Profile:
steyermark

This is steyermark's Profile page. Use it to view steyermark's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments steyermark has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

June 22, 2010 5:59 pm

I appreciate your circumstance. But because you don’t like the smell of nuts, we can’t go instituting bans on foods. I don’t like the smell of fast food – does that mean there needs to be a ban on people bringing McD’s on board? As for food options, pack you own. I do. I bring my own snacks. People with severe metabolic conditions like PKU travel with their own food. Bring a bag of pretzels. Raisins. Whatever. It sounds like your “awful” experiences have not resulted in any allergic reactions. Bans on foods should be based exclusively on research. Not on people feeling uncomfortable around certain foods. Because if that’s what regulations are based on, then there will soon be nothing served on any flight – and I don’t think that’s… more »

…what anyone wants. Again, I hope the DOT seriously considers actual research when making regulations. « less
June 22, 2010 7:41 pm

The incidence of PKU is low – about 1 in 30,000. But when you combine all the inborn metabolic conditions that require special diets (including PKU, CF, aminoacidemias, etc.) the incidence is much higher. Consider also diabetes. Consider other conditions, such as hypertension (knocks out pretzels as potential snacks). The point is, there are a lot of people that have special dietary restrictions. Not being able to eat a specific food shouldn’t preclude that food from being served – it just means that those folks need to bring their own. The real issue is, how real is the threat of inhaled peanut dust. Again, I have seen no study that has shown it to be a real threat (but that doesn’t mean such a study doesn’t exist). That should be the main criteria for the DOT… more »

…decision. As a side note – would such a decision mean I could not bring my own trail mix or PBJ sandwich on board? Could a passenger be prevented from bringing any food that potentially contains nuts? What the airlines do is meaningless if passengers start bringing their own on. « less
June 22, 2010 8:41 pm

An estimated (by the medical profession) 125 to 150 deaths occur in the United States every year due to food-related anaphylaxis. About 2/3rds of those are thought to be caused by peanuts. Given that peanut allergy is by far the most prevalent of the food allergies, that proportion would make sense. The question is not if anyone has died from ingestion of peanuts. Clearly, the answer is yes, and that has been proven. The question at hand is whether that merits somehow banning peanuts from air travel. The greater question is, have there been proven cases of severe anaphylaxis from the inhalation of peanut dust? Though perhaps the ultimate question is, then should those few people that have legitimate concerns simply not fly?

June 23, 2010 3:23 pm

Should peanuts also be banned from places of employment for the same reasons? Should peanuts be banned from public areas? And is it also reasonable to ban all peanut-containing products from being brought on-board by passengers? Finally, should the same accommodations be made for those suffering from other allergies? Because using the logic offered by the above commenters (and others), the answers to all these questions should be yes – yet we can see this quickly becomes absurd.

June 23, 2010 3:57 pm

I don’t believe that is feasible or necessary, for 4 reasons. First, studies have shown that the majority of self-reported allergies are in fact not allergies. Thus there would be unnecessary bans on many flights. Second, this would place a burden on airlines – someone would essentially need to keep track for every flight whether peanuts can be served or not. This would effectively remove peanuts from all flights. Third, this does not answer questions about passengers being able to bring peanut products on flights. As long as passengers can, airline regulations are meaningless. And in my opinion, it is not reasonable or legal to ban passengers from bringing on board any peanut containing product. Lastly, does either the ADA or the medical literature warrant such a ban? No –… more »

…neither does. Until it can be shown that there is either a medically or legally warranted reason for a peanut ban, this issue should come to an end. « less
June 24, 2010 10:05 am

Ed – I got peanuts served on 2 flights this summer. But the substance of the debate goes far beyond simple bags of peanuts. Many of the commenters indicate they want full bans on any peanut-containing products, including those brought on board by passengers. Which means this not puts the onus on the passenger to check the label of any food they bring on board, and eliminate any food that contains peanuts, is made with peanut oil, or was manufactured in a plant that also processes peanuts. Does this really reasonable to anyone? Because banning airlines from distributing peanuts doesn’t address the issue – only a full ban on any peanut product would suffice. Clearly, you can’t ban passengers from bringing energy bars that may contain trace amounts of peanuts. Given that, why then even institute an airline ban, if it doesn’t fully address the issue?

June 24, 2010 5:04 pm

dwein003 – The problem is when I pull out a Clif Bar to eat as a snack, or a PBJ sandwich I made at home, or a turkey sandwich on oatnut bread, or a snickers bar…Can I then not eat food that I packed to bring on board? Do I then need to change seats? This is where the holes in the plan becomes apparent. Eliminating bags of peanuts is not the issue – that’s easy. It’s how do you then deal with every potential peanut product passengers bring on board? Because to truly eliminate any potential for airborne peanut (for the moment, let’s ignore whether that poses a real risk or not), passengers would not be able to bring any food on-board, because even home-made sandwiches could contain nuts. And personally, I don’t think you can go that far. And so far on… more »

…this comment board, no one has been able to address that issue. So, what good is banning airlines from serving bags of peanuts if a passenger brings on a PBJ sandwich, or opens an energy bar that contains nuts? If we re-seat, who moves? The family of 4 with the allergy, or the family of 4 that wants to eat the food they brought on board? How do you easily move those folks around? Do you see how something that sounds so easy in sentence format becomes a nightmare when you actually try to implement it? « less
June 21, 2010 4:39 pm

Thanks for your comment. There’s been quite a bit of back and forth going on regarding ADA classifications and research regarding food allergies. If you (or anyone else here) have any links to these studies, it might be worth sharing so everyone (not to mention the DOT) can dig into the data a bit more.

June 22, 2010 3:03 pm

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 »

…in the face of scientific data showing it to be extremely rare and unlikely.

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

June 22, 2010 6:10 pm

Thanks for the input, steyermark. The comparison to phenylketonuira (PKU) is an interesting one. Do you have any information on the prevalence of PKU that you could share with us, so that we can discuss the relationship between PKU and allergies?

June 25, 2010 2:28 am

Maybe the answer is to designate certain flights as peanut-free. That way, the families that just love love their PB&J can take the regular flights, and those passengers who either have peanut allergies themselves or who are willing, for the sake of others, to make conscientious choices when packing their in-flight meals and snacks can take the peanut-free flights.


No comments