Girl Dies From Allergic Reaction to Sesame Seeds

[poo at Paul's]

There has to be more to this than meets the eye. But WHY the fk would you eat ANYTHING that isn't with a cast iron guarantee to not contain anything that will kill you.
It beggars belief!

[poo at Paul's]

heebeegeetee said:

Of course. And if you work in the food and catering industry, you're as responsible for your own actions as anybody. If you don't know what's in the food that you're profiting by then don't serve it.

But the consequences for the food prep guys is far lower than it it for the person who has the serious condition!! So the risk reward ratio is heavily in the take away owners' favour, so why put yourself at risk like she did? Mental.

[Composer62]

poo at Paul's said:

There has to be more to this than meets the eye. But WHY the fk would you eat ANYTHING that isn't with a cast iron guarantee to not contain anything that will kill you.
It beggars belief!

I agree with this. There definitely must be more to this story. All I've seen is that her friend wrote "Prawns, Nuts" in a comments box. That doesn't sound like enough to convict someone of manslaughter as it's very open to misinterpretation.

Also, as pointed out above, the reports say they ordered a Peshwari naan which contains nuts. That doesn't really add up for me at all.

[Gareth79]

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

Still reporting:

"Their trial heard Megan suffered an acute asthma attack after eating food from Royal Spice on 30 December 2016, which her friend had ordered with a note reading "prawns, nuts" to show her allergies."

Did we get to the bottom of whether they just put "prawns,nuts" and nothing else in the notes section?

Their punishment is very harsh IMO if that's true.

I must say the reporting has been woeful on this point.

Every article I've read, even on the likes of the BBC, makes it sound almost as if they simply wrote "prawns, nuts" in a "Comments" box.

Terrible thing to happen and I'm thinking there must have been a lot more to it than has been (badly) reported.

Yes that is all that was put - "Judge Mrs Justice Yip told jurors they would have to consider whether the note on the order was sufficient to mean Megan’s allergy was declared. She said: “It is a matter of interpretation, and so a matter for you, whether that was enough to put the business on notice of Megan’s allergy to nuts.”

(from https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/17007533.... )

Reading a few articles, it sounds like it was aggravated by there being no records of ingredients, and poor hygiene, so even if the person taking the order read and saw about nuts, they'd have no idea if the dish actually contained nuts.

[andy_s]

The obvious result will be virtually all restaurants to say 'we cannot guarantee no allergens' unless they have the dedicated area/equipment.

Like the plane case, the person who will suffer will be the person affected by allergies, so it's in their best interest to be as careful as possible; i.e. Don't eat peshwari naan if you have a nut allergy, don't eat fancy baguettes that don't have clear 'no allergens' stickers.

These are tragic deaths, but I think the onus of responsibility is with the person concerned - navigating life means charting a course, you can't expect everyone else to rearrange themselves so you can just go in a straight line.

[amusingduck]

Gareth79 said:

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

Still reporting:

"Their trial heard Megan suffered an acute asthma attack after eating food from Royal Spice on 30 December 2016, which her friend had ordered with a note reading "prawns, nuts" to show her allergies."

Did we get to the bottom of whether they just put "prawns,nuts" and nothing else in the notes section?

Their punishment is very harsh IMO if that's true.

I must say the reporting has been woeful on this point.

Every article I've read, even on the likes of the BBC, makes it sound almost as if they simply wrote "prawns, nuts" in a "Comments" box.

Terrible thing to happen and I'm thinking there must have been a lot more to it than has been (badly) reported.

Yes that is all that was put - "Judge Mrs Justice Yip told jurors they would have to consider whether the note on the order was sufficient to mean Megan’s allergy was declared. She said: “It is a matter of interpretation, and so a matter for you, whether that was enough to put the business on notice of Megan’s allergy to nuts.”

(from https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/17007533.... )

Reading a few articles, it sounds like it was aggravated by there being no records of ingredients, and poor hygiene, so even if the person taking the order read and saw about nuts, they'd have no idea if the dish actually contained nuts.

So they did literally just write "prawns, nuts" into the Just Eat notes box. Search Google images for "just eat notes".

