Natasha Ednan-Laperouse
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2018-0279
All 2 responses received
· Deadline: 3 Dec 2018
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
2 of 5
56-Day Deadline
3 Dec 2018
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
(1) That allergens were not labelled adequately or clearly on Pret-a-Manger packaging when prepared in their kitchens “pre-packed for direct sale” (2) utilising regulation 5 of the Food Information Regulations. Regulation 5 allows for food outlets to avoid full food labelling requirements whether they prepare a small number of items in local shops or in the case of Pret, over 200 million items for sale by preparing these items in “local kitchens”. These items prepared in “local kitchens” are in fact “assembled” in large parts from items made in factory style outlets to Pret specifications. I was left with the impression that the “local kitchens” were in fact a device to evade the spirit of the regulation. In the case of Pret-a-manger there was no coherent or co-ordinated system for monitoring customer allergic reactions despite sales of more than 200 million items. In some cases concerns were notified to Customer Services and in some they were noted to the safety department. The two did not know what the other was responding to. It was clear that there was no overarching monitoring system in place. In response to questioning on this I was told that the manager responsible for safety now received all notifications and would monitor them. In my view this remains highly inadequate. In my view sales of 200 million items some with expressly commissioned but hidden allergens require a robust safety auditing system. The previous system was unsafe and the system proposed equally so in my view.
(3) In the Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions Guidelines for healthcare providers the preferred needle length is 25 mm for adrenaline injectors to access muscle in most people. I heard during expert evidence that Epipen needle length was 16mm - suitable according to the UK Resuscitation Council for “pre-term or very small infants”. The use of needles which access only subcutaneous tissue and not muscle is in my view inherently unsafe. An alternative autoinjector, Emerade has a 24 mm needle.
(4) The dose of adrenaline in Epipen is 300mcg. The UK Resuscitation Council recommends a standard emergency dose of 500mcg. Emerade contains a dose including 500mcg. The combination of what my expert told me was an inadequate dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis and an inadequate length needle raises serious safety concerns.
(3) In the Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions Guidelines for healthcare providers the preferred needle length is 25 mm for adrenaline injectors to access muscle in most people. I heard during expert evidence that Epipen needle length was 16mm - suitable according to the UK Resuscitation Council for “pre-term or very small infants”. The use of needles which access only subcutaneous tissue and not muscle is in my view inherently unsafe. An alternative autoinjector, Emerade has a 24 mm needle.
(4) The dose of adrenaline in Epipen is 300mcg. The UK Resuscitation Council recommends a standard emergency dose of 500mcg. Emerade contains a dose including 500mcg. The combination of what my expert told me was an inadequate dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis and an inadequate length needle raises serious safety concerns.
Responses
Response received
View full response
Dear Dr Cummings,
Regulation 28 Report concerning Natasha Ednan-Laperouse
Thank you for your letter of 9th October 2018 in which you asked the MHRA to provide a response to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths following the inquest into the tragic death of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse.
Your report listed two matters of concern that fall under the remit of the MHRA and medicines regulation. Your concerns relate to the effectiveness of Epipens, a brand of adrenaline auto-injector carried by at- risk patients for self-administration to treat anaphylaxis before the arrival of the emergency services. Your concerns specifically relate to the adequacy of needle length and adrenaline dose when compared with published guidelines from the UK Resuscitation Council.
Concern (3) – needle length:
It is widely accepted by clinical experts that adrenaline should be delivered into muscle tissue to maximise the chance of recovery from anaphylaxis, a recommendation endorsed by the UK Resuscitation Council. It is clear from the Epipen Summary of Product Characteristics (information for the prescriber), relevant sections from which are displayed in Annex 1, that intramuscular delivery is the intended route of administration: “EpiPen® auto injector is for adult intramuscular administration.”
You question whether the exposed needle length of Epipen (16 mm) is adequate to reach muscle in most patients. The adequacy of adrenaline auto-injector needle length was addressed by the MHRA as one aspect of a review in 2014. The available evidence was found to be lacking in some key aspects and the MHRA therefore took this forward as part of a wider European safety review that reported on 25 June 2015. As one of the legally binding conditions following the European safety review, manufacturers were required to disclose the exposed needle length of their adrenaline auto-injector devices in the product information to inform the healthcare professional and patient so they can take this in to account in deciding which device is appropriate for an individual patient. The exposed needle length of the three pens that are marketed in the UK are specified in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and patient leaflet, and are as follows: Epipen 0.3 mg (16 mm), Jext 300 mcg (15 mm), Emerade (23 mm).
