M&Ms May Contain Peanuts

[RoboDude]

Why do bags of M&Ms (plain and peanut alike) have the warning "M&Ms may contain peanuts"? It seems that any literate person should know that peanut M&Ms contain peanuts. And why do they put this warning on plain M&Ms?

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

[salinqmind]

It appears a sizeable proportion of the public is deathly allergic to peanuts and peanut by products. Some schools are even toying with the idea of banning peanut butter sandwiches from their cafeterias. So if you pick up a packet of peanut M&Ms and are allergic, they can't say they didn't warn you. As for the plain M&Ms warning, maybe both kinds are made at the same plant and a peanut candy could accidentally get mixed in with the plain.

[Polycarp]

Allergies: there are people who are sufficiently allergic to peanuts to go into shock if they accidentally ingest peanut-based foods. As for why plain M&Ms bear the warning, two WAGs:
1. The same ingredients, except for the peanuts, are used for both. The possibility of "peanut contamination" thus exists.
2. Peanut oil may be used in producing both kinds.

[Snark]

My brother had a friend who was allergic to peanuts. She went to a restaurant with her friends and had a piece of pie or something, and ended up dying because that dessert had a trace of peanuts in it. Manufacturers should be more careful about cleaning their equipment thoroughly.

[Guy Incognito]

Could be a warning for those with allergic reactions to peanuts, or--THOSE AREN'T REALLY PEANUTS IN THOSE M&Ms!!!

In either case, somebody is getting a raw deal....

------------------
"It's only common sense,
There are no accidents 'round here."

[Guy Incognito]

Or it could mean that Charles Schultz arranged for Charlie Brown and friends to have a little "industrial accident" at the M&M Mars plant after they stopped being useful to him...

------------------
"It's only common sense,
There are no accidents 'round here."

[Zulu]

I have found the occassional peanut in bags of plain and almond M&Ms. Not very often, but it has happened. The warning is also on the bags of almond M&Ms.

[TripleAnt]

I have also noticed that on the window of Dairy Queen stores there is a sign that states "Peanuts are used in this store and it is possible that they may come in contact with your food." I'm guessing this has to do with being allergic to peanuts also.

------------------
"The idea of a walk-in closet sounds frightening. If I'm ever sittin' at home and a closet walks in, I'm gettin' outta there." ~George Carlin

[Ruffian]

From what I understand, similar machines and containers are used to make both the peanut and plain M&Ms. Thus, trace elements of peanut oil may be present.

In addition, the shell itself is made with a peanut oil. I've heard of a child going into anaphylactic shock from eating a cookie with plain M&Ms in them because of such a sensitive peanut oil allergy.

You see the same warning on other candy bars/chocolate candies as well. Like, uh, Snickers. ("It may contain peanuts? I never knew that...")

------------------
Teaching: The ultimate birth control method.

Laura's Stuff and Things (http://members.aol.com/lrconaway)

Peanut-allergic individuals can have life threatening reactions (asthma & shock) from minute amounts of peanut proteins (found in peanut oil).

The FAA at one point was going to mandate peanut-free flights if a peanut-allergic individual requested it.

Most places that cook ANYTHING with peanuts label everything they make as possibly having peanuts just in case a mistake happens. Which kind of defeats the purpose of labelling if you're a peanut-allergic person trying to eat anything.

------------------
Sue from El Paso
Siamese Attack Puppet - Texas

Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.

I don't understand why peanut allergies are so deadly when most other common food allergies are not. Youngest Son is allergic to strawberries, almonds, and eggs, and on the occasions when he has had these things he breaks out into nasty hives. Once, with strawberry juice mistakenly drunk at someone's house, he did swell up and have some problems breathing, and went to the doctor's for a shot, and then he was fine.

So, WHY are peanuts so very deadly, even in such small doses, to those with an allergy?

-Melin

------------------
Siamese attack puppet -- California

Still neglecting and overprotecting my children

[EvilGhandi]

Melin,

They're not.

The CDC reported 88 cases of fatalities resulting from all food allergies combined during the period between 1979-1995. An inconsequential number. They also estimate the population that suffers from penut allergies at 0.07%. I have no idea how to figure out how many deaths were from peauts using that data but I would hazard a guess of 1 or 2.

Where all this anti-peanut hysteria is coming from, I haven't a clue. Probably some type of save the children response.

Any bets that Ray has a different take on the cause?

[Johnny L.A.]

When I fly commercially, I usually fly United. I can't remember the last time I got a bag of peanuts. Now all I get is a bag of aweful pretzels. Bring back the peanuts! I promise I won't die.

[CatInHat]

I think the reason such a fuss is made over peannut allergies is not because they're so deadly (although sometimes they are), but because peanuts are so ubiquitous in modern foods.

For instance, there's pretty much no chance that you'll find trace amounts of strawberries in plain M&Ms, but there's a good chance of peanuts being in there. Peanut oil is also commonly used - it's relatively cheap, I think. So you can end up eating peanuts without realizing it.

The other foods Melin listed are, imo, easier to avoid (although things happen, as she points out).

[Ukulele Ike]

Yeah, it's getting rough on the peanut-eaters, now that most offices have cracked down on peanut-eating indoors.
You're seeing them all the time now in midtown Mahattan, taking a quick break from work to grab a few dry-roasteds, huddled in the high winds and drizzle downstairs and outside the vestibule, little knots of people clutching their sacks of non-salted Spanish.

------------------
Uke

[SaxFace]

Ok, ok, I'm one of those deathly ill allergy people. Let me give you my $0.02.

I have several allergies, my worst one being nuts. (I can eat peanuts, however, as they are legumes)

If I eat eggs, I get hives, stuffy nose, etc. But if I eat pecans, pistachios, walnuts, almonds, chestnuts, etc., my throat closes almost instantly.

There have been several instances where I have had to be hospitalized. The sensation is like this:

First, I notice a numbness and tingling in the back of my throat. I start to cough and bring up phlegm and get a sick, hollow feeling in my stomach. Within a minute, my throat is swelling and I'm making choking sounds. I vomit uncontrollably and break out in hives. In other words, it's pretty hideous.

I think labeling food is sort of a pointless idea, because no matter what, people with deadly allergies have to take precautions. I've trained myself to read labels and inquire about ingredients in restaurants. When I'm not careful, I do things like eat a BBQ Chicken sandwich that (as I found out later) has ground pecans in the sauce.

------------------
"All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand." Stephen Wright

[Keeves]

I think labeling food is sort of a pointless idea, because no matter what, people with deadly allergies have to take precautions.I agree. Are there any phenylketonurics out there who don't check the ingredients for aspartame? Well, they're not gonna see the other notice either! Sheesh, I don't get it...

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by Melin:
I don't understand why peanut allergies are so deadly when most other common food allergies are not.

So, WHY are peanuts so very deadly, even in such small doses, to those with an allergy?

-Melin




I have a two-part answer to your questions. First, other foods can be just as deadly as peanuts. Seafood is another one that will commonly cause an anaphylactic reaction. It is not uncommon for cow's milk protein to cause anaphylaxis. Some people are so sensitive they don't even have time to get their epi-pen out of their pocket or purse before their blood pressure drops, their throat completely closes and they die. I have an anaphylactic reaction to pork. I've always been able to take Benedryl before it got to the point of passing out, but every exposure I have gets worse. It could happen someday!

What's so bad about peanuts? The proteins in peanuts are extremely hard to digest. The reason that peanut allergies are on the rise is believed to be that more women are consuming peanut products while pregnant and nursing. The proteins are passed intact through the placenta and the breastmilk. Young children do not yet have a mature enough digestive system to process the protein and it is passed whole through the small intestine where the body might decide it doesn't belong there and try to rid it by causing an allergic reaction. The latest in the food allergy world is that all pregnant and nursing mothers should avoid peanut products and the child should not be introduced to peanut products until at least 3 years old when the gut is assumed to be more mature.

You should be careful with your son. His reactions could become more severe with repeated exposures.

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by EvilGhandi:
Melin,

They're not.


Where all this anti-peanut hysteria is coming from, I haven't a clue. Probably some type of save the children response.




The rate of peanut allergies is on the rise even among those with a low-risk of developing food allergies. These reactions to peanuts are often severe. Sometimes being at life-threatening levels the first time a person reacts to it.

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by SaxFace:
[I think labeling food is sort of a pointless idea, because no matter what, people with deadly allergies have to take precautions.
[/B]


Yes, but there is that STUPID, idiotic thing that they are allowed to put on food labels called "natural flavorings". There is also the risk of cross-contamination which would effect the people with the severest reactions worse than most food allergic people. But still when my little girl gets some cross-contamination of dairy from a poorly labeled food and all I can do is hold her while she doubles over from the pain, I sure wish the labeling was required to be more accurate. Thank goodness that companies like General Foods and Kellogg's have started doing that "May contain" label and not limiting it to peanuts.

