Pub chef refusing to cook for allergies

[Allergyissue87]

Very odd experience yesterday, my son has a nut allergy and we eat out once or twice a month. Generally we get shown an allergy folder or directed to an app to check and given a quick warning about cross contamination and all fine. I know the level of his allergy and am happy to take a small risk of cross contamination etc, otherwise he could never have a meal out.
Yesterday we went to a chain pub, have been before with no issues, asked if we had any allergies, told the woman at the till yes a nut allergy, we've checked the allergen info and happy with risk of cross of contamination etc. All fine, ordered, paid and sat down with our drinks.
Then about 20 minutes later a chef came to the table to tell us he can't cook for us as there is an allergy and our order shouldnt have been taken. I was really confused, wondered if it was a new chef etc, I explained I'd checked the allergy info on their website, it doesn't contain any allergens and I'm aware of the small possibility of cross contamination but not an issue for his level of allergy, and he's eaten it before and all fine. But no, he was adamant he cannot serve food due to this allergy, he was apparently the kitchen manager and would not risk making a child ill, couldn't explain further than that and went back to the kitchen.
I went back up to the bar and asked for the manager, a young assistant manager gave me a full refund and apologised but still couldn't give me a real explanation.

I'll most likely complain through their online form as we wasted about an hour by the time we had got our refund and left, with 2 hungry children, and my son who now doesn't want to eat anything not homemade as 'the man said I'll get ill'.
Am I being unreasonable to expect to be served?

To clarify if my son ate a nut, or something containing nuts he would be unwell and need an epipen, but has been fine with previous incidents of his food touching nut-containing food etc and there wasn't actually anything containing nuts on the pub menu.

You’ve completely misunderstood OP’s posts.

It does seem to be a case of sod the coeliacs because we don’t want to cater to the fake faddy diet people.

It’s daft though because I have family members who are coeliac and back in the 70s they used to only be able to get (really bad) gluten free products via a doctor’s prescription or pay an arm and a leg for it in a health food shop (because coeliac was so rare). But because so many people now go GF because it helps with their digestive health GF products have become widely available and most decent cafes have GF options available. So my relatives get to eat much better than they used to and they can eat out with ease.

No I haven't.

My guess is since the Pret court case noone is going to take that risk anymore.

How is Op callous?

She checked the allergy info on their website, it doesn't contain any allergens and she’s aware of the small possibility of cross contamination but has risk assessed this as not an issue for his level of allergy, and he's eaten it before and was all fine.

It’s OP’s son, she knows him best.

The restaurant is at fault for not following their OWN allergy policy.

I’d guess that since the OP was there a few weeks ago, and presumably mentioned the allergy then, that it’s something considerably more recent than that.

The "new" chef has probably had more recent and relevant training than the old one I suspect.

Good on them for saying no rather than inducing any risk

If you’d understood it you’d know it’s more like going into surgery after they’ve explained the surgery and risks and then refusing to do the surgery and refusing to explain why they can no longer perform the surgery and refusing to explain the risks.

Nonsense.

They don't owe anyone an explanation. They don't want the risk, full stop. Knowing what the consequences could be if a patron died after a restaurant meal, I cannot blame the establishment or the chef at all.

Allergies are tough and they do limit life choices. That's sad but insisting on foisting the risk onto an unrelated party like a restaurant is just absurd and entitled.

I wouldn't serve a nut-allergic person in my home, either, for that matter. No way.

Exactly my thoughts. Many chefs are probably terrified of becoming the next high profile court case. They certainly haven't handled it well but I can understand some chefs being put off taking the risk. You'll probably never get the answer you want but there are other places to eat.

I think it’s likely the same chain as the one round here.

Our local one is being very open that there’s been a recent incident of unexplained cross contamination in one place so they’re not willing to sell to people with allergies atm while it’s investigated.

[the staff didn’t confirm it but they also haven’t denied the local rumour that someone had a serious allergic reaction to a plain chicken breast and jacket potato that should have been absolutely fine.]

Which can and does happen when the anaesthetist comes along and thinks 'no, it's not safe', whether it's because they know the surgeon isn't that great with this particular presentation, other patients haven't had good outcomes recently, the ICU isn't available to deal with potential admission because the bed has just been filled and the patient who consented is a higher risk than usual...

Oh behave.

There's a world of difference- of course you should let whoever is preparing your food know that there is an allergy - even (especially) in a very well run kitchen with great food hygiene practices they will take extra care to avoid cross-contamination if they know about an allergy: for example it is usual practice with an allergy to clean down the particular work area before plating up that specific plate of food, washing your hands before handling that specific plate, only using clean utensils fresh from the dishwasher to serve the roasties instead of the tongs that have been being used for the last 20 plates, and probably only have potato and fat on them, just in case on one of the previous plates they had touched the stuffing as you did so; changing gloves or washed hands immediately before handling anything for that plate, making sure you don't wipe that single drip of gravy with the teatowel you've used for previous plates and so on. You would still be accepting the risk of airborne cross-contamination and of contamination before the food reached the kitchen, but still mitigating the risk as much as you can.

