IFST:



IFST:

Current

Hot Topics

[pic]

FOOD ALLERGENS

The Institute of Food Science & Technology, through its Public Affairs and Technical & Legislative Committees, has authorised the following Information Statement, dated 23 June 1999, replacing the version dated 12 September 1997.

[pic]

To go straight to Editorial Footnotes describing subsequent matters of note, use this link.

[pic]

|SUMMARY |

|Food allergy is now recognised as an important food safety issue. The greatest care must be taken by food manufacturers |

|to formulate foods so as to avoid, wherever possible, inclusion of unnecessary major allergens as ingredients; |

|to organise raw material supplies, production, production schedules and cleaning procedures so as to prevent cross-contamination of|

|products by "foreign" allergens; |

|to train all personnel in an understanding of necessary measures and the reasons for them; |

|to provide appropriate warning, to potential purchasers, of the presence or possible presence of a major allergen in a product; |

|to have in place an appropriate system for recall of any product found to be contaminated but carrying no warning. |

|The problem of food allergens is part of a wider problem, that of all kinds of adverse reactions to foods, which can also result |

|from microbial and chemical food poisoning, psychological aversions and specific non-allergenic responses . Dealing with at least |

|the major serious food allergens is an essential part of Good Manufacturing Practice. |

|  |

BACKGROUND

Food allergy is one major form of adverse reaction to foods. Although other forms of adverse reaction are not the subject of this Position Statement, it is desirable to explain the characteristics distinguishing food allergy from other adverse reactions to foods.

An allergy is an immune response, leading to the formation of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. These, through a series of biochemical reactions, result in the release of histamine, leucotrienes and other substances into the tissues from the body's mast cells, which reside in the eyes, skin, respiratory system and intestinal system. Allergy requires an initial sensitisation which may often occur in childhood. Once sensitised, repeat exposure causes full-blown allergic reaction. Repeat exposure is usually either because the person is unaware of being allergic to a particular substance or because of unawareness of the presence of a known allergic substance. An allergic reaction may be triggered by a minute amount of allergen. Allergic reactions may range from relatively short-lived discomfort to anaphylactic shock and death.

Different people are allergic to different substances e.g. house dust mites, pollen, cat fur, paint, and various foods. An estimate in the UK suggests a total of 15 million sufferers from allergies to various substances (more than 1 in 4 of the population) of which 3 million are allergic to house dust mites.

A food allergy is an immune response to a food or a substance, normally a protein or glycoprotein, in a food naturally, or by contamination, or produced by processing, cooking or digestion.

Many people perceive that they have food allergies; a survey of US households found that 13.9% perceive that one or more household members have food allergies. When specific cases are examined, the incidence is lower, with some 8% of children and 2% of adults exhibiting true allergy (Bush, 1997). This is accounted for by the fact that in some cases childhood allergies disappear as the individuals grow older.

Other adverse reactions to food occur which are not immune responses. These include microbial or chemical food poisoning, and intolerance of specific substances. The mechanisms of the latter adverse reactions are not fully understood but in the acute form tend to be essentially gastrointestinal upsets, usually dependent on the amount of the food consumed, and not normally life-threatening.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS

No form of warning about the presence of an allergen in a food can be effective for an individual unless he or she is aware of the foods or food substances to which he/she is allergic. This information cannot be derived from any source except that individual and his/her medical adviser. People who think that they suffer from a food allergy owe it to themselves to undergo tests to determine if it is a true allergy, and if so, what is the substance that causes it. There are two methods of determining whether a person is allergic to a food or food substance. The first and simpler, is the skin test. The second, more elaborate, but more definitive, is the double-blind, placebo-controlled oral challenge test.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FOOD MANUFACTURERS

This is an extremely complex problem to which there are no cheap or easy solutions. There are few foods or food ingredients to which someone, somewhere, is not allergic, in some cases in very small (microgramme) quantities, but the risk should be treated seriously and safeguarded against by all food manufacturers, retailers and caterers.

