Girl Dies From Allergic Reaction to Sesame Seeds

Girl Dies From Allergic Reaction to Sesame Seeds

Author
Discussion

boyse7en

6,671 posts

164 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
Sat next to a girl on a plane recently. She had a peanut allergy, which she had obviously marked up when buying her ticket as a Steward came and checked just before take-off. Not only did he confirm that her meal would be free from peanuts, the staff also stopped selling any peanut-containing products anywhere on the plane.

As to "why are people allergic now, when they weren't in the olden days?" maybe some of it is due to unusual ingredients and a wider range of food products we eat. For hundreds of years we only ate what could be raised, hunted or grown within a few dozen miles of where we lived so our bodies only had to be "not allergic" to a few dozen foodstuffs. Over the last hundred years or so our diet has changed massively in terms of the availability of 'foreign' ingredients and therefore the chance that you are allergic to one of those several thousands of food items is much higher.


BenjiS

3,706 posts

90 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
eybic said:
@benjiS would you buy food from somewhere for your son if it had no allergy info on the packaging? Surely unless you're totally sure, you wouldn't buy it? I'm lucky in that my boy seems to be allergy free (touch wood etc. etc.) but I wouldn't take any chances if he did have a severe allergy.
No we don’t. If there no allergy info, if it’s not clear, or if it’s home made and we don’t know by whom, he doesn’t get it.

It’s a massive pain in the arse, but you can’t slip up on it.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
La Liga said:
I've read about this and I find the reasoning for not getting the defibrillator very questionable - what's the point of having it when you don't get it?
Something goes st-shaped on landing, nobody on door - lots of people may die.
Abort and delay landing? Delays medical care for passenger.
Will the defib even work.
A junior doctor was doing CPR. My question is whether a crew member could have got the defibrillator, brought it to the doctor, then continued to do their door duties. What are they actually going to do there prior to physically landing that's more critical than getting a critical device to 'reset' someone's heart?

I guess we need to know what they mean exactly by 'during landing'. I assume that extends beyond the physical act of touching the ground. The flight attendant described it as 'too dangerous' to get the defibrillator - really? What danger was there to go to the back of the aircraft - flying being the safest mode of transport - for the time it took to get the defibrillator?

Would it have worked? Who knows, but it's a lot better to use earlier than later.





bitchstewie

50,778 posts

209 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
eybic said:
@benjiS would you buy food from somewhere for your son if it had no allergy info on the packaging? Surely unless you're totally sure, you wouldn't buy it? I'm lucky in that my boy seems to be allergy free (touch wood etc. etc.) but I wouldn't take any chances if he did have a severe allergy.
I think one of the key issues under debate in the case is that Pret is slightly different from the local sandwich shop.

You'd arguably expect somewhere like Pret to have much tighter controls and greater knowledge of their supply chain so you may feel "safer" buying there because you'd automatically assume they have checks in place.

A bit like McDonald's know exactly where all the bits in your burger have come from v the local takeaway.

RobGT81

5,227 posts

185 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
junior doctor was doing CPR. My question is whether a crew member could have got the defibrillator, brought it to the doctor, then continued to do their door duties. What are they actually going to do there prior to physically landing that's more critical than getting a critical device to 'reset' someone's heart?

I guess we need to know what they mean exactly by 'during landing'. I assume that extends beyond the physical act of touching the ground. The flight attendant described it as 'too dangerous' to get the defibrillator - really? What danger was there to go to the back of the aircraft - flying being the safest mode of transport - for the time it took to get the defibrillator?
Sounds like a massive jobsworth who thinks his role in landing is more important than it actually is. The chance of anything that needed his attention while landing was, while possible, tiny. Compared to the chance of the girl who was having cardiac arrest at the time dying.

pilotoscot

73 posts

84 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
La Liga said:
I've read about this and I find the reasoning for not getting the defibrillator very questionable - what's the point of having it when you don't get it?
Something goes st-shaped on landing, nobody on door - lots of people may die.
Abort and delay landing? Delays medical care for passenger.
Will the defib even work...?

Burwood said:
Not the first Pret incident-several. They should have the book thrown at them.
Except they didn't do anything outside the rules. The problem is the rules, not Pret breaking them.
I’m sorry but that won’t wash. I takes 20 seconds to collect the defib. The argument that they are trained to wait for the dying gasp is also hogwash.

That said, it probably wouldn’t have helped anyway. The coroner is absolutely right to question the reaction and training of the crew. They’re not there to apportion blame but to improve safety for everyone in the future.

My heart goes out to the family.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
Poor soul.

I must say I have never heard of a sesame seed allergy even being a thing.



Turn7

23,501 posts

220 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
eybic said:
Some claim that it's to do with us living in such a sterile environment compared to how things used to be so our bodies are more and more sensitive to things.
I think theres sense in this, alongside the fact that we dont eat as much fermented food as we used to, so our gut Bio just cant handle anyhting that inst super clean....

