Complaining to manufacturers?

[tatt]

Green and Black chocolate doesn't actually contain peanut (or didn't when I last asked) but because they have other nuts in the factory they have a generic warning. So when I get the opportunity to complain I do so - anyone care to join me? If you get to the end of this survey (where you have the chance to tell them what changes you'd like made to their chocolate) you may even win a prize

www.greenandblacks.com/debate/

but have they added the warning because of the company that supplied them with the tree nuts are cross contaminated with peanuts?

what is there explanation over the label?

I thought (though my tired old brain might be fooling me!) that they also had a 'May Contain Milk' warning on their chocolate? I've complained about the nut warning anyway, as you say any excuse to nag! Not sure if Cadbury's will care much though, we can but try...

haven't asked them recently and I'm afraid I don't remember exactly what they said. I did, however, get the impression they hadn't really thought about it that much.

I use the box to suggest they might have a nut free area of their factory. If its good enough for Kinnerton....

kinnerton has done the nut free zone area because their sales will not be restricted to just the nut free population. Their products have wide appeal .
However, their major changes to their factory have meant that it was highly expensive to do this.

I wonder if their sales can support this expense?
Its worth asking for, and no dought they are already aware of kinnertons success.

One of the major expenses is equipment, which is nearly always 2nd hand, because of the cross contamination reasons new is required.

If 2nd hand IS brought, kinnerton for e.g have to work out a rota of staff, who work for short periods of time( for concentration) with tools the size of toothbrushes. To completely clean a large machine, it may take 6 months.

As well as a nut free zone, different clothing, different shoes, different changing rooms are required.
The food in the staff canteen may also have to change, for instance, no snicker bars for sale!
However what a member of staff eats outside building ,just before work or break time cant be controlled.
So the question for manufactuers is HOW careful do we have to be? ( for e.g what about the containers that bring the chocolate TOO the factory? What was in them previously?)
how much is enough to cause a reaction? ( see the anaphylaxis campaigns new newsletter)

Its always worth asking for changes, but we do be fully aware of what we are asking.

I'm afraid I haven't seen the latest anaphylaxis campaign newsletter - I disagree with their stance on labelling so have resigned. I have heard about it from people wondering if they should let their children have food with "may contain" warnings because of the suggestion that "traces don't matter". It sounds irresponsible since they don't have evidence and we know some people do react to traces . Perhaps it is better than it sounds but it is clearly being misinterpreted by some of its audience.

Kinnerton have taken a commercial decision that having a nut free zone means getting premium prices. The nut free zone aims at a particular market. Green & Black are also aimed at a premium market and need to make that market as wide as possible.

A few people who wouldn't support the "traces don't matter" view

"The Anaphylaxis Network of Canada was founded in 1990 by Marilyn Allen, after her 15-year-old daughter, Robyn, died from anaphylactic shock after accidentally ingesting peanut butter. Playing volleyball at her high school, Robyn had used a knife that someone else had used earlier to spread peanut butter. The knife had been wiped, but a minute trace of peanut butter remained, enough to trigger a fatal reaction. "

"In 1994, a student on a field trip to Algonquin Park in Ontario died from trace amounts of peanut butter, which had been transferred to a jam jar. A child attending camp in Montreal died after eating a cheese sandwich that had been packed in the same bag with a peanut butter sandwich."

Or read this report, if you feel brave, about a reaction to the smell of peanut

www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,19382603-5003425,00.html

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.

I have just cut and pasted the link into google and it worked. If you believe deaths after smelling an allergen is a muyth you need to read it. The boy did survive eventually but I doubt you would want your child to go throught the treatment.

As I understand it - but please quote the research if the Anaphylaxis Campaign have done it - there are very few studies that look at what amount of allergen is needed to cause a reaction in the severely allergic. It is obviously very difficult to mount such studies because of the risk. There are studies that reports reactions to doses as low as 100 microg (1). They weren't fatal reactions of course.

Refs.

