peanut butter jones – There’s a band name.
I’m with DtC etc.
Lamia the point I (and I believe that Dangerosa also) was responding to, was your statement that you, for one, would ‘give up’ your peanut butter sammiches for lunch for a co-worker etc.
when put that way, it does indeed seem like the rest of us are being selfish, saying essentially “I don’t care if it will kill you, I’m not giving up my peanut butter sammiches”, when in fact, what we seem to be saying is that for those very few unfortunate people whose peanut allergies are so sensative that they risk their health when exposed to the scent of peanut products, as well as physical touch of peanut products it is an entirely different picture.
I would likely be willing to not bring in peanut butter sammiches. I would heartily dislike being required to refrain from any product use that contains peanut during the entirety of my work day (plus a bit before work), for that would place me in the exact same position as some one who does indeed have such an allergy. I have no doubt that such allergies can be life threatening and are undoubtably life altering. I have no problem with making minor modifications to my work habits to accomodate others. I have a major problem if major modifications would be required. as they seem to be here.
Setting aside for the moment the issue of personal freedom and the problems with being required to do anything, does it seem troubling to anyone else that cutting back on peanut products would require such major modifications on the part of most Americans? As several of you have said, peanuts are in a lot of different kinds of food, including some that one might not suspect. Creating a peanut-free environment isn’t as simple as banning peanut butter sammiches, but perhaps it should be that simple. I had a friend in high school who had a severe allergy to eggs, a pretty common ingredient, but even she seemed to have an easier time avoiding foods that contained her allergy trigger than the peanut-sensitive do. Is there any reason why peanuts should be ubiquitous when we know that not only are they extremely dangerous to those with peanut allergies but that over/too-early exposure to peanuts is itself a factor in these life-threatening allergies?
As I posted above, the AAP recommends that pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children under the age of three avoid peanuts altogether because failure to do so puts the children at a greater risk of developing a peanut allergy. That’s a lot of people who should be staying away from peanuts, and if they all actually did then we’d probably be seeing a lot less of these allergies. Since this is becoming a major health issue, shouldn’t the food industry be doing more to help? If they can’t cut back on the use of peanut products (and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to), they could at least label things more clearly. I was in England about a year ago and couldn’t help but notice that, from restaurant menus to candy wrappers, they do a much better job over there of letting you know what food “may contain nuts” than we do in the US.
Sure, back in the 70s we all ate peanuts. Some people moved on to penicillin or latex. Some didn’t make it at all.
Damn you people! Don’t you know that the peanuts today are 20 times stronger than the peanuts your parents smoked?
WHEN PEANUTS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE PEANUTS!
no, Lamia I am not concerned. There’s any number of allergies that people have - dust, grass, latex, wheat, pet dander etc. The responsability for avoidance should generally remain with the allergic. To expect that all others around them research everything to insure that certain products aren’t in them is absurd.
So I shouldn’t eat any peanuts or peanut butter or anything like that? Wow… no one ever explained that to me before. It’s not like I stuff my face with peanut butter every day so the few pb and banana sandwiches that I’ve been craving and eating could place my child at risk?
If I ever felt bad before…
Perhaps my previous post was unclear. I am concerned that the food industry is not showing more concern for their consumers. Considering how many people have good reason to want to avoid nuts/peanuts (again, not just allergy sufferers but also pregnant/nursing women and small children), why should extensive research be required in order to accomplish this?
The food industry presumably knows what ingredients are going into their products, and they must know that even trace amounts of nuts or peanuts can be dangerous to some consumers. I think there’s room to question whether they really need to be using so much peanut oil, etc., in the first place, but I’m not even calling for them to change their formulas. I’m just saying, how hard would it be for them to put a nice, clear “CONTAINS NUTS” on the packaging of all relevant food products? That would make it much easier for anyone who needed or wanted to avoid such foods to do so.
no your point was clear. MY point is that the list of ‘potential allergens’ is quite extensive. Wheat is another common allergy, as is cows milk for example. Do you really think it’s necessary for manufacturers to attempt to come up with dozens of ways to make their products not only palatable but consumable by all??
As long as manufacturers are listing their ingredients (as they are), the correct person is responsible for the research (the consumer).
IANA pediatrician, but the linked article does say that the AAP recommends that pregnant/nursing women avoid peanuts. Of course, plenty of pregnant women obviously do eat peanuts without it affecting their babies. I’d suspect that the risk is not severe unless your family also has a history of allergy problems (not necessarily peanut allergies), but I don’t really know. I’m sure if you ask your doctor about it then s/he can tell you what the best thing to do would be.
See, you say I’m being clear, and I feel that I am being clear, but then you ask me if I “really think” something that bears no resemblance to anything I’ve actually said. No, I don’t think every food product should be “consumable by all”. I have a (mild) food allergy myself, but I don’t care that there are foods out there that contain strawberries. I would, however, care very much if strawberries were ubiquitous in food products, or if there were foods out there that appeared to be strawberry-free and contained no warning of strawberry content but that in fact had enough to make me ill.
If just looking at the ingredients list were all it took to find out whether a product was completely nut/peanut free then I wouldn’t have brought up labelling in the first place. The problem with nut/peanut allergies is that they can be so severe that even trace amounts of these substances can trigger a dangerous reaction.
Could some nut product be among the “other natural flavors” lurking at the bottom of the ingredients list? Was this apparently nut-free food prepared along with food that did contain nuts, making it possible for a stray nut to get into the wrong bag? Were the implements used to prepare this food also used to prepare food that contained nuts and not cleaned in between? If the answer to any of these questions is “yes” then I think a nice, clear “MAY CONTAIN NUTS” label is in order. Some manufacturers already do this, and I don’t see why they all can’t considering that this is information that could help keep consumers from getting sick but that they could not readily find out any other way.
