Get delicious catered food with party food delivery

If you are throwing a party, then one of the top things on your list will be getting delicious food for guests to enjoy. Parties are always a fantastic opportunity to get people together so that you can see old friends and meet new people. Having delicious food to go with it is the icing on the cake.

Planning a party can be a large job, which is why working with a reputable and reliable catering company is a must. This means that you are freed up to focus on other things while you can be safe in the knowledge that the food you are serving guests will be of an unbeatable quality.

You can organise party food delivery when you use top caterers, so you are completely ready well ahead of time. With the best caterers, you can get handmade food, freshly prepared, and delivered to your door up to two days before your event. This means that all you have to do is store it and then be ready to serve it up on the day.


This is ideal if you are having a large party with a lot of guests and want to serve small nibbles like canapés to keep everybody going. When you use top caterers, you can get a huge variety of canapés, from sweet canapés which are a real treat for those who have a sweet tooth, to cold savoury canapés.


Canapes are a great option if you want to make sure no one leaves hungry but don’t want to have to go to the trouble of serving a full sit down meal. However, if you want something a bit more filling, you can work with catering companies to organise delicious buffets for parties which your guests can pick and choose from.


The best catering companies will help you to design a menu which works perfectly for your event. This means everything from foods which will complement the atmosphere and are seasonal. If you are having a party outdoors in the summer, for example, the best catering companies will have foods which are fresh and fruity to make sure your guests get the best possible experience.


If you want a more formal meal, you can get food delivered including cold and hot starters, and delectable main courses. With expert advice on which wines will compliment the food, not to mention which dishes will provide a nice counterpoint to each other, you can be sure your menu will impress your guests.

If you really want to make an impact on your guests, then having lovingly prepared, inventive and delicious food is a must. It certainly is true that the way to a person’s heart is through their stomach.

Best Pairings Of Wine And Meat

World of wines

Wines are a thing of class and should always be eaten with the right kind of food in order to bring out the flavour and tantalise the taste buds.

With our variety of meats that we at Licious bring you to our doorstep within 90 minutes, here’s an all-you-need-to-know guide to wines and meat that will make your perfect dinner night.


Wine with lamb

Lamb is a lot more delicate than other red meats and a lighter and delicate wine is what will go with it. Another thing with Lamb is that it takes on the flavour of the sauce so lighter the sauce, lighter the wine. With lamb chops, serve a mature Spanish Rioja, a Cabernet Sauvignon from California or a Washington state Merlot.  Malbec, Syrah, Petite Sirah, Touriga Nacional and Petit Verdot will work wonders with lamb, so buy mutton at Licious today!


Champagne goes with anything salty and where else would you find the best, home delivered fish meat than Be it shrimp crackles, cocktail prawns or lobsters, Champagne is your company.


Chardonnay goes with fatty fish dishes or fish dishes with spicy and tangy sauces. This includes fish curries, lobsters, and prawns. To get the freshest fish, buy online at Licious!

Old world wines

What’s better than old world wines with old world food? Heavy meatball pasta and roasted chicken lasagna is the way to go. Buy the raw chicken online at Licious to prepare your lasagna!


Malbec won’t be overshadowed by sweet-spicy barbecue sauces and goes best with steaks, grills, and BBQ dishes. It’s a kind of wine that goes with heavily barbecued and grilled meat that is mixed well with rich sauces.

Cabernet Sauvignon, Zinfandel, and Merlot

These rich red wines are fabulous with juicy red meat. They are good choices with broiled lamb. For a Middle Eastern-style kabob with spicy sauces, reach for the brighter flavors of Cabernet Franc, Syrah from California or Shiraz from Australia.


A Simple roast chicken goes with anything from Chardonnay to Pinot Noir. When seasoned with rosemary and garlic pairs well with Merlot, French Beaujolais or a light Australian Shiraz.

With curried chicken, an Alsatian Gewürztraminer or a dry California sparkler is the best. Chicken in a mustard sauce is fine with a light red wine, such as Cabernet Franc, or an oaky Chardonnay.

Fried chicken pairs well with a dry rosé from Spain or southern France, or a fruity California Sauvignon Blanc.

