Student Life
A plate for everyone: Food restrictions at formals
Having a hazelnut allergy is one of the most oddly inconvenient afflictions. Beyond the typical teasing for being an adult with a nut allergy, I’ve found that it is not even a particularly relevant allergy to have. Hazelnuts are not as ubiquitous as dairy or gluten. Nor are they rare, appearing just often enough, unpredictably, to demand constant vigilance. At Oxford, this vigilance surrounding hazelnuts is especially present at formal hall.
I am not alone. Food allergy diagnoses in the UK have doubled in a decade, as have hospital admissions for severe allergic reactions in the last twenty years.
Formal is one of Oxford’s most cherished rituals: a carefully choreographed, multi-course dinner where students don oversized gowns (though absent at some of the more progressive colleges), Latin grace is mumbled with varying degrees of confidence, and candlelight flickers beneath the watchful gaze of portraits whose subjects might seem faintly disapproving of your conversation. Yet, for those with food allergies or dietary restrictions, the theatrical excitement of attending a formal can be overshadowed by the anxiety and pre-planned negotiation that our presence demands.
If you have never had a dietary restriction, you have probably never given much thought to what happens after you submit one. For those of us who have, it is something we think about every time we attend a formal.
Dietary restrictions must be submitted in advance. Sometimes via a dining portal, sometimes by email, and sometimes just by tracking down the right person. The processes of submitting dietary information, nor the accommodations offered, are standardised across colleges.
As a student with an allergy, the accurate communication of that information is not a minor administrative detail – it is a matter of safety and belonging. Recently, I found myself curious about the behind-the-scenes process: how colleges receive dietary information, where and how it travels, and what care is taken to ensure that, by the time a plate lands in front of you, it is the right one.
Behind the scenes
Alicia Gardiner, Events & Bookings Systems Manager for Kellogg College, shared that their system begins long before any student sets foot in the dining hall. Guests book and pay for formals through UPay, a platform which many – but not all – Oxford colleges use. The dietary requirements section on Kellogg’s UPay is mandatory to complete the booking. Diners must either specify a restriction or explicitly state that they have none before they can complete the booking.
According to Alicia, this small design choice has transformed the process. “If you were talking to me two years ago when I could not make that box mandatory, I found it much more stressful”, she said. Previously, guests would click past the field and then email at the last minute with a sudden recollection of a shellfish allergy or a newly observed Lent.
From there, the process is an exercise in mindful redundancy. Two weeks before a dinner, Kellogg sends a confirmation email inviting students to update guest names or dietary requirements if needed. A few days before the meal, Alicia pulls a booking report and compiles a dietary requirement spreadsheet, which she shares with the kitchen and restaurant teams.
It is the next step that distinguishes Kellogg’s system from other colleges: they use pre-assigned seating, plotted in a program called Perfect Table Plan.
As Alicia explained: “It’s really easy to make mistakes if you don’t know where people are sitting in advance.”
Each diner with a dietary requirement is marked on the table with a colour-coded dot, signalling a different requirement to the service team. The diner’s place card will feature the dot but will not outwardly indicate the specific restriction a student has. As Alicia explained, dietary information is treated as personal information, and Kellogg has deliberately chosen not to publicise it. For example, pregnant guests may not want a card announcing this in front of their plate.
For guest night formals, the restaurant manager designates what Alicia calls an “allergy champion” – a member of the service team responsible for every guest with a dietary requirement that evening. While the rest of the team serves the standard courses, the allergy champion moves through the hall with the seating plan in hand, locating each coloured dot, and delivering the correct plate to the right person.
On any given formal evening, Alicia estimates that somewhere between 10 and 30% of guests will have some form of dietary restriction. Some are simple, some are complex. Alicia recalled one diner who submitted a three-page Word document detailing her restrictions. However complex the requirement, Alicia was proud to share that no one leaves the hall without the right meal.
Sarah Davidson, the Communications and Events Manager at Reuben College, explained that Reuben College operates on a similar system: guests register online, dietary information is compiled into a shared spreadsheet, and place cards are marked with a yellow dot to flag modifications. The specific restriction is also noted on the place card. The key difference is seating. At Reuben, students choose their own seats on the day of the formal. As such, events staff make note at the start of each formal of where any guest with a modification is sitting, so that the kitchen can ensure they receive the correct plate.
