Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act 

of 2004 

Public Law 108-282 

Report to 

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

United States Senate 

And 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Food and Drug Administration 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 

July 2006 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ......................... ... . ........................................................... 2 

I. Introduction ......... ..................................................................................... 4 

I1. Section 204(1): The Occurrence of Cross-Contact ...................................... 5 

I11. Section 204(2): Role of Current Good Manufacturing Practice in 

Controlling Cross-Contact ..................................................................................... 9 

IV. Section 204(3): Use of Advisory Labeling by Food Producers .................. 10 

A. Types of advisory labeling used by food producers ...................................................................... 10 

1. Information from FDA Inspections ........................................................................................................ 10 

2. Information from the ." . IP I report .............................................................................................................. 11 

I3. Conditions of food manufacture associated with various types of advisory labeling ................... 12 

1. Firms' Reasons for Use of Advisory Labcling ........................................................................................ 12 

2. Manufacturing Conditions Associated with Advisory Labeling.............................................................. 13 

C. Extent to which adv~sorylabels are being used on food products ................................................. 15 

V. Section 204(4): Consumer Preferences for Food Allergen Labeling ........... 16 

A. The FDA-sponsored survey of consutner preferences .................................................................. 16 

B. Consumer Reactions to Food Allergen Labeling Options ............................................................. 18 

1. 2005 AtIergen Labeling Experiment -Key Findings .............................................................................. 18 

2. Discussion of results .............................................................................................................................. 21 

VI. Section 204(5)(A) & (B): FDA's Allergen-focused Inspections ................. 21 

B. RESULTS FROM 'I'HE FY2002 INSI'ECTIONS ........................................................................ 22 

1 . Facility size and allergen use ................................................................................................................. 22 

2. Receipt of ailergenic ingredients ........................................................................................................... 23 

3. Monitoring ingredient statements in finished product Iabels ................................................................... 24 

4 . Equipment........................................................... ............................ ........................................................ 24 

5. Cleaning and equipment characteristics................................................................................................... 25 

6. Potential cross-contact during processing............................................................................................. 25 

7. Facilities' inspection of finished package labels .................................................................................... 27 

C. RESULTS FROM 'TEIE FY2003/2004 INSPECTIONS ............................................................... 27 

VII. Section 204(5)(C): Allergen Recalls ............................... ,.,.................... 28 

A . Background ................................................................................................................................... 28 

B. Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 29 

C . Results ........................................................................................................................................... 29 

VIII. Section 204(6): C'urrent Efforts to Control Cross-contact ......................... 32 
Executive Summary 

This report was prepared by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in response to the directive to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services in section 204 of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 

2004. The report addresses multiple issues relating to cross-contact with food allergens during 

food manufacture and distribution and the use of, and consumer preferences about, advisory 

labeling. 

The Occurrence of Cross-Contact and Use of CGMP 

Foods may become unintentionally contaminated with major food allergens at almost any 

step of manufacturing prior to final packaging due to a number of factors. Dedicated facilities or 

production lines may help to control the occurrence of cross-contact but the use of such 

arrangements is limited due to cost, equipment utilization needs, and space limitations. It is 

difficult to estimate the prevalence of cross-contact. The available information indicates, 

however, that most food manufacturers and processors are aware of the potential for crosscontact in their operations, which is one indication of the perceived likelihood of such 

contamination. 

The use of current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) is critical to the reduction and 

elimination of cross-contact, which would likely be implemented through a firm's allergen 

control plan. An effective allergen controi plan is generally tailored to the particular facility and 

uses a combination of control procedures to eliminate or reduce the risk of cross-contact. 

Use of Advisory Labeling bv Food Producers 

The available information indicates that food manufacturers use five basic advisory 

statements, with numerous variations of the five statements that communicate comparable 

information: "Produced in a plant that processes.. .[allergen(s)];" "May contain traces 

of.. .[alIergen(s)J;" "May contain.. .[allergen(s)J;" "Produced on shared equipment that 

processes.. .[allergen(s)];" and "[Allergen(s)j traces." These statements vary by format as well 

as content. Less than one-fifth of the surveyed facilities use advisory labeling. Peanut and tree 

nuts are the allergens most often associated with facilities that use advisory labeling. The 

available information also suggests that a high proportion of facilities have cross-contact control 

measures in place regardless of whether the firmuses advisory labeling. 

Consumer Preferences for Food Allerren Labeling 

FDA contracted for a survey of food allergic consumers and their caregivers, with a 

control group, to evaluate consumer preferences for advisory labeling. Four advisory statements 

were tested: "Allergy Information: May Contain Peanuts;" "May contain peanuts;" 

"Manufactured on the samc equipment as foods that contain peanut;" and "Produced in a facility 

with an allergy control plan. l'he possibility of contact with allergenic ingredients has been 

minimized. May still contain trace amounts of peanut." Surveyed consumers preferred "Allergy 

Information: May contain peanuts" over the other three statements. The results are consistent 

with prior product label research showing that consumers prefer information preceded by signal 

words and generally view this infornlation as rnorc credibIe. 
FDA also contracted for an experiment to compare the efkcts of the four label statements 

identified above on consumers' food purchase or consunlption intent decisions. The results 

indicate that consumers found the two shorter advisory statclncnts to be less helpful and less 

believable, and thought that products bearing these statements were more likely to contain 

pqanuts. In contrast, consumers found the two longer statements to be more believable and more 

helpful, and thought that products bearing one of the longer statements were less likely to contain 

peanuts. 

FDA's Allerpen-focused Inspections 

During FY2002 to FY2004, FDA conducted over 2,000 allergen-focused inspections. 

These inspections assesscd the following practices at ii~spectedfacilities: receipt of allergenic 

ingredients; review of product labels; equipment characteristics, equipment cleaning practices, 

and equipment cleaning efficacy checks; handling of rework; arld inspection of finished product 

labels. Although FDA's inspectiorls did not specifically determine whether facilities were "in 

compliance" or "out of cornpIiance," the resuits, discussed in detail in the body of the report, 

provide valuable information about the food industry's awareness of food allergens in the 

manufacturing environment and facilities' practices designed to manage the risks posed by 

allergens. 

Allergen Recalls 

FDA reviewed and analyzed five years of agency information on voluntary recalls 

involving undeclared food allergens. During FY 1999 to FY 2004, there were 462 recall actions 

due to the presence of undeclared allergens in a food. In tenns of food product categories, 

bakery products, ice cream products, and fishery products represented the three largest groups of 

recalls. In tenns of particular undeclared allergens, egg, milk, peanut, and tree nut ingredients 

were the four allergens most frequently associated with recall actions. 

Current Efforts to Control Cross-contact 

As explained in the body of the report, the results of FDA's allergen-focused inspections 

should not be generalized to all food production facilities. However, the findings suggest that a 

certain percentage of facilities do attempt to address potential concerns associated with the use of 

allergens in food products; the extent to which a firm does so varies and dcpends on the control 

measure or activity assessed. But FDA's inspections also suggest that a certain percentage of 

facilities do not apply control measures in the handling and use of allergens; the degree to which 

these gaps may contribute to thc unintended presence of allergens in food, and the degree to 

which those allergens are associated with adverse health cfCects, is no1 known. These gaps do 

suggest areas for improvement in foocl manufacturing to protect against allergen cross-contact, 

including increasing awareness among a11 firms of the potential for allergen cross-contact in food 

rnanu facturing. 
I. Introduction 

Section 204 of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 

(FALCPA) (Public Law 108-282) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the 

Secretary) to submit to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and to 

the House Committee on Energy and Commerce a report on food allergens. The report is to 

address multiple issues relating to cross-contact with food ailergens' during food manufacture 

and distribution and to address the use of, and consumer preferences about, advisory labeling2 

This report was prepared in response to the FALCPA mandate for the Secretary by the 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

In drafting this report, CFSAN relied on the following sources of information: 

Information gathered during allergen-focused domestic inspections conducted by FDA in 

FY2002. This information concerns 1,470 facilities3 for which the inspection 

information was largely complete. CFSAN subsequently performed a comprehensive 

analysis of these data, "Results of Targeted Allergen Inspections of Food Manufacturing 

~irms."~ 

Information gathered by additional FDA inspections conducted in FY2003 and FY2004. 

This information concerns 372 facilities and was also analyzed by FDA, although not as 

comprehensively as the FY2002 inspection data. 

The response to a task order issued to the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) under an 

existing contract with CFSAN. The task order was tailored to elicit information from the 

food industry specifically for this report. The IFT report, entitled "Analysis and 

Evaluation of the Current Manufacturing and Labeling Practices Used by Food 

Manufacturers to Address Allergen Concerns," was submitted to FDA in August 2005, 

and was based 011information assembled by IFT carlicr that year. 

5 

Cross-contact occurs when a residue or other trace amount of a food allergen is present on a food contact surface, 

production machinery, or is air-borne, and unintentionally becomes incorporated into a product not intended to 

contain the allergen. Cross-contact may also result from customary methods of growing and harvesting crops, as 

well as from the use of shared storage, transportation, or production equipment. FDA considers the term "crosscontact" to be synonymous with "cross-contamination," a term sometimes used to describe these circumstances. 

This report uses the term "cross-contact" because that is the term that C:ongrcss used in FALCPA. 

The purpose of advisory labeling is generally to alert food allerglc consumers to the possibility of allergen crosscontact. Although these labels vary by content, comnion formulations include "This product was processed on 

machinery used to process (allergen)" and "May contain (allergen)." 

The questionnaire used by lnvcstigators in thesc inspections and the subsequent FDA analysis of the inspection 

results use the term "firm" to describe an individual manufacturing location. This is consistent w~ththe customary 

practice of FDA's field offices. Ilowever, this report uses, where appropriate, the term "facility" to describe an 

individual manufacturing location because the term "firm" might inappropr~atelysuggest a company, such as a 

corporation, not an ~ndividualmanufacturing location. 

4~~~ field investigators inspected approximately 1800 domestic facitities that produce foods containing one of the 

eight most common food allergens (peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, niilk, egg, wheat, fish, and Crustacea) and 

completed a questionnaire des~gnedto address various aspects of food production at the inspected facilities. 5 IFT utilized a six member Scientific and 'Sechnical Panel to obtain information through interviews of personnel 

from 59 food manufacturing firms (38 "large" firms (1500 employees), 14 "nlediun~"fim~s(100-500 employees), 

and 7 "small" fims (< 100 employees) ) 'I'he 59 finns produce food in 14 food product categories (baby food, 

infant formula, bakery products, beverages, candy/confect~oris,cereaupasta, dairy pro~lucts/substitutes,desserts, 

fishifish products, mixed dishes, sauces/dips/gravies/condirnents,snack foods, soups, and miscellaneous.) In the 

IFT report and discussions of it, the terrn "fimt" refers to a company as a \thole, not a individual manufacturing 

location. 
The results of an August 2005 consumer survey conducted by Knowledge Networks, 

Inc., under contract with FDA, to determine consumer preferences regarding advisory 

labeling. Respondents were 739 food allergic adults or caregivers of food allergic 

individuaIs and 504 non-food ailergic individuals. 

