Well, to be honest, it is not nuts that are the problem, it is the confusion arising from the laudable efforts of regulators and manufacturers to improve allergen labelling for the benefit of allergic consumers. But, nuts being at the sharp end of the allergy experience, nut labelling takes much of the flak.
Nut/peanut allergy is very emotive. It is the one allergy that almost everyone has heard of – and what they have heard is that it can kill you. In reality, any serious allergy can kill you but nuts/peanuts are the most common killers. So manufacturers (and food service operatives) are super nervous about getting involved with nuts and especially about making any claims.
For example, Kinnerton chocolate, although they were the first company, fifteen years ago, to spend over a £1 million building a dedicated nut free section onto their factory, will not make a ‘nut free’ claim. Instead they make a ‘Nut Safety Promise’ and then spend a page of their website explaining how they try to make their products safe for nut allergy sufferers.
Similarly, you may have heard of the brouhaha last year when Alpro decided to move the manufacture of their nut milks onto the same site as their soya milks – a site which had previously not used nuts so that their soya milks could be declared ‘nut free’. Despite the fact that the protocols they were proposing to use were extremely tight so that the risk of nut contamination would have fallen well below the level suggested by the Food Standards Agency as triggering a ‘may contain nuts’ warning, they were insistent that any product manufactured on the same premises as a nut milk should carry a nut warning. The situation was finally resolved not by a labelling accommodation, but by Alpro deciding not to combine manufacture of their nut and soya milk so that the soya milk site could remain nut free.
So if manufacturers do decide to make for this market they need to understand exactly what they are getting into.
Back in the day, if a product did not have nuts/peanuts as an ingredient it could deemed to be nut free. But as the number of nut/peanut allergics grew, so did the understanding of how little of the allergic protein it takes to cause a reaction in someone who is seriously allergic. So could a chip of nut/peanut from another product line which strayed into a product which did not have nuts as an ingredient cause a problem? Well, yes it could. So no longer was it enough for the product not to contain nuts/peanuts as an ingredient. If it was to avoid any chips of nuts or peanuts getting in by mistake, it really needed to be made somewhere where those nuts/peanuts never went.
So now we have two sets of nut/peanut-free products: those that are made in a nut/peanut free factory and those that are made in a factory which also uses nuts/peanuts. Can the latter really be safe for nut/peanut allergics? This is not an easy question to answer as it depends not only on the rigour of the cleaning and manufacturing protocols in the factory but on what they are actually manufacturing. So, for example, the Alpro nut/soya milk would have been fine as it is perfectly possible to clean down equipment that has been used for a liquid product such as a nut milk to guarantee that there will be no residue. However, were you making chocolate it would be a totally different matter. Chocolate is notoriously sticky and difficult to clean and no matter how wonderful your cleaning protocols, it would be impossible to guarantee that there would be no peanut/nut residues. But the allergen labelling on these products does not tell you any of this so you have no way of assessing the risk you might be running in eating a nut/peanut-free product with a ‘made in a factory that also uses nuts’ warning on it.
So, what do you as a nut/peanut allergic yourself, or as the parent of a nut/peanut allergic child, do? Play it safe and only buy products made in a dedicated nut/peanut-free environment? Or do you research the product and the factory and make your own decision based on the product being made and how efficient you think the factory’s cleaning is? (An option which will involve you in a lot of work in talking to manufacturers and learning about cleaning methods and ingredients.) Or do you risk it anyhow and just hope that if there is any nut/peanut contamination, you won’t be the unlucky person who gets to eat it?
Hardly surprisingly, the advice given by the Anaphylaxis Campaign and followed by, at least, most parents of allergic children, is to take no risks and to stick with products which are made in a nut free environment. Which is absolutely right and sensible, but will inevitably mean that that they will miss out on a significant number of products which actually would be perfectly safe for them to eat. But, it no longer stops there.
Over the last few years and as a result of Horsegate and innumerable other food scandals (none of them anything to do with allergy), transparency has become the buzz word in the food industry. It is no longer enough to know what you do in your own factory, you need to know what happens further back down the chain, how your suppliers make up the ingredients that you use (is the beef really beef or is it horse?), and how their suppliers grow their raw materials.
How is this relevant for allergy? Well, take the case of oats. If a field of oats is grown next door to a field of wheat, there is absolutely no way that you can avoid some of the wheat getting into the oats and some of the oats getting into the wheat. But while the latter does not matter to wheat eaters, coeliacs who have now been cleared to eat oats, need to know that the oats they are eating are just oats, not oats mixed with wheat. So it is essential that the manufacturer of a gluten-free, oat-containing product knows exactly where their oats have been grown.