Kccv23highliftcam

1,783 posts

74 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
What a terrible tragedy.

Murph7355

37,649 posts

255 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
Ref why the increase, maybe people just died early on before and the cause was never really determined.

The rules, AIUI from reading about this case, seem to be around handmade sandwiches. I can understand that - all that would happen if forced to label them is every sandwich would have a "may contain..." sticker on. Putting the onus on the person (/guardian) with the issue.

And I see no problem with that. If a shop put a sticker on saying it was OK and a stray seed got in it, there would rightly be hell to pay.

The person with the allergy, especially at that age, must surely be well schooled in absolute care?

As an aside, I've never been able to fathom why people with such allergic reactions travel on planes etc like this. It's all well and good not selling nuts on their flight, but presumably the flights before had them?

As for critiquing staff... Not sure that's called for either. The problem wasn't of their making and I'm sure they did their best in the circumstances.

Sway

26,070 posts

193 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
The list of foodstuffs that can cause a lifethreatening allergic reaction is, iirc, fairly small.

Certainly, years back when working in food production, there was a list of perhaps 25 ingredients that simply were not allowed anywhere on site - even a snickers in your car would lead to an immediate sacking.

It doesn't seem ridiculous that any foods containing, or potentially containing, that list of 25 or so ingredients must be clearly labelled.

If I'm not mistaken, no one is going to die from lactose. They can, and do, because of mustard/sesame/nuts/crustacean/etc.

pilotoscot

73 posts

84 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
4x4Tyke said:
It's a tough one, but I don't think anybody involved can escape criticism, including the girl & her family. WTH did she even eat something potentially risky before going on a plane. Why are big companies allowed to pay so scant regard to labelling, especially on premium products like Pret and why didn't the plane immediately land at the nearest airport when the medical emergency happened. It seems the needle was too short to get deep into the muscle and the second injection should have been given in the other leg to aid distribution.

As to why, I suspect a lot unknown/under reporting occurred in the past. The too-clean/hygiene hypothesis is popular but that seems to have many components not just kids kept in too-clean homes, more vaccinations, increased antibiotic use and people having less exposure to minor parasites like worms, ticks etc. There is also some link with not breastfeeding. I think there is more that than going on here, New Scientist cover it from time to time over the years and it is definitely a complex picture.

We also eat a much wider range of foods now then even a decade ago, sesame seeds where unknown when I was a kid, so I think some of this is genetics combining with different foods.
I’ve no doubt her father feels terrible. What more is there to say? The only good that can come out of something like this is that lessons are learned.

Credit to the CEO of Pret for attending the hearing. It can’t have been a comfortable experience for him and I don’t doubt he will resolve not to let it happen again.

With regard to the diversion. I don’t know the full details but sometimes, especially on short haul, it’s easier and quicker to continue to your destination rather than try to negotiate and brief a diversion. I believe they were already in the descent?

The response of B.A. cabin services doesn’t fill me with confidence that they have learned any lessons at all. I


rxe

6,700 posts

102 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
RobGT81 said:
Sounds like a massive jobsworth who thinks his role in landing is more important than it actually is. The chance of anything that needed his attention while landing was, while possible, tiny. Compared to the chance of the girl who was having cardiac arrest at the time dying.
More likely because the last time someone died, the findings were “cabin crew must be by the doors without fail”. This recommendation was taken up into the training and beaten into the cabin crew. As long as they obey their training, they did the right thing.

The outcome of this will be that Prets (and every other sandwich shop) will stick allergy warnings over everything. The stock answer from the staff will be “it doesn’t have nuts in it, but might have been in the same room as nuts so we are making no guarantees”.

Society wants someone or something to blame for everything that happens. Lessons must be learned, but sometimes lessons conflict. Do I stay by the door or do I get the defibrillator? Sometimes bad stuff happens and there is no one to blame.


nonsequitur

20,083 posts

115 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
rxe said:
RobGT81 said:
Sounds like a massive jobsworth who thinks his role in landing is more important than it actually is. The chance of anything that needed his attention while landing was, while possible, tiny. Compared to the chance of the girl who was having cardiac arrest at the time dying.
More likely because the last time someone died, the findings were “cabin crew must be by the doors without fail”. This recommendation was taken up into the training and beaten into the cabin crew. As long as they obey their training, they did the right thing.

The outcome of this will be that Prets (and every other sandwich shop) will stick allergy warnings over everything. The stock answer from the staff will be “it doesn’t have nuts in it, but might have been in the same room as nuts so we are making no guarantees”.

Society wants someone or something to blame for everything that happens. Lessons must be learned, but sometimes lessons conflict. Do I stay by the door or do I get the defibrillator? Sometimes bad stuff happens and there is no one to blame.
As In Charge cabin crew I ,through the captain, authorised a couple of 'continue with medical assistance during landing' scenarios. On one, CPR was contiuous throughout descent landing and taxying until ground medics arrived. This was some time ago and systems and routines could have changed.


