I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things. I
heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people might
be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the airline
would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than carrying
two different types for inventory reasons?

Thanks

Tom

"mary" > wrote:

>I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things. I
>heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people might
>be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
>anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
>not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the airline
>would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than carrying
>two different types for inventory reasons?

Is this supposed to be a joke? The last time I flew, peanuts were
about the only solid food still offered.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

"Jonathan Sachs" > wrote in message
...
> "mary" > wrote:
>
> >I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things.
I
> >heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people
might
> >be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because
if
> >anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
> >not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the
airline
> >would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than
carrying
> >two different types for inventory reasons?
>
> Is this supposed to be a joke? The last time I flew, peanuts were
> about the only solid food still offered.
>

When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
flying on Southwest, btw.

Jonathan Sachs wrote:

> Is this supposed to be a joke? The last time I flew, peanuts were
> about the only solid food still offered.

Last time I flew was Sept/02. They handed out peanuts on one leg of the flight.
I don't eat peanuts. On the way back they gave us pretzels, but they forgot the
copious amounts of beer that make pretzels palatable.

"DRB" > wrote:

>When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
>flying on Southwest, btw.

That's my sardine can of choice.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:35:10 -0500, mary wrote:

> I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth
> things. I heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some
> people might be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve
> them because if anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who
> was allergic but not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is
> it that the airline would prefer to only have one snack, such as
> pretzels, rather than carrying two different types for inventory
> reasons?

It's mostly the latter. It's cheaper to offer one kind of snack on planes,
at least for the bulk of the aircraft. Rather than to provide something
that could be allergic to a small percentage of the passengers, airlines
provide something that everyone should be able to eat without injury. This
is made more complicated by the low-carb fervor that tells people that
pretzels are bad. But that's a subject for a different thread.

Some hypersensitive people can be affected by local handling of peanuts,
but they are a small subset of a small subset of the population. I have
not heard of anyone in coach going into seizures because someone in first
class is gnawing on peanuts. You'd have to live in a bubble to protect
yourself from that strong of an allergy.

> Tom

--
-Brian James Macke
"In order to get that which you wish for, you must first get that which
builds it." -- Unknown

"i am sure that i have had peanuts on a flight (but that is in
europe)but it is true that someone with an allergy can go into an
anyphilactic(sp.) shock if they are in the same room as nuts
--or--whatever they are allergic to.my best friends daughter has to
carry a shot around with her so she can inject herself if necessary as
she is always coming into contact with foodstuffs that contain nuts or
derivatives of nuts EVEN though she is so careful as to what she buys
and touches.unfortunately the world we live in is not always as
careful so she tends to spend rather a lot of time in the emergency
room of the local hospital.

>When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
>flying on Southwest, btw.

Yes, Southwest often (not always) carries them, but the Majors all seem to have
gone over to boring, annoying, harmless pretzels.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:41:23 -0600, "Brian Macke"
> wrote:


> This
>is made more complicated by the low-carb fervor that tells people that
>pretzels are bad. But that's a subject for a different thread.

Lowcarbers are smart enough to bring thier *own* low carb snacks on
the plane.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:35:10 -0500, "mary" >
wrote:

>I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things. I
>heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people might
>be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
>anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
>not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the airline
>would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than carrying
>two different types for inventory reasons?
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom

Southwest, at least, still offers peanuts on their flights.

Naomi Darvell wrote:
>
> So it's just safer not to offer them
> at all.
<snip>

The geriatric ward I cover just got painted with a total peanut ban,
although no one on it has peanut allergy. It is a shame, because peanut
butter is about the favourite sandwich of at least half the people.
Everyone is grumbling. It is almost as bad as when they banned smoking.
blacksalt

I have been served small packets of peanuts many times on airlines.


" > I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth
things. I
> heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people
might
> be allergic to them.

In article >,
"mary" > wrote:

> I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things. I
> heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people might
> be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
> anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
> not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the airline
> would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than carrying
> two different types for inventory reasons?

