Food labels warning that a product “may contain” peanuts, milk, or other allergens are a familiar sight, but they often leave shoppers guessing. Because these warnings are largely voluntary and unregulated, food companies sometimes use them to protect themselves from lawsuits, even when the likelihood of contamination is low. Now, an international panel of 35 allergy specialists, scientists, and patient advocates representing 21 countries, convened by the World Allergy Organization (WAO), is calling for an overhaul that would replace today’s confusing system with consistent, science-based rules.
Today, shoppers face a confusing mix of precautionary allergen labeling phrases like “may contain,” “made in a facility with,” and “may contain traces.” The panel recommends replacing these variations with a single, straightforward statement: “May contain [allergen].” More importantly, manufacturers should not use these warnings simply as a precaution against lawsuits. Instead, companies should conduct formal risk assessments to determine whether unintended allergen contamination could expose consumers to amounts exceeding a scientifically established threshold. Warnings would generally be required only when that threshold could be exceeded.
To determine when a warning is necessary, the panel recommends using a scientific threshold known as ED05 (eliciting dose 5%). This represents the amount of allergenic protein estimated to trigger a reaction in approximately 5% of people with that particular allergy. The amount varies by allergen. For example, the reference dose is 2 milligrams of protein for peanuts, milk, and eggs, compared with 5 milligrams for wheat and fish. Rather than relying solely on concentrations measured in parts per million (ppm), the approach considers how much allergenic protein someone would actually consume in a typical serving. Importantly, ED05 is a statistical estimate, not a guarantee that the other 95% of allergic individuals will be safe.
The ED05 threshold represents a somewhat practical compromise between protecting consumers and avoiding unnecessary warnings. If standards are set too strictly, manufacturers may feel compelled to place warnings on many products that pose little risk to most allergic consumers. When warnings become commonplace, shoppers may begin ignoring them, undermining their usefulness. The panel believes an ED05-based approach could make warnings more meaningful while maintaining a scientifically informed level of protection. However, the experts could not agree on how manufacturers should communicate the remaining risk to particularly sensitive consumers when allergen exposure falls below the warning threshold. Under the proposed system, a product without a “may contain” warning would not necessarily be safe for everyone with that allergy.
The experts also took a clear stance on specialty food claims. If a package says a product is “free from” a specific allergen, 97% of the panel agreed that it should contain no detectable amount of that allergen, including accidental traces. Similarly, 80% supported changing the standard for “gluten-free” to require no detectable gluten, rather than allowing the small amounts currently permitted under regulations that set a limit of 20 parts per million. The panel also supported eliminating precautionary warnings for milk, eggs, and other animal-derived allergens on products labeled vegan. However, a vegan label does not guarantee that a product is free from accidental milk or egg contamination, so people with these allergies should not automatically assume vegan foods are safe.
To encourage manufacturers to adopt these science-based standards, the panel also addressed legal liability. Experts agreed that food companies demonstrating compliance with applicable food safety regulations should not be held legally responsible for allergic reactions caused by unintended allergen contamination. The goal is to reduce the incentive for manufacturers to place warnings on products simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Instead, companies would have greater reason to conduct meaningful risk assessments and use warnings only when justified. These liability protections, like the other recommendations, are proposals rather than laws currently in effect.
Ultimately, the recommendations are intended to help shape international food safety regulations as authorities work toward more consistent rules for allergen warnings. As lead researcher Antonio Bognanni, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, and colleagues explained, precautionary labeling “should only be applied when a legally regulated risk assessment indicates the likelihood of unintended allergen presence, which can pose a risk to allergic individuals.” The proposed changes could make grocery shopping clearer and less frustrating for families managing food allergies, but they would not eliminate the risk of allergic reactions. For consumers, the challenge will be understanding what the new warnings mean—and, just as importantly, what the absence of a warning does not guarantee.
What do you think of these recommendations? Let us know in the comments section below. We will follow up in the coming days with our own take.
This actually scares me more. Even though the labeling is not consistent, we can make our own decision of what level of risk we are willing to take or just be safe and avoid it all.
If they set an arbitrary level that still may not be safe for everyone, this choice has been taken away and even more fear will exist for those with a history of anaphylaxis from trace allergens.
I think they can do better for our community. Being afraid to eat, something we have to do to live, is a horrible way to live in this world that everything revolves around food.
This misses the point, in my opinion. I care more about an unintended ingestion of an allergen, and much less about missing out on some product because of an overly aggressive/unnecessary “may contain” label.
My understanding of the above is that their aim is to decrease the amount of unnecessary “may contain” or “made in….” statements that are placed on labels only to protect the manufacturer, even if there is really no suspicion for cross-contact/contamination. And therefore consumers with allergies would unnecessarily exclude those items from their diet.
As a father of a child with allergies, that should NOT be the major goal or standardizing labeling practices. Of course, I don’t love excluding products from my purchases unnecessarily. But I’m MUCH MORE concerned about ingesting an unsuspected allergen.
Many companies disclose “‘may contain” or facility information on their labels, but many do not.
