Realising I may be out of tune here with others’ sentiment but…

Is it just me that is getting a bit fed up of the BBC’s minute reporting, every half hour, on this Pret/ allergy death coroner’s investigation. It’s very unfortunate and sad, and pack labelling (and user care) were in short supply. But must we *really* hear every half hour about “the parents’ last moments with their daughter” etc et-bloody-c?

A disturbing number of people still die from their allergies every year, so why is this the one we need to hear about repeatedly in gory detail?

(Saying this as someone with a family member who goes into anaphylactic shock every couple of years from nuts somewhere unexpected. To date she’s been OK, although with a couple of close calls, but it’s just a fact of life unfortunately, and we have to be careful)

I was just thinking the same thing having been on BBC news website.

If it was my daughter and family, I also wouldn’t want this level of media intrusion. But then if my daughter had such a serious allergy and I knew about it then there is zero chance I would have let her buy a bageutte from Pret on the strength that they would label everything correctly either.

It’s a morbid world.

People like reading about others misery, it makes them feel better about themselves and the situation they are currently in.

News reporting is in essence always looking for sad tales of woe, they’re the gossip mongers and it sells rags.

But in this particular case I think it’s highlighted these instances of food intolerance, it is making people think about what they eat..

Sad news brings that home.

Once I accepted that ‘The News’ is just another form of entertainment I understood why they do this, all the gory details of some poor girls last moments on earth played out endlessly until the next story comes along.

I’m not sure how much of this is intrusion. I see it more as the family trying to make sure this doesn’t happen again and try to make her death have something positive attached to it.

A high proportion of “news” appears to be just like watching a car-crash.

Albeit here the parents are wanting to raise awareness.

It’s raising awareness though – certainly has with me although I’m avoiding it as much as I can.

Thought the same when I read it earlier. It gets the shock factor that’s for sure but it doesn’t make for a pleasant read. It gets publicity though so I can see why the parents want it, as it can only help their efforts for better packaging.

I’ve given up on the news.

Brexit is a car crash. Politics is all rubbish. The rest is just death and destruction, apart from of course 20 minutes of any news show concerning a person being questioned for a position in a supreme court of a country that isn’t even ours. Why do I care? It’s like the local news – 10 minutes on some family in Cyprus whose house has fallen down (tenuous local link – they lived here once)

I can see why the average youth has turned off; the average of viewers of the five main channels is

BBC1 61

BBC2 62

ITV 60

Channel 4 55

Channel 5 58

As mentioned above, people take an interest in death and destruction that doesn’t affect them.

As someone said on the “news” thread, the BBC are getting more like the mailonline everyday.

The BBC will be monitoring the amount of clicks each article gets and will push the more popular stories more. Tragic for the family but I doubt they have a say in what the BBC puts on its news front page.

In other news some people are has changing their name FFS…….

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45702549

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45696124

But must we *really* hear every half hour about “the parents’ last moments with their daughter” etc et-bloody-c?

Agree, the lengthy interview with the parents on R4 this morning was distressing in the extreme. There was no need to go into that kind of detail and no need to report on it at the frequency they’ve chosen.

I see it as the family raising awareness.  my 3 year old has a severe allergy to peas which sounds easy to manage but the amount of **** about that goes on with food means it is in all sorts of stuff and you have to check everything.  and then even when you think a good is okay they change the ingredients without mentioning it

I’ve had 3 trips to a&e in an ambulance before it was diagnosed.  I hope I am never in the horrendous situation that father found himself in.

Definitely about awareness. I wasn’t aware that some large chains didn’t fully label until this sad event.

And I always carry epipens with me for my daughter’s peanut allergy so consider myself pretty insistent when it comes to checking.

What justifies it in this case is that it can and I think will lead to a change in the law or perhaps it’s more accurate to say the law will be modified so it does what it should have done in the first place

It’s being used as a Brexit diversion of the variety “Oh look! A royal baby…”. Never forget the BBC is a state owned broadcaster.

Sad for the family, a horrible thing to happen.

A disturbing number of people still die from their allergies every year, so why is this the one we need to hear about repeatedly in gory detail?

Because a disturbing number of people die every year and a landmark court case may do something to address that maybe

It’s being used as a Brexit diversion of the variety “Oh look! A royal baby…”. Never forget the BBC is a state owned broadcaster.

You know you’re right, I’d not noticed until now that the BBC haven’t given any time at all to Brexit!

Now it might be down to the fact that the BBC has decided it’s front page should reflect the tabloid mentality of the masses but I don’t think you can pin this one on a conspiracy to divert attention from Brexit.

Glad to know I’m not entirely out on my own about this. I think more than anything it’s the fact this has been a news story for a week now – hearing about it for a day or two would feel appropriate, but the continuing reporting feels a little overboard.

