Increase in peanut allergies??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

I'm the PP. I have allergies, as does one of my DDs. I've had many people (to include servers at restaurants and even some extended family) question whether my allergies are real, or whether it is just because I don't want to eat something. I've gone so far as to pull out my epipens to prove it...and then walked out of the establishment. Or, even better, waiters who insist that they have "allergy free" food, because "we have a gluten free version!". But, yes...hate to break it to you, there are plenty of people who will assume you are either overreacting or outright lying.
Mine are peanuts and tree nuts, one DD allergic to both of those as well as egg. It is really frustrating.

Agreed. It is important to understand if a person has an allergy vs. choosing to avoid a food because it "makes them gassy." I'm in a volunteer role where we serve food for upwards of 100 people of a span of three days about five times a year. I say this because we definitely volunteers and not professionals.

It makes an absolute difference us as to who has a real allergy - we have some people with mushroom allergies - and people who have dietary preferences for no gluten or lactose or whatever. As in we won't have any foods at any point with mushrooms. But if gluten makes you gassy? We're not accommodating that.

You still have to take what they say at face value. You are not going to go investigate who has a real allergy or not. And it dies not sound like you are asking for doctor's notes either.

People downplaying real allergies because some people lie about allergies are just aholes. These aholes are everywhere. They downplay racial injustice because some people lie about racial injustice. They downplay abuse because some people lie about abuse.

People who lie about allergies should not even come up in a discussion about the cause/ cure for allergies, just as it shouldn't in the situations listed above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie about being ill everyday. And no one walks around focusing on how these people are mak8ng it harder for others who are truly ill.

That's not true at all. The hypochondriacs do make it harder for people to be heard and taken seriously by a doctor.

They do. But no one has the passion for them that they have for fake allergies

This is ironical because allergy and immunology is a rapidly evolving field. So people should not claim to know how severe or how serious someone's symptoms are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I'm not blaming anyone. I just listed the top reasons that pop up when you google it. That's why I'm asking. One of my kids has environmental allergies - tree pollen and such. I think it's possible that we contributed that, in part, because we were in a situation where we had to use air purifiers in our home for a period of time.

I'm curious as to the reasons and if we can reverse it as a population. Peanut allergies are serious.

My kid has environmental allergies and we never used air purifiers until several years after he developed the allergies. Our home is 60 years old and probably has mold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally I see more allergies in children conceived with fertility treatments.

Bingo.

I have one child conceived via IVF and another from a surprise pregnancy several years after we had stopped treatment. Guess which one has multiple anaphylactic food allergies? It isn't the IVF baby!

Both were breastfed, and we also did early introduction of major allergens with both.

Yeah but you're missing the point. YOU are the one who had fertility treatment, not the kids.

What is she missing? That her fertility treatments had no impact in anything?

That they might have. Are you not an English speaker? It's quite plainly written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally I see more allergies in children conceived with fertility treatments.

Bingo.

I have one child conceived via IVF and another from a surprise pregnancy several years after we had stopped treatment. Guess which one has multiple anaphylactic food allergies? It isn't the IVF baby!

Both were breastfed, and we also did early introduction of major allergens with both.

Yeah but you're missing the point. YOU are the one who had fertility treatment, not the kids.

What is she missing? That her fertility treatments had no impact in anything?

That they might have. Are you not an English speaker? It's quite plainly written.

I'm the PP who had IVF. If IVF might be a cause of food allergies as other PPs indicated, then why is my IVF child the one who DOESN'T have food allergies, but my naturally conceived child does? That's what the other PP was questioning. Did you read this entire line of the thread?
Of course, I'm a sample size of 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

DP. 2 reasons...people aren't decent human beings, and other people don't believe allergies are serious because "everyone has gotten into the gluten-free craze" or "you/your kid's just a picky eater" or "oh, you only reacted badly that one time" or whatever other excuse they imagine. And the subset of people that are both. Which seems like a large subset these days!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

Exactly. Thanks for putting it succinctly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie about being ill everyday. And no one walks around focusing on how these people are mak8ng it harder for others who are truly ill.

That's not true at all. The hypochondriacs do make it harder for people to be heard and taken seriously by a doctor.

They do. But no one has the passion for them that they have for fake allergies

This is ironical because allergy and immunology is a rapidly evolving field. So people should not claim to know how severe or how serious someone's symptoms are.

The difference is people try to accommodate and alter their recipes, against their own preferences, and the fake allergy sufferer turns around and eats the thing they just said they can’t eat. Because a little won’t hurt. Or like my friend who didn’t like olives and would tell a waiter she was allergic so that she wouldn’t have to push one olive to the side of her salad, would make a huge issue of the salad showed up with the one whole olive on it. She was totally not allergic to olives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

DP. 2 reasons...people aren't decent human beings, and other people don't believe allergies are serious because "everyone has gotten into the gluten-free craze" or "you/your kid's just a picky eater" or "oh, you only reacted badly that one time" or whatever other excuse they imagine. And the subset of people that are both. Which seems like a large subset these days!

Nope, there are no decent people who think "your kid's probably just a picky eater" so I'm going to do this thing that if I'm wrong could kill them.

There might be decent people who wonder in their head "I wonder if your kid's a picky eater" but the people who assume it and act on it? They aren't decent human beings.

I have a kid with a very rare allergy, to a medication that many people think they are allergic to and very few people are allergic to. Because he has major medical needs where this medication would be really helpful, and not being able to use it causes extra pain and distress for him, it has come up with multiple specialists, and many of them initially express disbelief. But then they listen to my descriptions of past events, or review medical records, or suggest testing, or whatever. Even though they are clearly initially very skeptical, none of them take a chance with my kid, because even a slight possibility of anaphylaxis isn't something they will tolerate. That's how decent people react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie about being ill everyday. And no one walks around focusing on how these people are mak8ng it harder for others who are truly ill.

