Allergen-free: time for clarity
17-Mar-2008 - Claiming 'free from' is not a light statement to make. Lives depend on it. As scientific progress questions the validity of such claims, it is time to establish exact guidelines and communicate these to people for whom ingredients are a matter of life and death.
About 4 per cent of people suffer
from food allergies, causing an average of 30 deaths a year in the UK and 150
deaths in the US. Those people, who are putting their trust and lives in the
hands of food manufacturers, deserve to be given all the facts.
At the same time, a rapidly blossoming sector relies on maintaining the trust of
these core customers. The 'free from' market has grown by over 300 per cent
since 2000, according to Mintel. This market is built entirely on the ability to
carry the label 'free from', but the foundations are rocky due to a lack of
sufficient regulation.
One mistake, one false claim, could shatter a family and bring a
well-established company tumbling down while also throwing the sector into
disarray.
While I would not wish to throw mud at a niche sector of the industry that does
a good job at providing safe food for those with dietary issues, it is baffling
there is no actual legislation determining an internationally accepted threshold
for manufacturers to declare 'free from' for almost all allergens.
Companies have to substantiate their claim by introducing the appropriate risk
assessment and allergen control systems and support it with protein testing.
But scientific testing is developing all the time. Technology that a few years
ago would have concluded a product was free from an allergen can now find minute
traces - maybe even traces that are widely considered to pose no risk to allergy
sufferers at all, but enough, nonetheless, to question the legitimacy of the
statement 'free from'.
Work has begun concerning some allergens. Codex, which establishes food
standards on behalf of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and WHO, is on
the cusp of approving an accepted threshold for gluten in 'gluten free'
products.
Current discussions suggest the limit will be settled at 20 parts per million (ppm)
- a level that is considered to pose no risk to allergy sufferers.
Across the industry, 'free from' does not necessarily mean 100 per cent free
from said allergen or additive. When the issue is such a grave one, surely clear
and comprehensive advice should be presented for consumers and manufacturers
alike.
An accepted level that poses no
risk should be agreed on for each allergen in turn, and regulation developed to
support it.
The Anaphylaxis Campaign expresses concern about the phrase 'free from' and is
in the process of introducing a logo to shows the manufacturer has met standards
to ensure every care has been taken to prevent the particular allergen appearing
in the product.
It says most people accept the fact an unconditional guarantee cannot be made on
a product being 100 per cent allergen-free. But those who wish not to risk even
miniscule amounts should be provided with the facts. Ultimately, the decision
should be left to the consumer on the level of risk to take.
UK confectionery firm Kinnerton has recently changed its labelling from 'Nut
free zone' to 'Kinnerton nut safety promise' as it does not want to risk the
backlash should scientific developments mean a trace of nut is found.
It said that as consumers take the words 'free from' as an absolute statement,
it does not want to guarantee zero ppm as scientific testing becomes ever more
stringent, but present consumers with a clear picture of the facts.
As a company dedicated to providing food safe for nut sufferers, it deserves
protection and guidance from regulators.
But what does the admittance of possible miniscule traces or an allergen mean
for the sufferer? A fear of risking their life each time they eat or drink
anything? A severe restriction on the food they can eat? Or safety in the
knowledge they have been presented with all the facts and the sector has
received full regulation and due attention.
It is time for decisions to be made on all fronts. Whether it is through
changing the term 'free from' or increasing the transparency of the statement,
the public and the industry deserve to know what the limits are so the choice of
what to eat, however the small the amount, is in the hands of the consumer
Laura Crowley is a business reporter specializing in the food industry, with
a Masters degree in journalism. If you would like to comment on this article,
please email laura.crowley@decisionnews.com.