The dangers of so-called dairy-free ice cream

There has long been a disconnect between terminology used by ‘experts’ and common parlance and for the most part this is a matter for humour rather than concern. But occasionally the disconnect can lead to confusion which can not only be dangerous but life threatening – and such is the case in the allergy world.

The term ‘allergy’ itself is interpreted very differently by the medical profession and the average man or woman in the street (more of this anon…) but ‘drilling down’ to specific allergies, the situation just become muddier. Take ‘dairy-free’, highlighted with reference to ‘ice cream’, on page 7 of  the Food Standards Agency’s most recent newsletter.

To the average punter – well certainly to me – ‘dairy-free’ would suggest free of the milk of all animals. No particularly good reason, but it just seems logical. But no, ‘dairy free’ only refers to cow’s milk  – so goat’s milk or buffalo milk is, technically ‘dairy-free’ even though it may have been ‘milked’ in a dairy… This could have implications for someone who was allergic to all animal milks (a not uncommon situation) but did not realise that a product marked ‘dairy free’ might contain goat, sheep or buffalo milk to which they could also react.

And then there is ‘milk’. To most people, milk is white and liquid and goes on cereals and in your tea. Whether it comes from a cow, a goat, a soya bean, an oat or a coconut, it looks the same and is, largely, used for the same purpose. So, would not the simplest way to differentiate between the different ‘milks’ be to require that they specify their origin e.g. cow’s milk, goat’s milk, soya milk, oat milk etc – which is how they are referred to in common parlance anyhow. But no. The term ‘milk’ can only be used in reference to the milk of mammals – cows, goats, camels, humans etc. ‘Milk’ made from anything else (a bean, a nut, a hemp seed) has to be referred to as a ‘dairy-free alternative to milk’ or as an almond or soya ‘drink’. Clumsy and inelegant as this may be, it does at least describe what is in the pack. But the situation with ‘ice cream’ is more risky.

As with milk, to the average punter an ice cream is a sweet food that is creamy and frozen, whether it is made from cow’s milk/cream, goat’s milk, soya, coconut or, as is the case with many of the cheaper ice creams, mainly from vegetable fats. They recognise the concept rather than the ingredients. So surely, as with milk, the trick would be to require the manufacturer to specify the origin of the product – cow’s milk ice cream, goat’s milk ice cream, soya ice cream, rice-based ice cream. But no – the term ‘ice cream’ can only, according to the Food Labelling Regulation 1996, be used for a product which contains a minimum of 2.5% milk protein. So no matter how creamy, decadent and delicious ‘alternative ice creams’ may be, they all have to be called ‘frozen desserts’ or ‘dairy-free frozen desserts’ (both of which could equally well refer to a cheesecake) or opt for some way out and totally unhelpful name such as BoojaBooja’s ‘Stuff in a Tub’.

Again, this is clunky and irritating but relatively harmless. Much less so is the possibility, highlighted by the FSA, that some manufacturers may make frozen ice cream-like products from dairy-free ingredients (such as soya) which would be safe for someone who was allergic/intolerant to animal milks, but include the minimum required amount of dairy protein (2.5%) to be allowed to call them ‘ice creams’ – so marketing them as ‘Dairy-free ice creams’.  In the extremely unlikely event that you were familiar with the arcane intricacies of labeling law, your antenna would prick up when you saw ‘dairy-free’ and ‘ice cream’ together in the same title, but a ‘normal’ dairy allergic/intolerant person should reasonably expect a product that is labelled ‘dairy free’ to be just that. Yet, 2.5% milk protein in a food could cause a dramatic, potentially even fatal, reaction in someone who was seriously allergic.

Of course it is easy to carp and I am well aware that drawing up these kinds of regulation is a nightmare job but I cannot help feel that, especially in this area, we are making our lives unnecessarily complicated and creating even more unwelcome hazards for those who have a problem with animal milks.

 

FreeFrom Food Seminar

Last week was seriously conference heavy with the Food and Drink Innovation Network‘s seminar on FreeFrom food on Thursday and an excellent conference on electrosensitivity organised by ES-UK (on which, more anon) on Saturday.

