This is your Profile page. Use it to check replies to your comments, keep track of comments
you've made or endorsed, and manage your regulation room account.
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 are the major causes of allergic reactions to foods. Over a period of two years, approximately 50 percent of subjects in the United States with food allergy have an allergic reaction to accidental exposure.
•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.
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.
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 lost income for airlines.
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.
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.
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.
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 automobile driving, but this analogy is weak in the extreme for several reasons: Exposure to peanuts is more likely to cause an adverse outcome in an allergic person than crossing the street on any given day. Banning automobile driving would be economically and socially disruptive in a way that banning a peanut snack on airplanes would not. There are many alternative snacks available to replace peanuts, but there are few modes of transportation available which could replace automobile driving. (Of course, there are even fewer to replace airline travel.) Automobiles play a significant role in our society, whereas peanuts on airplanes are of comparatively minor importance. His is a bad comparison which should be ignored.
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 do so.
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.
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 to the health and safety of a growing number of travelers with life-threatening peanut allergies.) Just like it is easy for a restaurant to omit an ingredient from a menu item, it is easy for an airline to omit peanuts from its snack offering. Making it possible for customers with disabilities – among them, peanut allergies – to purchase airline travel is an important part of complying with Title 14, Chapter II, Part 382.
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 imply authority for themselves. This should be transparent to everyone.
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.
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, here – probably as a result of emphasis in current American politics on the potential for influence of minority interests and needs. But some of the people on this board – calling for funerals before advancing the discussion – give new meaning to the Founders’ fears of the tyranny of the majority.
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.”
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 are the major causes of allergic reactions to foods. Over a period of two years, approximately 50 percent of subjects in the United States with food allergy have an allergic reaction to accidental exposure.
•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.
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 lost income for airlines.
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.
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 automobile driving, but this analogy is weak in the extreme for several reasons: Exposure to peanuts is more likely to cause an adverse outcome in an allergic person than crossing the street on any given day. Banning automobile driving would be economically and socially disruptive in a way that banning a peanut snack on airplanes would not. There are many alternative snacks available to replace peanuts, but there are few modes of transportation available which could replace automobile driving. (Of course, there are even fewer to replace airline travel.) Automobiles play a significant role in our society, whereas peanuts on airplanes are of comparatively minor importance. His is a bad comparison which should be ignored.
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 do so.
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.
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 to the health and safety of a growing number of travelers with life-threatening peanut allergies.) Just like it is easy for a restaurant to omit an ingredient from a menu item, it is easy for an airline to omit peanuts from its snack offering. Making it possible for customers with disabilities – among them, peanut allergies – to purchase airline travel is an important part of complying with Title 14, Chapter II, Part 382.
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 imply authority for themselves. This should be transparent to everyone.
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.
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, here – probably as a result of emphasis in current American politics on the potential for influence of minority interests and needs. But some of the people on this board – calling for funerals before advancing the discussion – give new meaning to the Founders’ fears of the tyranny of the majority.
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.