Profile: mulder
This is mulder's Profile page. Use it to view mulder's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments mulder has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
@Elle: thank you for the website.
@Mulder: thank your for your comment. You seem to draw a distinction between reported food allergies and actual food allergies. Do you have any knowledge of any study or paper that draws out the importance of such a distinction in terms of public policy?
I found this particular article to be interesting: http://www.justnews.com/travelgetaways/23871727/detail.html
Thanks for the comment. Do you have the specific cases or links that address this distinction?
Thank you for your input. The DOT would be very interested in seeing any data that you have on the airborne risks associated with peanut consumption on commercial flights.
Mulder, you seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject of airlines and peanut allergies? Are you a researcher or doctor of some sort?
So true! I see this all the time. They try to ban peanuts at school because some over anxious mom saw something on TV about food allergies and that became her kids affliction du jour. Peanuts are harmless to 99.99999% of humans. The 3 living humans who are actually in danger just need to stay in a bubble and leave the rest of us in peace.
Actually, Title III of the The Americans with Disabilities Act applies the same requirement as Title II (state and local government programs)does to certain private entities that own, lease, or operate places of public accommodation. That means that those with disabilities have equal access to public establishments.
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?
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.
Absolutely correct. Allergies are largely the realm of the hypochondriac. Get a real doctor to diagnose this – not an ‘allergist’ as they have an agenda to promote. These peanut people are just a new kind of PC nazi. If you really have a problem, DON’T FLY!
Absolutely correct. Unfounded fear is paralyzing this country and taking the enjoyment of life away from an entire generation of children. Far less that 1% of the population actually has a severe allergy. 99% of those who think they do are full of it. Oh yeah, the kid had a reaction at 3yrs. old. It is almost certain that by 5yrs. he will have outgrown the sensitivity.
My hat’s off to you Mr. Mulder (Fox isn’t it?). You seem to be the only voice of reason in this entire thread.
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
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, once again you are absolutely correct. All the hyper-emotional arguments aside, the simple fact is, NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER DIED FROM A PEANUT ON AN AIRPLANE!!! So, if you are so risk averse that you want to ban peanuts due to the extremely remote possibility that someone could actually be injured by one, then you really shouldn’t be flying, as planes do occasionally crash. For that matter you shouldn’t drive, walk in public, eat any kind of food, or breath the air, as each of these activities has a higher chance of injuring someone than ingesting a peanut. This is not some ‘hyper-libertarian’ matter of principle. If we allow the foolish paranoia of the uninformed masses make these decisions, what’s next? Should we be strip searched and made to fly… 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
Mulder, I like peanuts, but I don’t consider it my right to have airlines serve them to me. I don’t think they need to. Plenty of times I’m not thrilled with what I am offered so I usually bring my own. I think some of this is just outrage that someone dare put a regulation on something. But I don’t think passengers should be banned from bringing peanut products on the flight. There’s a compromise that can be struck.
Are we talking about airlines not providing peanuts, or peanuts not being allowed on an airplane? These are two VERY different issues. I would be indifferent to rules preventing airlines from serving peanuts (actually, I would welcome it, because I like the crackers better!). People who want peanuts can bring their own, easily enough. Should people be banned from bringing their own peanuts? No. And honestly, people would be more effective using market forces to convince airlines to change their menus.
I do have a cousin who legitimately goes into anaphylactic shock at exposure to peanuts. It’s not a joking matter; I would guess we have fewer complications because people with peanut issues don’t fly. But this is a minority, and I would not support a ban on peanuts existing… more »
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.
Try a Google search. I very quickly found a link to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America that contends that under both the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 that allergies and asthma are both recognized disabilities. http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=22&cont=308
Again, “breathing” is defined as a “major life function” and it’s pretty hard to argue that completely closed airways through anaphylaxis do not constitute a “substantial limiting”. Whether or not the federal government has specifically ruled on this, I don’t know. Did you find any court rulings opposed to this position? If the courts simply haven’t addressed… more »
As I understand it, the concern is not over trace amounts of oil and dust that have been absorbed or trapped by fabric, it’s over the clouds of fresh dust that are released when a package is opened and dispersed throughout the plane via the central air system or from the overhead air jets. The oils in the fabric will most likely have been absorbed down below the surface level and the dust trapped by the fabric is unlikely to be dislodged in significant quantities short of someone actively beating the seats as one would a rug. If you’ve ever seen images of fabric through a microscope you’ll understand why it takes such force to dislodge captured particulates.
