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

G. A. Zurzolo; R. L. Peters; J. J. Koplin; M. de Courten; M. L. Mathai; J. A. Tye-Din; M. L.K. Tang; D. E. Campbell; A. L. Ponsonby; S. L. Prescott; L. Gurrin; S. C. Dharmage; K. J. Allen

doi:10.1111/cea.12923

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

G. A. Zurzolo
, R. L. Peters
, J. J. Koplin
, M. de Courten
, M. L. Mathai
, J. A. Tye-Din
, M. L.K. Tang
, D. E. Campbell
, A. L. Ponsonby
, S. L. Prescott
, L. Gurrin
, S. C. Dharmage
, K. J. Allen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The 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. Objective: To 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. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers. Results: One 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 Relevance: Currently, 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	961-968
Number of pages	8
Journal	Clinical and Experimental Allergy
Volume	47
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12923
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2017

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 9 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

Access to Document

10.1111/cea.12923

Cite this

Zurzolo, G. A., Peters, R. L., Koplin, J. J., de Courten, M., Mathai, M. L., Tye-Din, J. A., Tang, M. L. K., Campbell, D. E., Ponsonby, A. L., Prescott, S. L., Gurrin, L., Dharmage, S. C., & Allen, K. J. (2017). The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 47(7), 961-968. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12923

@article{8a185d91ab624e1491e633ce44e51e5f,

title = "The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry",

abstract = "Background: The precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL{\textregistered}) 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. Objective: To 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{\textregistered} process. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers. Results: One 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{\textregistered} 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{\textregistered}) risk assessment process had no PAL statement. In examining the factors that influenced industry's uptake of the VITAL{\textregistered} process, 25 manufacturers reported on factors that influenced the uptake of the VITAL{\textregistered} process, 76\% (CI 95\% 55-91) reported that VITAL{\textregistered} 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 Relevance: Currently, 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.",

keywords = "food allergy, permissive labelling, precautionary allergen labelling (PAL), Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL)",

author = "Zurzolo, \{G. A.\} and Peters, \{R. L.\} and Koplin, \{J. J.\} and \{de Courten\}, M. and Mathai, \{M. L.\} and Tye-Din, \{J. A.\} and Tang, \{M. L.K.\} and Campbell, \{D. E.\} and Ponsonby, \{A. L.\} and Prescott, \{S. L.\} and L. Gurrin and Dharmage, \{S. C.\} and Allen, \{K. J.\}",

year = "2017",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/cea.12923",

language = "English",

volume = "47",

pages = "961--968",

journal = "Clinical and Experimental Allergy",

issn = "0954-7894",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "7",

}

Zurzolo, GA, Peters, RL, Koplin, JJ, de Courten, M, Mathai, ML, Tye-Din, JA, Tang, MLK, Campbell, DE, Ponsonby, AL, Prescott, SL, Gurrin, L, Dharmage, SC & Allen, KJ 2017, 'The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry', Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 961-968. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12923

TY - JOUR

T1 - The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry

AU - Zurzolo, G. A.

AU - Peters, R. L.

AU - Koplin, J. J.

AU - de Courten, M.

AU - Mathai, M. L.

AU - Tye-Din, J. A.

AU - Tang, M. L.K.

AU - Campbell, D. E.

AU - Ponsonby, A. L.

AU - Prescott, S. L.

AU - Gurrin, L.

AU - Dharmage, S. C.

AU - Allen, K. J.

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Background: The 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. Objective: To 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. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers. Results: One 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 Relevance: Currently, 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.

AB - Background: The 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. Objective: To 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. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers. Results: One 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 Relevance: Currently, 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.

KW - food allergy

KW - permissive labelling

KW - precautionary allergen labelling (PAL)

KW - Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL)

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85017410677

U2 - 10.1111/cea.12923

DO - 10.1111/cea.12923

M3 - Article

C2 - 28295718

AN - SCOPUS:85017410677

SN - 0954-7894

VL - 47

SP - 961

EP - 968

JO - Clinical and Experimental Allergy

JF - Clinical and Experimental Allergy

IS - 7

ER -

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

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this