Waitrose issues urgent 'do not eat' warning as it recalls popular ready meal over health risk
According to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) notice, the Waitrose Indian Takeaway for Two was recalled because 'some packs have been mispacked with spring rolls, which contain sesame and soya, which are not mentioned on the label.'
Anybody who has a soy or sesame allergy could be at risk from this.
The product in question is the Waitrose Indian Takeaway for Two (1,412g pack size), which expires on July 25, 2025.
Waitrose customers who have purchased the item are advised: 'If you have bought the above product and have an allergy to sesame and/or soya, do not eat it. Instead, return it to your local Waitrose and Partners branch for a full refund.'
In addition to the recall, Waitrose and Partners have been instructed to get in touch with the appropriate allergy support groups, who will inform their members of the occurrence.
The FSA stated: 'The company has also issued a recall notice to its customers, which explains to customers why the product is being recalled and tells them what to do if they have bought the product.
'Sometimes foods have to be withdrawn or recalled if there is a risk to consumers because the allergy labelling is missing or incorrect or if there is any other food allergy risk. When there is a food allergy risk, the FSA will issue an Allergy Alert.'
Sesame allergy is one of the most prevalent and potentially dangerous food allergies, particularly in young children.
Anaphylaxis, a potentially fatal reaction that can cause the throat to enlarge and breathing to cease, can be brought on by very small doses.
Historically, sesame was not obliged to be prominently labelled on food labels like nuts or dairy, which resulted in a number of high-profile errors and requests for stricter labelling regulations.
For additional information, customers can reach Waitrose Customer Care at 0800 188 844, option 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Salmonella outbreak linked to pistachios, Dubai chocolate likely to expand, PHAC says
TORONTO — The Public Health Agency of Canada says it expects to report more salmonella cases linked to certain brands of pistachios and pistachio-containing products in the coming months, adding to the dozens of infections already confirmed in four provinces. On Tuesday, the federal agency said 52 have been sickened after eating contaminated pistachios and baked goods containing the nut. Nine people have landed in hospital. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has recalled products from the brands Habibi, Al Mokhtar Food Centre and Dubai. That includes Dubai chocolate, a type of treat that gained viral status for its decadent combination of milk chocolate, gooey pistachio cream and crispy knafeh, a sweet pastry. The chocolate bar gained fame on TikTok in 2023 as influencers filmed themselves trying the treat, initially created in the United Arab Emirates. The popularity has led to copycat products and spawned many reviews and recipes on food blogs. April Hexemer, the federal agency's director of outbreak management, says she expects the number of salmonella cases reported to rise because of a long reporting delay between the time someone gets sick, and it's confirmed by health officials. Hexemer says that can span between 15 and 55 days, as it involves the patient seeking care and getting tested to confirm if the infection is linked to the outbreak. 'There will be quite some time before we can declare this one over,' Hexemer said in an interview Wednesday. More details at: This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 6, 2025. Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content. Hannah Alberga, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
41 minutes ago
- Forbes
Do Employers Have A Rational Fear Of Hiring Disabled Staff?