Eating pulses helps weight loss and lowers cholesterol, new research reveals

Eating pulses has long been known as a healthy option for losing weight, but they have also now been proven to keep the pounds off.

Just one serving a day – three-quarters of a cupful – of beans, peas, chickpeas or lentils is enough to contribute to modest weight loss by making people feel fuller and by vastly reducing “bad cholesterol” levels, according to new research.

Almost 1,000 adult men and women lost an average of 0.75lbs over six weeks by adding a single serving of pulses to their diet.

Unlike other diets or weight loss programmes, the study also showed that the effects occurred with little effort at cutting down on other foods.

Lead author Dr Russell de Souza, a researcher with the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada, said: “Despite their known health benefits, only 13 per cent of Canadians eat pulses on any given day and most do not eat the full serving. So there is room for most of us to incorporate dietary pulses in our diet and realise potential weight management benefits.”

His team’s research, published on Wednesday in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, builds on previous work at the hospital which had showed eating a daily serving of pulses makes people feel fuller than if they ate a control diet.

Eating pulses can also significantly reduce LDL, or “bad”, cholesterol – named because it contributes to plaque, a thick, hard deposit that can clog arteries and make them less flexible – by five per cent and therefore lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Dr de Souza said that 90 per cent of weight loss interventions fail, resulting in weight regain, which may be due in part to hunger and food cravings.

“This new study fits well with our previous work, which found that pulses increased the feeling of fullness by 31 per cent, which may indeed result in less food intake,” he said.

“Though the weight loss was small, our findings suggest that simply including pulses in your diet may help you lose weight, and we think more importantly, prevent you from gaining it back after you lose it.”

How do I cook pulses?

Pulses can be bought tinned or dried – both are easy to use. Tinned pulses have already been soaked and cooked, so just heat them or add straight to salads cold from the tin, after draining.

Dried pulses need a little more preparation. With the exception of lentils and split peas, dried pulses need to be soaked in cold water before cooking.

Cooking times vary depending on the type of pulses and how old they are, so follow instructions. Dried kidney and soya beans contain toxins, so it’s important to make sure that they have been cooked properly, to destroy the toxin, before you eat them.

Costa accused of selling large and regular lattes ‘containing the same amount of coffee’

Costa has denied making customers pay an extra 30p for large caffe lattes despite being served the same quantity as a regular latte.

A Facebook video has garnered over 11 million views showing a large latte seemingly fitting perfectly into a regular cup.

The video’s creator, builder Paul Hopkinson wrote alongside: “There you go country of England, the regular and the large are indeed exactly the same size.

“Whoops Costa. Oh dear.”

In response to his accusation, Costa stated there is a four fluid ounce difference between the two sizes, adding that neither cups are filled to the brim for safety reasons.

Costa wrote on Facebook: “Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to send in your video! Despite what it looks like I can assure you you’re not being duped in any way.

“The regular cup is a 12oz and the large is a 16oz so there is 4 fluid oz in size difference. Plus you also get the extra shot of coffee, hence the price difference!”

Scientists find ‘switch’ in the brain that helps control appetite

Scientists have found a “switch” in the brain that helps to control appetite, which could explain why some people find it hard to know when to stop eating, a study has suggested.

The researchers believe that sugar levels in the bloodstream are involved in triggering when the switch is turned on during a meal so that people begin to feel full. But when the switch fails, it leads to overeating and obesity, they suggested.

The findings, which could provide further scientific evidence to support George Osborne’s new sugar tax, are part of a wider body research into the nature of appetite control and how hormones and brain activity are both involved in determining hunger, craving and over-eating.

Scientists discovered the appetite switch while studying the strength of the connections between nerve cells in the brains of laboratory mice, a phenomenon known to be important for learning and memory.

In particular they wanted to see what would happen when the gene for an enzyme called OGT was deliberately knocked out in certain regions of the mouse brain.

OGT is known to be involved in many aspects of body metabolism, including the use of the hormone insulin and glucose in the bloodstream – which can rise during a meal or after drinking sugary drinks.

One of the jobs of the enzyme is to add a chemical derivative of glucose to proteins and this appears to be important certain nerve cells of the appetite control centres of the brain. When the gene for this enzyme is deleted or knocked out, the mice doubled in weight in just two weeks as a result of a build-up of fat.

