Course:FNH200/Projects/2026/Team 9 Final Exam Question

Potential Final Exam Question

A person with a severe food allergy experiences an anaphylactic reaction shortly after eating food from a restaurant. Which of the following is the MOST appropriate conclusion?

A. The restaurant must have caused the reaction because it was the most recent place where the person ate.

B. The reaction could only have occurred if the restaurant intentionally included the allergen as an ingredient.

C. The source of the allergen must be investigated because exposure can occur through ingredients, ingredients within other ingredients, or cross-contact, and the most recent food consumed is not necessarily the source.

D. If the allergen is not listed as a main ingredient, the food cannot cause an allergic reaction.

Correct Answer: C.

A food-allergy incident should be investigated before determining its source. Allergens may be present directly in a food, may occur within another ingredient, or may be transferred through cross-contact. Therefore, an allergic reaction occurring after eating at a particular restaurant does not by itself prove that the restaurant caused the exposure.

This connects with FNH 200's discussion of Canadian food regulation and labelling, including the importance of accurate information about food ingredients and protecting consumers. It also relates to the course's broader treatment of food hazards, risk, and food-safety control.

Dr. Wasik's interview provided a memorable real-world example. He described an investigation involving a young girl who died from anaphylaxis after eating KFC French fries. Because she had eaten the fries before the reaction, KFC initially appeared to be a possible source. However, the investigation took approximately two weeks and ultimately traced the likely allergen exposure to cross-contact involving a knife that had been used with peanut butter at a birthday party, rather than the restaurant.

Why This Question Should Be on the Final Exam

Before this project, we did not realize how difficult it can be to identify the actual source of an allergen exposure. We might have assumed that if someone experienced an allergic reaction shortly after eating at a restaurant, the restaurant food must have caused it.

What surprised us most from Dr. Wasik's interview was how much investigation was required before determining what had actually happened. The KFC case showed me that the timing of an allergic reaction does not necessarily identify its source and that cross-contact can occur in unexpected ways.

We think this question should be on the final exam because it requires students to apply food-safety and labelling concepts rather than simply memorize definitions. It also demonstrates why accurate ingredient information and careful investigation of food hazards are important in protecting consumers.

This is something we would tell our friends because people with food allergies can be exposed to allergens even when the allergen was not intentionally added to the food. I think FNH 200 students should understand that food safety involves identifying the actual hazard and its source rather than immediately assuming causation based only on where or when a food was eaten.