[EvilGhandi]

SoMo,

You state food allergies are on the rise yet provide no data or even a source to back your assertion.

You don't mind if I take the Center for Disease control's word over yours do you?

A brief search on the web yeilded many hits on how [i]litigation<i/> in food allergy reactions was on the rise. Pushed mainy by the folks from ADA of all people. Food allergies as a disability, interesting. Unfortunately, there was little info concerning the actual scope of the problem.

The OP raises a good point. A few people can get very ill from peanuts. It makes sense to require that foods be labled to indicate their presence. In cases where a hyper-sensitive person is going to be, common decency would require us to refrain from exposing them.

Treating a substance that is harmless (benificial even) to 99.03% of the population like it was radioactive waste is an hysterical over-reaction.

[Frankie]

What if im allergic to Rat Feces, or Roach legs though??
;)


------------------
-Frankie

"Mother Mercy, can your loins bear fruit forever?/Is your fecundity a trammel or a treasure?"
-Bad Religion

[Akatsukami]

This seems like a good thread in which to remind the Teeming Thousands that


<font size=6><font color="red">("natural" | "organic") != ("good" | "harmless")</font></font>

------------------
"I don't just want you to feel envy. I want you to suffer, I want you to bleed, I want you to die a little bit each day. And I want you to thank me for it." -- What "Let's just be friends" really means

[Padeye]

Akatsukami, you might want to translate that for the portion of the teeming millions who are not C programmers. :D

Good point though. Hemlock is all natural but it didn't do Socrates much good.

[Andy]

Being one of the unfortunate souls afflicted with this allergy, I can assure you guys that it is [b]essential[b] that I know if there are even traces of peanuts in anything. An example of the sensitivity: I ate a couple of potato chips (crisps to me :)) in a bar, a friend had also eaten some although at some stage in the evening, he'd also eaten peanuts and traces from his hand contaminated the crisps. The peanut traces hit my throat, I hit the floor and the ambulance hit ninety. The real danger (I can usually cope with the reaction myself without the need for medical help), as mentioned before, is that there is no way to predict how severely people will react subsequently, meaning after their first exposure and discovery of the allergy. I ate, although tried to avoid, peanuts until I was maybe 10 years old, they just made me a little sick.

[Andy]

Peanuts fuck with coding too, who's eating them around here??????

[Oblio]

Akatsukami:

You can't do that ...
It should be ( strcmp("natural","good") != 0 ) for "natural" != "good" etc.

Sorry ;)

[Akatsukami]

Padeye, you mean that there are people who don't know C? Alas, for my now-tarnished faith in human nature! :rolleyes:


More seriously, though, as Unca Cecil once pointed out (I'll see if I can find the column, although it might be too archaic to be on line), "natural" has no meaning at all. "Organic" and "unprocessed" have more, but they only mean that who consumes products so labelled will not die any more horribly or unexpectedly than the average pre-industrial slob...and that still leaves a lot of room for improvement.

------------------
"I don't just want you to feel envy. I want you to suffer, I want you to bleed, I want you to die a little bit each day. And I want you to thank me for it." -- What "Let's just be friends" really means

[Harmonious Discord]

Please refer to the previous thread on this similar subject.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000827.html

------------------
I'm only your wildest fear, from the corners of your darkest thoughts.

Originally posted by EvilGhandi:
Melin,

They're not.

The CDC reported 88 cases of fatalities resulting from all food allergies combined during the period between 1979-1995. An inconsequential number. They also estimate the population that suffers from penut allergies at 0.07%. I have no idea how to figure out how many deaths were from peauts using that data but I would hazard a guess of 1 or 2.

Where all this anti-peanut hysteria is coming from, I haven't a clue. Probably some type of save the children response.

Any bets that Ray has a different take on the cause?

I don't know about Ray, EG, but I sure do.
You ascribe your figures to the CDC, but do not provide a link.

Here are some abstracts I got off Internet Grateful Med (MEDline):
http://igm.nlm.nih.gov/
searching using Peanut & Hypersensitivity

(skip to bottom for a summary)

TITLE: Peanut-induced anaphylactic reactions.
AUTHORS: Burks W; Bannon GA; Sicherer S; Sampson HA
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, USA.
SOURCE: Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1999 Jul;119(3):165-72
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10436387 UI: 99367825
ABSTRACT: Food allergies, particularly to peanuts, are a common cause of anaphylaxis. Approximately 125 people die each year in the USA secondary to food-induced anaphylaxis. Clinical anaphylaxis is a syndrome of diverse etiology and dramatic presentation of symptoms associated with the classic features of type I, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity [1]. Typically the term anaphylaxis connotes an immunologically-mediated event that occurs after exposure to certain foreign substances. This reaction results from the generation and release of a variety of potent biologically active mediators and their concerted effects on various target organs. Anaphylaxis is recognized by cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal signs and symptoms occurring singly or in combination. This article focuses on allergic reactions to peanuts that manifest as signs and symptoms involving multiple target organs or the cardiovascular system alone.

125 per year vs. 88 in 17 years. Quite a difference. I'd be interested in seeing your cite, but please realize that the CDC has certain "reportable" causes of death - when a death is attributed to HIV, the death MUST be reported to CDC, and usually to state & local health agencies, as well. Allergy-mediated deaths, AFAIK, are not reportable. So if 88 deaths were reported, how many were not reported to the CDC?

TITLE: Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey.
AUTHORS: Sicherer SH; Munoz-Furlong A; Burks AW; Sampson HA
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
SOURCE: J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999 Apr;103(4):559-62
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10200001 UI: 99216451
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts (TNs) is one of the leading causes of fatal and near-fatal food-induced allergic reactions. These allergies can be lifelong and appear to be increasing in prevalence. Despite the seriousness of these allergies, the prevalence of peanut and TN allergy in the general population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the prevalence of peanut and TN allergy among the general population of the United States. METHODS: We used a nationwide, cross-sectional, random digit dial telephone survey with a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 4374 households contacted by telephone participated (participation rate, 67%), representing 12,032 individuals. Peanut or TN allergy was self-reported in 164 individuals (1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2%-1.6%) in 151 households (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%). The prevalence of reported allergy in adults (1.6%) was higher than that found in children under 18 years of age (0.6%). In 131 individuals, details of the reactions were obtained. When applying criteria requiring reactions to be typical of IgE-mediated reactions (hives, angioedema, wheezing, throat tightness, vomiting, and diarrhea) within an hour of ingestion, 10% of these subjects were excluded. Among the remaining 118 subjects, allergic reactions involved 1 organ system (skin, respiratory, or gastrointestinal systems) in 50 subjects, 2 in 45 subjects, and all 3 in 23 subjects. Forty-five percent of these 118 respondents reported more than 5 lifetime reactions. Only 53% of these 118 subjects ever saw a physician for the allergic reaction, and only 7% had self-injectable epinephrine available at the time of the interview. The prevalence of peanut and TN allergy was adjusted by assuming that 10% of the remaining 33 subjects without a description of their reactions would also be excluded and correcting for a 7% false-positive rate for the survey instrument. A final "corrected" prevalence estimate of 1.1% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.4%) was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut and/or TN allergy affects approximately 1.1% of the general population, or about 3 million Americans, representing a significant health concern. Despite the severity of reactions, about half of the subjects never sought an evaluation by a physician, and only a few had epinephrine available for emergency use.

Hmmm. A 1.1% peanut allergy rate vs. a 0.07% allergy rate. Another striking difference.

Here's a discussion about the different manifestations of peanut (and "tree nut") allergies, and a description of how common accidental ingestions are.

[quote]TITLE: Clinical features of acute allergic reactions to peanut and tree nuts in children.
AUTHORS: Sicherer SH; Burks AW; Sampson HA
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Division of Allergy/Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
SOURCE: Pediatrics 1998 Jul;102(1):e6
CITATION IDS: PMID: 9651458 UI: 98356228
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Peanut (PN) and tree nut (TN) allergies are potentially life-threatening, rarely outgrown, and appear to be increasing in prevalence. However, there is relatively little reported about the clinical features of acute reactions to these foods and their potential association. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical features of acute reactions during initial and subsequent accidental ingestions of PN and TN among children with a history of at least one acute allergic reaction to these foods. DESIGN: Questionnaire survey, examination, and serologic testing for specific IgE antibody of patients with convincing histories of acute reactions (at least one organ system involved within 60 minutes of ingestion) to PN or TN. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients (63% males; median age, 8 years at time of study) had acute reactions; 68 had reactions only to PN, 20 only to TN, and 34 to both PN and TN. Of those reacting to TN, 34 had reactions to one, 12 to two, and 8 to three or more different TN, the most common being walnut, almond, and pecan. Initial reactions usually occurred at home (median age, 24 months for PN and 62 months for TN) and were considered to result from a first exposure in 72% of cases. Eighty-nine percent of the reactions involved the skin (urticaria, angioedema), 52% the respiratory tract (wheezing, throat tightness, repetitive coughing, dyspnea), and 32% the gastrointestinal tract (vomiting, diarrhea). Two organ systems were affected in 31% of initial reactions, and all three in 21% of reactions. Thirty-eight of 190 first rea

[EvilGhandi]

Aaak.

