 Also known as 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝘗𝘈𝘓) This is of extreme importance to improve the quality of life of allergy sufferers. Despite its existence, often, there are still episodes of allergic reactions. Almost half of adult patients have suffered moderate to severe allergic reactions to pre-packed food. Recent research has shown both allergic and non-allergic sufferers struggle to understand what the different 𝘗𝘈𝘓 mean. In fact, they incorrectly associate different wording to different risk levels. The higher the health education of people in the study, the more they would give different risk levels to various food labels. Interestingly, non-allergy sufferers give a higher risk to food labels than allergy sufferers. According to the research, consumers felt “𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲” was associated with less risk than “𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧” or “𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟”. To make matters worse, a high proportion of allergy sufferers do not read 𝘗𝘈𝘓 and rely on their own previous experience. The problem is that there are 𝐧𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 on 𝘗𝘈𝘓 wording or when they should be used. It is also not compulsory in the 𝐄𝐔, being of voluntary use by producers. In the 𝐔𝐊, it became compulsory due to 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘢’𝘴 𝘓𝘢𝘸. There is an urgent need to enforce legislation, making the wording better and clearer. It would start with the sole use of “𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧” in 𝘗𝘈𝘓, this way levelling the information, potentially decreasing the risk for all allergy sufferers. www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=336565208470697&id=100063516604410 
0 Comments
  Often people ask me what they should do when they see a "𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯" label. My first question to them is, how many variations of that wording have they seen?
𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞. Several other studies went to see what was the actual variation of allergen concentration. What did they find?
In reality, there is still a significant risk of a not labelled food, to contain a substantial amount of allergens. But why is it that the food industry has this massive variability in warnings they use and still have so much potential cross-contamination of allergens? The problem tracks back to political parties, the way they are funded or the individual politician's financial interest. What I am saying might be controversial, but let's look at what is known. Most of you have never heard of the "𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘍𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮".
In the 𝘜𝘚𝘈 alone, in the 2014 elections, the food industry donated $𝟏𝟕𝐌, in total, to both parties. This comes to the 𝐏'𝐬 I have spoken about before. Those, also called 𝐄𝐃'𝐬 (𝘌𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘋𝘰𝘴𝘦), look into the dose needed to cause an allergic reaction and the percentage of allergic people who will react. So a 𝐏𝟏 or 𝐄𝐃𝟏 means that the potential cross-contamination in a particular food will lead to 1% or fewer allergic people reacting to that food. The best collaboration done so far is the one between the food industry in Australia, the Government and Allergy Organizations. (see the attached table to see the ED for the 14 main allergens) Such an agreement does not exist in the 𝘌𝘜 at present. The hope for the 𝘜𝘒, at the moment, is that the so called "𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐚'𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰" will lead to a change in this practice. But we need to go deeper than simple labelling, look into manufacturing practices, and avoid allergens altogether. www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=218423533618199&id=100063516604410  |
AuthorDr Costa is a Consultant Paediatrician and fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
Clinic Address: The Chase, Old Milverton Ln, Leamington Spa CV32 6RW
Email address: officedrcosta@gmail.com
Contact number: 07949990798
Website design & content by LIT Communication: www.litcommunication.com
Email address: officedrcosta@gmail.com
Contact number: 07949990798
Website design & content by LIT Communication: www.litcommunication.com
