Question follow-through · 8402
Latex: Allergies
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has made an assessment of the impact of latex glove usage in the food industry on individuals with a latex allergy.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department of Health and Social Care
- Tabled
- 9 Jun 2026
- Target answer date
- 15 Jun 2026
- Answer
- 1 Jul 2026 · 22 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
9 Jun 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has made an assessment of the impact of latex glove usage in the food industry on individuals with a latex allergy.
15 Jun 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
1 Jul 2026
Answer published
The Food Standards Agency recognises that the use of natural rubber latex (NRL) gloves in the food industry may pose a risk to individuals with a latex allergy, with reactions ranging from mild irritation to, in rare cases, severe allergic responses. Unde...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.