Sue,

At appears you have kicked my ass.

Problem is, I have taken in a few ounces of ethenol tonite and am both unable and unwilling to read your post in it's entirety. But even my cursurory scan indicates your dog is bigger than mine.

In my defense, I can only say I presented my data in good faith that it was factual. My reasearch was a quick inquiry on alt-vista. That revealed about a zillion people that were sueing under the ADA for action to be taken. Little info was available about the actual scope of the problem.

So being the lazy (and apparently more evil than usual) Ghandi I am, I latched on to the first article I found That addresed the issue in a seemingly unbiased fashion.

I mistakenly assumed that he had done my reaserch for me and never cross checked his numbers by checking the CDC site myself.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/093098.html


Being evil and all though, (and sharing to a much lesser degree, Ray's distrust of the legal/medical professions) I will be forced to actually crunch those figures in your summary.

I am still unconvinced that peanuts pose a major health risk.

[Cartooniverse]

I am equally as curious to see if the overall sensitivity is on the rise. I have seen this in pretty much all stages. My sister-in-law cannot be in a room where strawberries have been cut. Shellfish is equally dangerous to her, she cannot smell it, touch something that has touched it, or of course, eat it.
A friend of mine ate a Gyro with sesame paste sauce ( Tachini ) instead of yoghurt sauce, and within 2-3 minutes was in shock. Incredibly ( me, the heroine ) I had Epinephrine in a vial and a syringe, in my house. His girlfriend called me, I got the stuff, and shot the entire vial into him, while she called 911. When I got to him, perhaps 4 minutes after ingesting the food, he was already clawing frantically at his throat. Extremely frightening stuff.
I'd love to know the real mechanism that causes the reaction, and is there any way to suppress it? Those Epi-Pens are a great idea for bee stings and food reactions, but I've always wondered if there was some kind of preventative measure that is possible.

Cartooniverse

[SoMoMom]

Cartooniverse,
Here's a page that tries to explain allergic reactions in general. It's not specific to food allergies. http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~jbrown/allergy.html

You might be able to find what you are looking for at www.foodallergy.org (http://www.foodallergy.org)

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by EvilGhandi:

I am still unconvinced that peanuts pose a major health risk.



Then thank the powers that be because apparently you are blessed and no one you love suffers from this. You just can't know how scary it is to wonder if the next thing you eat is going to kill you.

[JoltSucker]

I found out the hard way that one of my children was severely allergic to peanuts at the age of 2. He ate a cracker that his friend had licked clean of the peanut butter (at that age, sharing food like that is normal), and immediately had difficulty in breathing. He had an allergy test, and sure enough, he was deathly allergic. He's been trained from an early age to avoid M&Ms, to eye cookies carefully and to ask someone else to taste one to see if there's peanut butter in it. At Halloween, we screen out the candy with peanuts. We make cashew butter and almond butter (which is really yummy by the way). I am grateful for the labelling "may contain peanuts", and I've gotten to be quite adept at scanning the ingredient list on products - anything with chocolate automatically is suspect, since a lot of manufacturers flavor their chocolate with traces of peanut butter.

Evil Ghandi -

I read your cite. You say you made your post in good faith. Yet:

Your post cites the prevalence of peanut allergies at 0.07%. Your source lists it at 0.7%. I am will to accept 0.7% as not being significantly different from 1.1% due to different study techniques, but I do question your "inadvertent" 10-fold reporting error.

Here is a quote from your cite regarding deaths from food allergies:
Such cases are quite unusual, however. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted only 88 deaths from all food allergies combined from 1979 through 1995. Even the Food Allergy Network, an advocacy group that says the government's figures are way off, puts the number of deaths at 125 a year--25 times the CDC's rate, but still pretty rare.

In other words, the article provided you with 2 markedly different estimates of the frequency of food-allergy-mediated deaths in the US. You chose to present only one.

Feel free to consider peanut allergy "not a major health risk". :rolleyes: A typical K-5 elementary school with 100 kids per grade can expect to have 4-7 peanut-allergic kids attending the school.

- Sue

[milroyj]

Feel free to consider peanut allergy "not a major health risk". A typical K-5 elementary school with 100 kids per grade can expect to have 4-7 peanut-allergic kids attending the school.

So school cafeterias should ban PBJs? From a liability standpoint, I can see them not serving them, but to ban all the other kids from bringing a sandwich from home?

Same thing goes for the peanuts they stopped serving on airplanes. Whether it's .07, .7, or 1.1%, prohibiting 300 people on a flight from eating peanuts because 1-3 might be allergic is ridiculous.

The verdict is still out on making school cafeterias "peanut-free".

I suspect the basic motivation is CYA. If the school bans PBJ sandwiches, and Johnny brings one in, and somehow Bobby gets exposed (many kids go directly from lunch to recess, no hand-washing involved) and dies, then Bobby's parents can sue Johnny's parents instead of the school.

With the youngest kids, it seems pretty reasonable to keep areas around the kids safe - the article cited by Evil Ghandi was a pre-school for 3-5 year olds. Eventually, though, the kids do have to learn to be smart & avoid risky foods on their own. One of the articles cited by SoMoMom discusses this.

The current airline policy, as I understand it, is to create peanut-free zones around allergic passengers. Some airlines, on their own, go beyond the requirements & give out pretzels to all passengers if a passenger identifies themselves as peanut allergic well in advance of the flight. There is a difference between not serving peanuts, and prohibiting passengers from eating peanuts btw. Let's not exaggerate.

- Sue

[milroyj]

Sue,

You said "Let's not exaggerate" and I agree. But where does one draw the line? First it's school cafeterias, then airplanes, then what? Ballparks? The circus? Or don't sell them at the grocery store, since bagger #3 is allergic?

I submit that this "major health problem" has already been exaggerated.

[ThufferinThuccotash]

So if peanuts cause such a severe and deadly reaction in some people, why is this affliction only recently getting a lot of press? Is it new? I am certain peanuts and peanut derivatives have been widely used in food processing for many years, yet no one seems to have made the connection until relatively recently.

And why hasn't this affliction simply anaphalacted itself and its sufferers right out of existence? If it is so deadly and manifests itself so quickly that even immediate treatment may be too late, it seems to me that Darwinian pressure would have selected these unfortunates for oblivion. It sounds cold-hearted, but that's natural selection for you.

I remain unconvinced. Please pass the Nutter Butters.

------------------
TT

"Believe those who seek the truth.
Doubt those who find it." --Andre Gide

[ignatiusjreilly]

I too have this allergy, and it PISSES ME OFF when people try and blow it off and accuse us of being "overly sensitive" or unfair.

As many of you have pointed out, there are many other similar allergies that are just as dangerous and life-threatening as peanut allergy. The difference with peanuts, though, is threefold:

1.) It's sometimes very difficult to tell when food contains peanuts. I got sick once last year at a business function because some moron decided to put peanut butter in pan of enchiladas to "enhance its creaminess". My girlfriend had to drive me home from my company Christmas party this year because I took a single bite from a piece of chicken that had been cooked in a peanut sauce. All the menu said was that we were eating "spicy chicken."

2.) It only takes minute quanities to cause a serious reaction. This is certainly true with just about any allergen, but then again, school cafeterias don't serve wasp venom and shellfish to kids than can be spread around all over chairs, tables, and walls and then nonchalantly wiped down with a dirty washcloth.

3.) Dry peanuts tend to get somewhat "dusty". Little particles floating around in the air are just as dangerous to me and others like me as munching on a single peanut. Certainly, a lot of people suffer from airborne allergens - but anaphylaxis is a whole lot worse than hay fever.

Is your liking peanuts better than pretzels really more important than someone else going into a serious and life-threatening medical situation? Can your kids not wait to eat their peanut butter at home? I don't see what the problem is from your perspective...

I was once on an airplane - before I realized that the airlines would actually do something to accomodate my problem - and had to be helped from the plane when it landed in Dallas because all of the peanut dust in the air on that plane caused my eyes to swell shut and caused some serious asthma. I spent most of the rest of that day in the hospital emergency room. I had forgotten my medicine and the airline had served peanuts.

I will admit that it is my personal responsibility to avoid peanuts as well as I can, but it's hard to tell sometimes, especially when restaurants and other institutions are lax in telling me that it's even there sometimes.