The results of a September 2005 experiment conducted by Synovate, Inc., under contract 

with FDA, to determine consumer preferences regarding advisory labeling. Participants 

were 1,000 food allergic adults or caregivers of food allergic individuals and 1,000 nonfood allergic individuals. Participants, randomly assigned to groups, responded to 

questions about believability, helpfuIness, and consumption for one of the tested advisory 

statements. 

11. Section 204(1): The Occurrence of Cross-Contact 

Section 204(1) of the FALCPA provides that the report to Congress analyze "the ways in 

which foods, during manufacturing and processing, are unintentionally contaminated with major 

food allergens,"6 including contamination caused by the use of "the same production line to 

produce both products for which major food allergens are intentional ingredients and products 

for which major food allergens are not intentional ingredients .. . and the ways in which foods 

produced on dedicated production lines are unintentionally contaminated with major food 

allergens." Section 204(1) also provides that the report estimate "how common the [identified] 

practices are in the food industry, with breakdowns by food type as appropriate." 

Foods may become unintentionally contaminated with major food allergens at almost any 

step of manufacturing prior to final packaging. Unintentional allergen contamination can occur 

during manufacturing as a result of allergens in raw ingredients or in processing aids, from the 

use of reworked product that contains allergens, as a result of allergen caw-over from the use of 

shared equipment, and from clean-in-place fluid used to clean shared equipment. Nearly all 

companies surveyed by IFT identified potential sources of unintentional alIergen contamination 

during their manufacturing and processing operations, regardless of firm size and food product 

category manufactured. Table I shows the specific points identified by surveyed companies as 

sources of unintentional cross-contact during ~nanufacturingand processing. 

Dedicated facilities or dedicated production lines are used by the food industry to exclude 

specific allergens from food products in which the allergens are not intended as ingredients. 

However, such use is limited due to cost, equipment utilization needs, and space limitations. 

Frequently, processing facilities exclude certain allergens from their facilities. The IFT survey 

shows that large companies are more likely than their medium-size or sinall-size counterparts to 

dedicate facilities to avoid cross-contact. Facilities more commonly dedicate specific production 

lines to avoid cross-contact during production by using physical barriers (such as wails, curtains, 

or distance) or air handling as a means of isolating the productior~line. 

It is difficuIt to determine the true prevalence of unintentional contamination with major 

food allergens for several reasons. Visual observation is not always a reliable means to 

determine whether allergen cross-contact is actually occurring. Certainly, there are instances 

where an individual (either a firm en~ployeeor an FDA investigator) might observe the potential 

for cross-contact with an allergen, such as residual peanut butter on a shared production line after 

6 FALCPA defines "major food allergen" as one of eight foods or food groups (peanut, milk, egg, wheat, soy, tree 

nuts, fish, and Crustacean shellfish) or an ingredient that contains protein derived from one ofthe eight. "tlighly 

refined oils" and ingredients derived from them are excluded from the definition of "major food allergen." 21 

U.S.C. 321(qq). 
cleaning, and infer that allergen-free products subsequently processed on that line could become 

contaminated. However, many instances of cross-contact are not readily observable. For 

example, an otherwise responsible manufacturer coulci be producing a food product using a raw 

ingredient that contains an undeclared allergenic ingredient or processing aid. Without 

knowledge of the presence of this allergen, the manufacturer could produce food products 

believed to be free of unintended allergens. Finally, consumer complaints and adverse events are 

likely to greatly underestimate the true prevalence of unintended allergens in foods, particularly 

when those allergens are not declared. Ordinarily, for an undeclared alIergen to he detected by 

the consumer, a sensitive consumer must ingest the allergen-contaminated food, experience a 

noticeable allergic reaction, recognize the food as the cause of the reaction, and report the 

incident to the manufacturer or to food safety officials. Ciiven that only a small percentage of 

consumers have a food allergy and that not all allergen-contaminated foods will cause an easily 

recognizable reaction in sensitive consumers (due to different thresholds for a noticeable effect 

in different individuals), it is likely that many allergen-contaminated foods go undetected by 

consumers. 

Although it is difficult to estimate the prevalence of the unintentional contamination of 

foods with major allergens, it is useful to examine, as an indication of the perceived risk of such 

unintentional contamination, the extent to which food manufacturers and processors recog~llze 

the risk of allergen-cross-contact and implement preventive measures. Significantly, nearly all 

the food manufacturers and processors surveyed by IFT identified potential allergen sources 

within their operations. These manufacturers and processors identified as a potential allergen 

source raw materials, processing aids, rework product,7 carry-over from shared equipment, 

clean-in-piace fluid, and nliscellaneous potential sources. Similarly, nearly all these food 

manufacturers and processors have allergen control programs in place to prevent the 

unintentional contamination of their products by major allergens. Given the widespread 

recognition of the risks and the extent to which the industry has implemented control programs, 

it is likely that there is a significant risk of allergen cross-contact where appropriate preventive 

measures are absent. 

7 As a verb, "rework"refers to the practice of reintroducing food product material that has been through some or aH 

of the manufacturing process ulto an earlier stage of the production process of a subsequclltly produced food 

product. As a noun or adjective, "rework" refers to the food product material that is reintroduced into the production 

process. 
Table 1. Points in the Manufacturing Process Where Cross-Contact Can Occur (by food category) 

Food Product 

Category Specific Points Identified Examples of Control Practices 

Baby Food kettles, fill heads, drum dryers scheduling, defined areas, sanitation, push

shields, labeiing 

infant Formula 

hoiding tanks, lines, fillers, non-CIP 


equipment (those that must be dry cleaned), 
 other sources of cross-contact (before 


ingredients reach line) 


sanitation, scheduling, segregation, valida

visual Inspection, purging of line. use of ci

Bakery Products 

mixers, shared equipment, 


packaging equipment, dividers, 


conveyors, ingredient scaling, proofer, 


cooier, slicer, racks, piping, 


dough troughs, pans, belts, ovens 


enrobing. freezer, changeovers 
 rounder, extruder, sheeter, baking room, 


crossed lines, shared storage containers, 


dough pump, dead spots, scoops, sifters, 
 depositer, sieves 


scheduling, sanitation, training, storage 

segregation, visual inspection, allergen tes

color-coding, push-through, equipment de

tarps under conveyors, labeling, vacuum, 

separation, shields, distance, production l

crossed lines, allergen profiling, scraping, 

room for cleaning, color-code rework, ded

dedicate maintenance tools, harmonizatio

Beverages a 

filler, shared equipment, storage tanks. 


biending, pumps, lines, 


pasteurization. homogenization, liquefiers. 


batch tanks 


sanitation, scheduling, allergen testing, vis

inspection, flushing 

CandylConfections 

enrober. packaging, panning. 


shared lines, coating, molding, 


belts, ovens, temper unit, piping, refining, 


spraying systems, conveyors, changeovers 


scheduling, sanitation, dedicated lines, flu

wet cleaning where possible, segregation

cleaning, disassembly of equipment to cle

formulation, labeling, dedicated equipmen

prior to packaging, dedicated employees, 

allergen testing, singie-use storage bags 

CerealiPasta 

belts. mixers. particulates, 


packaging, shared lines, conveyors, 


scales, residue, piping, ovens. 


handling, rework, baking room. egg feeder. 


shared equipment, driers, shakers, sifters, 


crossed lines, reuse of storage containers. 


changeover, reuse of frying oil 


sanitation, scheduling, separation, visual 

inspection, shielding, vacuum, dedication

eliminate cross-overs, pressure washing, 

equipment for cieaning, flush with cornsta

design, allergen testing 

Dairy 

Prod~ct~iSubstitute~ ' 

shared equipment, fillers, blending, 

pasteurization, homogenization, 

storage tanks, shared lines, liquifiers, 

batch tanks, packaging equipment. 

ingredient receiving 

scheduling, sanitation, allergen testing, in

flushing, dedication, shields, separation, 

contact 

Desserts 

shared equipment, fillers, pumps. 

storage tanks, iines, duct work, 

cooling systems, changeovers, fruit feed

varigators 

ers, 

sanitation, scheduling, allergen testing, in

production layout 

FishIFish Products baneribreader equipment, freezer, 

fryer, packaging, conveyor 

scheduling, sanitation, pre-requisites, filte

validation test, receipt of original containe

line assignments, equipment design, equ

flexibility, inspection 

Miscellaneous shared equipment, piping, utensils. 

common tanks, crossed lines, reuse of 

storage containers, changeovers 

sanitation, scheduling, equipment design

eliminate 'dead spots,' allergen testing, e

lines, segregated storage 

Mixed Dlshes shared equipment, filler, mixer, 

conveyors. dead spots, spice rooms sanitation, scheduling, equipment design

testing, visual inspection, dedicated lines

storage 

Sauces,Dips,Graviesi 

Condiments 

piping, fiiler, mixer, scales, utensils, 

common tanks, spice room, shared lines. 

reused fry oil, conveyors 

sanitation, scheduling, allergen profiling, 

coding, elimination of 'dead spots,' segre

shielding, visual inspection, labeling 

Snack Foods 

packaging, conveyors, belts, ovens, 

dryers, enrobers, mixers, shared equipment, 

crossed lines, reuse of storage containers, 

changeovers, dead spots, reuse of fry oil 

sanitation, visual inspection, equipment 

walls. scheduling, allergen testing, dedic

training, color-coding, segregated storage

overs, labeling 

Soups spice rooms, dead spots, shared lines scheduling, sanitation, separation, equip

design, segregated storage 

a lnciudes fruit juices 

' Includes rice and soy beverages, butter, and margarine 

Includes pancake syrup, oils, shortenings 
111. Section 204(2): Role of Current Good Manufacturing Practice 

in Controlling Cross-Contact 

Section 204(2) of the FALCPA provides that the report to Congress address "whether 

good manufacturing practices or other methods can be used to reduce or eliminate cross-contact 

of foods with the major food allcrgcns." 