I was served peanuts on both international flights I took recently.

Airlines only decline to serve peanuts if they have been informed that
someone on the flight _does_ have a life-threatening peanut allergy.

Miche

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
-- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

In article >,
(WardNA) wrote:

> >When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
> >flying on Southwest, btw.
>
> Yes, Southwest often (not always) carries them, but the Majors all seem to
> have
> gone over to boring, annoying, harmless pretzels.

Pretzels aren't harmless to me -- I can't digest wheat.

Miche

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
-- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

Naomi Darvell > wrote:

> United, at least, phased out peanuts as snacks some time ago.

I flew on United a little over a month ago. The snack included a couple of
tiny bags of tiny pretzels. No peanuts.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Jonathan Sachs wrote:
>
> > Is this supposed to be a joke? The last time I flew, peanuts were
> > about the only solid food still offered.
>
> Last time I flew was Sept/02. They handed out peanuts on one leg of the flight.
> I don't eat peanuts. On the way back they gave us pretzels, but they forgot the
> copious amounts of beer that make pretzels palatable.

I don't think that much beer exists on the planet! :-)

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

WardNA wrote:
>
> >When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
> >flying on Southwest, btw.
>
> Yes, Southwest often (not always) carries them, but the Majors all seem to have
> gone over to boring, annoying, harmless pretzels.

Gee, and I though nothing could be worst than
the bag of carrots I got for a snack the last time
I flew. Sheesh! I thing the obvious solution is
to forbid people with peanut allergies to drive
and let the people who fly at least have the comfort
of a lousy bag of peanuts. Or I'd settle for cashews
or pistachios. Just, please, no damn pretzels or
carrots.
Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

mary wrote:

> I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things.
> I heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people
> might be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them
> because if anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was
> allergic but not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it
> that the airline would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels,
> rather than carrying two different types for inventory reasons?

Whenever I fly to Princeton, I'm always served peanuts. The only time I
wasn't it was a bag of mixed nuts that excluded peanuts. The reason was
that there was another passenger who reported a peanut allergy and so the
attendants didn't serve them for that particular flight.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

mary > wrote:

> Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
> anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
> not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?).

There are people who have contact anaphylactic shock from peanut dust.
Many parents of peanut allergic kids have to wipe down the seats where
their kids are going to sit, just in case. And yes, they carry Epipens.

I know there are airlines in the US who have gone peanut free. I know
there are airlines as well who will go peanut free on a flight if
someone requests it (a lot of the time, they require a doctor's letter).
There are also airlines who refuse to go peanut free (Continental is
one, IIRC).

Yep, it's a shame that so many people have food allergies. But when
it's life and death, well, perspective changes.

E
mom to a son with multiple food allergies
--
"In Finnegans Wake, he just made up words.
Now that's just not sporting!"
...A friend on James Joyce

mary > wrote in message
...
> I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things.
I
> heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people
might
> be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
> anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
> not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the
airline
> would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than
carrying
> two different types for inventory reasons?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
>
This is *not* an urban myth - it happened to me on a long-haul flight a
couple of years ago. It was a package tour, so we had this person on our
8-hour flight both there and back.

Just as they were passing out the pre-dinner drinks we were informed that
someone on board had a severe nut allergy, and so snacks would not be served
with the drinks. And, BTW, would people ensure that they did not eat any
nuts of their own, even the smell could kill the person.

We were kinda cheesed off, but I guess it was much worse for the person with
the allergy, wondering if somebody would cheat, or would they make it back
alive.

bumble

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Miche wrote:

> In article >,
> (WardNA) wrote:
>
> > >When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
> > >flying on Southwest, btw.
> >
> > Yes, Southwest often (not always) carries them, but the Majors all seem to
> > have
> > gone over to boring, annoying, harmless pretzels.
>
> Pretzels aren't harmless to me -- I can't digest wheat.

but lifethreatening peanut allergies are a whole different can of worms
from wheat allergies... at least my cousin doesn't croak if someone who
has eaten wheat kisses her.

