How do wines get away with not listing ingredients? I have allergies!
If ingredients must be labelled on food items, why can wineries get away with not listing egg, fish or milk on their labels with their wine? I'm allergic to fish and one glass can affect me. I'll often ask to look at the wine label in a bar and always when I purchase wine but often it doesn't state the ingredients. My son is old enough to drink and he's anaphylactic to dairy. It concerns me he will be served up something that could kill him when wine and alcohol and servers don't make this obvious. Truth in labelling and education around this is important, yet not mandatory. Why?
– Brenda, Victoria
Kat George says: The labelling of alcohol beverages is a contentious issue. There are regular calls for reform, primarily to do with the amount of information required on ingredients, health and nutrition. Despite being classified as food, alcoholic beverages are exempt from most of the labelling requirements that food products must comply with in Australia.
As you have rightly identified, there are significant safety concerns when comprehensive information about the content of alcohol isn't readily available.
Alcohol labelling in Australia is governed by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The Code requires certain statements to be visible on alcohol labels, which includes information about alcohol content, the number of standard drinks in the container and pregnancy warnings.
Under the Code, alcoholic beverages are exempt from the mandatory food allergen labelling requirements for some (but not all) ingredients. According to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (which publishes the Code), in alcohol production some allergens are processed in a way that renders them safe for consumers with allergies. This has to do with the fermentation process, which means that 'an ingredient list of ingoing ingredients would not accurately represent the components of the food as purchased'.
For instance, distilled alcohol from wheat or whey is exempt from declaring wheat or milk. Beer and spirits do not have to declare barely, rye, oats or wheat.
There's a bit more nuance when it comes to fish – fish must be declared on alcohol labelling where it is used as an ingredient, but isinglass, a kind of protein derived from the swim bladders of fish which is sometimes used as a clarifying agent in beer and wine, does not have to be declared. This is because alcohol that has been through the isinglass clarifying process is not considered a risk to consumers who are allergic to fish.
Further, where egg or egg products or milk, or milk products are included in alcohol, the label must list those ingredients where they are 'present in the final product' (i.e. not altered to be 'safe' through the production process, as with distilled alcohol made from whey, described above).
This all means that for you and your son, if there are allergens like fish and dairy present, the product must be labelled as such. While there is no obligation on servers to ask you if you have allergies when you're dining out, they do have obligations under the Code if you declare an allergy.
When eating and drinking out, be sure to let your server know about your allergy. They are then obliged to help you navigate the menu accordingly. They're also obliged to let you know about the ingredients used in the food products they're serving, which means they should be checking and/or showing you the labels of the alcohol they're serving, so you can avoid any allergens.
Allergy and Anaphylaxis Australia has good resources on how you can help protect yourself from allergens in alcohol when you're dining out. Along with telling your server about your allergies, you can also ask to avoid cross contamination (for instance if you're having a cocktail, asking for it to be prepared in a clean shaker). It also helps to have some prepackaged drinks in mind, which you know are safe. Given the nature of your and your son's allergies, seeking out products that have third-party vegan certification could be a good place to start.
Finally, if you're out and about, you've declared your allergy and the venue doesn't follow their obligations – for instance, doesn't show you the labels of the alcohol you're interested in – you can make a complaint to your local food enforcement authority.