I’m not sure why you continue to question the potential severity of peanut allergies. There’s a very large body of medical documentation establishing, quite thoroughly, just how severe these allergies can be and others on this site have mentioned that nut allergies account for the majority of food-allergy caused death.
Whether or not anyone on an airplane has died from this, YET, is irrelevant. If you could go back to August 2001, knowing what you know now, how would you feel about people who argued against increasing airport security by saying “well nobody has ever crashed a plane into a building, so we shouldn’t take precautions against it”?
Perhaps we’ve just been lucky so far. From what I’ve gathered reading the comments here, people with peanut allergies severe enough to warrant immediate medical attention, because of their fears, do not generally fly on airplanes. Very small population to begin with + widespread self-imposed flying ban = No deaths, YET, on an airplane. However, the whole point of the ADA is to ensure that Americans with disabilities do not HAVE to forgo things such as flight because of their disability. The problem, right now, isn’t people dying of anaphylaxis on airplanes, it’s American citizens being unable, because of their disability, to participate in a normal, every day activity that they otherwise would be able to, with minor accommodation.
I do agree with you that banning peanuts (and, really, all nuts) on flights is not the right way to go. Instead of worrying about one particular person and what motivation they may or may not have had in ignoring your first recommendation of it, why not help the overall cause here by continuing to advocate that airlines provide, upon request, masks, gloves, and cleanroom suits so that those who DO take responsibility for their own condition can enjoy the freedom air travel provides the rest of us US citizens.
A federal court case in which an airport and airlines were tried for non-compliance with the ADA.
http://www.equalaccess.com.au/news/47/
Airplanes are considered private entities governed by Title III of the ADA
The Air Carrier Access Act- a non-ADA body of regulations governing treatment of disabled passengers on commercial airlines.
http://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/passengers-disabilities
Cleanroom suit- $25
Surgical… more »
Latex gloves- $.15
Safety and peace of mind for allergy sufferers without inconveniencing anyone else- Priceless
You have no idea what you’re talking about either. Celiac disease is not an “allergy” and someone sitting in the next seat eating pretzels poses no risk to a celiac. Even if a celiac ingests trace gluten, the reaction is uncomfortable, not life-threatening. On the off-chance there is turbulence and somebody’s pretzel lands in my drink, I’m sure the airline would replace it.
It is plain to see Mulder is uninformed on this topic. Instead of chiding people from the “peanut” gallery perched in a factual void, take some time to go talk to an allergy specialist, attend a lecture on the matter, do some research from reputable sources, or even get to know someone with multiple severe food allergies and see exactly how their lives are affected. Take the time to truly educate yourself on the topic, then perhaps you could offer the constructive solutions I believe DOT is looking for instead of flaming others from behind your irrational fear of losing peanut snacks on an aircraft.
No comments
Anyone who actually suffers from a life-threatening reaction to peanuts should not be on a plane at all. If the presence of peanut dust on an airliner is that risky to them, they know they shouldn’t be flying. Despite what FAAN claims, there is no scientific data to support the idea that large numbers of people are dying from anaphylactic shock due to peanut allergies, or even that peanut allergies are on the rise through natural causes. Gullible parents telling their kids not to eat peanuts because they are or might be allergic causes needless anxiety for those children, and when they finally are exposed to peanuts or peanut dust, they end up having an allergy. That’s irresponsible parenting.
At the same time, most of the population is allergic to one or ore types of dust; should… more »
Allergies are not disabilities. If that were true, then the 80 percent or more people who have a deviated septum would also qualify as having a disability, yet nobody’s proposing that airlines supply a separate, non-emergency oxygen supply to help them breathe better.