It doesn't seem fair to jail them. The girl was negligent to herself. Surely, a reasonable person would know that Indian restaurants cook with nuts. Especially if you're deathly allergic and ordering a peshwari naan for fks sake! A reasonable person would also know that a lot of takeaway restaurants are staffed with people whose English is not the best, or in some cases - completely absent.

Putting "prawns, nuts" in the notes section is not good enough. I'd say the restaurant was not as responsible for her death as her and her friend, they shouldn't be in jail for this.

[red_slr]

JE have changed it now they have a little tick box for allergies at check out which I presume brings up a second box / special field.

[bitchstewie]

Gareth79 said:

Yes that is all that was put - "Judge Mrs Justice Yip told jurors they would have to consider whether the note on the order was sufficient to mean Megan’s allergy was declared. She said: “It is a matter of interpretation, and so a matter for you, whether that was enough to put the business on notice of Megan’s allergy to nuts.”

(from https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/17007533.... )

Reading a few articles, it sounds like it was aggravated by there being no records of ingredients, and poor hygiene, so even if the person taking the order read and saw about nuts, they'd have no idea if the dish actually contained nuts.

Gosh.

Well, I haven't seen any more than the media coverage but that's surprising if that's all they put that the restaurant could be found guilty.

I don't know how the law and regulation works in this regard but Just Eat don't come out of it looking great if they literally just have a "Notes" box surely?

I know this will sound unkind but I don't think the poor girl or her friend helped themselves if that's the only thing they wrote.

[red_slr]

From BBC: After the verdicts in October, Megan's father Adam warned takeaway owners "do not play Russian roulette with precious lives".

Whilst I understand it must be awful for him I think his daughter is the one who was playing Russian roulette. She was 15 for christs sake, keep tabs on your kids with sensitive lethal allergic reactions who see fit to order a dish which traditionally contains 2 types of nuts. Once they are adults then fair play but too many parents consider their kids adults way too young IMHO.

Edited by red_slr on Wednesday 7th November 19:18

[dandarez]

Regards the jailing, from what I've read so far I find this case odd. Very odd. As others have said you have to take responsibility sometimes for your own life - she was just 15 ffs! What were her parents thinking? Was this a one-off or regular instance, ordering food from what looks like a back-street takeaway and yet having an allergy that could easily take your life from you after one mouthful, should you not strictly adhere to the rules to safeguard yourself?

If my daughter had an allergy like that, she wouldn't be allowed near any back street takeaways, or for that matter any junk food outlets.

The judge Mrs Justice Yip told the owners that Megan was responsible enough to highlight her allergies when placing the order.
Was she?
I read it that it was her friend who ordered it for her with a 'note' simply stating 'prawns nuts'.
So why not say 'NO prawns nuts'?
Good job I wasn't putting the food together, I'd have probably 'added' prawns and nuts to her order if it just said 'prawns nuts' with no clear indication meaning otherwise!

Perhaps it was on a proper order list where you can state what it must not have included?
I've no idea because I have never ordered anything (ever!) from a takeaway in my life, and it's been a long one so far.

Unless there is more to this (and there could well be) I sort of feel for the two guys running the business. And for those in similar businesses. Seems personal responsibility has and is becoming very one-sided today.

[red_slr]

At the time on Just Eat the "notes" box was just a free text box. You could write anything in there.
They literally could have put a detailed explanation of their allergy in the text box. You know, the kind of info you include if your life depends on it.

[poo at Paul's]

Probably could have been avoided completely if they had actually spoken to the restaurant, ie called them, gone in etc. To stick "prawns and nuts" in an app is fking ridiculous and may have even resulted in them putting in MORE nuts and Prawns.
fking morons to leave it so ambiguous.

[poo at Paul's]

Probably could have been avoided completely if they had actually spoken to the restaurant, ie called them, gone in etc. To stick "prawns and nuts" in an app is fking ridiculous and may have even resulted in them putting in MORE nuts and Prawns.
fking morons to leave it so ambiguous.

[Mojooo]

I suspect what has done them over is that they had NO system in place for allergen management at all (one of the offence they were prosecuted for) - that makes them look bad to start with. That is to say they had no system in palce for even identifying what allergens were in their food.

If they had a system and it was just an oversight that the note was missed then they may not have been found guilty.

The law is quite clear that food producers need to know what allergens are in their food so if theyturn up to court saying the customer shouldn't buy from you then they won't get far (legally speaking).

