If your child has a food allergy: what the Bristol research means for you

Posted on 6 May 2026 in Allergy, Blog, Uncategorized

 

By Chris Carter, Managing Solicitor | Allergy Claims | May 2026

 

On 28 April 2026, researchers from the University of Bristol and Bristol Children’s Hospital presented the findings of a national review at the Royal College of Emergency Medicine Conference. They had analysed every fatal child food anaphylaxis case in England between 2019 and 2023. The findings, published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy, change the evidence base for every family in England and Wales living with a child food allergy diagnosis.

 

Of the 19 children who died, in 74% of cases the child reached cardiac arrest having received no adrenaline at all or just one dose. 37% were not carrying an EpiPen at the time of the reaction.

 

Seventeen of the nineteen children had been prescribed one. Nearly nine out of ten of the deaths were in children aged between 10 and 17.

 

What changes after a study like this is rarely the law. The law was already there. What shifts is the evidence base underneath, and the legal questions that evidence now raises have not yet been answered in print.

I’ve just read about the Bristol research. What does it actually show?

The research team was led by Dr John Coveney of Bristol Children’s Hospital and included Dr Tom Roberts, an emergency clinician at North Bristol NHS Trust, and Professor Karen Luyt, Programme Director for the National Child Mortality Database. The work was independently corroborated at the same conference by Dr Ben McKenzie of the University of Melbourne, whose Australian dataset reached the same conclusion.

 

The number that should give every parent pause is the 89%. These were not children who fell through the medical system without being assessed.

 

They were on the system. They had the prescription. The EpiPen simply was not on them, was not used, or was not enough.

 

The other finding worth understanding is about the cause of death itself. In 16 of the 17 cases where researchers could pinpoint which body system gave way first, the children died from airway and breathing failure rather than from heart or circulatory failure.

 

NHS emergency anaphylaxis guidelines focus on the heart. The Bristol team are urging that the guidelines be updated to prioritise airway management instead.

 

What does the law actually say when a school or restaurant let my child down?

Four pieces of law apply directly. Each one sits on the institution that served the food or supervised the child, not on the family. Together they form the basis on which a civil compensation claim by an injured child or their family would succeed.

 

In a typical case the civil claim draws on the framework most relevant to the setting. A restaurant that served the wrong food faces the Food Information Regulations.

 

A school that did not have a spare EpiPen on site after September 2026 faces the new Schools Act. In serious cases all four frameworks may be in play at once.

 

My child is a teenager. Does that change anything about the claim?

It can strengthen it. Nearly nine in ten of the children who died in the Bristol study were aged between 10 and 17.

 

That is the age range when allergy management starts to transfer from parent to child. Older children carry their own EpiPens. They make their own food choices.

 

They eat with friends. They go to parties. They handle the allergy themselves.

 

The legal duty does not transfer with that responsibility. Schools, sixth forms, food businesses serving teenagers, and accommodation providers running residential trips continue to owe specific duties to children with declared allergies.

 

The duty of care does not become weaker as the child gets older. The expectation that the child will manage the allergy themselves does not transfer the legal failure of an unsafe food or absent EpiPen onto the child.

 

If your child is a teenager and was injured because a school or food business failed in its duty, your case is on solid ground. The data behind it has just been reinforced by a peer-reviewed national study.

 

Which kind of allergy reaction fits your child’s situation?

The Bristol research found milk responsible for 38% of fatal cases, nuts for 32%, multiple or unidentified allergens for 32%, and egg for one case. The legal route depends on the specific allergen and the setting where the reaction occurred.

 

I just want to keep things normal for my child. Will making a claim hurt that?

This is the most common reason families wait too long to take advice, and it is the reason this paragraph is here. Bringing a personal injury claim is not the same as falling out with the school or the restaurant.

 

The claim is paid by the institution’s insurer, not by the institution itself. Most schools and food businesses expect a claim after a serious reaction and have insurance specifically to cover it. Treating a child or family badly because they have made a claim is unlawful in its own right.

 

In a school setting, the head and the governing body are not the people who pay the compensation. The local authority or the academy trust holds insurance, and the insurer handles the claim. The school’s relationship with your child does not need to change.

 

In a restaurant or food business setting, the position is the same. The insurer pays, the business carries on, and your child’s safety has been improved for every other allergic child who eats there afterwards.

 

The other concern that comes up is cost. Carter and Carter’s published fee is 10 percent of compensation when the claim settles without court proceedings.

 

There is nothing to pay upfront. There is nothing to pay if the claim is unsuccessful. The first call costs nothing and takes around fifteen minutes.

 

What should I do if this has happened to my child?

Five practical steps, in the order they tend to matter.