Fish in Your Pesto: What This Week’s FSA Recall Says About Your Rights When a Label Is Wrong.
By Chris Carter, Managing Solicitor · May 2026 · Allergy Claims
I had a fish allergy. The pesto contained fish. Is it really worth doing anything about it?
Filippo Berio UK has recalled its Hot Chilli Pesto this week because the jar contained fish that was not declared on the label. The FSA issued allergy alert FSA-AA-25-2026 on 16 May 2026, covering the 190g jars (batch LR319, BBE 15 May 2028).
If you have a fish allergy and you bought, ate, or had a reaction to this product, you may have a claim — and the recall itself is evidence in your favour. A label that omits one of the 14 named allergens breaches the Food Information Regulations 2014 applying in England and Wales.
Five immediate steps: don’t eat it; photograph the jar; keep the receipt; seek medical advice if you reacted; report to the FSA. A retailer refund is separate from any compensation claim for personal injury.
Carter & Carter handle allergy claims on a No Win No Fee basis with a published fee of 10% if your case settles without court proceedings. Call 0800 652 0586 or request a callback.
You picked it up from the chiller cabinet because it sounded interesting. Hot chilli pesto, the kind you stir through pasta on a Wednesday night when you cannot face cooking properly. You read the label.
You always read the label. Tomatoes, basil, chilli, olive oil, the usual cast. Nothing on there should worry someone with a fish allergy. You bought it.
And then, four days later, the Food Standards Agency announced the jar contains fish.
If you bought it, ate it, or reacted to it, the consumer-protection framework in England and Wales is unusually clear: a label that omits one of the fourteen statutory allergens is not your problem to have spotted. It is the manufacturer’s failure to declare. And the recall notice itself is admissible evidence that Filippo Berio UK has accepted the product should not have been on the shelf in its current form.
Pesto Doesn’t Contain Fish — So How Did Fish End Up in This Jar?
The FSA alert reference is FSA-AA-25-2026, issued on 16 May 2026. It identifies the affected product as 190g jars of Filippo Berio Hot Chilli Pesto, batch code LR319, best before 15 May 2028.
The wording matters: the FSA notice does not say may contain fish. It says the product contains fish, which is not mentioned on the label. That is mislabelling, not a precautionary warning.
Under the Food Information Regulations 2014 — which implement the EU Food Information for Consumers Regulation 1169/2011 into the law of England and Wales — any of the fourteen statutory allergens must be declared on the label and emphasised, typically in bold, against the rest of the ingredients list. Fish is one of those fourteen. A food business operator who places a product on the UK market without that emphasis has breached the regulations.
For the consumer with a fish allergy, the practical effect is simple. The label you read in the supermarket aisle was not just incomplete — it was wrong in law. You were not careless. You were misinformed by a label that the regulations require to be accurate.
I Had a Reaction — But It Wasn’t Severe. Do I Actually Have a Claim?
This is the question almost every reader of this kind of news arrives with.
The reaction was unpleasant but not an A&E visit. No adrenaline auto-injector. A few uncomfortable hours, perhaps a Piriton, perhaps a missed day of work. Surely that is not enough to bring a claim?
Under English personal injury law the test is simpler than most people assume. The question is whether the manufacturer breached a duty owed to you, and whether that breach caused you harm.
An undeclared statutory allergen on a label is a clear breach. A reaction — even a short, modest one — is harm. Both elements are present. The severity of the reaction affects how much the claim is worth, not whether the claim exists at all.
What many people discover is that high-volume claims firms turn away short-duration allergy reactions because the case value is low relative to their overheads — large premises, advertising spend, multiple layers of staff. Smaller specialist firms can take these cases because the cost structure is different. That is not a marketing point. It is structural.
“I can’t thank this firm enough for their support, especially Dave who handled my case with care and professionalism. After being served prawns at a restaurant despite clearly stating my allergy, I suffered a reaction leading to use of my epi pen. I reached out to four other solicitors, but all turned me away because my injuries didn’t last more than four weeks. I had almost given up hope—until I spoke to Dave. From our first conversation, he listened, understood how serious the incident was, and assured me I had a valid claim. He guided me through the process every step of the way and secured a fair settlement with the restaurant. I’m incredibly grateful for the dedication and respect I was shown. If you’re feeling dismissed or unsure, I strongly recommend giving them a call!”
— Jasmine R., Allergy Claim · Google Review
Photograph the batch code on the lid. The FSA alert lists the affected jars by batch — in this recall, LR319 with a best-before of 15 May 2028. When you call a solicitor, the batch code is the first thing they will ask for, because it ties your individual jar to the public recall notice beyond argument.
A receipt helps. A clear photograph of the batch on your jar is better. Manufacturers’ insurers cannot dispute a recall they have already publicly issued — but they can dispute whether the jar in your kitchen was one of the affected batches. The photograph closes that gap before anyone asks the question.
What Should I Do Right Now If I Still Have the Jar?
Five things, in order. Each one is about pinning the documentary trail down before it disappears.
Even if the rest of the household has no fish allergy, set the jar aside. You will need it as evidence.
Front label, back label, batch code on the lid, and the best-before date. Five photographs, two minutes of your time.
A till receipt is ideal. A bank statement showing the supermarket transaction will do. A loyalty card record is also acceptable.
A GP letter, an A&E discharge summary, a 111 call note, or an ambulance call sheet. All four are admissible. None is too small to matter.
Use the Report a Food Problem page on the FSA website and keep the reference number you are given. This is independent of any compensation claim.
What’s the Difference Between Returning the Jar and Making a Claim?
Two entirely separate routes, often confused. A refund through the retailer cancels the transaction — you give the jar back, you get your money back. A personal injury claim addresses the harm you suffered as a result of being supplied a mislabelled product. They sit alongside each other; they do not overlap.
A common worry: if I accept the refund, am I admitting it is closed? No. Accepting a refund does not extinguish your right to bring a personal injury claim. The two are governed by different bodies of law — consumer rights on one side, tort and negligence on the other.
The relevant time limit is three years from the date of the reaction (or from the date you became aware of the connection between the product and your symptoms), under the Limitation Act 1980. Three years is long enough not to rush — but short enough that putting off the conversation has a cost.
Which Allergen Caused Your Reaction?
If the mislabelling involved a different statutory allergen, the legal framework is the same. The route into a claim is hub-specific.
A specialist conversation costs nothing and commits to nothing.
If you bought this Hot Chilli Pesto — even if you have not yet reacted, even if the reaction was mild — the recall notice is evidence in your favour. Speak to a senior solicitor before you decide whether to bring a claim. Free, no pressure, no obligation.
Chris Carter is the Managing Solicitor at Carter & Carter Solicitors in Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire. Qualified in 1993, Chris has spent over 33 years helping people harmed by allergic reactions and food safety failures. Allergy claims are one of the firm’s four specialist practice areas. Carter & Carter is one of very few firms in England and Wales to publish its fee structure upfront and to handle every claim personally at senior solicitor level from start to finish. Read more about Carter & Carter.