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 isn’t true. Many people with nut allergies can’t tolerate actual nuts or nut derived products such as nut oil, and can have severe reactions including anaphylaxis if they eat them - but would not react strongly/at all to cross contamination of e.g nut dust/ residue on the glove of a chef handling food. A very small number of people have such severe allergies that cross contamination is life-threatening. The risk in a kitchen is if the actual nuts get into food that should not have nuts in, if there is a risk that might/has happened then I can see why the chef would refuse to cater to allergens.

No - DH has a college who goes to conferences - has severe allergy to dairy.

Someone using a spoon with traces of butter in his dish on buffet was enough to rush him to hospital.

@Katbum The risk in a kitchen is if the actual nuts get into food that should not have nuts in

That’s literally what cross-contamination means? Which is what I said.

I would say it is the front of house/serving staff who are at fault more in this situation for not explaining the chef's stance when you ordered.

As someone with a severe anaphylactic allergy to a very common ingredient that is NOT part of the required allergen listing I would appreciate meeting a chef like this. Often I am handed the allergen menu and when I say it is useless to me I am told to either guess a safe option or leave.

@Supersimkin2 , Is nuts the only fatal allergy? No

Technically, peanuts aren't nuts. I've heard of sesame allergy being life threatening.

I don’t blame the chef at all and I would probably do the same in his position. It’s just not worth the risk.

This is what happens when you create a society in which ordinary people who are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability have a perfectly reasonable & valid fear of being sued for some trivial oversight or they have reason to believe their employer will refuse to support them in such a situation.

Blame the lawyers, not the chef.

You seemed to be taking issue with the idea some people can tolerate ‘traces’ while others can’t. If you can tolerate traces eating out is safe…even if there is cross contamination which usually refers to trace amounts as opposed to a mistake which would be cooking with an allergen.

But that doesn't contradict what I've said at all. My point is that other allergies can be equally severe, so if a restaurant is going to refuse to serve those with nut allergies then they should be refusing to serve anyone with any allergy.

People misunderstand and think nut allergy = severe and other allergy = mild when actually it's more individual than that.

I really don't understand why so many posters are repeatedly not grasping this point.

Businesses don't have the right to refuse custom for any reason. They can't refuse because some is black, gay, or disabled - to name a few reasons.

I suppose the question here is whether an allergy counts as a disability - in which case this may be illegal discrimination (particularly as the individual in question/his parents were happy to eat there knowing his condition).

You are wrong there

Any allergy can be life threatening, whether it's to one of the top 14 allergens or not.

A schoolboy died in the UK from having a piece of cheese thrown at him such was the severity of his milk allergy.

@Savedpassword

"1/3 of the UK population are living with a diagnosed food allergy? Have I got that right?"

Yes - some sources state it's higher.

www.kleenex.co.uk/advice/allergy/allergy-in-uk

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-05-11/debates/295069F8-79F3-40C9-B96C-DEF92C9F14C4/AllergyAwarenessWeek#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%2044,the%20highest%20in%20the%20world.

Businesses don't have the right to refuse custom for any reason.
They can refuse custom, but they can't for certain reasons.

I work in hospitality and we no longer cater for allergies. The kitchen is too small to cope with the increasing number of dietary requirements. It is also very, very time consuming and costly to check every single ingredient delivered to the premises. In the case of nuts, it is particularly difficult as traces of nut or nut oil are used in things you wouldn't even expect. People with nut allergies aren't just allergic to whole, visible nuts.

We've even stopped doing gluten free because most people who insist on this are not coeliacs but following some faddy diet. The amount of effort it takes to accommodate them is simply not worth it. There is also the small matter of accidentally killing someone or getting sued.

I would definitely complain to head office.

Fair enough if that's their policy, but they need to make it absolutely clear beforehand so you're not wasting your time. It should be stated on their website, and as soon as you declare the allergy.

I wouldn't complain about the chef though. You've done a risk assessment with the knowledge you have, and he did one with the knowledge he has, and he wasn't willing to take the risk of prosecution, which is fair enough.

But a third do not have food allergies

so not related to what we are discussing

About which bit?

Businesses definitely can’t refuse service on the basis of protected characteristics, and I didn’t say an allergy was protected… I posed that as a question…

Eating in a restaurant is not anyone's 'right'.

Ditto at the local pub I worked in during Uni! They refused to cater to dietary requirements/allergies because the risk of cross contamination in a small country pub was just to high.

The fact is, people say the 'accept the risk' but they don't.

If they end up in hospital or their children ends up unable to breath/suffering anaphylactic shock/seriously unwell, you can bet they will sue.

No one 'accepts the risk' in the sense that they understand there is a risk and that's absolutely fine even in a worst case scenario. They 'accept' their child might get hives or a sore throat; which is not accepting the risk at all.

And here, I bet if the OPs son was ever seriously sick, she would sue.

A quick google indicates a severe or life threatening allergy is regarded as a disability in relation to employment. https://www.allergyuk.org/living-with-an-allergy/parent-pathways/18-25/workplace-support/#:~:text=Having%20an%20allergic%20condition%20that,are%20caused%20by%20workplace%20activities.

Can't find anything more general, but based on the Equality Act definition on the Citizen's Advice website:

1. You have ‘an impairment’ - this means your physical or mental abilities are different or reduced in some way compared to most people
2. Your impairment makes it harder to do everyday activities
3. The effect of your impairment is long-term

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/check-if-youre-protected-from-discrimination/what-counts-as-disability/

I wouldn't be surprised if it could be argued.

@ColleenDonaghy so in theory I could get cafes to stop using those horrible milk frothing machines and make M&S vent their bakery to the outside like Waitrose do?

Because that is the reality for a severe dairy allergy.

I'd love to live in a latte free world BUT I don't think it is realistic or reasonable to impose it on other people.

@Allergyissue87

I have Coeliac and am in the US so appreciate the UK may be different. There's no legal requirement here for restaurants to provide allergy safe food. It's not considered 'discrimination' not to cater for allergies. I get that, set my expectations accordingly, and do my due diligence before I head out, every time.

BUT, if I were at a chain restaurant that advertised on its website that they are happy to cater for allergies I would be disappointed and a bit 'irked' if a chef refused to follow the company policy without an explanation. I'd accept "That policy changed very recently" (as long as the website agreed), "I don't feel I have enough experience to prepare safe foods", "We just had a bag of <insert allergen> explode in the kitchen", or any other reasonable explanation. But just to have the chef say "I won't" with no explanation is unacceptable. I'd be contacting corporate if I were you.

I do think he was being a bit shit - I've worked in enough restaurants to recognise a chef who is being an egotistical knobhead when I read about him. They're 10 a penny, depressingly dull and absolutely give no shits about customer service.

but I think the bigger thing for you to focus your complaint on is that the service you received was incredibly awful - there's no way you should have had your order taken and been kept waiting for so long for a chef to get around to telling you that he wasn't prepared to fulfil it. They need to address their systems to ensure that either the chef is told to do his bloody job, or the waiting staff are trained and notices updated that actually the venue cannot provide for nut allergies.

Not sure what post you're referring to? If it's the disability argument IANAL but I suspect it comes down to the reasonable bit of reasonable adjustments.

(You'll see that I've pointed out the risk of milk frothers upthread. Sympathies, that must be truly shit to live with. )

Do you have, or have a child with, a food allergy?