Vol. 13  No. 1/2019
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 2019
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research12
“How can you be allergic to 
peas?” – A qualitative study 
to explore food handler’s 
knowledge, attitudes and 
understanding of food 
allergens
1 Public Health Institute, Faculty of Health, 
Education and Community, Liverpool John 
Moores University, 3rd Floor Exchange 
Station, Tithebarn Street, Liverpool L2 
2QP, UK
2 East Shore District Health department, 
688 East Main St. Branford, CT 06405, 
USA
*	Corresponding author
Mr Graeme Mitchell MCIEH CEnvH  
Senior Lecturer 
Public Health Institute, Faculty of Health, 
Education and Community 
Liverpool John Moores University 
3rd Floor Exchange Station, Tithebarn 
Street 
Liverpool L2 2QP, UK 
E-mail: g.k.mitchell@ljmu.ac.uk
David ALLEN1, Graeme MITCHELL1*, Michael PASCUCILLA2
ABSTRACT
It is clear that there is an increasing proportion of the United Kingdom (UK) 
population who are suffering with food allergies and this combined with an 
increase in the frequency of eating away from home (where there is less control 
over the content of food) poses a significant risk. In December 2014, the 
European Union (EU) introduced legislation which aimed to ensure that 
customers with food allergens could make informed choices and safely 
consume food, without the risk of a potentially life-threatening reaction. The 
research used semi-structured interviews with staff from a BCB, located in the 
North West of the UK, as the aim of the research was to explore food handlers’ 
knowledge, attitudes and understanding of food allergens. The findings of the 
semi-structured interviews identified five themes: E-learning training 
programmes: the staff felt that these were ineffective and did not take into 
account individual learning styles. Responsibility: there is a lack of clarity as to 
who is responsible, with staff believing the key responsibility lies with the 
customer. Communication: similarly, communication, both within the kitchen 
and within the company was not clear and likely to give rise to confusion. Need 
to make a profit: the staff felt that the drive for profit meant that customer 
safety was being compromised, especially when staff numbers were reduced. 
Staff awareness: the staff felt confident in their own ability to prepare a safe 
meal but indicated that staff may be dismissive towards claims of allergen 
sufferers. In conclusion, these themes illustrate that a significant risk exists for 
allergen suffers, who rely upon the knowledge, attitudes and understanding of 
BCB staff to ensure their meals are safely prepared.
Key words: food allergens; food handlers; e-learning; knowledge; attitudes
POVZETEK
Jasno je, da se v Združenem kraljestvu povečuje delež ljudi, ki trpijo za 
alergijami na hrano, hkrati pa se povečuje pogostost prehranjevanja izven 
doma (kjer je manj nadzora nad vsebnostjo hrane), kar predstavlja veliko 
tveganje. Decembra 2014 je Evropska unija (EU) sprejela zakonodajo, ki naj bi 
strankam z alergijami na hrano zagotavljala dovolj informacij za izbiro in varno 
 Original scientific article
Received: 05. 11. 2019 
Accepted: 30. 12. 2019
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research Vol. 13  No. 1/2019 13
 
uživanje hrane, brez tveganja, da bi prišlo do smrtno nevarnih reakcij. 
Raziskava temelji na pol strukturiranih intervjujih z osebjem iz gostinskih 
podjetij na severozahodu Združenega kraljestva, saj je bil namen raziskati 
znanje, odnos in razumevanje alergij na hrano tistih, ki z njo rokujejo. 
Ugotovitve pol strukturiranih intervjujev so opredelile pet tem: Programi 
usposabljanja z e-učenjem: osebje meni, da so neučinkoviti in ne upoštevajo 
posameznih stilov učenja. Odgovornost: premalo je jasno, kdo je odgovoren, 
osebje pa meni, da je ključna odgovornost na strani stranke. Komunikacija: 
podobno tudi komunikacija, tako v kuhinji kot znotraj podjetja, ni bila jasna in 
bi lahko povzročila zmedo. Potreba po dobičku: osebje meni, da želja po 
dobičku ogroža varnost strank, še posebej ob zmanjšanju števila zaposlenih. 
Ozaveščenost osebja: osebje se je počutilo samozavestne glede lastne 
sposobnosti za pripravo varnega obroka, a se je izkazalo, da včasih ne 
upoštevajo zahtev ljudi, ki trpijo za alergijami. Za konec, te teme kažejo veliko 
tveganje za ljudi z alergijami na hrano, ki se zanašajo na znanje odnos in 
razumevanje osebja v gostinskih podjetjih, ki naj bi zagotavljalo, da so obroki 
varno pripravljeni.