While not detracting from the responsibility of sufferers (and their medical advisers) to identify the particular foods or food substances to which they are allergic, there is need for due diligence by manufacturers in considering the use of major serious allergens as ingredients, in warning of the presence or potential presence of such allergens in products, and in preventing adventitious cross-contamination of products with allergens present in other manufactured products. This is not only a duty of care and a due diligence requirement, but an essential means of minimising the risk of being subject to a product liability claim, and the risk of having to recall cross-contaminated products.

As companies now successfully operating such a policy have found, it is far from easy to introduce and implement. The new development of such a policy requires nothing less than a change in the company "culture", an allocation of very substantial funds and resources and a concentrated and sustained effort by everyone led by the Board; and its application and maintenance thereafter requires ongoing effort. That it is possible to achieve has been demonstrated by the development and effective implementation of such a policy by a number of companies.

The first task is to win the understanding and commitment of the Board itself, and that needs both the dedicated effort of a sufficently senior and sufficiently knowledgeable champion and the presentation and adoption of a plan. Part of the work of implementing the plan, however, is the difficult and ongoing task of training all concerned - general managers, buyers, production managers, quality managers, engineers, supervisors, operators, cleaners - to understand the importance of the plan and the need to carry out conscientiously the measures that it contains.

WHICH FOOD ALLERGENS?

Over 170 foods have been documented in the scientific literature as causing allergic reactions. Clearly it would be totally impossible to deal with all of these, and for practical purposes the food manufacturer should concentrate his attention on dealing effectively with "major serious allergens" (MSAs). What does the term signify? It certainly includes the so-called "big eight", namely milk, eggs, soy, wheat, peanuts, shellfish, fruits, and tree nuts, which between them account for the great majority of food allergies (Taylor, 1992). It should also include the so-called "second eight", which includes sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, cottonseed (meal, not oil), poppy seed, molluscs, beans other than green beans, peas, lentils. For present purposes, tartrazine, sulphites and latex should be treated as MSAs. Refined peanut oil peanut oil does not cause allergic reactions in peanut-sensitive subjects, but unrefined peanut oil does (Hourihane et al, 1997) and the latter should be regarded as an MSA. (See, however, Editorial Footnote [1]).

"Dealing effectively" means taking due care to prevent or minimise the avoidable presence of MSAs and warning on the label of the presence of any MSA that is unavoidably present. The "due care" and the label warning are inseparable.

Exercising due care in relation to hazards that can give rise to serious and even life-threatening risks to consumers, means starting with HACCP; not a HACCP separate from that which the manufacturer already exercises to identify hazards and safeguard against risks of a food poisoning or toxicological nature, but a HACCP plan which, as it should, embraces all hazards and thus embraces allergens as well.

This means going back to the sources and handling of ingredients, through all the stages all the way to distribution and retailing. It thus includes examining ingredients suppliers for possibilities of cross-contamination in their operations and requiring them to take appropriate preventive measures.

It also means, if one is using a genetically-modified version of an ingredient that is not normally an MSA, that the manufacturer satisfies himself that his supplier (or his supplier's supplier) has ensured that the genetic modification has not resulted in the acquisition of a allergenic gene.

Existing or proposed new product formulations should be carefully examined to see whether there is a possibility of excluding MSAs. Of course, in many cases an MSA is essential to characterise the food - if one is making peanut butter one cannot exclude peanuts, or if one is selling dairy products one can hardly exclude milk protein. In some cases, however, where MSAs are present as non-characterising ingredients, it may be possible to effect a substitution. Likewise, a similar approach should be made to MSAs in compound ingredients comprising less than 25% of the total weight (and thereby not at present required by UK or EU law to be individually named in the ingredients list). If it is necessary to include an MSA in such a compound ingredient, then the MSA should be named.

The adventitious presence of an MSA in a product may arise in three main ways

• cross-contamination of an ingredient before it is received or after receipt;

• accidental mis-formulation;

• cross-contamination by an MSA from a different product.

Mis-formulation resulting in the inclusion of an MSA (or any other ingredient) not in the product formulation should be prevented by proper attention to the formulation development and control provisions to ensure that the product as prepared contains only the ingredients specified in the formulation.