Lena

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Taffy Stoker wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:41:23 -0600, "Brian Macke"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > This
> >is made more complicated by the low-carb fervor that tells people that
> >pretzels are bad. But that's a subject for a different thread.
>
> Lowcarbers are smart enough to bring thier *own* low carb snacks on
> the plane.

but stupid enough to have fallen for the food industries hype.

Seriously, people, _there is no magic pill_! You're still gonna die no
matter what. Lovin' your body does not mean following the magic
recipe--it don't exist.

Lena

anti-dieter

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:13:05 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz
> wrote:

>
>
>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Taffy Stoker wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:41:23 -0600, "Brian Macke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > This
>> >is made more complicated by the low-carb fervor that tells people that
>> >pretzels are bad. But that's a subject for a different thread.
>>
>> Lowcarbers are smart enough to bring thier *own* low carb snacks on
>> the plane.
>
>but stupid enough to have fallen for the food industries hype.
>
>Seriously, people, _there is no magic pill_! You're still gonna die no
>matter what. Lovin' your body does not mean following the magic
>recipe--it don't exist.
>
>Lena



*plonk*




>
>anti-dieter

I don't have an answer to the problem, but I will say that I find the
whole discussion/idea fascinating. How much is the society at large
responsible for protecting the individual?


I've heard of people who are allergic to the fragrances found in most
soaps and personal care products. I corresponded with such a person
once. She lives out in the woods by herself. Every item in her house
has been rigorously cleaned because her list of chemical sensitivities
is enormous. People who visit her get an instruction list of the sorts
of products they're allowed to use before coming. One whiff of the
wrong stuff could kill her. The exhaust from the ambulence come to save
her life would kill her. I understand there are a bunch of people with
the disorder.


Now what if she wanted to ride an airplane? She's certainly
handicapped. Would that handicap entitle her to a special airplane
cleaned with special cleaning products with everyone on board including
pilots, flight attendants and other travelers having washed with special
soaps and shampoos first? It sounds absurd, but I wonder.


For me, going without peanuts for the duration of a flight is no big
deal. I may not love it, but I'm willing to do it if asked. Subjecting
myself to the sort of rigorous scrutiny this woman gives her houseguests
is out of the question. I'm not willing to go that far.


The subject has come up in the public schools too. I heard of one
school banning latex everything for the sake of one student. Locally,
there are lots of schools that have peanut-free tables in the school
cafeteria. And there are peanut-free schools. Sometimes the other
parents and students are portrayed as being glad to help for the sake of
one allergic classmate. In other news articles, the parents are getting
fed up with being told what they can put in their own child's lunchbox.
Peanuts are, after all, a legal substance.

It is all very interesting.

--Lia

miss_jaime wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:13:05 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz
> > wrote:

> >but stupid enough to have fallen for the food industries hype.
> >
> >Seriously, people, _there is no magic pill_! You're still gonna die no
> >matter what. Lovin' your body does not mean following the magic
> >recipe--it don't exist.
> >
> >Lena
>
> *plonk*


Lena is dead on, so I'll plonk you for being ridiculously sensitive.




Brian Rodenborn

Julia Altshuler > wrote:

>Now what if she wanted to ride an airplane? She's certainly
>handicapped. Would that handicap entitle her to a special airplane
>cleaned with special cleaning products with everyone on board including
>pilots, flight attendants and other travelers having washed with special
>soaps and shampoos first? It sounds absurd, but I wonder.

I know next to nothing about disability law, but I do know that the
ADA requires "reasonable accommodations" for persons with
disabilities. I don't think think that having to provide a special
airplane would be considered reasonable.

>Sometimes the other
>parents and students are portrayed as being glad to help for the sake of
>one allergic classmate. In other news articles, the parents are getting
>fed up with being told what they can put in their own child's lunchbox.

This is indeed a touchy subject. I've always wondered what would
happen in a case where two "reasonable accommodations" were in
conflict. Hypothetically, what if one student has a life-threatening
peanut allergy, and another has a life-threatening enzyme deficiency
that requires him to eat peanuts with every meal?