Ključne besede: alergeni v hrani; rokovanje s hrano; e-učenje; znanje; odnos 
INTRODUCTION
Food allergies are globally relevant and are significantly increasing in 
both severity and prevalence, with the data showing an upward trend to 
include more food product triggers. [1,2] It is estimated that between 
11 and 26 million people in Europe suffer from food allergies [3], with 
an estimated 2 million people In the UK, living with a diagnosed food 
allergy [4].
Those suffering from food allergies can show a variety of different 
symptoms, ranging from mild rashes through to reactions such as 
anaphylactic shock, with these more serious reactions having the 
potential to be life-threatening. The increase in prevalence and reactions 
rates presents itself as a serious public health concern and one that 
needs to be continually monitored and addressed.
In addition, the way people are eating is changing. Due to the increasing 
number of allergic people and the rise of ‘eating out’ culture in the UK, 
particularly within popular Branded Catering Businesses (BCBs) – 
considered to be a chain of catering establishments operating in line 
with a corporate personality and design – it could be argued that BCBs 
should now be a focal point when addressing the issue of food allergies.
Society has seen a cultural shift over recent decades with more and 
more people eating out and with more regularity [5]. This is reflected 
in the rapid growth of the hospitality sector, which is currently the 
third largest private sector in the UK, employing more than 3 million 
people and generating 130bn in economic activity. BCBs constitute 
a large portion of this market and are experiencing an exponential 
growth, resulting in thousands of people being served each day [6]. 
While many other businesses and companies within retail are facing 
uncertain futures and slipping into administration, the demand for 
BCBs remains. 
It is estimated that between 
11 and 26 million people in 
Europe suffer from food 
allergies.
The increase in prevalence 
and reactions rates presents 
itself as a serious public 
health concern and one that 
needs to be continually 
monitored and addressed.
 D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla“How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 201914

According to Versluis et al., [7] 21%-31% of allergen ingestion occurs 
when eating in restaurants and 13%-23% occurs in other eating out 
environments such as workplaces and school canteens. With the large 
number of BCBs now operating in the UK and this level of incidents 
taking place outsidethe home, it is clear that practices and methods of 
controlling allergens within these organisations must be robust and 
easily understood. As there currently is no cure for food allergies, this 
makes avoidance the only real way for an allergic person to prevent 
themselves from having an allergic reaction. Therefore, the information 
that is presented to the consumer detailing the ingredients and content 
of food must be clear and accurate to allow them to make an informed 
choice at the point of sale [8].
A range of legislation exists in order to protect food allergen sufferers: 
Article 14 of European Union (EU) Regulation 178/2002 (laying down 
the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the 
European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters 
of food safety) prohibits food from being placed onto the market if it is 
deemed to be either injurious to health or unfit for human consumption; 
Article 5 of EU regulation 852/2004 requires food retailers to have in 
place procedures to manage food safety based on Hazard Analysis 
Critical Control points (HACCP) principles and Annex II of the EU Food 
information for Consumers Regulation (EU) No. 11669/2011 and 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 78/2014 outlines the 14 
allergens that must be labelled or indicated as being present in foods 
(Box 1), resulting in the EU having one of the most comprehensive food 
allergen lists available.
The UK’s response to these EU regulations, The Food Information for 
Consumers Regulation 2014, states that businesses must be capable of 
communicating to their customers which of their dishes contain any of 
the 14 specified allergens.
Box 1: List of EU allergens [9]
• Cereals containing gluten namely wheat (such as spelt and Khorasan wheat), rye, barley 
• Crustaceans and products thereof (for example prawns, lobster, crabs and crayfish) 
• Egg and products thereof 
• Fish and products thereof 
• Peanuts and products thereof 
• Soybeans and products thereof 
• Milk and products thereof (including lactose) 
• Nuts (namely almond, hazelnut, walnut, cashew, pecan nut, Brazil nut, pistachio nut and Macadamia nut 
(Queensland nut) 
• Celery and products thereof 
• Mustard and products thereof 
• Sesame seeds and products thereof 
• Sulphur dioxide and/ or sulphites at concentrations of more than 10mg/kg or 10mg/L (litre) 
• Lupin and products thereof 
• Molluscs and products thereof (for example mussels, clams, oysters, scallops, snails and squid)
21%-31% of allergen 
ingestion occurs when eating 
in restaurants and 13%-23% 
occurs in other eating out 
environments such as 
workplaces and school 
canteens.
