ReviewThe World Allergy Organization journal2026
World Allergy Organization (WAO) Consensus on the use and practice of precautionary allergen labelling: The international ACT-UP! e-Delphi.
Review in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) recently convened an expert consultation to address the increasing but inconsistent use of Precautionary Allergen ("may contain") Labelling (PAL). Objectives: We conducted a Delphi study to explore the perspectives of clinicians, patient representatives, and other interest-holders on PAL practice. Methods: We followed previous guidance on Delphi study development and reporting. A narrative review exploring the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation informed the Delphi process. The working group generated 35 items based on the review of FAO/WHO consultation, categorized into 7 domains: (i) Importance of the issue, (ii) Informing use of PAL, (iii) Action level cut-offs, (iv) Communication, (v) Liability considerations, (vi) Free From statements, and (vii) Areas for further research. Items underwent 3 iterative Delphi rounds involving a panel of 35 experts who rated their agreement narratively and on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥70% consistency in agreement or disagreement (excluding neutral responses); stability was defined as <10% variation in average scores across rounds. A public consultation was held to collect different viewpoints arising from the consensus activity. Results: The Delphi was concluded after 3 rounds with consensus achieved for 33/35 items. Response rate was 100% across all 3 rounds. The panel strongly agreed that PAL should only be applied when an unintended allergen may be present above a cut-off (action level) and that it should always be based on a formal risk assessment, preferably quantitative, and mandated through legislation. Furthermore, action levels should be based on "reference doses" (amount of total allergenic protein), rather than on a concentration (eg, 10 ppm), and more specifically on population-adjusted eliciting doses ED Conclusions: This Delphi explored a comprehensive set of statements across multiple aspects of PAL development, application, and communication. On the one hand, it provides systematically derived considerations, aligned with the FAO/WHO consultation recommendations, to support future harmonization of practices. On the other, it highlights several areas of uncertainty to prioritize for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.