Too much research not associated with my degree
Other people know more about much of this than me. Anyone got any input (Hey Nicki!)
Sorry about the crappy formatting! Updating to include suggestions by commenters will come with changes for vague completeness - later
Establishing guidelines for
catering for special dietary needs
An introduction: Why guidelines are needed
Between Clubs and Societies, Activities, and the various MSA divisions, it seems like there's a catered event almost every day of the semester. Some of the catering is varied, flexible and fantastic, but many events do not consider the dietary requirements of their target “audience” Aaoeu
According to a 1995 ABS survey, more than a quarter of the adult population of Australia reported dietary restrictions of some sort. Amongst the most relevant 19-24 year old bracket, more of these special diets were vegetarian than for reasons of weight restriction.
Providing food appropriate for the audience is important for reasons of inclusion. Many events centre on the food provided. When people are unable to partake of the food provided, they are unable to fully participate in the event. Although it might be unreasonable to expect a coffee-club's coffee-tasting event to be inclusive of people with caffeine intolerance, it would be rather a different matter if the only food provided at an “Inter-faith celebration dinner” was ham sandwiches.
Anyway, I find it odd that some clubs apparently dedicated to macho bullshit always cater well for vegans, yet some events under the general MSA banner -which is allegedly all about inclusion and representation- seem not to be able to provide vegetarian food at many of their events!
Based on these considerations, I would like to suggest the adoption of the following guidelines:
Catering Guidelines
☼ When providing food and drink for an event, the proportion of food and drink provided should* be suitable for those with special dietary restrictions, to at least the proportions that would be reasonably expected within the University population.
In practice, if we expect that 1% of the University population has Coeliac's disease, any event providing food for -say- 100 people or more should make reasonable effort to cater for Silly Yaks, (see below) and an event expecting 2000 people should provide at least 20 portions suitable for Silly yaks, .
☼ Catering should always be based on the best available information. When specific information is known about the members of the group present at an event, this overrides the general population information provided below. For instance, camp forms or dinner ticket applications can provide fare more accurate information about
Furthermore, diets and allergy rates may change, and improved research may give a better idea of what's current in the
☼ (the most important part of dealing with) Potential allergens (is that they) should be identifiable. Most people with allergies are generally content to make judgements about the risks that various foods provide. However, they can't make judgements about risks they can't detect. Tomato allergies are very rare, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to cater for them at all times. Whilst people with tomato allergies would know to avoid tomato sauce, they might not expect to encounter tomatoes inside sausages.
☼ Although these guidelines recommend that a reasonable effort be made to provide suitable food alternatives for those with dietary restrictions, the cost and effort of catering for certain restrictive diets may be burdensome -it is for this reason that the “minimum consideration numbers” are included, so that caterers know that they don't need to worry about rare restrictions when dealing with small groups. Similarly, the amount of effort dedicated to preparing food alternatives should be proportionate, considering how essential food is to the event, the total cost of the event and so on. Greater effort should be dedicated to inclusive catering for an annual dinner-ball than for finger food at a general meeting.
☼ For the sake of expedience, it's quite reasonable that when multiple restrictions need to be considered, that individual alternatives need not be provided for every single combination of dietary restrictions. a For a caterer to provide separate meals for lacto-ovo-vegetarians, vegans, meat-eaters-with-hens-egg-allergies, meat-eaters-with-milk-allergies and so on would be ridiculously burdensome. In this case, the restrictions necessary to make a meal vegan would be sufficient to satisfy all the other conditions.
Summary:
Deciding the “Nominal Proportions” of food restrictions in the University Population
Some information on dietary restrictions is easier to come by than others. There are few reasons to expect that the rates of allergies in the University population would be significantly different from the rates in the wider Australian population with similar demographics. However, we should reasonably expect the rates of some restrictions, in particular, Vegetarianism and Veganism, to be far higher than in the general population, or even in the general population
By the way, this field is way way aside from my areas of experience. I'm therefore not going to put much effort into researching it, and will use a lot of international data.