For clarification, the preferred needle length of 25 mm that you refer to in your report is recommended by the UK Resuscitation Council in the context of anaphylaxis treatment by healthcare professionals, when adrenaline is recommended to be administered by manual intramuscular injection with a syringe Dr Sean Cummings Assistant Coroner London West West London Coroner’s Office Coroner’s Court 25 Bagleys Lane Fulham, London SW6 2QA
29 November 2018
2
and needle, a method not suitable for self-administration. The UK Resuscitation Council had cause to clarify this, in response to recent media reports that had misinterpreted its guidance:
Needles that are too long are not without risk: a needle that is too long can strike bone which has been reported to result in needle fracture and, rarely, in injection of adrenaline into the bone cavity which can mimic intravenous delivery. Where a needle is deployed with force, these risks are likely to be higher.
Adrenaline auto-injectors are designed to forcibly deploy a needle, through clothing if necessary to save time, in the immediate period following the onset of anaphylactic symptoms. Auto-injectors are intended to deliver adrenaline into muscle tissue by a combination of both direct needle penetration and propulsive force of the device. The manufacturer of Epipen asserts that the propulsive force of the device will allow adrenaline to reach muscle even if the device needle is deployed subcutaneously.
The European safety review endorsed that delivery of adrenaline into muscle tissue is the preferred way to treat anaphylaxis in the early, time critical, period before the arrival of the emergency services. However, the review considered that the evidence was not sufficiently robust to support the assertion of intramuscular penetration of adrenaline following auto-injector deployment.
The review concluded that adrenaline auto-injectors are in the main effective and undoubtedly save lives but studies in human volunteers were needed to investigate whether the speed and amount of adrenaline taken up into the bloodstream following auto-injector deployment was consistent with intramuscular penetration of adrenaline.
The requirement for clinical studies – in human volunteers - was imposed by the European Commission for all brands of adrenaline auto-injectors marketed throughout Europe. In the UK, this applies to the three brands of adrenaline auto-injectors that are marketed: Epipen, Jext and Emerade.
Your principal concern is with the Epipen brand given that Natasha failed to respond to two Epipen auto- injectors. The administration of a second adrenaline auto-injector 5 to 15 minutes after the first, if the patient has not responded adequately, is recommended in the instructions for use in the product information for prescriber and patient.
The review of clinical study results for Epipen undertaken by the MHRA and other competent authorities throughout Europe commenced on 15th September 2018. The MHRA raised questions which the company is currently addressing and will result in further information being submitted for evaluation. Regulatory action will be taken as necessary on completion of the review.
For illustrative purposes, clinical study results for the Jext 300 mcg device, submitted prior to the Epipen data, are summarised below. You should be aware that results cannot be extrapolated between different brands of adrenaline auto-injector given that the rate and extent of adrenaline absorption will not only depend on adrenaline dose and needle length but also on the propulsive force of the device as well as the formulation of the adrenaline solution. Individual clinical study results for each device therefore need to be evaluated. The Jext data nonetheless serve to illustrate the types of measures that can be implemented even in the short term, such as factual disclosure of study data in the SmPC, to inform the prescriber and patient.
The study data for the Jext 300 mcg device were submitted to the UK and other European countries where the product is marketed on 21 December 2017 and the evaluation was concluded on 17 October
2018. This informed subsequent updating of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and patient leaflet, Annex 2. The study found that, in subjects with a skin to muscle depth greater than 20 mm, adrenaline absorption into the systemic circulation was slower following Jext compared with manual intramuscular injection (using syringe and needle); moreover, in the same subjects, the overall amount of adrenaline reaching the circulation in the first 8, 16 and 30 minutes – the early, time critical period - was lower following Jext injection compared with manual intramuscular injection (these results are
3
available to the prescriber in section 5.2 of the SmPC – see Annex 2). As a consequence additional warnings have now been implemented in section 4.4 of the SmPC that patients with a thicker subcutaneous fat layer may be at increased risk of an inadequate response and may therefore be more likely to need a second injection. Disclosure of clinical study data to the prescriber within the SmPC, with appropriate specialist clinical guidance, will enable translation of the evidence into clinical practice to inform a decision on suitability of the Jext 300 mcg auto-injector for a particular patient, or whether an alternative device may be advisable. A full report on the studies is expected to be published by end December 2018 by Sweden, the Competent Authority coordinating the evaluation.
