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
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.
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
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?
As the parent of a young child with a severe peanut allergy, I would be thrilled with the following:
1) Airlines do not serve peanuts on-board
2) All airlines have a well-documented, easily accessible, and ingrained among all flight staff policy regarding food allergies and procedures for dealing with food allergies, including:
a) Early boarding for passengers with allergies to inspect their assigned seats and either clean them or request a seat change if necessary (Southwest allows early boarding as long as you do not take an exit row)
2) Following declaration of an allergy, education of nearby passengers regarding peanut products (particularly those which may release dust that can go airborne); this could be done with a single-sided piece of paper.
3) Flexibility with seating assignments… more »
Essentially, the key with this, as with everything in life, is to minimize risk while maximizing feasibility. An absolute ban on peanut products is not currently possible, but it is possible to increase the protection of passengers with life threatening allergies with minimal inconvenience to other passengers.
Please everyone on this site, be reasonable, accommodating and, if possible, kind to others.
Thank you.
« less
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.
I agree with Steyermark’s comments in many ways – a full ban on peanut products is unenforceable and not practical. In my family, we read labels, understand where the labels may not give all of the information, etc… This is not something that will be done by the majority of people. Also, foods like PBJ sandwiches are really easy to fly with – no refrigeration required.
So, what I think needs to happen:
1) The airlines themselves do not serve peanut products
2) The airlines have clearly documented/posted allergy policies with education of staff (and encouragement of passenger awareness of these policies) to increase awareness that there may need to be some seat flexibility for people intending to eat peanut products from home during the flight if seated near peanut-allergic… more »
Finally, if necessary, I am more than prepared to either 1) give an affected passenger food that we brought on the plane that is peanut safe if they are really hungry (we always bring plenty of extra ‘safe’ food) or will gladly fork over the additional $5-$50 to buy them/their family whatever in-flight food they want if it means that they will not expose my family to peanut allergens in close proximity.
Thanks. « less
No comments
Broadly – Under the ADA, most, if not all, Americans would be classified as having a disability. That’s unfortunate, because the language is so loose as to undermine those that actually do have disabilities.
More narrowly, the few good recent studies have shown that of those that self report having food allergies, less than 5% actually do. Many so-called allergies are based on immunoglobbulin response, though we know that that is a poor predictor of an actual allergy. Because few parents want to put their kids through the gold-standard of testing, a blind oral food challenge, we are now left with the current situation, where an overwhelming majority of supposed allergies are unfounded, a general public is tired of coddled masses, and the few but life-threatening cases are being… more »
Allergies (and other disabilities) need to be diagnosed using gold-standard testing and rigorous science. « 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 »
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 »
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 »
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?
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.
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 »
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?
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 »