More and more people are becoming allergic or intolerant to certain foods. Industry and the food and beverage industry work hard to protect consumers, but applicable labels and regulations are not always sufficient to provide or warrant an adequate degree of protection. We spoke with Susanna Neuhold, Food Manager of the Italian Celiac Society, to understand where the potential dangers for celiac patients (and others) come from and how we can improve to reduce the risks.
A Member of Parliament recently asked the European Commission to introduce a special statement: “May contain gluten”. How do you evaluate this offer?
We appreciated this and have been dealing with this issue for many years. This is a loophole in EU legislation. The regulation in force dating back to 2011 provided that the entry of this phrase is regulated as an allergen content declaration obligation. We waited but he did not come. We are therefore considering actions in collaboration with our European Federation, ie the European Association of Celiac Disease Societies, to develop a strategic plan to ensure this statement is introduced. Given that this aspect is currently not regulated, uncertainties regarding the presence or absence of undeclared gluten remain.
What does this uncertainty entail?
The problem is that EU Regulation 1169/2011 requires that not only gluten-containing cereals, but others, be declared only when added to the product, not in case of risk of contamination of the allergen. This warning is actually widely used by companies today, but is independent of any particular regulation. For this reason, companies often tend to abuse it to protect themselves and cite all allergens no matter what. However, in this way, instead of feeling safe, the consumer does not trust the company and still tends to consume the product.
From where?
There are many studies on the subject in the literature. The consumer is always aware that by seeing all or most of the allergens listed, companies often misuse it and no longer view it as reliable information. A bit like Pierino’s “wolf, wolf”, in the end the consumer no longer believes the company’s warning and feels deprived of any real power of choice. By not trusting, he is exposed to risks, whether he is allergic or simply intolerant.
Returning to celiac disease, how can you improve your relationship with food by adding the phrase “may contain gluten” to the label?
As celiac patients, we already have a special rule that protects us. Thanks to the “gluten-free” designation (valid if there’s less than 20mg of gluten, ed), we can tell which products are actually safe, because those who stick with it have good reason. Also, introducing labeling that only explicitly requires the possibility of declaring gluten will reduce exposure to risks and expand consumers’ options.
Are there already examples of edits that provide this expression?
I remember Russian and Swiss legislation. The latter, in particular, suggests that when following the one in Europe it is necessary to mention the presence of an allergen even in cases where it may be due to a simple suspicion of contamination. Then there are other European countries where manufacturers have already complied with the criteria and threshold limits applicable to the use of the phrase “may contain gluten” but have issued guidelines. In Australia and New Zealand, a special scheme known as Vital has been adopted that helps companies understand when to actually apply this statement to prevent overuse.
Where are we instead in terms of security in catering?
We understand that managing the 14 allergens in a kitchen is more complicated than in a company. It would be useful to intervene at this time with regulations, guidelines and special training. For example, we appreciated the initiative of some regions that require special technical requirements for those who want to offer a structured gluten-free offer.
Which are they?
These are Piedmont, Tuscany, Umbria, Puglia, Basilicata, Liguria and Emilia-Romagna. There’s also Lombardy, who instead guides the checkers, which is a good initiative. In any case, national legislation is desirable.
How do you evaluate the protection offered to celiac patients in general?
While interest in packaged products is very high today, there are still many doubts about the safety of bulk products, even if in some restaurants great attention is paid to customer protection.
What are your recommendations for celiac patients who want to eat outside, in a restaurant or canteen?
First of all, you should ask a lot of questions and when in doubt, you should not eat. Unfortunately, this requires an important and often unpleasant emotional investment for the consumer because it’s almost a “questionnaire” for the restaurateur. The problem is that celiac disease is often talked about inappropriately because people who are not specially trained think they know enough. For example, I think of those who believe that the syllable does not contain gluten. This is not true.
Are there any places you think are “safe”?
The association has compiled a list of 4,000 accredited restaurants. To comply with this, managers are required to follow specific training programs and courses as well as periodic checks. This makes them places that offer special guarantees for celiac patients.
Source: Today IT
Emma Fitzgerald is an accomplished political journalist and author at The Nation View. With a background in political science and international relations, she has a deep understanding of the political landscape and the forces that shape it.