As there currently is no cure 
for food allergies, this makes 
avoidance the only real way 
for an allergic person to 
prevent themselves from 
having an allergic reaction.
D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla “How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research Vol. 13  No. 1/2019 15
 
The preparation and handling of food in BCBs is therefore of paramount 
importance. Personal team members at all levels employed at BCBs 
need to have at least a basic knowledge of food allergies. This includes 
knowing the allergens and the various pathways in which an ingredient 
could become part of a finished dish through cross-contamination 
during the storage, preparation, cooking and serving stages.
Yet staff at BCBs are often employed on minimum wage, possess few 
formal qualifications [10] and are young, with 29% of people employed 
in the industry aged under 21 years old [11]. This can lead to a high 
level of staff turnover, meaning that these businesses are constantly 
having to train new members of staff. 
This should imply that BCBs are well-practiced in developing new 
employees to a high standard of training in a short space of time. The 
vast majority of BCBs have now chosen to use e-learning as their method 
of training staff and spend considerable sums with specialist companies 
in order to ensure that they are getting a product/service that is capable 
of delivering this. However, Sahasrabudhe and Kanungo, [12] claim the 
effectiveness and long-term sustainability of this training platform with 
regard to food service personnel’s knowledge can be questioned and 
BCBs are now recognising that E-learning must be used in conjunction 
with practical training and refreshed at very regular intervals [13]. 
McAdams et al. [14] found that chefs were knowledgeable about food 
allergies and were passionate about providing safe meals to guests. 
However, the same study concluded that there was a general lack of 
access to important food allergen risk management resources and 
training. This is supported by Bailey et al., [15] when investigating 
restaurants employees’ knowledge of anaphylaxis. The true or false 
questionnaire in this study highlighted that 90% of staff had received 
allergen training, yet only 50% of participants could not name more 
than three of these. Of the 90 participants, 80% reported that they felt 
confident in providing a safe meal to an allergic customer. 
This shows a level of disparity and demonstrates a worrying gap in 
knowledge. The lack of association between the participant’s knowledge 
and their comfort level in providing a safe meal is alarming and poses a 
significant danger to their customers. 
Therefore, whilst providing people with the knowledge they need to 
operate safely at work is essential, translating that newly acquired 
knowledge into behaviour change is an entirely different task, made 
challenging due to other variables such as attitude, beliefs and personal 
values [16]. 
Previous research has employed a quantitative approach to establishing 
employees knowledge and attitudes towards food allergens [17, 18, 19, 
15, 20, 21, 22, 14]. From this, the researcher identified a significant 
lack of qualitative research into this subject. The aim of this qualitative 
research is to explore food handlers’ knowledge, understanding and 
attitudes relating to food allergens and provides an opportunity to give 
an honest and detailed account of how food service employees perceive 
allergens and their feelings, thoughts and attitudes towards them. 
Personal team members at 
all levels employed at BCBs 
need to have at least a basic 
knowledge of food allergies.
The lack of association 
between the participant’s 
knowledge and their comfort 
level in providing a safe meal 
is alarming and poses a 
significant danger to their 
customers.
 D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla“How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 201916

METHODS
Research design
The research took a qualitative approach and consisted of a series of 
semi-structured interviews with 6 team members of staff from a BCB, 
with each participant being asked the same questions (appendix 1). This 
research design allowed the researcher to approach micro-level topics, 
such as the individual’s views, experiences and attitudes and also explore 
meso-level issues around social groups, organisations and communities 
[23]. This proved particularly beneficial when investigating how allergens 
are viewed across peer-groups and within a large organisation.
Sampling
This research project adopted a purposive sampling technique. 
Denscombe [24] believes purposive sampling provides a way of getting 
relevant information by selecting people most likely to have the 
experience or expertise to provide quality information and valuable 
insights in the research topic. The researcher selected participants 
based on their suitability and ability to contribute relevant responses to 
the researcher’s questions. According to Malterud [25], the more 
information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower 
the number of participants is required. The figure of 6 participants was 
chosen as it represents one half of the whole kitchen team within the 
average chosen BCB (Table 1).
Table 1. Participant Information
Participant 
number
Length of time in industry Current role Training
1 16 years Kitchen manager Across various BCBs
2 8 years Team leader Across various BCBs
3 4 years Commis chef In- house only
4 4 years
FOH Assistant Manager to 
Commis chef
In- house only
5 1.5 years Desserts In house e-learning training 
6 10 years Sous chef
Across various BCBs
Formal college qualification
Participants 1 and 2 stated they had children who were allergen sufferers 
and participant 3 stated they were an allergen sufferer themselves.
