Review of the regulatory management of food allergens

4 Foods Exempt from Bearing a Label

It is recognised that many of the allergic reactions that occur in the population are attributed to unlabelled food eaten outside the home (Bock et al., 2001; Anaphylaxis Australia,2008; Allergy UK, 2009), such as in restaurants and cafes. FSANZ was aware of a number of allergy support groups and enforcement agencies that provide allergy education and support for the food service sector. As part of this review FSANZ undertook an evaluation of the adequacy of the current regulatory requirements relevant to food exempt from bearing a label, in addition to non-regulatory measures, in meeting the needs of food suppliers and food allergy sufferers.

As part of the targeted consultation process, FSANZ sought stakeholder views on the adequacy of current mandatory declaration requirements. Also sought were suggestions on how food suppliers could better communicate allergen information to consumers.

.

FSANZ also sought information on non-regulatory initiatives aimed at reducing the incidence of allergy caused by food purchased and/or consumed in food service establishments.

Currently, Standard 1.2.1 – Application of Labelling and Other Information Requirements of the Code, requires that foods for retail sale that are exempt from bearing a label² must comply with the specific allergen information requirements as set out in clause 4 of Standard 1.2.3. Clause 4 of Standard 1.2.3 mandates that where the food is exempt from bearing a label, food allergens when present as an ingredient, an ingredient of a compound ingredient, a food additive, or a processing aid must be declared on or in connection with the display of food; or declared to the purchaser upon request.

In responding to the question on the adequacy of the mandatory requirements seven stakeholders indicated that they were satisfied with the current requirements (Allergen Bureau, Allergy Unit Adelaide, Confectionary Manufacturers of Australasia Limited, Dept of Health WA, Environ Health Office Qld, Manufactured Food Database, NZFSA) and three (Dietitians Association of Australia, Allergy New Zealand, Anaphylaxis Australia) indicated that they were not satisfied.

The stakeholders who were not satisfied with the current requirements in the Code were of the view that:

1. 
   there is limited evidence to suggest that this sector has an adequate understanding of their obligations in relation to the Code
   
2. 
   the current exemptions for food for catering purposes allows for the possibility that staff in retail premises do not have sufficient information regarding the allergen content of the food they are preparing.
   
3. 
   the risk of cross contamination is not addressed in the Code; nor is there clarity around the time frame within which allergy information should be declared following a request from the purchaser.
   

In general, stakeholder responses indicated that there were several groups involved in providing resources or implementing new initiatives to enhance the knowledge of the staff in the food service sector in relation to allergens. Two stakeholders also indicated the importance of getting Restaurant and Catering Australia and Restaurant Association of New Zealand to be part of any educational activity FSANZ may consider. Overall there was an indication of the need for more effective means of communicating regulatory obligations and the establishment of further education and training for staff at all levels in this sector.

Subsequent to the targeted stakeholder consultation, FSANZ gathered information on the educational initiatives conducted by Anaphylaxis Australia, Allergy New Zealand, the Allergen Bureau and the Jurisdictions responsible for enforcing the Code in Australia and New Zealand. The consultation included an assessment of the communication methods used to inform local enforcement bodies and food businesses on the regulatory requirements for allergens. This work indicated that Anaphylaxis Australia, Allergy New Zealand, and the Allergen Bureau have completed several educational activities in this area and are also progressing new initiatives.
In relation to the activity of jurisdictions there were guidelines and policies established by most jurisdictions for the management of anaphylaxis in the school setting. Some Jurisdictions also offered allergen management training support specific to school settings.

However in overall terms only some jurisdictions were proactive in establishing initiatives to communicate the regulatory obligations and enhance the knowledge of workers in the food service sector. For example Department of Human Services Victoria and the New South Wales Food Authority have initiated pilot projects for training hospitality staff about food allergies and intolerances and NZFSA has included the training of staff in relation to allergens as part of the implementation of requirements for food businesses to have Food Control Plans.

FSANZ is not aware of any quantitative data on the number of cases of anaphylaxis related to non-compliance of the Code or non-disclosure of specific information as required by the Code. Based on the information currently available, it is FSANZ’s view that the current regulatory measures are adequate to manage the food allergy risks from food exempt from bearing a label. However, there is a need for establishing more effective means of communicating these regulatory obligations and implementing initiatives to enhance the allergen management knowledge of workers in the food service sector. FSANZ considers the jurisdictions are best placed to communicate the regulatory obligation and provide access to educational initiatives and we would be pleased to work with jurisdictions in facilitating this process as required. It is recommended that these views be presented to the Implementation Sub Committee(ISC) for their consideration.

4.1.1 Conclusions

• 
  Many of the allergic reactions that occur in the population are attributed to unlabelled food eaten outside the home, such as in restaurants and cafes.
  

• 
  The majority of the stakeholders who were consulted are satisfied with the current allergen related mandatory requirements in the Code specific to foods exempt from labelling.
  

• 
  There are several groups involved in providing resources or implementing new initiatives to enhance the knowledge of the staff in the food service sector in relation to allergens. However overall there is an indication of the need for more effective means of communicating regulatory obligations and the establishment of further education and training for staff at all levels in this sector.
  

• 
  In relation to the educational initiatives, Anaphylaxis Australia and Allergy New Zealand have completed several educational activities in this area and are also progressing new initiatives.
  

• 
  Only some jurisdictions are proactively establishing initiatives to communicate the regulatory obligations and enhance the knowledge of workers in the food service sector.
  

• 
  FSANZ is not aware of any quantitative data on the number of cases of anaphylaxis related to non-compliance of the Code or non-disclosure of specific information as required by the Code.
  

• 
  It is FSANZ’s view that the current regulatory measures are adequate to manage the food allergy risks from foods exempt from bearing a label. However, there is a need for establishing more effective means of communicating these regulatory obligations and implementing initiatives to enhance the allergen management knowledge of workers in the food service sector.
  

4.1.2 Recommendation

• 
  With respect to allergen declarations in the food service sector, it is recommended that the Implementation Sub Committee be asked to consider the communication of regulatory obligations to food businesses and to provide access to educational initiatives, with FSANZ assistance as required.