I was chairing the FDIN conference at which many of our close colleagues (and some sponsors of this year’s awards) were speakers, so I was particularly pleased that it was very well attended, and that the attendees appeared to find it so useful and enjoyable and that a number of them asked for the subject to be covered again very soon. The FDIN format devotes the morning to an overview of the subject matter of the conference (facts and figures/market research) and any technical stuff that needs to be covered (on this occasion, legislation/regulation for freefrom and the nutritional background) and the afternoon to case studies – all interspersed with ample opportunities for networking.

It was particularly interesting (and gratifying as far as I was concerned) that my overview of where freefrom was going, and could go, tallied almost exactly with the trends identified by Mintel‘s David Jago and by Julia Horlov of McCallum Layton who had done some very interesting qualitative research on people’s attitudes to freefrom and on the experiences of those who need to shop freefrom.

Right at the beginning of her presentation Julia highlit one of the most signficant changes which have occurred over the last five years. To her surprise, when her team went out in the street to talk to people about freefrom, they had absolutely no difficulty in finding people to talk to who either had personal experience of living and shopping freefrom, or who knew someone who had. Five years ago, when I chaired the first freefrom FDIN seminar, the market researchers really struggled to find interviewees and we were finally reduced to calling on volunteers from the subscribers to the Foods Matter magazine.

To, very briefly, cover the trends that we all identified – if you would like to delve more deeply, you can read my overview of the past and future of freefrom here – and all of the other presentations on the FDIN site.

• The freefrom sector is continuing to buck the recession, growing at between 8% and 10% per year.
• While around 10% of the population now buy freefrom because they need to, up to 40%of the population occasionally/regularly buy freefrom because they choose to.
• Although the number of those with a medical condition which requires them to eat ‘freefrom’ (coeliacs, allergics etc) is growing the real expansion in the market has come from those who ‘choose’ to eat freefrom as they perceive gluten-free and dairy-free foods to be healthier/better for them.
• That if the quality and variety of freefrom food and its availability continue to improve as they have done over the last few years, and if the price can be brought more into line with non-freefrom food, there is a good chance that freefrom food could become totally mainstream.
• That there is a huge opportunity for freefrom manufacturers in the catering/food service/restaurant trade. Outlets (restaurants, cafés, pubs, hotels etc) that can offer a good and safe freefrom meal will attract not only the allergic/freefrom customer but the three or four other people that they would be eating with.

The two other fact-finding presentations were from Mike Bromley of FreeFrom Food Awards sponsor, Genon Laboratories and from nutritionist Micki Rose who many will know from her contributions to the FoodsMatter sites.

Mike described the tryingly sparse amount of regulation covering freefrom, flagging up the desperate need of the industry for ‘thresholds’ – the amount of allergen which is going to cause an allergic person to react. As of now, the only allergen for which a ‘threshold’ has been set is gluten – the EU now follows the Codex Alimentarius guidance in setting 20 parts per million as the maximum amount of gluten that a food can contain in order to be called ‘gluten free’. But there is no guidance (because neither scientists nor medic.s have been able to discover what that level is) for milk, nuts, eggs, soy or any of the other major allergens. This makes life very difficult for manufacturers. Mike also described the testing processes and the complexities involved when the allergenicity of an allergen can be affected by whether it is raw or cooked, how it has been cooked and what it has been cooked or processed with….. For example, the allergenicity of nuts could be affected by the fattiness of chocolate and it appears that roasted peanuts may be more allergenic than boiled or raw peanuts.

Micki Rose then set manufacturers a high bar by describing the nourishing, healthy ingredients that she would like to see in freefrom foods (flax seeds, puréed or dried fruits and vegetables, mixed nuts and seeds, coconut and olive oil, arrowroot and potato starch, honey and agave syrup) that would help those who either needed or choose freefrom diets to regain or improve their health.

The afternoon’s freefrom case studies were enlighteningly diverse and gave the audience an excellent overview of how four very different companies had set about the business of making and selling freefrom food.

