I feel like this is pretty well explained upthread, but just to add to the chorus: don’t lie.
Simply telling your server you don’t want oysters and verifying their presence is enough. If they say a substitution isn’t possible, respect that.
I can understand the thinking if you assume it’s no extra work for the server, but it definitely is.
…Unless you’re eating at Bert & I’s Oyster Barn (All oysters, all the time, ask about our Oyster-Stuffed-Oysters, free glass of Oyster Juice with every order…… Everything is Oysters)
It seems a minor thing to be exposed to a modicum of snideness in response to a proposal to behave dishonestly. If we’re being asked for our opinions here, I think it’s within the scope of an opinion to express disapproval.
Well stated. I respect your elaboration.
Additionally there are oyster lovers like myself that are following the thread specifically to enjoy the snide responses. 
See, this is where false claims of allergies lead to problems. All too many people say they are allergic to thing that they simply do not like, leading to confusion and some other people assuming that “I do not like”=“allergy” and “allergy”=“do not like”.
One of the sad things about allergies is that it is not uncommon for someone to like the very thing they are allergic to. I like lentils… but can not safely eat them. I love barley… but the last time I had some I almost had to call 911.
I’ve very careful to distinguish between “I do not like” and “I am allergic”. You see, I am able to eat something I do not like in order to be polite, or if I am very, very hungry and that’s what’s available. I can not eat something I am allergic to without risking very severe problems.
Nonetheless, I’ve occasionally told people “I am allergic to X” and gotten a response of “but how can you not like it?” or “just eat a little bit to be polite, it won’t hurt you even if you don’t like the taste.” Clearly, these individuals do not really understand what a food allergy actually is.
Sometimes I find “X does not agree with me” is a better response, avoiding the like/allergy confusion altogether… sometimes. I have had the problem when using that with tomatoes that someone will say “well, take some antacid first and you won’t have reflux” (Um… I did not state reflux was the problem…) or “this variety isn’t as acidic” (no, that’s not the problem…) or some other variant.
Really, I just wish that adults would respect other adults saying “I do not want this” quite a bit more. It would solve a lot of problems.
The guy I really felt sorry for was the fellow I once ran into who was allergic to onions/garlic/leeks/etc. All of that stuff in the same family. And it’s freakin’ everywhere. At the time I was arranging catering for my employer and had a really, hard time dealing with the ordering person, who finally put the chef on the line. He really seemed to disbelieve that he had to avoid ALL things from the genus Allium. “Are you sure I can’t use just a little dehydrated onion powder?” Yes, yes, absolutely sure (I’d been present at the prior year’s conference when this gentlemen’s allergy had a sudden onset. Good view of the paramedics working him up, etc.). “But - but - he’ll basically be getting a boiled chicken breast. It will be boring!” Well, perhaps, but in this case boring is good.
Yes, basically Mr. Allergic to Allium got a very plain chicken breast, noodles, and I forget which veg but yeah, very bland, very boring and the gentleman was very happy to NOT get a fast ride in an ambulance and few days in the hospital.
I’ll just add that for people with medical issues that forbid certain items even if they won’t be as rapidly fatal as an out-of-control allergy - same rules apply. Don’t claim you have celiac unless you actually DO have celiac. And a person with celiac won’t die from accidental exposure to a small bit (so far as I know) but it can make them seriously, seriously ill. I’m told an episode can mimic the explosive clean-out induced by colonoscopy preps. Yeah, please don’t do that to people. Rinse and repeat for other medical issues. It doesn’t have to be potentially fatal to be a big problem.
In addition to **Broomstick’s **outstanding post above, there are also some people who take it as some sort of personal affront if you refuse to sample the scrumptious food that they brought to the office workplace. Maybe they went to a lot of trouble to buy that cake, or baked it themselves and consider it delish - whatever, they think you are somehow offending *them *by not sampling it.
There are also those who think that if the allergic person doesn’t eat Food X that they are allergic to, that they are missing out on the delight of Food X and they need a bit of Food X to liven up their day. Well, it will liven up their day, YMMV for definitions of “liven things up.”
Relevant cite for false alarms, too, who make it difficult for real sufferers: Around 50% of people who claim to have a food allergy don’t really have one.
I wish they would too, but considering they don’t always I tell them “I can’t eat that, it will give me hives,” which might be more than they need to know but it does completely bypass people trying to talk me into it anyway. I’ve had to learn to be very protective of myself, though I still do not relish having to tell each new coworker that I need for them to wash their hands if they eat finger foods with said allergen because I don’t need to actually eat it, just touch a surface with a small amount of it on it, to get those hives (I most commonly get hives from touching doorknobs now :(). You could go with “I cannot eat that, it causes [projectile vomiting, an e.r. visit etc.].”