It’s time to put an end to bending to the agenda of special interest groups that have a political agenda: one that isn’t based on science, but instead based solely on fear and claims that can’t be supported by scientific facts. « less
There is no scientific data to support the claim that food allergies have doubled during any time period, much less the one that’s mentioned by Laura. If you read the NCHS Data Brief on the CDC web site, it specifically uses the term “reported food allergy”, which isn’t the same as an actual food allergy.
Parents report just about any adverse reaction to food as an allergy, but true allergies can only be confirmed by observing the patient after consuming the suspect food and testing for the presence of IgE antibodies. Without that, all you have are overanxious parents conflating two separate and distinct things into the same, potentially life-threatening thing.
There’s no truth to what you say about recycled air on planes. Contrary to your belief, fresh air is circulated in the cabin from the engine compressors, air conditioned (cooled), circulated through louvers, vents and those eyeball graspers above your seat. After that, about half is sucked out through the bottom of the fuselage; the remainder is run through filters to remove pollutants and particulants and mixed with fresh air again.
The result is that the air in the cabin is cleaner than most public buildings, and it is completely exchanged every 2-3 minutes.
If peanut allergies qualify as a disability, then what is the DOT or FAA going to do about people who are allergic to one or more types of dust (most of the population), or those who have difficulty breathing due to a deviated septum (80 percent or more of the population)?
Should they ban dust on airplanes, and if so, how do they expect to accomplish that without closing the airports (people bring in dust from outside)? They’d have to shut down air travel, since they wouldn’t be able to allow the doors to be opened for passengers to embark or disembark due to the dust on their clothes and luggage, in the jetway, and outside the plane.
For those with a deviated septum, are they going to start requiring that airlines give every passenger a more than adequate supply of non-emergency… more »
Sometimes the only way to fight back against the ridiculous is to propose something even more ridiculous. « less
There’s no reason to restrict peanuts on any flight. The number of deaths per year due to anaphylaxis (150-200 per year) is much, much smaller than other causes of death (drowning, for example).
People who actually suffer from a severe allergic reaction to peanuts know what precautions to take, and their condition should never infringe on the rights of others. If they can’t deal with the risk they take every day, no matter where they are, then they should be living in a bubble.
Instead of blaming others for their real or perceived allergy, they should take steps to desenstize themselves to peanuts, which can be done, as studies have shown.
Even better, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University developed a way to remove the allergens from peanuts in 2007, so if… more »
You can read the press release here: http://www.ncat.edu/press_releases/disp_release.php?ID=3132 « less
You simply have no idea what you’re talking about. There is no “diagnosis rate” of peanut allergies; there is a common, misguided belief that peanut allergies are rising and that any reaction to any food is an allergy. Unfortunately for you, you actually need to be observed and tested by a licensed, certified doctor for the presence of IgE antibodies to determine if you really have an allergy.
Furthermore, if you really think that 1 in 100 having a true allergy to peanuts is huge, you’re daft. That would be 1%, which is 3.3 million people in the U.S.—not a huge number at all. Far more people (most people, in fact) are allergic to one or more types of dust, but you aren’t proposing that the FAA should ban dust, since that’s not possible without shutting… more »
Maybe we should just ban people with peanut allergies from flying; that would certainly solve your problem. « less
That Mount Sinai “study” is completely bogus and inherently flawed. It was done via telephone survey, which is unreliable and unscientific, as it requires people to recall things from imperfect memories. At the same time, these are people who “report” an allergy; there is no clinical diagnosis of an allergy based on observation and blood tests for IgE antibodies after eating peanuts, which is the only way it can be confirmed.
Scientific data shows no doubling or tripling in peanut allergies during any period of time. People who preach this nonsense and those who buy into it as fact are hurting themselves and spreading needless fear.
Sorry, most “studies” don’t draw any distinction between reported allergies and actual, clinically diagnosed allergies, with the possible exception of the language they use. Every one that I’ve read glosses over such distinctions, so you have to read them carefully to see how the “study” data was obtained.
If you or your children are allergic to peanuts, did you have this clinically diagnosed by testing for the presence of IgE antibodies after eating peanut? If not, then there’s no way to confirm you have an allergy to them. You can be intolerant of peanuts, but that’s not the same thing as an allergy, and allergies are not inherited.
