Yeah, this has actually been documented (cite, cite2). Farm kids are less likely to have allergies or asthma than city raised kids.
I think some of it is simply that we pay more attention now to these things; they’re better diagnosed and so on. Lots of people with sensitivities to various foods would simply have had chronic digestive/skin/breathing problems a hundred years ago, and everyone would just say that Fred was always delicate from a child, or that little Ellen failed to thrive, was never strong, and died at age 4.
I do agree that some of it is the cleanliness/exposure to microorganisms thing.
We have far more diverse diets than before, and more opportunity to be allergic to obscure foods. Even so, allergies are regional; in the Middle East, children react to sesame seeds, and to hazelnuts in Europe.
I also wonder how much of it is due to the chemicals and junk that we have poured into our environment without knowing what effects it would have. It isn’t possible to avoid all the contaminants of various kinds that we drink, breathe, and so on; will we ever know all of their effects?
Doctors do seem to feel that some of it is genetic. My pediatrician was very interested to hear that my brother has developed Crohn’s disease, and seemed to think that it might have some connection with my daughter’s nut allergies. But no one ever had allergies before in our family, so I don’t know where it might have come from.
An ex was severely allergic to eggs (the you can die kind of allergy), and so was her mother. Since allergy to eggs isn’t that common, I assumed since them that it was indeed genetic. Then, maybe both allergies simply originated in the same cause.
Great. So what do we do about it, if we have allergies and autoimmune diseases now? Take a field trip to the farms and villages and volunteer to muck out a few horse stalls?
It will be fun watching attitudes towards proper child-rearing and healthy housekeeping change if awareness of this spreads in a big way. As of now, the ads are still touting antibacterial everything and people are apparently still buying it.
[TV ad circa 2010]
New! Wizard Air Smuttifier, for that down-n-dirty farm-honest effluvia! You can almost feel your immune system stretching to enjoy its workout! Not recommended for households with AIDS patients, people with prolonged illness, the elderly or newborn infants…
[/TV ad]
It all makes sense. After all, our immune systems *evolved. * The immune system in a child “expects” to be exposed to certain microorganisms. If they are not there, it probably becomes confused somehow.
I think a lot of it is better diagnosis. When I was a kid, and got terrible “colds” every spring and fall, no doctor ever told me any different. When I was fifty, I was diagnosed with asthma. At the asthma clinic, we worked out that it’s triggered by tree pollen (those male trees again) in the spring, and ragweed in the fall, with occasional dust and solvents in between. A lot of people, when I was a kid, thought that asthma was mostly psychosomatic. Wheezing kids were told, “It’s all in yer mind, ya sissy. Tough it out.”
Please clarify. You don’t buy it because you believe that more male plants doesn’t equal more pollen in the environment, or that more pollen doesn’t equate to more allergies?
-
People have always been around plants producing pollen. (The “male” bits). Lots of natural male plants, lots of natural hemaphroditic plants spewing pollen, and so forth. It’s not like male plants were suddenly invented in 1902 or something.
-
People in certain environments such as inner cities are actually exposed to LESS pollen than folks on farms typically are, for the simple reasons they’re indoors more, and there are fewer plants around.
I’d say the cause of peanut allergies comes from overprotective mothers, litigious attorneys and doctors trying to get some extra scratch from deadbeat health insurance agencies and HMOs. Mostly the overprotective mothers are to blame keeping kids away from things which would naturally boost a human’s immune system.
Plus if peanuts were so dangerous why aren’t we burning George Washington Carver in effigy because of the mass graves down in Georgia full of peanut victims.
Of course this could be a symptom of the demise of the human race a-la Earth Abides.
And forgot to add - it’s folks in cities, with less pollen exposure, who are more likely to have allergies than farm folk, who are exposed to large amounts of pollen.
If I remember correctly, cleanliness was considered one of the culprits when it came to polio in the early 20th century. So yeah, getting rid of the little stuff might make the big stuff even more powerful.
Which would make them non-parasites, by definition, right? Or would it?
Goodness. How many moms of peanut-allergic kids do you know, exactly? Well, you’re acquainted with one now. Let’s see. My daughter a) runs around on my folks’ two-acre land, b) has never met anti-bacterial anything, c) meets as many germs as most children, and d) does not have particularly overprotective parents. And yet, she still has a peanut allergy! And we don’t even know any attorneys!
Yep, let’s blame the moms again. After all, mothers already bear the blame for everything else, might as well blame us for this too. We must not have breastfed enough. Or else we were too protective. Maybe we left them in daycare, or didn’t let them go to daycare. Whichever. Doesn’t matter, 'cause you can blame mothers for everything.
Always did: “Mom, you made me stub my toe!!” “Mom, where did you hide my favourite shirt??” 
Since this is GQ, not IMHO, you need to provide some backup for this claim.
I’d like to see what sort of reputable research you’ve got that shows that some proportion of peanut allergies are mistaken medical diagnoses which can be traced to the hysterical claims of parents and attorneys.
Yes, male trees were around centuries ago. However, in recent decades (I can’t tell you how far back) landscape dealers have been pushing seedless, podless, fruitless, and spiky-ball-less trees to homeowners who don’t want to clean all that debris off the lawn and gutters. In unfettered nature, the male-to-female ratio was probably pretty high, because one male tree can fertilize dozens of female locust trees, for example. Now, though, everybody wants seedless trees.
Consider this. If there’s a fellow smoking a cigar down the street, you might faintly be aware of the smell. If he were outside your window, you’d surely notice the stench. It’s the same with pollen. If you have a male tree down the block (and you’re allergic to tree pollen,) you might get a sneeze. If it’s in your own yard, and in your nearest neighbors’ yards, you’ll have an all-out hay fever attack. Chances are, there are male trees in most of your neighbors’ yards, and that wouldn’t have been true 40 years ago.
OK, here we go again.
Your explanation would be sensible IF plants had the sort of male/female dimorphism seen in, say, mammals.
But they don’t.
A LOT of plants - grass, trees, flowers, shrubs, etc. - have BOTH male and female bits in the smae plant. As an example - every blade of grass on your lawn can produce BOTH seed and pollen.
Thus, my point that there are MANY, if not MOST, species of landscaping plants where EVERY member of the species is churning out pollen. Ditto for weeds and wild things.
So no, I don’t think the change in landscaping - affecting only a few species of plants - is great enough to account for the rise in allergies.