The use of current good manufacturing practice is critical to the reduction and 

elimination of unintentional conlamination of foods with major allergens. There is no known 

processing technology that could be used to exclude, automatically or continuously, major 

allergens from ail foods at risk of contamination. Nearly all the food manufacturers and 

processors surveyed by IFT have an allergen control plan. An effective ailergen control plan 

uses a combination of control procedures to eliminate or reduce the risk of unintentional 

contamination of foods with major allergens. In addition, allergen control plans are generally 

tailored to each manufacturing or processing facility to address risk factors that are unique to 

particular ingredients, products, and manufacturing processes. 

CGMP to control allergen cross-contact would likely be implemented through a firm's 

allergen control plan. The value of an allergen control plan is widely recognized by the U.S. 

food industry. In response to a Federal Register notice of public meetings8 that requested 

comments and information on FDA's CGMP regulations for foods, many comments 

recommended that those regulations (21 CFR Part I 10) be amended to require allergen controls. 

The following comments related to allergen controls were reported by the Foods CGMP 

Modernization Working Croup in its 2005 report, "Foods CGMP Modernization -A Focus on 

Food safetyn9: 

One commenter noted that "The current regulations contain a number of 

provisions that relate to preventing contamination in the food processing 

environment, but there is no explicit mention of food allergens." This cornmenter 

recommended that the agency amend the CCMP regulation to require food 

processors to develop and adopt allergen control practices within their facilities, 

yet keep the regulatory requirement flexible so that manufacturers can adapt 

control practices to their unique requirements. 

One commenter wrote that "The primary elements of an allcrgen controi plan 

would include: identification of ingredients containing food alIergen(s); 

management of these ingredients (e.g.,physical segregation); process controls; 

verified cleaning processes; label controls and label review; and employee 

training." 

Another commenter wrote that the following preventive controls are needed: 

". ..1) revision of current GMPs to include guidelillcs regarding rework and 

shared equipment, 2)guidance on the need for employee training regarding food 

8 69 FR 29220 {May 21,2004) and 69 I:R 403 12 (July 2,2004). 

Foods CGMP Modem~zat~onWorking Ciroup. 2005. Foods CGMP Modernization - A Focus 011 Food Safety. 

I~tt~::'/w~w.cfSan.fda.~oy.~~l_i~cgmps3.I1t~~~f 7he Foods CXMP Modernization Working Group was formed by 

CFSAN in 2002 to examine the food CGMP regulations m 21 CFR Part 1 10 and to determine whetller those 

regulations need rrlodemization 

9 
allergies, and 3) guidance on the use of precautionary ('may contain') 

statements." This commenter concluded by writing that "It is imperative that any 

revisions made to address food allergens must be mandatory (i.e., 'shall') as 

opposed to optional (i.c.,'should')." 

Another cornmenter recommended that 21 CFR 110.80"...be revised to include a 

separate section requiring an allergen control program for those processing plants 

that handle any of the eight cornnlon allergens. The allergen control pIan should 

address the following: Training of processing and supervisory personnel; 

Separation of allergenic ingredients during storage and processing; Cleaning and 

Sanitation of processing equipment; Scheduling of production runs to enhance 

physical separation and time separation; Reworking ingredicnts and finished 

products; Product label review; and Supplier control program for ingredients and 

packaging." 

The IFT report states that "It is the opinion of the Scientific& Technical Panel that the 

opportunities for the presence of undeclared allergens are minimized when current Good 

Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are followed. GMPs appear to be effective in reducing or 

eliminating cross-contact and other allergen-related errors." With respect to the value of GMPs, 

the IFT report listed the following conclusions drawn by the Scientific & Technical Panel from 

analysis of the information collected: 

"Most food companies include allergen control as part of their prerequisite program" 

"Most of the food companies have SSOPs (Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures) to 

delineate their cleaning practices in their ACPs" (allergen control plans) 

"The majority of the targeted food companies have validated the effectiveness of their 

allergen cleaning approaches" 

"The majority of included food companies train employees on an annual basis on topics 

related to allergens" 

IV. Section 204(3): Use of Advisory Labeling by Food Producers 

Section 204(3) of the FALCPA provides that the report to Congress describe "the various 

types of advisory labeling (such as labeling that uses thc words 'may contain') used by food 

producers; .. . the conditions of manufacture of food that are associated with the various types of 

advisory labeling; and . .. the extent lo which advisory labels are bcing used on food products." 

A. Types of advisory labeling used by food producers 

The information in this section is based on data from the report of FDA's FY2002 

allergen-focused inspections, from the analysis of FDA's FY2003/2004 allergen-focused 

inspections, and from the IFT report. 

1. Information from FDA Inspections 

During the FY2002 inspections, FDA investigators recorded the advisory statements used 

on food products by approxirnately 170 of the 247 facilities that used advisory labeling. The 

advisory statements identified by the investigators were of five basic types as follows: 

r "Produced in a plant that processes.. .[allergen(s)JT' 
"May contain traces of.. .[allergen(s)]" 

"May contain.. .[allergen(s)lV 

"Produced on shared equipment that processes.. .[allergen(s)]" 

"[Allergen(s)] traces" 

Both groups of FDA inspections documented numerous variations of these basic advisory 

statements communicating comparable information. In addition to variations in content, the 

format of different facilities' statements vaned widely. 

The FDA inspection information showed that a number of firms used a single type of 

advisory statement on the labels of one or more of their products. Several firms, however, used a 

combination of different advisory statements for one or more of their products. The most 

common combinations of advisory statements used, in descending order, were as follows: 

1. May contain...[allergen(s)] / Produced in a plant that processes.. .[allergen(s)] 

2. May contain.. .[allergen(s)] / May contain traces of...[allergen(s)j 

3. May contain...[aliergen(s)] / Produced on shared equipment that processes.. .[allergen(s)] 

4. May contain traces of.. .[allergen(s)J / Produced in a plant that processes.. .[allergen(s)] 

5. May contain traces of...[alIergen(s)J1Produced on shared equipment that processes. ..[aIlergen(s)] 

6. May contain...[alIergen(s)J/ May contain traces of.. ... I Produced on shared equipment that ...... 

7. Produced on shared equipment that processes.. .[allergen(s)] 1 Produced in a plant that.. .... 

8. May contain traces of...[allergen(s)] / Produced on shared equipment that.. .I Produced in a plant 

that.. . 

9. May contain.. .[allergen(s)Y Produced on shared equipment that processes.. ./ Produced in 

a plant that.. . 

2. Information from the IFT report 

The IFT panel surveyed the labeling practices of the 59 food manufacturing companies 

that participated in the IFT discussions to determine the frequency of use of the following four 

advisory labeling statements: 

"Contains [allergen]" 

"Manufactured in a facility that processes [allergen]" 

"May contain [allergen]" 

"Processed on equipment that also processes [allergen]" 

IFT reported that the majority of surveyed companies used at least one of the foregoing advisory 

statements. However, in most cases, the advisory statements were used for a minority of a firm's 

products. In addition, IFT found that firms generally used a "Contains [allergen]" statement to 

identify only allergens listed in the ingredient statement. 
B. Conditions of food manufacture associated with various types of 

advisory labeling. 

I. Firms' Reasons for Use of Advisory Labeling 

a) Information from FDA inspections 

While conducting the allergen-focused inspections in FY2002, FDA investigators 

collected information related to the reason(s) facilities use advisory statements about the possible 

presence of food allergens. Facilities identified the following reasons (summarized by general 

category) for using advisory labeling:'' 

1. The firm used advisory labeling to advise consumers of the potential allergen(s) 

exposure or related hazardsafety issues. 

2. The firm recognized the potential for cross-contact in its production of finished 

product. 

3. The firm wanted to notify consumers of conditions under which food product is 

manufactured and the potential for cross-contact. 

4. The firm used finished product IabeI(s) that they were told to use or approved by 

the firm's headquarters or corporate office. 

5. The regulatory or legal department of the firm or its corporation recommended or 

required the advisory statement. 

6. The firm used advisory labeling as a self-protective measure (for example, due to 

liability or other concerns.) 

7. The firm transferred an advisory statement from incoming raw material or bulk 

product to the finished product label. 

8. The firm used advisory labeling to keep up with industry trends or practices. 

9. The firm used advisory labeling to avoid the expense of multiple labels for related 

products or boxes of different product assortments. 

10. A contract manufacturer used finished product label as directed or advised by the 

client firm. 

1 I. The firm used advisory labeling to follow the advice of their industry trade 

association. 

12. The firm believed that consumers want allergen information on product labels. 

13. Use of labeling with an advisory statement was requested by a private label 

manufacturer. 

14. A consumer requested allergen label infornlation to hisher own specification for 

a private1y-labeled product. 

b) Information from the IFT report 

The IFT panel asked those companies that use advisory labeling to explain why they use 

advisory statements on their products. The reasons provided to IFT were similar to several 

lo ?heorder tn which these categories are presented is not significant 

12 
reasons identified by FDA's inspections.' ' In addition, several firms surveyed by the IFT panel 

explained that they used advisory statements because their ingredient suppliers used such 

statements. 

2. Manufacturing Conditions Associated with Advisory ~abelin~'~ 

FDA evaluated data from the FY2002 allergen-focused inspections to determine the 

manufacturing conditions related to production equipment and those related to processing 

practices for facilities using advisory labeling and then compared those conditions lo the 

conditions at facilities not using advisory labeling.'3 The factors evaluated by irlvestigators 

related to equipment used in manufacturing are shown in Table 2 below. Table 3 shows the 

equipment-related control measures used in manufacturing to prevent allergen cross-contact that 

the investigators evaluated at the inspected facilities. These control measures include one or 

more of the following: dedicated equipment, shared equipment with clean up in between a 

production run of a food containing a food allergen ingredient, or production on shared 

equipment with allergen formulations scheduled to run last. 

Table 2. Equipment-related issues for facilities using advisory labeling compared with those 

facilities not usine advisorv labeling-. 