Cross-contamination of an ingredient or a product by an MSA from a different ingredient or product may arise in storage and handling of raw materials, or during production due to residues in shared equipment, airborne dust, or the improper incorporation of re-work material without consideration of the allergen problem.

It should be emphasised that the importance of prevention of cross-contamination applies not only to a product nominally free from MSAs , but equally to a product containing one or more declared MSAs at risk of cross-contamination with others.

In companies producing on more than one site, or in different buildings on the same site, serious consideration should be given to segregation of materials storage and production. Where this is not possible, separate handling and production equipment should be used if possible.

Where shared production equipment between one or more MSA-free products and an MSA-containing product is unavoidable, the MSA-containing product should be run as the last production of the day, immediately before cleaning; for example, on a shared production line for mixed breakfast cereals, one of which contains nuts, the product containing nuts should be run last. An alternative approach might be to package the nut component separately elsewhere, in sealed pouches, which could then be put into the container, leaving it to the purchaser to mix them in or not, according to personal choice. However, it should be recognised that cleaning afterwards, especially in a plant producing dry products, will not necessarily guarantee against small quantities of trapped material waiting to be "carried over" into the first product to go through thereafter, and segregation may be the only acceptable solution. The same applies to small quantities of MSA in airborne dust.

The incorporation of re-work material in a product cannot in any event legally include any ingredient that is not in that product formulation; compliance with the "nature, substance or quality" provision of the Food Safety Act 1990 should therefore serve to exclude from any product re-work material that may contain an MSA not in the formulation of that product.

LABELLING

Appropriate label warnings to the potential purchaser are necessary. Distinctive labelling cannot encompass every one of the 170+ foods documented as causing allergic reactions (or most food labels would have to carry numerous warnings and all impact would be lost). Nor, most importantly, should label warnings be regarded as obviating the precautionary responsibilities of manufacturers already mentioned.

Labelling deficiencies resulting in allergic reactions may arise

1. because an MSA may be present but not named when in a compound ingredient used below 25%;

2. because a known MSA is not recognised by its designation in an ingredients list, for example, few consumers, knowing that they are allergic to milk protein would realise the significance of "calcium caseinate" in an ingredients list; most people reading "gum base" would not realise that many gum base formulations contain latex; and none would realise that "vegetable oil" comprising or containing unrefined, undeodorised peanut oil or tree-nut oil would be an MSA; and

3. because mention of an MSA is unnoticed due to the smallness of print on many ingredients lists.

To minimise risk there is a clear need to provide some kind of label warning regarding the presence of any of the MSAs. In the first version of this Position Statement in September 1997, the Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST) proposed that, pending any legislation to require this and the format in which warnings should be presented, manufacturers should voluntarily give warning, and suggested an appropriate way in which this should be done. Some weeks later the UK Food Safety Minister (Mr Jeff Rooker, MP) urged manufacturers and retailers to give label warnings, and launched a campaign to raise awareness in the catering industry of severe food allergies.

IFST's proposals were subsequently incorporated into its Good Manufacturing Practice Guide, 4th Edition. Many manufacturers and retailers are now giving such warnings.

Legislation on allergen warnings is likely to develop as a result of the current EU Review of Food Labelling and developments in Codex Alimentarius. The EU Commission has issued a Scientific Co-operation Report on Food Allergy, and an initial draft proposal (III, 5907/97) for amending labelling Directive 79/112/EEC. Codex and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) have been considering the problem, and proposals will be considered at the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting in June/July 1999.

Pending legislation, the IFST recommendations regarding label warnings were, and remain, as follows:

Inclusion of the name of an MSA in an ingredients list should not be regarded as adequate warning. The presence or potential presence of an MSA should be separately stated, in a prominent and easily legible way, where it will clearly be seen by a potential purchaser under normal conditions of display.