Sarah shared that her team is receptive to changing procedures to better accommodate the needs of any student. “If a student raises something, an issue from their side, we will see what we can do.” One change her team is currently considering concerns the place cards themselves: “We are looking into whether on the place card, we put the dietary restrictions only on the side facing the student [with the restriction].” This would make the information not visible to the person across from the student, as it currently is. The team is considering this not because students have raised it as a concern, but as a proactive measure to further improve the experience of those with dietary restrictions.
Of the kitchen’s ability to meet whatever request comes through, Sarah was confident: “I’ve seen a whole range of different dietary requirements or dietary preferences, and they’ve [the kitchen] never not been able to accommodate those.”
Richard Murphy, Catering Services Manager at Exeter College, echoed the value of UPay as an organising tool. “UPay is really good. Probably about half the colleges use it”, he noted. “As far as dietary requirements and allergies [it] does a lot of the work for us.” Exeter uses a free-text box for more unusual or complex requirements – Richard used a celery allergy as an example. This ensures that nothing falls through the cracks for students with less common restrictions.
When a student with a restriction arrives at formal at Exeter, their requirements are flagged automatically by the UPay system upon check-in, and they collect a ‘dietary card’ from the Hall supervisor. On most evenings, the system runs effectively from here. “If something does happen on the night of, we can then adjust.” Richard explained that this might look like a student clicking the wrong allergen box or misreading a menu. He notes, however, that this is rare.
Richard closed by stating: “The main point is that as long as students are upfront and honest about their requirements, most things can be achieved.”
At Queen’s College, Sean Ducie, Head Chef, shared that “accommodating dietary requirements is a major priority for us, and we work hard to ensure that our formal hall menus are inclusive, safe, and enjoyable for all students.”
At the menu design stage itself, the College takes a proactive approach. Sean explained: “When designing our menus, we focus on seasonal, local produce, and work closely with Good Food Oxfordshire and OxFarmtoFork to bring in produce directly from market gardens and small city farms. This allows us to offer fresh, diverse dishes while supporting local growers,” Sean noted, “alongside this, we aim to keep menus as naturally low‑allergen as possible.” The goal, he added, is to provide “an allergen‑free version of a dish that feels as close as possible to the original, so that no student feels like their meal is an afterthought.”
The other side of the place card
The systems colleges put in place tell part of the story. The students with yellow dots on their place cards tell the rest.
Psychologists and allergists have identified two primary types of anxiety that food allergy sufferers experience: anxiety about eating the allergen, and anxiety related to the social experience of having one. In the highly ritualised and formalised context of an Oxford formal, these pressures are amplified. Questioning a server mid-course can draw attention and disrupt the choreography of a meal. The anxiety is not merely about what is on the plate, but about what it means to be the one to have to ask.
Green Templeton College is frequently described as having one of Oxford’s best (and most expensive) formals. That cost, some students argue, buys a more considered approach to dietary accommodations.
During Michaelmas term, I was surprised to receive an email from Green Templeton’s dining staff asking me to clarify which nuts I could eat, as chestnuts were on the menu for a Christmas formal I was attending. The gesture was small, but it surprised me. It did not feel like an exercise in compliance. Instead, I felt confident that someone had actually read what I had submitted and taken the time to respond with care and precision. When I walked into the formal, I was confident that I could enjoy good food and company without anxiety or embarrassment.
Nandini, a vegetarian student at Green Templeton, found the college’s approach to accommodations generally impressive. She told Cherwell: “I genuinely find the vegetarian food at Green Templeton better than other colleges. For formals, since the expectation is just to have a nice meal, which doesn’t necessarily have to be healthy, I am usually more satisfied.”
Not all experiences at Green Templeton were as encouraging. Alina, a student who observes a halal diet, told Cherwell: “At Green Templeton, I’d say it’s pretty disappointing. I always put down halal, but normally get served a vegetarian meal, presumably that’s what happens if they aren’t going to do halal on a specific day. The only time I’ve had halal at Green Templeton is on a special guest night.”
Alina had a further concern: “I was served a vegetarian meal once, which the menu said had alcohol in it, which Muslims can’t have either. After a bit of back and forth, they confirmed that the version they served me was vegetarian and non-alcoholic, but that was a bit of a panic for me.”
Trinity College has also been reported as accommodating. Heewoon, a student at Trinity who does not eat fish, told Cherwell: “My college is very respectful about dietary requirements compared to other colleges, with multiple options.”
