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.

@Alexahelp epi pens should be with the person at all times

Maybe needs to be in a wallet type phone holder

I’ve noticed several people react negatively to my post.

im sick and tired of basically only being safe at home because people can’t be bothered to make an effort with allergies. It absolutely is a legally recognized disability but constantly gets overlooked. As a person dealing with it day in and day out, I know the consequences all too well.

the current societal and legal situation is appalling and needs to change. people feel perfectly entitled to tell people with allergies that they have no right to participate in society at all.

Yes, there is still always some risk, but some of us are at risk just walking on the pavement, stepping foot
in a shop, or even going to the GP. The GP/hospital one drives me absolutely insane because it is one place you should be safe, but they are actually horrible at protecting allergic patients.

If the number of reactions I have and product recalls about a month or two after the use by dates have expired (so they've been out in the wild doing their damage until enough people have reported them) for specifically labelled gluten free foods suddenly accidentally containing gluten - or they forgot to mention that they added gluten/wheat/barley/rye/etc to the product and didn't change the labelling - are anything to go by, it's not even safe at home.

Well no, it’s not totally safe at home. I eat a food that looks safe, is mostly labeled safe and I have no reason to believe it won’t be. Then I react. labeling laws let manufacturers be vague about certain ingredients. Sometimes manufacturers can change a product and not have to change the label. Even if you contact them they won’t always tell you which ingredient almost killed you.

What exactly do you want people to do?

I think there does need to be better rules and regulations about this. I don't think it should be as simple as "the chef must cater to everyone no matter what due to it being a disability" and "the chef can pretty much turn anyone away at will".
I would imagine the chef is just worried about hurting someone and his career being ruined or being sued etc. I very much doubt he is just doing it to be annoying.
Until the rules change that he won't get in any bother at all should the worst happen then i think he does have the right to say no.
I work in dentistry as a Hygienist. There are many conditions people have that mean I cannot treat them. Most people are fine when I explain why I cannot treat them. But a few start insisting that despite the risks I should do it and they are happy to take that risk. Some get very very angry. But if the worst was to happen I would be sued up to my eyeballs and would lose my career. It doesn't matter if the risk is 0.001%. If the guidelines state i should not treat that person i will not treat that person.
So maybe restaurants need to get official guidelines in place so chefs are more supported and understand in what situations they can or should not refuse service

Sorry am also confused with what you feel people should be doing. From what I've picked up from this thread some people who have allergies or have a family member with allergies want restaurants to serve them a food that could be cross contaminated as they've risk assessed it as ok, is that what you mean by the legal situation so the server then can't be sued, or are you looking for harsher legal penalties re allergies and the people who serve food?

Probably wants restaurants to make an effort to cater to those with allergies

But there are so many different allergies that surely it would be impossible to cater for them all in one kitchen whilst totally eliminating any form of cross contamination. As some people here point out they ensure they don't bring any allergens into their house in order to make sure there is no cross contamination.
A restaurant would find it difficult to totally eliminate dairy, nuts, eggs, raspberries, shellfish, gluten, and whatever else people may be severely allergic to and still cook without ANY possibility of cross contamination.
Especially when as pointed out so many ingredients are used pre made! So they can't confirm no cross contamination.

girl, boy, man, woman - if you have a life threatening allergy and need to carry epipens- you do take a special bag, and have it with you at all times- everywhere. End of.

Until the rules change that he won't get in any bother at all should the worst happen then i think he does have the right to say no.

I don't think we can have rules like these though @Mukey ?

If a chef runs a well organised kitchen and prepares food carefully etc then of course s/he shouldn't get in trouble if things go wrong....say a manufacturer labelled something incorrectly or the customer didn't tell them they're allergic and just took a chance.

But sometimes the restaurant is at fault and someone's died because they've been handed a meal they've been told is nut-free when it actually does contain nuts, for example. Sometimes restaurant staff, including chefs, make mistakes and that's understandable but they can have tragic consequences. And sometimes the mistakes are very avoidable ones, a result of things not being run adequately or training not been done properly and you can't just say that's okay.