Taking the simple cases, the following allergy rates in the US population were published in 2006 in (1: Sohelia et al, 2006)
ALLERGY PREVALENCE (US, 2006):
ChildrenAdultCrustacea0.1%2%Peanuts0.8%0.6%Fish0.2%0.5%Cow's Milk2%0.5%Hen's Egg1.3%0.2%Tree Nuts0.2%0.5%Soya0.4%0.04%Wheat1% Coeliac, unknown for other disorders
These eight allergies account for over 90% of the food allergies in the United States (8: AAFA 2007). For determining the incidence of these allergies in the University population, it would be more reasonable to base are data primarily on the adult rates. Although it's possible that the differences in adult and childhood allergy rates may be indicative of changes in the general population, it is also known that some allergies tend to become more severe with exposure, whilst others decrease with age.
It is interesting to note that seafood allergies are four times as common in adults as are peanut allergies, yet peanut allergies are more widely recognised because so many products (even packaged nuts!) have labels indicating “WARNING: may contain traces of nuts”. Crustacea allergies are known to regularly cause reactions just as severe - anaphylaxis and death - as the reactions to peanuts (4 - Sicherer et al). It appears that the notoriety of nut allergies springs largely from hype stemming from the warning labels. The greater prevalence of warning labels for nuts makes sense, because peanuts are more likely to be included in foods in less obvious ways than sneaky bits of lobster.
There are other allergies which are rare in the general population. (cf:1) Some of the more well known allergens include: Sesame; salicylates; rice; buckwheat, corn, celery, tomatoes, apples, pears, jackfruit; and some people just have wacky immune systems that make them allergic to anything and everything. It may be sufficient to simply recognise these allergies as “rare”
Apart from allergies, there are also many restrictions to foods for other reasons, be they health reasons or personal choice. Caffeine sensitivity can cause headaches; diabetics are sensitive to sugar levels in foods; candidiasis can cause unpleasant reactions to yeast in foods. In addition to cow's milk allergies, many people are lactose intolerant, which increases the expected incidence of dairy-free diet
Vegetarian and Vegan
The information provided in a 1995 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey indicated the following rates of vegetarianism (2):
Of 19-24 year olds 2.4% Vego males / 6.2% vego females; (4.3% total)
Of 25-44 year olds 2.9% vego males / 5.2% vego females (4% total)
Internationally, rates of vegetarianism have been increasing since then (7). University students also appear far more likely than the average person to be vegetarian or vegan.
There is a marked difference between those who report themselves to be “vegan” and those who are practically vegan. A 2006 US poll and asked respondents to indicate which items they never eat, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The survey found that of the 1,000 adults polled, 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs and were therefore essentially vegan in their eating habits. Contrastively, some polls have found only 0.2% of the US population to identify as vegan.
The Monash Engineering Students' Society (MESS), which is not generally known for being a hotbed of animal rights activism - but has a large membership base - claims they find it useful to cater for a 10% vegetarian rate - for instance, at a large BBQ they would prepare 700 sausages, 150 rissoles and 70 veggie burgers with the expectation that most meatatarians would eat two or more sausages.
Other restrictions
2.5% of Australian females give birth in any given year. Although University students might be less likely to give birth in any given year than their non-student counterparts, only 30% of Australian females are aged 16-40, indicating a comparative rate of 9% - also, not all pregnancies are carried to term. Although dietary advice for pregnancy generally concerns ensuring sufficient dietary intake, there are also recommended limits on caffeine consumption, (booze), raw cheeses and seafood.
In the general Australian population, more than 4.3% of the population are known to be part of religions associated with dietary restrictions (Buddhism 1.9 %; Hinduism 0.5 %; Islam 1.5 %; Judaism 0.4 %; Other religions 0.5 %). Some of these would be included in vegetarian charts, others are separate.
Sources:
ED: (I was always planning on putting this in) Info about various dietary restrictions
Deciding the minimum number
Many of the dietary restrictions outlined above are relatively uncommon. It's obviously unreasonable to expect catering for 10 people to specifically accommodate people with soya allergies (one in every 2500 of the adult population). It would be useful to have a minimum-number, below which a caterer should know that they needn't worry about catering specifically for certain restrictions. This minimum number must be a semi-arbitrary decision. For Coeliac's disease, which is nominally present in 1% of the University population, we could set the minimum number at 100 people. However, the chances of at least one person with Coeliac's disease being present in a group of 100 is not 50/50, nor is it guaranteed; it is 63.4%. In order to “guarantee” a 99% probability of having at least one person with Coeliac's present, 458 people are required. The 50/50 point is 69 people. If we set the “minimum consideration proportion” high, we're increasing the likelihood that someone will be left out. If we set the proportion low, we're increasing the amount of effort required of the caterer, and introducing a significant probability that special meals might be wasted.
