Profile: antanagoge
This is antanagoge's Profile page. Use it to view antanagoge's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments antanagoge has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
Thank you for your comments Antanagoge. The rights discussion is an important one when trying to evaluate public policy. If there are any other areas of the DOT proposal you think would benefit from a clarification of the rights issue, or the lack thereof, please comment on those issues as well.
Hi again, Antanagoge, and thanks for providing a link to that study. Is it possible to post the entire article as well, or is that unavailable? Also, while we truly appreciate your interest in the peanut allergen regulation, if you have comments on one of the other proposed regulations, I’m sure the community would appreciate hearing from you.
Not only is there no supporting data for these claims, the claims are from 2006. It takes more than blind recitation of numbers to make a case.
You’re the one who seems to be partisan. Instead of thinking logically about it, you try to deflect blame for your misguided apprehension onto others by insinuating they have a compulsion.
Serving and eating peanuts is not a public health menace, so you need to get over it. Instead of conflating the possible with the inevitable, you should focus on the reality, which is that the possibility is extremely small. You’re more likely to die from getting hit by a car crossing the street, yet you’re not advocating we ban driving. That’s being a hypocrite.
There’s no double standard at all. You and many others cling to worst-case scenario thinking; whereby you imagine the worst possible outcome and act as if it’s a certainty. Nothing could be more delusional than that.
No deaths due to anaphylactic shock caused by exposure to peanuts on-board an airliner have been reported in this country, so the possibility that it would happen remains infinitesimally small, though you would rather have everyone believe it’s certain to happen if peanuts are served by airlines.
Facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that you’re more likely to be hit and killed by a car on any given day, but neither you nor anyone else is advocating that we ban automobiles or driving. Allergies to peanuts or tree nuts are not increasing; there is… more »
Contrary to your claim, exposure to peanuts is not more likely to cause anaphylactic shock; it MAY cause that reaction in the worst sufferers. People with that condition know it and need to take responsibility for their condition when traveling by any means, including medication to prevent or reduce the severity of any reaction, face masks, and Epi-pens. If they won’t do that, then they deserve whatever consequences come from their own negligence. It is not society’s responsibility to be burdened with their condition.
Even if peanuts could be banned from airliners, that would not remove the risk, since peanut dust, oils, and parts are already embedded in the aircraft, even though you can’t see it. « less
It seems that Antanagoge is one with ad hominem attacks and false statements. Nobody said the aircraft or the air was pristine; it is much cleaner than most public buildings. That doesn’t preclude the fact that peanuts and their remnants are already embedded in the various nooks and crannies of the aircraft and the seat fabrics.
The only people who seem to be “digging in their heels” are those who think that life can and should be risk free. That’s a delusional state of mind. Facts are facts and you can’t change them, even though you’d like to do that, and ignore them.
Nobody has died on-board a U.S. airliner from anaphylaxis brought on by peanut allergies, yet you would have everyone believe that such a fate is certain for everyone who has the potential… more »
There is no snack that would satisfy everyone with a food allergy; The top 8 food allergens are not the only ones, so the only true solution would be to ban all food or snacks on all flights.
Instead of living in your fantasy world of no risk, learn to take responsibility for your condition, like most of the population. If you’re unwilling to do that, don’t expect anyone else to do it for you. « less
Once again, Antanagoge misrepresents the facts. Allergies are not considered a disability. If they were, the entire population would qualify as disabled.
Since nobody has died on a U.S. airline from an allergy to peanuts or tree nuts, it is safe and accurate to say that the risk is extremely small. Even smaller is the risk that the plane would crash, yet people like Antanagoge aren’t proposing that we ban air travel due to that possibility. That’s the definition of a hypocrite.
Peanut do not pose any direct threat to the health or safety of anyone, and there has been no increase in peanut allergies, despite what Ananagoge and groups such as FAAN would like everyone to believe.
