Precautionary Allergen Labeling: Avoidance for All?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) suggests the risk of unintended allergen presence (UAP) in food but is unregulated in most countries and inconsistently applied by food manufacturers. This review evaluates the current use of PAL, its relevance to allergic consumers, and weighs possible advantages and disadvantages of avoiding products with PAL. RECENT FINDINGS: In most countries, manufacturers are free to decide whether, when, and how to apply PAL resulting in inconsistencies and consumer confusion. Patients with food allergy often interpret PAL incorrectly and without guidance from their health care providers. Health care providers are also prone to misinterpreting PAL, indicating a need for better education. Consumers desire guidance on whether to avoid products with PAL or not. Until further regulatory guidance is available, shared decision-making between patient and provider is required to offer individualized, rather than one-size-fits-all, approaches to PAL.

Dietary Management of Food Allergy.

Worldwide food allergy prevalence is increasing, especially in children. Food allergy management strategies include appropriate avoidance measures and identifying suitable alternatives for a nutritionally sound diet. Individualized dietary intervention begins teaching label reading, which differs among countries or regions. Dietary intervention must result in a nutritionally sound plan including alternatives to support optimal growth and development. Inappropriate or incomplete dietary advice may increase the risk of adverse reactions, growth faltering, and nutrient deficiencies. Evidence indicates input from a registered dietitian improves nutritional outcomes. Nutritional input plays a critical role managing nutritional disorders related to food allergy.

Threshold dose for peanut: risk characterization based upon published results from challenges of peanut-allergic individuals.

Population thresholds for peanut are unknown. However, lowest- and no-observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs and NOAELs) are published for an unknown number of peanut-allergic individuals. Publications were screened for LOAELs and NOAELs from blinded, low-dose oral challenges. Data were obtained from 185 peanut-allergic individuals (12 publications). Data were analyzed by interval-censoring survival analysis and three probability distribution models fitted to it (Log-Normal, Log-Logistic, and Weibull) to estimate the ED(10). All three models described the data well and provided ED(10)'s in close agreement: 17.6, 17.0, and 14.6 mg of whole peanut for the Log-Normal, Log-Logistic, and Weibull models, respectively. The 95% lower confidence intervals for the ED(10)'s were 9.2, 8.1, and 6.0mg of whole peanut for the Log-Normal, Log-Logistic, and Weibull models, respectively. The modeling of individual NOAELs and LOAELs identified from three different types of published studies - diagnostic series, threshold studies, and immunotherapy trials - yielded significantly different whole peanut ED(10)'s of 11.9 mg for threshold studies, 18.0mg for diagnostic series and 65.5mg for immunotherapy trials; patient selection and other biases may have influenced the estimates. These data and risk assessment models provide the type of information that is necessary to establish regulatory thresholds for peanut.