These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry.
    Author: Zurzolo GA, Peters RL, Koplin JJ, de Courten M, Mathai ML, Tye-Din JA, Tang MLK, Campbell DE, Ponsonby AL, Prescott SL, Gurrin L, Dharmage SC, Allen KJ.
    Journal: Clin Exp Allergy; 2017 Jul; 47(7):961-968. PubMed ID: 28295718.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL® ) tools were designed by industry to assist consumers with selecting safe foods for consumption. However, a sizeable proportion of food products bear no label, and it is unclear whether these products are free from allergens and therefore safe to consume or have simply not undergone a risk assessment and therefore remain unlabelled for that reason. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of unlabelled products that have undergone a risk assessment process and to examine the factors influencing industry's uptake of the VITAL® process. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven Australasian manufacturers were contacted, and 59 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 43%). The respondents represented 454 different manufacturing sites. Manufacturers reported that 23% (95% CI 19-28) of products (n=102/434) that had been through the VITAL® risk assessment process had no PAL statement on the label. 34% (95% CI 30-38), (n=204/600) of products that had undergone another (non-VITAL® ) risk assessment process had no PAL statement. In examining the factors that influenced industry's uptake of the VITAL® process, 25 manufacturers reported on factors that influenced the uptake of the VITAL® process, 76% (CI 95% 55-91) reported that VITAL® was an effective tool because it was based on science; 52% (CI 95% 31-72) reported that it was too time-consuming and 36% (CI 95% 18-57) identified a concern with it not being endorsed by the government. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Currently, we estimate that at least 30% of products may have been through a risk assessment process and yet bear no PAL statement on the label. Permissive labelling could be incorporated onto these products if they have been assessed to be safe for consumption.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]