> Peanuts are, after all, a legal substance.

That's not a relevant point, if it ever was! Our lawmakers have
established the right of public schools to require students to wear
uniforms (Seig Heil!), and to test all participants in extracurricular
activities for drugs, which I consider a massive invasion of privacy.
There is strong support in certain quarters for testing ALL students
for drugs, and it may well happen. We may still live in a democracy,
but our children are increasingly being educated in police-state
institutions.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:wjCMb.33656$sv6.98909@attbi_s52...
> snip for brevity <
>
> The subject has come up in the public schools too. I heard of one
> school banning latex everything for the sake of one student. Locally,
> there are lots of schools that have peanut-free tables in the school
> cafeteria. And there are peanut-free schools. Sometimes the other
> parents and students are portrayed as being glad to help for the sake of
> one allergic classmate. In other news articles, the parents are getting
> fed up with being told what they can put in their own child's lunchbox.
> Peanuts are, after all, a legal substance.
>
> It is all very interesting.

As someone who has spent quite a lot of time in West Africa, all I can say
is that they practically live on peanuts there, it's one of their main
protein crops and is eaten cooked as a staple diet by people who often
cannot afford meat. I wonder if many West African children have peanut
allergies? Somehow I doubt it. Why is this condition so prevalent in the
west, I wonder?

bumble

mary saw Sally selling seashells by the seashore and told us all about
it on Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:35:10 -0500:

>I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things. I
>heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people might
>be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
>anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
>not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the airline
>would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than carrying
>two different types for inventory reasons?

Some airlines phased them out about a decade ago due to the increasing
number of peanut allergies. There were a couple of cases of allergic
passengers who had severe life-threatening allergic reactions when
they had not even touched the nuts offered - the traces of peanut dust
circulating in the air system were enough to trigger the reaction. But
that's very very rare and they seem to have decided that peanuts are
'expected' or something. I was offered them on four out of six
aeroplanes recently... the other two offered equally inedible (but
peanut-free) pretzels.

Personally I'd rather they were scrapped altogether... I don't eat
nuts and I can't stand the smell when the people around me start
opening the packets and eating them. Ugh!

~Karen AKA Kajikit

Nobody outstubborns a cat...

Visit my webpage: http://www.kajikitscorner.com
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/

Jonathan Sachs saw Sally selling seashells by the seashore and told us
all about it on Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:58:48 GMT:

>This is indeed a touchy subject. I've always wondered what would
>happen in a case where two "reasonable accommodations" were in
>conflict. Hypothetically, what if one student has a life-threatening
>peanut allergy, and another has a life-threatening enzyme deficiency
>that requires him to eat peanuts with every meal?

If the two ever met, the Universe would end in a matter/antimatter
explosion...

~Karen AKA Kajikit

Nobody outstubborns a cat...

Visit my webpage: http://www.kajikitscorner.com
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:35:10 -0500, "mary" >
wrote:

>I do not know if this is true or if it is one of those urban myth things. I
>heard that they do not serve peanuts on the plane because some people might
>be allergic to them. Does this mean that they do not serve them because if
>anyone opened a bag of peanuts on the plane, someone who was allergic but
>not eating them would be affected (peanut dust?). Or is it that the airline
>would prefer to only have one snack, such as pretzels, rather than carrying
>two different types for inventory reasons?
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom
>

IMO, they would prefer to serve nothing at all unless there was a
really, really cheap tranquilizer that they could use to keep the
cargo from being a nuisance. I haven't seen a peanut for a while now
and assume that the tiny packet containing 4 1/2 tiny pretzels is a
fraction of a cent cheaper than the equally tiny packet containing 9
peanuts. FWIW, American Airlines still serves warm mixed nuts to 1st
class, but the mixture does not contain peanuts.

