£1.25m Pret compensation renews focus on allergen controls

A £1.25m out-of-court settlement involving Pret A Manger and a supplier has reopened debate about allergen controls and “free-from” labelling in UK hospitality, underscoring how a single point of failure in the supply chain can have fatal consequences for customers and severe reputational and legal risk for operators.

Celia Marsh, a 42-year-old dental nurse and mother of five, died in December 2017 after suffering anaphylaxis from a Pret “vegan rainbow” or Super Veg wrap bought in Bath. She had a known milk allergy and selected the product because it was presented as dairy-free and vegan. Within minutes of eating it, she fell critically ill. Despite administering her EpiPen and receiving help from a passer-by, she collapsed and later died in hospital.

At a High Court hearing this week, lawyers confirmed that the family will receive £1.25m in compensation. Pret will cover 25 per cent of the payout, with the remainder met by the insurers of Planet Coconut, the manufacturer of the coconut yoghurt alternative used in the wrap. The agreement follows lengthy negotiations after Mr Marsh, Celia’s husband, brought a personal injury claim against both parties.

What went wrong in the product chain

An inquest in 2022 found that the wrap’s yoghurt dressing, marketed as dairy-free, was contaminated by milk protein. The coroner, Maria Voisin, said the contamination arose when an ingredient used in the yoghurt became cross-contaminated at a manufacturing site that handled dairy. Documents held by Planet Coconut warned of that risk, but the risk was not passed on to customers such as Pret, the inquest heard.

In a formal report, the coroner stated that a product labelled “dairy-free” should be free from dairy, and warned that “free-from” and vegan claims can mislead consumers if controls are not rigorous. She called for better national recording of severe allergic reactions to create early warnings about products with undeclared allergens, and for stronger checks around “free-from” labelling. These recommendations contributed to updated Food Standards Agency guidance.

Pret said it had contributed to the settlement and expressed sympathy for the family, acknowledging that no payment could compensate for the loss. The chain has since stopped sourcing from Planet Coconut and no longer makes “free-from” claims on freshly made products. Planet Coconut recalled CoYo-branded products in 2018 following an allergen alert.

Why this matters for hospitality and fish and chips

For hospitality businesses, including fish and chip operators who routinely manage allergens such as milk, gluten, fish, crustaceans, and sulphites, the case is a reminder that allergen safety is not only a front-of-house issue. It depends on procurement decisions, supplier assurance, staff training, and clear customer communication. The Pret case shows that even businesses with strong in-store procedures remain exposed if supplier data is incomplete or if manufacturing risks are not transparently reported.

Fish and chip shops increasingly offer gluten-free batters, dairy-free sauces, and vegan sides. These products can attract new customer segments and build loyalty, but they also raise expectations among customers with serious allergies. If a “free-from” claim is made, customers may reasonably assume the product is safe without needing to interrogate every ingredient line by line. The coroner’s warning about misleading “free-from” labels is particularly relevant for operators using third-party sauces, dressings, or pre-prepared components.

The financial implications are also stark. Beyond compensation payouts, allergy deaths can trigger criminal investigations, recalls, insurance upheaval, and long-term brand damage. Even when liability rests partly with a supplier, public scrutiny typically focuses on the retailer. The split in this settlement reflects shared responsibility, but it does not dilute the operational lesson: allergen risk must be managed across the entire chain, not just at the counter.

The wider regulatory backdrop

Marsh’s death followed that of teenager Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died in 2016 after eating a Pret baguette containing sesame. That earlier case led to “Natasha’s Law”, requiring full ingredient and allergen labelling on foods pre-packed for direct sale. The new settlement indicates that, while labelling rules have tightened, the underlying challenge of cross-contamination and supplier disclosure remains.

For business owners, the direction of travel is clear. Regulators expect businesses to demonstrate due diligence in allergen management, including auditing suppliers, ensuring accurate specifications, and training staff to avoid over-promising safety where uncertainty exists. “Vegan” or “dairy-free” language can carry legal and moral weight if customers interpret it as a safety guarantee.

Practical impact and takeaways

The Pret settlement is not just a legal footnote. It is a case study in how modern hospitality relies on complex ingredient networks and how fragile trust can be when labelling fails. For operators in the fish and chip sector and across hospitality, the most defensible posture is to treat allergen safety as a system: supplier verification, kitchen controls, and careful language to customers must all align.

In a market where “free-from” and plant-based foods are growing, businesses that combine innovation with uncompromising allergen discipline will be better placed to protect customers and safeguard their reputation. The cost of getting it wrong is now measured not only in settlements, but in lives.