Benedict’s Law in Force: Closing the Compliance Gaps in Allergy Safety

Benedict’s Law followed several serious incidents and growing concern that allergy management in schools has been too inconsistent. Allergies are a growing, life-critical risk affecting children across all phases of education. Around 2 children in every classroom now have a food allergy, and anaphylaxis happens more in schools than in any other setting outside of the home, and around 30% of severe reactions occur in children with no prior diagnosis.

The term "have regard to” is a legal term that means schools must take the guidance seriously and follow it unless there is a clear and justifiable reason not to do so. 

The DfE has indicated there is a transition or grace period, but schools should not delay action. Stronger legal duties are expected from early 2027, including requirements to: 

The new law has made schools and trusts more aware of allergy risks across the whole school workforce (This has been helped by a large amount of media coverage on TV as well as on social media). Further benefits include:

• Increased senior leadership involvement through named allergy leads
• Allergen safety policies in place
• Better availability and management of spare AAIs
• Improved communication with parents regarding allergy management
• Increased focus on inclusion for pupils with allergies

Is our focus on banning specific allergens, or on creating a culture that effectively manages allergy risks wherever they arise? 

Schools are also increasingly moving away from nut-free policies and towards an allergy-aware approach. A nut-free policy can create a false sense of security, while an allergy-aware approach focuses on managing the risks of all allergens and promoting safe behaviours across the whole school. 

An allergy-aware culture provides a more robust and sustainable approach to protecting pupils with allergies.

Policies are being written but are not yet always embedded into daily practice. We know this is a work in progress, with schools focusing on the complexities of the requirements and documentation, but now is the time to shift this focus onto the reality of day-to-day school life. Further challenges include:

• Variations in staff confidence when responding to anaphylaxis emergencies
• Spare stock of AAI devices, storage and access and how to ensure they can be administered within the advised 5 minutes
• Individual healthcare plans are outdated or incomplete
• Inconsistent communication between different groups of staff on the school site, such as teaching staff, catering teams, cleaning teams, out-of-school staff and volunteers
• Lack of regular drills and emergency response exercises
• Difficulty maintaining standards when trained staff leave or change roles
• Inadequate recording and learning from near misses
• Schools are struggling to provide evidence of compliance beyond simply having documents in place

Areas that have created the greatest concerns for audits and reviews:

• Staff competence versus attendance at training
• Management of allergens during school trips and off-site activities
• Handover arrangements for supply staff and volunteers
• Emergency response times and decision-making during anaphylaxis incidents
• Catering controls, cross-contamination prevention, and communication of menu changes
• Accuracy of allergy registers across different school systems
• Governance oversight and assurance that procedures are being followed consistently

Once documentation and systems are in place, the focus shifts to ensuring they are understood, consistently applied, tested regularly, and effective in practice.

The real test of Benedict's Law isn't whether a school has an allergy policy. It's whether the arrangements work consistently in practice, every day, for every pupil. The schools most likely to succeed will be those that regularly ask themselves not 'Are we compliant?' but 'Could we confidently prevent, manage and learn from an allergy incident if it happened today?'

And the most effective way to do this is through regular stress tests, drills, and scenario-based exercises that reflect real-life situations where a system, process, or individual could fail. This will demonstrate that your allergy management arrangements are effective day-to-day and remain effective when under pressure. 

Would our allergy management systems still work safely if our usual key person was absent today? 

A school recently contacted us following a serious incident with their catering department where a substituted pesto product was delivered, but the change was not identified during the delivery checks. As a result, a member of staff experienced an allergic reaction. 

When the incident was reviewed, a key contributing factor was an over-reliance on one individual. This highlights the importance of ensuring that allergy knowledge, training, and responsibilities are shared across the team rather than depending on a single person. Reducing key person dependency helps ensure allergy controls remain robust, even when staff are absent or roles change. Robust allergy management should be system-dependent, not person-dependent. 

It's important to recognise that allergy controls can often weaken outside the normal school environment, making careful planning essential. 

Catering teams should ensure that packed lunches are prepared correctly, clearly labelled, and checked before departure. Parents should be aware and reminded that the school's usual allergy-aware expectations continue to apply when providing packed lunches for trips. 

Risk assessments should be clear and thorough and cover external organisations that provide food, including where pupils can purchase food independently such as in museums, theme parks and visitor attractions. 

Consider all the ways a pupil could be exposed to allergens while away from the school site, and what appropriate controls should be in place.

Are you confident that all near misses would be reported in your school? 

During lunchtime observations, we frequently see food served incorrectly. Fortunately, these mistakes are often identified before any harm occurs by the pupil, a member of the catering team, or the server. 

However, staff are often unclear about whether a near miss should be reported, and how it should be investigated and learned from. Strong systems and training are essential, but schools also need a culture where staff feel comfortable reporting mistakes without fear of blame. Near misses provide valuable opportunities to identify weaknesses and prevent future incidents. 

The key is having confidence that your staff know how to report it, investigate it, and share the learning. Every near miss is an opportunity to strengthen controls before a serious incident occurs.