So a label does not only need to tell the consumer whether there are any allergens deliberately included in the product, it needs to tell that consumer whether or not the allergen is still used in the factory in which the product is made and whether, way back down the supply chain, the ingredients have ever come into contact with the allergen and could therefore have been contaminated by it. But once again, the variables are enormous. While the chances of wheat contamination in a field of oats grown next door to (or milled the same mill as) wheat is high, it may be that other contamination risks may be very low. If, for example, the ingredient comes from a country where transparency and labelling is not as stringent as it is in the UK/Europe, no one may have any idea whether or not it could have been contaminated by an allergen. Therefore the manufacturer using it cannot, in all honesty, declare that the ingredients are totally nut/peanut/relevant allergen free even though they may be.
This whole question arose during the course of the FreeFrom Food Awards ‘products manufactured for nut nut/peanut allergics’ category judging earlier this year. Among our judges were Moira Austin who has run the Anaphylaxis Campaign help line since the charity was started 20 years ago, Alexa of YesNoBananas and Louise of NutMums, both parents of nut/peanut allergic children.
One of the ‘freefrom nuts/peanuts’ entered products had declared that there were no nuts in the ingredients and that it was manufactured in a factory which did not use nuts, but that it could not guarantee that the ingredients were free of nut contamination. As far as we could see, the only ingredients that would have been at issue were things such Brazilian orange oil for which it would be very unlikely that you would be able to get any reliable history. But, they would form a very tiny part of the whole product.
In the red corner was Louise from NutMums who said, reasonably enough, that ‘nut free’ meant ‘nut free’, not partly nut free and if you could not guarantee that all of the ingredients were free of nut contamination, then you should not call a product ‘nut/peanut free’. In the blue corner was Alexa of YesNoBananas who said, yes that is fine but, we need to live in the real world and, realistically, the risk of nut contamination of an ingredient used in such a tiny quantity was so small that it did not present a ‘real’ risk. She maintained that the manufacturer should be congratulated on being so open and transparent and that the allergic person wanting to buy the product should make their own informed assessment of the risk and act accordingly.
Which is also absolutely fine, provided that you are both willing and able to make that assessment and are comfortable with the responsibility of making the choice. The Anaphylaxis Campaign’s position is that manufacturers should follow the very good guidelines set down by the Food Standards Agency which state that ‘advisory labelling on possible cross-contamination with allergens should be justifiable only on the basis of a risk assessment applied to a responsibly managed operation. Warning labels should only be used where there is a demonstrable and significant risk of allergen cross- contamination and they should not be used as a substitute for Good Manufacturing Practices’.
If this principle were applied throughout the ‘freefrom’ industry, life would certainly be a great deal simpler for the allergic consumer. They could then believe that a ‘may contain’ warning, when it appeared, did indicate a significant level of risk and they could assume if it did not appear, then they could eat the product safely. Sadly, we are as yet a long way from this as a uniform practice. So for now we continue to get a confusing jumble of messages which range from the ultra-responsible manufacture quoted above who is going over and above and thereby frightening off people who could almost certainly eat their product perfectly safely, to the lazy/frightened manufacturer who is using ‘may contain’ labelling as a ‘substitute for Good Manufacturing Practices’ and whose product may not be even remotely safe.
My own feeling is that, although this is extraordinarily confusing for the allergy community right now, it will gradually settle down as ‘freefrom’ manufacturers become more sophisticated, the concept of detailed risk assessment becomes more widely understood and practised, more ‘dedicated’ nut/peanut/ gluten/dairy etc facilities are built and as ‘freefrom’ food becomes more of a mainstream product. But that may take a while so, all you nut/peanut allergics and parents of allergic kids, for now I am afraid that you, like Alexa, have little option but to do your own research and rely on your own good sense.
Michelle
Way back in 1987, just as I was starting work on a major history of English food, my eighteen-month-old son, Jonathan, and his father were diagnosed with dairy intolerances. Back then the alternatives for those on dairy-free diets were few and far between and pretty unappealing so, after some months of experimentation, I launched Berrydales Special Ices, soya based ices which were dairy and additive free – and tasted delicious! While manufacturing the ices I started a newsletter, The Inside Story, about food allergy and food intolerance and, by 1995, it was a quarterly magazine circulating to over 35,000 health professionals. In 2000 The Inside Story, re-named Foods Matter, became a subscription magazine and now all of that information, and much, much more, is accessible on the Foods Matter, Coeliacs Matter and Skins Matter sites and on our two freefrom food sites, FreeFromFoodsMatter and FreeFromRecipesMatter. You can follow me on twitter @FoodsMatter or email me at michelle@foodsmatter.com And, of course, you can also follow the exciting growth of freefrom food by checking out our annual FreeFrom Food Awards celebrating the best and the newest in freefrom foods!
Join with Google
Join with Facebook