Results for Emerade, the third brand of adrenaline auto-injector currently marketed in the UK, are expected to be submitted for evaluation in February 2019. This delayed submission date was agreed by the European Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh) due to local ethical committee requirements for screening of patients.
It is foreseen that the evaluation of results for all adrenaline auto-injectors marketed in the UK (Epipen, Jext and Emerade) will be completed during 2019. The availability of data on exposed needle length for all devices, together with the results of clinical studies, will allow an informed decision to be taken on prescribing and advice given to patients. When all study data are available, an over-arching evaluation is intended, to inform whether further measures may be required, that may include a recommendation for longer needle lengths.
Additional outcomes from the European safety review recommended for implementation in the meantime were:
- Recommendations for improved training and educational materials for patients, carers and healthcare professionals in the use of adrenaline auto-injectors.
- Improvements to the product information for prescriber and patient, including strengthening of the recommendation that patients should carry two auto-injectors to enable a second injection if there has been an insufficient response within the first 15 minutes; and reinforcement of the need for family members, carers and teachers to be properly trained in use of the patient’s auto-injector.
- A requirement for disclosure of exposed needle length for the respective devices in the product information to inform the healthcare professional and patient.
- These outcomes have been implemented for all adrenaline auto-injector products sold in the UK.
The MHRA has in the meantime published updated advice on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors to patients and their carers:
Concern (4) – adequacy of adrenaline dose in Epipen:
You question whether a 300 mcg dose of adrenaline – delivered by the adult presentation of Epipen - is adequate to treat anaphylaxis, given the UK Resuscitation Council recommendation that 500 mcg is the dose recommended to treat anaphylaxis.
A discrete, efficacious dose of adrenaline for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is not defined. The Resuscitation Council guidance for a 500 mcg dose refers to the dose administered by a healthcare professional (by manual intramuscular injection with a syringe and needle) and is not their recommended dose for adrenaline auto-injector self-administration. In a healthcare setting, a second dose of 500 mcg adrenaline is recommended to be administered after 5 minutes if the patient is not responding. An experienced specialist could also treat anaphylaxis with repeated bolus doses of 50mcg of intravenous adrenaline or may initiate intravenous infusion of adrenaline according to the response. In the healthcare
4
setting described above, cardiovascular monitoring can be initiated due to the risk of dysrhythmia with high dose adrenaline.
The above treatment regimens are not appropriate in the circumstance where a patient needs to self- administer their adrenaline-autoinjector prior to the arrival of emergency services. In the same clarification statement referred to above
the Resuscitation Council clarifies the basis of their recommendation for a 500 mcg dose: “With regards to dose recommendations, we would like to stress that 500 mcg is the dose healthcare professionals should give to patients over 12 years of age and is not, as has been incorrectly quoted, an RC (UK) recommendation for the provision of adrenaline through auto-injectors.”
Although a single Epipen dose in the adult presentation delivers 300 mcg of adrenaline, patients are advised to carry two adrenaline auto-injectors at all times and that a second injection should be given 5 to 15 minutes after the first injection if there has been an inadequate response. The authorised instructions for use therefore allow an adrenaline dose of 600 mcg to be self-administered.
An early lack of response to a first injection cannot, from the available evidence, be predicted with any degree of reliability for a given patient; this underpins the MHRA’s continuing recommendation that patients should carry two auto-injectors, which was reinforced in the European safety review. An early lack of response should also be distinguished from the phenomenon of biphasic anaphylaxis that can occur several hours later after an apparently good initial response to emergency treatment. A risk of biphasic anaphylaxis is one reason patients must summon an ambulance even if there has been an apparently good response to auto-injector administration.
