Pret customer had severe allergic reaction, trial hears - BBC News

riariaga.blogspot.com

A student had a severe allergic reaction to a Pret A Manger sandwich she was incorrectly told was safe to eat, a court has heard.

Isobel Colnaghi went into shock and fell unconscious after just a few bites of the item, Bristol Crown Court heard.

Jurors were told that staff at the chain's Bath branch had assured Ms Colnaghi the chickpea and mango chutney sandwich did not contain sesame.

Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd denies a food safety charge.

Kate Brunner QC, prosecuting, told jurors Ms Colnaghi had been diagnosed with a severe nut and sesame allergy as a child and always carried an EpiPen for emergencies.

She said Miss Colnaghi picked out the sandwich, which had no ingredients list, from the Southgate shopping centre branch on 26 November 2017.

'Something seriously wrong'

Ms Colnaghi followed advice on the label to ask about allergies, the court heard, and a staff member told her he would check.

"He went to the same fridge where Miss Colnaghi had taken the sandwich from. After looking, he assured her that the sandwich didn't have sesame in," Ms Brunner said.

The company has an allergy guide listing each product's ingredients, Ms Brunner said.

If the staff member had looked at the guide, he would have seen the sandwich contained sesame, she told jurors.

When Ms Colnaghi began eating the sandwich she knew almost immediately that something was "seriously wrong", the court heard.

She bought antihistamines from a shop but her symptoms worsened. She rang 999 and was told to administer her EpiPen.

Website safety check

"An ambulance arrived. She went into anaphylactic shock. She became unconscious," Ms Brunner said.

Miss Colnaghi was taken to the Royal United Bath Hospital for treatment and eventually made a full recovery.

Giving evidence, she said she vomited and experienced "excruciating stomach pains" after eating the sandwich.

Jonathan Laidlaw QC, representing Pret A Manger, asked Miss Colnaghi if she had checked the company's website to confirm the sandwich was safe for her to eat.

She replied that she was not aware that she could have done so, or that she could have asked to see an allergy guide.

The firm is charged with selling food not of the substance demanded.

The trial, due to last for five days, continues.