Other times, like on airplanes and in the case of little kids, it's impossible for someone else to eat peanuts without causing people like me to become ill. In public schools, it's not CYA - it's the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law. The school shouldn't do anything that puts some students in danger, no matter if in doing so it inconveniences the other kids.

You'll get along fine with pretzels and I won't get sick on the airplane. Little Johnny will get along fine with baloney and Little Suzy won't get sick. What's wrong with that?

What's it like? SaxFace has it pretty dead on. I can't decide if the worst part is the instant histamine attack (like plugging your nose with cement), the violent itching, or the violent throwing up. Hmmm. At the Christmas party I knew something was wrong when we were standing in a tent outside - it was about 50 degrees and I was complaining about being hot. Then my girlfriend noticed the hives on my hands.

I'm sorry for going off like this, but it's something I really care about. I've grown up with it and know to avoid peanuts as best I can (and it's still hard). Young kids have no clue and can easily get very sick.

And finally, in response to the OP. The candy shell of M&M's is made with peanut oil. For the longest time Mars never said anything about it. All I knew was that all M&M's, not just peanut M&M's, made me sick. People always accused me of making it up - "These are plain! How can they make you sick?". A few years ago Mars started putting that wording on the packages. I guess in response to people like me.

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by EvilGhandi:

You state food allergies are on the rise yet provide no data or even a source to back your assertion.

You don't mind if I take the Center for Disease control's word over yours do you?




I'm sorry I was in kind of hurry before. Here's a few of the numerous articles that can be found on the subject:
http://www.cadvision.com/allergy/whypeanutswhynow.html http://www.cadvision.com/allergy/whypeanutswhynow.html http://www.townonline.com/boston/entertainment/parenting/009885_2_ask_011499_4602bd2db9.html http://ificinfo.health.org/qanda/qafoodallergy.htm

The CDC is a terrible place to try and find out about food allergies statistics and that's all I'm going to say about that.

[SoMoMom]

Darn it! That second link was supposed to be: http://www.nutritionnewsfocus.com/archive/PeanutAl.html

Sorry!

I hear they may actually contain chocolate too...

[EvilGhandi]

Geese Louise I got a lot of reading to do. I have pulled down several articles from the CDC to review. Problem is they are in PDF format and this new machine doesnt have Adobe on it yet. I also took down several articles from the NIH as that is the organization credited by two of SoMo's links. (interesting thing, on that site there was a couple of articles on peanut allergies and a couple dozen on peanut recipies) I still have yet to wade through the info In Sues link.

I do have time tonite to answer a few of the posts directed at me.

To why I choose the CDC over the other source in my post? One is a government sponsered health research organization, the other is an allergy sufferers advocacy group and political lobby. Go figger that one. The .07 thing was merely a screw up, granted a big one but just a typo.

How many deaths go unreported? How the hell could I know? They were unreported for gods sake.

This one, snicker.

From Sue,
"TITLE: Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey."

Ahh, a survey in which random people were asked to diagnose themselves over the phone. Good solid evidence there.

And this from your summary.
"we have as little as 100mcg peanut protein sufficient to provoke a reaction in susceptible individuals"

And this from your data.
"Five subjects did not react to any dose up to 50 mg."

Now who's being selective in their reporting?

In the matter of prostrating my self before the powers that be in thanks that I am free of this in my family. I can only respond that not only is my family unafected, but no one I have ever met is either. I know a guy who is violently allergic to bees and one to eggs. Heck I even met someone once who was allergic to wheat, but so far no peanuts. Next time I am at a school function I will ask around though.

[AKAmame]

My child was born two months early (yes, fine now, thanks), luckily in one of the best hospitals in Sydney, with a great neonatal intensive care ward. (Crappy environment, but medically great).

One of the things that are recommended to enhance development of premmie babies once they are out of a humidicrib is massage. So what did the hospital provide as a suitable infant massage oil? You ahead of me here? Yup - good old peanut oil.

My mother had a potentially fatal allergy to peanuts (and a couple of other things too), so I raised the matter with the nursing staff, who didn't know why peanut oil was used, but thought it was in case the babies got their hands in their mouths! I stated my opinion, and brought my own oil in, as did several of the other mothers. The nursing staff did take my question/complaint up the chain.

You could hear the penny drop in the ward sister's mind. They use olive oil now, I think.

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by ThufferinThuccotash:

And why hasn't this affliction simply anaphalacted itself and its sufferers right out of existence?

Perhaps your not keeping up with us here. The rate is believed to be increasing because of early exposure to the protein. Peanut products are being used more wide spread everyday because it is a nice cheap source of protein. (The US gov't hands it out left and right in case you don't know anyone receiving any aid.) To slow down the rate of increase it is now being suggested that pregnant and breastfeeding women avoid peanut products because the proteins are passed through the placenta and into breastmilk whole. Children under the age of three years do not yet have mature enough digestive systems to break down the protein. Some of them then develop an allergic reaction to the protein.
http://www.cadvision.com/allergy/whypeanutswhynow.html

But thanks for having any kind of human concern about other people. You're right I should have just kept eating my allergens until I died instead of producing my beautiful and intelligent children. :rolleyes: I don't know what I was thinking!

[ignatiusjreilly]

Natural selection really doesn't occur that often in human beings anymore. With the wonders of modern medicine, persons with genetic defects don't die as often, or as quickly, rather, and can still end up finding a mate and procreating before they die.

I don't think peanut allergy is genetic so the point is moot anyway.

Evil Ghandi raises some issues:

1. He questions the validity of a telephone survey as a tool to estimate prevalence in the community.

Well, this was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, which is the leading journal in the field. Articles published in it are reviewed by prominent allergists for study design, internal consistency of results, and that stated conclusions are, in fact, well-supported by the published results. This process is known as peer review, and ensures that bad science is not published in leading journals.

Because I work in the field of medicine, I can tell you that coming up with a true population-based estimate of prevalence of a given condition is more difficult than it would appear from the outside. Surveying people who come in for routine physician visits skews the population towards infants & young kids, older individuals, and women. It also heavily skews the population towards people with chronic health problems, or who believe they have numerous health problems. Counting ER visits for peanut reactions would grossly underestimate the scope of the problem since many people treat reactions at home with EpiPens, and never come in to an ER. Hence the idea of a community based survey to get people of all ages represented.

The abstract also acknowledges the weakness of self-reported allergies. They do make an attempt to correct for that by asking a subset of respondents detailed questions about the nature of the reaction to the peanuts, and found that approximately 10% of people reporting nut allergies do not meet diagnostic criteria for allergic type reactions. Their final figure of 1.1% prevalence includes a 10% reduction based on this, and a further 10% reduction based on the other published studies of telephone survey techniques.

In other responses, I also said that a cited 0.7% prevalence figure was also in the ballpark, and I wouldn't argue about it. The abstract also lists a CI, Confidence Interval as 1.0-1.4%. This means that if they did the same study over again, calling 4374 different households, there is a 95% chance that the final prevalence figure would be between 1.0 & 1.4%.

I pulled the actual article a few months ago when I had a similar discussion on a different message board. IIRC, the time from receipt of the article to publication was 2 or 3 months, which in medical literature is very fast. It was also a featured (headline) article in that particular issue of the journal. The reviewers and editors (who, again, are nationally prominent allergists themselves) thought that this information was a) as good as was reasonably obtainable, and b) important enough to publish quickly and prominently.

Bad science this is not.

2. He accuses me of Selective Reporting.

Situation #1 EG reads a web site which gives 2 widely different figures for food allergy deaths. One is ascribed to the CDC (and fits his beliefs). One is ascribed to an Allergy advocacy group (who it turns out is citing information from a published scientific article, but doesn’t fit his beliefs).

There is a true figure out there; one or the other of the published figures will be closer than the other.

EG posts the figure ascribed to the CDC without providing a link to his source, let alone quoting the whole article, so that we can even be aware that there is another figure cited, or independently judge for ourselves which figure is more reasonable. He misquotes the figure, which could be accidental.

Situation #2 I summarize several abstracts. One abstract shows that some people will react to as little as 100 mcg of peanut protein, while other allergic individuals do not react to 50 mg. However, the fact that some people don’t react to larger quantities in no way negates the truth of the statement "Some people react to as little as 100mcg of peanut protein." Here lies one difference.

The bigger difference lies in the fact that I DID quote the entire abstract, allowing everyone to judge for themselves the validity of my statements. MEDline does not allow linking to search results; thus I quote the abstracts. Because I realize the abstracts are long, dense, filled with jargon, and tedious to read, I highlight certain key statements, and provide a summary at the end so that semi-interested readers can get what I consider the main points. Highlighting selected passages, and extracting selected passages for a summary is fair as long as the all of the source is made available to all readers either by quoting, or by providing a link.

