Centre for Chronic Disease, College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Centre for Food & Allergy Research, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2017 Jul;47(7):961-968. doi: 10.1111/cea.12923. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
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.
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.
A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Australasian food and grocery manufacturers.
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.
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.
预防性过敏原标签（PAL）和自愿微量过敏原标签（VITAL）工具是由行业设计的，旨在帮助消费者选择安全的食品。然而，相当一部分食品没有标签，目前尚不清楚这些产品是否不含过敏原，因此是否可以安全食用，或者是否只是因为没有经过风险评估而没有标签。
评估经过风险评估过程的无标签产品的流行程度，并研究影响行业采用 VITAL 过程的因素。
我们向澳大拉西亚的食品和杂货制造商分发了一份网络问卷。
共联系了 137 家澳大拉西亚制造商，其中 59 份问卷（回复率：43%）被退回。受访者代表了 454 个不同的制造地点。制造商报告称，23%（95%置信区间 19-28）经过 VITAL 风险评估过程的产品（n=102/434）标签上没有 PAL 声明。34%（95%置信区间 30-38），（n=204/600）经过另一种（非 VITAL）风险评估过程的产品标签上没有 PAL 声明。在研究影响行业采用 VITAL 过程的因素时，有 25 家制造商报告了影响 VITAL 过程采用的因素，76%（95%置信区间 55-91）的制造商报告说，VITAL 是一种有效的工具，因为它是基于科学的；52%（95%置信区间 31-72）的制造商报告说，它太耗时，36%（95%置信区间 18-57）的制造商则认为它没有得到政府的认可。
目前，我们估计至少有 30%的产品可能已经经过风险评估过程，但标签上没有 PAL 声明。如果这些产品被评估为安全可食用，可以在这些产品上使用许可标签。