Abdullah, a Trinity student who observes a halal diet, told Cherwell his experience dining at Trinity has been “thoroughly pleasant,” praising the consistency, variety, and quality of halal options. He noted that even the vegan options proved generally agreeable, adding: “Trinity College strives to be inclusive of all students enrolled here. As a natural extension of that ethos, the dining experience reflects this commitment.”
At Balliol College, Alina found that although the alternative offered was a convincing vegan recreation of the meat dish served to others, the service itself revealed the system’s imperfections. After some initial confusion over which plate was hers, a server returned to confirm the dish was halal. Reflecting on the experience, Alina told Cherwell: “It was probably a reminder for them to pay a little more attention while they’re serving.”
At Cambridge, Hannah Mawardi, a student at Pembroke College writing for Varsity in 2024, recounted being served sesame – her allergen – three times, despite notifying catering staff of her serious allergy. The third incident ended with her in A&E, still donning her gown. She noted that she had later learned that catering had received the wrong dietary information entirely.
Whether at Oxford or Cambridge, the safety of participating in formal hall depends on the accurate communication of dietary requirements across multiple levels: when that transmission falters, the consequences can be life-threatening.
The small print
When contacted for comment, the University of Oxford stated that food allergy policies are set by the respective colleges rather than centrally and, therefore, the University does not provide university-wide guidance.
Natasha’s Law requires UK businesses to label or inform customers about the top 14 allergens, and all Oxford colleges must adhere to this legislation. This information is often on clear display at lunches and in buffet formats, but can be harder to trace at formal hall, where menus are not always distributed in advance – especially not to guests from outside the college.
Practical challenges compound this uncertainty. At colleges without assigned formal seating, students with allergies and dietary restrictions are often given simple place cards on arrival to place near their plate, indicating their needs. In theory, it is a simple system; in practice, when servers move quickly through a candlelit hall, plates arrive with little explanation. It can be remarkably difficult to tell whether the dish that has landed in front of you has been modified to your needs or is simply the standard meal.
A seat at the table
Some colleges are rising to this challenge: consider Kellogg’s allergy champions, Reuben’s proactive problem-solving, Green Templeton’s thoughtful emails, and Trinity’s consistent halal options. These are not novel innovations, but they make a real difference to diners with dietary restrictions. With food allergy policy set at college level, the problem is that such practices are not always shared or standardised.
Food is more than just sustenance. It is connection. It is culture. At Oxford, it is a central part of student social life. Inclusion does not end at being allowed into the hall. It requires that, once inside, every student has the same opportunity to participate. For students with food allergies and restrictions like myself, this principle is tested three courses at a time.
Student Life
St Edmund Hall unveils new eco-friendly accommodation
St Edmund Hall has opened new, sustainability-focused accommodation in Norham Gardens, one of Oxford’s most affluent neighbourhoods.
The College describes the buildings, which took three years to construct, as an “exemplar” of sustainability. Designed by architects Wright & Wright LLP, they are certified with a Passivhaus standard, widely regarded as the industry benchmark for energy efficiency, and were built using “sustainably sourced and low-embodied carbon materials”. According to a press release on the Teddy Hall website, the buildings will use 70% less energy than the typical modern building.
It contains 127 en-suite study rooms, split across three new buildings: Willis House, Ashton House, and Elliott House, on the nearly 50-year-old Norham St Edmund site. The buildings, which back onto University Parks, are powered at least in part by solar panels and are heated by air-source heat pumps.
The rooms include heated towel racks, big double beds, and dimmable lights. Despite the luxury, the College kept the nightly rate in line with the rest of its Norham housing. The College told Cherwell that it “recognises the need to keep rents as low as possible” and that its accommodation costs are “below the median of all Oxford colleges”. By that standard, tenants are expected to pay around £30 a night.
Rooms on the site will be reserved for Teddy Hall returning undergraduates. They will not be available to postgraduates and, by extension, not be offered through the Oxford University Collegiate Accommodation System, now in its second year of opening college rooms to students from other colleges. The accommodation will allow Teddy Hall to accommodate all undergraduates for their whole degree.
The development’s outdoor spaces are boasted as climate-resilient and biodiverse, with landscaped gardens and lawns. For budding geographers and biologists, the most intriguing feature may be an ecology pond.
Chancellor William Hague said in a press release: “Norham St Edmund is a world-leading blueprint for future student accommodation projects and sustainable building design, both in Oxford and beyond. I look forward to seeing it serve a thriving college community for generations to come.