“These mice don’t understand that they’ve had enough food, so they keep eating,” said Olof Lagerlof, a Johns Hopkins researcher and first author of the research published in the journal Science.

How long you can keep food and drinks in your fridge

That bacon you opened last weekend won’t stay fresh in your fridge forever.

In fact, there are some guidelines for how long you should keep food and drinks before they go bad.

First, make sure your refrigerator is set at 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below, which is the temperature recommended by the USDA.

If the label has a “sell by” date, consume the food item accordingly.

It’s worth noting, though, that a label’s “sell by” date only indicates when the product will be of “optimal quality,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. You can probably still safely eat something that’s just past its expiration date.

We consulted StillTasty, an online guide to shelf life, to create a list of common fridge items and their lifespan. StillTasty uses government sources like the USDA, the FDA, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in addition to food manufacturers.

Here’s how long your favourite foods can survive in your fridge after you open them.

Fresh fruit associated with lower risk of heart attack and stroke

People who eat fresh fruit on most days are at lower risk of heart attack and stroke than people who rarely eat fresh fruit, according to new research published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. The findings come from a 7-year study of half a million adults in China, where fresh fruit consumption is much lower than in countries like the UK or US.

Researchers from the University of Oxford and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences conducted a large, nationwide study of 500,000 adults from 10 urban and rural localities across China, tracking health for 7 years through death records and electronic hospital records of illness. The present study was among people who did not have a history of cardiovascular diseases or anti-hypertensive treatments when first joined the study.

Fruit is a rich source of potassium, dietary fiber, antioxidants, and various other potentially active compounds, and contains little sodium or fat and relatively few calories. The study found that fruit consumption (which was mainly apples or oranges) was strongly associated with many other factors, such as education, lower blood pressure, lower blood glucose, and not smoking. But, after allowing for what was known of these and other factors, a 100g portion of fruit per day was associated with about one-third less cardiovascular mortality and the association was similar across different study areas and in both men and women.

Study author Dr Huaidong Du, University of Oxford, UK, said “The association between fruit consumption and cardiovascular risk seems to be stronger in China, where many still eat little fruit, than in high-income countries where daily consumption of fruit is more common.” Also, fruit in China is almost exclusively consumed raw, whereas much of the fruit in high-income countries is processed, and many previous studies combined fresh and processed fruit.

Co-author Professor Liming Li, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said “A recent Global Burden of Disease report put low fruit consumption as one of the leading causes of premature death in China. However, this was based on little evidence from China itself.”

The senior author, Professor Zhengming Chen, University of Oxford, UK, said “It’s difficult to know whether the lower risk in people who eat more fresh fruit is because of a real protective effect. If it is, then widespread consumption of fresh fruit in China could prevent about half a million cardiovascular deaths a year, including 200,000 before age 70, and even larger numbers of non-fatal strokes and heart attacks.”

‘Exercise labels’ should be added to food packets, expert argues

“Food and drinks should carry labels showing how long it would take to walk or run off the calories, a leading health expert suggests,” the Daily Mail reports.

In an opinion piece in the British Medical Journal, Shirley Cramer, chief executive of theRoyal Society for Public Health, argues that the current “traffic light” food labelling system is not promoting positive changes in public health.

Cramer makes the case that “activity equivalent” labelling could change people’s behaviour. Labels could represent activities like brisk walking, running, swimming, and cycling

Traffic light labelling

The widely used “traffic light” food labelling system is based on concepts most of us learn very early on in our childhood: green means “good”, amber means “OK”, and red means “bad”.

Traffic light information is provided on an item’s fat content, saturated fat content, sugar content, and carbohydrate content. In short, the more green on the label, the healthier the choice.

However, a 2015 poll carried out by Populus found 41% of UK adults found current front-of-pack information confusing.

As Cramer points out, “Such information needs to be as simple as possible so that the public can easily decide what to buy and consume in the average six seconds people spend looking at food before buying.”

Activity equivalent labelling

The idea behind activity equivalent labelling is that a series of easily recognisable icons would be used to represent types of physical activities, such as brisk walking (walking fast enough to get you slightly out of breath), running, cycling, and swimming.

