Utrecht Institute for Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Department of Dermatology/ Allergology and Center for Translational Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2021 Oct;51(10):1374-1382. doi: 10.1111/cea.13975. Epub 2021 Jul 20.
Understanding consumers' interpretation of allergy information is crucial for effective food safety policies. We evaluated consumer understanding of allergy information on foods in controlled, experimental studies.
Using 18 packaged foods, we evaluated consumer understanding of information about allergens in two experiments: First, a comparison of foods with no stated allergen versus allergen as a stated ingredient versus a precautionary allergen label (PAL); second, a comparison of three common variants of PAL. In each experiment, consumers with and without self-reported food allergy were asked to estimate the risk of allergic reaction and to rate the comprehensibility of the allergen information. In the second experiment, consumers were also asked which form of PAL they preferred.
Risk of reaction was assessed as high and low for foods with the allergen stated as ingredient, or without any mention of allergen. However, risk assessment for PAL varied and was judged as higher by non-allergic than allergic participants (82% vs. 58%, p < .001). Understanding of risk associated with PAL also varied by health literacy (p < .001). Both allergic and non-allergic consumers judged all forms of allergy information to be unclear, especially products with no allergy information for non-allergic consumers. Products with a 'Produced in a Factory' PAL were perceived as less risky than 'May contain' or 'Traces of' PALs (p < .001), less than 40% of participants judged PAL information to be comprehensible, and participants preferred 'May contain' over the other PALs.
Both allergic and non-allergic consumers find allergen information difficult to interpret on packaged foods and misunderstand PAL, incorrectly distinguishing different risk levels for different PAL wording. Clearer allergy information guidelines are called for, and the use of only one PAL wording is recommended.
理解消费者对过敏信息的解读对于制定有效的食品安全政策至关重要。我们在受控的实验研究中评估了消费者对食品中过敏信息的理解。
使用 18 种包装食品，我们在两项实验中评估了消费者对过敏原信息的理解：首先，比较未声明过敏原的食品与声明过敏原作为成分的食品，以及声明过敏原标签（PAL）的食品；其次，比较三种常见的 PAL 变体。在每项实验中，有和没有自我报告食物过敏的消费者都被要求估计过敏反应的风险，并对过敏原信息的可理解性进行评分。在第二项实验中，消费者还被要求选择他们更喜欢哪种形式的 PAL。
对于声明过敏原作为成分的食品或没有任何过敏原提及的食品，消费者评估的反应风险为高或低。然而，PAL 的风险评估因消费者而异，非过敏参与者认为风险更高（82%比 58%，p<0.001）。与健康素养相关的对 PAL 风险的理解也不同（p<0.001）。过敏和非过敏消费者都认为所有形式的过敏信息都不清楚，尤其是对非过敏消费者而言，没有任何过敏信息的产品。带有“在工厂生产”PAL 的产品被认为比“可能含有”或“微量含有”PAL 的产品风险更小（p<0.001），不到 40%的参与者认为 PAL 信息可理解，参与者更喜欢“可能含有”而不是其他 PAL。
过敏和非过敏消费者都发现包装食品上的过敏原信息难以理解，并且误解 PAL，错误地区分了不同 PAL 措辞的不同风险水平。需要更清晰的过敏信息指南，建议只使用一种 PAL 措辞。