Nominal rates of dietary restrictions
in the University Population
ED: Also add : no specific dietary restrictions
RestrictionNominal Rate
30.00%50.00%60.00%70%80%90%95%99%
Vegetarian10.0% 3791115222844Vegan2.5% 142736486491118182Egg/dairy Free (not vegan)2% 1834456080114148228Kosher/Halal2% 1834456080114148228Pregnant2.5% 142736486491118182
ALLERGIES:
Crustacea2.0% 1834456080114148228Peanuts0.8% 4486114150200287373573Fish0.5% 71138183240321459598919Tree Nuts0.5% 71138183240321459598919Cow's Milk0.5% 71138183240321459598919Hen's Egg0.2% 178346458601804115014962300Soya0.04% 89217332290300940235755748811511Coeliac1% 356991120160229298458
Diabetic0.8% 4486114150200287373573Fat modified5.6% 612162128405280Weight Reduction8.9% 47101317253249
Other, rare allergies:
Sesame; salicylates; rice; buckwheat, corn, celery, tomatoes, apples, pears, jackfruit;
Caffeine sensitivity
Candidiasis (yeast free)
Low sulphides
Low salicylates
Yeast free candidiasis
Low Cholesterol
Low fat
Sugar free
Sorry about the crappy formatting! Updating to include suggestions by commenters will come with changes for vague completeness - later
Establishing guidelines for
catering for special dietary needs
An introduction: Why guidelines are needed
Between Clubs and Societies, Activities, and the various MSA divisions, it seems like there's a catered event almost every day of the semester. Some of the catering is varied, flexible and fantastic, but many events do not consider the dietary requirements of their target “audience” Aaoeu
According to a 1995 ABS survey, more than a quarter of the adult population of Australia reported dietary restrictions of some sort. Amongst the most relevant 19-24 year old bracket, more of these special diets were vegetarian than for reasons of weight restriction.
Providing food appropriate for the audience is important for reasons of inclusion. Many events centre on the food provided. When people are unable to partake of the food provided, they are unable to fully participate in the event. Although it might be unreasonable to expect a coffee-club's coffee-tasting event to be inclusive of people with caffeine intolerance, it would be rather a different matter if the only food provided at an “Inter-faith celebration dinner” was ham sandwiches.
Anyway, I find it odd that some clubs apparently dedicated to macho bullshit always cater well for vegans, yet some events under the general MSA banner -which is allegedly all about inclusion and representation- seem not to be able to provide vegetarian food at many of their events!
Based on these considerations, I would like to suggest the adoption of the following guidelines:
Catering Guidelines
☼ When providing food and drink for an event, the proportion of food and drink provided should* be suitable for those with special dietary restrictions, to at least the proportions that would be reasonably expected within the University population.
In practice, if we expect that 1% of the University population has Coeliac's disease, any event providing food for -say- 100 people or more should make reasonable effort to cater for Silly Yaks, (see below) and an event expecting 2000 people should provide at least 20 portions suitable for Silly yaks, .
☼ Catering should always be based on the best available information. When specific information is known about the members of the group present at an event, this overrides the general population information provided below. For instance, camp forms or dinner ticket applications can provide fare more accurate information about
Furthermore, diets and allergy rates may change, and improved research may give a better idea of what's current in the
☼ (the most important part of dealing with) Potential allergens (is that they) should be identifiable. Most people with allergies are generally content to make judgements about the risks that various foods provide. However, they can't make judgements about risks they can't detect. Tomato allergies are very rare, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to cater for them at all times. Whilst people with tomato allergies would know to avoid tomato sauce, they might not expect to encounter tomatoes inside sausages.
☼ Although these guidelines recommend that a reasonable effort be made to provide suitable food alternatives for those with dietary restrictions, the cost and effort of catering for certain restrictive diets may be burdensome -it is for this reason that the “minimum consideration numbers” are included, so that caterers know that they don't need to worry about rare restrictions when dealing with small groups. Similarly, the amount of effort dedicated to preparing food alternatives should be proportionate, considering how essential food is to the event, the total cost of the event and so on. Greater effort should be dedicated to inclusive catering for an annual dinner-ball than for finger food at a general meeting.