- Sue

[ruadh]

A close friend of mine has anaphylaxis to poultry. Even the odor given off by cooking chicken is enough to make her throat begin to constrict. Everywhere she goes, she carries a syringe full of ephedrine, and it's a good thing too - a few years ago the "vegetarian" pizza she ordered at a restaurant turned out to be cross-contaminated with poultry and she went into anaphylactic shock within minutes of her first bite. The syringe saved her life.

Now, she only eats at 100% vegetarian restaurants, and even that she couldn't bring herself to do for six months. I was with her the first night she ate out after this happened, and she was absolutely shaking as she lifted her fork to her mouth.

Anaphylaxis may be fairly uncommon but it is (pardon the pun) absolutely deadly serious. I have no problem whatsoever sacrificing my airline peanuts to prevent this happening to somebody else.

[milroyj]

Other times, like on airplanes and in the case of little kids, it's impossible for someone else to eat peanuts without causing people like me to become ill. In public schools, it's not CYA - it's the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law. The school shouldn't do anything that puts some students in danger, no matter if in doing so it inconveniences the other kids.

You'll get along fine with pretzels and I won't get sick on the airplane. Little Johnny will get along fine with baloney and Little Suzy won't get sick. What's wrong with that?

The 14th Amendment???? Please, do explain how the 14th has anything to do with eating peanuts in school. (hint) it doesn't.

Why should something that effects 1% of the population force the other 99% to change their behavior? After all, you don't have to fly in an airplane.

As for the school scenario, who should determine what a child eats, the GOVERNMENT, or the PARENTS? Sheesh!

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by milroyj:

As for the school scenario, who should determine what a child eats, the GOVERNMENT, or the PARENTS? Sheesh!



The American Disabilities Act says that children with severe allergic reactions must be accomodated in public schools. The jury is still out on whether food bans create a false sense of security since many parents don't understand what can be cross-contaminated with especially peanuts. There is a little boy in my daughter's school allergic enough that he could go into shock from smelling peanut butter. She is allergic to milk so most lunch meats are out for her. I've switched her to soy bean butter sandwiches (quite tasty actually) although pretty expensive. Any time she has to have peanut butter I tell her, "You watch out for Asher and stay away from him today." If the school and Asher's parents decided that a ban would work in our little school, you bet I would comply.

Who should decide what the children eat? Have you never heard that the USDA tells the schools what they can or can't serve in school? http://www.vrg.org/journal/schoollunch.htm#whole

Given the inherent nature of peanut butter & 4 year olds, I think a reasonable person could conclude that there is a reasonable chance of Bobby's PB somehow getting into Johnny and causing a potentially fatal reaction.

I do think that banning all peanut containing foods, particularly for students in upper grades, may be overkill, and as suggested in one of the links provided by SoMoMom, actually increase the danger by creating the illusion that an allergic child doesn't have to remain vigilant about what s/he eats. But peanut butter, as central as it was to many of our childhood diets, is inherently messy & difficult to control and may constitute an unacceptable risk in very young children's lunches.

- Sue

milroyj posts:

Why should something that effects 1% of the population force the other 99% to change their behavior? After all, you don't have to fly in an airplane.

This is exactly the kind of self-centered thinking that made the ADA necessary.

- Sue

[WhiteNight]

ThufferinThuccotash: And why hasn't this affliction simply anaphalacted itself and its sufferers right out of existence?

SoSoMom: But thanks for having any kind of human concern about other people. You're right I should have just kept eating my allergens until I died instead of producing my beautiful and intelligent children. I don't know what I was thinking!

You know, I didn't read that part of that post as an attack, it was a question of why a terribly deadly problem still exists. We know that viruses which kill their victims right away (Ebola) don't spread as widely as slower ones (HIV) because if the host dies, so does the virus. A problem which affects a certain group of people by killing them quickly (without medicine) should, it seems, have the same effect, of wiping out that group. Asking "Why Not?" is a valid question.


JohnnyHarvard: Natural selection really doesn't occur that often in human beings anymore. With the wonders of modern medicine, persons with genetic defects don't die as often, or as quickly, rather, and can still end up finding a mate and procreating before they die.

I don't think peanut allergy is genetic so the point is moot anyway.

Natural selection does still affect us. It just doesn't select against the same things it did even a hundred years ago. Some people are simply more effective than others, these people have more kids, etc. The traits that these people rely on will be selected for. And if they have bad sight, or whatever, it's obviously not that bad, since they survived to have kids. What modern medicine did is change what we select for, and what would normally strongly select against us.

And peanut allergies are genetic. I don't know of any dogs with a peanut allergy. Thus, some creatures, based on their genetics, are immune to the peanut proteins.

The correct answer would be that we haven't had enough time as a species since peanuts were spread widely enough to affect the population as a whole to adjust in such a way that we aren't allergic.

What is not genetic, among humans, that we know of, is increased sensitivity.

An example would be, bullets. Some people are killed very quickly by bullets. It isn't genetic, even though some families may tend to die that way (ones who pass on violent behaviour). If the human race tends to lose population to gunfire over a long enough period, we might select for traits that help survive gunshot wounds. Similar to how a grizzly or a blue whale would be harmed but easily survive a gunshot.

[NanoByte]

Just to add (?) to the erudite information in this thread:

The buses in Berkeley drive right down the public streets with ads on there sides that say approximately:

"Other candy bars have peanuts envy."

I think it's a Hershey ad, but to the annoyance of the ad industry, I never remember what the product is, even if I notice the ad. However, any city that can put up with a pun like that has got to be remembered.

Ray (bar none)

[ignatiusjreilly]

Milroyj -

How familiar are you with constitutional law?

Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The last phrase in that passage is the most important one. This amendment was originally passed during reconstruction and its intent was to guarantee rights to blacks. Since then, the Supremes have evolved an iterpretation of "equal protection under the law" as a further guarantee to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

In other words, the states can't do anything - be it through an overt law or an unintentional action of the state (or its agencies) - that infringes on the rights of its citizens. This reasoning brought us Brown vs Education and the aforementioned ADA, among other things.

Little Johnny, and every other student in the school, has the right to an education in a safe environment. If Little Johnny has a potentially deadly peanut allergy, then the school is obligated - by law - to ensure that he is not exposed to peanuts. This is not an infringement on another parent's rights to feed his/her children - they can feed their kids baloney and cheese or something else. These schools aren't saying kids can't bring their own lunch - they're just saying that they can't bring peanut butter.

What would you think if some kid's parents dressed him in clothes with racist or otherwise vulgar sayings printed on the clothes? How do you feel about students that committ violent crimes against other students and are expelled? It's the same concept - schools must provide a safe learning environment.

As far as airplanes - true, I don't have to travel on a plane, and airlines, for the most part, don't have the same sort of legal obligation to prevent me from becoming sick. It's a simple explanation: Right now, these airlines do this as an courtesy to their passengers.

If you don't like it, complain - maybe you can convince them to start serving peanuts. Then, when someone dies from anaphylaxis that person's family can name you as counterparty to the lawsuit and the airlines will start doing it as a matter of risk management.


So that covers the 14th amendment and its connection to the schools. What else would you like me to explain? :D

Thufferin' Thuccotash asks:

1) Why is this such a hot topic just now?

It's not. It's been a hot topic for years. Several years ago, one of my kid's schools made the rule that only store-bought cookies could be brought in for classroom parties/sharing because of allergies to peanuts & chocolates. Major uproar about how unhealthy Oreos were compared with home-made cookies. Life went on. It's been a fairly hot topic on MBs & Newsgroups for about a year, since that is when the FAA held hearings on serving peanuts on airlines.

2) Why hasn't this trait anaphylaxed its victims into extinction?

Because many sufferers, at least initially, have non-life-threatening reactions. It is not universally fatal. Because the prevalence of peanut allergies is on the rise. Because peanuts & peanut butter were not always as universally popular as they are now. Because it is not a directly heritable condition. It takes both a genetic predisposition to atopy (allergic disease including eczema, asthma, etc.) AND exposure to peanuts in the period & and/or in the intermittant manner to cause a predominance of IgE antibodies which preciptate the allergic reaction.

Hope this also clarifies Johnnyharvard's comments on whether or not peanut allergy is genetic.

- Sue

[JillGat]

[[Quite a difference. I'd be interested in seeing your cite, but please realize that the CDC has certain "reportable" causes of death - when a death is attributed to HIV, the death MUST be reported to CDC, and usually to state & local health agencies, as well. ]] MajorMD

Only in the states where HIV is a reportable condition. Many still only have AIDS reporting.
jill

[EvilGhandi]

Aww, Sue, I was just raggin on ya about the selective reporting thing. Cause you did it to me. It worked too. And begging your pardon, I did so provide a link when asked. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to point out it's content.

My involvement in this debate stems from my answer to Melin, where I Assert,

1 Peanut allergies don't KILL suspectable people any more than other common allergies.

2 The problem is not as widespread as the hype would lead us to believe.

3 The measures being proposed constitute the typical save the children type over-reaction we have all come to know whenever a medicle journal publishes a study.

