This question is prompted by a post in this threadabout healthy foods/food restrictions:
I’ve heard this explanation a lot but is it actually true?
If it is, what happens to all these kids as they become adults? I’ve never worked or been to a public place (like a mall) where nuts were restricted…are these kids doomed to stay home for the rest of their lives, because the air anywhere they might go could kill them? Do they all die out? Does the sensitivity fade as they get older (though the allergy never goes away completely)? Do they find themselves limited in where they can work because of this?
Or is this not actually true and it’s an exaggeration used to add weight to restrictions?
I understand that little kids won’t wash their hands, or might share foods, etc and for that reason restricting nuts in schools where the kids are too young to understand why makes sense. But where are the adults who might die just from being in the same room? Who are they? Where do they go when they grow up?
Also, where did all the Jennifers go…I don’t know any anymore, but there were 5 in my class at school…
I received a work email the other day saying that someone on the 7th floor is severely allergic to fish and that even heating it up in the microwave could cause an allergic reaction, etc.
I work from home, for a company located about 45 minutes from my house. Another woman that I often interact with lives about 20 minutes from the company headquarters. I was driving in for a social event (I do it about once a year) and asked if she was going. She informed me that due to her allergies, she cannot be around all those people, and in fact that is why she works from home. She did not specify which allergies, and I did not inquire.
It doesn’t seem to me like either of those two responses really answers the question. Yes, they say they must take extreme precautions to avoid a reaction, but is it actually true? I’m not saying I have any particular reason to doubt them at all – I don’t think they’re making it up for attention or being foolishly overcautious or anything like that, but like the OP I just want to know what the scientific truth of the matter is here. I did some mild digging through Google Scholar but most of the results I could find on peanut allergies with my laymanese were related to statistics and rising occurrence rates and not the actual mechanisms involved.
Sure it happens. I have an acquaintance whose husband suddenly developed a life-threatening peanut allergy as an adult, which is rare. He nearly died after someone opened a Snickers bar in an elevator he was in (if you see what I mean).
I have an adult (age 40) friend who is severely allergic to peanuts. I’ve seen him react to them. You don’t swell up and blister like that from a psychosomatic condition. It’s 100% genuine.
He’s careful about what he eats. The time I saw my friend have an allergic reaction, what he ate apparently included small traces of peanuts. My friend is as careful as he can be, but accepts that occasionally he’ll get zapped.
There seem to be a few threads like this where people question whether these allergies are real or not. They are real, and if you ever see a reaction like the one I’ve seen, you will never again doubt that they’re real and potentially very serious.
I know that life threatening reactions are real, I’ve had one myself, to a medication. But for every one I’ve ever seen or heard of, the person in question actual came into contact with the substance in question. I’m not sure how someone could have a life threatening reaction from just smelling something (ie, the person on the 7th floor of hogarth’s building). I mean, what would the mechanism even be?
The reactions are certainly real. What is often exaggerated, or at least misunderstood, is the nature of the reaction. Acute, life-threatening allergic reactions are usually best called anaphylactic reactions; those can kill. In particular, they may cause constriction of the breathing tubes (bronchospasm) and dangerously low blood pressure (shock). On the other hand, angioedema (swelling of various tissues especially involving the lips and tongue) is rarely fatal and typically slower in onset. In other words, in angioedema, there is usually sufficient time to intervene.
Definitions and diagnosis get complicated because anaphylaxis usually includes angioedema (but not the other way around).
Most people with what they believe to be life-threatening allergies have angioedema, not anaphylaxis. Their lips and tongues may swell, usually rather slowly, but their airways do not constrict and their blood pressure is unaffected. Again, this contrasts with anaphylaxis where there is rapid, essentially immediate development of bronchial constriction, low blood pressure (and angioedema).
Although full of jargon, and rather verbose, this recent article (pdf) actually provides quite a good review of the area.
Without wading through all that, Karl, how common is it that being in a room where peanut products are exposed to the air (but not ingesting or having skin contact with peanuts) will produce a life-threatening allergic reaction in susceptible people?
Tis always better to way overreact, especially as a public official, and look like an idiot to some then to not overreact and be sued for all you have.
Many kids grow out of these allergies. There is some data that using soy formula may lead to P-nut allergies, which is why they were so rare before, and are common now.
Altho “just breathing the smell” causing dangerous anaphylactic reactions is very very rare, p-nut allergies are very real, and a lot of kids will share their treats.
To be clear, I don’t doubt that the allergies exist, nor do I think people have had reactions due to any sort of psychosomatic issues.
What I am specifically questioning is whether merely being in the same room is, in fact, a mechanism for the allergic reaction to occur.
I feel a lot of people may say that it’s happened to them or someone they know, but is it not also possible that these people may have touched the same elevator button as the guy with the Snickers bar (perhaps it was the guy’s second bar in a row and had residue on his finger?), or touched a chair or tabletop or shook hands with someone and then developed the allergic response?
Scientifically, does smelling something actually provide enough allergen to garner a response, and why aren’t we seeing people with nut allergies keel over in public all the time because of it? StuffLikeThatThere’s response indicates that these allergies may lead to isolated lives…the children for whom these rules were put in place might become work-from-home or otherwise isolated people due to their allergies, which answers some of the question. That sucks, frankly; it’s a really unfortunate reality for them. But do they actually have to be that cautious?
As for the Jennifers, it’s kind of funny that the reason I though of them was that my OP made me think of Jenn-with-the-allergies from my grade 4-5 classes… though that doesn’t explain where all the other ones have gone
Peanut allergy was independently associated with intake of soy milk or soy formula (odds ratio, 2.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 5.2),…. The association with soy protein could arise from cross-sensitization through common epitopes.
A friend’s daughter has a severe milk allergy. Not just lactose intolerant but an allergy so severe that she once had a reaction from being in a Starbucks where milk was being steamed.
The association found in that study appears to be based on interviews with parents about infant diet (not the most reliable means of collecting data) and has not been confirmed to my knowledge by any rigorous study. The NEJM report also does not say that increasing incidence of allergy to peanuts can be tied to any one risk factor.
