A recent wave of television dramas and films has drawn criticism from advocates and families affected by severe food allergies for their portrayal of allergic reactions, which some say undermines the gravity of these medical conditions and poses potential risks to public understanding.
Central to this discussion is the newly released film *The Roses*, which stars Olivia Colman as a skilled chef with a severe allergy to raspberries. In the film, a pivotal scene shows her husband, portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, deliberately putting raspberries in a cake she consumes, triggering a serious allergic reaction. The husband then withholds administering an EpiPen—a device delivering adrenaline critical for treating severe allergic reactions—until she agrees to sign divorce papers. Critics argue that using food allergies as dramatic plot devices in this manner risks trivializing a life-threatening condition that affects millions.
Food allergies have become increasingly prevalent, with the UK’s Food Standards Agency estimating that over 2.4 million adults live with them. However, according to Natasha’s foundation, co-founded by the mother of a teenager who died from a severe allergic reaction, such dramatic portrayals foster misconceptions. They suggest food allergies are exaggerated or choices rather than serious medical threats. This, they warn, contributes to people with allergies being dismissed or not treated with the necessary urgency.
Natasha experienced multiple severe reactions throughout her life, ultimately succumbing after unknowingly consuming sesame, one of her allergens, shortly before a flight to Nice in 2016. Her mother describes a constant state of vigilance and fear, underscoring the severity and unpredictability of anaphylaxis, which can cause swelling, airway closure, and death within minutes. Despite prompt use of two EpiPens, Natasha’s reaction proved fatal, illustrating that even immediate treatment may not always be sufficient.
Similar concerns have been raised regarding other recent media examples. The television series *All Her Fault* features a scene where a character deliberately exposes her allergic partner to a trigger, resulting in respiratory distress, which some viewers have called irresponsible. A UK stage production, *Inside No 9: Stage/Fright*, included a scene where a character spreads nuts on a seat to provoke an allergic reaction, a portrayal criticised for turning life-threatening situations into comedic elements. Children’s media has also been scrutinised, with the 2018 *Peter Rabbit* film including an allergy-triggering scenario played for laughs.
Advocates note that inaccurate depictions extend to how EpiPens are administered on screen. In *The Roses*, the device is given into the arm, and in the 1994 film *Pulp Fiction*, directly into the chest; neither matches current medical guidance, which recommends injecting the outer thigh for optimal effect. These inaccuracies can perpetuate misunderstandings about emergency response to anaphylaxis.
Efforts to improve the representation of food allergies in media have been welcomed when undertaken. For instance, producers of the show *Waterloo Road* consulted allergy experts to ensure their allergy-related storylines were realistic. Activists and affected families stress the importance of accurate portrayals to improve public awareness, support those living with allergies, and potentially save lives by fostering better understanding and emergency preparedness.
Despite outreach, the makers of *The Roses* have not responded to concerns raised by allergy advocates. The message from families like Natasha’s is clear: food allergies are not suitable subjects for casual drama or comedy but require careful, informed treatment in storytelling to reflect their serious and often tragic reality.