All participants had also undertaken the in-house, e-learning training 
within the last 12 months.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The questions for the semi-structure interview were generated by the 
author for the purpose of this research. The questions within the semi-
structured interview were focused on the participants’ knowledge, 
attitudes and understanding of food allergens.
This research design allowed 
the researcher to approach 
micro-level topics, such as the 
individual’s views, experiences 
and attitudes and also explore 
meso-level issues around 
social groups, organisations 
and communities.
D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla “How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research Vol. 13  No. 1/2019 17
 
Data collection
As this research was undertaken as part of the BSc (Hons) Environmen-
tal Health degree programme, prior to collection of any data, ethical 
approval was obtained from Liverpool John Moores University.
A BCB located in the North-West of England was identified and 
contacted asking if they would like to participate in the study. Once 
they had agreed, potential participants were approached in the work 
place and informed of the nature and purpose of the research. 
Confidentiality and anonymity were discussed and assured with the 
potential participants, as at this point concern was expressed that their 
comments would be fed back to their manager. Once the participants 
had been identified and had given consent to be interviewed, individual 
arrangements were made to conduct an interview with each participant. 
For convenience, the interviews were undertaken at participants’ 
workplace. The interviews took place in a private function room within 
the workplace. The use of this room was agreed with the BCB and the 
interviews were made as informal as possible, with no other persons 
present in the room. This was important to ensure the interviewee 
would be in a familiar location to help them feel comfortable and 
eliminated any bias from management or co-workers being present. All 
interviews were audio recorded and upon completion of the interviews 
the audio recording were transcribed and all identifying information 
anonymised. As this was a semi-structured interview, all participants 
were asked the same questions as set out in the semi-structured 
interview and probed on answers where the interviewer wished to 
explore further. Participants were also able to discuss areas not covered 
by the semi-structured interview but related to this topic.
The interviewer effect was considered and throughout each interview 
the researcher made every effort to ensure that they maintained an 
unobtrusive approach, ensuring that the participant was not made to 
feel in any way pressured to give an untrue or inaccurate response. 
Data analysis
All interviews were recorded for the purpose of transcription and each 
participant was allocated a number to ensure anonymity. The responses 
for each interviewee were transcribed and then collated for each 
answer. From these collated answers, the researchers examined 
responses and clustered similar responses together. This enabled 
themes to emerge and is based upon the approach identified as “cutting 
and sorting” by Ryan and Bernard [26]. The extraction of themes 
ensures validity of data in that the more frequently an experience is 
raised, the more authentic the theme becomes. This is to say that there 
may have been issues raised that were specific to an individual that did 
not make it into a theme as it was too unique an experience. 
For convenience, the 
interviews were undertaken 
at participants’ workplace. 
The interviews took place in 
a private function room 
within the workplace. The 
use of this room was agreed 
with the BCB and the 
interviews were made as 
informal as possible, with no 
other persons present in the 
room.
 D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla“How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 201918

RESULTS
From the semi-structured interviews, the following key themes were 
identified:
Theme 1: Quality of in house e-learning
Theme 2: Responsibility
Theme 3: Communication 
Theme 4: The impact of making a profit
Theme 5: Staff attitudes
Theme 1: Quality of in house e-learning
All the interview participants had carried out company provided 
e-learning within the previous year. However, when questioned, most 
participants struggled to explain specific allergens.
“Lupin is a type of fish, isn’t it?” (Participant 1)
Whilst all participants agreed that training on allergens was important 
and needed to be undertaken, the method of training came under some 
criticism. 
“Inadequate and virtually useless” (Participant 6)
“I don’t count [the e-learning] as training, at the end there’s a test but 
you can’t fail it – you just redo it until you get all the answers right.” 
(Participant 1)
The participants all held the viewpoint that the e-learning did not take 
into account their individual learning styles and felt that it was only 
provided so that the company could ‘tick a box’. Participants felt that 
e-learning should be used in conjunction with other methods of training 
to help them remember of the information:
“I would prefer a classroom-based element so you can take notes back 
to look on, the problem with only having E-learning is that you can’t go 
back into the training once you’ve done it.” (Participant 4)
Participants felt that being able to engage with a person or have the 
opportunity to ask questions would be beneficial to them: 
“E-learning was ok, but I felt very much on my own and if I didn’t 
understand a certain thing there was no option for me to ask anybody.” 
