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.

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.

This is a chain, right? So of course they have an allergy policy that is spread across all locations.

However, the chef is an individual, so regardless of the policy he isn’t comfortable with it.

That’s why you’ve eaten there before and it’s been fine, and why it’s been fine in other branches too, because this is a different chef. Nothing to do with the chain.

So there’s no need to email to clarify their policy - it won’t help. It’s an individual.

We are told by school to not even have peanut butter for breakfast. They obviously can’t police this but just appealing to the conscience of other parents.

How is it remotely sensible to eat out. When the slightest human error cross contamination would lead to a life threatening situation. So unless all restaurants hotels and so on ban nuts from their premises how could it work.

I actually do understand the difference very well indeed (unfortunately). I have a child who is allergic to both peanuts and tree-nuts as well as other foods so know a good deal about allergies at this stage though I really, really wish I didn't have to know this stuff.
Some people do say nuts as shorthand for peanuts and tree-nuts. I've heard them. So as I said already, yes, OP probably did mean tree-nuts but I can't be completely sure. The point I made upthread was true for anyone prescribed an epipen anyway, irrespective of allergen.

People want to have a normal life and try to minimise risk.

A lot of social activity revolves around food.
Weddings etc.
Travelling, for business or pleasure, means needing to eat out at least some of the time.

It is difficult, but never eating out is not at all a simple option to take.

Read @Runninghappy 's accounts of her daughter's allergies - even with a case that severe, they still find they need to eat out on occasion.

Saying that people with severe allergies shouldn't eat out is saying they should bring a lunchbox to every wedding (including their own), miss every Christmas party, self cater every meal on every holiday and always carry enough food with them so that if plans go awry or they're delayed they don't need to stop into a cafe or restaurant.

It's not feasible or pleasant when for the vast majority of people they can safely eat out with bit of prep and a conversation.

I doubt people who say this have ever had to contemplate that they or their child could never visit another restaurant or order another takeaway for the rest of their lives.

She said her child is allergic to nuts. I think it's highly unlikely she meant peanuts.

Does it matter for the purpose of the point I made @ColleenDonaghy?

We will never know for certain unless OP clarifies and I've already said you're probably right.

In my experience, people who are (or whose children are) allergic only to peanuts say peanuts, but sometimes people who are allergic to both peanuts and tree-nuts say nuts as shorthand - though they'll be more specific when it matters, in a restaurant for example.

Let it go now, please.

Reading this thread demonstrates how little people understand allergies - particularly assuming that all peanut or nut allergies are severe and that other allergies aren't. I think it's very important that those of us who know what we're talking about are precise in our language and correct misunderstandings.

Feed OP's child a Snickers and mine a Nutella sandwich and we're laughing. Get it the other way round and it's a different matter.

@Runninghappy I wouldn't be remotely surprised if you had PTSD, that's absolutely terrifying! A friend's son has the same level of milk allergy - it's why I'm so paranoid cooking for severe allergies & always quiz (gently!) the customer about the level we're talking about. There was a case a few years ago of a woman who died due to molecular level contamination of a dairy free product that was several steps back in the production line, through two different companies. I remember reading about it & thinking 'what the Fuck are you meant to do? When it's that bad!!'

Fwiw you sound like an amazing mum who really really knows how to care for her daughter.

The thing is @ColleenDonaghy peanut and nut allergies have a bad reputation for a reason. They are the foods most likely to cause a fatal anaphylatic reaction in adults (in many areas such as UK and US at least) and there are a number of reasons for this. In the last 20 years or so in the UK, peanuts and tree-nuts have been responsible for 48% of all fatal food-related anaphylatic reactions.

As you know, that does not mean that other foods aren't dangerous. In children in the UK the allergen presently responsible for most deaths is milk at 26% of child deaths from anaphylaxis (tree-nuts plus peanuts - 23%). Again, there's a number of reasons for this including the fact that the public perception is of nuts being dangerous to children (choking as well as allergies) while people are more wary of nuts. Milk is seen as safe and many are unaware that it can be very dangerous to some.

(I wouldn't feed OP's child a Snickers without checking first btw😅)

FTR - it's not just about having the allergen itself in the kitchen, as I mentioned previously my latest severe allergy was for something that's never been in my kitchen but the dried spices I use are all labelled 'produced in a factory that handles..', that is too much for some allergies & it's important that both I & the customer know that there is a possibility of cross contamination long before it gets to my shelves.

