Cited by 203Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsEosinophilic Esophagitis

Prevalence of self-reported food allergy in American adults and use of food labels

Vierk, Katherine A., Koehler, Kathleen M., Fein, Sara B., Street, Debra A.·2007·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

Background Few population-based studies in the United States have determined the prevalence of food allergy in adults and the problems these individuals might have with reading food labels.Objective The objectives of this study are to report the prevalence of self-reported food allergy, to identify the characteristics of food allergy reactions, and to describe the use of labels among adults with food allergy.Methods Questions from the US Food and Drug Administration's 2001 Food Safety Survey were analyzed to determine the prevalence of food allergy and opinions about food labels in the management of food allergy.Results The prevalence of self-reported food allergy is 9.1% among all survey respondents, with 5.3% of all respondents reporting a doctor-diagnosed food allergy. The prevalence of food allergy to the 8 most common allergens (peanut, tree nuts, egg, milk, wheat, soybeans, fish, and crustacean shellfish) is self-reported as 2.7% among respondents with doctors' diagnoses. Several label issues, such as words on some ingredient lists being too technical or hard to understand and food labels not always alerting persons to new ingredients, were reported as serious or very serious obstacles for managing an allergy.Conclusion The prevalence of self-reported doctor-diagnosed food allergy among US adults is 5.3%, and a large portion of adults with food allergy found certain label issues a serious problem for managing their food allergy.Clinical implications The findings provide a needed source of population-based prevalence data of food allergy among US adults. Label issues identified are useful in understanding the difficulties of managing a food allergy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.03.011

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vierk, K. A., Koehler, K. M., Fein, S. B., & Street, D. A.
Affiliations
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (US)
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
119
Issue
6
Pages
1504-1510
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987494349
Cited by
203
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Adverse Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Keywords
food allergy, prevalence, adults, food labels, label comprehension, food allergy management, peanut allergy, tree nuts, cow's milk allergy, wheat allergy, soy allergy, fish allergy, egg allergy, ingredient lists
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Food Hypersensitivity, Food Labeling, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self-Assessment, United States, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review