If you’re looking for guarantees for safety from an airline or anything else, you’re not going to get that, ever. You take risks like everyone else no matter what you do.
And the ADA does not extend any protection to you, since allergies are not a disability. The courts have consistently ruled against this.
No, there is no ADA protection for allergy sufferers, nor has there ever been. You already tried this argument in the previous comment section.
Apparently Samsmom is the ignorant one. She attacks what she clearly does not understand. If her child has a true peanut allergy that is so severe, he shouldn’t be flying, since her argument is that any contact with peanut dust or oil would cause anaphylactic shock. Since that possibility is very real even outside an airline cabin, she’s making her own argument for living in a bubble.
Facts are stubborn things, and one of those facts is that the air onboard an airliner is cleaner than in most public buildings, so there’s very little, if any, real risk involved in flying on a jet where peanuts have been consumed before or are even being served now.
Another stubborn fact is that you can be desensitized to peanut allergies, but if you’re unwilling to do it, don’t blame others for not bending to your petty fears.
DaveW is giving false and misleading information about peanut allergy reactions in-flight.
The results of a self-reporting study done in 2007 (http://www.annallergy.org/article/S1081-1206(10)60835-6/abstract) show that:
“Forty-one of 471 individuals reported allergic reactions to food while on airplanes, including 4 reporting more than 1 reaction. Peanuts accounted for most of the reactions. Twenty-one individuals (51%) treated their reactions during flight. Only 12 individuals (29%) reported the reaction to a flight attendant. Six individuals went to an emergency department after landing, including 1 after a flight diversion. Airline personnel were notified of only 3 of these severe reactions. Comparison… more »
His pseudo-fact about peanut particles in the air is definitely misleading. It seems to be based on the widely held myth that air inside the cabin is recycled; i.e. that it’s the same air you started out with on the ground and just moved around constantly during flight. Not true at all.
Cabin air is a mixture of 50% fresh air (from outside the plane during flight) and what’s already in the cabin. Fresh is is cooled, then ducted throughout the cabin and down into the fuselage, where half of it is vented out; what remains is then filtered for particulates and other pollutants and mixed with fresh air and the cycle repeats. The result is that the air in the cabin is cleaner than in most public buildings, and the air is completely exchanged every 2-3 minutes.
So, if there were peanut dust in the air at any point, it would quickly be filtered out of the air.
Banning peanuts, tree nuts, or other items onboard makes no rational sense. A very small minority of the population has an allergy to peanuts and other nuts, and this would be allowing a minority to infringe on the rights of the majority.
People with peanut and tree nut allergies can be desensitized to peanuts, as studies have shown. If they’re unwilling to do it, that’s not a problem that others should have to compensate for by not being allowed to eat a particular food or snack.
We all take risk every day, and we accept those risk as part of living. Far more people die each year from drowning (more than 3,000) than from peanut allergy reactions (about 150), yet nobody’s advocating that we ban outdoor or indoor pools.
The risk here is being greatly exaggerated for the political gain of a very few people. « less
If your child has a true peanut allergy, was it clinically diagnosed by eating peanuts and then testing blood for IgE antibodies? If not, then you don’t know he has an allergy; you have only anecdotal evidence, which is often mistaken for true allergies.
You can fly with your son, you simply choose not to because of your unfounded fear that something will happen; that’s a choice you made and it can’t be blamed on the airlines or anyone else. You take far greater risks with yourself and your son every day, yet somehow you’ve managed to live this long.
You’re not able to objectively evaluate your risk, which is why you fall into the trap of being afraid of things that are very unlikely to happen. Far more people die every year from drowning, but I don’t think… more »
Instead of conflating the remotely possible and the inevitable. step back and look at things objectively; when you do, you’ll see there are many things that are far more likely to happen than having a severe allergic reaction on a plane. Even so, you can desensitize your son so that if he has a true peanut allergy now, he won’t in the future. « less
How was your child diagnosed with a peanut allergy? Did they eat penuts while under medical observation and have their blood tested for IgE antibodies? If not, then you don’t know if they have an allergy, or even to what severity.
As for your claim that she could die if peanuts are ingested in her vicinity, that is utterly false. The only way to have any reaction (including death) is to have contact with the offending allergen. So anyone else can eat all they like in her vicinity; she just has to not come in contact with it.
