Less than 2ppm Peanut Labeling

Hello, I recently received results for a product that is roasted on a peanut roaster. My product results came back at <2ppm Peanut (R-Biopharm Ridascreen) an has the following legend: "IF THE ALLERGEN RESULT ON THIS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS IS NOT PRECEDED BY A “<” (LESS THAN) SYMBOL, THE RESULT WAS PRESUMPTIVE FOR THE INDICATED ALLERGEN". To my understanding this product has no peanut proteins (or at least not detectable by that method). Should I steel label my product as a warning that it might contain peanut or has been in contact with peanut processing equipment? Thank you, 

I think given that you're using a peanut roaster for your product, it's the prudent thing to do

 

You sent the lab a sample, going to assume it was a grab sample and not an AOQ type sample , it only means that the sample you sent is negative for peanut, it does not mean the product is

 

Err on the side of caution---------the alternative is a battle with the FDA and/or a lawsuit

 

Next batch, secure a different roaster if possible

Itvwould be an allerhen statement or declaration that ingredient/product is processed on equipment that also processes peanuts. Or both.

Hello,

 

I recently received results for a product that is roasted on a peanut roaster.

 

My product results came back at <2ppm Peanut (R-Biopharm Ridascreen) an has the following legend: "IF THE ALLERGEN RESULT ON THIS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS IS NOT PRECEDED BY A “<” (LESS THAN) SYMBOL, THERESULT WAS PRESUMPTIVE FOR THE INDICATED ALLERGEN".

 

To my understanding this product has no peanut proteins (or at least not detectable by that method).

 

Should I steel label my product as a warning that it might contain peanut or has been in contact with peanut processing equipment?

 

Thank you, 

 

If you do" precautionary" label, you might as well have not sent a sample ?

 

There are "guidelines" for to label or to not label but it often devolves as per previous posts despite logical/ethical etc opinions. Such is the belief in preemptive strikes/insurance.

I apply several principles:

1) no analysis w/o consequences

2) test selection - here: Check whether the test system applies an antibody or antibodies which are able to detect heat modified allergens
    I always ask for validation studies and background of antibodies generation (ELISA). Why? For peanut I know from own experience that a negative test result will not mean no allergenicity -> crosscheck with IgG from allergenic patient used in a test system can give a positive reaction.
3) CoA: any result statement for both the allergenic food (peanut) and the protein

4) crosscheck with vital concept (Australia)

 

Any decision for or against PAL for countries w/o legal requirements is always related to the market environment and court decisions. I personally prefer no PAL wherever possible and reasonable. 

 

Rgds

moskito