Facilities that used Facilities that did not 

Equipment issues evaluated during advisory labeling use advisory labeling 

allergen inspection of 1,470 facilities* n=247 n=1,207 

% (number) % (number) 

Firm used equipment-related conttol measures 

to prevent allergen cross-contact of products 87% (2 14) 79% (959) not intended to contain an allergen 

Equipment was not cleanable and easily 13% (31) 4% (50) accessible in firm 

Firm did not check the eficacy of cleaning 14% (35) 17% (208) food contact surfaces 

After an allergen run and subsequent 

1 equipment cleaning, build up of residual I 1 I material or pockets of residue in equipment 1 20% (50) 1 1 1% (1 36) I 

comers that could contain an allergen from ) 1 I 1 

*Infomation 

the previous 

on 

run. 

whether a hrm used advisory 

A 

labeling was missing for six facilities and considered "not appticable" 

for ten facilities. 

t 1 Of the reasons identified by the FDA inspections, numbers 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, and I4 were also Identified by the fF?' 

renort. or the information prrsrntcd in this section, it is important to hear in mind that FDA inspected nuny sectors of 

the food industry and the facilities inspected varied in terms of size, production practices, firm environment, 

equipment, and products. Ttrese variations may have had some effect on the use of advisory labeling- 13 This section includes four tables that are related to one aiwther in the follow way. 'I'able 2 contains questionnaire 

items (put in declarative fomi for the reader) from the equipment portion of the inspections, and .I'able 4 contains 

questionnaire items (put in declarative form for the reader) tiom the processing portion of the inspections. In terms 

of interrelationships, 'Table 3 rs a subset of Table 2, and Table 5 is a subset of Table 4. Specifically, if an 

investigator responded that a firm used equipment-related control tncasures to prevent allergen cross-contact of 

products (Table 2, second row), then she further specified which equipment-related control measures were used 

(Table 3). Siinilarly, fan investigator observed that a firm was likely to have cross-contact occur in the firm during 

processing ('Table 4, second row), then she further specified what type of cross-contact was Iikcly (-['able 5). 
The results suggest that a high proportion of facilities have control measures in place to 

prevent cross-contact regardless of whether the firm uses advisory labeling. Two equipment 

issues (equipment not readily cleanablelnot easily accessible and build-up of residual material 

containing allergen(s) alter equipment cleaning) appear to be associated slightly more frequently 

with facilities using advisory labeling than with facilities not using such labeling. A similar 

comparison of the two categories of facilities inspected in FY200312004 was consistent with the 

results from the FY2002 inspections. 

FDA evaluated the FY2002 inspection data for facilities using equipment-related control 

measures to prevent allergen cross-contact of products to determine the types of control 

measures employed. Results are shown in Table 3. A higher proportion of facilities using 

advisory labeling employed the various cross-contact control measures than did facilities not 

using advisory labeling. The findings from the FY200312004 inspections were comparable 

except for facilities employing dedicated equipment.I4 

Table 3. Allergen cross-contact equipment-related control measures for facilities using advisory 

labeling compared with those of facilities not using advisory labeling.

I Among facilities that used control measures 1 Facilities that used 1 Facilities that did not 1 

to prevent allergen cross-contact of advisory labeling use advisory labeling 

products not intended to contain an n=214 n--959 

allergen % (number) Oh (number) 

n=1.183* 

Dedicated Equipment 

up in between 8lYo (174) allergen run 

Production on shared equipment with 

production scheduled to run allergen 

formulation last 

* Information on whether a firm used advisory labeling was missing for six facilities and considered "not 

applicable" for four facilities. 

FDA also evaluated cross-contact issues related to processing practices in relation to the 

use of advisory labeling; the results for the FY2002 inspections are shown in Table 4. The 

processing practices evaluated by investigators in the FY2002 inspections are shown in Table 4. 

More than twice the proportion of facilities that used advisory labeling were considered by the 

investigators to be likely to have cross-contact occur in the firm during processing, compared to 

facilities that did not use advisory labeling.'' However, there was little difference between the 

two groups of facilities with respect to handling exposed product on the processing line to 

protect against allergen cross-contact. The findings of the FY200312004 inspections were 

14 For FY200312004, 24 percent of facilities using advisory labeling had dedicated equipment, whereas 34 percent 

of facilities not using advisory labeling had dedicated equipment. lriformation was missing or not applicable for 6 

facilities with control measures IS In evaluating firms and their practices for the likelihood of cross-contact, the FDA il~vestigatorsrelied on their 

prior training and experience. Before the allergen-focused inspections were initiated, these investigators also 

received additional trailling which was aimed at, among other things, helping these experienced invest~gatorsto 

provide consistent observat~onsand apply co~~sistent judgment specifically about the allergen-related issues 

addressed in the ~nspection. 
generally consistent with the findings of the FY2002 inspections although the difference between 

the two groups on likelihood of cross-contact was not as great. 

Table 4- Processing issues or practices of facilities using advisory labeling compared with those 

of facilities not using 

I---- Facilities that used Facilities that did not 

Processing issues or practices evaluated advisory labeling use advisory labeling 

during alIergen inspection of 1,470 n=247 n=1,207 

facilities* % (number) % (number) 

Cross-contact likely to occur in firm during 46% (1 13) 2 1 % (252) processing 

The unpackaged, exposed product on the 

processing line was handled in a way that 79% (196) 75% (906) 

[ protects against allergen cross-contact 1 I I 

"

*Infomation on whether a fmused advisory labeling was missing for six facilities and considered "not applicable" 

for ten facilities. 

For the facilities considered by the investigators as likely to have cross-contact during 

processing, the investigators also evaluated whether there were allergen residues on equipment 

during processing, a build-up of allergen residues above the processing zones, or airborne food 

prtici& present during processing. As reflected in Table 5, specific cross-contact problems 

were nea& the sarne fat facilitiesthat used advisory labeling, compared to facilities that did not 

use adviso~ylabeling. Similarly, the data from the FY2003/2004 inspections showed no 

particular pattern on these cross-contact issues. 

Table 5. Cross-contact control problems during - -

processing for facilities using advisory labeling 

corn ared with those facilities not usin advisory labeling. 

Among facilities with cross-contact likely to Facilities that used Facilities that did not 

occur during processing advisory labeling use advisory labeling 

n-369" 

% (number) n=113 % (number) n=252 

Residue of allergen product on equipment 

* lnfomatiorl on whether a firm used advisory labeling in this subset of data was missing for two facilities and "not 

applicable" for two facilities. 

C. Extent to which advisory labels are being used on food products 

FDA's allergen-focused inspections collected information on the prevalence of advisory 

statements related to food allergens. Of the 1,454 allergen-focused inspections conducted in 

FY2002 and analyzed by FDA for which use of advisory labeling detem~inationswere made, 17 

percent of thcse facilities used sonic form of advisory statement on the labels of their finished 

products relating to the presence of allergens.I6 Similarly, of the 372 allergen-focused 

inspections conducted in FY200312004 and analyzed by FDA, I8 percent of all fiicilities used an 

16 Advisory labeling was defined in FDA's allergen inspection questionnaire as follows: "Advisory labeling is a 

statement such as 'this product was processed on machinery that was also used to process products containing 

(allergen)' or 'may contain (allergen}."' 

I5 
advisory statement of some type. In each group of inspections, the percentage of facilities that 

used allergen advisory statements increased with an increase in firm size." 

In addition, data from FDA's FY2002 allergen-focused inspections show that facilities 

manufacturing certain products (such as chocolates) were more likely to use allergen advisory 

statements in their label^.'^ FDA also evaluated the percentage of facilities that utilized advisory 

labeling according to the allergens contained in their food products. Peanut and tree nuts19 were 

the allergens most often associated with facilities that used advisory labeling followed by soy, 

milk, egg, wheat, Crustacean shellfish, and fish.20 

FDA did not evaluate facilities' use of advisory labeling by the type of product 

manufactured for the FY2003/2004 allcrgen-focused inspections because such estimates would 

have been unreliable duc to small numbers of facilities inspected. 

V. Section 204(4): Consumer Preferences for Food AIlergen 

Labeling 

Section 204(4) of the FALCPA provides that the report to Congress describe the advisory 

labeling preferences of consumers with food allergies and their caretakers with respect to 

statements about the risk of allergen cross-contact. FDA's review of the available research 

found no information on consumer preferences for cross-contact information on food labels. 

Accordingly, FDA selected an appropriate method to collect these data, developed an appropriate 

survey instrument, and contracted with a consumer research firm to administer the survey. FDA 

also developed an experimental study as a complementary test of the survey results on consumer 

preferences.2' 

A. The FDA-sponsored survey of consumer preferences 

The FDA-sponsored survey sampled a preexisting panel of respondents who participate 

in surveys using the Internet. This is a probability-based Internet panel, the constituents of 

which wcre recruited from a variety of sources so that the panel closely reflects U.S. population 

demographics. Internet access was not a requirement for inclusion in the panel. 

17 For example, the FY2002 data show that 12% of smaller (Category 1) firms, 16 percent of mid-size (Category 2) 

firms, '' and 23 percent of the larger (Category 3) finns used some sort of advisory statement in their product labels.

For example, facitities manufacturing chocolate prodtlcts wcre the most likely to use allergen advisory statements 

(53 percent). Chocolate manufacturers were followed by firms that produced candy (47 percent), those producing 

nut products (32 percent), and those making snack food products (I 9 percent). For firms making other types of food 

products, the fraction of firms that used allergen advisory statements ranged from 0 to 15 percent. 19 In the FY2002 inspections, al~nonds,chestnuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, walnuts, hazelnuts (filberts), cashews, 

Brazil nuts, pistachios, hickory nuts, and pine nuts were considered to be "tree nuts." 

20 .

fiirty-five percent of firrns using advisory labeling used peanuts in their products and 29 percent used tree nuts. 

Fifteen to 20 percent of firnls utilizing advisory labeling used wheat, egg, milk, or soy ingredients, and 5 to 7 

percent of firms using fish or Cnlstacean shellfisfi used advisory labels. 2I A corlsunier stlrvey usually consists of a list of questions given to a randomly chosen sample of individuals from a 

known population. Survey questions generally query attitudes and opinions, and the results produce statistically 

derived estimates of how the entire population woultl respond to the questions. In contrast, experiments are 

conducted with ~ndividualswho have been randoinly assigned to groups. Each group receives one set of stimuli 

(e.g.,a product tabel containing an advisory staten~cnt)ant1 comptetes a task using those stimuli. Differences 

betwecr~the groups on the tasks indicate differences between the stimuli. 

16 
In the survey, FDA asked two groups of individuals to identify their preferences for food 

labeling advisory statements intended to communicate information about the possibility of food 

allergen cross-contact. The first group consisted of food allergic individuals (n=530) and 

caregivers of food allergic individuals (n==209).~~The second group was composed of 

individuals who identified themselves as neither having a food allergy nor providing care to a 

person with a food allergy (~504). 

All survey respondents were shown mock food labels similar to actual food product 

labels. Each mock-up contained one of four advisory statements. Respondents were asked to 

rank order their preferences by selecting their first choice from among the four statements, then 

their second choice, and so on. Three of the four advisory statements were based on statements 

currently found on food product labels in the marketplace. A fourth statement, developed for the 

FDA-sponsored survey, described manufacturing controls designed to reduce the likelihood of 

the presence of the allergen in the food. l'he purpose of this statement was to test whether 

consumers would prefer specific advisory information about food manufacturing processes and 

the potential for cross-contact. Most advisory statements currentIy in the marketplace do not 

specify the nature and potential source of such cross-contact. 