Where a product contains one or more MSAs, whether as individual ingredient(s) or as component(s) in a compound ingredient, the presence of the MSA should be stated (for example "Contains PEANUT"). The terminology should be clearly understandable by the lay person. Thus where calcium caseinate is the MSA concerned, the warning should read "Contains MILK PROTEIN". It would be helpful to the purchaser to add to this category of warning the words "to which some people may be allergic".

Where a product nominally free from MSAs is produced on a production line shared with an MSA-containing product a suitable warning might be, for example, "May contain traces of PEANUT". Again the additional words "to which some people may be allergic" would be helpful. However, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that "may contain …." must not be used as a way of evading the responsibility to exercise "all reasonable precautions and all due diligence" to prevent cross-contamination. "May contain" moreover, is a two edged sword. Whereas when used responsibly, it is intended to warn those allergic to the substance referred to of a possible risk, some of the same sufferers tend to regard it as unfairly robbing them of choice.

Where a product nominally free from MSAs is produced in the same factory building as an MSA-containing product, a suitable warning might be, for example, "Produced in a factory where PEANUT is also handled".

It is important that manufacturers apply these label warnings not only to product packs for retail sale, but also to bulk packs for use in catering or in retail delicatessen use.

In making the foregoing recommendations, conscious that under the "QUID" provisions that will apply to certain ingredients, from 14 February 2000, warnings of these kinds could be regarded as special emphasis of the named ingredients and thereby trigger QUID, IFST sought to ensure that exemption from that provision was provided in the case of allergens named as warnings. The final Guidance Notes on QUID, issued on 30 April 1999 by the MAFF/DoH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (JFSSG) provide that exemption (Paragraph 20, seventh bullet point).

Despite the manufacturing precautions outlined above there have had to be numerous product recalls of product batches containing an MSA, whether by mis-formulation or cross-contamination, of which there was no label warning. This has happened in the cases of major companies with well-established practices along the lines stated above. This emphasises the importance of having not only a "belt" but "braces" in the form of a well-organised recall plan that can be quickly and efficiently put into operation should the need arise. It should, of course, go without saying that every manufacturer needs such a plan for any eventualities that require product recall.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF RETAILERS

In the present context, major retailers are manufacturers by proxy. The responsibilities of retailers in respect of own-label pre-packed products are those as if they were themselves the manufacturer. In regard to pre-packed branded products, they need to satisfy themselves that appropriate label warnings are given. However, retailers have special responsibilities in regard to foods that are sold from open containers, e.g. on delicatessen counters. When such foods contain MSAs, the warnings should be clearly displayed by the foods in question. Moreover staff must be trained to take great care to avoid cross-contamination, e.g. that might occur by using the same ladle or other handling equipment for a food containing an MSA and one that does not contain it.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CATERERS

Reference has already been made to the responsibility of individuals with an allergy to find out to what substance(s) they are allergic. Only then can they make use of warning information. This also applies when eating food prepared by others.

For the purpose of this Position Statement, catering may be viewed as a particular kind of manufacture with added complications. In general, the principles referred to for product formulation and avoidance of cross-contamination by manufacturers apply equally to caterers; and similar warnings should be given adjacent to appropriate items on menus or self-service display notices.

In some large restaurant chains, the expertise exists to do this, and their buying power enables them to lay down specifications and monitor performance of ingredient suppliers; but many small catering outlets have neither that expertise nor buying power. Label warnings on bulk packs supplied by manufacturers for catering use may be of some help.

An additional problem arises, however, in an establishment where a chef has a free hand in creating dishes. It is important, therefore, that chefs are given training in recognition of MSAs, the principles of minimising risk in respect of MSAs and the need to notify any use of allergens, including their use in ways that might go unnoticed by others, for example use of an egg glaze on pastry.

Throughout catering, the main allergen cross-contamination problem is that of cross-contamination by the common use of equipment such as ladles, which inevitably happens in busy kitchens despite admonitions to the contrary.

In parts of the catering field, such as aircraft in-flight meals in economy class (where there is normally neither printed menu nor display) the problem of giving adequate warnings is far more difficult to solve. The same applies to the multiplicity of small cafes, where, in addition, many proprietors would not have sufficient knowledge to know what warnings to give.