People with peanut allergies are responsible for their own well-being. That means taking Benadryl before… more »
If you choose to live your life in fear over imagined risks, you’ve already given up your right to travel anywhere, by any means. « less
What, exactly, are the results of peer-reviewed research on the incidence and severity of peanut allergies? Hourihane et al (1997. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Vol 100, p 596-600) conducted a gold-standard test (double blind, placebo controlled food challenge) with varying doses of peanut flour – on people previously identified as having strong peanut allergies. The results were ambiguous: some folks reacted with higher does (consistent with ingesting peanut products); none reacted at very low doses; some self-reported reactions to placebos (which they shouldn’t); and some known to have peanut allergies reported no reaction to high peanut doses. In another paper, (British Medical Journal 1997) the same author found that peanut oil poses little risk to patients with… more »
Your argument is a strawman. Nobody is advocating funerals; you’re just trying to deflect attention away from the issue, which is that there is no real risk to peanut allergy sufferers. And there is no scientific evidence to support your argument. You can’t even cite the studies you claim exist, because they don’t exist.
The only mean spirited people are those like yourself, who want to trample the rights of the majority for a non-existent risk that affects a very small number of people. This has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S. at all.
Obviously I don’t want anyone to die. With all the hysteria being spouted by you and others, it seems like this board should be full of heartbreaking tales of dead loved ones. I was simply making the point that those tales are not here because it hasn’t happened, because THERE IS NO RISK!
Thank you for your common sense, reason and logic. I certainly won’t ante up my peanut allergic child as sacrificial proof that banning peanuts on flights is a simpler solution than emergency landings and potential funerals.
Occam’s razor – the simplest solution is usually the correct or most effective one.
Again, my sincerest thanks for your well made comments.
No comments
Prevalence information as reported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases –
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/foodallergy/understanding/pages/quickfacts.aspx:
•Food allergy occurs in 6 to 8 percent of children 4 years of age or under, and in 3.7 percent of adults.
•Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts in the general population is, respectively, 0.6 percent and 0.4 percent, with the rate in children under age 18 (0.8 percent and 0.2 percent) slightly different from adults (0.6 percent and 0.5 percent respectively). These two foods are the leading causes of fatal and near fatal food-allergic reactions.
•In spite of attempts to avoid allergenic foods, accidental exposures… more »
•In the United States, there are approximately 30,000 episodes of food-induced anaphylaxis, associated with 100 to 200 deaths; most deaths occur in adolescents and young adults.
•Food allergy is the most frequent single cause of emergency room visits for anaphylaxis and accounts for 34 to 52 percent of these visits.
« less
Mulder’s statement is both mean-spirited and inaccurate. There is currently NO safe effective desensitization for peanut allergy (or any other food allergy) available. There is currently No immunotherapy to lower the risk of anaphylactic reactions and cause people to outgrow their allergy. Yes, studies are underway which could potentially lead to new therapies in the future, but NO desensitization treatment presently exists. Any attempts to personally undertake this are strongly cautioned against by all real authorities on the subject.
In spite of the growing occurrence of food allergies in the U.S. and their danger to sufferers, there presently are NO medications to cure or control food allergies. Strict avoidance of the allergenic food is the ONLY way to avoid a reaction.
Faulty reasoning on Mulder’s part. There’s no comparison between the leading cause of fatal and near-fatal food allergic reactions and a dust mite. Or a deviated septum.
Mulder’s comment about the ADA is only partially true, but thoroughly exaggerated, because there has only been one court case. Food allergy is generally considered a disability under Section 504 and ADA. The point Mulder exaggerates is that there is no primary legal precedent, i.e., a court opinion, saying this. But there is secondary legal authority, i.e., settlements, USDA guidelines, etc. Plus, more to the point, airlines have their own version of the ADA, called the Air Carrier Access Act, as the DOT mentions in its notice of rulemaking. The ACAA prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities by U.S. and foreign air carriers, and DOT regulations require airlines to accommodate travelers with disabilities.
Still, a safe threshold has not been established.
Anyway, how does this technique work at 35,000 feet in the air?
Why does Mulder make the unwarranted assumption that people posting here have not been evaluated by an allergist?