What justifies it in this case is that it can and I think will lead to a change in the law or perhaps it’s more accurate to say the law will be modified so it does what it should have done in the first place

Stupid (but genuine) question – what will it be changed to, or what is the hope that it’ll be changed to?

ensure all food products have ingriedents clearly marked for starters.  ensure all ingriedents are easily accessible by consumer.  not just an allergy list, as if your kids allergy is not on that list means it’s pretty useless to you.

example.  apparent chewits have pea protein in.  you have to check everything.  all this gluten free and generally pissing about with food is just making it worse.

As a kid I didn’t know a single kid with an allergy.  as a parent I know several.  no idea if it’s awareness but seems to be far more if an issue these days

what will it be changed

As I understand it because Pret part prepare the food in the store they currently are not required to list all the ingredients. This “loophole” was not an oversight but a way of not inflicting onerous conditions on say small sandwich bars which make all their products fresh daily. A small independent  might change some ingredients frequently depending on what is available to them and creating labels every time would be impractical. It would seem most sensible to change the law so that any retailer with more than a certain amount of outlets has to have everything labelled.

While Pret could have done a lot better they have broken no laws it seems and one shouldn’t forget the customer could have asked. I think if I or one of my children had an allergy that serious then I would  have asked and I have no doubt her father will ask himself what if for the rest of his life.

Some interesting theories here. In reality the story hasn’t been doing big traffic but there have just been a series of updates on it that have happened to pop up on relatively slow news days.

That’s my experience covering it for another news source anyway, and we actually gave it a miss today. The inquest was wrapped up last week as far as I was concerned and – like you OP – I felt a bit uncomfortable about the tone of the continuing coverage.

Agree, the lengthy interview with the parents on R4 this morning was distressing in the extreme. There was no need to go into that kind of detail and no need to report on it at the frequency they’ve chosen.

The interesting thing about news in 2018 is they have realtime analytics – they can tell essentially instantly which stories are getting read / shared the most and therefore play to the audience’s interests.  Now to some extent the family have “fed” the story – if they didn’t want to be interviewed they didn’t have to be; the photographs which accompany the story are provided by them.  I suspect that someone close to the family is media savvy and has helped promote the story as it does seem to have got more attention than you might expect.  I am sure that was assisted by the fact that the inquest was in London so easy to send a reporter to – you don’t see many court reporters anymore.

avdave2

…You know you’re right, I’d not noticed until now that the BBC haven’t given any time at all to Brexit!

Needless to say when my wife sat down to watch the news, it was all about Brexit.

Obviously my aversion to TV & the BBC is getting too strong. 🙂

Pret were following current regulations.  They have disclaimers in the store about allergens …. which is what they have to do by law.

It turns out that it is not enough  to stop those with a severe allergy having reaction.

The counterpoint being that perhaps if you have such a strong allergy, would you risk eating food others had prepared ??  A Coeliac friend of mine is extremely wary of eating anything out because of cross contamination…. hence tends to take home prepared stuff when he travels.

I have no doubt that all food now will should contain such information … but micro contamination will alway occur.  The amount of faux allergies does not help the real sufferers BTW.

How was the girl involved going to eat once she got to Nice … or was she a fluent French speaker. ( BTW, I haven’t seen to many allergy statements, in big letters, when I travel across France)?

As with petec above ..I don’t go out of my way to listen to the news and as I fall into the age bands being quoted I’m also glad to see that I’m bucking the trend ..

I prefer silence in the morning to the tat chat ..Im working at midday ..the early evening news is when Im eating..and the late evening news Im just retiring to bed ….Oh and I never listen to the radio

What’s happening dudes ?

Mrfoofoo,

my wife and son are both coeliac – They manage pretty well to avoid places where cross contamination is likely but whilst the consequences are unpleasant it isn’t life threatening.

Having “I am allergic to sesame” translated into French is really not difficult.  (Its a damn sight easier than explaining what gluten is, and which cereals it is found in – and we seem to manage – allergies / intolerance are not unique to the UK, and many foreign countries are more likely to prep their food themselves so know what is in it!).

It’s easy to say the “family” should have been more careful.  The reality is many places (and Pret is one of them) make it too hard to find out what allergens are in their food.  You can ask, (but often only the manager is able to help), then sometimes they bring you a giant book and make you do the work, sometimes they roll their eyes, in general you get worse service and slightly humiliated in front of the whole place for being awkward.  And then of course you get the “cover their arse” speech that they can’t guarantee no accidental contamination.  It may not be intentional but it is certainly not welcoming.  Places like airport catering are some of the worst as you have limited alternative choice.  Pret have made their life hard by offering some gluten free products clearly labelled, they have supported a market trend whilst pretending to be accommodating special food needs but actually ignoring people they might kill with hidden ingredients.