The icons would be combined with a number representing the number of minutes you would need to spend doing that activity to burn off the calories in the food or drink item.

Examples helpfully provided by the Daily Mail include:

  • an apple (93 calories) – this would take 21 minutes of brisk walking or 13 minutes of running to burn off
  • a can of Coca-Cola (139 calories) – this would take 32 minutes of brisk walking or 20 minutes of running to burn off
  • a 48g Snickers bar (245 calories) – this would take 56 minutes of brisk walking or 35 minutes of running to burn off
  • a 50g bowl of cornflakes served with semi-skimmed milk (263 calories) – this would take an hour of brisk walking to burn off

Cramer makes an intriguing case that such a scheme would offer the public a carrot rather than a stick: “The public is used to being told to avoid particular drinks and to cut down on specific foods. By contrast, activity labelling encourages people to start something, rather than calling for them to stop.”

Could the scheme be introduced?

Currently, legislation regarding the mandatory labelling of food and drink is decided at the European level.

Even if there was a political will and the food and drink industry was on board, it would probably take several years for such a scheme to come into place. And that is a very big if.

There is the possibility that some forward-thinking manufacturers might adopt the scheme on a voluntary basis. If the scheme proves popular with the public, it could also boost their sales and so be a possible win-win.

Can chocolate make you smarter?

“Chocolate makes you smarter, proves 40-year study,” claims the Daily Express. The news is based on research which found that people who ate chocolate at least once a week performed better in brain tests.

Researchers in the US looked at whether eating chocolate regularly – regardless of the type of chocolate or the amount – was linked to brain function, in about 1,000 participants.

They found that people who said they ate chocolate at least once a week performed better in a range of mental tests involving memory and abstract thinking (among other functions), compared to those who rarely or never ate chocolate.

Lead researcher Georgina Crichton was quoted in the media as saying that the benefits of this would make someone better at daily tasks, “such as remembering a phone number, or your shopping list, or being able to do two things at once, like talking and driving at the same time”.

The researchers said their results suggest that the “regular intake of cocoa flavanols may have a beneficial effect on cognitive function”.

There have been plenty of studies in recent years looking at the possible health benefits of chocolate, including preventing heart disease and stroke, and improving brain function.

Due to the nature of the study, researchers admit they are unable to say whether the chocolate was responsible for the improved performance in the tests. Plenty of other factors could have been involved.

Before getting too carried away with the supposed health benefits of chocolate, it’s worth remembering that chocolate also contains lots of sugar and fat, so should only be eaten in moderation.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of South Australia, the University of Maine and the Luxembourg Institute of Health, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Appetite and is free to read online.

The study received widespread and mostly uncritical coverage by the UK media. The Independent and Daily Express both said that the study gave “proof” that chocolate made people more intelligent, while The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mirror said chocolate “can make you smarter”.

However, The Guardian took a more sceptical approach, saying the results were “very vague” and taking the opportunity to question other health claims made for chocolate.

What kind of research was this?

This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from a big cohort study, which follows people through time. However, in this case, the researchers used data from just one time point, giving a “snapshot” of people’s diet and brain function tests.

Studies like this can point to links between factors, but cannot demonstrate cause and effect. For example, it could be that chocolate makes people clever – or that clever people tend to eat more chocolate.

What did the research involve?

Researchers looked at the data from about 1,000 people taking part in a US cohort study (the Maine-Syracuse Longitudinal Study, MSLS) which was set up to examine cardiovascular risk factors and brain function in community-dwelling adults. As part of this study, participants filled in food questionnaires and undertook brain function tests from 2001 to 2006.

The researchers adjusted the figures to take account of factors that could skew the results, including people’s education level, age, cardiovascular risk factors, and overall diet. They then looked to see whether brain test results varied according to how often people said they ate chocolate.

They excluded people with dementia, a history of stroke and past problems with alcohol use. While the main analysis of 968 people was based on one-off data for each individual, they also looked at data from a sub-group of 333 people who had taken intelligence tests in the past, before providing dietary information. They wanted to see whether intelligence scores could predict whether or not people said they ate chocolate frequently.