1. An evaluation of the sensitivity of subjects with peanut allergy to very low doses of peanut protein: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge study.Hourihane JO'B , Kilburn SA, Nordlee JA, Hefle SL, Taylor SL, Warner JO.

University Child Health, Southampton General Hospital, England.

1. The distribution of individual threshold doses eliciting allergic reactions in a population with peanut allergy.Wensing M, Penninks AH, Hefle SL, Koppelman SJ, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Knulst AC.

Department of Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Have to go - will return to this later

"The myth that a trace can kill needs to be dispelled."

Who says this a myth and on what evidence? In fact the statements you make are contradictory - there is a safe threshold but actually it can't protect everyone. So it isn't actually safe for everyone and those who wish to introduce it have not suggested how a consumer identifies their own personal safety threshold. Prsumably this would be by that well known NHS recommendation of try it and see how you react (otherwise known as russian roulette)!

Even if no-one has actually died from "traces" in this country how much does it does depend on the sort of very aggressive medical intervention received by the young lad in Australia? Are deaths all that we care about or should we also try to avoid the fear and distress caused by anaphylactic reactions that respond to treatment? Are we going to ignore reports from abroad - a tendency I've noticed in medical staff on other topics?

If I remained a member of the Campaign I might be deemed to support their stance on advertising. I don't. I understand the issues for manufacturers and the impossibility of ensuring that any food is nut free. I want as much information from them on likely risk as they can provide. That is why I personally value the Tesco labbeling - which tells me if nuts are in the factory. The Campaign don't support that type of labelling. They say it confuses consumers. Not nearly as much as telling them traces won't kill you and then saying well actually thresholds don't apply to everyone.......

a quote from a webpage - intersting to put the quantities in perspective, I've never actually weighed a peanut.

"Peanut was the first food to be formally examined to establish threshold doses. The lowest reported threshold doses for peanut appear to be below or near 1 milligram. The differences in the levels of threshold dose in these studies may relate to the preparation method of the peanut source used and standardised, multi-centred studies are underway. Nevertheless, one thing is clear; a really tiny piece of a peanut can be a threat to a peanut allergic patient. An average scaled peanut weighs between 500 and 1000 mg. This means that 1/1000 of a peanut is enough to trigger a reaction in some patients. "

I find tesco to be very confusing for teenagers. ( let alone me)
They really dont understand the labeling, and the more cautious children are avoiding safe food as a result.
The four different labels are a lot to get to grip with.

The campaign does tell allergic consumers to avoid may contains for a very good reason, a 'may contain traces' as you know is in fact worth avoiding because of the real chance of finding a large lump or piece of allergen in a food.

'may contain' is not a label that sits well with many, but trying to sort though four different labels is still confusing to a young adult or child.
Obviously the over use of the 'may contain' label is causing reactions and deaths, for the above reason.

The 'myth' element is another area of allergy education , based on expert advice from studies around the world, and the campaigns experience of recording allergy deaths.
which are explored but not recorded publicaly. Supporting parents who have lost a child is something that members of the campaign quietly do, and i couldnt just dissmiss the great work they do , for not agreeing with one element of a charity.

Who is to say that the studies opinons may change in the future? But this study may prove to be incredibly helpful as well?

Todays food labeling and production is not clear , and has many differing issues.

scientists are working on understanding thresholds all around the world, giving low -dose food challenges with their patients. How these studies change our labeling will be difficult to predict.
perhaps these studies will be little use for food labels ,but used in aim of finding a cure? who knows?
this is
something that I personaly have given up on, but i meet others who are still looking and hoping for it.
if I could find that magic wand for my son I would get it come hell or high water.

Its the continuing element of indivduals identifying their own level of risk, and having food labeled with greater care that will ensure that people do not die.

The whole point of the campaign is to support others , with basic need to keep alive the allergic population, after all every death from allergy is a preventable death.

As for the accidents ( and I will go over the link over the weekend) I will again point out that the domino effect is a cause of death from anaphylaxis.