Some people die from a severe reaction to peanuts, but not many, and I’ve yet to find a single instance of an airline passenger dying due to anaphylactic shock caused by peanuts.
No, allergies are not disabilities, and therefore you get no special treatment under the ADA. Federal courts have consistently ruled this way.
You can read about it here: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=92733
Nobody has studied this subject, so there’s no hard data. But we do know that the air onboard an airliner is much cleaner than people think. Only one confirmed death onboard an airliner has been reported, but it may have been as far back as 1998, and it was an Eastern European airline.
No, I’m just an allergy sufferer (but not to peanuts or tree nuts) like most of the population. The difference is that I actually know a good number of people in the airline industry as well as reading lots of research papers on the subject of peanut allergies.
I tire of the constant harping that peanut allergies are on the rise, when there is no scientific data to back it up. I do believe that people need to educate themselves as to what is a real allergy, rather than simply an adverse reaction to a particular food. Far too often, people (especially parents) quickly label an adverse reaction as an allergy, without testing them to be certain. Then they hammer away at the child that they can’t have certain foods or have to be REALLY CAREFUL or they’ll die. That creates needless anxiety for the child and causes a great deal of psychological damage to them.
Except the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply to public places and employers who receive federal funds. That means it doesn’t apply to airline passengers.
Peanut allergies are not a disability; if they were, then everyone who has any allergy would qualify for “protection”.
You and everyone else who thinks we should ban peanuts and everything else you might have a problem with suffer from worst-case thinking:
“There’s a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability…”
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.
Airlines are not public establishments; they are private enterprise. If we were to adopt that level of thinking, then everyone would qualify as disabled, since nearly everyone has an allergy to something: chocolate, dairy, dust, pollen, etc.
Between the U.S. and Canada, approximately 3.3 million people suffer from peanut and/or tree nut allergies, but a much smaller subset have potentially life-threatening reactions when exposed.
If these alleged sufferers want to live their lives in fear, they are willfully giving up their right to travel by air or any other method, because the air they breathe anywhere could contain peanut dust, oil, or traces of tree nuts.
Yet, it seems very peculiar that these self-proclaimed sufferers aren’t dropping dead at work or on the street. Could it possibly be because their world isn’t nearly as dangerous as their over-active imagination would have them believe?
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
This has nothing to do with lacking compassion; it has everything to do with coddling people who fear a possibility that is so unlikely. There’s no potential lawsuit threat here, because airlines are not liable for your medical condition or your refusal to take precautions against it.
Numerous accounts of people dying from peanut allergies? Nonsense. Cite the confirmed reports if you want to be taken seriously.
If you think it’s not a hardship for other passengers to be denied peanuts based on the very small minority of peanut allergy sufferers, then it’s not a hardship for you to take responsibility for your own well being, no matter the form of transportation.
Instead, you want others to cater to your whims and unfounded fears. If you want peanuts to be replaced with… more »
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
Since there’s no reason to ban peanuts to begin with, the only thing you’d accomplish by banning all food is to have a large number of cranky, hungry passengers on longer flights. Not exactly a good way to engender customer loyalty or goodwill.
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
There is indeed plenty wrong with the very idea that airlines should be banned from serving peanuts. Not only does it shift responsibility for the problems of a very small minority of people onto others, but it also accomplishes nothing, as peanuts and pieces of them are already on-board the aircraft.
At the same time, there is negligible risk to peanut allergy sufferers, as evidenced by the data.
If we are to believe the claims of
Antanagoge, then everyone is disabled. But his arguments are deeply flawed. Allergies are not disabilities. People with spinal cord injuries, missing limbs, brain damage, and other abnormal birth defects are disabled; allergy sufferers are not. Disabled people aren’t looking for pity, and we shouldn’t grant pity to allergy sufferers, either.
The argument that nobody has died due to anaphylaxis on-board a U.S. airline because they avoid flying due to the risk of an allergic reaction is preposterous and unsupported by any data.