(Participant 6)
Participants identified the time that is required to complete the training 
as another problem with this training platform:
“I work long hours and only get one day off per week so having to 
spend that day off sat at a computer doing training is not really ideal 
for me.” (Participant 3) 
Although one interviewee working part-time had a different perspective, 
explaining that it is 
“Convenient because I don’t have to travel to work to do the training, I 
can just do it at home and in my own time.” (Participant 5) 
All participants agreed that 
training on allergens was 
important and needed to be 
undertaken, the method of 
training came under some 
criticism. 
The participants all held the 
viewpoint that the e-learning 
did not take into account 
their individual learning styles 
and felt that it was only 
provided so that the 
company could ‘tick a box’.
D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla “How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research Vol. 13  No. 1/2019 19
 
Theme 2: Responsibility
When asked about the responsibility around safe meal preparation, 
each participant gave responses that could be seen as contradictory. 
For instance, Participant 3 made the following comments all in the 
space of one half an hour interview: 
“It’s the customer’s responsibility to tell us that they are allergic, with 
the amount of people we serve everyday it just wouldn’t be practical for 
us to ask everyone.”
“It’s everybody’s responsibility. Someone could die if it’s not done 
properly.”
“We all know what we should do, but in practice we’re too busy and 
the kitchen just isn’t set up for it.”
Theme 3: Communication
In terms of communication, there were two prevalent findings. The first 
being that communication at a central company level did not appear to 
be effective or monitored. 
“A lot of people don’t take any notice of the messages that pop up 
when you log on talking about a recalled batch, they just click yes and 
go straight to work thinking someone else will have addressed the 
issue.” (Participant 4)
Communications between front of house staff and chefs constituted the 
second finding. There appeared to be some conflict between the two 
areas with chefs blaming front of house staff for not communicating 
detail around customer allergy clearly enough. 
“The process is that an allergy request should be put on the ticket, 
then the waiter or manager comes in and tells you what it is. In reality, 
everyone is so busy the meal gets cooked and goes out to the customer 
then it bounces back because it’s wrong and you have to remake the 
whole meal.” (Participant 2)
“We get it a lot where a meal gets sent back to us from the customer 
who is allergic to something on the plate and we didn’t get the 
message.” (Participant 6)
Theme 4: Need to make a profit
The participants indicated that the within the company they work for, the 
main focus is often on how much money they can make and the focus on 
customer safety “sometimes takes a back seat” (Participant 2). 
This is evident with the cutting of labour and working with a ‘skeleton 
team’ in order to increase profitability.
“Pretty much every shift now management are sending staff home 
halfway through a shift or only putting one or two chefs on when we 
really need a lot more than that to be able to do our jobs safely… This 
comes from head office … The management here don’t have any 
control really, they either cut hours or get disciplinary action taken 
against them.” (Participant 1)
“It’s the customer’s 
responsibility to tell us that 
they are allergic, with the 
amount of people we serve 
everyday it just wouldn’t be 
practical for us to ask 
everyone.”
The participants indicated 
that the within the company 
they work for, the main focus 
is often on how much money 
they can make and the focus 
on customer safety.
 D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla“How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 201920

“If there’s no lead chef of kitchen manager working on a shift because 
they are saving hours, then I think there’s a bigger risk because it 
leaves us less-experienced people on shift, and we don’t always know 
what to do.” (Participant 4)
Participants did not feel that the company had the public’s best 
interests at heart as chefs were rarely provided with the tools they need 
to prepare food in the right way.
“We don’t get enough allergy boards and the kitchen isn’t really set up 
for allergy prep. You just have to wipe down the section you’re on 
before you make the meal.” (Participant 5)
All participants indicated to the researcher that the speed at which food 
is served seemed to take priority over safety. There is a significant 
pressure put on food handlers to ensure the food goes out as quickly as 
possible. Participants explained that this pressure comes from their 
head office and filters down through the ranks until it reaches them. 
“If we don’t get food out within a certain time, we get it in the neck 
from our manager, so often we have to cut corners to avoid getting a 
bollocking.” (Participant 2)
By extension, the company also appear to have a built-in way to avoid 
litigation through denying any and all accountability – leaving all the 
decision making to the customer. 