That’s not really about false alarms. That’s about people who may have some sort of bad reaction to a certain food, but are not technically allergies.
If I’m vomiting on the floor after my request to remove something was ignored, I don’t want the chef to come out and say “Well actually, you have an intolerance not an allergy.”
As someone who is legitimately allergic to one specific seafood—but not so allergic that I can’t, like, be in the same room as someone eating it or consume whatever stray protein molecules might remain after a reasonable cleaning of prep surfaces—I would be annoyed if a restaurant tried to “call my bluff” this way.
I’m not lying. There are different severities of allergy.
I agree with the general consensus that you should not lie about an allergy when what you have is a preference. Doing so leads restaurateurs to asinine things like the above.
Which gets back to respecting people when they say “Sorry, I can’t have that, it’s a problem for me”. No one should have to recite their symptoms/medical history when refusing food.
That’s what it comes down to, really.
I don’t see that as the restaurant calling your bluff. I see it as them trying not to kill you. You really have no way of knowing how many stray molecules will remain after the level of cleaning they’re capable of doing for you, and you’re putting them in a very awkward position by telling them you’re allergic and then demanding they serve you when they say they can’t accommodate your needs.
I used to work at a pizza place, where there was flour in the air all day long. Anyone wearing a black shirt would have a fine dusting by the end of their shift. Celiac folks would ask if we couldn’t just cook their thing on a piece of foil, not understanding the invisible gluten mist that would nevertheless cover it. Most folks were glad I told them and chose to eat elsewhere. Other people decided to go ahead and eat a salad, when I had told them the dressing contained gluten (to go with their aerosolized gluten.)
If you haven’t worked in a restaurant, you may not be able to conceptualize just how much people suck.
I once helped with a college residence hall intervention after a kid with a shellfish allergies asked if there were shellfish in a sauce, was told there weren’t, and died. I’ve had to take people to the hospital after they–oopsie–were served a dish with gluten after saying they couldn’t eat it. Trying not to kill you is a good thing, sometimes not done well.
That article is absolutely not about people claiming they have a food allergy when they know they don’t have one.
It is about people who think they have a food allergy, when the researcher had a stricter definition of food allergy than common usage, and is using a symptomatic approach to identifying what an allergy is, which, IMO is simply wrong.
The researcher rejects “cramps or diarrhea” as symptoms of food allergies. However, celiac disease may not cause any of the “convincing” symptoms, but is absolutely a histaminic response.
Frankly, my peanut allergy is not strong enough to cause more than diarrhea or nausea, but I’m not going to dither over the scientific meaning of “food allergy” when I want to make sure I’m not eating something that’s going to cause the aforementioned problems.
This is very true. I’ll go further and say that in many circumstances “No, thanks” ought to be sufficient; whether the food causes a physical problem, or the decliner just doesn’t like it, or suspects the offerer left it out at room temperature too long, or only eats carbs on alternate days, or is following a possibly idiosyncratic religious or moral restriction, or just isn’t hungry for that particular item at the moment, is often none of the offerer’s business.
However, the restaurant (or sometimes the home) kitchen still needs to know whether they need to scrub everything down, and/or worry about possible air-borne contamination. So they need enough information to answer that question; and that information needs to be accurate.
Sure, but in the ~15 years I’ve been aware of this allergy, I’ve eaten in tons of restaurants that serve seafood and the only time I had a reaction was one time I was bad at reading a menu that really did list the thing as an ingredient. And I noticed it immediately, spit it out, and my tongue got a little swollen but I moved on. My sensitivity to this allergen does not appear to require autoclaving all the kitchen utensils. Standard kitchen cleanliness procedures are apparently plenty.
So I know that I’m not taking my life in my hands, but I am going to ask what’s in something that has mixed seafood, and if they aren’t sure I just won’t order it.
But I guess I’m also unlikely to mention the allergy, since it’s not really relevant. I just want to know what the ingredients are.
I get it - not all of my allergies are life-threatening-drop-dead allergies, either. Problem is, once you inform the restaurant they don’t want to take the chance and it’s probably simpler to have just one protocol for allergies (even if it is a PITA protocol) than try to evaluate each person individually.
Can I bring up another pet peeve? That’s people who really do have a genuine allergy but continue to eat the offending food anyway. Once heard someone say “Oh, yeah, I have a shellfish allergy but I just take some Benadryl and eat it anyway.” Great, just great. Look, if you want to risk your OWN life do it in your own kitchen, but that just makes things harder for those of us who don’t want to play Russian roulette at the dinner table and/or have allergies too severe to play that game.
I don’t get how that bothers you. Are you worried they’re going to go into anaphylactic shock at the table or something?