Comparisons of anaphylaxis to other risks is completely valid. The fact that Antanagoge and others would like to ignore them illustrates their mindset perfectly: assuming the worst possible outcome is a certainty, even… more »
Despite Antanagoge’s implied claim, there is no peer-reviewed research that shows anything but the fact that peanut allergies are much less widespread and severe than FAAN would like everyone to believe. If he thinks there’s contrary data, he should cite it and provide a link to the full text.
Not being able to serve peanuts on-board an airliner because of a very few who think they’re doomed if they’re exposed to peanuts is not a reasonable accommodation, it’s a form of terrorism. Trying to frighten everyone else into bending to your will, thus reinforcing your unfounded beliefs and fears.
There’s no inconvenience to peanut allergy sufferers to not eat peanuts, but there is an inconvenience to everyone else if they can’t be served peanuts (or any other food which someone may be allergic to), or even have their own.
Antanagoge says he believes each individual must take responsibility for managing their condition, but then he tries to shift that responsibility on to other passengers by claiming that banning peanuts is a reasonable accommodation. No, it’s not.
That’s hypocrisy.
« less
There is indeed something wrong with banning peanuts on airlines. Despite the unfounded fears of certain death if they’re exposed to peanuts, no one has died from anaphylaxis from exposure to peanuts, peanut dust, or peanut oil on-board a U.S. airliner.
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.
There already is a cure; it just isn’t available yet.
No, the DOT believes SEVERE peanut allergies count as a disability, but their belief means nothing. Congress has the final say as to whether or not they agree and want to continue funding for such a position. A search of Westlaw came up with no Federal court rulings in favor of such a position.
Banning peanuts isn’t a solution at all, since the aircraft is already contaminated with peanuts, peanut oils, and peanut dust in the fabric of the seats; the only way to get rid of it would be to remove all the seats and the sub-floor and replace them both. That’s not only economically unfeasible for the airline, but the cost per fight would increase dramatically.
But the fact that the plane is already contaminated and nobody has died from their proclaimed severe peanut allergy is evidence… more »
I did suggest wearing masks before, but one particular person ignored that idea, perhaps because they thought the very idea was beneath them, or somehow inconsiderate of their condition. Either way, it’s indicative that they don’t want to take responsibility for their own condition and want society to cater to their fears and prejudices. « less
Air is not recirculated on airplanes. That’s a myth that you need to stop clinging to in order to rationalize your desire for a ban on nuts. It’s a tired, old excuse, but it doesn’t work.
So JetBlue serves chips. Do you mean potato chips? Did you consider that some people are allergic to potatoes? What about the type of oil used to cook those chips: Peanut oil, or Corn oil? Whichever it is, people are allergic to both, so that means you can’t serve that as a snack to some people, too.
And down the slippery slope we go. So, can you figure out which mystery food can be served as a snack on-board an airliner that somebody isn’t allergic to? Good luck with that.
Your claim is specious at best. You can’t be exposed to an allergen that is wrapped, and therefore not exposed to the air.
If you really believe the DOT would let anyone cause any claimed allergen from a flight, you are daft. Everyone is allergic to something, so that would mean an empty plane, as well as an undue burden on other passengers and the airlines. It’s not going to happen, so you might as well stay home and live behind that plastic sheeting of yours.
Air is not recirculated on airplanes. That’s a myth that you need to abandon. The air on-board is cleaner than most public buildings. If you want your own air supply, bring it from home, since you’re not breathing the air inside your house or apartment.
Good luck with that.
It really doesn’t matter what the AAFA thinks the ADA applies to; the courts aren’t interested. They need a good body of evidence and reason to convince them, and they’ve never seen it yet, which is why the federal courts have never ruled this way.
Yes, breathing is useful if you want to stay alive, but ADA cases apply to employers, which is why the courts generally rule in favor of the aggrieved employee. But the ADA is limited to employers and those receiving federal funds, which in the realm of passengers, doesn’t apply to an airline. If we start to view allergies as a disability, then everyone is disabled, and that is absolute nonsense.
I’ve never questioned the severity of peanut allergies; I do take issue with the idea that is being pushed that these sufferers… more »
But their mindset is to imagine the worst possible scenario and take the position that it is a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability…”
That’s not how they should want to live their life, nor should anyone else.