Because they are frequently used as a food ingredient, peanuts were seIected as the 

allergenic ingredient identified in the advisory statement for this study. Also, for sensitive 

individuals, exposure to peanuts may cause a very serious reaction (including anaphylaxis), and 

advisory statements on food labels regarding peanuts are increasingly common in the market 

place. The following four advisory statements were tested: 

A. "Allergy Information: May Contain Peanuts." 

B. "May contain peanuts." 

C. "Manufactured on the sarne equipment as foods that contain peanut." 

D. "Produced in a facility with an allergy control plan. The possibility of contact 

with allergenic ingredients has been minimized. May still contain trace 

amotnlts of peanut." 

The data were analyzed using nonparametric procedures to test for rank position and 

significance. There were no significant differences between the food allergic group and the nonallergic group either in the magnitude or the ordering of their preferences for all of the 

statements. "Allergy Information: May contain peanuts" was preferred over the other three 

statements. "Manufaclured on the same equipment as foods that contain peanut." was preferred 

second, and "May Contain Peanuts" was ranked third. The statement that assured an allergen 

control plan, "Produced in a facility with an allergen control plan ..." was the least preferred of 

the four statements. 

l'he results are consistent with prior research on product labels which has shown that 

consumers prefer information to be preceded by signal words and generally view this 

information as more crcdibie than information not accompanied by signal words.23 Signal words 

2"e~p~ndents identified as food allcrgic or caregivers to food allergic persons were selected based on self-reported 

allergic reactions (of the sun1eyresponderit or of a person cared for by the respondent) to any of the eight foods or 

food groups identified by FALCPA. 2 3 Wogalter, M~chaelS., Michael J. Kalsher, and Raheel Rashid. 1999."Effect of Signal Word and Source 

Attribution on Judgments of Warning Cred~h~lityand Compliance Likeithood Infernafronal Journal of Indzu~ial 

t'rgonornxs 24.185-192. 

17 
are also time-savers for shoppers, who want to be able to scan a food product label quickly and 

locate the information they need to make informed purchase decisions. 

B. Consumer Keactions to Food Allergen Labeling Options 

1. 2005 Allergen Labeling Experiment -Key Findings 

This section presents the results from an experimental study addressing consumers' 

reactions to the same four advisory statements tested in the allergen survey study. The purpose 

of the experiment was to test the viability of the survey results on consumer preferences. The 

experiment compared the effects of the different label statements on consumers' food purchase 

or consumption intent decisions. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental groups; 

each group evaluated a single label containing either one of the advisory statements or an 

"experimental control" (a label without an advisory statement.) 

The experimental data were collected using a web-enabled panel of consumers.24 There 

were two groups of respondents in the experiment: a group of self-reported food allergicz5 

persons and caregivers to food allergic persons (n=1,000), and a control group of non-food 

allergic persons (n=1,000). The advisory statements were tested using two mock products: a 

chocolate candy bar and a seafood casserole. Neither product was labeled as containing peanut 

as an ingredient. Each respondent viewed a single label condition (e.g., a candy bar with an 

advisory statement) and was asked to answer questions appearing on hisher screen. There were 

approximately 100 individuals in each experimental group from each of the two groups of 

respondents. 

The respondents were first asked to decide whether the product they were looking at 

contained peanuts (a "recognition measure"). The only reference to peanut on the product label 

was in the advisory statement, except that the control label had no advisory statement. Figure 1 

displays results for the seafood casserole product and Figure 2 displays results for the candy bar 

product. 

Advisory statements do not state definitively that the product contains the food identified 

in the statement (which, in this experiment, is peanut.) Instead, these statements suggest the 

possible presence of the food (in this experiment, peanut) in the product due to cross-contact. 

Therefore, the factually correct rtnswcr to the first question is "cannot be certain" for those 

products with an advisory label statenlent. On the product without such a statement (i.e.,the 

control), if consunlers rely only on the product label information, which does not include peanut 

as an ingredient, the most accurate answer is "no." 

Interestingly, about 35 percent of people who saw the no-statement control label for the 

seafood casserole and 30 percent of those who saw the no-statement control candy bar label said 

that either the products contained peanuts or they were not certain. The similarity in the patterns 

for the no-statement co~ltrolacross the two products suggests that, in general, a substantial 

number of people will be skeptical about the absence of peanut in a product, even where peanut 

is not mentioned in the ingredient list or otherwise on the food labcl. 

24The pa~ielsfor the experinlent and the consumer preference survey reported in Section A above had different 

respondents. 

25 A person was considered "food allergic" if heishe reacted to any of the eight foods or food groups identified in 

FAI.CPA. 
Figurel. Recognition Measure - Does this Seafood Product Contain Peanuts'? I---- - ---- - -

- - ---

No Statement 

Manufactured 

on.. 

Produced in a 

Yes facility I! 

17 Cannot be Certain -- ..- - --

Allergy Info: 

May Contain 

Peanuts 

Figure 

7

2. Recognition Measure - Does this Candy Bar Product Contain Peanuts? -- - -- --- --- -- - . --- -.. --.--1 

No Statement 

Manufaciured 

on . . - -...-

No Produced in a 

facility B Yes 

Allergy Info: o Cannot be Certain - .--.. 

May Contain 

Peanuts 

The statement "Allergy Infom~ation:May Contain Peanuts" appears to have made a 

difference for respondents who saw the candy bar label in that about 50 percent of them 

concluded that the candy bar contains peanut. In contrast, only about 25 percent of respondents 

who saw the seafood casserole label concluded that the casserole contains peanuts. Because 

chocolate candy often contains peanut, it is likely that the signal words "Allergy Information" 

suggested to respondents an increased likelihood of the presence of peanuts in the candy bar. 

The statement "May Cot~tainPeanuts" elicited more "cannot be certain" responses than any of 

the other statements. Far this form of advisory statement, 70 percent of those who saw the 

seafood casserole labe1 and GO percent of thosc who saw the candy bar label responded that they 

could not be certain about the presence of peanut In the product in question. 
Following the first "recognition measure," subjects were asked another question about 

recognition and a series of questions to rate the believabilitJGand helpfulness2' of the 

statements. They were also asked whether they would eat or serve the product to someone with a 

minor allergy to peanut and whether they would eat or serve the product to someone with a 

severe allergy to peanut ("consumption measures"). The questions in this part of the experiment 

differ from the first "recognition measure" in that respondents were asked to answer in degrees 

of likelihood, which permits a comparison of means across label conditions. 

The results provided in Table 6 reflect combined data for the two food products and the 

two groups of respondents. There were no differences in results between the food allergic and 

non-food allergic groups. Similarly, differences in responses by product (candy and seafood 

casserole) were negligible. 

Table 6 depicts the mean scores for each label condition (far left column) for each of the 

measures (top row). What becomes apparent when looking at these results is that the ratings for 

some of the label conditions seem to cluster. Subjects who saw the "May Contain Peanuts." 

label and those who saw the "Allergy Information: May contain peanut." label gave these two 

labels comparable ratings. Similarly, those who saw the "Manufactured on" label and those who 

saw the "Produced in a facility" label gave these two labels very similar ratings. 

Subjects who saw the "May contain" label and those who saw the "Allergy Information" 

label rated them as significantly more likely to contain peanut than did those who saw the two 

other statements and the no-statement control. The "May contain. . ." and "Allergy Information" 

labels were also rated as significantly less believable and significantly less helpful than the two 

other labels containing advisory statements. (Groups evaluating the control labels were not 

asked to respond to the "believability" or "helpful" questions.) Those subjects who saw the 

"May contain" and the "Allergy Information" labels were also significantly less likely to serve 

the product to someone with a minor or severe peanut allergy than those who saw the 

"Manufactured on" or the "Produced in" labels. Subjects who saw the no-statement control label 

reported that they were significantly more likely than thosc who saw any of the four advisory 

statement labels to serve the product to someone with a peanut allergy. 

26 Beltramini, Richard I:., and Kenneth R. Evens. 1985. "Perceived Iklievability of Research Results Information 

in Advertising." Journal of Advertising. 14: 18-24, 31. 27 Iielpfulness was measured using a five-point, semantic d~fferential,anchored by "helpful" and "not helpful" at 

respective ends. Subjccts here asked to rate the statement about peanuts on the label using the scalc. 

20 
Table 6. Means* on the Effectiveness Measures for Each Label Condition. 

Would Serve Would Serve 

to Someone to Someone 

with a Minor with a Severe 

Lkely to Believability Statement Peanut Peanut 

LABEL CONDITION - containt Scale' is Helpful' ~- l l Aller y' e u

No-Statement Control 2.3 da n/a 3 2.4 

May Contain Peanuts 3.2 3.2 3.1 1.5 1.1 

Altergy Info: May Contain 3.3 3.3 3.1 1.6 1.1 

Manufactured on the Same 

Equipment 2.7 3.7 3.7 2 1.2 

Produced in a Facility with 

an Allerien Control Plan 

+ p<.O1 *Range for all scales i

2.6 

s 1 -5. Hig

3-6 

her numbers are 

3.6 

more positive. 

2.1 1.2 

----

2. Discussion of results 

There are some important quaIifiers to the conclusions from this experiment. The 

statements tested in this experiment focused on the presence of peanut. Peanut allergy can 

produce among the most severe allergic responses, and even those not directly affected by this 

food allergy appear to be aware of the seriousness of peanut ingestion by sensitive individuals. 

Thus, it is possible that subjects might have responded differently had a food allergen other than 

peanut been the subject of the advisory statements. 

Also, although these results are statistically significant, the differences in ratings among 

the label conditions on each measure are small. All of the ratings for the recognition, 

believability, and helpfulness measures cluster around "3," the midpoint in the scale. For the 

believability and helphlness measures, subjects rated all four advisory statements more 

believable and more rather than less helpful. Across all the label conditions, subjects were 

unlikely to serve the product to someone with a peanut allergy. 

VI. Section 204(5)(A) & (B): FDA's Allergen-focused Inspections 

Section 204(5) of the FALCPA provides that the report to Congress include information 

on FDA's inspection of food manufacturing and processing facilities, including the number of 

facilities and food labels that were "fountl to be in compliance or out of compliance with respect 

to cross-contact of foods with residues of major food allergens and the proper labeling of major 

food allergens." As noted, in FY2002, FDA conducted over 1,800 allergen-focused inspections, 

and subsequently conclucted comparable inspections at 372 facilities during FY2003J2004. 

