Allergens don’t have to be protein-based, either by definition, or in practice.
ETA: Cite (for example):
http://food.gov.uk/policy-advice/allergyintol/label/#.UkGDrUqC3Js
Miss Manners disagrees with you. It is perfectly polite to say “No” to a request, without elaborating or explaining your reasoning at all.
I agree with Miss Manners in the examples given, which are all requests that you do something, in which case it is fine to refuse without explanation. The examples in this thread are all situations in which someone is asking permission to do something themselves. I wonder if there is a specific example in which Miss Manners shows how best to respond to this type of request. I just can’t see “no” without apology or explanation being polite for questions like, “May I bring my food in here?” or “May I use the restroom?”
Your cite provides for a labeling of cereals that contain a laundry list of items and it includes sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide itself is not an allergen, it’s likely included due to its adverse affect (as an irritant) on asthmatics: Sulphur dioxide in foods and beverages: its use as a preservative and its effect on asthma - PubMed
If cigarette smoke (or sulfur dioxide) were really an allergen you could take an antihistamine to help with the symptoms, but you can’t. An allergic reaction requires an immune system response. It’s why there’s no skin prick test for a cigarette smoke (or sulfur dioxide).
You are correct, there are circumstances when I would expect an explanation for someone denying me the use of their restroom. If you invite me to dinner at your home, but then reject my request to use your restroom then you owe me an explanation. But I don’t think that’s what the OP is talking about.
I guess I just hate to think that if I ask someone’s permission for something that I’m now going to be labeled as lacking manners, rude or inconsiderate when it’s exactly the opposite of my intent.
Regardless the veracity of the citation, allergens are not all protein based.
Actually, you can - I happen to know this because my wife is severely allergic to SO2 - if she eats a bit of dried fruit that was bagged with SO2 for preservation, or drinks any commercially bottled wine or cider with added sulphites, she will suffer a rapid onset, full-on, face-swelling, airway-closing allergic reaction (which *is *relieved by antihistamines if she gets them in time).
Cite(PDF)
Did you bother to review your cite?
-
The quote you pulled is referring to a sulfonamide antibiotic allergy not sulfites.
-
The document clearly differentiates this by stating “this is a very different condition from sulfite sensitivity”
-
Everywhere else on the http://www.allergy.org.au/ website uses the term “sulfite sensitivity.”
-
The section below the quote you pulled states “there is currently no reliable blood or skin allergy test to test for sulfite intolerances.”
I don’t want to hijack this thread anymore, if you want to keep this going let’s start a new thread.
Did you?
No it’s not. That is dealt with in the section above the one I quoted, which directs the reader to consult a different document. The section I quoted is about the uncertainty regarding the mechanism by which Sulphites and SO2 cause reactions/allergies.
The quote even explicitly says it’s talking about sulphites. The word ‘sulfites’ is in the quote - the quote you’re saying is about something else.
Yes, in the above-mentioned section, which is not the part I quoted, and is an aside mention to something which is not the topic of the document.
That the most common reaction to sulphites is ‘sensitivity’, not a true allergy is not something I am disputing.
The linked article explains that what is commonly called sulphite allergy is in fact not a true allergy - I am not arguing that point. The section I quoted indicates that in addition to the existence of the phenomenon of sulphite sensitivity, some people suffer truly allergic reactions.
Not in dispute. I’m not talking about sensitivity (the main topic of the article), I’m talking about allergy, on which it says:
Do you think there’s any point? Your post above is complete fail.
If someone told me they were allergic to cigarette smoke, I’d just roll my eyes and think “Yeah, Whatever - precious snowflake”. To me that’s just a copout.
If you don’t want someone to smoke, because you don’t like the smell there’s no need to make up some dire medical emergency - just tell them you don’t like the smell
Even if you do in fact have a sensitivity (or genuine allergy, if such things exist for this stimulus)? I mean, are you just going to assume it’s an excuse, not a statement of fact?
“I’m Allergic”, is, to me, just code for “I’m a precious little snowflake” and would certainly make me roll my eyes.
I’d think a lot LESS of someone that said this than the person that simply said - I don’t like the smell, or even, I don’t like to watch people smoking (as I personally don’t like).
This sort of thing is invariably what I see from a certain “type” of person that drives me insane
No, “I’m allergic to cigarette smoke” sometimes means “cigarette smoke causes an undesired physical reaction in me”. For instance, even if I can’t smell the smoke (I have a severe cold, or something), it will usually trigger a migraine in me, sometimes an asthma attack. I love the smell of incense, but that’s a trigger, too, so I have to avoid it.
If I don’t like the smell of something, then I say so. I don’t claim to be allergic to things that I just don’t like. I don’t like shellfish, for instance, and I have no problems refusing to eat dishes with shrimp or crab.
Just because you don’t like to acknowledge that some people do, indeed, have adverse physical reactions to your habit doesn’t mean that you get to dismiss their complaints.
Is this for any claim of allergy, or just in relation to smoke?
(I mean, I’ve never heard of an actual allergy to smoke either, but people could be using the term ‘allergy’ as easy shorthand for ‘provokes my asthma’, or something)
Specifically in relation to cigarette smoke…
If you tell me you have other allergies - well ok…you know your health better than I do.
To me, “triggering a reaction” is not the same as allergic.
I eat chilli, it makes me sweat
I smell smoke - it makes me cough
Neither makes me “allergic”
And psst - Lynn - I don’t, and never have smoked, so I don’t have a habit.
As an sometimes and current ex-smoker, I really don’t like to be around smoking. It makes it extremely hard to fight them temptation to give into my addictions. I have gone months without smoking, only to pick it up again because I was exposed to it.
I would never use “allergy” as a shorthand or easy answer, if nothing else it would provoke the argument that it’s not an allergy. Now cats, that causes a pretty intense allergic reaction in me, but I’ve never asked a host to stop having cats while I was in their house.
Provoking of asthma is certainly a legitimate concern, and when I have been smoking, and I’ve had asthmatics around, I deliberately refrain. I have met asthmatics that go too far though, and complain that they could smell the smoke on me after I smoked outside, and that triggered their asthma attack from fifteen feet away. I don’t doubt that there are people with that bad of asthma, but if it’s that bad, I don’t see how they can leave a sterile environment in the first place.
You are allowed to dislike things without a note from your doctor.
nm