The fact that nobody has ever died from anaphylactic shock caused by peanuts or tree nuts on-board a U.S. flight is very relevant and significant. It provides us with irrefutable, unbiased, empirical evidence of exactly how remote this possibility is for anyone. Decision need to be based on evidence, not speculation or fear.
If we were to get in the time machine and go back to August 2001, I’d say skip the theatrics at the airport and do some real intelligence gathering, just like the Israeli’s. Body scanners don’t work, which is why they and other countries don’t use them. On the ground intelligence works and is far less expensive than a “Homeland Security” department with an endless, secret budget, accountable to no one, rife with abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars, along with secret policies and programs that violate longstanding federal laws as well as our constitutional rights.
For all the inconvenience you endure at the airport, it hasn’t increased security one bit. It just makes people think it’s safer. That’s a delusion for which nobody should take pride.
We haven’t been lucky at all; terrorists, for all their boasting, are generally inept and stupid.
Likewise, there’s no evidence that allergy sufferers are choosing not to travel by air due to their imagined fear. That’s a position that FAAN and AAFA would like the DOT and others to believe, but if they had any scientific data to back it up, they would have trotted it out by now.
Peanut and tree nut allergy suffers aren’t forced to not fly; that’s something they choose out of an irrational fear of the unknown. Choosing not to participate in life to the fullest extend you can is not a disability. It’s you giving your condition too much influence over what you can or cannot do.
I don’t support having airlines offer gloves or cleanroom suits for severe allergy sufferers; they solve nothing and are very expensive, which would result in an increase in the cost of travel for everyone. There’s nothing to stop people from bringing their own supply of surgical masks, just like they used during the SARS scare, and some people even used during the overwrought fear of contracting H5N1 (swine flu). Those are very effective at preventing inhalation of dust and airborne bacteria. « less
That’s the issue: the possibility is so remote as to be infinitesimal, and it’s never happened. Which is why there’s no reason to start banning foods on airlines. There’s no danger of a lawsuit, since all passengers accept the risks when flying, just as when sports fans accept the risks of being injured at a game. It’s part of the terms you accept when buying a ticket.
Since the risk to that very small percentage of people is so remote, there’s no reason to ban peanuts or any other type of food. Everyone is allergic to something, so that would also mean other foods would need to be banned, up to the point where there would no longer be anything served during flight. That is an absurd overreaction for a small group of people. There’s a risk of the plan… more »
Air travel is part of modern living, but unless you’re crossing the ocean, you aren’t being forced to fly, and nothing prevents any allergy sufferer from flying except irrational fears such as this one.
What’s wrong with pretzels? If you don’t know,, then you really have no idea what you’re talking about here. Pretzels contain gluten, which is also a food allergy, along with higher levels of salt, which is not good for people who have high blood pressure.
Your simplistic belief that banning peanuts would solve a problem is not founded in reality. There are already peanuts on-board the aircraft, so that assumed threat will still be there, but still not affecting you in any way. That will just cause you to focus on something even more inane, like trying to force airlines to remove the seats and the sub-floor to get rid of all those peanuts, replace the seats entirely, and have certain aircraft designated as “peanut free”. « less
The fact that you weren’t affected in any way during flight is evidence that your fears are irrational and unfounded.
Instead of worrying about a possibility that is so remote, get some therapy to deal with your fears. They are unhealthy for you and everyone around you.
There is no growing trend in the number of people who are allergic to peanuts; that is a talking point of FAAN that is unsupported by any scientific evidence.
Peanuts are not dangerous. Those with severe peanut allergies are at some risk if they are exposed to peanuts, which is no different than any other allergy.
An allergy is not a handicap or a disability. Everyone is allergic to something, so by your misguided definition, everyone is disabled or handicapped.
Other allergens can be detected in the air and cause a reaction; peanuts and latex are not the only things. Once you start to ban certain foods, you go down the slippery slope of banning other foods because someone will be allergic to one or more ingredients in that food.
You are responsible for your condition and that of your children. Trying to shift that responsibility to other passengers is unreasonable in the extreme.
Peanut allergies are not increasing, so it’s time you get that idea out of your head. There is no scientific evidence to support that tired, old claim.