People in the study underwent brain function tests in six main areas:

  • visual-spatial memory and organisation
  • scanning and tracking
  • ability to remember spoken information, such as a story or a list
  • working memory
  • similarities test (to assess abstract reasoning)
  • mini-mental state exam

The researchers combined the first five to create an overall score.

The researchers took account of a few variables that could affect the results – such as people’s education level, age, sex, overall diet and cardiovascular risk.

What were the basic results?

After adjusting their figures for confounding factors, the researchers found that better-than-average scores on five of the brain function area tests, and the overall score, were linked to eating chocolate more often (at least once a week compared to rarely or never). Tests of verbal memory showed no link to chocolate consumption.

Eating chocolate once a week, or more than once a week, was also linked to above-average test results, compared to eating it less than once a week. However, it’s not clear whether eating chocolate more than once a week was linked to better test results than eating it weekly.

When the researchers looked at the subgroup of people who’d had intelligence tests in the years before the dietary questionnaire, they found that intelligence scores did not predict whether or not people ate chocolate.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers said their results, along with those of other short-term studies, suggest that, “regular intake of cocoa flavanols may have a beneficial effect on cognitive function, and possibly protect against normal age-related cognitive decline.”

They add that people will need to strike a balance between the supposed health benefits of eating chocolate and its high-calorie content.


Studies suggesting that chocolate is good for us always grab the headlines. However, as is so often the case, the reality is less clear than the headlines suggest.

The current study adds to information about the links between diet and brain function – the way our brain processes and manages information.

It found that people who scored better than average on these tests said they ate chocolate more often than people who scored worse than average on the tests. But we don’t know why that is.

There are quite a few limitations to the study. It’s cross-sectional, which means we don’t know which came first: the chocolate habit or the better brain function scores. It only shows us results from one snapshot in time.

There are many factors that are hard to account for that could affect how much chocolate you eat, and how well you do on brain function tests – for example, the family you grew up in. We can’t be sure chocolate was the only factor that mattered. We also don’t know how much chocolate people ate (only how often they ate it) or what type – whether it was dark, milk or white chocolate.

It’s not easy to do good-quality, long-term studies into the effects of diet on health or intelligence, but we need to see much more, and better, long-term research before we can conclude that chocolate makes you smarter.

And even if cocoa flavanols do have some benefits, it’s worth remembering that chocolate also contains lots of fat and sugar, which can contribute to obesity.

Early exposure to peanuts ‘cuts allergy risk in children’

“The effects of eating peanut products as a baby to avoid the risk of allergy have been backed up by new research,” BBC News reports. A new study suggests eating peanut snacks in the first year of life reduces the risk of a nut allergy in children.

The study reported results from 550 children who completed a trial where they were given either a peanut snack or told to avoid peanut products. During follow-up, all of the children were asked to avoid peanuts for a year.

Children who avoided peanuts as part of the trial were more likely to have a peanut allergy at six years old (18.6%) than the children who ate the peanut snack (4.8%).

The proportion of children in the peanut snack group who developed a peanut allergy was similar when they completed the trial (3.6% at age five) and a year later (4.8% at age six).

This suggests the protection built up from their exposure to peanuts was maintained, even if peanut products were avoided for a year.

These findings show promise, but it is unknown how long the effects last. Children who already have another allergy, such as eczema, or have a history of allergy in their immediate family, are at greater risk of developing a peanut allergy.

Current advice states that if your child falls into this group, you should talk to your GP before you give them peanuts for the first time.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital Trust, the University of Southampton, and the University of California.

Funding was provided by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, Food Allergy Research and Education, the Medical Research Council and Asthma UK Centre, and the UK Department of Health.

The clinical trials unit was supported by the National Peanut Board, and the Food Standards Agency provided some funding for taking blood samples.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine on an open access basis, so you can read it for free online.

The study has been reported accurately by the BBC, who warned that further studies are needed to see if the effect lasts longer than the 12 months tested in this study.

What kind of research was this?

This was a follow-up study of a randomised controlled trial testing the effect of giving products containing peanuts to children who are at a high risk of allergy in early life. The original results of this trial were reported by Behind the Headlines in February 2015.

This study aimed to investigate whether the rate of peanut allergy stayed low in the group who ate peanut products, compared with those who had not. The aim was to see if results corresponded to the original trial, even after the peanut group stopped eating peanut products.