In article >,
Lena B Katz > wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Miche wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (WardNA) wrote:
> >
> > > >When I flew last Monday (Jan 5), I accumlated 4 bags of peanuts. I was
> > > >flying on Southwest, btw.
> > >
> > > Yes, Southwest often (not always) carries them, but the Majors all seem to
> > > have
> > > gone over to boring, annoying, harmless pretzels.
> >
> > Pretzels aren't harmless to me -- I can't digest wheat.
>
> but lifethreatening peanut allergies are a whole different can of worms
> from wheat allergies... at least my cousin doesn't croak if someone who
> has eaten wheat kisses her.

Oh, I know that -- I was just pointing out that pretzels aren't
necessarily harmless.

Miche

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
-- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

In article >,
Jonathan Sachs > wrote:

> Julia Altshuler > wrote:

> > Peanuts are, after all, a legal substance.
>
> That's not a relevant point, if it ever was! Our lawmakers have
> established the right of public schools to require students to wear
> uniforms (Seig Heil!),

Oh for goodness sake.

Having to wear school uniform doesn't turn one into a drone.

Miche (been there, done that, not a drone)

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
-- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

Jonathan Sachs > wrote:

> This is indeed a touchy subject. I've always wondered what would
> happen in a case where two "reasonable accommodations" were in
> conflict. Hypothetically, what if one student has a life-threatening
> peanut allergy, and another has a life-threatening enzyme deficiency
> that requires him to eat peanuts with every meal?

More than likely, the enzyme that the child needed could be provided in
a pill...

I'm touchy about this because I have a child with food allergies, and I
can see both sides of this (so far, his allergies are not
life-threatening), considering that we didn't have to deal with this
type of allergy two years ago.

It does amaze me that people would get mad cause they couldn't have
peanuts on a plane, because it might cause someone to get deathly ill.
Even before our fun with allergies here, I'd never think of being upset
cause I couldn't have something, if it made someone not breathe.
--
"In Finnegans Wake, he just made up words.
Now that's just not sporting!"
...A friend on James Joyce

Miche > wrote:

>> That's not a relevant point, if it ever was! Our lawmakers have
>> established the right of public schools to require students to wear
>> uniforms (Seig Heil!),
>
>Oh for goodness sake.
>
>Having to wear school uniform doesn't turn one into a drone.

I'm pleased that you survived. My point is that one of the avowed
purposes of public education is to teach our children to be good
citizens, and the model of good citizenship which public schools are
presenting to them is increasingly regimented and authoritarian. Is
this a model of the society we want to develop? Not me.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

(Elana Kehoe) wrote:

>It does amaze me that people would get mad cause they couldn't have
>peanuts on a plane, because it might cause someone to get deathly ill.

Well, "touchy" means that the "right" answer has to be based on the
facts of each case, not some abstract set of principles. In other
words, people who base their opinions on prejudice rather than thought
are going to be egregiously wrong, no matter what their prejudice is.

>Even before our fun with allergies here, I'd never think of being upset
>cause I couldn't have something, if it made someone not breathe.

Some people can be incredibly self-centered. Puts me in mind of an
incident some years ago where I was waiting to cross a busy street.
Along came an ambulance, lights flashing and siren screaming. All the
traffic stopped. One woman pushed off from the curb in front of the
approaching vehicle, her mind evidently empty except for the syllogism
"Cars stopped = I can cross."

I grabbed her arm and said, "Lady, for God's sake, that's an
ambulance!"

She glared at me, and said, "Get your hands off me!"

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, bumble wrote:

>
> Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> news:wjCMb.33656$sv6.98909@attbi_s52...
> > snip for brevity <
> >
> > The subject has come up in the public schools too. I heard of one
> > school banning latex everything for the sake of one student. Locally,
> > there are lots of schools that have peanut-free tables in the school
> > cafeteria. And there are peanut-free schools. Sometimes the other
> > parents and students are portrayed as being glad to help for the sake of
> > one allergic classmate. In other news articles, the parents are getting
> > fed up with being told what they can put in their own child's lunchbox.
> > Peanuts are, after all, a legal substance.
> >
> > It is all very interesting.
>
> As someone who has spent quite a lot of time in West Africa, all I can say
> is that they practically live on peanuts there, it's one of their main
> protein crops and is eaten cooked as a staple diet by people who often
> cannot afford meat. I wonder if many West African children have peanut
> allergies? Somehow I doubt it. Why is this condition so prevalent in the
> west, I wonder?

genetics. more africans are allergic to milk than europeans (mostly
because it wasn't part of their traditional diet, hence no selection
against the allergy).