Student Life
Summit calls for human rights safeguards on AI
Human rights experts called for stronger legal protections against the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) at an Oxford AI and Human Rights Summit, with speakers arguing that human rights standards must be embedded into AI governance and technology.
The summit was hosted at the newly redeveloped Rhodes House in Oxford and organised by the Institute for Ethics in AI. It built upon Professor Yuval Shany’s consultation on a white paper, published in 2025, on the need for and feasibility of an international AI Bill of Human Rights, which proposes ways to adapt existing human rights standards so as to better address some of the unique challenges posed by AI systems and their uses.
An opening video address from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk outlined how AI policy can keep pace with a fast-developing technology. He said that “great power demands responsibility on the same scale, and when the two don’t match, we have a problem”. Corporate control, he explained, means that AI policy stretches beyond existing national borders. He continued to praise this summit for bringing together leaders and representatives at the forefront of the discussion.
Speakers called on the UK government to establish legislation, recalling Labour’s manifesto commitment to an AI Bill of Human Rights. The panellists broadly agreed on the importance of human rights, but appeared less aligned on what enforcement should look like in practice.
In an exclusive interview, Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, told Cherwell that political short-termism Continued on pg. 2 risks undermining efforts to address the long-term consequences of AI. “We are infected across our societies with shorttermist responses to the great issue of our societies and politics,” he said, adding that electoral cycles make it difficult for politicians “to think beyond the next election”.
O’Flaherty also noted that younger generations no longer take the international human rights system for granted. “There is no longer an assumption that the human rights system is safe, that it will survive,” he told Cherwell. He argued that political leaders increasingly treat human rights selectively, saying: “Increasingly, leaders are treating human rights, if they are respected at all, as an a la carte buffet. We take those rights because they serve our goal. We’ll ignore others because they get in the way.
The summit also heard concerns about the effects of AI-generated misinformation on communities that may have limited access to, or awareness of, the technology itself. An audience question asked human rights experts to consider the impacts of AI on populations, such as those in India, who might be unaware of its existence. The focus on the impact of AI on populations in developing countries more vulnerable to the power of big tech was a key theme of the summit.
Eileen Carter from the South African Human Rights Commission warned that underrepresentation of African languages in large language models could exacerbate existing inequalities. She also raised concerns about the effects of misinformation and deepfakes on elections, referring to more than 360 deaths associated with unrest and the amplification of narratives.
The third panel, which offered a civil society perspective on promoting human rights in AI systems, offered some hope. Across all speakers, the potential for AI to transform the beliefs that underpin human rights, including the rights to water, education, and an interpreter, was debated. When asked about AI’s potential to unravel and alter the definition of human rights, such as what is included in the ‘right to education’ O’Flaherty told Cherwell: “The damage that can be done by AI has hit more dramatically and more visibly than perhaps any other sector within education through the phenomenon of cognitive loss, of cognitive transfer. We’re only beginning to realise the extent to which we have allowed education to be fundamentally undermined for an entire generation.
“It’s time to seize that now and engage it. I’m not sure that the classic understanding of the human right to education is particularly well-framed for this extraordinary development.”
In a discussion on different countries’ regulatory approach to AI, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, professor at Brown University and former AI advisor to US President Joe Biden, argued that AI systems should not be treated as inevitable developments beyond human control. “We continue, I think, to talk about AI as a thing that emerged out of nowhere that we just have to deal with,” he said. “We forget that these aren’t coming from an alien planet and they were built by entities that choose to build them in a certain way.” He called for pressure on technology companies to make different choices about how AI systems are developed.
Questions of accountability also emerged during discussions about AI’s potential to improve access to justice. Research presented by Philippa Webb said that only 10% of people who have access to a lawyer can get one while there are thousands of bookings for an interpreter in a court covering 150 languages. However, this progress is not cemented as “general-purpose chatbots hallucinate 58% of the time on a legal task”. The use of AI in moderating legal proceedings raised fundamental questions about humanity and authority. Thompson Chengeta from Liverpool John Moores University said that “human rights is the last line of defence so when we say we want a human rights based governance… human rights is not an idea, it is an obligation. There is a gap that can only be recovered by a legally binding instrument”.
The event culminated in a panel offering an industry perspective. Co-host Dr Caroline Emmer De Albuquerque Green questioned representatives from Meta, Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI. Michael Karimian, who works in digital diplomacy at Microsoft, discussed the role of private sectors in engaging with AI, defining corporate responsibility as something which “provides transparency and identified risks”.