“Our menu is huge, and we have so many different meals that when 
someone asks us if a certain allergen is in a particular dish, we just 
give them that book [Allergen suffering customers visiting these 
businesses are given information via a Food Allergen Book] to read 
because we don’t always have the time to go and look on a box or a 
label.” (Participant 1)
Theme 5: Staff Attitudes
Participants were asked questions about how they felt preparing and 
cooking a meal for an allergic guest, all six responded that they were 
happy to serve guests and felt very confident in their ability. 
“For me it’s about experience, I’ve been doing this for a long time now, 
so I know what I’m doing.” (Participant 1) 
There was the common consensus that customers often exaggerate or 
even lie about being allergic to certain foods:
“Most of the time customers just don’t like a certain food but say that 
they’re allergic.... I’m allergic to peas and mushrooms is a common one 
we hear; how can you be allergic to peas? You just don’t want them 
that’s all.” (Participant 6). 
Some participants felt strongly that older and more experienced chefs 
had a more relaxed and perhaps dismissive attitude towards allergens. 
“I’ve known a few chefs who have a lot of years’ experience who always 
say, “it was fine 10 years ago, why should things be different now?”” 
(Participant 3)
All participants indicated to 
the researcher that the speed 
at which food is served 
seemed to take priority over 
safety.
“Our menu is huge, and we 
have so many different meals 
that when someone asks us 
if a certain allergen is in a 
particular dish, we just give 
them that book [Allergen 
suffering customers visiting 
these businesses are given 
information via a Food 
Allergen Book] to read 
because we don’t always 
have the time to go and look 
on a box or a label.”
D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla “How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research Vol. 13  No. 1/2019 21
 
“Some more experienced chefs seem to not really give a shit that tends 
to be the older chefs who don’t care because it never used to be talked 
about that much.” (Participant 5).
Pressures put on chefs can also alter their attitude towards food 
allergens.
“Chefs don’t take it as seriously here because they’re under so much 
pressure to get the food out to the customer quickly, they get in trouble 
because they’re falling behind which stops them taking the time they 
need to serve a safe meal.” (Participant 4) 
Limitations
The research utilised a small sample of staff within a single BCB (n=6). 
It must be acknowledged that for qualitative research, the participants 
has a degree of control over the data collected, as the researcher is 
unable to verify any claims made. In addition, the researcher’s 
background was as an employee within a BCB and therefore their own 
experiences may influence the interpretation of the results.
DISCUSSION
The results of the qualitative research indicated 5 key themes.
For BCBs the introduction of e-learning can be seen as a cost effective 
way of training staff, however, it is not without its issues. The findings, 
in-line with Sahasrabudhe and Kanungo (2014), indicates that its 
effectiveness can be questioned. The training package provided by the 
BCB appears to promote only surface learning (where staff are focused 
on only reproducing or repeating information) and not deep learning 
(where staff are focused on understanding information). Most staff feel 
it offers little value, perhaps because it does not take into account an 
individual’s particular learning style and this suggests that there is little 
engagement with the training provided. A failure to fully understand 
what allergens are, which echoes the findings of Bailey et al. [14] and 
how they can contaminate food, therefore puts allergen sufferers at risk 
due to inappropriate practices. 
However, rather than understanding this as a type of hierarchy of 
responsibility, participants seemed to switch between the various levels 
of responsibility, thus creating a confused model of responsibility. This 
again leaves the allergen sufferer vulnerable, as BCB may be unwilling 
to take responsibility or unclear as to their own level of responsibility in 
relation to dealing with allergen food requests.
In terms of communication, the participants highlighted two particular 
areas. Firstly, the communication between the BCB and its staff. 
Information about the recall of potentially contaminated food is provided 
via the till system, yet participants admit that there is no system to 
verify that staff have actually read this information and participants are 
happy to shift the responsibility for dealing with this issue to someone 
else. Secondly, the communication between kitchen based staff and 
Front of House (FOH) based staff. The participants felt that the flow of 
Pressures put on chefs can 
also alter their attitude 
towards food allergens.
E-learning can be seen as a 
cost effective way of training 
staff.
 D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla“How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 201922

information from the FOH staff is inadequate, the result being that 
meals were returned to the kitchen. The concern here is that even 
though the allergen sufferer may have positively engaged with the FOH 
to advise them of their allergen status, this message is not being 
transmitted to the kitchen staff. This presents situation where the 
allergen sufferer may consume food, thinking that based on the 
information they have provided, it is safe for them to eat. Interestingly, 
the comments focus on the inconvenience this causes for the 
participants and not the danger it poses to the allergen sufferer. This 
may be in part due to the nature of staff within the BCB, with Bolton et 
al. [10] and Daley [11] commenting upon the lack of formal qualification, 
young age and high turnover of staff typically found in BCBs.