These inspections did not specifically determine whether inspected facilities were "in 

cornpIiance" or "out of compliance." Nevertheless, the results of thcse inspections, which are 

discussed in detail below, provide valuable information about the food industry's awareness of 

food allergens in the rnanufhcturing environment and facilities' practiccs designed to manage the 

risks posed by such allerger-rs. 
A. INTRODUCTION 

Facilities inspected in FY2002 included those manufacturing cbocolate and candy 

products, bakery products (including crackers and cookies), ice cream, processed or shelled nut 

products, trail mixes, snack foods, breakfhst cereals, macaroni and noodle products (fresh or 

dry), and salad dressings. FDA specifically targeted for inspection facilities with a 

manufacturing environment that created the possibility of cross-contact. The targeted 

inspections included facilities producing, within the same facility, similar food products, one of 

which contained an allergen and one of which did not contain the allergen (e.g., a single facility 

producing bakery products with and without egg ingredients or producing chocolate products 

with and without nut ingredients.) These inspections also included facilities using shared 

equipment or production lines to process both products containing allergens and products not 

containing allergens, and faciiities using shared equipment that was not cleancd between allergen 

and non-allergen runs or with shared equipment that was dry-cleaned (i.e., without water) 

between allergen and non-allergen runs. 

The data from the FY2002 inspections provide an overview of the practices of a group of 

facilities that were selected based on the above criteria. Importantly, because the facilities were 

not selected in an entirely random fashion, the data collected from the FY2002 inspections are 

not, in the statistical sense, a representative random sample of all facilities using the most 

common food allergens. Thus, the results should not be generalized to the larger population of 

all food production facilities. 

The FDA investigators were instructed to conduct the inspection of a facility during 

production of the food(s) of interest. The investigators were also strongly encouraged to 

observe, where appropriate and possible, change-over from production of allergen containing

product(s) to product(s) not containing allergen. These inspections were to determine and assess 

the following three items: (1) the allergens, along with the general practices, procedures, and 

processes a facility utilized in producing food products; (2) a facility's measures and controls to 

prevent conditions associated with allergen cross-contact; and (3) whether the IabeIs of food 

products formulated to contain allergens correctly declared the presence of these ingredients.*' 

The results discussed below are based on the 1,470 facilities for which the inspection 

information was largely complete. 

B. RESULTS FROM THE FY2002 INSPECTIONS 

I. Facility size and allergen use 

Inspected facilities were categorized by size based on the reported annual sales volume 

for each facility; ten sjze categories were used. For this report, the ten size categories were 

collapsed into three broader categories, idcntified as Category I, 2, or 3. Category 2 facilities 

(annual sales of $500,000 to $9,999,999) represented the largest fraction at 44.7 percent of all 

facilities; Category 3 hcilities (annual sales volume of $10,000,000 or more) represented 30.2 

28 Inspections itlerltified the specific food products evaluated d~irtngthe inspection and gathered information on 

aspects of production, including product development, receiving (e.g.,raw materials), equipment, processing, 

testing, and labeling fin~shedproducts. I~~vestigatorsexamined finished food product labels for up to teri products 

formulated to contain any of the e~ghtfood allergens, concentrating on products with the highest production volume. 

These examinations verified that allergenic ingredients (including processing aids) were listed in the tngredient 

statement and confirnletl that the ingredient was present in the finished product by reviewing batch records or 

through direct observation. 

22 
percent of the facilities; and Category 1 (annual sales volume of $0 to $499,999) represented 

25.1 percent of the faci~ities.'~ 

FDA evaluated the 1,470 facilities for the use and handling of food allergens during food 

manufacturing. Of the 1,470facilities, 96.8 percent facilities used one or more of the eight most 

common food allergens as an ingredient, 62.7 percent used ingredients containing one or more of 

the eight as a sub-ingredient, and 47. I percent used ingredients derived from one or more of the 

eight. 

For all inspected facilities rnanufwturing food products containing any of the eight most 

common food allergens, milk was the allergen most frequently used, followed by wheat and egg. 

Milk and wheat also ranked first and second, respectively, across a11 facility size categories in 

terms of use. Soy, tree nuts, and peanut ranked fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively. Fish and 

Crustacea were the two food aIlergens least used in food products, ranking seventh and eighth, 

respectively, for all facilities and across all facility size categories. For larger (Category 3) and 

smaller (Category 1) facilities, there are differences observed in the use of soy.jOTree nuts were 

used more frequently by the smaller (Category 1) facilities than by the larger (Category 3) 

facilities. 

2. Receipt of allergenic ingredients3' 

FDA's inspections evaluated two aspects of facilities' receiving practices: the 

identification and segregation of allergenic ingredients and the use of bulk storage for such 

ingredients. When receiving raw materials for products, 55 percent of the facilities that used 

allergenic food as ingredients identified ingredients as allergens or segregated these ingredients, 

or both. Smaller facilities were less likely than larger facilities to identify or segregate allergenic 

ingredients.32 Twenty-nine percent of the inspected facilities identified bulk tanks storing 

allergenic ingredients, managed such tanks, or both.33 Bulk tanks for allergenic ingredients were 

identified or otherwise appropriately managed more frequently by the larger (Category 3) 

facilities than by the mid-size (Category 2) and smaHer (Category 1) facilities. 

FDA's inspections also evaluated facilities' receipt of allergenic ~ub-in~redients.~~ Of 

the facilities that used ingredients containing any of the eight most common food allergens as 

sub-ingredients, 48 percent identified or segregated, or identified and segregated, ingredients 

containing allergenic sub-ingredients. Smaller facilities were somewhat less likely to idcntify or 

29 Because annual sales data were "ussing for one facility, the percentages of facilities by size are based on a total of 

1469 firms. 30 For the larger (Category 3) facilities, soy was the third most common allergen used with 67 percent of Category 3 

facilities using soy, while for the smaller (Category 1) facilities, soy was ranked sixth (used by 36 percent of 

facilities) and for the mid-size (Category 2) facilities, soy ranked fifth (used by 45 percent of facilities.) 31 The data in this portion of the "Receiving" section are drawn from the inspection of those facilities that reported 

using any of the eight most common food allergens as an ir~gredient.Approximately 97 perccnt of inspected 

facilities (1423 of 1470) used one or more of the eight as an ingredient. (The remaln~llg3 percent of fac~litiesonly 

used one of the eight as a sub-ingredient, only used an ingredient derived from a major fond allergen, or both.) 32 Sixty-three percent of the larger (Category 3) facilities, 53 perccnt of mid-size (Category 2) facilities, and 47 

percent of the smaller (Category 1) facilities identified or segregated, or ~dentifiectand segregated, allergenic 

ingredients upon receipt. 33 For 30 percent of the facilities evaluated, the investigators determined that bulk storage was not applicabie to their 

use of allergenic ~ngredients. 33 For example, a facility producing breaded fish might recelve and trse a breading m~xture(the nlgredient) that 

contains wheat (an allergenic sub-ingredient.) 

23 
segregate allergenic sub-ingredients." Sixteen percent of the facilities that used ingredients 

containing allergenic sub-ingredients reported that they identified or otherwise ap ropriately 

managed bulk tanks storing ingredients that contained allergenic sub-ingredients.' Bulk tanks 

for ingredients containing major food allergens as sub-ingredients were identified or otherwise 

appropriately managed more frequently by the larger (Category 3) facilities than by the mid-size 

(Category 2) or smaller (Category 1) facilities. 

3. Monitoring ingredient statements in finished product labels 

During the FY2002 inspections, FDA investigators asked facilities about monitoring the 

accuracy of ingredient statements in labels received for finished food products. Sixty-five 

percent of these facilities stated that finished product labels are checked when received to 

confirm the accuracy of the ingredient statement, including verification that the cartons of labels 

do not contain a mixture of different labels, compared to 29 percent that stated they did not check 

labels upon receipt.37 Of this 29 percent of facilities, one-third did check labels prior to using 

them. Taken together, 75 percent of alt facilities confirmed the accuracy of label ingredient 

statements either upon receipt of the labels or prior to their use. 

4. Equipment 

a) Cleaning Practices 

The FDA inspections evaluated equipment cleaning practices used by food production 

facilities both in terms of control measures and efficacy checks. Eighty percent of all facilities 

applied one or more control measures to production equipment to prevent allergen crosscontact.38 Equipment-related control measures to prevent cross-contact were used most 

frequently in the larger (Category 3) facilities with 89 percent of those facilities applying one or 

more of such measures, compared to 79 pcrcent ofthe mid-size (Category 2) facilities and 72 

percent of the smaller (Category I) facilities. 

Manufacturing facilities used several types of equipment-related control measures. Of 

the facilities that applied such measures, 33 percent used dedicaled equipment, 76 percent used 

shared equipment with clean-up between manufacture of the allergen-containing product and 

manufacture of the product without an allergenic ingredient ("clean-up"), 34 percent used shared 

equipment with production of the allergenic product scheduled last ("production scheduling"), 

and 7 percent used other methods. 

Of the facilities that practiced control measures to prevent allergen cross-contact 

associated with production equipment, one-third of those facilities used dedicated equipment, 

with a slightly higher percentage of the larger (Category 3) and smaller (Category 1) facilities 

using such equipment. Larger size facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to use cleanup and production scheduIing. 

-

35 Fifly-two percent of the larger (Category 3) facilitles, 47 percent of the mid-size (Category 2) fac~lities,anti 42 

percent of the smaller (Category I) facilities 1dentific.dor segregated ingredients containing allergerlic subingredients. 

36 For 37 percent of the facilities evaluated, the investigators determined that bulk storage was not applicable to their 

use of allergenic sub-ingred~ents. 3 7 Of the 1470 facilities inspected, checking tabels was deemed "not applicable" for 4 percent of all facilities, it 

could not be detemned for 0.4 percent of facilities, and an answer was missirlg for 1 percent of facilities. 38 FDA investigators reported that for 2 percent of facilities, this question was not applicable; for 0.1 percent. no 

answer could be determined; and no response was provided for 1 percent of the facilities. 