With in-flight meals, the problem is compounded by having to deal with a tray containing several components (starter, main course, dessert, roll/bun and butter, cheese). Moreover, it is not like a situation where someone who is, for example, allergic to soya can look at the label of a food product before purchase, find a soya warning and decide not to purchase.

Aircraft meals are prepared in so-called "central kitchens" which are really factories manufacturing short-life high risk ready meals under stringent conditions of hygiene, and have technical managers with the expertise to deal with the minimisation of unnecessary MSAs in recipes, monitoring of their suppliers, prevention of cross-contamination and provision of warning information. One solution would be for the central kitchen to provide a menu (which could be just a sheet of paper), with each item carrying a warning of any MSAs present, and cabin staff distributing this to passengers in advance of meal selection. Another solution could depend on cabin staff being provided with such an annotated menu list and passengers being asked on the address system "If you have a food allergy, please tell the cabin staff what you are allergic to and they will be able tell you if that is present in any part of the meals available".

The situation is very different in small cafes (or in many larger restaurants), and street vendors. For the allergy sufferer to say "I am allergic to X. Is there any X in dish Y?" may or may not produce an accurate answer where the allergen is very obvious as a direct component of the dish, but is most unlikely to do so where X is a sub-component in, say, a sauce or a soup. Furthermore the question may well be put to a transient low-paid employee whose first language may, anyway, not be the language in which the question is put.

Some allergy sufferers conclude that the only solution for them is "never eat out". But that does not address the needs of those who do. It is difficult to provide a ready solution, but it is important to draw attention to the nature of the problem.

The circumstances and raison d'étre of the Databank have changed since its inception in 1987. The current Databank is under review and proposals are awaited on how to improve it for the future.

NOVEL FOODS, INCLUDING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

Although there are no inherent grounds for assuming that genetically-modified or other novel foods are more - or less - allergenic than traditional foods, among other food safety aspects to which attention must be paid when introducing novel foods or developing genetically modified foods is the need to be careful that allergenicity is not introduced into the diet by a novel food, or transferred into a genetically modified food or ingredient. This requires assessment of the allergenicity of a new protein, by predictive methods, experimental testing and a post-marketing surveillance based on traceability.

During an experimental programme to modify soya (not the highly-publicised "roundup-ready" modification), scientists at University of Nebraska found that the experimental modified soya contained a known proteinaceous allergen from brazil nuts (Nordlee et al, 1995c). The seed company concerned (Pioneer Hi-Bred) reported these findings publicly and discontinued the brazil nut/soybean development programme.

This represents a straightforward case of preventing the introduction of a known allergen. The testing of genetically modified products for suspected allergens can be done by an IgE test with serum from sensitive individuals [e.g. Herian et al (1990)]. However, there is also a need to test products where genes have been inserted from sources not known to be allergenic. Astwood et al (1996) have developed a method. Stability of a protein or protein fragments to digestion in simulated gastric fluid (SGF) may be used to assess the potential allergenicity of a protein.

"FOOD INTOLERANCE" DATABANK

In the UK, the Leatherhead Food Research Association maintains a Food Intolerance Databank, established some years ago, accessible by doctors and dietitians. This contains information, provided by some food manufacturers, of their products which do not contain specific substances, including some of the MSAs. Thus a person with an allergy may obtain, in those cases only, through his/her doctor or dietitian, a list of products which do not contain the substance to which he/she is allergic. Useful though this continues to be, it has limitations (of no help at all when eating out in catering establishments, or in the immediacy of encountering new food products when shopping). It does not obviate the need for manufacturers and caterers to pursue the measures outlined above. Indeed, the inclusion of a product in the database makes it all the more crucial for the manufacturer concerned to adopt stringent measures and procedures to prevent mis-formulation or cross-contamination of the food concerned.

The circumstances and raison d'étre of the Databank have changed since its inception in 1987. The current Databank is under review and proposals are awaited on how to improve it for the future.