Conclusion
The MHRA has, as outlined, taken action in undertaking a review of adrenaline auto-injectors, and has progressed this within Europe, following which a number of outcomes including improved training, additional risk minimisation measures and factual disclosures within the product information have been implemented. The review concluded that adrenaline auto-injectors are in the main effective and undoubtedly save lives but studies in human volunteers were required to determine whether the speed and amount of adrenaline taken up into the bloodstream following auto-injector deployment is consistent with intramuscular penetration of adrenaline. The MHRA is presently undertaking a rigorous evaluation of the clinical study data for each brand of adrenaline auto-injector as and when it is submitted, and will ensure any necessary measures are taken in order to increase the effectiveness of adrenaline auto- injectors in the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. If necessary, the prescribing information for each auto-injector will be updated as an immediate measure as soon as conclusions on the data have been reached. When data on all products are available – anticipated during 2019 – an over-arching evaluation will be conducted by the MHRA that will inform the need for any further measures.
I will write to you following the completion of the evaluation of the clinical data for Epipen to inform you of any recommendations or regulatory actions that may be deemed necessary to protect public health.
Regulation 28 Report concerning Natasha Ednan-Laperouse
Thank you for your letter of 9th October 2018 in which you asked the MHRA to provide a response to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths following the inquest into the tragic death of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse.
Your report listed two matters of concern that fall under the remit of the MHRA and medicines regulation. Your concerns relate to the effectiveness of Epipens, a brand of adrenaline auto-injector carried by at- risk patients for self-administration to treat anaphylaxis before the arrival of the emergency services. Your concerns specifically relate to the adequacy of needle length and adrenaline dose when compared with published guidelines from the UK Resuscitation Council.
Concern (3) – needle length:
It is widely accepted by clinical experts that adrenaline should be delivered into muscle tissue to maximise the chance of recovery from anaphylaxis, a recommendation endorsed by the UK Resuscitation Council. It is clear from the Epipen Summary of Product Characteristics (information for the prescriber), relevant sections from which are displayed in Annex 1, that intramuscular delivery is the intended route of administration: “EpiPen® auto injector is for adult intramuscular administration.”
You question whether the exposed needle length of Epipen (16 mm) is adequate to reach muscle in most patients. The adequacy of adrenaline auto-injector needle length was addressed by the MHRA as one aspect of a review in 2014. The available evidence was found to be lacking in some key aspects and the MHRA therefore took this forward as part of a wider European safety review that reported on 25 June 2015. As one of the legally binding conditions following the European safety review, manufacturers were required to disclose the exposed needle length of their adrenaline auto-injector devices in the product information to inform the healthcare professional and patient so they can take this in to account in deciding which device is appropriate for an individual patient. The exposed needle length of the three pens that are marketed in the UK are specified in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and patient leaflet, and are as follows: Epipen 0.3 mg (16 mm), Jext 300 mcg (15 mm), Emerade (23 mm).
For clarification, the preferred needle length of 25 mm that you refer to in your report is recommended by the UK Resuscitation Council in the context of anaphylaxis treatment by healthcare professionals, when adrenaline is recommended to be administered by manual intramuscular injection with a syringe Dr Sean Cummings Assistant Coroner London West West London Coroner’s Office Coroner’s Court 25 Bagleys Lane Fulham, London SW6 2QA
29 November 2018
2
and needle, a method not suitable for self-administration. The UK Resuscitation Council had cause to clarify this, in response to recent media reports that had misinterpreted its guidance:
Needles that are too long are not without risk: a needle that is too long can strike bone which has been reported to result in needle fracture and, rarely, in injection of adrenaline into the bone cavity which can mimic intravenous delivery. Where a needle is deployed with force, these risks are likely to be higher.
Adrenaline auto-injectors are designed to forcibly deploy a needle, through clothing if necessary to save time, in the immediate period following the onset of anaphylactic symptoms. Auto-injectors are intended to deliver adrenaline into muscle tissue by a combination of both direct needle penetration and propulsive force of the device. The manufacturer of Epipen asserts that the propulsive force of the device will allow adrenaline to reach muscle even if the device needle is deployed subcutaneously.
The European safety review endorsed that delivery of adrenaline into muscle tissue is the preferred way to treat anaphylaxis in the early, time critical, period before the arrival of the emergency services. However, the review considered that the evidence was not sufficiently robust to support the assertion of intramuscular penetration of adrenaline following auto-injector deployment.
The review concluded that adrenaline auto-injectors are in the main effective and undoubtedly save lives but studies in human volunteers were needed to investigate whether the speed and amount of adrenaline taken up into the bloodstream following auto-injector deployment was consistent with intramuscular penetration of adrenaline.