Smoking on an airliner can indeed cause a medical emergency within moments. People opening packages of peanuts cannot; it’s never happened on any U.S. based flight in all the years of airlines operating. That alone is ample evidence that the possibility is so remote as to be statistically non-existent.
People who subscribe to worst-case scenario thinking are creating needless anxiety for themselves and others, which leaves them feeling powerless and vulnerable. Instead of trying to shift your irrational fears onto others along with your responsibility for your own condition, get professional help.
No, you didn’t have a reaction to airborne peanuts: they’re heavier than air, so they can’t be airborne. Peanut dust could be airborne, but unless you were not taking any precautions for your condition, you weren’t at any great risk.
Nobody has ever died from anaphylaxis due to peanut allergies on a U.S. based airline. That is irrefutable evidence that the actual risk is so small as to be non-existent.
Your lifestyle isn’t be restricted by your allergy, it’s being restricted by you living in fear. You’ve taken the worst case scenario and assumed it to be a certainty, when in fact it’s not. Nothing is stopping you from traveling by air except your irrational fears. There are far greater risks in many other things you do every day, yet you’re… more »
The air on-board an airliner is not recirculated, so you might as well abandon that excuse; it doesn’t work for you.
“The reason nobody ever died from an anaphylactic peanut reaction on a flight is because the parents of children with this allergy go to great lengths to make sure the flight is peanut free…”
Yet another false claim unsupported by the evidence. The reason this hasn’t happened is due to one fact only: the risk is extremely small so as to be statistically non-existent. You cling to irrational fears to support your desire, rather than reason and evidence.
Unless your child has been medically tested and diagnosed with a peanut allergy, there is no way to know whether or not he has one, much less the severity. You’d rather live your life in constant… more »
So, PracticalJo is saying that no matter what she does, her daughter always gets hives, itches, and sneezes while flying, supposedly from peanut allergens. That is pure nonsense. If her daughter had taken Benadryl before boarding the plane, it prevents those very things from happening. Even so, there’s no reason to remove peanuts from planes for the very minute chance that someone will suffer anaphalactic shock due to peanut allergies.
You can’t make all risks go away, so there’s no point in trying. And you cannot remove peanut allergens from an airliner unless you take out all the seats and the subfloor, which the airlines aren’t going to do. That would also drive up the cost for a flight dramatically, to the point that the average person cannot afford to fly anymore.
Instead… more »
Actually, I do know what I’m talking about. Celiac disease and gluten allergies are two different things. The fact that you don’t understand that illustrates your ignorance of the issue at hand.
The problem is that we have an irrational group of people who claim to suffer from severe peanut allergies, who are trying to impose their desire to ban peanuts and other nuts from being served by airlines under the guise of safety.
But they can point to no evidence that their worst, unfounded fears have ever happened on any U.S. airliner, so they hype their claims even more, hoping their tiny minority will gain favor. In the process, they refuse to deal with their irrational fears, and point blame at everyone and everything for their “inability” to fly, even going so far as to claim it’s a disability.
There’s no disability here at all. The simple fact is that these people want to shift their responsibility for their own well-being onto others, and they’ll use… more »
There is no scientific evidence showing that peanut allergies are increasing. Self-reporting studies are inherently flawed and cannot be used for that very purpose. Uninformed parents think every adverse reaction to some food must be an allergy, and they don’t bother to have their children tested to find out.
Without there being a unified standard for allergy testing and diagnosis, any studies will be irrelevant and nothing more than a source of debate among the scientific community.
What about protecting people who aren’t allergic to peanuts from the very small minority that are allergic to them?
Since you would ban peanuts, what other foods and other items should we also ban? Everyone is allergic to something, so using your reasoning, we’d be on a plane with no food, along with some other things, which would make it a very unpleasant flight for everyone involved.
Banning peanuts will not protect anyone; they’re already onboard the aircraft, along with peanut dust in the fabric of the seats. The fact that nobody has ever died from anaphylactic shock due to peanut allergies on a U.S. airliner is clear evidence that the risk is so remote as to be non-existent.
Instead of imagining the worst-case scenario and assuming it to be a certainty, try dealing… more »