Victim blaming is probably not helpful.  It’s likely that trace quantities that you would normally get by accidental exposure can be adequately dealt with by epipen, but this was a significant hidden ingredient in the bread not a couple of stray sesame seeds.  I’d also guess that had she not been on a plane she may have survived – lower cabin pressure and a delay in getting to hospital won’t have helped the efforts to treat her.  I don’t know if the coroner made any comment about the onboard response – I wasn’t convinced it was the right call.

my mum’s been severely coeliac all her life; back when people didn’t really know what it was; her first few years was basically eating bananas. She lead the society for a few years, and is still incredibly active in it.

Her mantra (with all things, and not just food!) “if in doubt, don’t“

Poly,

i fully understand that position.  I am not blaming the victim, and sorry that you feel like that.  But if you have a really severe allergy then you have to make sure that you also makes sure that you reduce you exposure.

Having “I am allergic to seasame” in France is not going to assure you that the products you eat are seasame free.  Pret proved that …

Re Coelliac – the biggest issue is the number of faux guletn intolerances there are …. hence when you go to Pret, or Jamie’s Italian, or wherever, most places will just roll their eyes and say “yeah”.  It is not to be condoned but when you realise “real allergies” are around 1-2% of people (not talking about intolerances) but 45% of the population now claim to have a food allergy, this becomes  aproblem for everyone.

Unfortunately, it complete f***s the system for your wife and kids … 🙁

#projectfear

🤣

Her mantra (with all things, and not just food!) “if in doubt, don’t“

This. If you have such a serious allergy that you need to carry an epi pen then you need to protect yourself. Restrictive and unfair as it may seem buying food in shops may not be the way for you.

The case has highlighted some inconsistencies in the law but all I can see coming out of this is a blanket notice on every piece of food saying it has X,Y,Z in it as a catch all.

I am not blaming the victim, and sorry that you feel like that.  But if you have a really severe allergy then you have to make sure that you also makes sure that you reduce you exposure.

You are not blaming the victim, but you are blaming the victim!  I’m not saying they could not have done more to avoid exposure, but they also need to live life not exist in a cotton wool bubble.

Having “I am allergic to seasame” in France is not going to assure you that the products you eat are seasame free.  Pret proved that …

Nothing will ever guarantee that, even homemade food has the potential for a labelling error, a mistake or misunderstanding.  I’m not sure what your point was about “what were they going to do in France” are you suggesting people with severe allergies should not travel.

Re Coelliac – the biggest issue is the number of faux guletn intolerances there are …. hence when you go to Pret, or Jamie’s Italian, or wherever, most places will just roll their eyes and say “yeah”.  It is not to be condoned but when you realise “real allergies” are around 1-2% of people (not talking about intolerances) but 45% of the population now claim to have a food allergy, this becomes  aproblem for everyone.

Unfortunately, it complete f***s the system for your wife and kids …

Actually whilst I get the point you are making, and it does make it a bit of a nightmare (the sandwhich/roll place across from my office offers “gluten free” – but use the same tongs, chopping board and store their GF rolls on a shelf touching the normal ones!)  BUT, by and large, it makes the issue far more understood and choices available (accommodating a 10% market demand is much easier than a 1% one!).  FIL was diagnosed much earlier and I remember how difficult it was eating out in the 90’s with him, whereas now there is usually always somewhere not too far away that has half a clue, and some really good places.  Having an obscure allergy for a common ingredient would be far worse.

Just to add to my earlier contribution, media outlets are not running this story because they are “chasing clicks”.

There’s another devlopment on this today as Theresa May’s said the law will be looked at – and the promo for the story that I’m running (on a service with a similar audience profile to the BBC) is currently at the lowest click-through rate I’ve seen in months.

It’s continuing to be run because there’s deemed to be a public interest angle. It’s certainly not distracting people from Brexit because nobody’s reading it (and nobody reads most Brexit stories either).

Hope that’s a useful insight.

The other thing that could be done here is to start looking properly at treating people with life threatening allergies. Trials in people with potentially life threatening peanut allergies have been had a very high degree of success.  That though would cost taxpayers money so I suppose it will always be easier to shift the onus on to the food producers as we won’t notice the increased costs being passed on to us so easily.

I’m more interested in why two epipens in a row still failed.

I have read that there have been a spate of failures/adverse event reports due to manufacturing issues, users leaving them in bright sunlight, users using them past their expiry dates or just downright failing to actually administer them properly etc etc

The BBC do appear to be over doing stories these days, especially on Radio 4 PM.

However on this particular story.

1. She was going on a flight, I wouldn’t take that risk if it were me.

2. Why hasn’t the airline be hauled through the press?  I was on a flight once with Mrs FD. Some bloke decided to try and die. Mrs FD is a doc, and the pilot asked her if he should land the aircraft immediately.  She said yes and we were on the ground incredibly quickly.

