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.

This. "My child is allergic to x, you need to serve a product that may contain x to them or I'll complain"?

The area manager isn’t the person who has authority to confirm - it’s the person in charge of the kitchen.

I think the chef can make this decision even though I appreciate you thought there was minimal risk. If he has the slightest doubt regarding nuts he could not serve you. I had the opposite a few years ago - dd2's good friend came to her birthday at a Chinese restaurant. I wrote on the online booking form that he had a nut allergy and as we ordered a banquet (it said starters or something like that) I told them again and asked if there were any nuts in the banquet. I was assured there weren't but when they served it one of the starters was chicken satay!

Despite your willingness to take risks in favour of a more exciting life there's nothing stopping you from changing your mind and suing the living daylights out of a restaurant should you get ill. As @triballeader pointed out it could result in a large fine and in the worst case their reputation trashed and business destroyed. And restaurants aren't allowed to let you sign waivers stating you wish to eat something anyway. Unless you choose to keep quiet, revealing your allergies puts the burden on them.

I can see why they choose to be cautious. If you don't like it blame the government. Maybe they SHOULD allow people to sign waivers etc formalising that they have been told and are happy to take the risk.

The experience was on Saturday, OP posted about it Sunday, it's now Monday.
Its entirely possible that the area manager has not yet been informed of what happened and why. Plus area managers have to take the best line for the company.

As the area manager probably wouldnt be the one to go to prison, they can say it shouldn't happen. The chef will likely be the first to go to prison, so it's the chefs opinion that matters every time. With the chef being so vehement, I'm guessing the chef knew something.

my dp is a chain restaurant chef and sometimes the menus aren’t updated as quickly as they change suppliers and the only real person who knows exactly what is going on in that kitchen is the chef so while yes it’s annoying that the waitstaff served you and sent the order through, the chef obviously knew it wasn’t safe and declined your order.

Sadly YABU. It would be far far worse if something bad happened and the chef's name and personal details were all over the newspapers. The op would feel differently if something did indeed happen and in all likelihood would take legal action.
I do feel for the op's son, it is so tough having allergies.

Would you also be OK with restaurants and their employees being 100 percent fully and absolutely absolved of any liability for errors or misunderstandings?

With anything that is ingested internally and may cause serious illness or death, and the unpredictablity if allergic reactions, it's absolutely absurd to talk about "reasonable accommodations." It's either/or. If an establishment doesn't think it can safeguard the patron, it shouldn't be forced to serve them.

Even doctors and medical professionals can't always tell, without long-term food challenges and other means, whether or not an individual will react to a certain substance. And you want to lay that responsibility on unsuspecting restaurants?

I've typed and ditched about 3 replies that say what you have very succinctly there!

I've worked some places where corporate know fine well what they're demanding is impossible, ignore staff flagging up issues and then throw them under the bus when a situation like this occurs by effectively making the staff the scapegoat when the customer complains.

And let's face it, many on this thread had already decided that the chef was being awkward, because people have such a low opinion in general of anyone who is employed to serve them, so it's the ideal solution for everyone concerned. Who cares about the real facts or the human being on the other side of it.

When I used to work in the kitchen we were always told if in doubt don't provide. You have told them of an allergy and if he was to suffer side affects it's your word against theirs if you decided to deny saying you'd take the risk. I myself have refused before mainly because although there was no allergens in the food I was aware that the Commis Chef had just eaten nut roast for dinner and although he was great at washing hands it left the risk of cross contamination real. I've had an issue where I have served and been 100% confident of no cross contamination at the time as I'd literally just had a shower and the kitchen had been fully.blitzed and no possible contamination was there a.d I was cooking the first meal of the day after a deep clean. We served a meal to a 12 year old who later collapsed and required.epi-pen parents were adamant it was our fault, we even shut kitchen for 3 days to try and find out how.it could have happened lost a lot of money. Only to be told when we spoke to the father later that they'd realised Grandma had joined the meal half way through after having a walnut whip she had leaned over and kissed her grandson triggering the reaction. We lost a lot of money and were beside ourselves.worried we'd caused it the child had been seriously ill. So I fully understand where the manager is coming from. If your son needs an epi pen it's considered in the food network to be severe enough to step back from cooking if you can't guarantee safety. Only the person eating can take that risk and as they are a child some places rightfully wont allow the parent to take that for them once they know. You'd sharp feel bad if you did take that risk then that one time was the one they didn't recover from. Epi pens are only issued for potential deadly attacks. So he's more than right to refuse you taking that risk. He wouldn't serve a child cocaine or vodka just because a parent says it's fine for them to drink.

