Manufacturers and retailers are beginning to target huge numbers of people who consider themselves intolerant to certain foodstuffs by conducting risk assessments to help them safely remove ‘may contain’ labels from hordes of products.
According to an allergy specialist, companies have recognised the potential for making products aimed at the millions of people now claiming some form of intolerance. While only 1-2% of the population have clinically diagnosed food allergies, between 35% and 40% report intolerance to some ingredients, said Simon Flanagan, head of speciality analysis and allergy services at food science consultancy Reading Scientific Services (RSSL).
Under current legislation, if any of the 14 named allergens on an EU list are present, regardless of quantity, they have to be labelled. However, while de minimis trace levels are not legally defined, suppliers are carrying out risk assessments to determine threshold levels below which allergens’ presence would be safely tolerated by 95% of “sensitised individuals”, said Flanagan. The thresholds would be varied for different ingredients since, for example, peanuts are known to be far more potent and result in far more severe allergenic responses to, say celery.
“If [manufacturers] feel they can manage the risk to an acceptable level then, generally speaking, the warning labels are coming off, which is a great thing,” said Flanagan. “If you look at the halo effect and the buying power of these consumers it is actually in the interests of the industry.”
He added: “We have got to get to a point where we establish threshold levels. At the moment it is very much shooting in the dark, trying to aim for a magic zero which, as we all know, is impossible.” But, he admitted: “I think we are still some years away from that. There is still a lot of work to be done.”
If more suppliers and retailers start pursuing risk management, the widespread use of ‘may contain’ labelling of allergens will be likely to decrease. While it provides a due diligence defence, it is particularly unhelpful for allergy sufferers, who have to avoid such products. “There is a move, and this is part of the reason why the Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued its ‘best practice’ guidance, to try to get away from this blanket alibi labelling,” said Flanagan. “There is a move, although very slow, towards manufacturers trying to make labels believable; looking at supply chains and processes and understanding really what the risk is.”
While there are de minimis levels for the presence of some other food contaminants, such as heavy metals, there are no established safe levels for allergens. Reactions depend on different individuals and situations.
With more product recall alerts being issued by the FSA for allergens, the agency seems to have learnt from previous experience with the illegal dye Sudan 1. It came under flak from the food industry on Sudan 1 for enforcing costly recalls where contamination was at trace levels and posed no risk to health. Most allergen recalls issued recently by the FSA have related to “gross contamination”, where mistakes occurred during processing or products were incorrectly packaged or mislabelled.
“There is a very light-handed approach being used by the enforcement authorities around ‘may contain’ because of the very fact we don’t have any established thresholds,” said Flanagan. “Part of the issue is the clinical data is still fairly inconclusive. People within a sensitised population can react from anywhere from a couple of microgrammes through to a few grammes. Because the clinical data isn’t there, the regulatory authorities aren’t prepared to set a de minimis level.”
In contrast, he said: “Within industry, with due diligence very much in mind, there are sort of corporate threshold levels for people to use for their finished products and raw materials.”