PIP loss of taste/smell

I’m sure I’ve read something about this somewhere, but can’t seem to find it.

Client has reduced sense of taste and smell, so he can’t tell if food has gone off (other than seeing mould etc)

I’m wondering if 1(e) applies, for needing supervision to avoid cooking with gone off foods.

I understand activity 2 is normally concerned with the mechanical functions of eating, but what about 2(b)(ii) - supervision to be able to take nutrition (safely)? Using senses other than sight or hearing isn’t normally associated with supervision though.

I think the situation you posit falls outside Judge Wright’s findings in MM & BJ; I’d certainly argue supervision, but is it in the act of preparation; i.e activity 1 rather than in the eating? Taking nutrition doesn’t use the simple meal test so arguably the food to be consumed is broader than that envisaged in activity 1… 

https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=4999

So for 1 there’s the ‘simple meals’ definition which I think covers this situation - arguing he can’t reliably identify fresh ingredients. These 4 points with his other issues gets him 8 for SRDL. Unlikely to get to 12 even with d2, so it becomes academical.

In regards to 2 and MM&BJ;, I’m wondering if this situation differs as we’re moving from nutritional ‘quality’ to nutritional ‘safety’. It’s not that by virtue of a condition like diabetes he is vulnerable to food that it’s safe for non-diabetics to eat. He arguably can’t reliably identify food that is unsafe to anyone.

He is also immunocompromised, not severely but enough that the risk is probably a bit higher.

I have a very difficult time with the premise here. There are many ways to identify that food has gone off which are not impeded by a reduced sense of smell. As you note, there are visual cues, there are best before and use by dates, your client can presumably remember when he bought things (or put stickers on them) so as not to allow things to sit around long enough to go off.

I am sure that being less able to smell and taste does in some way impede his ability to identify when things have gone back but it seems to me that a tribunal is going to take a great deal of convincing that this comes close to the sort of risk which would register in an RJ sense, even if your arguments work at a certain level of abstraction.

Also,

Simple meal is defined as a cooked one-course meal for one using fresh ingredients

doesn’t that mean that there is an assumption built in that the ingredients/food is safe to eat?

Yes, I’ve gone back and forth a few times with both your points the last couple of days.

On Elliot’s point, from the standpoint of a former chef I’d argue that use by dates and sight inspection are only supplementary to taste and smell. You can’t run a safe kitchen without those. However, commercial food standards etc. being as high as they are in the UK and combined with an immune system that defeats most minor issues you could likely go by sight alone for a year without getting (very) ill. That is where I might fail.

On seand’s point re fresh ingredients I think you could read it both ways, and I’m not sure which is correct:
a) The activity is only concerned with the isolated exercise of food prep and cook. Whether the food is edible is besides the point.
Or b), as Sweet and Maxwell put it, ‘prepare’ includes ‘probably the ability to check the age and condition of the raw materials’ (my ed is 18/19, later eds might say different?). If the ingredients can’t reliably be identified as fresh the activity isn’t satisfied.

I don’t see any way for 2 to be in play at all. It’s about mechanics only.

As regards 1 I’m struggling to see the case. The test assumes you have fresh ingredients and is about what you then do with them. Attempting to argue that you can’t identify fresh ingredients falls on 2 counts for me:

1 - for this test you don’t have to.
2 - you would have to satisfy regs 4 and 7 and I’m struggling to see how you would do that given the several other ways in which one can identify food which is off or likely to be off.

There is, at a stretch, an argument that some fresh ingredients appear to not be so e.g. the potato you’re pulling which only reveals itself to be in a bad way once you have started to peel and chop down to the middle. Again, though, how often does that happen?

Mike Hughes - 18 August 2022 03:53 PM

2 - you would have to satisfy regs 4 and 7 and I’m struggling to see how you would do that given the several other ways in which one can identify food which is off or likely to be off.

The argument, I think, would need to be on safety grounds through the test in RJ. So the argument would go that the actual ‘mouldy food’ instances are few and far between but that there is a pervasive need for supervision to avoid them which meets reg 4 and 7. The question would be whether the ‘mouldy food’ instances are sufficient to render the activity unsafe bearing in mind their frequency and the likely harm experienced without supervision.

Something I did read and which does seem to make sense is that apparently people with reduced sense of taste and smell often lose their interest in eating and that consequently they are prone to issues around malnutrition. I don’t know if that is true of this particular claimant but there may be something worth exploring around prompting.

Clearly this is something that many cancer patients contend with daily, but I’ve never seen points given for being unable to identify safe/foul food through smell. I’m not opposed to the idea of it being a potentially relevant function/task making up activity 1, but, as others have said, there are myriad other ways that edible food could be identified which your client presumably is still able to carry out.

I would’ve thought you’d have more luck arguing that he couldn’t smell when food was burning. Perhaps combined with debilitating fatigue or some other symptom that means he has to go and sit down while something cooks. I’ve not personally seen that reasoning used/given either, though…

I’d personally angle my PIP2 responses as follows:

1) Loss of/changes to senses of smell = nauseous from normal kitchen smells, hence requiring supervision or assistance to complete food preparation/cooking; dulled appetite = requiring prompting and encouragement to bother.

2) Loss of/changes to senses of taste AND smell = nauseous from normal and even simple foods = dulled appetite, hence requiring prompting and encouragement to eat.

Of course, when it comes to 2 they normally want to see evidence of weight loss/dietitian input/GP or hospital monitoring weight/prescription of Ensure shakes, etc. Of course, these aren’t strict qualifying criteria, but any comments that you could offer to protect your client from this line of enquiry would help (e.g. “I’ve lost a stone in the last X weeks as I don’t feel like eating any more.”)