There are also lots of ppl with allergies that aren't on the 'official list' in terms of labelling, so you don't have a separate warning about production on the label or bold text to highlight the ingredient. I have one myself & a friend's mum has one that means I can never cook for her from my kitchen.

Policies don't legislate for every single scenario that could ever occur. They work under 'normal' conditions.
In the case of a kitchen, chefs are mostly responsible, though FOH staff too, for making a judgement call when a situation arises that is not covered by the policy.
If a piece of chicken is delivered to the kitchen and it's in date, looks fine and all the temperature control has been adhered to, the policy says it's safe to use. If the chef opens it and it smells bad, should they still stick to the policy and use it? Because the policy says it's fine? Or use their human judgement and bin it and tell you that you can't have that chicken dish today?

As an aside I find it interesting that when a policy doesn't favour what a customer wants, the staff are blamed for sticking to it (and usually called idiots and told they should use their common sense) yet when moving away from the policy means that something doesn't go in the customers favour then it's all about how the staff should absolutely stick to the policy!

Sometimes life happens, stuff happens, and you're there and end up a part of it.

It's one of the most draining things in hospitality being personally blamed and accused of being deliberately awkward because something unplanned happened and it's affected someone else who sees you as the perfect scapegoat for their frustration.

That official list is definitely problematic as mine is not on it but provided I don’t actually eat it then I’m fine. Cross contamination or anyone around me eating it is not going to affect me in the slightest.

However I am also severely intolerant of most NNS. These will make me very ill indeed for a couple of days. I used to be ok by just avoiding diet drinks but they are creeping into everything now. It’s hard to get a sweetener free drink in most places. Often it’s a choice of original coke or water and even that is fraught with danger as I’m often given one of the other variations. One taste will tell me though.

More of a problem is that they are creeping into chutneys and sauces and I’ve had to give up cider as even the “better” commercial brands have added them and alcohol is exempt from ingredient labelling so there is no way to tell. I’ve even seen them in a spaghetti bolognese ready meal.

We are going to London for the day on Saturday. I’ll take all the food for her but last time our bags were searched at the theatre and they removed the food!! Seriously it’s not as easy as people think. I remember when she was a toddler I was with a friend with another toddler who bought her a sandwich. I was amazed you could just do that for young children as that wasn’t remotely on my radar! But should she never holiday? Never travel? Never go to university? Never go on a date? That’s what keeps me awake at night. The next bit where she is independent and the most risky time for an allergic person.

Sorry I quoted the wrong post!

NNS needs it's whole own thread!!

Littlemisscapable no i dont eat out due to financial reasons.
Or being at work.
Any decent chef who is unsure and remember many kitchens do contain nuts is right to refuse.

Maverickess i agree rules sell by fates then good old fashioned common sense.
Chefs can go to prison or be heavily fined for giving someone food poisoning.

I think it was me who said this
It is not okay to discriminate against a certain section of the population simply because they have a medical condition!

I was responding to the attitude of some posters who obviously couldn't care less and said something like
Shrug. Life isn't fair. You can't expect a business
to take on that sort of risk.

To answer your question. No, I don't think every small establishment should be obliged to cater for every type of diet or allergy, though they of course need to label their food so people know whether it's safe to eat or not. That's the situation now. Some places simply say there's a risk of contamination and they can't guarantee anything as safe. I think for small businesses with tiny kitchens this may be the only viable thing to do.

But as a society we do need to cater for everyone too - not just a certain luckier (in this regard) section of the population. Larger establishments, chains etc can afford to do more and should be obliged to do so. Chains are actually useful in terms of eating out with allergies usually (though I know that was not OP's experience this time) as they have stricter protocols and recipes and are less likely to add a dash of this or that to the food items. Our consultant recommended McDonalds!

I think one of the most dangerous things is restaurant staff not fully understanding allergies or other diets and not knowing just how careful people need to be. Sometimes I've triple checked things and found person A says something different to person B who says something different to the menu and it was different again on the website (hello Ikea). It's very stressful. The hospitality industry tends to have a high turnover of often young staff members and it's all quite difficult. But it's still very necessary.

Some of the chefs posting on this thread seem to be exceptional though, so thank you very much.

I'd ignore that tbh.

That's surely breaking the law and you should get in touch with the council about this asap and good luck 🤞

I think this chef is your right should be ashamed of his or her self.

Businesses have the right to decline service....