering orders and communicate allergies to the kitchen.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Before a member of staff can enter an order into the till system an additional message prompt the size of the till screen asks them if they asked the guest about allergies and if not to go back to the table to do so”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-Byron
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Food safety and allergen regulation do not fall within the respondent’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As such the activities relating to the regulation of food safety in general, and allergens in particular, do not fall within our remit. At a local level this responsibility lies with individual local authorities. NTS is not an overseeing body for local authorities. Each local authority is responsible for the level of food safety enforcement it undertakes in its own area.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-National-Trading-Standards
Page 1 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Local authorities are responsible for food safety enforcement in their respective areas.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As such the activities relating to the regulation of food safety in general, and allergens in particular, do not fall within our remit. At a local level this responsibility lies with individual local authorities. NTS is not an overseeing body for local authorities. Each local authority is responsible for the level of food safety enforcement it undertakes in its own area.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-National-Trading-Standards
Page 1 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The Food Standards Agency is responsible for allergen legislation, policy and managing national food incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It seems however that the concerns you raise relate to the underpinning statutory system, in particular the lack of statutory requirements in relation to the notification of allergens in the circumstances that Mr Carey purchased his food and also the lack of a national register of such incidents. I see that your letter was also sent to the Food Standards Agency. The FSA have the responsibility, on behalf of Government, for the legislation and policy relating to allergens and for managing national food incidents so I am sure they will be well placed to address the issues you have raised.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-National-Trading-Standards
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Food businesses bear primary legal responsibility for ensuring food safety and providing accurate allergen information.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The overarching responsibility of food business operators is set out in Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 (‘The EU General Food Law’), Article 17(1): Food and feed business operators at all stages of production, processing and distribution within the businesses under their control shall ensure that foods or feeds satisfy the requirements of food law which are relevant to their activities and shall verify that such requirements are met. The reasoning for this is provided in Recital (30) in that a food business operator is best placed to devise a safe system for supplying food and ensuring that the food it supplies is safe; thus, it should have primary legal responsibility for ensuring food safety. Of course, food law places responsibilities on both operators and food businesses through other general and specific requirements too, and such is the case with the provision of allergy information.”

Source location
2019-0335-Joint-response-from-FSA-DEFRA-and-DHSC-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Local authorities are responsible for assessing restaurant allergen compliance and taking corrective or enforcement action where necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Local authorities have responsibility for assessing how businesses, such as Byron, comply with food law and will take corrective action where any issues are identified. In carrying out their duties, local authorities will assess levels of compliance, including in relation to allergen management, through inspections, record and traceability checks, food sampling and staff interviews. Where non-compliance is identified, local authorities will work with the business to improve standards and take appropriate, proportionate enforcement action should that be necessary. The FSA has responsibility for oversight of this work and the Food Law Code of Practice is the primary mechanism through which the FSA gives direction to local authorities to ensure a degree of consistency in approach.”

Source location
2019-0335-Joint-response-from-FSA-DEFRA-and-DHSC-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Catering-establishment staff training falls outside the organisation’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We consider point 1 outside of our remit but fully acknowledge that the issue of staff training at catering establishments is a significant contributor to unnecessary allergic reactions and fully support rigorous measures to address this. Points 2 and 3 relate to the need for better allergen labelling on restaurant menus and again, the BSACI fully supports the need for a review and consultation by the Food Standards Agency to ensure that customers with food allergies are given the information that they need to eat safely. The recent consultation on allergen labelling in relation to food that is prepacked for direct sale has been an excellent example of effective consultation and subsequent positive change.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-BSACI
Page 1 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing oral or written allergen information and customer-server discussion are considered sufficient, so menus need not contain all key allergen information.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The legislation requires that a restaurant has a legal requirement to provide allergen information to customers for each dish they serve, this can be orally or written down in an allergy guide listing every dish they serve and whether they contain the 14 allergens. This guide or matrix is given to the guest when requested so that they can order safely, but the responsibility lies jointly between the guest and the server. We are very keen to work with the legislative authorities to make this process as robust as possible to see if there are ways that we can improve how the industry signposts allergen information to customers without losing that key interaction and discussion between the guest and staff to ensure their allergies are shared also with the kitchen.”

Source location
2019-0335-Response-by-Byron
Page 3 · response
Published 10 November 2019
Open published response
8 Oct2018
London (West)
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate or unclear allergen labelling on packaging
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Conduct an urgent review of allergen information requirements for food pre-packed for direct sale, including stakeholder engagement and development of policy options.
  Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated in progress
2. Action
  Encourage businesses to implement best-practice approaches to allergen information provision.
  Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated in progress
AI-generated summary

Natasha Charlotte Rose Ednan-Laperouse · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Natasha Charlotte Rose Ednan-Laperouse, who was allergic to sesame, ate a baguette purchased from Pret-a-Manger that contained unlabelled sesame. She developed an anaphylactic reaction on a flight to Nice and died in hospital shortly after landing on 17 July 2016. The report raised concerns about inadequate allergen labelling, inadequate monitoring of customer allergic reactions, and the needle length and adrenaline dose of some autoinjectors used in emergency treatment.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate or unclear allergen labelling on packaging
Wider context from the report
“(1) That allergens were not labelled adequately or clearly on Pret-a-Manger packaging when prepared in their kitchens “pre-packed for direct sale” utilising regulation 5 of the Food Information Regulations. Regulation 5 allows for food outlets to avoid full food labelling requirements whether they prepare a small number of items in local shops or in the case of Pret, over 200 million items for sale by preparing these items in “local kitchens”. These items prepared in “local kitchens” are in fact “assembled” in large parts from items made in factory style outlets to Pret specifications. I was left with the impression that the “local kitchens” were in fact a device to evade the spirit of the regulation. ”
Source location
Natasha Charlotte Rose Ednan-Laperouse · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Conduct an urgent review of allergen information requirements for food pre-packed for direct sale, including stakeholder engagement and development of policy options.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Taking into account matter of concern (1) raised in your Regulation 28 report, an urgent review of allergen information provision for food which is pre-packed for direct sale is under way with a view to strengthening the framework.”

Source location
2018-0279-Response-by-Department-for-Environment-Food-Rural-Affairs
Page 1 · response
Published 9 October 2018
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Encourage businesses to implement best-practice approaches to allergen information provision.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Our central concern is about improving consumer safety, and therefore, alongside the review, we are encouraging businesses to implement a best practice approach to allergen information provision. The FSA have also been working in collaboration with patient groups to run awareness campaigns such as #EasytoASK which works to promote best practice behaviour by consumers with allergies.”

Source location
2018-0279-Response-by-Department-for-Environment-Food-Rural-Affairs
Page 2 · response
Published 9 October 2018
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Potentially misleading food-labelling wording and public understanding of allergen absence

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.8

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

Concerns raised3

Lack of statutory requirements for the appearance of restaurant allergen notices

Lack of complete allergen information on the face of restaurant menus

Insufficient prominence of allergen notices on restaurant menus

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.7

Concerns raised1

Inadequate or unclear allergen labelling on packaging

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Actions described in response 8

Respondent positions 4

Actions described in response 7

Respondent positions 7

Actions described in response 2