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.

I'm going to go against the grain and agree with you OP, I'm going to guess the chef doesn't know much about allergies and also believes that nut allergies are more serious than others. I wonder if he would have refused to serve someone with a milk or dairy allergy?

My daughter is allergic to peanuts but we had a real battle to persuade a cafe to serve her Nutella pancakes recently. No risk of contamination from peanuts, they just couldn't grasp that she isn't allergic to hazelnuts and indeed is encouraged to eat them to prevent an allergy developing.

Ultimately if the chef isn't happy he is correct to refuse but I doubt his unhappiness came from a particularly informed position.

I think the chef was completely justified not to serve you. You've said your son has a nut allergy, which puts the onus on him to provide safe food. If you're prepared to take the risk then check through the menu yourself and don't tell them. You saying we'll take the chance probably wouldn't mitigate action against him if he served you something that seriously impacted your son's health.

Even if you said you are happy to take the risk, there would be no proof of that conversation were you to take legal action if an allergic reaction to take place.

You really can't compare a commercial kitchen that serves hundreds of meals a day to a private home kitchen where you have full control over what comes in and out, and also where you know 100% of your child's medical history and what risks there are.

Having allergies isn't a protected characteristic either so it's technically not discrimination for them to say "no". Restaurants are free to serve whoever they like, and to say "no" if they want to.

If you're prepared to take the chance of cross contamination then I'm not really sure what the point of mentioning it was if the child ordered something without the allergen in.
A teenager by me died from cross contamination. Ib think the food place was sued.

I can understand the chef being wary about serving someone with an allergy, and perhaps, as others have said, there's been a recent case of someone having a reaction, or some other situation. However, if this is the case, then, in the OP's situation, I'd prefer it if he could have explained what the issue was.

I empathise with restaurants being worried about one of their customers having a reaction, but what would happen if all restaurants did the same as this one and refused to serve anyone with an allergy, just to protect themselves? My son has a nut allergy, and eating out can already be difficult. If all restaurants decide they don't want to take the risk and refuse to serve him, does that mean he (and all other allergy sufferers) just have to put up with never being able to eat out? That doesn't seem fair to me.

A cafe/restaurant that I go to regularly has changed all its menus to say they have ‘reduced allergen’ items, not allergen-free and specifically say their ‘low gluten’ items are only suitable for gluten-avoidant people

I can only assume some sort of incident has happened recently and they don’t want to take any chances

But they did explain it. He didn’t want to cook for someone with a food allergy. There have been a couple of stories recently about young people with allergies dying after eating out. That poor young girl who died on an airplane after eating a Pret sandwich comes to mind.

Firstly, how many different meals to you make on a given day? How many deliveries of ingredients that maybe slightly different each time do you have delivered each day?

Your son can order steak and just have the utensils washed a bit more. But a lot of people with nut allergies are more sensitive than that.

Restaurants aren’t dealing with one person with one allergy and catering around it. They aren’t going to judge whether it’s severe or moderate.

if you can’t see the difference between you cooking for your child and a restaurant, that’s the issue. Restaurants can limit cross contamination. But if they are using anything pre prepped they can’t guarantee anything for every person with an allergy.

But also, the Op saying ‘I take responsibility’ doesn’t mean his employer would accept that. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be all in the papers if the worst happened talking about the mother who took responsibility. It would be aimed at the place it happened. And I don’t know if legally, he wouldn’t be held responsible because op said she took responsibility.

I imagine a lot of chefs are really quite nervous about something happening and the consequence of it.

If there was a written disclaimer signed by the customer it might provide the restaurant with some protection against being sued. It wouldn't protect them against criminal prosecution. It also wouldn't protect them against all the costs and inconvenience of an investigation or all of the bad publicity.

Friends son in law has a life threat allergy to nuts. They never eat out anymore too many close squeaks. My friend has made her home nut free for years to protect him.

He's a daddy now so child's birthday parties are problematic, one peanut butter laden kiss from his daughter could be fatal.

Big chain restaurants are usually almost 100% nut free. There’s no reason for them to refuse to serve people with nut allergies. There may be items that ‘may contain nuts’ or are produced in a factory that uses nuts, and it’s sensible to avoid eating these, but the risk of contamination from something that may contain nut traces is negligible (unless you consumed the actual item).