24 
b) Cleaning effectiveness checks 

Eighty-three percent of all facilities checked the effcctivencss of their cleaning of food 

contact surfaces. Of these facilities, 95 percent used visual examination to check such efficacy, 

25 percent used a microbiological test, 5 percent used a chernical assay for allergens, and 6 

percent used other tests. Larger size facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to confirm 

the efficacy of their cleaning in some way.39 

5. Cleaning and equipment characteristics 

FDA investigators evaluated whether facilities' production equipment was easily 

accessible and cleanable. The inspections found that a majority of all facilities, 93 percent 

(1,370 of 1,470) had easily accessible and cleanable equipment. Equipment in less than 6 

percent of the inspected facilities was deemed to be not easily accessible or cleanab~e.~' 

One situation that may result in allergen cross-contact is a build-up or pockets of residual 

food material on equipment even after cleaning. In I3 percent of all facilities inspected, FDA 

investigators observed a build-up of residue on equipment, which residue could have contained 

an allergen. There was a slight variation across facility sizes in the incidence of residue build-up 

on equipment.4' 

6. Potential cross-contact during processing 

a) Possible routes of cross-contact 

During the FY2002 inspections, FDA investigators assessed whethcr allergen crosscontact was likely to occur during processing of food products. The investigators considered that 

such cross-contact was likely to occur in 25 percent of all inspected facilities. There was a slight 

trend for facilities with the highest sales volume to have a lower likelihood of cross-contact.42 

The investigators evaluated the nature of this potential cross-contact, focusing on three possible 

sources of contamination: residues of aIlergen-containing product on equipment, build-up of 

product above the processing zone, and presence of airborne food particles. Overall, equipment 

residues were judged to be the most likely source of cross-contact, followed by airborne food 

particles, and build-up of product above the processing zone. 

FDA evaluated the relationship between facility size and the foregoing three potential 

routes of cross-contact. Facility size was a minor factor in whether a facility was considered 

likely to have cross-contact due to residues on equipment.") Airborne food particles as a 

19Seventy-four percent of the smaller (Category I) facilities, 80 percent of mld-size (Category 2) facilities, and 93 

percent of larger (Category 3) facilities performed a cleaning effectiveness check of some type. 40For the balance (17) of the 1470 facilities, responses to this evaluatiorl were rn~ssing,"not applicable," or "could 

not be determined." 41FDA investigators observed residues in 13 percent of larger (Category 3) facitrties, 15 percent of rnid-size 

(Category 2) facilities, and 10 percent of smaller ((:ategory 1) facilities. FDA investigators could not make the 

equipment residrrc evaluation in 4 % of inspections, the question was deemed "not applicable" to the facilities in 4 

percent of inspections, or a response to this question was missing for 1 percent of inspections. 42 Twenty-two percent of the larger (Category 3) facilities, 27 percent of the mid-size (Category 2) facilities, and 26 

percent of the smaller (Category I) facilities were considered likely to exper~er~ceallergen cross-contact during 

processing. 

43 Equipment residues were considered likely to be a source of cross-contact for a sllnilar percentage of facilities in 

each size category. 

25 
potential source of cross-contact were considered more likely for mid-size (Category 2) 

facilities.44 Finally, larger (Category 3) facilities were considered somewhat less likely to have 

product build-up above processing zones when compared to mid-size and smaller faci~ities.~~ 

b) Handling of uupackaged exposed product 

FDA investigators evaluated processing Iine practices and determined that 76 percent of 

all facilities handled unpackaged, exposed product in a way to protect it against cross-contact 

with an allergen.46 The percentage of facilities thal handled product in this way was greater in 

facilities with higher sales volumes. 

c) Rework of semi-finished or finished product 

Of the f ,470 facilities inspected, 34 percent reworked semi-finished or finished product. 

Fifty-four percent of larger (Category 3) facilities, 28 percent of mid-size (Category 2) facilities, 

and 20 percent of sma1Ier (Category 1) facilities reworked semi-finished or finished product. 

Facilities with higher sales volumes were more likely to rework product. 

FDA investigators collected information on three rework control measures. For 92 

percent of the facilities that reworked semi-finished or finished product, the reworked product 

was added back only to products containing the same allergen(s). About half of the facilities 

determined the amount of rework at the beginning and end of production and reconciled these 

amounts. Nearly three-fourths of the facilities had control measures to ensure that IabeIs for 

finished product that included allergen-containing rework had accurate ingredient information. 

A larger Eraction of the larger (Category 3) facilities utilized measures to control use of 

rework. Ninety-five percent of larger (Category 3) facilities controlled rework by adding it back 

to like product, compared to 90 percent of mid-size (Category 2) facilities and 85 percent of 

smaller (Category 1) facilities. Similarly, 68 percent of larger (Category 3) facilities controlled 

rework by reconciling the amount of rework incorporated, compared to 43 percent of mid-size 

(Category 2) facilities and 31 percent of smaller (Category 1) fdcilities. Finally, eighty-six 

percent of larger (Category 3) facilities used rework-related control measures to ensure accurate 

ingredient inforrnation on finished product labels, compared to 62 percent of mid-size (Category 

2) facilities and 63 percent of smaller (Category I) facilities. Facilities with larger sales volumes 

were more likely to engage in practices to control rework compared to facilities with smaller 

sales volumes. 

One means by which some facilities that rework semi-finished or finished product 

controlled rework was by applying specific measures to rework storage containers. Facilities 

generally used one or Inore of the following ways to control these containers: dedicated 

containers, identified container contents, or segregatcd containers. Larger (Category 3) facilities 

44Airborne food particles were considered likely to be a source of cross-contact in 38 percent of mid-sizc (Category 

2) faciiities compared to 27 percent of the smaller (Category 1) facilities and 29 percent of the larger (Category 3) 

facilities. 

4 5 Only 1 1 percent of the larger (Category 3) facilities were considered likely to havc cross-contact resulting froor 

such prodr~ctbuild-up compared to 17 percent of the mid-s~zc(Category 2) and 17 pcrcent of the smaller (Category 

1) fac~lities. 46 Eighty-six percent of the larger (Category 3) facilities, 73 percent of nnci-size (Category 2) facilities, and 69 

percent of the smaller (Category 1) faciIities handled exposed product during processing in a way to prevent crosscontact. 

26 
were slightly more likely to handle rework containers in one of these ways compared to the 

smaller and mid-kize (Categories I and 2) facilities. 

7. Facilities' inspection of finished package labels 

Sixty-eight percent of all facilities inspected finished product packages prior to 

distribution to ensure that an allergen-containing product was properly labeied. Larger facilities 

were more likely than smaller ones to inspect the Iabeling on the finished product packages. 

Seventy-nine percent of the larger (Category 3) facilities, 65 percent of the mid-size (Category 2) 

facilities, and GI percent of the smaller (Category 1) facilities inspected such labeling. 

C. RESULTS FROM THE FY2003/2004 INSPECTlONS 

In FY2003 and FY2004, FDA conducted allergen-focused inspections at 372 facilities. 

As was the case with the FY2002 inspections, of the three size categories, mid-size (Category 2) 

facilities were the highest proportion of facilities inspected.47 Of the 372 facilities, 96.0 percent 

used one or more of the eight most common food allergens as an ingredient, 54.6 percent 

facilities used ingredients that contained one or more of the eight as a sub-ingredient, and 37.6 

percent facilities used ingredients derived from one or more of the eight. Consistent with the 

findings of the FY2002 inspections, milk and wheat were the most common food allergens used 

by facilities, and fish and Crustacea were the least common food allergens used by facilities.48 

The results of FDA's FY2003/2004 inspections were similar to the results of the FY2002 

inspections with respect to receiving, equipment, processing, testing and labeling. For example, 

57 percent of facilities inspected in FY2003J2004 using allergens as ingredients identified or 

segregated such ingredients after receiving raw materials; in FY2002, the corresponding 

percentage was 55 percent. Likewise, like the FY2002 inspections, larger facilities inspected in 

FY200312004 were more likely to identify or segregate allergenic ingredients. 

For FY2003/2004,79 percent of the inspected facilities used one or more control 

measures associated with production equipment to prevent allergen cross-contact compared to 8 

percent of the FY2002 facilities. In the FY2003J2004 inspections, of the facilities that tried to 

controI cross-contact from equipment, 33 percent used dedicated equipment, 74 pcrcent used 

shared equipment with clean up in between manufacture of the ailergen containing product and 

the non-allergen containing product, 41 percent used shared equipment with production 

scheduled to run allergenic product last, and 8.5 percent used other methods; the corresponding 

percentages for FY2002 were 33 percent, 76 percent, 34 percent, and 7 percent. Ninety-four 

percent of facilities inspected in FY2003/2004 (versus 93 percent in the FY2002 inspections) had 

easily accessible and cleanable equipment. Again, as with the FY2002 inspections, the use of 

equipment-related control measures was higher in the facilities with greater sales volumes. 

The results for likelihood of cross-contact during processing were consistent between the 

two groups of inspections. For facilities inspected in FY2003/2004, FDA investigators judged 

that 24 percent were likely to have cross-contact during processirlg compared to 25 pcrcent in 

47 Sales volume informat~onwas missing for four of the 372 facltities. Thtis. the percentage of facilities in each size 

category is based on 368 facilities. Of these facilities, forty-two percent were mid-size (Category 2) facilities, 29.1 

percent were smaller (Category I) facilities, and 28.5 percent were larger (Category 3) facilities. 48 Milk was used at 74 percerit of the inspected facilities, and wheat was used at 62 percent of inspected facilities. 

Fish was used at only 12 percent of the inspected fdcilities and Crustacea were used at only 7 percent ofthe 

inspected facilities. 

27 
FY2002. Like the FY2002 inspections, mid-size (Category 2) facilities were more likely to be 

assessed as having airborne food particIes as a source of cross-contact than either smaller 

(Category 1) or larger (Category 3) facilities. Finally, a slightly lower percentage of the larger 

(Category 3) facilities inspected in FY2003/2004 had build-up above the processing zone as a 

potential source of cross-contact during processing compared to mid-size (Category 2) and 

smaller (Category 1) facilities. 

Another strong parallel between the FY2002 and FY2003/2004 inspections is the fact that 

73 percent of the F:Y2003/2004 facilities were found to handle unpackaged, exposed product in a 

manner to protect against cross-contact. For FY200312004, the percentage of facilities that 

controlled product in this way was higher in facilities with larger sales volume. 

Finally, the FY2003/2004 inspection results were consistent with the earlier inspections 

in terms of the facilities' inspection of finished product labels." In both sets of inspections, 

larger facilities were more likely than smaller ones to inspect finished product labels prior to 

distribution to ensure that allergen-containing products were properly labeled. 

VII. Section 204(5)(C): Allergen Recalls 

Section 204(5)(C) of the FALCPA provides that the report address the "number of 

voluntary recalls, and their classifications, of foods containing undeclared major food allergens." 

FDA reviewed and analyzed five years of agency information on voluntary recalls involving 

undeclared food allergens. The results of this analysis are discussed below. 