All companies supported having formal programmes to ensure that they have an AI policy in place. Within their own companies, they suggested protective measures such as specialised training to ensure that policies, such as whistleblowing, are understood. Alexandria Walden from Google described how consultations with stakeholders could be used to identify when the product breached users’ boundaries. These assessments, according to OpenAI’s spokesperson, “feedback into tangible technical input” and “benchmark it”.
Fundamentally, understanding the rationale behind human rights is imperative, though lacking. Alexandria Walden from Google said: “Whether or not they understand human rights, they care enough to infuse it in their company… we might not always get it right, but it is something we care about.”
Where former panels discussed controls to ensure human rights are considered in the development and implementation of AI products, this panel focused on mitigation. A spokesperson from Google pointed out that technology is inevitably going to move faster, so multiple tools are needed. Companies, OpenAI’s representative noted, still encounter issues such as discrimination and free speech. Consequently, they regard this as an additional policy which companies have a structured model to deal with, but newer companies, and newer industries, haven’t learnt it yet.
In her concluding remarks, Green called for policy makers to “make the abstract actionable” at both governmental and corporate levels. She argued that, by framing the issues posed by AI as human rights issues, we gain a “foundation” for recognising AI’s many societal impacts.
Student Life
Oxford University launches Ebola vaccine trial in Uganda
Ugandan participants in a clinical safety study received an Oxford developed Ebola vaccine this week.
Researchers vaccinated the first participants on 6th October in Masaka, Uganda. The phase follows the launch of a first-in-human Phase I trial in the UK evaluating the same vaccine candidate.
They received the vaccine as part of an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a ChAdOx-based Bundibugyo Ebola vaccine candidate developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG) and the Pandemic Sciences Institute at the University of Oxford.
Development for this vaccine began in May this year in response to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The research, led by OVG’s Professor Teresa Lambe and Professor Simon Drysdale, is funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). No licenced vaccine for the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola virus currently exists.
In a statement to Cherwell, OVG said its involvement includes collaborating with the Ugandan research team to support “the study’s scientific design, clinical trial coordination, safety oversight, and evaluation of vaccine safety and immunogenicity”. The Phase I clinical trial addresses a rare strain of Ebola virus affecting communities in the DRC since May. The phase is a collaboration between the Medical Research Council/ Uganda Virus Research Institute and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).
Dr Nicole Lurie, CEPI’s Executive Director for Emergency Preparedness and Response, told Cherwell: “It [the Bundibugyo outbreak] remains the fastest-growing and second-largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded – and we currently remain without a licensed vaccine or treatment.” The Bundibugyo Ebola epidemic in the DRC has surpassed 8,600 cases, with almost half of infections proving fatal.
The outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in May.
OVG told Cherwell: “For more than a decade, the University of Oxford has performed many clinical trials of candidate viral-vectored vaccines. Some of the most promising vaccines used a modified chimpanzee adenovirus, a harmless version of a common cold virus. The Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) COVID-19 vaccine was approved for emergency use in the UK in December 2020 and was estimated to have saved six million lives during 2021 alone, and over 3 billion doses were used worldwide.” The adenovirus vector vaccine technology trialled in this study was successfully used worldwide as part of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
More funding is necessary to ensure the development and approval of the Ebola vaccine. Lurie told Cherwell: “Without sufficient additional funding, we are at risk of not being able to develop these promising vaccine candidates… CEPI urgently needs US$128M now to keep our Bundibugyo emergency R&D response moving. Without it, we are putting the DRC, and the world, at tremendous risk.”
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoChris Gunter steps away Wales role to focus on Oxford United
-
Oxford University3 weeks agoNew to the Oxford English Dictionary this September
-
Oxford united FC1 week agoLIVE: Exeter City vs Oxford United – Jersey Mike's Trophy group stage
-
Student Life3 weeks agoOxford partnership allows OpenAI to use rare Bodleian texts to train ChatGPT
-
Traffic & Transport2 weeks agoHow poor public transport policy is putting the brake on cities | Road transport
-
Traffic & Transport2 weeks agoWhy should I have to pay more for buses if I don’t use a smartphone? | Bus fares
-
Oxford united FC2 weeks agoNorthern Ireland fans laud Oxford United defender Ciaron Brown
-
Oxford Events4 weeks agoFour days of equestrian spectacle at 2026 Blenheim Palace International Horse Trials