There is no indication that Mulder is qualified to make reliable claims on the subject of allergies. He is not an expert in this context. And the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
There is adequate agreement among real allergy experts that “the most practical solution to reduce the risk of an allergic reaction to peanuts would be to simply discontinue serving packaged peanut snacks on all flights covered by the DOT.” See the statement of the Medical Advisory Board of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network at http://www.foodallergy.org/page/dot-proposal.
Mulder begs the very question at stake and insults a mother in the process. If peanuts were discontinued on flights, then even her severely peanut-allergic child could fly.
I disagree. The “rights” debate is not a good perspective in this context. As used by opponents of accommodations, it is an inflammatory bandwagon fallacy that simply appeals to an ideologically-motivated distrust of government and regulation in any case whatsoever. Even if “rights” was a good perspective, still, there are always competing rights to resolve. In this case, the equal right to travel safely trumps the right to eat a bag of peanuts.
The simple reality is that peanuts have become – for reasons not thoroughly understood – a potentially fatal allergen for a growing number of Americans. There problem will get worse before it gets better, as studies indicate that prevalence has tripled among children in recent years. Unless accommodations are made, this will represent… more »
There does not need to be a death record to make this decision. What sort of standard is that? Put the onus on the peanut industry to finalize the non-allergenic peanut, not on those suffering life-threatening peanut allergies to ante up a few more deaths.
This executive/administrative decision is so simple, it’s absurd. Discontinue service of peanuts on airlines.
« less
Two foods are the leading causes of fatal and near fatal food-allergic reactions: peanuts and tree nuts. Restricting peanuts on airlines – or better, peanuts and tree nuts – is not misguided; it is the only responsible course of action to take.
Make your voice heard, Captain!
This slippery slope argument is a false one. Understand that peanut allergy can be life-threatening, leading to anaphylaxis or death. Please visit the websites for the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, the Food Allergy Initiative, or the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology for reliable information.
You disregard the well-being of others less fortunate than you and try to make a virtue of your selfishness.
The prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergies tripled in children in the United States between 1997 and 2008. See http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0091-6749/PIIS0091674910005750.pdf
Is it really possible that all blindly partisan advocates of the peanut in this context eat peanuts and only peanuts? That they are overtaken by such a compulsion to consume peanut while flying that they lose sight of all other priorities? That they are unable to stop using their peanut – the one dragon they can’t put to sleep – to create a sense of pleasure and comfort? These sound like essential symptoms of disordered eating and addiction, which, in all likelihood, derive from some longstanding issues. The remedy is to avoid the substance in question…. “just say ‘no’” to your peanuts.
Serving/eating peanuts on airplanes has risen to the level of a public health menace, as had tobacco smoking. Again, the only prudent course of action is to require that distribution of peanut on airplanes be discontinued.
Peanut allergens are indeed present in the recirculated air in the aircraft cabin. This study, “Recovery of peanut allergens from ventilation filters of commercial airliners,” conducted “to help address whether peanut-sensitive travelers are exposed to peanut aeroallergans during airline flights on which peanuts are served” resulted in the conclusion that “that peanut allergens can be eluted from ventilation system filters in commercial airliners. The most likely source of these allergens are the peanuts served during flights.” See http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0091-6749/PIIS0091674996811791.pdf
The airline industry can not be left to self-monitor this. Studies have shown that the quality of information from airline customer service department is highly variable and, in some cases,
incomplete or inaccurate. The psychological effects of this, combined with the risk of death, are significant. Stories told by families of vacations never taken, of mid-air retraction of the promise by the airline that peanuts would not be served, of public humiliation of peanut-allergic individuals and their family by airline staff, and of serious reactions in flight, abound.
Mulder employs a double standard (and double speak) to allow himself to base his case on simple numbers at the same time he argues against them. Sure, his numbers game works if you are not the person suffering an anaphylactic reaction. Look, it is unreasonable and inhuman to expect someone to play this sort of betting game with their life or that of a child – particularly in the restrictive environment of an airplane – when it is established that peanuts and nuts are responsible for most fatal reactions and that incidence of this life-threatening allergy is increasing exponentially. The value of even one human life can not be trivialized, and that is what he is doing.