☼ For the sake of expedience, it's quite reasonable that when multiple restrictions need to be considered, that individual alternatives need not be provided for every single combination of dietary restrictions. a For a caterer to provide separate meals for lacto-ovo-vegetarians, vegans, meat-eaters-with-hens-egg-allergies, meat-eaters-with-milk-allergies and so on would be ridiculously burdensome. In this case, the restrictions necessary to make a meal vegan would be sufficient to satisfy all the other conditions.
Summary:
Cater in proportion to dietary restrictions
Consider dietary restrictions when above the critical number
Use the best information available
Ed: 3b - pre-sold events are different (see ETFB's comment)
Make allergens identifiable.
Make a reasonable effort
Catering to the lowest common denominator is OK
Deciding the “Nominal Proportions” of food restrictions in the University Population
Some information on dietary restrictions is easier to come by than others. There are few reasons to expect that the rates of allergies in the University population would be significantly different from the rates in the wider Australian population with similar demographics. However, we should reasonably expect the rates of some restrictions, in particular, Vegetarianism and Veganism, to be far higher than in the general population, or even in the general population
By the way, this field is way way aside from my areas of experience. I'm therefore not going to put much effort into researching it, and will use a lot of international data.
Taking the simple cases, the following allergy rates in the US population were published in 2006 in (1: Sohelia et al, 2006)
ALLERGY PREVALENCE (US, 2006):
ChildrenAdultCrustacea0.1%2%Peanuts0.8%0.6%Fish0.2%0.5%Cow's Milk2%0.5%Hen's Egg1.3%0.2%Tree Nuts0.2%0.5%Soya0.4%0.04%Wheat1% Coeliac, unknown for other disorders
These eight allergies account for over 90% of the food allergies in the United States (8: AAFA 2007). For determining the incidence of these allergies in the University population, it would be more reasonable to base are data primarily on the adult rates. Although it's possible that the differences in adult and childhood allergy rates may be indicative of changes in the general population, it is also known that some allergies tend to become more severe with exposure, whilst others decrease with age.
It is interesting to note that seafood allergies are four times as common in adults as are peanut allergies, yet peanut allergies are more widely recognised because so many products (even packaged nuts!) have labels indicating “WARNING: may contain traces of nuts”. Crustacea allergies are known to regularly cause reactions just as severe - anaphylaxis and death - as the reactions to peanuts (4 - Sicherer et al). It appears that the notoriety of nut allergies springs largely from hype stemming from the warning labels. The greater prevalence of warning labels for nuts makes sense, because peanuts are more likely to be included in foods in less obvious ways than sneaky bits of lobster.
There are other allergies which are rare in the general population. (cf:1) Some of the more well known allergens include: Sesame; salicylates; rice; buckwheat, corn, celery, tomatoes, apples, pears, jackfruit; and some people just have wacky immune systems that make them allergic to anything and everything. It may be sufficient to simply recognise these allergies as “rare”
Apart from allergies, there are also many restrictions to foods for other reasons, be they health reasons or personal choice. Caffeine sensitivity can cause headaches; diabetics are sensitive to sugar levels in foods; candidiasis can cause unpleasant reactions to yeast in foods. In addition to cow's milk allergies, many people are lactose intolerant, which increases the expected incidence of dairy-free diet
Vegetarian and Vegan
The information provided in a 1995 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey indicated the following rates of vegetarianism (2):
Of 19-24 year olds 2.4% Vego males / 6.2% vego females; (4.3% total)
Of 25-44 year olds 2.9% vego males / 5.2% vego females (4% total)
Internationally, rates of vegetarianism have been increasing since then (7). University students also appear far more likely than the average person to be vegetarian or vegan.
There is a marked difference between those who report themselves to be “vegan” and those who are practically vegan. A 2006 US poll and asked respondents to indicate which items they never eat, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The survey found that of the 1,000 adults polled, 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs and were therefore essentially vegan in their eating habits. Contrastively, some polls have found only 0.2% of the US population to identify as vegan.
