In food retail, amid a sea of potential triggers, the new products aisle aims to provide a space for others with food allergies and intolerances. But it’s doubtful that consumers will ever be sure that those products are completely free of primary allergens. .
Food allergies can be life-threatening. In the UK alone, some two hundred more people have died since 1992, and the cause of death is likely foodborne anaphylaxis. More well-known examples are Natasha Edna-Laperouse, who gives her name to Natasha’s Law, and Owen Carey, who died after unknowingly eating a buttermilk-based burger.
For gluten-free brands, allergies and intolerances are the most sensible priority. In the U. K. , Angelic Free From, maker of the country’s first 14 allergen-free biscuits, takes cross-contamination “very seriously. “
“We check each and every item that comes into the site, and there’s a safe point of proof to back it up,” founder Kirsty Dingwall explained at FoodNavigator’s recent Positive Nutrition Digital Summit.
But can a two- or even three- or four-pronged technique ever face the threat of contamination?Even then, it’s hard to say with 100 percent certainty that the products are 100 percent free of those substances, says the founder. of the start-up.
For what? By the stages of production, from farm to plate.
The way our current food formula works will not allow us to achieve 100 percent certainty. That’s the view of Jennifer Elegbede, global director of nutrition and fitness programs at component supplier Lycored. “Until our food chain is vertically integrated within the companies themselves, we never know for sure what the product contains. “
With a gigantic number of food brands, giant and small, relying on co-manufacturers, the threat increases. “This [creates] opportunities for allergens to appear. Even if the status quo doesn’t include allergens in its subset of ingredients, there’s never a hundred percent certainty that it will.
Pollution is rarely a threat only on the shop floor: there is the price chain, from farm to fork. This puts brands in an awkward position, as they lose all oversight outside of their facilities.
The threat of contamination exists, for example, at the point of cultivation. A lesser-known but not unusual crop rotation is that of garlic and peanuts. This means growing them in the same field, one after the other. Without proper testing, this type of practice can prove fatal for garlic consumers: peanut allergy is the most common cause of foodborne anaphylaxis. “You have to go all the way to the farm point to perceive the threats,” says Mike Adams, head of product innovation at Food Research Company Camden BRI.
Adams noted that this is also true in the realm of gluten-free products. “Many gluten-free grains are processed in the same way as wheat, rye, and other gluten-containing grains. And once they’re there, the threat of contamination long before a product reaches a factory is high. “
Even if adequate testing is available, the procedure can rule out any threat of contamination to the pattern being analyzed. Testing has its limitations, explained the head of product innovation. “It tells you that the pattern you’ve tested is uncontaminated. No, I won’t tell you everything else.
“You can never be 100 percent sure. But you can be close to 100 percent if you have the right threat assessment point in your source chain.
Even when a product travels safely through the price chain and reaches consumers’ homes, the threat doesn’t stop there. There is a threat of contamination in a consumer’s cupboard or refrigerator, warned Harri Kallioinen, senior vice president of R
“At the end of the day, I think you can never be 100 percent sure that something is completely loose, but you can effectively minimize the risk. “
In addition to testing, what other levers can food brands use to make sure food is fit for consumption?
The words “would possibly involve” are visible on the packaging. This label means that even if the product is not intended to contain the allergen in question, the manufacturer cannot rule out its presence. In other words, the food product may be allergen-free, but it may not be.
The “May Contain” label can be especially useful on food products classified as “vegan,” as the claim does not mean that the food is for other people with animal product allergies (“vegan” is just a nutrition label). Recent studies suggest that consumers don’t know that “vegan” doesn’t mean free of animal products.
But Angelic Free From’s Dingwall implores food brands that “may contain” labels for the sake of at-risk consumers. She describes the label as a way to “opt out. “”It doesn’t help consumers. “
Dingwall continued, “Most likely, they perceive that there is an inherent threat that no one can absolutely control. But the founder believes that corporations want to make it clear that they take this seriously and that they have put “all measures” in place to be offered the safest product possible. Brands want to take responsibility. . . and make assertions. “
Did you miss a component of FoodNavigator’s 2024 Positive Nutrition Digital Summit?Don’t worry, you can still access all of our sessions and documents, which will be available for the next 90 days. Click here to sign up for free.
More Promotional Features