The participants feel that the main focus for their employer is to make 
money and that this can compromise allergen sufferer safety; whether 
this be due to reducing the staff, not providing appropriate equipment 
and/or emphasising the need to get meals out as quickly as possible. In 
addition, participants felt that the BCB, in order to avoid litigation, 
deliberately passed the responsibility of deciding which meals would be 
safe to the allergen sufferer themselves (via the Food Allergen Book). 
This also meant that the participants did not have to spend time 
themselves identifying which products contained which allergens. The 
danger here is that should the BCB change products and fail to update 
its information or staff use alternative products, the allergen sufferer 
again is potentially exposed to a high level of risk. 
It is perhaps unsurprising that all participants believe that they 
personally would be able to provide a safe meal for an allergen suffering 
customer – although given the concerns around their training this could 
be debated. This is consistent with the results of Ahjua and Sicher’s 
[19] research which also identified high levels of confidence in the 
ability to prepare safe meals but a corresponding lack of knowledge 
about allergens. However, participants did indicate that other members 
of staff could pose a significant risk. This is based on the belief that 
customers are using allergens as an excuse not to eat certain types of 
food. These attitudes, which seem to predominate amongst the more 
senior members of staff, could help to influence the culture of the 
workplace and perceptions of more junior staff, which would perpetuate 
such attitudes. Regardless of how actively an allergen suffering 
customer engages with the staff, if they are simply not believed how 
can they be sure that the food produced for them is safe to eat? This 
perhaps reflects the idea, identified by Clayton et al. [17], that although 
staff are aware of the dangers, they perceive their business to below 
low risk.
CONCLUSION
With the rise in allergen sufferers and the popularity of BCBs, the 
potential for allergen- related incidents has increased. This research offers 
an insight into the attitudes, knowledge and understanding of BCB staff 
towards food allergens. Whilst the staff show some understanding of the 
The participants feel that the 
main focus for their employer 
is to make money and that 
this can compromise allergen 
sufferer safety.
It is perhaps unsurprising 
that all participants believe 
that they personally would be 
able to provide a safe meal 
for an allergen suffering 
customer – although given 
the concerns around their 
training this could be 
debated.
D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla “How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
International Journal of Sanitary Engineering Research Vol. 13  No. 1/2019 23
 
need to protect allergen sufferer, there appears to be a failure in accepting 
responsibility for this. All staff professed to be confident in their own 
ability to provide safe meals but less so about their willingness to accept 
responsibility for doing so. Staff feel that the responsibility lies with the 
allergen sufferer themselves. Yet the staff admit that even when the 
allergen sufferer engages with the process of informing the establishment, 
the culture and processes that exist provide multiple opportunities for this 
information provided to be lost or ignored. So, whilst a range of legislation 
may be in place to protect allergen sufferers, in order for it to be effective 
staff must both understand why it is there and how to comply with it – 
the continued failure to do so will only compromise allergen sufferer 
safety. Therefore, it is apparent that a cultural shift is required within 
BCBs, so that responsibility around food allergens does not solely lie with 
the allergen sufferer themselves. BCBs should ensure staff must receive 
appropriate and effective training on this matter, going into greater depth 
than the current “ticking-a-box” e-learning provision and create a culture 
where consumer safety is as important as profit.
REFERENCES
 [1] Gupta, R.S., Springston, E.E., Warrier, M.R., Smith, B., Kumar, R., 
Pongracic, J. and Holl, J.L. (2011) The prevalence, severity, and 
distribution of childhood food allergy in the United States.(Report). 
Pediatrics, 128 (1), E9.
 [2] Nwaru, B.I., Hickstein, L., Panesar, S.S., Muraro, A., Werfel, T., Cardona, 
V., Dubois, A.E.J., Halken, S., Hoffmann-Sommergruber, K., Poulsen, 
L.K., Roberts, G., Van Ree, R., Vlieg-Boerstra, B.J. and Sheikh, A. (2014) 
The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: a systematic review and 
meta-analysis. 69:62-75.
 [3] Pawankar, R. (2012) The Unmet Global Health Need of Severe and 
Complex Allergies: Meeting the Challenge. World Allergy Organization 
Journal, 5 (4).