• Jeremy Woods, MD of Mrs Crimble’s (also a sponsor of this year’s FFFood Awards) described how Mrs Crimble’s freefrom cakes have, in less than ten years, come to be ranked as the UK’s second largest healthy bakery brand (after WeightWatchers) and in the top ten most popular cakes in the UK – based on the company’s core belief that the products they make should be delicious and wholesome, and just happen, also, to be gluten free.

• Joe Callery of Celtic Chocolates came from Dublin to describe how the conventional after dinner mints that he and his partner started to make in 1990 developed first into diabetic Easter eggs, then into dairy-free dark chocolate eggs, and then finally into his hugely successful dairy-free milk chocolate range (using rice syrups and starches to replace the dairy) which he now makes into bars and filled caramels for all the major supermarkets as well as for his own brand, Choices.

• Charlotte Pike of GoFreeFoods (winner of the brownie category in last year’s FreeFrom Food Awards) described how she and her boyfriend (who suffers from a number of food intolerances) started GoFreeFoods while she was still working full time as an investment analyst and he as a systems designer. Only full time on GoFreeFoods for the last six months, it has been a hard slog and involved many more late nights and far more red tape than she could ever have anticipated – but it is going well and they are now ready to develop new products and move on to stage two…

• Finally, Lesley Cutts of GoodnessDirect, the very first and still by far the largest on-line retailer of freefrom foods, described how Goodness Foods came to be involved in freefrom food and how they now help to develop brands and give the smaller, specialist manufacturers access to a wider market.

A fascinating day – and thank you to FDIN for setting up the seminar.

Food labelling – are we any less confused?…

This morning’s publication of DEFRA’s new guidelines is welcome in that it discourages the use of ‘display until’ and ‘sell by’  marks on food – of no value to the consumer, merely designed to help the retailer with their stock control. But does it really help the befuddled consumer to know how long they can keep a food before they need to add it to the 8.3 millions tonnes of food waste that we mange to accumulate each year because they have not got round to eating it?

We are left with ‘Best before’ and ‘Use by’, the first of which relates to the eating quality of the food, the second to whether or not it is likely to poison you. But, if you had just landed from Mars – or even from Europe – would that be clear to you? Maybe I am particularly dull, but the subtlety escapes me.  I know that both are slightly longer (a very BAD thing in the eyes of food packagers) but would not ‘Tastes best before’ and ‘Safe until’ not be a lot clearer?

Which? makes the same point in their press release this morning:
In an online survey of 1,009 members of the GB public carried out by Which? in June 2011, 46% said they were consciously trying to waste less food. Half of those are checking ‘use by’  dates more, so they throw away less food. However, nearly 4 in 10 (37%) have stopped adhering to some ‘use by’ dates, instead using other means of checking whether food has gone off, like whether the food looks and smells alright. But you cannot identify harmful bacteria this way. Which? wants DEFRA and the FSA … to ensure that there is no room for confusion.

(For those who are interested in consumer understanding of labeling there is an interesting passage in the WRAP report on consumer behaviour in relation to labeling although this is now quite old [2007] so it is to be hoped that understanding may have moved on. See page 3 – Executive report – Guidance dates: Understanding of dates.)

I do understand that labeling is an incredibly difficult and contentious area, and nowhere more so than in labelling food for allergens but it is SO important for consumers, especially for allergic consumers,  to get it right.  Good work is being done in terms of the major life threatening allergies and the dreaded ‘may contain’ warning with manufacturers giving much more specific information about contamination levels: ‘made in a factory which also uses nuts’ rather than just ‘may contain nuts’ is already a good start. But there are still no regulations governing this information so it remains patchily applied.

Moreover, even though the declaration of major allergens in ingredients lists is now mandatory, there are no regulations governing ‘freefrom’ flashes on the front of packs – ‘gluten free’, ‘milk free’,'nut free’ etc. And although the survey of freefrom shoppers that we carried out at last year’s Allergy Show was in no way scientific, it indicated that 80% of shoppers wanted to see these flashes on the front of packs and would rely on them rather than checking the ingredients list.

Caveat – oh allergic – emptor…..