If a chef gave people food poisoning because a kitchen was run sloppily you wouldn't say it was ok either. If the food poisoning was as a result of a mislabelled product the chef wouldn't be responsible. It's the same.

I do know it's a hassle and a pain - of course I do - but it's really not okay to just say "Shrug. Life's not fair" as a pp did. You can't just dismiss swathes of the population who have a certain medical condition because it's inconvenient.

I understand smaller businesses not being able to safely provide for all diets, but they do need to very clearly label what they do have. Larger businesses and chains should be obligated to do more in my opinion.

Exactly. This isn't like making restaurants, airlines, etc., provide toilets that accommodate wheelchair users, or signage for those with impaired vision. Those are objective adjustments with finite parameters.

Given the myriad variables involved in food manufacture, food preparation, food transport, human factors of both the restaurant/catering workers AND patrons AND fellow diners/fellow students/fellow passengers, the vast medical uknowns about food allergy causes and reactions, the variable reactions by individuals to variable amounts of certain ingredients, etc. etc., it's unfortunately beyond absurd to think that laws and regulations that adequately protect people from any and all harm can adequately address all of these variables and factors. Think about it.

It must suck to navigate food allergy in modern life but it's not something that can be delegated to business establishments, schools and the like. I certainly wouldn't want to put my life in the hands of a third party just because there are "rule" or "a law" that supposedly protect me. People make mistakes, people misunderstand, glitches happen in factories and kitchens, the people around you don't get it, don't care or don't understand. There are so many processes and people between when a food item is harvested and when it is sold or served. No way can laws make that perfectly safe.

sticking just to food for the moment which is not even my main issue…

An example, I went into an allergy friendly restaurant recently and told them my rare allergies. They told me the chef went and prepared my food at the allergy station where they clean between prepping each meal. The server pointed out to me that he wore new gloves while making my food and it was retrieved by her while wearing fresh gloves directly from the station.

i have been in another allergy friendly restaurant where I told them my rare allergies and ordered something safe. They said what I ordered was stored too close to one of my allergens. They suggested an alternative meal and I took them up on their suggestion.

at non-allergy friendly places when I mention rare allergies, to start, they have absolutely no clue if the ingredients are even in the dishes and struggle to check. We aren’t even getting to issues of cross-contamination or trace inclusion, just finding out if something is in the recipe or on a label.

im not unreasonable. My worst food allergy is that Im horribly allergic to cinnamon. Even airborne exposure is dangerous. I’m not asking for a job in a bakery at Christmas or even to walk into a bakery at Christmas.

there has to be a happy medium though between a particular establishment just can’t safely serve a particular patron and we just can’t take any risk so won’t make any effort and effectively ostracize people from society.

And sorry but as you acknowledge people DO make mistakes.

Chefs and restaurant workers and caterers should absolutely not be put in the position of their ordinary mistakes potentially causing someone to die, just because that someone wants to dine away from home. It's simply unfair. They should always have the option to refuse service.

No one is being "ostracized from society" because certain restaurants cannot promise to safely serve them, when it's a life-or-death matter. Sorry but that sort of extreme statement is one reason that people get exasperated by those who are food-allergic.

My friend has a severe nut allergy and we have never had this problem. Very strange. Maybe he had a personal experience and it was triggered?

If your son needs an Epipen though I’d hazard a guess that it is fairly serious as Epipens essentially just give you longer to get to hospital rather than curing the reaction.

Exactly, especially when they've just been told someone has an allergy to a possible cross contamination. I also don't understand why posters aren't disclosing allergies to someone providing them a service and seemingly thinking they're getting one over the server. Don't they care the guilt the chef/server would have if they did have an allergic reaction even if not fatal.

the people around you don't get it, don't care or don't understand

I think there's truth here.

I think lots of people have little understanding of what's it's like to live with a food allergy and in fear of anaphylaxis.
It's really hard. You could say the same of any other medical condition I know.

There are 2 million people in the UK with diagnosed food allergies and numbers are growing. Another 600000 coeliacs.
It is not reasonable or workable to expect all those people to never eat away from home or to carry the food they require with them at all times. To prepare their food always from scratch, no matter what business trip they're on, how long they've been waiting in the emergency room at the local hospital etc. Life gets in the way of the best laid plans on a regular basis you will find.

