Vocal Voices

It is very sad that a young girl died from eating a baguette, and it is right for the coroner to say:

"There was no specific allergen information on the baguette packaging or on the (food display cabinet) and Natasha was reassured by that,"

without actually blaming Pret for her death.

The law states that allergen advice needs to be on a product, where practicable, and on cabinets and cupboards, and that is also the right thing to do, but it is recognised that there are flaws in the law.

Unfortunately allergens come in many forms, from dust mites to chemicals to food. Many of us have had mild attacks without recognising them are allergic in nature and we often cannot deduce what cause them.

When it comes to food the government's take is that:

"It is now vital that food retailers and manufacturers take action to ensure information about the 14 allergens is carried on all packaging."

On every food item sold everywhere? That is not going to happen as it is just not practicable. What is practicable is for shops to display big signs in prominent places so that they cannot be missed or misinterpreted - on shelves, doors, tills and hanging from the ceiling. And they should not be limited to food and drinks. There are plenty of other products such as household/laundry, personal hygiene etc. that contain allergens.

What could be done very quickly and cheaply is to make it law that any place selling products that need the signs to have auto-injectors in their first aid lockers. They should already be in workplace first aid kits, it now needs for them to be mandatory on coaches, trains and planes.

The incredibly sad thing, to me, is that Pret had already been made aware of people suffering quite serious reactions to their products, including hospitalisation, and yet still did not list allergens.

Sesame allergy is a very common one, and I often see it listed, in bold, as an allergen, on products. That child would still be alive if they'd bothered - and as a parent, I don't know how you would ever get over losing a child to something just so damned preventable!

Kaz. I absolutely do agree, but also she would still be with us if the aircraft had the epi-pens and a portable defibrillator.

Why can't the relevant authorities see these simple solutions?

She had two shots with epi-pens, plus there was a defibrillator on board, but the staff couldn't or wouldn't fetch it, as the plane was nearing landing.

I'm sure that's what was said on the news - I've been following this quite closely, having several food allergies myself... ..

There's another factor in this as well - the Coroner has queried the length of the epi-pen needle. Most are apparently 16mm, and if I understand it correctly, the recommended length is actually 25mm? Something to do with penetrating the muscle?

Kaz, I had seen nothing about the epi-pens, but they have to be of the right type.

I did see the thing about the defibrillator and immediately thought it was a load of crap. It is self-contained so is not connected to any take-off or landing electronics, so that excuse is garbage. Better training?

Ossie, I was 1st aid trained in the RAF. Our kits had things not normally found in workplace kits, such as oxygen and defibs. Epi-pens were of three types - diabetes, nerve agent and anaphylaxis. I had always thought that they were gas injectors and not the needle type. I might well be wrong.

Workingman wrote:I had always thought that they were gas injectors and not the needle type. I might well be wrong.

Gas fired needle I think WM.

It is incredible, today, that such a preventable thing could happen purely for labelling. They insist on best before labelling to prove that the product has not lost quality yet don't mandate truly dangerous allergy related contents. Mind boggling.

Ad for the defib, I'd suspect they were scared to use it without supervision. Very sad that a passenger first aider was not on the flight to insist.

My heart goes out to the parents. This should never have happened.

They would have been trained in how to use a de fib, as you are told in training when you are in the situation of using a de fib the patient will likely not make it if you don’t so what damage can it do ‘USE IT’

miasmum wrote:They would have been trained in how to use a de fib, as you are told in training when you are in the situation of using a de fib the patient will likely not make it if you don’t so what damage can it do ‘USE IT’

True but real life is not like training. In the Army they tired to make the training as life like as possible so we could get the shock out of the system before hand and just get on with it.

People don't perform well in shocking situations and this is a prime example of it. Horrible for the parents but I do understand it.

The only time I have seen a defib used, it actually told you what to do, so all the operator has to do was follow voice instructions.