A. Background 

Under FDA regulations, a recall is defined as a firm's removal or correction of a 

marketed product that FDA considers to be in violation of the laws it administers and against 

which the agency would initiate legal action. 21 CFR 7.3(g). The relative level of health hazard 

attributed by FDA to each recalled product is reflected in an assigned recall classification 

number (z.e., I, XI, or 111). A class I recall is defined as a situation in which there is a reasonable 

probability that the use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health 

consequences or death. Class I1 recalls involve situations in which use of, or exposure to, a 

violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or 

where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. Finally, Class III recalls 

entail situations in which use of, or exposure to, a violative product is not likely to cause adverse 

heaIth consequences. 2 1 CFR 7.3(m). For each recall action, FDA works with the recalling firm 

to develop a recall strategy and to monitor the progress of the recall. Among other things, this 

strategy determines whether public warnings should be issued, the level in the distribution chain 

to which recalls are extended, and the extent to which checks arc performed by the firm, FDA, or 

both, to ensure that consignees have received notification of the recall and have taken 

appropriate actions. 

For every recall or recall action, FDA maintains a record of information about the 

recalled product. Details captured in the recall record include the reason for the recall, the 

strategy employed by the manufacturer or distributor to remove the product from distribution, 

49 For FY200312004, 75 percent of all facilities inspected finished product labeling to ensure that an allergencontaining product was properly labeled; the corresponding percentage for the FY2002 inspections was 68 percent. 

28 
and the actions FDA took in processing the recall. In addition, each record contains information 

pertaining to adverse events, if any, reported by consumers or others to the fiml or to FDA. Data 

collected on food recalls can be used to identify common problems and trends occurring in the 

food industry, and can be used to inform the public and the food industry of recurring hazards so 

that appropriate steps can be taken to prevent future occurrences. 

B. Methods 

The information in this section of the report is based on a review of FDA recall records 

for recall actions classified as Class I or Class 11 for FY1999 through FY2004 to identify recalls 

that occurred because of the presence of an undeclared food Class 111 rccaIls were 

excluded because, by definition, these recalled products are not likely to have caused adverse 

health consequences. Each record was reviewed to determine the following: the type of product 

recalled; the nature of the probIem that Icd to the recall; and the recall classification (I or 11). 

Data were then entered into a database and analyzed using SAS software. 

C. Results 

During FY 1999 to FY 2004, there were 462 recall actions due to the presence of 

undeclared allergens in a food. Of these recall actions, nearly three-fourths (n=352; 76.2 

percent) were deemed Class I and about one-fourth (n=l10; 23.8 percent) were deemed Class I1 

(Table 7). Of the recall actions due to undeclared allergens, bakery products and ice cream 

products had the larger number of recalls between FY 1999and FY2004 (Table 8). Undeclared 

egg and milk ingredients were the most frequent undeclared allergens associated with recaIl 

actions (Table 9). 

TabIe 7: Number and percent of recall actions due to undeclared major food allergens, by year 

and ctass (n=462) 

Year 

1999 

Class I Class 11 

-- 52 (75-4Yo)-317 (24.6%) 

Total

-69 (100%) 

50~0nlyrecall actions involving food products were reviewed; cosmetic and other non-food related recalls were 

excluded from consideration. Of recall actions involvirlg food products, FDA reviewecl those involving the 

following allergens: peanut, tree nut, egg, miIk, wheat, soy, fish, arld Crustacea. These are eight food or food groups 

Identified by E'ALCPA. 

29 
Table 8: Number and percent of recall actions between FY 1999-FY2004due to undeclared 

by industry (n=462) 

Industry ~ ~ ~actions a % 1 of total l

I 

wryproducts --

Ice cream products 

33 

Snack food products 5.4 

Non-chocola te candy products 20 4.3 

Prepared salad products - 14 3.0 

DressingKondiments 10 2.2 

Nuts/seeds 9 1.9 

1Dietarv foods 8 1.7 Noodle products -L 8 1 1.7 

Soup 7 I .5 

Vegetable protein products 5 1.1 

Vegetable products 5 1.1 

Beverages 5 1.1 -. 

Cheese products 5 1 

Multiple types of products in one action 9 I .9 

All other products* 24 5.2 

Total 462 100 

r * Products which had fewer than five recall Iactions from FY1999-FY2004. 1 f
Table 9: Number and percent of recall actions between FY 1999-FY2004 due to undeclared major food 

allergen (n=462)*

j Industry 1 Peanut ( Tree nut 1 Egg Milk 1 Wheat I 1 

1 

! I I I 

Bakery products (n= 141) 22 (1 5.6%) 1 40 (28.4%) 49 (34.8%) 43(30.5%) 3 (2.1%) 

Ice cream products (~49) 28 (57.1%) 12 (24.5%) 11 (22.5%) 1 (2.0%) 4 (8.2%) 

Fishery/seafood (n=43) 0 I 0 31 (72.1%) 7 (16.3%) 16 (37.2%) 

Multiple food dinner 1 (2.3%) 2 (4.7%) 26 (60.5%) 14 (32.6%) 8 (18.6%) roducts (n=43) ,P Chocolate products (n=33) 12 (36.4%) ( 7 (21.2%) 5 (15.2%) 14 (42.4%) 0 

Snack food products 

I 9 (36.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 12 (48.0%) 0 .i n=25) 

Non-chocolate candy 3 12 (60.0%) 3 (15.0%) 3 (15.0%) 5 (25.0%) 1 (5.0%) (~20) 

Prepared salads (n= 14 I 1 (7.1% 1 0 9 (64.3% 

Dressin@Condiments:n=l0) 0 1 0 1 6 (60.0%

1 Nutsiseeds (n=9) ) 4 (44.4%) / 7 (77.8%) 0 

I 1 (7.1% 3 (21.4% 

1 (10.0%') 1 (10.0%

: 

0 0 

I 

Dietary foods (n=8) 3 (37.5?40) 1 2 (25.0%) 0 2 (25.0%) 0 

Noodle products (n=8) 0 1 0 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) 0 

Soup (n=7) 0 I 0 , 3 (42.8%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) 

Vegetable protein products 0 0 1 (20.0%) 2 (40.0%) 2 (40.0%) 

I / Vegetable products (n=5) a 1 (20.0%) 1 (20.0%) 1 (20.0%) 2 (40.0%) 2 (40.0%) 

Beverages (n=5) I 

1 -Cheese products (n=5) -

0 1- -

! 0 0 5 (100%) 0 0 

Multiple food products in 

one 

1 1 (1.1%) 1 (lloh 7 (77.8%) l(ll.l%) l(ll.l%) action (n=9) 

All other products** (n=24) 0 8 (33.3%) 5 (20.8%) 9 (37.5%) 3 (12.5%) 

94 87 170 120 45 TotaI (~462) (20.3%) (18.8%) (36.8%) (26.0%) (9.7%) 

* Recall actions may have more than one type of undeclared allergen 

** Products which had fewer than five recall actions from FY 1999-FY2000. 

allergens, by indu

Soy I 

i 

i 

l 

I

I

6 (4.3%) 

0 

7 (16.3%) 

6 (14.0%) 

0 

4 (16.0%) 

I (5.0%) 

1 (20.0%)

-

1 

1 (20.0%) 

0 

0 

1 (10.0Y0) 

6 

j 

1 

0 

I (12.5%) 1 

1 (12.5%) 

1 (14.3%) 

0 

2 (8.3%) 

32 

(6.9%) 
VIII. Section 204(6): Current Efforts to Control Cross-contact 

Section 20466) of the FALCPA provides that this report "assess the extent to which the 

Secretary and the food industry have effectively addressed cross-contact issues." As noted 

earlier, the data From FDA's FY2002 inspection$' provide an overview of a group of facilities 

that were selected based on certain criteria and not in an entirely random fashion. As such, the 

data are not a representative sample of all facilities using the most common food allergens. 

Thus, the results should not be generalized to all food production facilities. Nevertheless, the 

results of these inspections provide some insight into current efforts to address the risks of food 

allergen cross-contact. 

In particular, several findings suggest that at least some food manufacturing facilities are 

aware of the potentiaI concerns associated with the use of allergens in the food production 

environment. For example, 90% of all facilities used wet cleaning for equipment and 83% used 

some method (such as a visual check) to verify the effectiveness of food contact surface 

cleaning. In addition, more than three-fourths of all facilities used some sort of control measures 

with equipment, and handled unpackaged, exposed product during processing so as to protect 

against allergen cross-contact. Also, only I3 percent of all inspected facilities "reworked" a 

mixture of aIlergen-fiee and ailergen-containing food product, and 34 percent "reworked" semifinished or finished product. Last, 68 perc.ent of all facilities inspected the finished product prior 

to distribution to ensure proper labeling of an allergen-containing product. 

Significantly, however, other findings suggest that some facilities do not appear to 

recognize that certain practices, procedures, and processes during food manufacturing may 

contribute to cross-contact and result in problems with undeclared allergens. For example, the 

handling of allergenic materiaIs at the receiving stage does not appear to be fully recognized as a 

potential source of cross-contact in that 55 percent or fewer facilities have measures to identify 

or segregate allergenic ingredients upon receipt, or to identify or manage these ingredients in 

bulk containers after receipt. 

Taken together, these findings suggest that a certain percentage of facilities do attempt to 

address potential concerns associated with the use of allergens in food products. But the extent 

to which a firm does so varies and depends on the control measure or activity assessed, and for 

each aspect of food manufacturing evaluated, FDA's inspections found that a certain percentage 

of facilities did not apply control measures in the handling and usc of allergens. The degree to 

which these gaps may contribute to thc unintended presence of allergens in food, and the degree 

to which those allergcns are associated with adverse health effects, is not known. However, 

thcse gaps do suggest areas for iinprovement in food manufacturing to protect against crosscontact. 

5 1 FDA also conducted allergen-focused inspectiorls of 372 facilities in FY200312004. Data from the FY2002 and 

FY2003/2001 inspections were analyzed separately, and, despite the difference In the number of facilities inspected 

in the two time pcriods, the tindings are remarkably sinl~lar.Accordtngly, the discussion that follows uses 

percentage values frorn the FY2002 inspections because this set of inspections represents a sa~nplenearly four times 

the size of the FY200312004 sample. 
The inspection data show that firm size is an important factor in terms of processes, 

procedures, and practices relating to the use and control of food allergens in the food 

manufacturing environment. Larger (Category 3) frrrns were more likely to employ practices 

and procedures to reduce the potential for cross-contact. This trend is seen in the areas of 

product development, materials receiving, equipment use, and food processing. Importantly, 

however, although larger facilities are more likely to take measures to address concerns 

associated with use of food allergens, this percentage did not approach 100percent for any factor 

evaluated during FDA's inspections and was about SO percent or below for a number of factors. 

This suggests that increased awareness of the potential for cross-contact in food manufacturing 

should continue to be a goal for a11 facilities, inciuding larger ones. Findings on the factor of . 

firm size also suggest that encouraging smaller (Category I) and mid-size (Category 2) firmsto 

recognize and address potential allergen cross-contact during food production is an important 

and valuable goal.