Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE‐mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE‐mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well‐defined, highly pure molecules for component‐resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the “EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide” (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state‐of‐the‐art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.

The last two decades saw a steady increase of high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) used for treatment of foods. Although the science of biomaterials exposed to high pressure started more than a century ago, there still seem to be a number of unanswered questions regarding safety of foods processed using HHP. This review gives an overview on historical development and fundamental aspects of HHP, as well as on potential risks associated with HHP food applications based on available literature. Beside the combination of pressure and temperature, as major factors impacting inactivation of vegetative bacterial cells, bacterial endospores, viruses, and parasites, factors, such as food matrix, water content, presence of dissolved substances, and pH value, also have significant influence on their inactivation by pressure. As a result, pressure treatment of foods should be considered for specific food groups and in accordance with their specific chemical and physical properties. The pressure necessary for inactivation of viruses is in many instances slightly lower than that for vegetative bacterial cells; however, data for food relevant human virus types are missing due to the lack of methods for determining their infectivity. Parasites can be inactivated by comparatively lower pressure than vegetative bacterial cells. The degrees to which chemical reactions progress under pressure treatments are different to those of conventional thermal processes, for example, HHP leads to lower amounts of acrylamide and furan. Additionally, the formation of new unknown or unexpected substances has not yet been observed. To date, no safety‐relevant chemical changes have been described for foods treated by HHP. Based on existing sensitization to non‐HHP‐treated food, the allergenic potential of HHP‐treated food is more likely to be equivalent to untreated food. Initial findings on changes in packaging materials under HHP have not yet been adequately supported by scientific data.

Food allergy affects up to 6% of Europeans. Allergen identification is important for the risk assessment and management of the inadvertent presence of allergens in foods. The VITAL® initiative for voluntary incidental trace allergen labeling suggests protein reference doses, based on clinical reactivity in food challenge studies, at or below which voluntary labelling is unnecessary. Here, we investigated if current analytical methodology could verify the published VITAL® 2.0 doses, that were available during this analysis, in serving sizes between 5 and 500 g. Available data on published and commercial ELISA, PCR and mass spectrometry methods, especially for the detection of peanuts, soy, hazelnut, wheat, cow's milk and hen's egg were reviewed in detail. Limit of detection, quantitative capability, matrix compatibility, and specificity were assessed. Implications by the recently published VITAL® 3.0 doses were also considered. We conclude that available analytical methods are capable of reasonably robust detection of peanut, soy, hazelnut and wheat allergens for levels at or below the VITAL® 2.0 and also 3.0 doses, with some methods even capable of achieving this in a large 500 g serving size. Cow's milk and hen's egg are more problematic, largely due to matrix/processing incompatibility. An unmet need remains for harmonized reporting units, available reference materials, and method ring-trials to enable validation and the provision of comparable measurement results.