RESEARCH

In the UK, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) set up a Food Intolerance Research Programme in 1994 focussing on the causes and mechanisms of food intolerance and food allergy.

An expert sub-group of the Department of Heath Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has been studying the problem and has issued some recommendations intended to reduce the incidence of peanut allergy.

One potential research area is to develop hypoallergenic versions of food substances that are allergenic, notably (for obvious reasons) in Japan to develop hypoallergenic rice (by enzymatic treatment, Watanabe et al, 1990) and transgenic rice with a low allergen content (Matsuda and Nakamura, 1993).

Any measures to minimise the adverse effects of allergenicity can,only alleviate matters in limited areas and in limited ways. Any prospect of overcoming allergenicity must lie in the direction of "switching off" or blocking the reaction by which the immune system recognises the allergenic substance as an invader and reacts by generating the antibodies that cause the release of histamines..

One research programme in this direction is reported to be proceeding at Imperial College, London (Leake, 1997). Researchers have developed and are testing a "smart" vaccine, a single injection of which would provide permanent protection against the effect of numerous substances that make allergy victims ill. The vaccine is said to re-programme the immune system to block the biochemical processes that lead to release of histamines causing allergic reactions. The vaccine is reported to be composed of genetically-modified bacteria.

[pic]

Editorial footnotes

Before issue, IFST draft Information Statements go through a vetting procedure by the Technical & Legislative Committee and the Public Affairs Committee, to ensure that the contents are scientifically valid, entirely objective and suitable to be issued in the name of the Institute. As this work is being done by volunteer members as a spare-time activity, there are obvious limitations on the frequency with which such procedure can be invoked.

New research findings and new interpretations in food science and technology proliferate at an increasing rate, especially in "hot topic" areas. As an interim means of providing additional up-to-date information to visitors to our Web site, the device of "Editorial Footnotes" is being adopted. These are written by the IFST Web Editor, in consultation with other members of the relevant drafting team, and are provisional.

[pic]

Editorial Footnote [1] dated 26 September 1999 Oils derived from MSAs.

[pic]

KEY REFERENCES

Astwood J D et al (1996) "Stability of food allergens to digestion in vitro", Nature Biotechnology, 14, 1269-1273.

Blanchfield J R, Ed. (1998) Food and Drink -- Good Manufacturing Practice: A Guide to its Responsible Management, 4th Edn. IFST, 1998.

Bush R K (1997) Paper presented at the Institute of Food Technologists Meeting, June 1997.

Department of Health (1998) Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), "Peanut Allergy".

EU Commission (1998) Draft proposal III/5909/97 (16 January 1998) to amend Directive 79/112.

EU Commission (1998) Scientific Co-operation on Questions Relating to Food. Task 7.2 "Consideration of the epidemiological basis for appropriate measures for the protection of public health in respect of food allergy", 26 May 1998.

Herian A M et al (1990) "Identification of soybean allergens by immunoblotting in sera from soy-allergic adults", Int. Arch. Allergy Appl. Immunol., 92, 193-198.

Hourihane J O et al (1997) "Randomised, double blind, crossover challenge study of allergenicity of peanut oils in subjects allergic to peanuts", British Medical Journal, 314, 12 April 1997, 1084-8.

Kimber I et al (1997) "Allergenicity of proteins" Human Exp Toxicol, 16, 516-518

Leake J (1997) Sunday Times, 12 January 1997.

Matsuda T and Nakamura R, (1993) "Molecular structure and immunological properties of food allergens", Trends in Food Science & Technology, 4(9), 289-293.

Metcalfe D D et al (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically-engineered crops", Crit Rev Fd Sci Nutr, 36, S165-S186.

Nordlee J A et al (1995a) "Immunological analysis of food allergens and other food proteins", Food Technology, 49(2), 129-132.

Nordlee et al (1995b) "Anaphylaxis from undeclared walnut in commercially processed cookies", J. Allergy Clin. Immunol., 91, 154.

Nordlee J A et al (1995c) "Identification of Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans", New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 688-692.