 [4] Wearne, S. (2017) Food Allergy and Intolerance Programme [online] 
  Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/ 
fsa170306.pdf [Accessed: 14th January]
 [5]  Tom, B. (2006) Regular eating out is on the increase Quality and value 
for money are most important factors. Caterer & Hotelkeeper, 6.
 [6]  Mintel Group, L. (2016) Eating Out Review – UK – July 2016. Mintel 
Group Ltd.
 [7]  Versluis, A., Knulst, A.C., Kruizinga, A.G., Michelsen, A., Houben, G.F., 
Baumert, J.L. and Van Os-Medendorp, H. (2015) Frequency, severity 
and causes of unexpected allergic reactions to food: a systematic 
literature review. 45:347-367.
 [8]  Remington, B.C., Baumert, J.L., Blom, W.M., Houben, G.F., Taylor, S.L. 
and Kruizinga, A.G. (2015) Unintended allergens in precautionary 
labelled and unlabelled products pose significant risks to UK allergic 
consumers.(Report). 70 (7), 813.
 [9]  FSA. (2018) Rules and Legislation [online] 
  Available at: http://allergytraining.food.gov.uk/english/rules-and-legislation/ 
[Accessed: 3rd October]
 [10]  Bolton, D.J., Meally, A., Blair, I.S., McDowell, D.A. and Cowan, C. 
(2008) Food safety knowledge of head chefs and catering managers in 
Ireland. Food Control, 19 (3), 291-300.
 [11]  Daly, D. (2017) Hospitality Workforce: on a page [online] 
  Available at: http://info.fourth.com/hospitality-workforce-statistics [Accessed: 
3rd December 2018]
Staff feel that the 
responsibility lies with the 
allergen sufferer themselves.
 D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla“How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...
© Inštitut za sanitarno inženirstvo, 201924

 [12]  Sahasrabudhe, V. and Kanungo, S. (2014) Appropriate media choice for 
e-learning effectiveness: Role of learning domain and learning style. 
Computers & Education, 76, 237-249.
 [13]  Tyrtania, L. (2010) Tragus Renew Three Year e-Learning Relationship 
With ThirdForce. PR Newswire Europe Including UK Disclose.
 [14]  McAdams, B., Deng, A. and Maclaurin, T. (2018) Food allergy 
knowledge, attitudes, and resources of restaurant employees. British 
Food Journal, 120 (11), 2681-2694.
 [15]  Bailey, S., Albardiaz, R., Frew, A.J. and Smith, H. (2011) Restaurant 
staff’s knowledge of anaphylaxis and dietary care of people with 
allergies.(Report). Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 41 (5), 713.
 [16]  Sharma, M. and Romas, J.A. (2011) Theoretical foundations of health 
education and health promotion. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
 [17]  Clayton, D., Griffith, C., Price, P. and Peters, A. (2002) Food handlers’ 
beliefs and self-reported practices. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research, 12 (1), 25-39. 
 [18]  Lehrer, S.B., Ayuso, R. and Reese, G. (2002) Current understanding of 
food allergens. Ann.NY Acad.Sci., 964, 69-85.
 [19]  Ahuja, R.N., Hsi, J. and Sicherer, S.H. (2006) Food Allergy Management 
from the Perspective of Restaurant/Food Establishment Personnel. 117: 
S36-S36.
 [20]  Prenner, B.M., Hollingsworth, J., Oliver, R. and Brew, L. (2014) Food 
Allergy Survey Among Food Service Workers. 133: AB207-AB207.
 [21]  Lee, Y.M. and Sozen, E. (2016) Food allergy knowledge and training 
among restaurant employees. International Journal of Hospitality 
Management, 57, 52-59.
 [22]  Wen, H. and Kwon, J. (2017) Restaurant servers’ risk perceptions and 
risk communication-related behaviors when serving customers with food 
allergies in the U.S. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 
64, 11-20.
 [23]  Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and 
mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA; London: 
Thousand Oaks, CA; London: SAGE.
 [24]  Denscombe, M. (2017) The good research guide : for small-scale social 
research projects. Sixth edition. ed. London: Open University Press, 
McGraw-Hill Education.
 [25]  Malterud, K., Siersma, V.D. and Guassora, A.D. (2016) Sample Size in 
Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qualitative 
Health Research, 26 (13), 1753-1760.
 [26]  Ryan, G. and Bernard H. (2003) Techniques to identify themes in 
qualitative data. Field Methods 15 (1), 85-109.
D. Allen, G. Mitchell, M. Pascucilla “How can you be allergic to peas?” – A qualitative study to explore food handler’s knowledge...