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.

@ginasevern providing allergen information whether or not you say you cater for allergies is a legal requirement in UK hospitality now, so I hope the business is providing this, even though it takes the monumental effort of reading all the manufacturer's labels 🙄

@Baffledandalarmed 's point is valid, you cannot waiver away a person's right to sue just by saying "it's OK I accept the risk." However the business can still protect itself by putting in place the very normal waivers that you see everywhere - "here is the list of ingredients: (no nuts listed). This product is made from ingredients that are processed in factories that process nuts and in a kitchen which also handles nuts, so this product may contain nuts." Then you let the customer decide from that information, and if the kid has an allergic reaction you are covered.

But this is all very standard practice these days and should come as a surprise to nobody.

that is the reality for many families with a child with a severe allergy. It's tough, but it is what it is.

A bit like those pharmacists refusing to give women the morning after pill on moral grounds...🙄

This entire field is becoming a nightmare. I had one incident where they told me it was fine after checking with the kitchen, and then five mins later a lady from the kitchen came to warn me that the allergen is in use throughout the kitchen and she would not recommend I eat here. I applauded her honesty.

another place I went to couldn’t even offer up an allergy folder for me or my DC.

but I sympathise, if it isn’t 100% fresh cooked in house, the risk remains there. The supply chain is to blame for a lot of it, so much lazy manufacturing going on.

Of all the daft comparisons people make on here that one is the most stupid I've ever seen

You cannot seriously compare a chef stating he doesn't feel he can safely provide a meal and a medical professional declining to give a medication for a personal, usually religious, reason

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.

I’d suggest most people with allergies have a firmer grasp of the concept of risk assessment than you do.

I think your comment shows that you've never lived with an allergy, severe or otherwise.

@Wheresthefibre

My apologies - only 10-20% of people are affected by FOOD allergies as per. And their families, or dining party. So just the 26 million people in Europe being direct sufferers.

www.allergyuk.org/about-allergy/statistics-and-figures/

I'd say still pretty significant. Other allergies and the 1/3 figure also relevant. Will beauticians start refusing service to clients with latex allergies due to the number of cosmetic products containing it? Could go on. People don't just have life-threatening reactions to food.

The chef did the right thing.
Imagine this thread if OPs son had had a reaction….the chef would be in all sorts of trouble.
Its just not worth it for him.

I voted that YANBU, because while I actually can see where the kitchen was coming from, I also think they messed you about and I can entirely see why you are pissed off. That said, I do see why they took the stance they did: there have been so many news stories about kids dying because they ate the wrong thing that I think people in hospitality are gun-shy, even though you, the mother, said it was ok.

I think you are BU.

By declaring the allergy you have partially passed some responsibility onto the chef and he was clearly not prepared to take the risk.

Declaring a potentially fatal allergy in a pub is going to create worry for the person who is preparing the food. Most people would end up feeling responsible if your child did end up having an anaphylactic shock after eating food prepared by them. Just because you are prepared to take the risk you shouldn't really expect other people to.

I understand that this is upsetting for you and your son. However, I do think the chef was within his rights to say no, if he did not feel comfortable for whatever reason.

Maybe a previous customer has complained about allergens.
Maybe he has had a bad experience in the past.
Could be more nuts than usual in the kitchen at present and no space for separate prep.

I worked in chain restaurants as a student and to be honest, most of their stuff comes pre prepared ready to just warm up. If that's the case, he is probably worried that he cannot guarantee nut free as he doesn't know how it was prepared.

I worked in a different restaurant where everything was made from scratch on the premises and we were much more able to meet dietary requirements there.

If you are worried going forward, maybe call in or ring placed to discuss requirements first.

I can see from both sides. My DS had an allergy to dairy however he's outgrown it now and was never needed an epipen.

Alot of chains have prepackaged foods and they should know what's in them but alot of stuff is may contain. Perhaps that day, week, month another person had reacted and he felt awful and said he didn't want it to happen again.

However I think you should have had more.of an explanation from the staff and chef as I can see it would have been frustrating for you and your family

I'd think you've come across a very conscientious person who, for whatever reason, doesn't feel that his kitchen can offer the degree of safety for your DC that you would wish for. Decent man. It would give me pause for thought about other places I went to tbh.