The Monash Engineering Students' Society (MESS), which is not generally known for being a hotbed of animal rights activism - but has a large membership base - claims they find it useful to cater for a 10% vegetarian rate - for instance, at a large BBQ they would prepare 700 sausages, 150 rissoles and 70 veggie burgers with the expectation that most meatatarians would eat two or more sausages.
Other restrictions
2.5% of Australian females give birth in any given year. Although University students might be less likely to give birth in any given year than their non-student counterparts, only 30% of Australian females are aged 16-40, indicating a comparative rate of 9% - also, not all pregnancies are carried to term. Although dietary advice for pregnancy generally concerns ensuring sufficient dietary intake, there are also recommended limits on caffeine consumption, (booze), raw cheeses and seafood.
In the general Australian population, more than 4.3% of the population are known to be part of religions associated with dietary restrictions (Buddhism 1.9 %; Hinduism 0.5 %; Islam 1.5 %; Judaism 0.4 %; Other religions 0.5 %). Some of these would be included in vegetarian charts, others are separate.
Sources:
Soheila J. Maleki, A. Wesley Burks, Ricki M. Helm, Food Allergy, Blackwell publishing, 2006, pp 39-41
4802.0 National Nutrition Survey, Selected Highlights Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995
4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 1998
SICHERER Scott H. (1) ; MUNOZ-FURLONG Anne (2) ; SAMPSON Hugh A. (1) ;
Prevalence of seafood allergy in the United States determined by a random telephone survey
Journal of allergy and clinical immunology ISSN 0091-6749 CODEN JACIBY
2004, vol. 114, no1, pp. 159-165 [7 page(s) (article)] (40 ref.)
Elsevier, New York, NY, ETATS-UNIS (1971) (Revue)
1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2006
"How Many Adults Are Vegetarian?" . Vegetarian Journal. Vegetarian Resource Group. http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2006issue4/vj2006issue4poll.htm . Retrieved on 2007-03-18.
The Vegetarian Society. "The History of vegetarianism in the UK". http://www.vegsoc.org/members/history/150hist.html Retrieved on 2007-10-09.
^ "Common Food Allergies" Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. March 28, 2007. http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=20&cont=286
2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey
ED: (I was always planning on putting this in) Info about various dietary restrictions
Deciding the minimum number
Many of the dietary restrictions outlined above are relatively uncommon. It's obviously unreasonable to expect catering for 10 people to specifically accommodate people with soya allergies (one in every 2500 of the adult population). It would be useful to have a minimum-number, below which a caterer should know that they needn't worry about catering specifically for certain restrictions. This minimum number must be a semi-arbitrary decision. For Coeliac's disease, which is nominally present in 1% of the University population, we could set the minimum number at 100 people. However, the chances of at least one person with Coeliac's disease being present in a group of 100 is not 50/50, nor is it guaranteed; it is 63.4%. In order to “guarantee” a 99% probability of having at least one person with Coeliac's present, 458 people are required. The 50/50 point is 69 people. If we set the “minimum consideration proportion” high, we're increasing the likelihood that someone will be left out. If we set the proportion low, we're increasing the amount of effort required of the caterer, and introducing a significant probability that special meals might be wasted.
Nominal rates of dietary restrictions
in the University Population
ED: Also add : no specific dietary restrictions
RestrictionNominal Rate
30.00%50.00%60.00%70%80%90%95%99%
Vegetarian10.0% 3791115222844Vegan2.5% 142736486491118182Egg/dairy Free (not vegan)2% 1834456080114148228Kosher/Halal2% 1834456080114148228Pregnant2.5% 142736486491118182
ALLERGIES:
Crustacea2.0% 1834456080114148228Peanuts0.8% 4486114150200287373573Fish0.5% 71138183240321459598919Tree Nuts0.5% 71138183240321459598919Cow's Milk0.5% 71138183240321459598919Hen's Egg0.2% 178346458601804115014962300Soya0.04% 89217332290300940235755748811511Coeliac1% 356991120160229298458
Diabetic0.8% 4486114150200287373573Fat modified5.6% 612162128405280Weight Reduction8.9% 47101317253249
Other, rare allergies:
Sesame; salicylates; rice; buckwheat, corn, celery, tomatoes, apples, pears, jackfruit;
Caffeine sensitivity
Candidiasis (yeast free)
Low sulphides
Low salicylates
Yeast free candidiasis
Low Cholesterol
Low fat
Sugar free