Lena

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Elana Kehoe wrote:

> Jonathan Sachs > wrote:
>
> > This is indeed a touchy subject. I've always wondered what would
> > happen in a case where two "reasonable accommodations" were in
> > conflict. Hypothetically, what if one student has a life-threatening
> > peanut allergy, and another has a life-threatening enzyme deficiency
> > that requires him to eat peanuts with every meal?
>
> More than likely, the enzyme that the child needed could be provided in
> a pill...
>
> I'm touchy about this because I have a child with food allergies, and I
> can see both sides of this (so far, his allergies are not
> life-threatening), considering that we didn't have to deal with this
> type of allergy two years ago.
>
> It does amaze me that people would get mad cause they couldn't have
> peanuts on a plane, because it might cause someone to get deathly ill.
> Even before our fun with allergies here, I'd never think of being upset
> cause I couldn't have something, if it made someone not breathe.

You are a darling! But, where I'm from, the air regularly kills (or
renders unconscious) healthy adults. Try telling people that they can't
smoke because it is affecting your thinking... or, more relevantly, that
people shouldn't all drive down the same street (*murray*) moving at 3
miles perhour, because it means that I can't breathe. And then try
telling people that they can't use their air conditioners because the
pollution from the power plants kills over a hundred people every year...

but most people are stupid...

lena

Elana Kehoe wrote:
> It does amaze me that people would get mad cause they couldn't have
> peanuts on a plane, because it might cause someone to get deathly ill.
> Even before our fun with allergies here, I'd never think of being upset
> cause I couldn't have something, if it made someone not breathe.


Essentially I agree with you. I can easily forgo peanuts for 8 hours if
means saving someone's life. Hell, I'd get hungry, but I'd gladly forgo
all food for 8 hours for that. But I like to play devil's advocate.
Read the following and tell me if you'd be willing to put up with
restrictions this stringent on a daily basis in order to allow someone
else to breathe. (This isn't a challenge for Elana personally. I
haven't made up my own mind on the subject. I find it interesting so
I'm asking others.)
--Lia


What you need to know before visiting a person who has MCS

I can’t wait to get together, it has been so long since we last
sat and chatted over a cup of tea. I miss our friendship but most of
all, I miss you. Life sure has changed in many ways since we last
visited with each other, hasn’t it? For me, interacting with other
people is one of the hardest things for me to deal with these days while
having a difficult to control illness.

Even well meaning people can cause me to have what may have started
out as a “good day” into a life threatening medical nightmare or
disaster. As if living with such a difficult health situation is not bad
enough, it is often equally difficult for me to ask others not to make
me ill in my own home by using various chemicals/products that seem
completely harmless (to them). Thus, causing an entire other set of
issues due to isolation, alienation and friends/family avoiding me
because being in my company or visiting me is simply not “convenient”
for my would be guest.

If you are planning to visit my home for a few minutes, hours, or
for and extended over night stay, here are some basics, which may help
make our visit enjoyable and lessen the chances of my becoming too ill
to enjoy our visit as well as lessening your chances of feeling hurt,
bad or embarrassed for contributing to my illness. After all, breathing
is a necessity, chemicals and fragrances on ones body and clothing are
not. The truth of the matter is I have never really been in the company
of another person who made me sick… it was the chemicals they had on
their body and clothes that has gotten my health to the compromised
point in which it is today.