For (1) I didn't have to look all that far, you own post seems to back my assertion.

"RESULTS: One subject had a systemic reaction to 5 mg of peanut protein, and two subjects had mild objective reactions to 2 mg and 50 mg of peanut protein, respectively. Five subjects had mild subjective reactions (1 to 5 mg and 4 to 50 mg). All subjects with convincing objective reactions had short-lived subjective reactions to preceding doses, as low as 100 microg in two cases. Five subjects did not react to any dose up to 50 mg. CONCLUSION: Even in a group of well- characterized, highly sensitive subjects with peanut allergy, the threshold dose of peanut protein varies."

Note, all of these subjects were chosen because of their hypersensitivity to the protein, yet not one grabbed their chest and dropped dead immediatly upon consuming it. It would appear that the majority had exactly what we would expect to see, a typical allergic reaction with mild to severe discomfort. A few had no reaction at all.

If I lobbed a peanut grenade into a stadium crammed with 100,000 people I doubt the paramedics would be hauling out 1000 body bags.

(2) Kind of a moot point since we agree that a .7-1% figure is not unreasonable. Still I present a second cite, this time from the Mayo Clinic.

"Two out of five Americans believe they are allergic to specific foods. However, fewer than 1% have true food allergies."

This cite adds some weight to my skepticisim of phone surveys but more importantly, it points out that the 1% being waved about is all food allergies. Peanut allergies will be a fraction of this percentage. Every source I checked listed the most common ones in this order.

Cows milk, egg whites, peanuts, wheat and soybeans. Mayo states these four are responsible for 90% of all food allergies. They go on to state "Many children outgrow these allergies by age six." And, "70% of food allergies develop in persons under age 30"

So the total population hypersensitive to peanuts is a fraction of a percent. Even that small number is unlikely to have a fatal reaction upon exposure. (though it does happen)

(3) Is it an over-reaction? I think the phrase "Peanut Free Zone" sums that up.

As a side note, has no one stopped to consider what effect these wide spread bans may have on the peanut industry? Could we be seeing the National Peanut Council sueing Oprah in the near future?

[ignatiusjreilly]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the biological aspects of allergies, but I don't know if the term "grow out of it" is applicable to food allergies for older people. It might be for children, whose bodies are still developing, but for adults I would assume that your body just can't start producing the right digestive enzymes for the first time in its life. I think for older people, it's more accurate to assume that, as adults, they've learned to avoid certain foods and circumstances that might cause a reaction.

I think that's the whole point of answering the OP - with the growing prevalence of the allergy, more and more food companies are reporting their ingredients (peanuts in this case) to indeed make it easier for us to avoid those foods. Because peanut butter and peanut oil can be found in a lot of unexpected places, like spaghetti sauce, ice cream, and my personal favorite, those damn enchiladas, it's very important that we can at least see the ingredients and not make assumptions simply based on the type of food involved.

[ignatiusjreilly]

Oh yeah - evilghandi

You're right that the fatality occurence is probably less than 1% of the general population. But I would bet that if you fed a spoonful of peanut butter to 100 random people, at least 1 person out of that group would have an anaphylactic reaction.

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by EvilGhandi:

As a side note, has no one stopped to consider what effect these wide spread bans may have on the peanut industry? Could we be seeing the National Peanut Council sueing Oprah in the near future?

I can't find a link to it, but will you take my word for it that they are working on a "hypoallergenic" peanut through genetic modification. I read an article on the subject and can tell you basically what it said. They have identified several of the most offensive proteins by comparing the proteins of peanuts to the proteins of soybeans. The researchers think that the most sensitive of the peanut allergic are also sensitive to soy beans (I'm not saying whether it is true or not. They just stated it as a fact. I've never read that anywhere else.) Their plan is to identify all of the most allergenic proteins and eliminate them through genetic modification so that we will have a safe peanut.

It wasn't a very informative article, but I assume they wouldn't have bothered to write it if the research wasn't really going on. I also imagine that Monsanto would love to come up with a "safe" peanut so that they would look like good guys in all of the GM controversy. It all seems like weird sci-fi stuff to me.

I don't know what effect it is having on the peanut industry right now, but apparently they are planning for the future.

I personally like peanut butter and Kung Pao Chicken and it will be nice to enjoy them again when my baby weans or turns 3 years old. I don't wish the peanut industry any harm. I don't think the peanut industry wants bad press from people dying of anaphylaxis after breathing peanut dust while trapped on an airplane either.

Now, what's wrong with proper food labeling so that people can know what they are eating? Wasn't that what this thread was all about?

[EvilGhandi]

SoMo,

Sure I'll take your word, sounds reasonable that the industry would attempt to address the, "Makes me sick but I love the peanutty goodness" niche. From my reading, the market should be out there. (pregnant mothers, children under 3 plus the diagnosed senstitves). Actual sales of the "wonder butter" would produce some interesting data. How many would purchase it to avoid developing the allergy, to cope with a diagnosed problem or from a preconcieved notion that peanuts are deadly in unmodified form.

JohnnyH,

My figures indicate that the the number of random peanut butter eaters having any reaction at all would be closer to 500 than 100.

The chance of that individual reaction being life threatening was a tougher dog to dog to corner. All the figures here show that the severity of the reaction, even among hypersensitive individuals can vary.

I think it is sufficent to realize that it CAN happen and susceptable individuals remain prepared in the event someone slips peanut butter into their enchilada.

[WhiteNight]

JohnnyHarvard: How familiar are you with constitutional law?

(text of) Amendment XIV (1868) [snip]

The last phrase in that passage is the most important one. This amendment was originally passed during reconstruction and its intent was to guarantee rights to blacks. Since then, the Supremes have evolved an iterpretation of "equal protection under the law" as a further guarantee to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

In other words, the states can't do anything - be it through an overt law or an unintentional action of the state (or its agencies) - that infringes on the rights of its citizens. This reasoning brought us Brown vs Education and the aforementioned ADA, among other things.

Little Johnny, and every other student in the school, has the right to an education in a safe environment. If Little Johnny has a potentially deadly peanut allergy, then the school is obligated - by law - to ensure that he is not exposed to peanuts. This is not an infringement on another parent's rights to feed his/her children - they can feed their kids baloney and cheese or something else. These schools aren't saying kids can't bring their own lunch - they're just saying that they can't bring peanut butter.[/QUOTE]

I would interpret this to say that the schools can't forbid Little Johnny from bringing his medication, and can't penalize him for skipping the trip to the peanut butter factory. To extend this to say that because one student has a problem, the actions of everyone else must be regulated seems a bit extreme.

I can see why an airline would choose to not serve peanuts, but that's their choice. Like their choosing to not hand out paint-filled super-soakers. Nobody's rights are being infringed upon. It's when laws are passed which make it a crime to eat certain perfectly valid foods that I start to get nervous. Sure, it starts small, just on airplanes maybe, which seems reasonable because it's hard to get to a hospital. Then at schools, then at the workplace, then all public places, then to have it in public at all, and then you can't buy it.

[ignatiusjreilly]

Earl W. and the Supremes pretty much determined today's legal interpretation of XIV. Which is, that the states (and agencies thereof) must provide services and and enforce the rights of all citizens equally.

Your interpretation is a valid one, but it's incomplete. Our legal system takes "equal protection" one step further and requires that citizens be treated equally at all times. Ergo, schools must provide equal learning environments to all students. If certain students are affected by certain elements in their environment that can be removed at a minimal cost without infringing on the rights of the majority, then the school is obligated to do so. This is the whole idea behind the ADA, Title IX, etc.

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by WhiteNight:
To extend this to say that because one student has a problem, the actions of everyone else must be regulated seems a bit extreme.

Sure, it starts small, just on airplanes maybe, which seems reasonable because it's hard to get to a hospital. Then at schools, then at the workplace, then all public places, then to have it in public at all, and then you can't buy it.

[/B]


Is your neighborhood school next door to a hospital? Ours isn't. It's about a 15 minute ambulance drive from the nearest hospital. That's a long time to go without oxygen to the brain. Just because an epi-pen is the best solution to an accidental exposure, it does not always work. Also, there are side effects to injecting adrenaline into the system. I'm sure that Johnny's health would be compromised if he had to inject his Epi-Pen every month or so.

I'm not saying a peanut ban is the solution for everyone and some say it causes a false sense of security anyway, but for some children at some age levels when kids can't know enough it can be the solution.

[RoboDude]

I think that the best thing to do would be to focus on developing allergy shots for peanut allergy (see thread http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/005774.html ) for the simple reason that it is usually far easier to control a medical condition than to control the environment. Banning peanut butter from schools might seem like a logical solution, but as anyone with any detectable brain activity should know, not all kids follow the rules 100% of the time.