Mulder attempts to argue against the discontinuation of peanuts on airplanes by comparing it to the banning of… more »
« less
Mulder’s tiresome objections are replete with contradictions. He claims that an aircraft, particularly the air in an aircraft, is virtually pristine, and then he says, “Even if peanuts could be banned from airliners, that would not remove the risk, since peanut dust, oils, and parts are already embedded in the aircraft, even though you can’t see it.” You are most gracious. Use of statistics is acceptable for him, but no one else. He defines facts as only those distortions that support his selfish position. He uses false analogies that no one in their right mind would accept. He challenges those with life-threatening allergies to take charge of their own situation, but precludes the very possibility, as he uses countless fallacies and ad hominem attacks on all those who try to… more »
Name the horse you have in this race. Will impending doom befall it if it does not have peanuts? Might its respiration, its circulation, fail if it does not have a peanut? Might it expire?? Is it a father? Is it a child?
Apart from Howie, even those who might enjoy peanuts can understand the need to make some accommodation in this particular situation.
The motives of those supporting accommodations for travelers with life-threatening peanut allergies is pure – to safeguard life. The motives of those opposing is also clear – to dig their heels in over some ultra-libertarian point that their supposed right to a particular snack despite the immediate risk it may pose to others in a closed aircraft at 35,000 feet in the air outweighs the right of those with life-threatening allergies to be safe from harm.
The Mulder does ask, albeit obliquely, if there is a snack that would be acceptable to everyone with a food allergy. So, if we begin by considering a snack free from the top 8 food allergens (which would also protect celiacs), then the answer is yes. This can certainly be done.
« less
Food allergy is generally considered a disability under 504, ADA, and the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act). There have been a number of settlements by which the Attorney General has authorized civil action to enforce title III of the ADA against businesses which have discriminated against food-allergic children. In the matter at hand, the ACAA pertains: Title 14, Chapter II, Part 382, which provides for “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel.” An important point is that discontinuation of serving peanuts on airplanes does not cause a fundamental alteration in the nature of airplane transport, does not undermine safe operation of the business, and does not cause any direct threat to the health or safety of others. (The reverse is true: peanuts post a direct threat… more »
The disability characterization is for severe food allergies because reactions can compromise essential body functions, like circulation and respiration (not for hay fever or seasonal allergies as some on this board ridicule).
Consider when factoring the number of fatalities due to anaphylaxis that have occurred in connection with travel on airlines the fact that many peanut-allergic people have avoided flying because of the risk peanut service poses to them.
Comparisons of the potential for allergic reaction to the likelihood of plane crashes or car crashes or lightning bolts are patently ridiculous.
Some on this board persist in denying the results of peer-reviewed research studies conducted by the world’s leading experts on food allergy and anaphylaxis. Instead, they falsely… more »
There is no dispute that the primary responsibility of managing one’s allergy lies with the passenger (or passenger’s family). That means keeping medications at hand and taking all measures to practice strict avoidance – including seeking the reasonable accommodation of discontinuing distribution of peanuts by the airline, as this results in hazards over which the most responsible individual has little control.
« less
The issues are not opposed, so why create that false choice? Fatalities are associated with food allergies and anaphylaxis, and that merits attention. Nicer approach would have been to work together.
The opponents of accommodations are well aware that studies have been published in the journals of the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, not to mention medical associations in other countries. They can purchase full text access for themselves, but they already have a prejudgment against the researchers and their conclusions, so why bother?
There was a moment on the board when the moderators asked for a discussion of a hypothetical compromise position. But those demanding funerals before entertaining even a compromise position muted that. That is sad. There are several others on the board with some good reasonable ideas.
It’s fairly clear that mean-spiritedness abounds,… more »
« less
Alter-ego “howie” wants proof in the form of funerals. See howie
6/22/2010 20:13, “Really, I just have one question: Does anyone here actually know of a confirmed report of one person actually dying from a peanut? I’m not talking about ‘almost’ died, I mean an actual funeral? Didn’t think so. Nuff said.”
Good luck to all concerned.