[Food Allergies] The Label: The Holy Grail

One of the greatest frustrations for those impacted by food allergies is the number and ambiguity of precautionary labels used by manufacturers. While the intention of the various versions of “may contain” was intended to protect the consumer, too often it seems they are being used to protect against liability for the processor. Such a perception is further heightened by labels such as that appearing on a jar of peanuts which includes the statement “may contain peanuts” or “product is manufactured in a plant that also produces [allergen]”; as well as the lack of consistency in the statements in general.

“The holy grail of avoidance is the food label,” said Anne Munoz-Furlong, founder of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN). “There’s a partnership of trust that has to be there, and the proliferation of these [precautionary] labels is eroding that.”

One of the most difficult aspects, she said, is the constant change of labels. The food-allergic shopper must read the product label every time. Nothing else on the package may have changed, but the product might now have a “may contain” statement that it did not have the week before. “It’s like playing Russian Roulette every time they go to the store.”

“The label might have changed from one week to the next,” Gilman agreed. “You probably should never trust a package two weeks in a row.” Thus the Gilman motto is to read packages according to “the Sam rule.” That is, he said, reading from bottom to top, from back to front. This is particularly crucial because the only option for those with food allergies is complete avoidance, so even a chance of allergen presence can be life threatening.

In the U.S. alone, there are more than 30 versions of precautionary allergen statements, Munoz-Furlong said. “How do you define what is real and what is not?”

In September, 2008, FDA held a public hearing on the use of advisory (“May Contain”) labeling. The agency is working to develop a long-term strategy to help manufacturers use the statements in a clear and consistent manner, so food-allergic consumers and their caregivers can be adequately informed as to the potential presence of major allergens.

In the FAAN response, Munoz-Furlong explained a key issue as being that there are no universally accepted guidelines for the use of precautionary allergen labeling. While some companies say they put these statements on all products to limit their liability, others carefully consider their use and restrict it when possible. But consumers have no way of deciphering liability- vs. risk-driven messages or policies. As a result, she said, “Consumers are taking risks by ignoring these statements thinking that the risks are the same for each company and/or advisory statement.”

A FAAN study tracking purchases of foods with precautionary labels between 2003 and 2006 found that consumers are increasingly ignoring “may contain” labeling. “What the industry has done by overusing these labels is to set it up so the consumer is taking risks and unknowingly putting themselves at risk for having a reaction,” Munoz-Furlong said. “And when we say ‘the consumer,’ we’re talking about kids.”

Teens are the most likely group to ignore a non-specific label, the study also found. This puts them at the greatest risk for a severe reaction, but it's because, Munoz-Furlong said, “that’s the group that wants to be just like everyone else.”

Sam’s family has developed additional trust in some brands, but they do avoid all foods that say “may contain,” Gilman said. But the proliferation of that labeling adds unnecessary restrictions to Sam’s already restricted food choices. “After a while you get to a state of management, but you never let down your guard.”

What can the industry do? “We understand that there will always be a role for ‘may contain’ statements, but we know they’re being overused,” Munoz-Furlong said. Instead of using the labels as protection against liability, do what needs to be done in the plant to fix the cross-contact  potential.

When it is necessary to use precautionary labeling, walk a day in the shoes of the food-allergic consumer. Read the labels you use and ensure they are needed and they are clear.

Understanding the importance of the bottom line for any business, manufacturers should also know the sales impact of a “may contain” statement. One in every 25 persons has a food allergy; for each of those persons, the entire family tries to avoid the food, which increases the market impact three to four times.

Add to that the research findings that the prevalence of food-allergies has been increasing in recent years and tack on the impact of avoidance by an entire classroom of children for each  food-allergic child, and there is no question a manufacturer’s sales will be impacted by a simple “may contain” statement.

In the FAAN FDA statement, Munoz-Furlong noted that consumers want clarity on what the statements mean; reliable information that is accurate and intended to protect them — not the manufacturer; standardized placement on products; and a limited number of statements.

Simply stated, she said, “We want to be able to trust the label.”