I couldnt read this link, but have read reports about airbourne reactions.
I am also aware that the campaign wholeheartedly supports the idea of nut free zones, but are also aware that this will take some time. Risk minimisation is the goal.
There research concludes that most life threatening reactions are caused by significant quantities of an allergen.
Also that the cross contamination issues are a risk, but as far as they know no deaths have been caused by allergen cross contamination , certainly in the UK.
Anxiety is fuelled by the myth that even touching or smelling a peanut is likely to cause death.
Contact reactions do happen ,but are more likely to be localised reactions.
The myth that a trace can kill needs to be dispelled.
However, Prof steve taylor , says its important to understand that any establishment of thresholds will protect the vast majority of allergic consumers, but not all of them- statistically that is impossible. But it is possible to improve the life of allergic consumers if the food industry can achieve the established targets consistently.
the FSA, with european researchers are trying to determine how threshold doses in people can give practical help to the food industry.
All this is to support the food industry correctly label their products with the may contain label, without good reason.
The whole difficulty with severe allergies is the indivduals risk, and the ever changing state of their health , when they eat high risk foods. The campaign works to educate the allergic population to lower their risk of a severe reaction.
Behind every story you read in the press , other patterns in the background are often not reported.
Lowering the risk is the only way forward, nut free zones are expensive , and often not something a manufacturer would wish to cope with. Only some of the large companies have sought the campaigns advice, and can only act on this sometimes when finacially possible. Human error is a major concern for them.
For e.g weetabix changed its labeling when a seperate line was built on its expanding factory.
I use the campaign to further my education on allergies, and often use the AGM with its guest medical speakers as a chance to ask questions on this subject and others.
Studies are throwing up different ideas and may completely change the way our allergic children live with their allergies.
I do hope that more safe food is availible, and do actively campaign for it.
I have once been on a guest on a panel for a conferance with major food reps from the supermarkets and food manufactureres in the UK.
I have visted factories and explore the difficulties that manufactures have in producing safe products.
I have even written letters to heads of the supermarkets and taken managers shopping with me around sainsburys.
For me, allergies are indivudual, and I am well aware that my own son as a multiple allergic child is a high risk.
He is , in fact shown to be highly allergic to dog. An airbourne allergy, but, its only life threatening when other factors are personally dropped in his environment or health. So his allergies and risk levels change daily.
But that doenst stop me supporting or understanding the reasons behind the campaigns ideas . As I have spoken to most of the medical experts and make my own judgements for my child, and still work towards providing a safer world for other allergic people.