Then they need to update their allergy policy. It’s false advertising. Keeping customers waiting for an HOUR in totally unacceptable, OP is totally right to complain. I’d also complain to the FSA.

It's all very well saying you'd be happy to take the risk but if something serious happened and your child was left brain damaged then you'd sue because you had to because you'd need the money to provide lifelong care for your child.

It's like when people sue their friends because their child injured themselves on a trampoline at their house, they generally don't blame their friends, they just need the money to provide the care and the only way to get it is to sue.

Now of course someone suing for something like a broken finger is generally just an asshole, but for something like a head injury they just don't really have any choice.

I wouldn't serve a nut-allergic person in my home, either, for that matter. No way.

Nut allergies can develop at any age. What would you do if a very close friend or family member developed a nut allergy then?
There are ways to mitigate the risk (if you can be bothered).

I can understand your frustration but, hand on heart, it's terrifying cooking food for epipen level allergies. Just last weekend I had one at work & though I don't use the ingredient all of my (very fancy!) spices were 'in a factory that handles..'.

I relayed all this to the customer so they could decide what would be suitable, had a clean fryer with fresh oil for them & I STILL panicked! They literally bought me a bottle of wine to say thank you for making a proper effort. But! I'm in a kitchen by myself, I make everything, I know where everything has been. If I worked with others I could see myself turning away some allergies. It's such a big deal, to me, to put the responsibility of someone's actual life in someone else's hands & if it were one of my kids I think I'd struggle to eat out with them at all.

Also note the restaurant could be sued if your child gets ill. YABVU

I can’t remember where I read about a genuine nut free factory but the process they had to go through to be able to declare their products ‘nut free’ was more intense than people realise. Staff had to sign a declaration before their shift that they hadn’t eaten nuts in the previous 24 hours, the air pressure in the factory was higher than outside so if any nut dust passed outside it wouldn’t be sucked in through a window, the raw material suppliers had to conform to nut free standards.

So packaging that says “not suitable for nut allergy sufferers” could just mean they can’t guarantee their staff didn’t eat nuts at home the day before their shift, or that nuts are used in the same production line, which is what makes it so hard for sufferers to decide what to take a risk on and what not to.

While I can understand that an individual chef might not want to take the risk it's extremely misleading for the company to have taken the order, made them wait, then say they weren't serving them.

Eating out with allergies is difficult, usually my first port of call is somewhere with allergen information online like the OP. To then be turned away is extremely frustrating.

If all restaurants and cafes had the same view as some people on this thread traveling would be very difficult let alone being left out of social gatherings.

My in laws hadn't known anyone with allergies before I met them, now they regularly cater for three different allergens for different people. Yes they were daunted at first but it's fine now.

I can see both sides.
I don't think the chef was wrong in this instance. He obviously saw risk that OP wasn't aware of and most likely did her family a favour by saying no. Chefs or restaurant staff who are more ignorant of the risks involved or who are less conscientious are much more of a problem imo.

However, I also object to those who say people with allergies are 'absurd and entitled' for wanting to eat out occasionally because that foists risk onto restaurants.

Yes it's a difficult situation but one that can and must be managed.

It is not okay to discriminate against a certain section of the population simply because they have a medical condition! We are constantly trying to create a more inclusive society surely. We just need to do it better.

There was also a woman I read about I think last year who was allergic to dairy. Out in town as a family they stopped at a Pret to get sandwiches. The woman in question picked a vegan pre packaged sandwich. The sandwich sadly contained traces of dairy despite being labelled as vegan. Again the woman died despite the efforts of her family and medical staff.

There will be a good reason they refused to serve you OP but to leave you waiting an hour before saying anything is shocking . As someone with food intolerances rather than allergies I never admit to it and judge the menu for myself but if someone has allergies they can be life threatening and sadly fewer and fewer places now seem willing to cater.

Many kitchens, particularly chain, are nut free now. If its a nut free kitchen he was being ridiculous and I say that as a chef!

For those talking about the girl that died and the chefs went to prisons they gave her food where a major ingredient was nuts

Some really extreme assumptions here, I don't want to get anyone sacked or in trouble, I do actually respect the chef for erring on the side of caution. I purely want to clarify what the policy is and where is safe for my son to eat. Everything in the pub and its service implies it has an allergy policy to be as safe as possible, along with a degree of risk awareness. There are notices on the menu, at the till, on the website and verbally before ordering to inform of allergies so they can take extra precautions.
As I've said we've eaten in this pub before, in other branches and other venues without issues, of course there are places we can't eat as they are higher risk which is fine. I absolutely accept that my son can't eat somewhere that isn't safe, that's fine.
I haven't said anywhere that my son is at risk of death or being hospitalised if the meal goes wrong, if that was the case I wouldn't take the risk, he has a mild allergy, only mentioned because they ask.

I certainly wasn't rude to anyone, I just wanted to understand. I didn't mention originally as it wasn't the point of the thread but he was actually very rude, patronising, wouldn't let me get a word out, actually said 'I'm not feeding him I might kill him' in front of my son and the manager did apologise for the way he dealt with us. He certainly wasn't a high level, trained and qualified chef.