Such labels are not necessary for all potential allergens because other food allergies are simply not as sensitive or severe as nut/peanut allergies. It won’t make me sick if a drop or two of strawberry juice happens to find its way into something I eat, so I don’t need to worry about it. Since nut/peanut allergies are different from other allergies in this regard, why not treat them differently when it comes to something as easy as adding a few words to a package?
do you have evidence that suggests that when manufacturers are using the term ‘other natural flavors’ that it includes potential allergans such as nuts? I’ve not seen any.
What I have seen is comments that even though you might not think something contains peanuts, it may include peanut oil (and that fact was known 'cause of the label).
So, once again, no, I’m not seeing a problem here. If the person w/allergies needs to be certain, read the label. I see no particular reason to add in a note “CONTAINS NUTS” to the front. 'cause, once again, there’s any number of potential allergans, your friend w/the ‘egg’ problem, milk, wheat etc etc etc. and if you add ‘CONTAINS NUTS’ to the front of the label (while still having to add it to the ingredients), to be fair and equitable and all, you should also add “CONTAINS MILK” and “EGG” and “SALT” and “FAT” and “WHEAT” etc etc etc etc etc.
again - unless I see evidence that current labels are insufficient, I see no reason to modify them.
Well, I suppose this is why we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You don’t think it would be fair to use “MAY CONTAIN NUTS” labels but not indicate all other potential allergens the same way, and I think it would be completely fair because all potential allergens are not the same.
yep. and also, of course, that if the fucking label already contains the information why should you force them to add it to the front as well.
I believe I already explained that the ingredients list is not going to indicate whether the food may have merely touched some nut product, or been handled with implements that touched nut products. Eating food that has been “contaminated” in this way is enough to trigger allergic reactions in some people. The article linked to above mentions a little boy who had a serious reaction after eating a Gummy worm that came out of a dispenser that had previously held candy that contained nuts.
If nuts are an actual ingredient in a food then they should appear on the ingredients list, and extra warning is perhaps redundant. However, it is not so obvious whether or not a product may have been prepared alongside or with the same equipment as food that does contain nuts as an ingredient. If this is the case then trace amounts of nut MAY have found their way into the seemingly nut-free food. These trace amounts can be enough to make people with nut allergies sick. Some manufacturers who produce things like peanut candybars and plain candybars with the same machines have been kind enough to label both with “MAY CONTAIN NUTS”, as consumers might otherwise mistakenly believe that the plain candybars (the ones that do not have peanuts listed on the back) were completely safe for those with nut allergies.
Good Lord, Diogenes, I leave you alone for a few days and look at the mess you’ve made…
emarkp, with all due respect (since I have no clue who you are), that was a stupid fucking thread title, and an even more ignorant OP.
{just my opinion, of course}
I’m sure DtC’s threat to send his kid to school with PBJs and Reese’s was not intended to endanger the child in question as much as it was intended as a form of protest at having his child’s diet dictated to him.
I’d probably send my child with PBJs for a week out of protest as well. If they just requested nicely, I’d probably comply (within the confines of my budget, obviously).
Is the kid just as allergic to other nuts? There’s always the gooey chocoatey goodness of Nutella to consider! (made with hazelnuts)
I agree, very over the top… much like the OP.
You know, there are children who are allergic to the sun (very true) so perhaps their parents should lobby to have school held at night so their children don’t lose out on socialization.
I am sympathetic to anyone with an allergy, especially life threatening but somewhere we have to draw a line.
Obviously there are many levels of reaction to this allergy. I’d have to say if my child’s reaction was so severe, I would be the FIRST one to remove my child from public school. Of course you can’t lock your child up from the world but let’s face it, schools are full of kids and kid love peanut butter and jelly. Why risk YOUR child’s life to prove the point that you have a “right” to do so? What if proving your point costs YOUR child their life? Oh, I know… then you (not a particular you, but you in general) can sue the school.
Glad I could entertain you RoundGuy. Diogenes simply postulated ignoring a rule instituted to protect a child’s health–indeed his stated idea was to increase the chance that another child could get sick or die. As my daughter has the same allergy (but not to the same degree), I merely hypothesized that if Diogenes’ actions resulted in the death of my child, I would make every effort to put him behind bars (or behind a needle).
Note that my hypothetical actions were based on his killing my daughter. Perhaps I overreacted, but I haven’t seen any evidence that Diogenes’ post was anything other than a gut response to rules that he saw was too restrictive.
Certainly if he can be allowed room for some hyperbole, so can I.
Yes, that can be a problem. The “may have nuts” labeling is getting better (did you know plain M&M’s are marked this way?). There’s some information out there on things to watch out for. See here for example. Here’s a lovely list of some of them:
[quote]
[ul][li]Words on a list of ingredients that could indicate the presence of peanut protein include: peanuts, mixed nuts, ground nuts, mandelonas, peanut butter, peanut oil, goober nuts, goober peas, beer nuts and peanut flour, artificial nuts, hydrolyzed peanut protein.Foods that may contain peanuts include: cookies, chocolate bars, chili, egg rolls, Thai dishes, Satay sauces, prepared soup (especially dried packaged soup mixes), prepared and frozen desserts, hydrogenated oil, candy, baked goods, chinese food, potato chips, fried foods, salad dressings, macaroons, icing paste, almond paste, vegetable burgers, vegetable oil, vegetable shortening, lard, margarine, rework chocolate from Europe and canned sardines[/ul][/li][/quote]