By Chris Carter · Managing Solicitor · Carter & Carter Solicitors · March 2026

You check the label. You see “may contain milk.” You make a decision based on that information.

But what if the milk wasn’t just a possibility — what if it was actually in the product, as an ingredient, just not declared on the label? That’s a fundamentally different situation. And it’s the precise legal distinction that a recent food safety recall has thrown into sharp relief.

Earlier this week, a well-known crisp brand issued a recall after a popular multipack was found to contain a flavour with milk as an actual ingredient — yet milk did not appear in the ingredients list on the affected packs. The Food Standards Agency issued an allergy alert. The product already carried a precautionary “may contain” advisory. But that existing warning, it turned out, wasn’t covering the risk that had actually materialised.

What Does “May Contain” Actually Mean on a Food Label?

A “may contain” warning — sometimes called precautionary allergen labelling, or PAL — is a voluntary statement manufacturers use to flag the risk of cross-contamination during production. It signals that the allergen is not a deliberate ingredient, but that the factory environment creates a possibility of traces finding their way into the product.

These warnings are common. They are also inconsistently applied across the food industry. Some manufacturers use them rigorously and specifically; others use them as a broad catch-all for any theoretical risk. What they are not — and this matters enormously — is a declaration of ingredients. “May contain milk” tells you there might be traces. It does not tell you that milk is in there.

Under the UK’s retained Food Information to Consumers Regulation, food manufacturers are legally required to declare any of the 14 regulated allergens that are present as actual ingredients in a product. If milk is in there, it must appear on the label. A “may contain” advisory does not satisfy that obligation. It is not a substitute for it.

What Happened With This Recall — and Why the Distinction Matters

The recall issued this week arose from a mispacking error. Some packs of one flavour were inadvertently filled with a different variety — one that contained milk as an ingredient. The outer packaging showed the original flavour. The ingredients list did not mention milk. The “may contain milk” advisory already on the pack related to cross-contamination risk, not to milk as a present ingredient.

The result: a person with a milk allergy who read that label carefully had no way of knowing milk was present. They were not warned by anything that actually covered the risk. The Food Standards Agency’s allergy alert makes the position plain — the product “poses a risk to people with an allergy to milk.”

That is the distinction this recall illustrates. The precautionary warning was there. It just wasn’t warning about what had actually happened.

What Is the Legal Difference Between “May Contain” and an Undeclared Allergen?

When we assess an allergy claim, one of the first questions is whether the product’s labelling complied with its legal obligations. Under the retained Food Information to Consumers Regulation — assimilated into UK law — manufacturers must declare all 14 regulated allergens when they are present as ingredients. The emphasis is on present. Not possibly present. Present.

A product with an allergen present as an undeclared ingredient has not warned the consumer at all. That is a labelling failure, and it is the foundation of a dairy allergy claim or any other allergen-related compensation claim. A “may contain” advisory on the same pack does not change that.

Can You Claim If You Reacted to a Product That’s Since Been Recalled?

If you reacted to a product that has since been recalled for undeclared allergens, that recall is significant evidence. It is a formal acknowledgment — by both the manufacturer and the Food Standards Agency — that the product posed a risk it was not labelled to declare. That acknowledgment does not automatically create a claim, but it substantially supports one.

To assess whether you have a viable allergic reaction claim, three things need to be established: that you consumed the product, that it contained an undeclared allergen you reacted to, and that you suffered harm as a result. If you still have the affected product, keep it. If the batch code and best-before date match the recall notice, that connection is already partially made for you. If you were treated by a GP, pharmacist, or at hospital, those records matter.

For further reading, see our guide to FSA allergen recalls and your right to claim and our earlier piece on what to do after a reaction to mislabelled food.

What Should You Do If You’ve Been Affected by This Recall?

First: keep the product. If you have the affected pack — particularly if the batch code and best-before date match the FSA notice — do not throw it away. It is evidence. Photograph it. Note every detail on the label.

Second: seek medical attention if you haven’t already. A medical record of the reaction is one of the most important pieces of evidence in a claim. Even if you self-managed the reaction, a GP consultation shortly after the event creates a contemporaneous record.

Third: speak to us. Compensation in packaged food and supermarket allergy claims starts from £1,500+ and is assessed against the severity of the reaction, any medical treatment required, time off work, and the lasting impact on your daily life. Serious reactions — including anaphylaxis — are assessed individually and can result in significantly higher awards. We will tell you quickly whether your situation gives you a viable claim. No obligation and no cost to find out.