Taylor S L (1992) "Chemistry and detection of food allergens", Food Technology, 46(5), 146-152.

Taylor S L and Nordlee J A (1996) "Detection of Food Allergens", Food Technology, 50(5), 231-234 + 238.

Teuber S S et al (1997) "Allergenicity of gourmet nut oils processed by different methods", J Allergy Clin. Immunol, 99 (4), 502-7, April 1997.

Wal, J M and Pascal G (1998) "Benefits and limits of different approaches for assessing the allergenic potential of novel foods", Allergy, 53, (suppl 46), 98-101.

Watanabe M et al (1990) "Production of hypoallergenic rice by enzymatic decomposition of constituent proteins" , Journal of Food Science, 55, 781-783.

[pic]

OTHER READING

Food Allergy Issues for the Food Industry (1997), Ed. M Lessof. Leatherhead Food Research Association.

Food Allergens Advice Notes (1998). Food and Drink Federation, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Division.

[pic]

USEFUL CONTACTS

The British Allergy Foundation

Deepdene House

30 Bellgrove Road

Welling, Kent DA16 3PY

Tel: +44 (0)20 8303 8575

Fax: +44 (0)20 8303 8792

Helpline: +44 (0)181 303 8583

e-mail: allergybaf@

Web site:

The British Dietetic Association

7th Floor, Elizabeth House

22 Suffolk Street, Queensway

Birmingham B1 1LS

Tel: +44 (0)121 643 5483

Fax: +44 (0)121 633 4399

The Anaphylaxis Campaign

PO Box 275

Farnborough, Hants GU14 6XX

Tel: +44 (0)1252 542029

Fax: +44 (0)1252 377140

e-mail: info@.uk

Web site:

The National Asthma Campaign

Providence Place, London N1 0NT

Tel: +44 (0)20 7226 2260

A useful Web site is The Food Allergy Network which includes details of a number of useful US contacts.

[pic]

Return to the top of this page

[pic]

See also other IFST current hot topics

[pic]

The Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST) is the independent professional qualifying body for food scientists and technologists. It is totally independent of government, of industry, and of any lobbying groups or special interest groups. Its professional members are elected by virtue of their academic qualifications and their relevant experience, and their signed undertaking to comply with the Institute's ethical Code of Professional Conduct. They are elected solely in their personal capacities and in no way representing organisations where they may be employed. They work in a variety of areas, including universities and other centres of higher education, research institutions, food and related industries, consultancy, food law enforcement authorities, and in government departments and agencies. The nature of the Institute and the mixture of these backgrounds on the working groups drafting IFST Information Statements, and on the two Committees responsible for finalising and approving them, ensure that the contents are entirely objective. IFST recognises that research is constantly bringing new knowledge. However, collectively the profession is the repository of existing knowledge in its field. It includes researchers expanding the boundaries of knowledge and experts seeking to apply it for the public benefit.

Its purposes are

(1) to serve the public interest by furthering the application of science and technology to all aspects of the supply of safe, wholesome, nutritious and attractive food, nationally and internationally;

(2) to advance the standing of food science and technology, both as a subject and as a profession;

(3) to assist members in their career and personal development within the profession;

(4) to uphold professional standards of competence and integrity

[pic]

The Institute takes every possible care in compiling, preparing and issuing the information contained in IFST Information Statements, but can accept no liability whatsoever in connection with them. Nothing in them should be construed as absolving anyone from complying with legal requirements. They are provided for general information and guidance and to express expert interpretation and opinion, on important food-related issues.

[pic]

Please note that the IFST Office is solely administrative, and cannot deal with any enquiries for technical information or advice.

[pic]

Return to the top of this page

[pic]

Go or return to Food Safety FAQs

[pic]

Any difficulties in navigating the IFST web, or suggestions for improving it, may be reported to: jralphb@easynet.co.uk

[pic]

Find out still more about IFST [pic]back to IFST home page [pic]

This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1997-99 by the Institute of Food Science & Technology, 5 Cambridge Court, 210 Shepherd's Bush Road, London W6 7NJ, UK.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download