There is a chance that the satay was ok - a nut allergy refers to tree nuts, not peanuts, so if the friend was allergic to nuts he may have been ok with peanuts.

Also, some peanut flavourings don't actually contain peanut, and so are even fine for those with a peanut allergy.

It would take some convincing to get me to test it though!

True. I could sue if I was that way inclined. I choose not to disclose my allergies now instead. My non disclosure takes that option away. I can’t sue if I didn’t tell them. My risk, my responsibility. Obviously, in an ideal world I would prefer to be up front about it but in my experience it causes no end of angst amongst the restaurant staff. I made the decision long ago to not disclose any more after I had to fight my case with a wedding caterer who initially refused to cater for me. They ended up agreeing for me to sign a waiver because it was my own wedding. I don’t mention it to airlines either I just don’t eat the food as I see that as a bigger risk.

For all you know he’s in the midst of making a. Meal with nuts. A desert? Nut roast? Who knows?

Maybe he’s new ans hasnt had time to be sure of the allergen control?

Maybe there’s a current complaint.

I have to day OP my sister has a child with a peanut allergy and in a million years I dont think anyone will understand her risk assessments.

You’re saying they should have something in writing. So they should shoulder all expense and risk? Why is it parents willing to take risks on allergies - and everyone knows severe life-threatening reactions following a life of mild reactions is not odd - are not the ones handing over a document signed and sealed absolving an establishment of all potential harm/risk?

I’m really shocked at some of the ignorance of the comments on this post! People who think cross contamination is 100% averted if there’s no nuts on the menu?!
So when my sister who has a severe allergy to nuts went to a very well known chain of restaurants for her birthday - she told them she had a nut allergy and obviously chose a nut free dessert. No nuts on the allergen menu obviously! However the chef used a knife that had chopped nuts earlier in the day for another dish, had been wiped down but not thoroughly cleaned and used to make my sisters dessert. She had a reaction and suffered a cardiac arrest almost instantly. Please don’t think cross contamination isn’t a thing and won’t really affect you. Allergies get worse each time you come into contact with the allergen. I think the chef was correct in this instance, it’s not worth the risk.

You mean like me?

I've been refused food before at an attempt to eat out due to my DP disclosing a tree nut allergy.

I was a bit pissed off but I remember the distress some former colleagues had seeing I had come out in hives because they had seen worse.

I also have other family members with peanut allergies including one who needs an epipen.

Aren't nut alergy reactions progressive? I think thet if you had a mild reaction so far doesn't mean that you wouldn't have a serious reaction in the future.

Allergies are understood in the same way but it’s impossible to ensure all menus are allergen free and as such they cannot guarantee safety. The only way your proposal could become a reality is if you removed responsibility from venues to share allergen information. You cannot say to venues you are responsible AND you have to serve everyone even if not sure food is safe. Don’t be daft.

It's really very simple, it's not the pub's problem or responsibly that your child has an allergy.

But I agree they should be clearer when you ordered.

I’m confused. How had the chef been chopping nuts for another dish if there were no nuts on the menu? There obviously must have been nuts on the menu somewhere or he wouldn’t have been chopping them.

Any allergy can change in its presentation and severity, you can even develop any allergy to something later in live that was never an issue before, pregnancy and peri menopause are 2 stages known for allergy changes. Having asthma alongside an allergy is also a factor, eg my daughter has a mild peanut allergy, treated currently by avoiding them and always having antihistamines with her in case of accidental ingestion. If she were to develop asthma later in life she most likely would be prescribed an epi pen as a precaution because the reaction and asthma could 'overlap' causing a dangerous situation

@Menomeno my post says “no nuts on the allergen menu obviously” so there were most likely nuts on the normal menu.

I think YABU to be annoyed at the chef insisting he keeps your child safe! I also wouldnt be eating out and taking the chefs word anywhere with a severe allergy. As a vegan ive asked for diary free, meat free etc and ended up biting into things realising they do indeed contain meat or dairy! Not a huge deal just sent back and made them aware but with a nut allergy i wouldnt take the risk

Believe me, seeing your child hooked up to machines after having anaphalysis will never be in vogue. You should ask for this terrible comment to be deleted. It’s dangerous.

Don't you think it's more dangerous parents deciding chefs should be made to provide a meal they can't confirm is allergen free to someone who had informed of an allergy?

As a restaurant owner. The chef is well withing his rights to not serve anyone. We have turned sever allergies away before as we couldn't guarantee no cross contamination. Its shit. But I'm not wanting to be the cause of someone death because they couldn't accept they couldn't have a meal here. I know its sucks for that person. But I don't want to kill you, make you ill or go to prison!