The requirement for clinical studies – in human volunteers - was imposed by the European Commission for all brands of adrenaline auto-injectors marketed throughout Europe. In the UK, this applies to the three brands of adrenaline auto-injectors that are marketed: Epipen, Jext and Emerade.
Your principal concern is with the Epipen brand given that Natasha failed to respond to two Epipen auto- injectors. The administration of a second adrenaline auto-injector 5 to 15 minutes after the first, if the patient has not responded adequately, is recommended in the instructions for use in the product information for prescriber and patient.
The review of clinical study results for Epipen undertaken by the MHRA and other competent authorities throughout Europe commenced on 15th September 2018. The MHRA raised questions which the company is currently addressing and will result in further information being submitted for evaluation. Regulatory action will be taken as necessary on completion of the review.
For illustrative purposes, clinical study results for the Jext 300 mcg device, submitted prior to the Epipen data, are summarised below. You should be aware that results cannot be extrapolated between different brands of adrenaline auto-injector given that the rate and extent of adrenaline absorption will not only depend on adrenaline dose and needle length but also on the propulsive force of the device as well as the formulation of the adrenaline solution. Individual clinical study results for each device therefore need to be evaluated. The Jext data nonetheless serve to illustrate the types of measures that can be implemented even in the short term, such as factual disclosure of study data in the SmPC, to inform the prescriber and patient.
The study data for the Jext 300 mcg device were submitted to the UK and other European countries where the product is marketed on 21 December 2017 and the evaluation was concluded on 17 October
2018. This informed subsequent updating of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and patient leaflet, Annex 2. The study found that, in subjects with a skin to muscle depth greater than 20 mm, adrenaline absorption into the systemic circulation was slower following Jext compared with manual intramuscular injection (using syringe and needle); moreover, in the same subjects, the overall amount of adrenaline reaching the circulation in the first 8, 16 and 30 minutes – the early, time critical period - was lower following Jext injection compared with manual intramuscular injection (these results are
3
available to the prescriber in section 5.2 of the SmPC – see Annex 2). As a consequence additional warnings have now been implemented in section 4.4 of the SmPC that patients with a thicker subcutaneous fat layer may be at increased risk of an inadequate response and may therefore be more likely to need a second injection. Disclosure of clinical study data to the prescriber within the SmPC, with appropriate specialist clinical guidance, will enable translation of the evidence into clinical practice to inform a decision on suitability of the Jext 300 mcg auto-injector for a particular patient, or whether an alternative device may be advisable. A full report on the studies is expected to be published by end December 2018 by Sweden, the Competent Authority coordinating the evaluation.
Results for Emerade, the third brand of adrenaline auto-injector currently marketed in the UK, are expected to be submitted for evaluation in February 2019. This delayed submission date was agreed by the European Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh) due to local ethical committee requirements for screening of patients.
It is foreseen that the evaluation of results for all adrenaline auto-injectors marketed in the UK (Epipen, Jext and Emerade) will be completed during 2019. The availability of data on exposed needle length for all devices, together with the results of clinical studies, will allow an informed decision to be taken on prescribing and advice given to patients. When all study data are available, an over-arching evaluation is intended, to inform whether further measures may be required, that may include a recommendation for longer needle lengths.
Additional outcomes from the European safety review recommended for implementation in the meantime were:
- Recommendations for improved training and educational materials for patients, carers and healthcare professionals in the use of adrenaline auto-injectors.
- Improvements to the product information for prescriber and patient, including strengthening of the recommendation that patients should carry two auto-injectors to enable a second injection if there has been an insufficient response within the first 15 minutes; and reinforcement of the need for family members, carers and teachers to be properly trained in use of the patient’s auto-injector.
- A requirement for disclosure of exposed needle length for the respective devices in the product information to inform the healthcare professional and patient.
- These outcomes have been implemented for all adrenaline auto-injector products sold in the UK.
The MHRA has in the meantime published updated advice on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors to patients and their carers:
Concern (4) – adequacy of adrenaline dose in Epipen:
You question whether a 300 mcg dose of adrenaline – delivered by the adult presentation of Epipen - is adequate to treat anaphylaxis, given the UK Resuscitation Council recommendation that 500 mcg is the dose recommended to treat anaphylaxis.