If you eat out regularly at say a Harvester, or TGI’s or wherever with no problem, there’s no reason why one particular branch should refuse, unless they’re just being a dick.

It's a tricky one. I don't think kitchens should be able to just opt out of serving people with allergies as otherwise it'll be impossible to eat out, and indeed it'll encourage people not to mention their allergies on ordering. I do think anywhere with a proper kitchen that's actually cooking food should be expected to provide safe foods for the major allergens. But then that's completely unrealistic for places like little cafes at soft play etc and I don't know where you could draw the line legally.

I think the chef was right. I'd be terrified if I wasn't 100% sure of there being nothing pre-packaged which might have small quantities of allergen. I don't think all chefs will have time to be reading the small print on every ingredient that comes in. Nut allergies are really scary. Far better for the chef to be honest than risk your DC having a reaction.

@BumbleNova , I actually think the chef was being ridiculous and demonstrates he is shit at his job. If he cannot be sure what is in things, WTF is he doing?! Not including nuts in the food is not hard.

If the ingredients come in ready prepared and not guaranteed nut free, the chef cannot cook a guaranteed nut-free meal. It's not a case of just not including nuts.

It depends on the severity of the allergy but it could be fatal.

That's really shit.

They publish allergen info, have signs up, welcome customers to talk to staff before ordering, ultimately it should be upto the customer what they wish to order.

They should have a disclaimer form that confirms their stance and that a conversation has taken place about risk which removes any blame from the chef/restaurant should anything happen.

Anyone who has witnessed a severe allergic reaction or has severe allergies themselves knows it is not a decision to be taken lightly. Someone who is willing to take a minor risk for a minor allergy obviously knows their body and how it may react.

Some people can tolerate nuts potentially having been in the environment. They might get a bit of a scratchy throat or minor swelling. I'd be happy to take that risk for a nice meal every once in a while.

Some people will literally die. They wouldn't be toying around with menu choices and thinking about chancing it.

I don't think any establishment should be bound to cater for people with allergies. If you have an allergy it is your responsibility to manage it and if a restaurant won't make allowances then you simply don't eat there. A restaurant can cater for whoever they like- it's up to them!

I am with the chef on this one. There might be no “nuts” on the menu but there might be nut paste in the bottled sauce or dressing in the kitchen (like pesto).

But ultimately if something happens, the restaurant is held responsible.

If the chef doesn't want to take the risk, that should be his decision. Equally, if OP is happy to risk cross-contamination, there should be no reason to tell them about the allergy in the first place.

He didn't want to take the risk of killing your son.

I think that's reasonable.

I'm sorry your meal out was spoilt OP but I agree with chef, especially if part of a chain.

You absolutely should be told when you ordered that they couldn't serve your son. But why would they risk litigation?

Sadly I expect it to become more common. Which in turn makes it more dangerous, as people may just say "no allergies" just to get served. I really feel for you.

I go somewhere where they ask you if you have any food allergies even if you order water! The servers are very embarrassed but that is company policy, so they have to do it.

Nut allergies are really scary.

There's nothing special about nut allergies. People with serious milk, egg, sesame etc allergies struggle to get them taken seriously because of this common misunderstanding.

It’s not quite that simple. The restaurant would be closed for a short period. Media wouldn’t be putting out stories about how someone died because they decided the risk was acceptable. It would be how some died in after being served food in X chain pub.

While it might (and not always) take legal responsibility away, a disclaimer doesn’t protect all the impact.

and also, allergies can escalate, completely out of the blue. It’s ok saying you know your own body, but you can’t predict how you will react each and every time.

Unfortunately we live in a world where he could lose his career, and his life savings, if he made a mistake like this. I don't blame him for saying no.

Although, to be fair, places like that should make it clear that if you eat with allergies it's at your own risk and maybe sign a disclaimer or something. Honestly, it's not worth it for him.

It's not hard if you're cooking at home in premises where you know what has and hasn't been through the door. It's very different in a commercial kitchen in a chain restaurant.

I can understand it's annoying, but PO's assurances were not legally binding. I suspect, even if they'd signed somehting saying they accepted any risk, it wouldn't let the chef off the hook if something went wrong.