Do you have an Australian consumer issue you'd like Kat's advice on? Fill out the form below to let us know.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
04-06-2025
- Daily Mail
Terrifying moment dive-bombing buzzard attacks woman in her dressing gown and slippers - as bird of prey's reign of terror forces primary school pupils inside at break times
This is the terrifying moment a buzzard swoops down and attacks a woman in her dressing gown and slippers, as the bird continues to terrorise a village. The bird has terrorised villagers in Havering-atte-Bower for months and has forced one local primary school to temporarily ban pupils from going outside during break time. The buzzard, nicknamed Brenda by local school children is believed to be part of a mating pair. Local resident and parent Louise Whittle, narrowly missed being injured by the buzzard, while in her dressing gown and slippers. Footage shows the moment a buzzard flies down from the roof of a nearby house, appearing to aim for the mum's head. She quickly ducks and manages to run away from the bird, which landed on a fence nearby. Louise said: 'It's absolutely bonkers that there is a buzzard attacking people.' Children at Dame Tipping Primary School have been forced to stay inside since Easter through fear of injury by the bird of prey, believed to be part of a mating pair. But, as buzzards are protected, the school says 'nothing which can be done' beyond the outdoor ban. Louise said the school has handled the issue 'brilliantly'. She added: 'The school have been absolutely fantastic in prioritising the children's safety and finding other alternatives for getting out. 'If anything, it's been a great learning experience for the children - they have learnt all about buzzards that they otherwise wouldn't have done.' However, Louise added that she is still concerned that 'the birds are being prioritised over the children' and said she is 'hopeful that they fly away so everyone can get back to normal'. Headteacher Stella McCarthy said the 'difficult decision' to keep the children inside was made after the birds became 'highly present' in the playground. She said: 'As a school, safeguarding and protecting children is of paramount importance.' The school has decided to use the situation as a learning experience for pupils, who have created posters promoting the protection of birds. Headteacher Ms McCarthy added: 'Luckily, as part of LIFE Education Trust, we have had excellent support enabling us to use the trust mini bus to regularly visit The Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls where our children have engaged in outdoor learning activities, PE lessons and visited the school's farm. 'We have also introduced additional indoor breaks with lots of engaging activities including traditional board games, cup stacking competitions and puzzles.' The bird also dive-bombed on local resident Nikki Dix, 37, as she took a walk in the park. Ms Dix said she was 'dead shocked' when the bird attacked her from behind and left scratches on her head. She said: 'I was scared, I was taken back by it. 'He was giving me an evil eye so then I carried on my journey for quite a while just swinging my bag above my head because I was just like 'hopefully this will deter him from coming to get me, because if he does try again to get me maybe he won't be so nice'. 'Nothing like that normally gets me so I'm a little bit on high alert at the moment, that's why I've stayed away from that area as well.' The school has been liaising with Havering Council and various bird organisations to find solutions to the issue. The council said its health and safety team has provided the school's trust with 'detailed advice' on legal deterrents and the hiring of a falconry expert. A Havering Council spokesperson said: 'The RSPCA has advised that the buzzard may be protecting its nest or chicks, which lines up with the information we have received. 'Buzzards are protected under UK law, therefore our intervention options are very limited, and we have advised that warning signs would be the easiest solution at this time. 'We completely understand how difficult and worrying this situation is for the school and local residents and we regret that there is not a quick or straightforward solution.
Daily Mail
04-06-2025
- Daily Mail
'Noise sensitive' woman who told her sisters she needed their mother's £420,000 home for her emotional support dogs loses inheritance row
A woman who took her sisters to court in a bid to keep their late mother's £420,000 home for herself and her two 'emotional support dogs' has lost her case. Sharon Duggan launched legal proceedings against her sisters Brenda, 55 and Ann, 60, after their mother Agnes died in 2018 to block them from the inheritance. Despite being entitled to a third of the estate, Sharon sued for a larger share under the Inheritance Act, claiming her medical conditions made it impossible for her to live in a flat and that she needed to stay in the family home for life. She cited a wide range of health problems, including PTSD, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and long Covid, and told the court her two rescue dogs 'help with her mental and emotional well-being. The judge accepted that 'hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive' Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as 'suitable' accommodation for her. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, therapist Brenda fought back and has now won, after Judge Alan Johns threw out Sharon's claim at Central London County Court. The court heard most of the estate was tied up in the Crawley, Sussex property, where Sharon had cared for Agnes during her final years with dementia. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out, citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs. She insisted that her needs outweighed her sisters' right to get the inheritance they are due, also arguing that it would be hard to find alternative accommodation for both her and her two therapeutic dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon argued she had 'sacrificed' her career to become a full-time carer and claimed her mother intended to change her will in her favour. She also said she had spent £30,000 of her own money on vet bills for her mother's dog, a Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, called Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that 'psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again'. 'She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. 'She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which make finding a suitable alternative accommodation difficult. 'The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively,' she said. In the witness box, she insisted that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive. 'A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy her mother's old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a flat. Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: 'It's my judgement that there has been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for her. 'I am not satisfied there was any promise that the property would be Sharon's - and certainly not a promise that Sharon was confident would be carried out.' He said Sharon had moved into her mother's house while in an 'excellent' financial position, although her finances are now badly depleted. She also lived with Agnes rent free and, although she had spent time caring for her mother while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. He said: 'Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate. 'I don't rule out flats as suitable accommodation,' he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her. 'As to her ability to work I don't accept that she is unable to work at all - or at least she will be after this litigation is dealt with,' he told the court, adding that Sharon herself had accepted in court that she hopes eventually to work again. He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mother towards the end of her life. 'Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn't permitted by Sharon,' he said. 'That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence.' 'This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of,' he noted, adding that the money Sharon claimed to have spent on Lady's vet bills was an overestimate. 'Essentially, provision was made for Sharon by giving her one third of the estate.' The decision means the three sisters are each due a third of their mother estate, although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
The Guardian
03-03-2025
- The Guardian
How do wines get away with not listing ingredients? I have allergies!
