Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing - Volume 47, Issue 2, 2025

Communication on food allergens: misinterpretations, problems and possibilities for improvement

Allergen information on food packaging is a notoriously difficult type of communication. Complex and nuanced information has to be presented to a lay audience, taking into consideration legal and practical constraints. Dutch and EU rules and guidelines on allergen information do not solve the problems: even when complying with these rules, food producers communicate allergen information in different ways. Consumers find the information unclear and wrongly interpret differences in presentation as differences in risk of an allergic reaction. This synthesis article brings together three recent studies conducted by an interdisciplinary research consortium focusing on allergen communication: a corpus field study on how allergens are actually declared on Dutch food labels, an experiment on how this information is interpreted by consumers with or without a food allergy, and a qualitative interview study with food producers about their choices and challenges in allergen communication. The current article connects the three studies within a communicative framework, resulting in more insight into the complex communication situation around allergen information and in advice on allergen communication considering messages, receivers and senders. In conclusion, we reflect on the benefits of working in a consortium with communication experts, content experts and professionals from the field.

‘I actually wanted to start by asking…’: How do dialogic peer feedback conversations unfold in academic writing

Peer feedback can provide writers with deeper insights into their texts and improve their writing, particularly when they actively participate in the feedback process and participate in dialogue. However, such feedback dialogues do not occur automatically. This study examines how writers and readers construct their roles in both dialogue-driven and traditional peer feedback conversations. Using conversation analysis, fourteen peer feedback conversations between student pairs in higher education were analyzed. Half of the students were instructed to focus on discussing text features, while the other half were instructed to engage in peer feedback conversations using a dialogic approach. Results indicate that students in both groups occasionally adopt an equal, collaborative role by demonstrating understanding, showing recognition and/or sharing their own experiences. Moreover, in traditional peer feedback, readers tend to take an active role as discussion leaders and evaluators, while writers remain passive recipients. In contrast, when students engage in dialogue with each other–characterized by readers asking questions and following up by asking questions in return–collaborative co-construction emerges. Writers also adopt a more active role when explicitly invited to do so. These findings offer valuable insights into how dialogic peer feedback can be optimized in writing education.