What did the research involve?

This study followed up children at high risk of allergy who had completed a previous UK-based randomised controlled trial.

The children were under a year old when the trial started, and were at high risk of peanut allergy because they had severe eczema or egg allergy, or both.

They were tested before the start of the trial to make sure they did not already have a peanut allergy.

The children were randomly assigned to either avoid peanuts or eat peanuts in the form of a smooth peanut mixture until the age of five, at which time they were tested for peanut allergy.

During this follow-up study, the researchers asked all the children to avoid peanuts for 12 months, after which time they tested the children who had not shown signs of peanut allergy before to see if they had developed a peanut allergy.

This was done by giving them a small amount of peanut protein while they were closely observed by the researchers to see if they showed any signs of an allergic reaction.

Researchers measured to what extent the children had avoided peanuts using a questionnaire that assessed how often they ate various foods, including peanuts and products that contained peanuts. Parents regularly filled this questionnaire out.

The researchers also took dust samples from children’s beds, which were measured for peanut protein levels and used as an independent sign of peanut consumption.

The researchers performed two separate analyses of the participants:

  • The first looked at all participants in the follow-up study who were tested for a peanut allergy outcome, regardless of whether they had successfully avoided peanuts or not (intention to treat).
  • The second looked at all participants who successfully avoided peanuts for 12 months (per protocol analysis).

Avoidance was judged to be sufficiently successful if all three of the following criteria were met during the year:

  1. The child ate 2g or less of peanut on no more than six occasions.
  2. The child ate 1g of peanut or less on no more than 12 occasions.
  3. The child ate no more than 18g of peanut in total.

What were the basic results?

The researchers included 550 participants for whom they had complete data.

The intention to treat analysis found the proportion of children with peanut allergy at the age of six was significantly higher in the peanut avoidance group (18.6%) than the consumption group (4.8%).

Although the proportion of children in the trial’s peanut-consuming group who had peanut allergy increased slightly between the end of the original trial (when 3.6% had peanut allergy) and the end of the follow-up year (when 4.8% had peanut allergy), this difference was not large enough to say that it had not occurred by chance.

It therefore wasn’t deemed statistically significant. This means the early exposure to peanuts still appeared to be protecting the children from developing an allergy.

Similar findings were seen for the 445 children (80%) who adequately stuck to avoiding peanuts.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that, “Among children at high risk for allergy in whom peanuts had been introduced in the first year of life and continued until five years of age, a 12-month period of peanut avoidance was not associated with an increase in the prevalence of peanut allergy. Longer term effects are not known.”


This was a follow-up study of a well-designed randomised controlled trial. The original study found the early introduction of regular small amounts of peanut protein to infants at high risk of having peanut allergy reduced the proportion that developed a peanut allergy by the age of five, compared with avoiding peanuts completely.

The latest study found that even if the children who had been exposed to peanuts then avoided them for 12 months, this did not significantly increase their likelihood of developing a peanut allergy.

Strengths of the study include the use of objective tests to determine how well the children managed to avoid peanuts, as well as a questionnaire.

The group who avoided peanuts during the trial were better at avoiding them during follow-up, and this may affect the findings for the overall comparison. However, the researchers got similar results if they only looked at the children who adequately avoided peanuts.

The study has shown that the protection built up from the initial early exposure can be sustained, even if peanut products are avoided for a year. How long these effects would last beyond this time is not known.

While these findings show promise for children at high risk of peanut allergy, it is not advisable to try this if you think your child is likely to develop a peanut allergy. The children trialled were closely monitored by researchers to ensure they were safe.

Children who already have another allergy, such as eczema or a diagnosed food allergy, or have a history of allergy in their immediate family, such as asthma, eczema or hay fever, are at greater risk of developing a peanut allergy.

If your child falls into this group, you should talk to your GP or health visitor before you give them peanuts or food containing peanuts for the first time.

Warning signs of a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) include:

  • itchy skin or a raised, red skin rash
  • swollen eyes, lips, hands and feet
  • feeling lightheaded or faint
  • swelling of the mouth, throat or tongue, which can cause breathing and swallowing difficulties
  • wheezing
  • abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting
  • collapse and unconsciousness