That's not true at all. The hypochondriacs do make it harder for people to be heard and taken seriously by a doctor.

They do. But no one has the passion for them that they have for fake allergies

This is ironical because allergy and immunology is a rapidly evolving field. So people should not claim to know how severe or how serious someone's symptoms are.

The difference is people try to accommodate and alter their recipes, against their own preferences, and the fake allergy sufferer turns around and eats the thing they just said they can’t eat. Because a little won’t hurt. Or like my friend who didn’t like olives and would tell a waiter she was allergic so that she wouldn’t have to push one olive to the side of her salad, would make a huge issue of the salad showed up with the one whole olive on it. She was totally not allergic to olives.

It's best to avoid making assumptions/ inferences/ conclusions like these. Your friend is one person.

I know people with diagnosed celiacs who eat wheat from time to time. Their eating it does not make them " fake" celiac sufferers.

People are not less deserving of consideration because they are doing what they shouldn't do.

You are not obligated to accommodate anyone. My kids with diagnosed allergies don't always get accommodated and it's totally fine. When they do, I am very grateful. I have zero expectation.

If accommodating builds that much resentment, don't do it. They will figure it out.

Would you tell alcoholics they are not alcoholics if they take a sip of alcohol after you ordered a non alcoholic beverage for them or after you tried to limit the amount of alcohol to one section at the party to keep them from temptation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

This is very black and white.

I tend to ask a couple questions before taking it seriously because what I've learned is that there is a small subset of people who simply like trying to control other people and asking for accommodations for their kid and it has nothing to do with a deadly allergy. They just have very severe and restrictive attitudes about food and will use the specter of an allergy to push them on others because they love the idea of forcing everyone to eat as they eat and feed their kids as they feed their kids.

If you have not encountered people like this, great! It's probably easier to take peopel at their word. But we have had one family like this both at our preschool and at our elementary school, and therefore I've gotten into the habit of asking things like "is this an allergy or a sensitivity -- we'll have a variety of food to accommodate anyone with sensitivities, but don't want to exclude a food people like unless it poses a danger to someone." Or I'll just ask, open-ended, "what will happen if your child comes into contact with his food?" It's not because I don't take allergies seriously, it's because I have had peopel in my life who will literally tell me I may not serve my child foods that pose ZERO harm to their children, simply because they have a vendetta against bread, dairy, packaged foods, or sugar. That's fine for them, but I will feed my kid as I want and I am not going to change that unless a food poses an actual, physical threat to someone.

So no, I do not take people at their word. Peopel lie, and people will hold you hostage if you let them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally I see more allergies in children conceived with fertility treatments.

Bingo.

I have one child conceived via IVF and another from a surprise pregnancy several years after we had stopped treatment. Guess which one has multiple anaphylactic food allergies? It isn't the IVF baby!

Both were breastfed, and we also did early introduction of major allergens with both.

Yeah but you're missing the point. YOU are the one who had fertility treatment, not the kids.

What is she missing? That her fertility treatments had no impact in anything?

That they might have. Are you not an English speaker? It's quite plainly written.

I'm the PP who had IVF. If IVF might be a cause of food allergies as other PPs indicated, then why is my IVF child the one who DOESN'T have food allergies, but my naturally conceived child does? That's what the other PP was questioning. Did you read this entire line of the thread?
Of course, I'm a sample size of 1.

DP who disagrees with the pps blaming Ivf.

I think one of them is suggesting that ivf ( drugs etc) altered your system and it affected the second baby.

As someone with undiagnosed infertility and 2 kids with lots of allergies ( no ivf), I think whatever is causing the infertility caused the allergies/ immune issues they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

This is very black and white.

I tend to ask a couple questions before taking it seriously because what I've learned is that there is a small subset of people who simply like trying to control other people and asking for accommodations for their kid and it has nothing to do with a deadly allergy. They just have very severe and restrictive attitudes about food and will use the specter of an allergy to push them on others because they love the idea of forcing everyone to eat as they eat and feed their kids as they feed their kids.

If you have not encountered people like this, great! It's probably easier to take peopel at their word. But we have had one family like this both at our preschool and at our elementary school, and therefore I've gotten into the habit of asking things like "is this an allergy or a sensitivity -- we'll have a variety of food to accommodate anyone with sensitivities, but don't want to exclude a food people like unless it poses a danger to someone." Or I'll just ask, open-ended, "what will happen if your child comes into contact with his food?" It's not because I don't take allergies seriously, it's because I have had peopel in my life who will literally tell me I may not serve my child foods that pose ZERO harm to their children, simply because they have a vendetta against bread, dairy, packaged foods, or sugar. That's fine for them, but I will feed my kid as I want and I am not going to change that unless a food poses an actual, physical threat to someone.

So no, I do not take people at their word. Peopel lie, and people will hold you hostage if you let them.

So you admit its a small subset of people, and you'd rather put others through an investigation than just let it be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

No its really just basic humanness. People have a limited capacity for information. Almost all of people's behavior is shaped to a great degree on their life experiences. Negative experiences stick more and longer than positive ones. The average person does not have the time or capacity to consider each situation individually with every interaction. We all use our past experiences to make choices about how we interact with others. Thus, people will remember the one person who isn't truthful about their allergy more than the several that are truthful. The same way you can name the person abusing the handicapped spot more than the 10 who are truly handicapped. This exact phenomenon has led to people who have invisible disabilities being harassed by 'well meaning' people in parking lots. You also see this with service dogs. You should be angry at the people abusing the system.