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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
[ul][li]Race and religion are subject to strict scrutiny, and the government must show a compelling reason to discriminate[/li][li]Gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and the government must show “exceedingly pervasive justification” to discriminate[/li][li]Most other classifications are subject to minimal scrutiny, requiring only a “rational basis” for the discrimination.[/ul][/li]
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.
The ADA would be the appropriate vehicle for a lawsuit in this instance.
That’s exactly what I was getting at, but WhiteNight explained it better than I did
johnnyharvard said:
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?
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.
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 .”
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.
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.
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?
