Premium
Perceptions of precautionary labelling among parents of children with food allergy and anaphylaxis
Author(s) -
Zurzolo Giovanni A,
Koplin Jenifer J,
Mathai Michael L,
Tang Mimi K L,
Allen Katrina J
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/mja12.11669
Subject(s) - anaphylaxis , labelling , food allergy , allergy , environmental health , food hypersensitivity , medicine , perception , immunology , psychology , criminology , neuroscience
Objective: To examine the behaviour and perception of parents of food‐allergic children with and without a history of anaphylaxis in relation to precautionary labelling on packaged foods and to understand consumersˈ perception of the “may be present” statement advocated by VITAL (voluntary incidental trace allergen labelling). Design, setting and participants: Questionnaire‐based study of parents of a consecutive series of 497 children who attended the Department of Allergy and Immunology at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, from 1 August to 31 October 2011, of whom 293 met our criteria of having an existing medically diagnosed food allergy, and of whom 246 had enough information provided to be included in our analysis. Main outcome measures: Parentsˈ responses about their behaviour and perceptions relating to precautionary food labels, and a comparison between parents of children with a past history of anaphylaxis and those with a past history of mild to moderate IgE allergic reactions. Results: Avoidance of foods with precautionary labels differed depending on the wording of the precautionary statement, with 74 parents (65%) ignoring the statement “made in the same factory” compared with 24 (22%) for “may be present”. There was no evidence of a difference in participantsˈ behaviour or perceptions depending on whether or not their child had a history of anaphylaxis. Conclusions: Consumers are choosing a gradient level of risk based on the wording of the precautionary statements and appear to be complacent about precautionary labelling. Many statements are now being disregarded by a sizeable proportion of parents of food‐allergic children, including those caring for children with a past history of anaphylaxis. This may be due to inadequacies in food labelling legislation. Policies that promote greater clarity and consistent use of precautionary statements may help to deal with this complacency.