Recipient

Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 8 Oct 2018•Latest report 8 Oct 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. London (West)

    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. The report was sent to Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    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. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain a coherent and coordinated system for monitoring customer allergic reactions

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) In the case of Pret-a-manger there was no coherent or co-ordinated system for monitoring customer allergic reactions despite sales of more than 200 million items. In some cases concerns were notified to Customer Services and in some they were noted to the safety department. The two did not know what the other was responding to. It was clear that there was no overarching monitoring system in place. In response to questioning on this I was told that the manager responsible for safety now received all notifications and would monitor them. In my view this remains highly inadequate. In my view sales of 200 million items some with expressly commissioned but hidden allergens require a robust safety auditing system. The previous system was unsafe and the system proposed equally so in my view. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate adrenaline dose for anaphylaxis

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) The dose of adrenaline in Epipen is 300mcg. The UK Resuscitation Council recommends a standard emergency dose of 500mcg. Emerade contains a dose including 500mcg. The combination of what my expert told me was an inadequate dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis and an inadequate length needle raises serious safety 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. The report was sent to Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Use of adrenaline injector needles that fail to access muscle

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) In the Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions Guidelines for healthcare providers the preferred needle length is 25 mm for adrenaline injectors to access muscle in most people. I heard during expert evidence that Epipen needle length was 16mm - suitable according to the UK Resuscitation Council for “pre-term or very small infants”. The use of needles which access only subcutaneous tissue and not muscle is in my view inherently unsafe. An alternative autoinjector, Emerade has a 24 mm needle. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026