These are just some basics, but better to ask me than to assume.
Personal hygiene

Simple rules-of-thumb:

* If the word perfume or scented (natural or otherwise) is on the
label of your product, don’t use it before you come to visit me at my
home … Yes, even your breath mints, gum and mint toothpaste smells could
knock me for a loop.
* Things you cannot smell affect me and make me pretty sick; after
all, it’s the chemicals not the odors that make me sick, so … just ask
if you’re in doubt.

Cosmetics have exemptions from labeling laws, they are literally allowed
to state they are fragrance free, when they in fact do have fragrances
in them referred and often labeled as “masking fragrance” which is
used to cover up the smell of the product itself. Obviously, fragrance
is fragrance, no matter the reason; it's in there and it will make me
very ill.
Shampoo

All brands you can buy in a supermarket have fragrances in it, even baby
shampoo. Please do not “drop in” after you have just come from the salon
or you have just shampooed or colored your hair. This will make me sick.
If you will be staying over night at our house, I will supply the
guest bathroom with “safe” products for you to use while visiting,
including: toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, soap etc. Please
DO NOT bring any of your own personal products into the house.

Soap is like shampoo. The worse offenders to me are Dial Soap and ALL
other “deodorant/scented” soaps. Safer alternatives are available like
Neutrogena Fragrance Free soap or Basis soap. Again, ask me and I will
help you out here. Keep in mind that the soap you may wash your hands
with in a public rest room or in an airplane before you get to my house
will make me sick because chances are good that this soap will contain a
perfume /fragrance.

Currently the ONLY soap that is safe around me is Neutrogena Fragrance
Free Facial soap which we also use as a GREAT shampoo bar and Kiss My
Face Fragrance Free Pure Olive Oil bar.
Deodorant
Most all deodorants have fragrances or "masking fragrances" and other
harmful chemicals in them. A good alternative is the crystal sticks, or
any of the chemical free varieties. Try Arm and Hammer UNSCENTED or ask
me which deodorant would be ok for you to use while you are visiting me
at my home.
Hand cream

There does not seem to be any safe hand creams for people chemically
sensitive. Best to leave yours at home. I have some nice “safe” lotion
bars that are great even for your face.
Perfumes, fragrances, colognes, after shave, hair care products, nail
polish and/or remover etc…

Just got to say NO! There are not any “safe” products that I am not
neurologically sensitive to. Please leave them all at home. Those “all
natural” fragranced products are not safe around me either. While some
products are worse than others, all WILL make me sick to some degree,
probably too sick to enjoy your company.
Lotions, hair gel, hair spray...

Amazing how much stuff people pour on their body every day, isn't it?
Please do without these products around me, in our home or when visiting.
Clothing… What to avoid:

* DO NOT WEAR --- Newly washed clothes, unless they are just washed
in baking soda and borax at least 4 to 6 times.
* DO NOT WEAR --- Any/all clothes washed in any scented (natural or
synthetic) detergents or bleach, this will make me sick.
* DO NOT HAVE ON --- Freshly polished nails (same day)… the same
goes for “just” colored hair.
* Just washed hands, which were washed with a bar or liquid soap,
which has fragrance or germicide in it.
* New clothes – new fabrics are treated with formaldehyde and
formaldehyde makes me terribly sick.
* DO NOT WEAR --- Dry-cleaned clothes.
* DO NOT WEAR --- Moth balled clothes.
* DO NOT WEAR --- ANY Clothes EVER previously washed or dried with
fabric softener / dryer sheets of any kind…This is the worse for me and
will make me very sick.
* Must Repeat - DO NOT WEAR --- ANY Clothes EVER previously washed
or dried with fabric softener / dryer sheets of any kind…This is the
worse for me and will make me very sick.

Do not pack (if you will be staying overnight) or wear clothes that have
been in the closet next to other clothes, which have “lingering”
perfume/cologne/aftershave smells, fabric softener smells, deodorant
smells or detergent smells.

Overnight guests

I do not use any fragranced detergent, softeners or laundry/cleaning
products. I wash clothes in borax and/ baking soda; it works well even
for dirty work clothes. Chances are good if you are staying over for
more than a couple of days, you will need to do a load of laundry.

Any clothing previously washed and/or dried using products that contain
fragrances cannot go into my machines or come into the house for that
matter. Even if they were washed and dried last month (fabric softeners
and dryer sheets leave a long lasting waxy film that sticks on your
clothing --- for ever) this waxy chemical which stays on clothing makes
me very ill.

PS… MCS is NOT an allergy or an “allergic” reaction to “smells.” It is a
serious and very difficult to manage neurological disorder triggered by
chemicals. I am obviously much more neurologically/chemically sensitive
now than I probably was the last time we saw each other, but that
doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy each others company and have some fun, it
just means I need to be more careful to avoid Central Nervous System
problems, seizures, migraines or the need to be on oxygen.



More on MCS --- If I were to tell someone that I had Cancer or Multiple
Sclerosis lets say, that person I'm talking to can accept this in a
detached, impersonal way. The issue usually does not personally
challenge them. Now if I tell this person that perfumes, every day
household chemicals, scented soaps and fabric softeners make me horribly
sick, since he/she most likely use one or more of these products
regularly, the issue is immediately personal.



© 2002 Signs of the Times - Kathleen Houghton

Assisting in developing and implementing Fragrance Free policies for
healthier living.

Lena B Katz wrote:

>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, bumble wrote:
>
>
>>Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
>>news:wjCMb.33656$sv6.98909@attbi_s52...
>>
>>>snip for brevity <
>>>
>>>The subject has come up in the public schools too. I heard of one
>>>school banning latex everything for the sake of one student. Locally,
>>>there are lots of schools that have peanut-free tables in the school
>>>cafeteria. And there are peanut-free schools. Sometimes the other
>>>parents and students are portrayed as being glad to help for the sake of
>>>one allergic classmate. In other news articles, the parents are getting
>>>fed up with being told what they can put in their own child's lunchbox.
>>> Peanuts are, after all, a legal substance.
>>>
>>>It is all very interesting.
>>
>>As someone who has spent quite a lot of time in West Africa, all I can say
>>is that they practically live on peanuts there, it's one of their main
>>protein crops and is eaten cooked as a staple diet by people who often
>>cannot afford meat. I wonder if many West African children have peanut
>>allergies? Somehow I doubt it. Why is this condition so prevalent in the
>>west, I wonder?
>
> genetics. more africans are allergic to milk than europeans (mostly
> because it wasn't part of their traditional diet, hence no selection
> against the allergy).

Not allergic, intolerant because they're missing the enzyme lactase
after infancy. Same with most Asians. Northern Europeans are best
able to digest milk products, but not all of them can. Selection for
persistence of lactase production, but only since the beginning of
dairy agriculture.

Pastorio

Jonathan Sachs wrote:

> Miche > wrote:
>
> >> That's not a relevant point, if it ever was! Our lawmakers have
> >> established the right of public schools to require students to wear
> >> uniforms (Seig Heil!),
> >
> >Oh for goodness sake.
> >
> >Having to wear school uniform doesn't turn one into a drone.
>
> I'm pleased that you survived. My point is that one of the avowed
> purposes of public education is to teach our children to be good
> citizens, and the model of good citizenship which public schools are
> presenting to them is increasingly regimented and authoritarian. Is
> this a model of the society we want to develop? Not me.
>

Oh good grief...schoolkids in the UK or Oz or the States or wherever being
required to wear school uniforms is not analagous to school kids in the
Third Reich or the former USSR or North Korea being required to wear
uniforms. Our kids in uniforms aren't required to wear any Young Pioneer
scarves or "We Love Kim Il - Sung!" pins or Hitler Jugend insignia or
anything.

School uniforms are a *great* idea - universal adoption of them would
eliminate a lot of nonsense, not to mention easing financial burdens for
parents.

It's *just* school clothing, fer cryin' out loud.

--
Best
Greg