A discrete, efficacious dose of adrenaline for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is not defined. The Resuscitation Council guidance for a 500 mcg dose refers to the dose administered by a healthcare professional (by manual intramuscular injection with a syringe and needle) and is not their recommended dose for adrenaline auto-injector self-administration. In a healthcare setting, a second dose of 500 mcg adrenaline is recommended to be administered after 5 minutes if the patient is not responding. An experienced specialist could also treat anaphylaxis with repeated bolus doses of 50mcg of intravenous adrenaline or may initiate intravenous infusion of adrenaline according to the response. In the healthcare
4
setting described above, cardiovascular monitoring can be initiated due to the risk of dysrhythmia with high dose adrenaline.
The above treatment regimens are not appropriate in the circumstance where a patient needs to self- administer their adrenaline-autoinjector prior to the arrival of emergency services. In the same clarification statement referred to above
the Resuscitation Council clarifies the basis of their recommendation for a 500 mcg dose: “With regards to dose recommendations, we would like to stress that 500 mcg is the dose healthcare professionals should give to patients over 12 years of age and is not, as has been incorrectly quoted, an RC (UK) recommendation for the provision of adrenaline through auto-injectors.”
Although a single Epipen dose in the adult presentation delivers 300 mcg of adrenaline, patients are advised to carry two adrenaline auto-injectors at all times and that a second injection should be given 5 to 15 minutes after the first injection if there has been an inadequate response. The authorised instructions for use therefore allow an adrenaline dose of 600 mcg to be self-administered.
An early lack of response to a first injection cannot, from the available evidence, be predicted with any degree of reliability for a given patient; this underpins the MHRA’s continuing recommendation that patients should carry two auto-injectors, which was reinforced in the European safety review. An early lack of response should also be distinguished from the phenomenon of biphasic anaphylaxis that can occur several hours later after an apparently good initial response to emergency treatment. A risk of biphasic anaphylaxis is one reason patients must summon an ambulance even if there has been an apparently good response to auto-injector administration.
Conclusion
The MHRA has, as outlined, taken action in undertaking a review of adrenaline auto-injectors, and has progressed this within Europe, following which a number of outcomes including improved training, additional risk minimisation measures and factual disclosures within the product information have been implemented. The review concluded that adrenaline auto-injectors are in the main effective and undoubtedly save lives but studies in human volunteers were required to determine whether the speed and amount of adrenaline taken up into the bloodstream following auto-injector deployment is consistent with intramuscular penetration of adrenaline. The MHRA is presently undertaking a rigorous evaluation of the clinical study data for each brand of adrenaline auto-injector as and when it is submitted, and will ensure any necessary measures are taken in order to increase the effectiveness of adrenaline auto- injectors in the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. If necessary, the prescribing information for each auto-injector will be updated as an immediate measure as soon as conclusions on the data have been reached. When data on all products are available – anticipated during 2019 – an over-arching evaluation will be conducted by the MHRA that will inform the need for any further measures.
I will write to you following the completion of the evaluation of the clinical data for Epipen to inform you of any recommendations or regulatory actions that may be deemed necessary to protect public health.
Response received
View full response
The Rt Hon Ilichael Gove MP From the Secretary of State for Environment;, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Environment Seacole Building 03459 335577 2 Marsham Street defra helpline@defra gsi.gov.uk Food & Rural Affairs London SWIP 4DF WWW:gov.ukldefra 27th November 2018 Thank you for your letter concerning the inquest into the death of Natasha Ednan- Laperouse who died tragically of anaphylaxis after eating a baguette purchased from Pret- a-Manger at London Heathrow Airport: First, would like to express my most sincere condolences to the Ednan-Laperouse family My heart goes out to her family and friends. much appreciate your efforts to ensure that this important investigation and inquest was conducted with rigour and independence. have carefully considered your report and offer the following in response to the detailed issues yoU raised which are pertinent to my department The first matter of concern (1) you raise relates to inadequate allergen labelling on products which are, according to the relevant legislation, "pre-packed for direct sale"_ Current food information regulations, which date from 2014, make a distinction between pre-packed food found, for example, in a supermarket; and food pre-packed for direct sale, for example in a food-to-go outlet; where food is prepared and packed on the premises for sale. In the latter; there is currently no requirement to label an individual product with allergen information, provided that information is readily discernible, including through indications to ask a member of staff. Taking into account matter of concern (1) raised in your Regulation 28 report; an urgent review of allergen information provision for food which is pre-packed for direct sale is under way with a view to strengthening the framework: The provision of allergen information