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by johnnyharvard:
Earl W. and the Supremes pretty much determined today's legal interpretation of XIV. Which is, that the states (and agencies thereof) must provide services and and enforce the rights of all citizens equally...Our legal system takes "equal protection" one step further and requires that citizens be treated equally at all times.

Whoa now. The equal protection clause has never been held to require strictly equal treatment in ALL cases. A moment's thought will make this obvious. It is permissible to treat 21-year-olds differently than 20-year-olds, for example; states can treat residents differently than nonresidents for college tuition purposes; men can marry women but other women can't; etc.

The courts will decide whether a law or policy violates the equal protection laws based in large part upon the category of persons being discriminated against:

Race and religion are subject to strict scrutiny, and the government must show a compelling reason to discriminate
Gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and the government must show "exceedingly pervasive justification" to discriminate
Most other classifications are subject to minimal scrutiny, requiring only a "rational basis" for the discrimination.

Peanuts in public schools would, of course, fall into the third category. Frankly I wouldn't expect anyone to get very far in the courts claiming their child's 14th Amendment rights were violated by having to go to a school that served peanuts in the cafeteria.

If certain students are affected by certain elements in their environment that can be removed at a minimal cost without infringing on the rights of the majority, then the school is obligated to do so. This is the whole idea behind the ADA, Title IX, etc.

The ADA would be the appropriate vehicle for a lawsuit in this instance.

[ruadh]

exceedingly PERSUASIVE justification.

[milroyj]

I would interpret this to say that the schools can't forbid Little Johnny from bringing his medication, and can't penalize him for skipping the trip to the peanut butter factory. To extend this to say that because one student has a problem, the actions of everyone else must be regulated seems a bit extreme.

That's exactly what I was getting at, but WhiteNight explained it better than I did :)

johnnyharvard said:

This is not an infringement on another parent's rights to feed his/her children - they can feed their kids baloney and cheese or something else. These schools aren't saying kids can't bring their own lunch - they're just saying that they can't bring peanut butter.

OK, say your kid is allergic to peanuts, so your suggestion is that all the other parents feed their kids baloney and cheese. But as SoSoMom pointed out in the spinoff thread, her kid is allergic to most lunchmeats. So my question is, what is my kid supposed to eat, carrot sticks? Where do we draw the line?

Jeff

"Soylent green. It's peeeeeople!"

An allergy to peanuts can often be so severe that it's not just a question of avoiding the eating of them, it's a question of avoiding being in the same ROOM with them. Kids are notorious for not washing their hands. If Johnny has eaten his peanut butter, and wiped his hands on his pants, then touches little Susie, or even touches the top of the crayon box before it is passed to little Susie, Susie is going to have a serious health problem.

OTOH, allergies to milk -- which is what the lunch meat problem was all about -- are generally a response to the consumption of milk or milk-based products. Just smelling the milk, as I understand it, won't cause an allergic reaction even to the most lactose-intolerant. Smelling peanut butter, or peanuts themselves, can cause a severe allergic reaction.

It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to save a child's life.

-Melin

[EvilGhandi]

My last word on the subject.

Source: Johns Hopkins,

They describe peanut allergies as,
A "sometimes life-threatening allergy that may affect one in every 200 children."

They also state,
"Nearly 100 people die from all food allergies each year"

Compared to this,
"Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration compiled primarily from newspaper clippings for 1959-1990 identified an annual average of 93 deaths and 257 injuries attributable to lightning ."

Major health problem my ass.

[Andy]

A "sometimes life-threatening allergy that may affect one in every 200 children."

They also state,
"Nearly 100 people die from all food allergies each year"

Major health problem my ass.

Should we ban epi-pens and stop treating people who have severe reactions? Maybe the figures would then the desired impact.

[Andy]

then have the ...

[SoMoMom]

Since EvilGhandi asked about the peanut industry I decided to ask the Peanut Intitutes opinion. They fowarded my questions to the appropriate person. This is from Jeannette Anderson, President, American Peanut Council:

"The American Peanut Council is very concerned about peanut allergies and has taken a pro-active position in educating our members. Although a small percentage of the American population (less than 1%)have peanut allergy, for some of those the allergy can be life threatening. We have advised our members to carefully label all products which contain even small quantities of peanuts. We have urged our members who supply peanuts as ingredients to instruct their customers to label peanut containing products. We have also held seminars and provided information to food processing companies with regard to Good Manufacturing Practices and the necessary steps which should be taken to prevent cross contamination in food processing
facilities.

We have worked closely with the Food Allergy Network to provide information to schools to help them manage children with food allergies.
We do not support "bans" on peanuts and peanut products, because peanuts are a very healthy and nourishing product for the vast majority of the population -- especially children. On the other hand, we believe in meticulous labeling and education to make sure that peanut allergic consumers to not accidentally eat peanutsor peanut products. Our industry is helping to fund reasearch at the University of Arkansas to develop a peanut allergy vaccine. We are a few years away from human trials, but the research is progressing and we beleive the peanut vaccine will be the first vaccine developed for a food allergy. Please do not hesitate to email or phone me if you require further information or wish to discuss my comments."

There now, we don't have to wonder.

Oh, and EvilGhandi, you never asked me where I thought a good place to get food allergy statistics would be. The University of Arkansas was it. They are the ones making most of the latest breakthroughs in R&D for food allergies. But then maybe you wouldn't have liked them as a source because they can only benefit by higher statistics. But look who's paying for it. :)

[RoboDude]

---------------------------------------------
Who should decide what the children eat? Have you never heard that the USDA tells the schools what they can or can't serve in school?
---------------------------------------------
There is a HUGE difference between controlling what the cafeteria may serve and regulating what foods students may bring.

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

[ignatiusjreilly]

The schools certainly have no right to tell kids that they can't bring guns or knives to school, do they Robodude? That's a direct infringement of my parental rights - I want my kids to be able to practice their shooting whenever they want! Darn Government's always getting in the way. :angry: ;)

[ignatiusjreilly]

oops - I'm to literate for the smilies!!!

:mad:

[SoMoMom]

Originally posted by RoboDude:
There is a HUGE difference between controlling what the cafeteria may serve and regulating what foods students may bring.


Our elementary school does not allow cake at parties because it is too messy. Is this an infringement of our rights? No, it's just prevention, the same as a peanut ban could be in some situations. Or should I be calling the ACLU?

[RoboDude]

It has been said that close to 1% of people are allergic to peanuts. Out of this 1%, are all of them sensitive enough to have life-threatening reactions to microscopic traces of peanut molecules, or are they the exception?


------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

[CanadianSue]

I have a severe allergy to nuts and have been lucky enough to live through two reactions. Im so careful when I go out, always asking at restaurants, always reading packages.

Its a terrifying feeling to have your tongue and throat swell up until you can't breath and have your heart pumping like its going to literally jump right out of your body.

I was lucky. The first time I was near a clinic, the second time I had an epi. The reaction starts within about 20 seconds or less.

Twix chocolate bars contain nut particles in them and this wasnt reported on their packaging when they first came out, which is how I had my first reaction.

I'm not sure how it is anywhere else, but where I live even Baskin Robbins has a warning now. Companies don't want to be responsible for anything happening because an ice cream scoop wasnt properly washed, etc.

------------------
We are, each of us angels with only one wing,and we can only fly by embracing one another

::sigh::

Evil Ghandi posts:
My involvement in this debate stems from my answer to Melin, where I Assert,

1 Peanut allergies don't KILL suspectable people any more than other common allergies.

2 The problem is not as widespread as the hype would lead us to believe.

3 The measures being proposed constitute the typical save the children type over-reaction we have all come to know whenever a medicle journal publishes a study.

For (1) I didn't have to look all that far, you own post seems to back my assertion.

::snip:: EG quotes one of the abstracts which demonstrated that some peanut-allergic individuals did not respond to a 50 mg dose of peanut protein, while others reacted to as little as 0.1 mg (= 100 mcg)

Note, all of these subjects were chosen because of their hypersensitivity to the protein, yet not one grabbed their chest and dropped dead immediatly upon consuming it. It would appear that the majority had exactly what we would expect to see, a typical allergic reaction with mild to severe discomfort. A few had no reaction at all.

If I lobbed a peanut grenade into a stadium crammed with 100,000 people I doubt the paramedics would be hauling out 1000 body bags.

(2) Kind of a moot point since we agree that a .7-1% figure is not unreasonable. Still I present a second cite, this time from the Mayo Clinic.

"Two out of five Americans believe they are allergic to specific foods. However, fewer than 1% have true food allergies."

