Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 55–59 | Cite as

Food allergy and the food industry

  • Susan L. Hefle
  • Steve L. Taylor


Although most food-allergic reactions occur after ingestion of nonpackaged food products, the food industry has been subjected to increasing scrutiny of their allergen controls; the resulting impact on the industry has been remarkable. Undeclared food allergens have been responsible for many food product recalls during the past 13 years, and the food industry has made significant investment, effort, and improvements in allergen control during this time. Recently, tests for some allergenic foods have been commercialized, and proven useful to the industry in controlling allergens and helpful for regulatory agencies investigating food-allergic consumer complaints. However, testing methods still do not exist for some of the common allergenic foods. Labeling initiatives have been pursued to make ingredient listings more easily understood by food-allergic consumers, but further improvements could still be made. Additional research to determine eliciting doses for allergenic foods is needed to enable science-based risk assessment and risk management.


Food Allergy Allergy Clin Immunol Allergenic Food Good Manufacturing Practice Shared Equipment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA: Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to foods. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001, 107:191–193. This paper describes a series of 32 fatal food anaphylaxis reactions and shows which foods were responsible. There are several interesting findings in this paper, such as most individuals had asthma, the lack of availability of epinephrine appeared to be a factor, and peanuts and tree nuts were responsible for more than 90% of the fatal reactions. This is the most comprehensive study of fatal food-induced anaphylactic reactions to date.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Report of the FAO Technical Consultation on Food Allergies. Rome, Italy. November 13–14. 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deibel K, Trautman T, deBoom T, et al.: A comprehensive approach to reducing the risk of allergens in foods. J Food Prot 1997, 60:426–441.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huggett AC, Hischenhuber C: Food manufacturing initiatives to protect the allergic consumer. Allergy 1998, 53(Suppl 46):89–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vierk K, Falci K, Wolyniak C, Klontz KC: Recalls of foods containing undeclared allergens reported to the US Food and Drug Administration, fiscal year 1999. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002, 109:1022–1026. In this paper, the US Food and Drug Administration food product recalls due to undeclared food allergens are summarized. Factors contributing to the recalls are discussed, and the circumstances under which many of the problems were discovered are indicated.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holzhauser T, Vieths S: Quantitative sandwich ELISA for determination of traces of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) protein in complex food matrixes. J Agric Food Chem 1999, 47:4209–4218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koppelman SJ, Knulst AC, Koers WJ, et al.: Comparison of different immunochemical methods for the detection and quantification of hazelnut proteins in food products. J Immunol Met 1999, 229:107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niemann L, Hefle SL: Validated ELISA for detection of undeclared walnut residues in food. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003, 111:S248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hlywka JJ, Hefle SL, Taylor SL: A sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of almonds in foods. J Food Prot 2000, 63:252–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wensing M, Koppelman SJ, Penninks AH, et al.: Hidden hazelnut is a threat to allergic patients. Allergy 2001, 56:191–192. This article describes the investigation of allergic reactions in a hazelnutallergic patient that was eventually traced to a chocolate spread that was not supposed to contain hazelnut. Immunochemical analysis assisted in the identification of the unexpected source of reactions.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hefle SL, Jeanniton E, Taylor SL: Development of a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of egg residues in processed foods. J Food Prot 2001, 64:1812–1816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yeung JM: Determination of egg proteins in food products by enzyme immunoassay. J AOAC Int 2000, 83:139–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vadas P, Perelman B: Presence of undeclared peanut protein in chocolate bars purchased in the Toronto area. Can J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001, 6:116–117. This paper focuses on an investigation of six different chocolate products obtained from the retail marketplace in Canada and tested using a commercial peanut detection ELISA kit. The data show undeclared peanut in some products.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallett R, Haapanen LA, Teuber SS: Food allergies and kissing. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:1833–1834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simonte SJ, Ma S, Mofidi S, Sicherer SH: Relevance of casual contact with peanut butter in children with peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003, 112:180–182. This article indicates that allergic reactions are not elicited by merely the smell of peanut butter.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor SL, Hefle SL, Bindslev-Jensen C, et al.: Factors affecting the determination of threshold doses for allergenic foods: How much is too much? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002, 109:24–30. The existing information in medical literature on minimum eliciting doses of allergenic foods is examined, and key issues in making riskmanagement decisions on the basis of such information are identified. A good description of most of the issues surrounding eliciting dose studies is provided, and some lowest provoking dose data are summarized from the literature.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laoprasert N, Wallen ND, Jones RT, et al.: Anaphylaxis in a milk-allergic child following ingestion of milk-contaminated lemon sorbet. J Food Prot 1998, 61:1522–1524.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joshi P, Mofidi S, Sicherer SH: Interpretation of commercial food ingredient labels by parents of food-allergic children. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002, 109:1019–1021. Given the current labeling regulations, many parents of food-allergic children cannot correctly identify some allergenic foods in ingredient listings.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor SL, Hefle SL: Food Allergy Issues Alliance and food allergen labeling guidelines. Food Allergy Intolerance 2002, 3:37–42.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor SL, Hefle SL: Good manufacturing practices for allergenic foods: packaging and labeling strategies. Food Allergy Intolerance 2001, 2:53–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan L. Hefle
    • 1
  • Steve L. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Food Allergy Research and Resource ProgramUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations