Allergy in the headlines

Posted by Andrew Wadge on January 25th 2007 in Science, safety and health

There's been lots of press coverage about Food Allergy and Intolerance Week. All of it good awareness-raising stuff, particularly if it helps to clear up the confusion out there between food allergy and food intolerance.

The Agency spends £1m a year on scientific and consumer research into food allergy and intolerance to ensure our policies (negotiating on allergen labelling legislation in Europe, guidance for industry and the general public) are based on robust evidence.

My colleague Sue Hattersley, the Agency lead in this area, will no doubt be talking about our research programme when she appears before the House of Lords’ Select Committee inquiry into allergy and allergic diseases next week

I’ve read the written evidence we’ve already submitted to the inquiry and it’s interesting stuff, particularly the theory that dermal exposure through the use of certain creams and oils, rather than simply eating a specific food, is now thought one of the reasons behind the rise in peanut allergy.

I was also interested to learn that a 2002 study into ‘May Contain Labelling,' found that people with nut allergy took an average of 39% longer to shop and paid 11% more for food. I look forward to the Select Committee’s findings.

Lots of people contact us for advice on what to eat after using over-the-counter allergy tests. We’re concerned that many are not seeking clinical advice and removing many basic foods from their diet, such as wheat and diary products, unnecessarily. If in doubt, speak to your doctor.

But we also know that there were 829 hospital admissions in England in 2004/5 caused by anaphylactic reactions to food. And a more recent analysis of trends in admissions to hospital for food allergy has shown an increase of 500% since 1990, with some evidence for an increase in the prevalence of peanut allergy in children.

To mark the awareness week, we’ve provided a snapshot of our food allergy and intolerance policy and scientific work and promoted the training we lay on for local authority enforcement teams. If you want to know more about the condition, check out our consumer advice.

add new comment

You are correct in pointing

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 02/03/2007 - 14:42

You are correct in pointing out the difference between peanuts and tree nuts and highlighting the potential for confusion.

In order to address this point, when we produced Best Practice Guidance on allergen management and advisory labelling last summer, we advised businesses to specify the type of nut where possible.

If nuts or peanuts are used as ingredients, then these have to be declared using the name of the nut - so peanuts would be specifically listed, as would almonds, walnuts, hazelnuts or Brazils.

However we do have to recognise that many factories handle both peanuts and 'tree nuts' and so peanuts may be cross contaminated with 'tree nuts' and vice versa. This is why I would advise you to take notice of the 'May Contain nuts' warnings. If you ignore them, there is a chance that you could eat something that is cross contaminated with one of the 'tree nuts' and this could lead to a severe reaction.

Peanuts are not nuts!

Posted by Chris Bradley (not verified) on 12/02/2007 - 11:37

I see from one of the FSA leaflets the various ingredients which must be shown on packing. One is 'peanut', one is 'tree nut'. I have never seen packaging showing these separately, so presumably any that says 'nuts' but where the supplier means it may contain peanuts is non-compliant. I am allergic to all nuts, but like peanuts. For other people (the majority, I think) it is the opposite.

I need this information to make an informed choice. As it is, I normally risk eating things that say 'may contain nuts' because it is usually peanuts that I can taste in these products.

Peanuts are no more nuts than are doughnuts! Will the FSA recognise this and ensure compliance for clear labelling distinction between nuts and peanuts in the industry?? It is long overdue.

poison in food

Posted by Historical Research Centre (not verified) on 08/02/2007 - 09:12

modified starch causes muscle and veine cramps.

artificial sugar and salt, the same.

what the nature produces cannot be copied -
this is the first rule. It must be respected and shared with the world. Not like Cuba did with the salt. This is why
chemical additives in the food causes
serious health problems.

First symptoms - you feel very tired.

Regards.

The president