I do read reports , but often the news reports do not give the whole picture.

I value studies and listen to the varying experts , but do make my own opinon,(lupine being one area) which may differ from the campaign, but see the greater good that it has done for the allergic population as a whole.

It still clear that the most severe reactions are caused by large quantities of allergen. Sadly the deaths speak for themseves in this issue.

BTW enjoying this debate, thanks, gotta go and nag the teenagers to do the washing up!!

I havent weighed a peanut either, havent been near that many for a few years.

anyway the campaign does agree that the reasons for such studies contradict themselves, but have contacted Prof steve taylor , head of the US based food allergy reaserach and resource programme (FARRP) for this article in the newsletter.

The campaign never ignores studies from overseas, esp as we as a nation have such poor support in the nhs!

But will add that the FSA is only considering thresholds as a possible area to study. Perhaps this issue just highlights the poor backbone of the FSA with regard to the food allergy population, and thier concern with the food labeling issue?

There is no such thing as safe food for a severely nut allergic child unless you have personally grown/ reared it. The Anaphylaxis Campaign are distracting from that message by suggesting there may be a "safe" threshold when there isn't. In doing so they are encouraging risk taking. They will be supporting more parents with dead children if they don't make their message clearer.

My teenager has no problem with Tesco's allergy labels at all. She does have a problem with "may contain" labels on bottled water.

It would be far more helpful to have it labelled that there were nuts in the factory for that bottled water or that they couldn't guarantee cross contamination (and who can?). It would be more helpful if we knew what steps had been taken to try and eliminate cross contamination.

The idea that food companies may label food with something that indicates the effort they have made to control contamination is an interesting one but we shouldn't pretend such food is safe. It isn't. The message should be that contamination is a risk, that you need to have your epipen with you at all times and that deaths are generally the result of either not having adrenaline to hand or not using it promptly enough.

"It still clear that the most severe reactions are caused by large quantities of allergen. Sadly the deaths speak for themseves in this issue." Really - where's the proof? The common factor in deaths is usually a failure of medical treatment - in not providing adrenaline or in not explaining the risks adequately and in not controlling asthma.

For every death there are hundreds of visits to hospital and even more reactions -like my child's - treated at home and never being recorded. Death is not the only issue!

Some more net reports for you - but these don't seem to matter because the person involved didn't actually die! Doesn't seem to occur to the AC that the reason deaths mainly occur after large amounts of allergen is that the people who eat large amounts are those to whom the risks have not been properly explained - so they don't take care and don't have adrenaline to hand. Serious REACTIONS occur after traces -but are not generally fatal in those who have medication and use it properly.

"Jacqui Corba, 15, had her first reaction when she was 2, even though she wasn't eating peanuts herself.

"I was on an airplane flight with my mom, and she ate peanuts and gave me a kiss on my face, I blew up like all over and I was red."

She also had an anaphylactic reaction at school after a classmate opened a bag of peanuts near her."

and this one

"Wood, who has had a lifelong allergy to peanuts, has rules about what he eats. And he doesn't accept baked goods from others.

But he made what he thought was a safe exception and accepted a homemade cookie from a colleague, another expert on food allergies, who assured him it was safe.

"You know quickly, typically, if you're having an allergic reaction -- you get an immediate sensation in your mouth that you've been exposed to something," Wood said. "So I knew it within seconds, literally."

His colleague had used the same spatula and maybe cookie sheets in making one batch of peanut butter cookies and a second batch of peanut-free cookies that he gave to Wood.

"But that amount of contamination just from a spatula when it comes to peanut allergy, is enough to cause severe reactions," he said.

It took five shots of epinephrine to stop Wood's reaction."

I am one of the ones who hopes there there will be a "cure" one day. It's more likely to be a different treatment than a cure. I'm not expecting there to be anything for years but there are various promising things being explored, including a treatment that seems to increase the threshold for a reaction (but different companies are arguing about the rights to that one)!