This cite adds some weight to my skepticisim of phone surveys but more importantly, it points out that the 1% being waved about is all food allergies. Peanut allergies will be a fraction of this percentage. Every source I checked listed the most common ones in this order.
Cows milk, egg whites, peanuts, wheat and soybeans. Mayo states these four are responsible for 90% of all food allergies. They go on to state "Many children outgrow these allergies by age six." And, "70% of food allergies develop in persons under age 30"

So the total population hypersensitive to peanuts is a fraction of a percent. Even that small number is unlikely to have a fatal reaction upon exposure. (though it does happen)

(3) Is it an over-reaction? I think the phrase "Peanut Free Zone" sums that up.

As a side note, has no one stopped to consider what effect these wide spread bans may have on the peanut industry? Could we be seeing the National Peanut Council sueing Oprah in the near future?

1 From a can of Planter's peanuts:
1 serving = 28 gm (35 pieces)
1 serving = 7 gm Protein

Thus 1 peanut = .8 gm = 800 mg, of which 200 mg (200,000 mcg) is protein. So under test conditions, some subjects did not react to eating the equivalent of 1/4 of a peanut. SO WHAT? Others, on the other hand, DID react to 1/2000th of a peanut. That doesn't answer the question you ask, either, though.

Not that you asked... but if those same subjects were re-exposed to peanut protein within a week or so of that test, virtually all of them would have had a much stronger reaction and/or reacted to a much lower dose. Any exposure, whether it produces a noticeable reaction or not DOES cause an immune reaction, which resultant higher levels of IgE antibodies making future reactions both more likely & more severe.

From the Food Allergy Network site, maintained & reviewed by the AAAAI (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology):
http://www.foodallergy.org/media.html
Food Allergy Basics:
* 2 to 2 1/2% of the general population suffers from food allergy, or between 6-7 million Americans. Up to 3 million Americans suffer from peanut or tree nut allergy.
* 8 foods account for 90% of the allergic reactions. They include peanuts, tree nuts (walnuts, pecans, etc.), fish, shellfish, eggs, milk, soy, and wheat.
* Peanuts are the leading cause of severe allergic reactions, followed by shellfish, fish, tree nuts, and eggs.
* Physicians are reporting an increase in the number of food-allergic patients in the country.
* Individuals with food allergies and asthma appear to be at an increased risk for severe allergic reaction.
* Most individuals that have had a reaction ate a food that they thought was safe.
* Food allergy is the leading cause of anaphylaxis outside the hospital setting.
* It is estimated that as many as 125 people die each year from food allergy-related reactions, approximately 50 people die from insect sting reactions.


SO...peanut allergies do kill susceptible patients more than other common allergens.

2From another Mayo site (note that I actually provide a link): http://www.mayohealth.org/mayo/9908/htm/foodal.htm

When the conversation turns to food allergies, you'll hear lots of folk wisdom: "Food allergies are common." "Many foods can cause allergic reactions." "Don't worry about food allergies — you just outgrow them." "Food allergies are never serious."

The facts contradict these common notions:

* Only about 1 percent of Americans have genuine food allergies. Even so, about 20 percent believe that they have such allergies.

* Ninety percent of food allergies involve just a few substances — proteins in cow's milk, egg whites, peanuts, wheat or soybeans.

* It's true that children are 10 times as likely as adults to have food allergies. And by age 6, children usually outgrow allergies to milk, wheat and eggs. But some allergies — including those to nuts and shellfish — can persist for a lifetime.

* Though uncommon, food allergies can lead to a life-threatening allergic response called anaphylaxis.

So, Peanut Allergy runs somewhere between 0.7% (your "CDC" site), some fraction of a 1.1% peanut + tree nut prevalence (prev. cited abstract), and some fraction of a 1% food allergy rate (Mayo) As we've both previously stated, these are all reasonably comparable figures. I think, however, that we see these figures very differently. You see these numbers as trivial; I see them as significant - no amount of debate or cites is going to change either of our perspectives. I consider any preventable death worth considering how we, as a society, can reasonably* prevent it.

3 *We also differ on what constitutes reasonable actions by society to prevent preventable deaths. I have previously said that the jury is still out on peanut bans at school. Here is a link from the FAN stating their rationale for NOT banning peanuts:
http://www.foodallergy.org/banningpeanuts.html

Essentially, they fear that if kids believe no peanut-containing products are being brought in, that that will lead to increased food-sharing & MORE likely accidental ingestion of "hidden" peanuts.

However, having parented 2 kids & cleaned up PB from places that defy description, I can only say that I think allowing the youngest (under 7 or 8) kids to bring in PBJs is likely to lead to accidental exposure. Allowing neat peanut-containing foods for all kids, and eliminating the restrictions on older kids seem reasonable to me, but I recognize that I have left the world of science, & there is room for other opinions.

- Sue

Evil Ghandi adds:

My last word on the subject.
One can hope ;)
Source: Johns Hopkins,
They describe peanut allergies as,
A "sometimes life-threatening allergy that may affect one in every 200 children."

They also state, "Nearly 100 people die from all food allergies each year"

Compared to this, "Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration compiled primarily from newspaper clippings for 1959-1990 identified an annual average of 93 deaths and 257 injuries attributable to lightning ."

Major health problem my ass.

You know, you ought to see a proctologist for that...

The problem, you see, with this "logic" is that lightning strikes are the proverbial "Act of God" - Largely unforeseeable, and thus largely unpreventable (underwire bras excepted :rolleyes: )

Peanut deaths, OTOH, can often be prevented. How best to do that & where to draw the line between one person's right to a safe environment & another person's "right" to eat peanuts, is a legitimate controversy. Trying to maintain a safe environment for all is not.

- Sue

Originally posted by RoboDude:
It has been said that close to 1% of people are allergic to peanuts. Out of this 1%, are all of them sensitive enough to have life-threatening reactions to microscopic traces of peanut molecules, or are they the exception?

Probably not, RD. BUT... no one yet knows which ones are sensitive enough to have a life-threatening reaction, and which ones aren't. The severity of the past reaction(s) is unreliable in predicting the next one.

- Sue

[suiyobi]

not to treat the right to pb&j as the holiest of holies, but with the frightening consequences put before me, my hypothetical peanut-allergic child would have to go to school in a plastic bubble!
as posted above, kids don't follow the rules 100% of the time-- just like the adults, btw-- so if i had a child with such a lethal allergy, he/she would indeed have to be in a "Peanut Free Zone" one way or another.
it makes me think of old novels and historical accounts of sickly children raised in asylums (asyli?), but not all children with handicaps are mainstreamed, so...
would it be wrong to arrange a "PFZ" school?
(aside from the false sense of security?)

[EvilGhandi]

Android queries,
"Should we ban epi-pens and stop treating people who have severe reactions? Maybe the figures would then have the desired impact."

Android,

Sounds like a good way to push your agenda to me. Heck, you might even get the death toll to equal that of lightning. While you're at it how about advocating a ban of protective vests for law enforcement? It would be a good way to "bump" the numbers for the gun ban lobby. Make a note, don't taunt people smarter than you are.

Sue,
The trip to the proctologist is forthcoming, I can't wait to dislodge these nuts from my ass.

I accept your evidence of peanuts being more likely to kill than other allergens. Even if only by a small margin.(+or- 100 food allergy deaths, 1/3-1/2 related to peanuts) The bee sting data was what really moved me over. (50 annually, very close to peanuts) Though I wager the dose of venonm is less than 50mg. I didn't visit the Mayo website, I borrowed a cd. It didn't include the death rate from bees (though I confess I didn't really look, I concentrated on food allergies)

I have worked closely with a bee-allergic individual and know firsthand what the reaction can look like.

I do wonder if the fatality rate is because of the severity of the reaction or the mindset of the sufferer. Beesting=painfull threat of death vs Peanuts=natures little pellets of yumminess. Plus the fact few people ever receive "concealed" bee venonm.

Who can say? If this is indeed the case it could go a long way towards further reducing fatalities.

If you read my posts, and I'm sure you did, you will realize I am not at all "Pro peanut death". Puffing a cigar with an asmatic is plain being an asshole. Same with demanding your "right" to munch nuts while the guy next to you is jamming an autoinjector in his arm to keep breathing.

My objection is to the hype and what I consider an hysterical "call to arms" by the ADA lobby and others. Labeling is a rational response as is being considerate towards a known sensitive by not exposing them. Cross the board bans are not.(and as you point out,could be counter productive) What purpose does banning accomplish if there is no one there to protect?

As I stated in my "supposed" last post, Your average Joe is about 3 times more likely to buy it from from being struck by lightning than he is from catching an errant peanut. (which I added to provide perspective, not to make a case about how god is unafraid of the ADA) This leaves me of the opinion that though peanuts are a health risk they are certainly not a major one.

[EvilGhandi]

I forgot to include that we will have to agree to disagree on my last sentence.

[EvilGhandi]

Last post my ass.

I am very fond of that phrase.

I forgot to thank SoMo for her data, (I did chase down the links). Though I don't quite know what to make of that last paragraph. If it was a flame, it was certainly the most subtle one I have seen.