Edited by nonsequitur on Saturday 29th September 09:41

andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
I struggle to see why you would carry around 2 Epipens because your allergy is so severe and then eat a sandwich (a likely source of the allergen) that didn't have a label on it. Mind boggling.

Of course, sympathies to the victims family - it's a terrible waste of life, irrespective of cause.


mac96

3,715 posts

142 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
I wonder if part of the difficulty for Pret is that they make sandwiches fresh on the premises at more or less each shop- which is a good thing in general- but I suspect it makes for cramped sandwich making conditions and therefor cross contamination harder to avoid.

As a regular Pret user I have, very occasionally, had bits of,eg avocado, in something which was not supposed to contain them. No problem for me, or most customers, but not good for allergy sufferers.

In a sense, having no allergies labelling is an honest statement of 'we do not guarantee no allergens or cross contamination' and perhaps that should be written on them. Some labelling, like 'May Contain Nuts' seems more intended to protect the seller from litigation rather than the buyer from anaphylactic shock.

I think Pret is being a bit unfairly vilified- a much fairer target would be those who mislead with incomplete or vague allergy advice. I suppose a coroner's brief to make recommendations is perhaps restricted to the immediate parties to the event?

It's terrible sad and my heart goes out to the families.

cptsideways

13,535 posts

251 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
In this case surely they could have simply aborted the landing, used the de-frib & then landed?

There is some interesting science involving giving tiny tiny doses of allergens that drip feed sufferers into becoming non allergic.

I have an allergy to some antibiotics, having suffered a anaphylactic shock after being given a prescription, funny enough it all kicked off inflight from Denmark.

PF62

3,575 posts

172 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
My understanding from reading the reports -

- Pret benefit from the exemption for not labelling intended for small outlets which would be too burdensome for them to comply but dead easy for a mega-corp like Pret.
- Pret claimed signs were on shelves advising people to ask about allergies but the following week no signs were present in that branch.
- Pret have had six previous instances of allergic reaction from that bread in the last 12 months.
- Pret label their food with "gluten free" and other information about the ingredients, but choose not to label allergens.

So Pret knew their labelling was causing serious problems, but did sweet FA about it.


- BA stored the first aid kit at one end of the aircraft and the defibrillator at the other end.
- BA cabin crew didn't bother telling the doctor the first aid kit had an epi-pen in it.
- BA training was not to bring the defibrillator out unless the cabin crew thought there was agonal breathing, so cabin crew were making medical decisions not deferring to the trained doctor in attendance.

I think BA were lucky to not get called out by the coroner, but that was probably down the evidence that the defibrillator would have made no difference as it was thought her heart had already stopped rather than having an abnormal rhythm that could be corrected by the defibrillator.


There was also the issue that the needle on the two epi-pens used had needles that were too short to guarantee effectiveness, so some serious questions for the company who made them.




Mojooo

12,668 posts

179 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
The law says that food that is sold from the premsies from which it is made does not need fixed labelling because in theory you can ask the manufacturer what is in the product. The retailer should put up signs saying please ask for allergen info and they should know what allergens are in their food.

Its not a question of a 'small business exemption' as it applies based on how the food is sold not who the seller is.

One coudl argue, as above, that as Pret make their sandwiches in such a rigid way they could label them properly. Alternativley they could just put a 'please ask' sticker on each sandwich.

The Mad Monk

Original Poster:

10,474 posts

116 months

Friday 28th September 2018
quotequote all
PF62 said:
My understanding from reading the reports -

- Pret benefit from the exemption for not labelling intended for small outlets which would be too burdensome for them to comply but dead easy for a mega-corp like Pret.
- Pret claimed signs were on shelves advising people to ask about allergies but the following week no signs were present in that branch.
- Pret have had six previous instances of allergic reaction from that bread in the last 12 months.
- Pret label their food with "gluten free" and other information about the ingredients, but choose not to label allergens.

So Pret knew their labelling was causing serious problems, but did sweet FA about it.


- BA stored the first aid kit at one end of the aircraft and the defibrillator at the other end.
- BA cabin crew didn't bother telling the doctor the first aid kit had an epi-pen in it.
- BA training was not to bring the defibrillator out unless the cabin crew thought there was agonal breathing, so cabin crew were making medical decisions not deferring to the trained doctor in attendance.

I think BA were lucky to not get called out by the coroner, but that was probably down the evidence that the defibrillator would have made no difference as it was thought her heart had already stopped rather than having an abnormal rhythm that could be corrected by the defibrillator.


There was also the issue that the needle on the two epi-pens used had needles that were too short to guarantee effectiveness, so some serious questions for the company who made them.
Also from your understanding from reading the reports:-

What responsibility falls upon the parents to exercise care?

What responsibility falls upon the 15 year old?

Is no one responsible for the consequences of their actions?