[shakotan]

The Just Eat comments box was there to give instructions like "Bell broken, knock door" not to convey (very poorly) allergy warning.

The Just Eat app even specifically stated "Contact the restaurant directly regarding allergies and dietary requirements"

If you have a life threatening condition, using a text box on a web app in a half arsed fashion is not an appropriate way on ensuring you don't die. This is no more than idiot tax, and a custodial sentence for the restaurant owners is a joke.

[4x4Tyke]

alfaman said:

Some allergies can be latent and appear later in life.

I’m allergic to dust mites .... suddenly became asthmatic at 18 years old ... no prior history.

Apparently stress / Life changes can be a trigger.

My father was the same in his 50s, drove through a cloud of dust kicked up by rapeseed harvesting, within minutes he was feeling unwell and diagnosed with asthma, no prior history with allergies not even hayfever.

[4x4Tyke]

shakotan said:

The Just Eat comments box was there to give instructions like "Bell broken, knock door" not to convey (very poorly) allergy warning.

The Just Eat app even specifically stated "Contact the restaurant directly regarding allergies and dietary requirements"

If you have a life threatening condition, using a text box on a web app in a half arsed fashion is not an appropriate way on ensuring you don't die. This is no more than idiot tax, and a custodial sentence for the restaurant owners is a joke.

The web site is exactly the same, I posted details earlier in the thread.

Unless there is something else, not being reported, this verdict seems completely perverse to me.

If the "prawn and nuts" comment had been prefixed with "no", "allergy" or similar there might be a case, but on its own it is entirely reasonable to think those are being actively requested and not being excluded.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 8th November 11:39

[Gareth79]

poo at Paul's said:

Probably could have been avoided completely if they had actually spoken to the restaurant, ie called them, gone in etc. To stick "prawns and nuts" in an app is fking ridiculous and may have even resulted in them putting in MORE nuts and Prawns.
fking morons to leave it so ambiguous.

On the other hand, the restaurant could have just called them "what did you mean by prawns, nuts? You like them? Oh allergic, well I don't actually know what's in any of our stuff... the rats are the allergen book"

[Shakermaker]

dandarez said:

Regards the jailing, from what I've read so far I find this case odd. Very odd. As others have said you have to take responsibility sometimes for your own life - she was just 15 ffs! What were her parents thinking? Was this a one-off or regular instance, ordering food from what looks like a back-street takeaway and yet having an allergy that could easily take your life from you after one mouthful, should you not strictly adhere to the rules to safeguard yourself?

If my daughter had an allergy like that, she wouldn't be allowed near any back street takeaways, or for that matter any junk food outlets.

The judge Mrs Justice Yip told the owners that Megan was responsible enough to highlight her allergies when placing the order.
Was she?
I read it that it was her friend who ordered it for her with a 'note' simply stating 'prawns nuts'.
So why not say 'NO prawns nuts'?
Good job I wasn't putting the food together, I'd have probably 'added' prawns and nuts to her order if it just said 'prawns nuts' with no clear indication meaning otherwise!

Perhaps it was on a proper order list where you can state what it must not have included?
I've no idea because I have never ordered anything (ever!) from a takeaway in my life, and it's been a long one so far.

Unless there is more to this (and there could well be) I sort of feel for the two guys running the business. And for those in similar businesses. Seems personal responsibility has and is becoming very one-sided today.

when I was 15 I don't think my parents would control where I choose to eat from to that degree - if I was out with friends we'd think nothing of stopping for chips, McDonalds or a pizza - assuming I had my pocket money/job money and my parents wouldn't "know" about it. I would of course hope that I had the knowledge of where was good/bad etc but it certainly wouldn't be my parents decision.

I think its tragic what has happened but clearly there must be a lot more than I have read about as to why they came to this ruling..

[red_slr]

Shakermaker said:

when I was 15 I don't think my parents would control where I choose to eat from to that degree - if I was out with friends we'd think nothing of stopping for chips, McDonalds or a pizza - assuming I had my pocket money/job money and my parents wouldn't "know" about it.

Probably because you don't have a *fatal* allergy to even slight traces of certain foods. OK you want to allow your child freedom, you then ensure they are educated and take full responsibility.

Ordering a dish which CONTAINS the thing you are allergic too is just mental.