Of course, humans are social animals and lots of our activities and rituals do revolve around food too. Dinner at Granny's house, weddings, funerals, meals out with friends and family for special occasions. Scouting trips, school trips, the normal activities of childhood.

To those who can't understand it - this is why people with allergies do accept some risk (hopefully very minimal). Because the only other option is to miss out too much of life, and sometimes the bits that make it all worthwhile. (They still do end up missing out quite often, and there's prep and research before they do make an occasion, just so you know. )
But my point is - it is really very easy to say you'd never eat outside the home if you were in their shoes. It is extremely difficult to keep that vow. To a large degree you would need to lock yourself or your children away from life. Please believe me on this one.

In addition - nobody wants to make restaurant chefs or staff into scapegoats!
But it should be possible for at least a subset of restaurants to safely facilitate people with food allergies. Some manage it very well already. For what it's worth, I would always advocate disclosing allergies to staff.

And I think for the smaller businesses, having well labelled menus with listed ingredients shouldn't be an unsurmountable problem. Small things can help too - cafés stocking prepackaged free-from snacks as well as the usual sandwiches, muffins etc can be very useful, but not many do this.

Feel free to start a restaurant that's 100-percent safe for all anaphylactic allergies, and do let us know how it works out for you.

So you want food businesses to stack allegry food, there would be storage and costs involved with this, so then business put their prices up or pay their staff less to compensate it then customers complain about the cost of living

If you can succesfully run a business and make money and be able to pay staff a decent wage and not waste food because of the extra food that needs to be stocked (and sat there for months), exactly the way you say it should be run then come back and tell us how it is going

It is a business not a charity

This

So can be found Easily and QUICKLY as well

@WandaWonder@LaurieStrode
Not all food suitable for allergy sufferers is niche. I sometimes go to a cafe with kids if I'm in town. It's useful to be able to do so just for a break, to use the loos etc. My DC's combination of allergies means he can eat crisps and we will try to choose a place that stocks these rather than one without as otherwise he'll end up without any snack. Many brands are gluten-free too. Yes, storage could be a problem, but I think it's something many places could add quite easily but mightn't have thought of from an allergy point of view.

As I said upthread, it's not reasonable to expect those with allergies never to eat out. They do need to be catered for. I think if you developed an allergy in the morning you might change your stance on this too.

From the point of view of cost, yes it is more expensive and I guess that's why we need regulations. Because people will do the minimum they have to otherwise, at least some will, for financial reasons or sometimes because they don't think or don't care. It's the reason we have fire safety regulations. And food safety regulations in a general sense. And regulations around facilities for wheelchair users etc. Because otherwise many people wouldn't consider them at all and it's not fair. That said, I don't expect all small businesses to cater for allergies, beyond the basics of very clear labelling, perhaps some pre-packaged snacks etc. It's not possible in some kitchens.

From the point of view of stress on the kitchen and waiting staff that allergy sufferers bring - yes it is stressful, there is no denying that. Cooking for people is a very responsible job. There's choking and food poisoning to consider too, don't forget.
Of course chefs need support and guidance in this area, but expecting those with allergies to stay home so as not to put undue pressure on them is never going to work and it is simply not fair to expect that. People don't stay home from the swimming pool to prevent stressing out the lifeguards. Lots of responsibility is part of the job description for some jobs, and they're not all well paid ones either.

I do think if a chef is genuinely worried that he can't provide safe food he should be able to say 'no' on occasion. But in restaurants and chains that have procedures in place to provide allergen-free food safely (as OP has described) that 'no' should be the exception rather than the rule. What happened to OP warrants investigation by management to find out what went wrong this time.

No one is asking for that.

Crisps are packaged foods made in a factory. That is very different from and not comparable to the dynamics of a cafe or restaurant kitchen.

@Alexahelp

Basically people ARE. They want to transfer the safeguarding responsibilities & liability from themselves to restaurant workers, using the power of laws and regulations.