If ingredients must be labelled on food items, why can wineries get away with not listing egg, fish or milk on their labels with their wine? I'm allergic to fish and one glass can affect me. I'll often ask to look at the wine label in a bar and always when I purchase wine but often it doesn't state the ingredients. My son is old enough to drink and he's anaphylactic to dairy. It concerns me he will be served up something that could kill him when wine and alcohol and servers don't make this obvious. Truth in labelling and education around this is important, yet not mandatory. Why? – Brenda, Victoria Kat George says: The labelling of alcohol beverages is a contentious issue. There are regular calls for reform, primarily to do with the amount of information required on ingredients, health and nutrition. Despite being classified as food, alcoholic beverages are exempt from most of the labelling requirements that food products must comply with in Australia. As you have rightly identified, there are significant safety concerns when comprehensive information about the content of alcohol isn't readily available. Alcohol labelling in Australia is governed by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The Code requires certain statements to be visible on alcohol labels, which includes information about alcohol content, the number of standard drinks in the container and pregnancy warnings. Under the Code, alcoholic beverages are exempt from the mandatory food allergen labelling requirements for some (but not all) ingredients. According to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (which publishes the Code), in alcohol production some allergens are processed in a way that renders them safe for consumers with allergies. This has to do with the fermentation process, which means that 'an ingredient list of ingoing ingredients would not accurately represent the components of the food as purchased'. For instance, distilled alcohol from wheat or whey is exempt from declaring wheat or milk. Beer and spirits do not have to declare barely, rye, oats or wheat. There's a bit more nuance when it comes to fish – fish must be declared on alcohol labelling where it is used as an ingredient, but isinglass, a kind of protein derived from the swim bladders of fish which is sometimes used as a clarifying agent in beer and wine, does not have to be declared. This is because alcohol that has been through the isinglass clarifying process is not considered a risk to consumers who are allergic to fish. Further, where egg or egg products or milk, or milk products are included in alcohol, the label must list those ingredients where they are 'present in the final product' (i.e. not altered to be 'safe' through the production process, as with distilled alcohol made from whey, described above). This all means that for you and your son, if there are allergens like fish and dairy present, the product must be labelled as such. While there is no obligation on servers to ask you if you have allergies when you're dining out, they do have obligations under the Code if you declare an allergy. When eating and drinking out, be sure to let your server know about your allergy. They are then obliged to help you navigate the menu accordingly. They're also obliged to let you know about the ingredients used in the food products they're serving, which means they should be checking and/or showing you the labels of the alcohol they're serving, so you can avoid any allergens. Allergy and Anaphylaxis Australia has good resources on how you can help protect yourself from allergens in alcohol when you're dining out. Along with telling your server about your allergies, you can also ask to avoid cross contamination (for instance if you're having a cocktail, asking for it to be prepared in a clean shaker). It also helps to have some prepackaged drinks in mind, which you know are safe. Given the nature of your and your son's allergies, seeking out products that have third-party vegan certification could be a good place to start. Finally, if you're out and about, you've declared your allergy and the venue doesn't follow their obligations – for instance, doesn't show you the labels of the alcohol you're interested in – you can make a complaint to your local food enforcement authority. Do you have an Australian consumer issue you'd like Kat's advice on? Fill out the form below to let us know.