to the public is a hugely important issue, and it is essential that all UK consumers have complete trust in the food are eating: The Department for Environment; Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is working on this review closely with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC): We are also working closely with the Devolved Administrations to ensure that the review is UK wide_ To date, officials from Defra and the FSA have held joint meetings with a number of stakeholders, including key industry representatives, range of businesses and allergy patient groups, and this dialogue will continue over the following months. Through these discussions, stakeholders have highlighted the potential of both regulatory and non- regulatory approaches to strengthen the current framework on allergens, and we are developing a number of policy options based on this information with a view to formal consultation. 4 very have they key Lout 1 O15AbLe9
central concern is about improving consumer safety, and therefore, alongside the review; we are encouraging businesses to implement a best practice approach to allergen information provision. The FSA have also been working in collaboration with patient groups to run awareness campaigns such as #EasytoASK which works to promote best practice behaviour by consumers with allergies. must act quickly to ensure that we have the best possible protection for consumers in place as soon as possible. Consequently, we aim to launch our consultation on allergen information provision policy options early in the new year and any legislation that is needed will follow as soon as possible While the second matter of concern you raise relates to notification systems for allergen- related incidents within businesses, wanted to take this opportunity to set out some related activity undertaken by Government: The FSA have been working with local authorities in Lancashire on pilot scheme to improve the notification of incidents between businesses, local authorities and the NHS. Such a system would allow local authorities to work with specific Food Business Operators to help them better understand their obligations and requirements and, understand the significance of the potential health and financial consequences of non-compliance_ am grateful for your report; welcome publication of this response, and can assure you of my commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that the public have the allergen information that need to inform their food choices. Thank you for your report: With every wish, MiLA k ~ Michael Gove 2 Our We they again good iour 2 Disabl:
central concern is about improving consumer safety, and therefore, alongside the review; we are encouraging businesses to implement a best practice approach to allergen information provision. The FSA have also been working in collaboration with patient groups to run awareness campaigns such as #EasytoASK which works to promote best practice behaviour by consumers with allergies. must act quickly to ensure that we have the best possible protection for consumers in place as soon as possible. Consequently, we aim to launch our consultation on allergen information provision policy options early in the new year and any legislation that is needed will follow as soon as possible While the second matter of concern you raise relates to notification systems for allergen- related incidents within businesses, wanted to take this opportunity to set out some related activity undertaken by Government: The FSA have been working with local authorities in Lancashire on pilot scheme to improve the notification of incidents between businesses, local authorities and the NHS. Such a system would allow local authorities to work with specific Food Business Operators to help them better understand their obligations and requirements and, understand the significance of the potential health and financial consequences of non-compliance_ am grateful for your report; welcome publication of this response, and can assure you of my commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that the public have the allergen information that need to inform their food choices. Thank you for your report: With every wish, MiLA k ~ Michael Gove 2 Our We they again good iour 2 Disabl:
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you (1) Clive Schlee Chief Executive of Pret-a-Manger; The MHRA; the Chief Executive of Pfizer and Michael Gove, Secretary of State have the power to take such action.
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 03/08/2016 I commenced an investigation into the death of Natasha Charlotte Rose Ednan-Laperouse, 15 years old. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 28/09/2018.The conclusion of the inquest was (2) Anaphylaxis (4) Natasha Ednan-Laperouse died of anaphylaxis in Nice on the 17th July 2016 after eating a baguette, purchased from Pret-a-Manger at LHR T5. The baguette was manufactured to Pret specifications and contained sesame to which she was allergic. There was no specific allergen information on the baguette packaging or on the langar barker and Natasha was reassured by that.
Circumstances of the Death
Natasha travelled with her father and friend for a short holiday in Nice on the 17th July 2016. She was allergic to sesame. She bought a baguette after checking the ingredients. She had eaten at Pret previously and was reassured by what she took to be their high standards. She ate the baguette. The baguette contained unlabelled sesame at a ratio of 2.41% expressly commissioned by Pret. She developed an anaphylactic reaction on the plane to Nice and despite best efforts succumbed to that, dying in hospital in Nice shortly after landing.
Copies Sent To
Clive Schlee Chief Executive Pret
Manger
MHRA
Secretary of State Michael Gove and to the LOCAL SAFEGUARDING BOARD
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.