So when there is no “may contain” or “facility” on the label, I just don’t know if the product is made in a way that would be safe for my child , or not.
Some companies have websites that clear this up, and others do not. Some have websites that you allow you to submit a question, and some answer those questions…and some do not. Some have costumer service phone lines or that are helpful…and some do not.
So for me, the goal would be:
1. continue “contains” statements, as is currently the stan.dard
2. have companies – as a mandated standard – include a “may contains” statement when there is a risk for cross contact/contamination (I defer to those experts referenced above with regards to the threshold for that risk).
Then, if there were no “may contain” statement, I would potentially feel safe with the product, without multiple attempts to contact a company to find out their individual manufacturing or labeling policies.
Good afternoon, and thank you so much for all your work for the allergy community!
As far as the work by this committee mentioned in the article: This misses the point, in my opinion. I care more about an unintended ingestion of an allergen, and care much less about missing out on some product because of an overly aggressive/unnecessary “may contain” label.
Yes, uniformity to take the guesswork out of interpreting the various labels we see is an important part of the work that needs to be dome. But I think it’s more crucial to mandate that manufacturers explicitly label with regards to the fact that there is a risk in the first place.
My understanding of the above is that their aim is to decrease the amount of unnecessary “may contain” or “made in….” statements that are placed on labels only to protect the manufacturer, even if there is really no suspicion for cross-contact/contamination. And therefore consumers with allergies would unnecessarily exclude those items from their diet.
As a father of a child with allergies, that should NOT be the major goal or standardizing labeling practices. Of course, I don’t love excluding products from my purchases unnecessarily. But I’m MUCH MORE concerned about ingesting an unsuspected allergen.
Many companies disclose “‘may contain” or facility information on their labels, but many do not.So when there is no “may contain” or “facility” on the label, I just don’t know if the product is made in a way that would be safe for my child , or not.Some companies have websites that clear this up, and others do not. Some have websites that you allow you to submit a question, and some answer those questions…and some do not. Some have customer service phone lines or that are helpful…and some do not.
So for me, the goal would be:
1. continue “contains” statements, as is currently the standard.
2. have companies – as a mandated standard – include a “may contains” statement when there is a risk for cross contact/contamination (I defer to those experts referenced above with regards to establishing the threshold for that risk).
Then, if there were no “may contain” statement, I would potentially feel safe with the product, without multiple attempts to contact a company to find out their individual manufacturing or labeling policies.
This change would absolutely make it worse for people with food allergies. They need to be required to list every single ingredient with no vague statements like “natural flavors or colors”. And “may contain” should be used if the food has any chance of cross contamination at all, such as made on the same equipment as an allergen. Otherwise, we will never know if any food is safe. This “scientific approach” is even more dangerous that what is already happening. And the fact that companies cannot be sued if they have the label and a reaction still occurs?!! Are you serious!!???? This is insane!
All companies that label: may contain label should be required to do allergen testing on each batch run on their equipment of the suspect allergen and then overseen by the FDA, etc.
I would not find this proposal helpful. As a parent of an adult with severe allergies to peanuts and tree nuts, I am finding the industry less responsive as years go by. When my son was growing up, his allergist told us that he should never eat anything that is manufactured on the same equipment as other foods that contain nuts/peanuts. But when I contact companies, I am given some explanation that they use some industry standard for cleaning the equipment, so even if allergens are processed on the same line, they clean up the equipment. I do not understand why that is supposed to give any comfort.
In the US, it seems that people with food allergies are treated as second class citizens. In company’s response to people who cannot eat gluten by producing almond milk or almond flour etc., many products I once used for baking are no longer safe. You have to dig deep on King Arthur’s website to find out that even their basic flours are processed on the same equipment as those with allergens other than wheat.
So we have to spend time calling the company or emailing them because most do not provide clear information on their labels or websites. Then they give a line about how to read a label, which 99.9 percent of those calling them already know. The say they follow some industry procedures for cleaning equipment, but they never tell me unless I press further if peanuts or tree nuts on are the same line. I am so sick of this dangerous lack of clarity.
I always point out how unhelpful their information is, and remind them that 33 million Americans have food allergies. If you add even two people for every one of the allergy sufferers, that becomes 99 million who need the information (not to mention restaurants and school cafeterias) because they cook for someone at some time with food allergies, meaning at least one third of the country needs reliable information. A company that responds to that need consistently will have lifelong customers. This seems lost on the most companies. But I tell them their lack of clarity will result in me not buying their product.
I want to know if a product contains an allergen, if it is processed on the same equipment as an allergen, and if allergens are present in the facility. I want that on the label. And I believe having a “tolerance level” and absolving companies of responsibility is unacceptable.
I also wish that the response to accommodating gluten allergies (which as far as I know are not life threatening) would not make so many brands and foods unsafe for those with life threatening allergies like tree nuts and peanuts. The options of baking from scratch to accommodate a food allergy is not necessarily a safe option now since so many flour brands make nut flours.
Eating safely is a basic need. Producing safe food for all is an essential service of food manufacturers. Greed and a lack of effective government regulation are killing Americans every year.