So not a third.and we are including people who know someone with an allergy in these figures as well?

How many people live in Europe? Funny how you jump from fractions to figures depending on what suits.

Yes it’s a possibility that beauticians may refuse if latex cross contamination becomes a huge problem and many high profile deaths occur. Especially if the beautician would have to close if someone became sick, got lots of negative press and could be held personally liable.

I have not said people with allergies should never eat out. But I can see why a chef wouldn’t want to provide food to a child who suffers an allergy because the mother says it’s fine. You are asking them to take a risk, they are willing to take.

How it’s resolved I don’t know. But I was challenging the third because, as a food allergy sufferer, I knew it you were wording the figures in such a way to make them seem more impactful. I also work in data, I recognise vague language to manipulate data to make a point.

What a stupid comparison.

Can you name the chain OP?

No… but if you said your milk allergy was such that a milk frothing machine didn’t affect you, and you told them as such - they wouldn’t be allowed to prevent you from entering the premises just because they have a milk frothing machine.

Businesses need to make reasonable adjustments for disabilities, but this doesn’t mean all disabilities have to be catered for in all circumstances. But it does mean if the disabled person self assesses as able to use the facilities, they can’t then be turned away because someone else disagrees.

So, if you can't guarantee that traces of an allergen may not be present, but can't refuse to serve someone on the grounds it is disability discrimination....... It would seem realistically the only option is to ban every allergen from commercial kitchens and manufacturing processes so that there is that guarantee that none of these allergens are ever present and cross contamination can't happen.

Having been bollocked by more than one customer for removing nuts from sale while we have a severe airborne allergy sufferer in house, and their absolute right to buy and eat a packet of nuts because they're a customer , I can't see that being popular.

You're damned if you take allergens seriously because people believe they have the right to demand service and then blame someone else if it goes wrong (and that's seemingly backed up by law) and then it's shit customer service and the overreaction and tantrums that go with being told no - even for a perfectly valid reason. And you're also damned if you take allergens seriously and do your best not to make someone ill or kill them because you're being discriminatory.
No wonder chefs are thin on the ground these days.

As I said previously, refusing service is inconvenient, it's not health or life threatening, though the way people carry on you'd think it absolutely was.

Don't be a dick

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.

This is a strange attitude. Many people (especially women) struggle to digest wheat based products. It can cause bloating, constipation, pain and other unpleasant dietary symptoms. Removing the majority of wheat from one's diet can significantly alleviate those symptoms. Why would you not want to cater for these people simply because they are not Coeliac?

It all depends whether it's policy or some random picking and choosing who and what to serve.
Keep us posted op!

According to food handling/ hygiene training....Best practice is to ensure that any allergies stated have food prepared in , on and by only equipment that is dedicated to cope with each category of allergen ( eg gluten free food can only be placed in or touched by equipment that is used for no other purpose) to minimise the possibility of cross contamination. I'm afraid the degree of severity or extent of necessary treatment has no bearing. Someone with allergies runs the risk that consuming something which only caused a mild reaction before could suddenly result in a much more dangerous response this time. There is no defense of..."oh his parent said it would be ok" once an allergy has been declared to staff they are legally required to perform all due diligence to ensure their customers safety.

People in the UK do have the right not to be denied access to a restaurant because they're black/white/ muslim/ christian/ facially disfigured/gay/old etc etc.

Eating away from home is sometimes practically necessary and sometimes part of important social bonding, common to human societies since forever. But even if you're going out to eat for a 100% frivolous reason, because you don't feel like doing your own washing up, you can't be denied that on the basis of a protected characteristic - it's a right in that sense.

Allergies aren't normally a protected characteristic but I do think that we as a society need to find a better answer to the anaphylaxis problem than "people with serious allergies can't eat away from home".

My son was at the same school that Owen attended ,who tragically died from anaphylactic shock on his 18th Birthday in London. He had checked that the food he was served was dairy free …unfortunately that was not the case . The guy who served it wasn’t aware that the food had been contaminated before delivery.
Owen’s family have been committed to getting the law changed to ensure that no other family have to endure what they are still enduring. Owen’s Law .
So I agree that the chef made the right call but unfortunate that you had to wait so long.