3. If I were to open a sandwich shop I think I would have a big notice saying not suitable for people with allergies, or does the law now prevent you from opening a shop like that?

I’m more interested in why two epipens in a row still failed.

The needles weren’t as long as is recommended. Coroner acknowledged that was a factor.

The answer to the morbid thing is that the BBC seem to have become the Daily Mirror of the TV.  Next they will be reporting on the Kardashians.

They are already using the station to incessantly promote their own programmes ( Bodyguard – which was mentioned in just about every show going), GBBO (when they had it), and now Celebrity Come Dancing ….

Breakfast on the BBC is just awful … dumbed down and stupid, it is nearly as bad as the ITV offering …

Can we please stop having to pay the compulsory TV tax?

To those asking above-

Epipens are only a partial assist in a severe allergic reaction; the adrenalin within will only buy you 20 minutes at best before you’re back in effectively the same position as before.  A second and further pens may help.  Or they may not… If the allergen is still in the body, the reaction will continue.

They can put a lid on a mild allergic reaction but in all severe cases, hospital intervention will be required.

Systemic, over the counter anti-histamine can help minor reactions but are unlikely to make any lasting impression on a severe case.

As the airway is occluded by swelling of throat tissues, breathing difficulties, hypoxia and death will follow as both brain and heart muscle cannot survive without oxygen.  Aircraft often carry a short term emergency medical oxygen supply in a bottle; I don’t know if this was used but again, it just buys you a little time in a severe case.

In this case, the AED was apparently not deployed when she arrested, as the cabin staff had been told to strap in for landing at the time it was required.  I don’t know what impact the discharge of an AED would have inside an aircraft during approach.  Pilots can, as referred to above and also in my experience, respond to an authoritative request by getting the plane on the ground rapidly.  There are extensive protocols for in-air emergencies but we don’t know who, if anyone, was in a position to request an early landing.

The whole thing is very sad and like so many accidental deaths, is probably the culmination of a handful of mis-haps put together.

The other thing that could be done here is to start looking properly at treating people with life threatening allergies. Trials in people with potentially life threatening peanut allergies have been had a very high degree of success.  That though would cost taxpayers money so I suppose it will always be easier to shift the onus on to the food producers as we won’t notice the increased costs being passed on to us so easily.

Are those treatments widely accepted in other countries where taxes aren’t the normal method of paying for treatment? How much do they cost?  What is their efficacy?  And side effects? How does that compare to say 60+ yrs of epipens, a few 999 ambulance trips to hospital and some night of observation?

I’m more interested in why two epipens in a row still failed.

1. Even correctly administered, in a hospital environment the drug is not 100% guaranteed to reverse the effects of anaphylaxis.

2. For small accidental exposure (like cross contamination, or one or two stray seeds) one dose probably works the vast majority of times; a second dose will usually deal with the cases it doesn’t or if the dose is not delivered effectively etc.  This was not a trace contaminant – it was a main ingredient of the bread.  Imagine in 1 or 2 seseame seeds is enough to kill you and needs an injection, what a tablespoon of seed does.

3. There may well be aggravating factors from being on an aircraft – like low cabin pressure, delay to getting to medical assistance, but even if that Pret had been a hospital canteen with the best stocked pharmacy in the world [it may be that the global shortage of Epipens is helping feed the attention on an “epipens are life critical” news story] there is no guarantee of survival.

1. She was going on a flight, I wouldn’t take that risk if it were me.

Thats like saying you shouldn’t cycle on a busy road or women shouldn’t walk home alone at night.

2. Why hasn’t the airline be hauled through the press?  I was on a flight once with Mrs FD. Some bloke decided to try and die. Mrs FD is a doc, and the pilot asked her if he should land the aircraft immediately.  She said yes and we were on the ground incredibly quickly.

I did see some things which raised my eyebrows – like the flight crew not bringing the defib to the patient because they “had to man the doors”.  I can understand why they have been trained that way – but you have in front of you a patient who is very likely to die, and where the defib may be the thing that stops that, versus a tiny risk that this is going to be the one flight which has a medical emergency AND crash lands, and one door being unattended causes further deaths…  I presumed they made a medical emergency landing to jump the queue, but it was at least a bit surprising that they still flew to the original destination.  It may be that these things were all discussed at the inquest, were quite sound answers and didn’t make good soundbites.

3. If I were to open a sandwich shop I think I would have a big notice saying not suitable for people with allergies, or does the law now prevent you from opening a shop like that?

That would get you in trouble with the FSA.

Can we please stop having to pay the compulsory TV tax?

Of course you can.  Just stop watching TV.