Why Canadian Restaurants Are Starting to Taking Food Allergies More Seriously

When severe-allergy sufferers go out to eat, what's being done to keep them safe, and who's to blame when they get sick?

That question once again reentered the public discourse when a waiter in Montreal mistakenly served the wrong food to a customer, causing him to go into anaphylactic shock, and nearly killed him.

As MUNCHIES previously reported, Simon-Pierre Canuel was dining at Le Tapageur restaurant in Sherbrooke when he ordered the steak tartare—informing the server of his allergies. However, his waiter mistakenly brought him salmon tartare instead. Canuel, who is allergic to fish, said that he took one bite in the dimly lit restaurant and realized something was wrong.

Almost immediately, his throat began closing and his tongue swelled up. Canuel was then transported by ambulance to a hospital, where he subsequently suffered a heart attack and went into a coma.

Fortunately, he survived the ordeal.

The waiter who served the food was arrested by local police, and there appeared the distinct possibility that he would be charged criminal negligence, although no formal charges have been made as of press time.

Criminal lawyer Simon Roy of Sherbrooke University told CBC News that had the waiter been charged, it would have been a first in Canadian history. The arrest of a waiter for a wrong order is shocking for anyone that has worked in a restaurant; plates get jumbled, substitutions get lost. Ordering food is never as direct as one might think—more like an elaborate game of telephone at times. A mistake could happen, anywhere from the server, to the POS system, to the chef calling the orders, to the line cook actually preparing the food, and then back to the server.

That's understandable.

But the extent to which kitchen staff are actually being educated about potential allergens is unclear. Laurie Harada, the executive director of Food Allergy Canada, a non-profit organization that advocates for allergy awareness and education, explains to MUNCHIES that there is really a lack of regulation in the matter. FAC is currently trying to change that:

"[We are] calling for universally required education and training on food allergies and the implementation of clear processes and procedures within restaurants—including an effective communication system for relaying allergy information from the wait staff to the kitchen/chef and procedures for meal preparation, to help minimize the risks for allergic consumers.

Our organization believes it is time to begin treating food allergies in restaurants as a public health issue. We take for granted many measures that help ensure consumer safety in restaurants and this is a natural evolution."

On the other side of the coin, Restaurants Canada, a non-profit organization that represents the foodservice industry, does have an entire guide available to the public about how allergies should be handled. However, when contacted, they did not provide any additional comment to MUNCHIES.

As well-intentioned is they may be, these guidelines are more like helpful suggestions; they don't carry any actual legal or regulatory significance.

Federal allergy regulations have made certain inroads, though not many. In Ontario, the provincial government passed Sabrina's Law in 2006, requiring training for school staff in dealing with life-threatening allergies, and establishing emergency procedures for anaphylaxis. The law takes its name from Sabrina Shannon, an eighth-grade student who died from an allergic reaction in 2003 after eating food in her school lunchroom that had been cross-contaminated with dairy.

Sabrina's Law is important, but also aimed at children in public institutions—places where we have a right to feel like they will be safe, and they should be. Restaurant oversight, seems trickier, because, of course, there is also the aspect of personal responsibility that children may not have, but adults certainly do.

In the cases of Sabrina Shannon and Simon-Pierre Canuel, both were prescribed epinephrine, a common and effective medication for treating anaphylaxis. Canuel and Shannon both had their medicine with them, though not physically on their bodies—Shannon had left hers in her school locker; Canuel left his in his car. While it would be cynical to say that these two individuals were not being safe enough in their eating habits—both had checked and confirmed that their food was free from potential allergens—it's undeniable that not having this emergency medication on-hand played a significant role in the ensuing tragedies.

Throwing a waiter in jail for criminal negligence would undoubtedly have owners and staff walking on eggshells for some time, but it would do little to correct the small but potentially deadly mistakes in service that lead to an allergic reaction—that "no egg" lost in the chattering milieu of a dining room, or a mistaken "sauce on the side" in the frenzy of a hot, rushed kitchen.