Sir Charlie Mayfield, a stalwart of the UK business community and advisor to Liz Kendall, Work and Pensions Secretary, has recently been quoted in The Times stating that employers have a 'rational' fear of hiring disabled staff. During his review of workplace sickness, Mayfield concluded that adapting work to staff with health problems was a huge issue that required employers to change, but suggested extra duties on businesses were not the answer. He said: "We've got a large amount of legislation which places requirements on employers and it's partly because of that that a lot of employers see it as risky to employ disabled people. And so quite rationally, they don't, even though we all know that's not the right outcome." The context for these comments is one in which 2.5 million UK workers are permanently off sick, and 8.7 million workers identifying as disabled. There's been an increase of 800,000 people too unwell to work since 2019, which is unsustainable for workers, their life outcomes and financial stability as well as the national economy. Rights Versus Reality? So are Mayfield's comments and his discovery report for the Department of Work and Pensions yet another stick with which to beat disabled people? Or are his remarks click bait headlines, papering over some well reasoned insights which need to be surfaced, understood and addressed? Mayfield commented on the rise in Employment Tribunals and the extra duties on UK businesses: The present approach "pitches rights against reality. If someone's ill and they have a fit note, there's a stand-off almost between that person and their employer, who could be part of the solution. We need to move from a position where too much of this is about risk and fear, to one where we humanise this and encourage people to be talking of finding solutions." The adversarial narratives that exist between communities of lived experience and employers has swiftly deepened in recent years, with each group finding very different sources of advice online and increases in perceptions of conflict and unfairness from all sides – employee, colleague and employer. However, read deeper into the report, and Mayfield is recommending an incentivisation approach to disability employment (the proverbial 'carrot', rather than the legislative 'stick'). Crucially, he recommends that employers intervene early when someone is struggling, rather than lagging in the provision of adjustments or support. Indeed, failure to provide timely intervention is a frequent cause of employment tribunals, with compensation up to £230,000 in one recent case. A shift in responsiveness would be very welcome by the disabled and neurodivergent community and it seems pretty logical. Government support and incentives for early intervention seem rational, but we will need to think carefully about what to provide. Early Intervention Guidance Advice on disability adjustments for individuals from the government service Access to Work or in-house / private Occupational Health is routinely a first port of call for employees and employers respectively. Access to Work has been a lifeline for employees over the past few decades, and has funded services and equipment that exceeds the budgets of many small businesses. However, it has become so log jammed that there is a community pressure group now set up to raise awareness of the problem founded by Dr Shani Dhanda. Occupational health services can be excellent and provide or signpost the specialist advice needed. But costs have spiralled with a clinical, 'assessment first' provision when there are so many referrals. There's a lack of filtering so those with the greatest needs are getting the same level of intervention as those who need a simple set of strategies or some software. Some of the occupational health companies are delivering the same services that they recommend, which is a structural conflict of interest and risks driving up costs - this practice is banned in Access to Work and Disabled Students Allowance, for example. So while we're telling employers to do more, faster, we will also need to be clear about the 'how' and the 'what'. With grand policy gestures and an increasingly litigious atmosphere, the needs of the businesses risk being overlooked and on that note, Sir Mayfield's comments are on point. Advice on adjustments for health and disability needs to be a collaboration between employer and employee. An assessment should consult both parties, and review what the individual needs in relation to the resources available. For example, a higher cost burden might be acceptable for a larger business than a small business. Safety critical roles might not have as much flexibility as a standard role. It is therefore not possible to list reasonable adjustments for each physical, emotional or cognitive difficulty. These can act as guidance, but not definitive entitlements. The policy and specialist support environment is going to need to become more sophisticated, and more responsive to balancing needs and addressing conflict, unfairness and unreasonable requests / restrictions. This is not a straightforward ask. Needs-led models How can employers find good advice in a complex and risky environment? The needs-led model is a good alternative to the medical model, relying more on practical support than clinical diagnosis. At work, we don't need to know the cause of back pain to know that a first port of call is a desk assessment or moving and handling review. Improving knowledge of functional, everyday difficulties and potential scaffolding is within the grasp of HR with the occasional advice of specialists where needed. Up-skilling employer confidence and competence is a potential avenue to improving outcomes, particularly in the areas of emotional regulation and cognition-dependent task performance where the challenges and the solutions are not visible. Knowing what to provide can be a pragmatic, low-cost conversation – research indicates that the cheapest or free adjustments are typically the most welcome, and that employees prefer the ability to personalize rather than passively receive an off-the-shelf allocation. As the population ages, the disability inclusion problem is not going to go away. Employers who are not developing a straightforward and accessible pathway to inclusion – at the company and individual level – will remain at risk of employment tribunal losses. This isn't a question of rights versus reality, it is a question of taking charge of a business need versus sticking your head in the sand. The rational fear of tribunals can be replaced by a rational approach to managing a large and growing cohort of disabled employees. Given the urgency of resolving the problem at the national level, now is a great time to start a strategic workforce plan.
Bloomberg
41 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hackers Steal Passwords From UK's NHS With Sneaky Malware Tool
Ambulances parked outside the emergency department at the National Health Service's Royal Liverpool University Hospital in Liverpool, UK.
