Skip to main content

How Much of a Food Allergen is Too Much?

There's a new survey the FARE people would like you to take. It's about food allergy thresholds: the minimum amount of a allergenic protein that should be allowed in a manufactured food without cautionary or overt labeling.

Most of the questions are designed to gauge general literacy about labeling laws. However, there was a question at the very end that gave me pause:
"Would you purchase a food that contains the allergen(s) you are avoiding if you could be assured that the amount of that allergen present in the food is only capable of triggering a mild allergic reaction, such as tingly lips or an itchy throat?"
The wording of the question carries a good bit of emotional baggage. Many of us know the stories of kids who died after determining a food was safe because they touched it to their tongue and didn't feel the tingle. It's a terrible and very dangerous way to gauge the allergic content of a food.

So why was it asked in this way? I have a (cynical) theory about it.

Across the table from FARE in these hearings will be the food industry. Anything that adds expense or time to the manufacturing process is going to make these people very, very nervous. If the law suddenly requires them to guarantee a maximum amount of allergen, it introduces a whole new level of product liability. After all, if they say a food contains <1 mg of a protein and a family of a child who has suffered a reaction can prove otherwise, they're suddenly on the hook legally. (If you remember the story of Joshua Ramirez, you know there are basically no legal protections for allergic consumers at all right now, even when foods are contaminated and unlabeled.)

So what's the poor, put-upon food industry to do to stop this from happening? "Hey! Let's just prove that food-allergic individuals don't really want/won't really use this kind of labeling anyway!" 

It's probably true that the vast majority of allergic people will use this new labeling to eliminate foods from their diet (including foods they or their child have successfully been eating). Most people have no clue what their or their child's threshold is for an allergen. Plus, we know thresholds can change with time, and with other environmental factors like pollen load, puberty, exercise or illness. Given all that, it can seem like a crap shoot to determine a "safe" level of an allergen.

The problem is that the food industry may use "no safe level" type comments we make in this survey and elsewhere to argue that the food-allergy community is unreasonably fearful and that labeling foods more clearly would actually cause harm: harm to consumers (eliminating foods they're currently eating successfully) and harm to the industry (lost business from fearful allergic consumers, lost money/time to implement the new rules). If they can show people are unlikely to use the new information and that there's actual harm in providing it, it will be easier to kill.

My guess is that initial discussions have already occurred between FARE and the food manufacturer lobbyists, and that food lobbyists may have influenced the (emotionally loaded) wording of the survey. From what I've seen in on-line discussions about the survey, some people are leaving outraged comments...which will likely delight the food lobbyists, as it's "evidence" the new rules are really not needed or wanted by food-allergic individuals.

All I'm asking is that you not overreact as you take the survey. Consider whether the knowledge about the quantifiable allergenic content of a food (imperfect though it may be) would be helpful. Don't get caught up in the emotions of the badly-worded question, but read it at face value: would you purchase a food...if you could be assured that the amount of that allergen present in the food is only capable of triggering a mild allergic reaction. Of course you would. I would too...if I were totally certain the reaction would be limited.

This legislation has the potential to help everyone in the food community. Quantifying allergen levels will suddenly expose the habitually-contaminated foods our children have been eating. Whether you choose to continue with those foods, or eliminate them, is up to you. More important, though, quantifying allergen levels gives us legal protections we don't have today. Don't lose sight of that objective because of a badly-worded question.

Any other theories on why this survey question was so weird? Add them to the comments please! 


Follow me on Facebook or Twitter  

Popular posts from this blog

Taking The High Road With Food Allergies (Sometimes)

I was getting all ready to write a post about how grateful I am. You know...one of those count-down-to-Thanksgiving posts where I list all the people or things that have helped me along the way.

And I am grateful. Really. Having virtual friends who have traveled this same food-allergy road is a wonderful gift. I can name so many times when my panic and frustration were alleviated by someone I've never even met in real life, but who took the time to give me a tip, or to console me.

But frankly, my lovely gratitude post went out the window when I received this email from a relative:

What can we bring to share? I have some ideas: Sweet Potatoes glazed with Chutney and Ginger, Green beans with Dijon and Caper sauce, Creamed Green beans with Dill sauce, or whatever you request.   I am aware of [FAB's son] dietary restriction.

My son is allergic to beans. We avoid all beans. Even green beans. The doctor was surprised by this, as green beans are the least allergenic of the bean family, b…

Beans, Beans and More (or Less) Allergenic Beans!

We have a little good news this week: my son passed a home bean challenge for both pinto and cannellini (white) beans last night. Hooray!

At our last allergist visit, they ran the numbers on a number of varieties of beans and many were Class 0, with values like 0.68. My son's doctor thought it was reasonable to try these at home.

Going to stop for a moment and interject: DON'T DO THIS WITHOUT YOUR DOCTOR'S DIRECTION. A lot of things go into whether home challenges are a good idea for your child: how serious the allergen typically is, how far the hospital, how experienced the parents are with recognizing reactions. Many doctors are not comfortable with this at all. But, in our case, it makes sense to do some challenges at home because my son tests slightly allergic to dozens of foods.

He has avoided all beans since around age five, when he started developing new allergies. First it was tuna. Then cashews. Then (to our great surprise), he suddenly became allergic to garbonzo be…

Best Food Allergy Tweets/Posts From 2013 ACAAI Meeting

Sorry, guys...I've been very busy the last couple of weeks, but just over a week ago one of the largest allergy and asthma conferences, the annual American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, was tweeting its brains out.

Here were the tweets and (virtual) presentations I thought were most interesting:

ACE inhibitors are often used to treat high blood pressure. I believe Lisinopril was the one specifically mentioned. This goes hand in hand with the idea that older patients, especially men, can see changes in the severity of their allergic reactions as they age.

Here's an answer on the question many of us asked about component testing. Just as with RAST, the number itself doesn't matter; just the positive result.

Gross! But yes, give your kids the bobber after the dog/ brother/ mailman licked it.

Conversely, tree-nut-allergic individuals have a 30% incidence of concurrent peanut allergy. 
So stop blaming yourselves, FA mommies! I've said this consistently - Mother Natur…