Published in

Wiley, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 7(47), p. 961-968

DOI: 10.1111/cea.12923

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundThe precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL®) tools were designed by industry to assist consumers with selecting safe foods for consumption. However, a sizeable proportion of food products bear no label, and it is unclear whether these products are free from allergens and therefore safe to consume or have simply not undergone a risk assessment and therefore remain unlabelled for that reason.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of unlabelled products that have undergone a risk assessment process and to examine the factors influencing industry's uptake of the VITAL® process.MethodsA web‐based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers.ResultsOne hundred and thirty‐seven Australasian manufacturers were contacted, and 59 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 43%). The respondents represented 454 different manufacturing sites. Manufacturers reported that 23% (95% CI 19‐28) of products (n=102/434) that had been through the VITAL® risk assessment process had no PAL statement on the label. 34% (95% CI 30‐38), (n=204/600) of products that had undergone another (non‐VITAL®) risk assessment process had no PAL statement. In examining the factors that influenced industry's uptake of the VITAL® process, 25 manufacturers reported on factors that influenced the uptake of the VITAL® process, 76% (CI 95% 55‐91) reported that VITAL® was an effective tool because it was based on science; 52% (CI 95% 31‐72) reported that it was too time‐consuming and 36% (CI 95% 18‐57) identified a concern with it not being endorsed by the government.Conclusion and Clinical RelevanceCurrently, we estimate that at least 30% of products may have been through a risk assessment process and yet bear no PAL statement on the label. Permissive labelling could be incorporated onto these products if they have been assessed to be safe for consumption.