Food Intolerances/Allergies/Aversions

[Eden]

My two cents from the other side of the issue:

I think you're being too hard on folks here. One of the problems with this issue is terminology.

Loosely, an allergy is a specific histamine response to an irritant, so only when your body responds to an irritant with histamines & inflamation should we call that response an allergy, but we don't have another easy term available for other negative body responses to an irritant.

Most people don't actually care to hear the specific details of your bodies responses to different foods, so it's faster and easier to just say "I'm allergic to walnuts" than "I get a weird tickly closing-up feeling in my throat when I eat walnuts, but the allergy test was negative, so I'm not technically allergic, but the doctor said to avoid them anyway, cause your throat closing up is bad"

as another example, I'm officially allergic to crustaceans and to some fish. On top of which I have a "negative bodily response" to ALL fish, though I can eat for example dishes made with a little thai fish sauce, as long as I don't have too much, in which case I will be sick as a dog! My throat doesn't swell up in those cases, so it's not an allergy, but isn't it easier if I just tell you "I'm allergic to fish" rather than detailing everything out for you???

I'm not saying there aren't some people who self diagnose too quickly, or are hypochondriacs, but take my word for it, having a "food sensitivity" and working around it, or asking others to work around it, is a big inconvenience, so I think that in most cases folks who do so are responding to a real bodily reaction even if it's not technically an allergy.

[Fat Guy]

If the only people claiming to have allergies were those with serious allergies and strong intolerances, there would be no issue. The issue arises because so many people are lying or deluding themselves: claiming allergies when there are no symptoms whatsoever. This leads to a collective boy-who-cried-wolf situation, where we know most people making allergy claims are lying or deluding themselves and, as a result, the amount of care taken sinks to a common denominator of non-vigilance. Those with serious food allergies and intolerances should be outraged when those who just don't like fish lie and say they're allergic to fish.

[FistFullaRoux]

The answer to all of this is simple. Would you be the kind of person who would make something with shellfish when a Jewish person is dining with you? It's obviously not an allergy, but a personal choice to not partake of that type of food. Would you add bacon to a dish for a Muslim? It would not kill them, and if you didn't tell them, they would not be the wiser.

How is that any better or worse than adding an ingredient someone says they are allergic to, whether real or imagined? It's one thing for kids to say they do not like vegetables, when you are the parent and know the history of the child to get them to try it. It is not your perogative as a cook or host to prove a point with someone's real or imagined dietary restrictions.

I've been sober for 6 years now, and it would be so much simpler if I were to tell people I was allergic to alcohol. It's not a true allergy, but it would have unwelcomed effects on me. You generally don't have to explain allergies or religious beliefs, but someone always wants to know the story behind a "like or dislike". I don't always feel like discussing it. I'll just have the iced tea, please. I'm driving.

[ingridsf]

I've been sober for 6 years now, and it would be so much simpler if I were to tell people I was allergic to alcohol. It's not a true allergy, but it would have unwelcomed effects on me. You generally don't have to explain allergies or religious beliefs, but someone always wants to know the story behind a "like or dislike". I don't always feel like discussing it. I'll just have the iced tea, please. I'm driving.

←

For what it's worth, I prefer to know somebody's in recovery. I have a disability myself but am fortunate that it is not often perceived as a characterological issue. If someone is dealing with sobriety, it's a medical condition, quite as much as an allergy. However, I know people feel they have to be more guarded about it, as is their right.

Edited because I perhaps wrongly assumed "sober" meant "in recovery." If I'm wrong, please imagine Emily Litella saying, "Never mind!" (Old SNL joke.)

Edited April 16, 2006 by ingridsf (log)

[Rebecca263]

This thread disturbs me. I think of my fellow eGulleteers as a friendly, loving lot of folks. To me, food is more than mere sustenance, and I imagine this is so for everyone on eGullet, else why be here? So, why would anyone want to foist any food on someone who wouldn't want it, whether an allergy or not? I find that attitude so mean spirited.

I'll tell you this. I don't care what someone's reasoning is, if they say they're allergic, or unable to eat something, I accomodate them, with a smile and sincere goodwill. I WANT you to have a pleasurable experience eating with me, in a restaurant or in my home, and I'm not going to trick you or "educate" you on allergies etc. We're going to eat meals that have no offending foods in them, and hopefully enjoy being together to eat said meals.

You know, I've fed numerous different kinds of folk, with different food 'requirements'. Vegans, vegetarians, fruitarians, WW, Atkins, South Beach Dieters, models who only ingest seafood and lemons , Kosher, Muslim, diabetic, arthritic, food allergies, fussy eaters, the bread 'addict', damaged livers AND the toughest of all- a dozen 8 year olds for a VERY LONG weekend. Honestly, part of the pleasure of feeding all of those people, for me, is in knowing that I've taken some of the stress of their own lives off of them for a few hours, or days, and given them food that they could truly enjoy, without a worry.

I suggest that we all try to be more easygoing, and let go of any desires to 'correct' other peoples' reasons for not eating certain items. They'll be happier, and ultimately, so will we. And that, to me, is the essence, the reason, for being a foodie.

Being a foodie, to me, is NOT fulfilled by a need to 'train' those around me to eat what I think is desirable, but it is a desire for more personal pleasure and satisfaction, and ultimately, more happiness.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Rebecca263 (log)

[Rebecca263]

  But also, I think the act of serving a person a meal should be a gracious one.  If a person dislikes something and isn't willing to try it then it is their problem and not the hosts.  I see my duty as the host to provide a pleasant experience for everyone and I think to try to trick someone into eating something they don't think they will like is not very hospitable.

←

This post came in the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, Goldie got it right, right away.

[FistFullaRoux]

I've been sober for 6 years now, and it would be so much simpler if I were to tell people I was allergic to alcohol. It's not a true allergy, but it would have unwelcomed effects on me. You generally don't have to explain allergies or religious beliefs, but someone always wants to know the story behind a "like or dislike". I don't always feel like discussing it. I'll just have the iced tea, please. I'm driving.

←

For what it's worth, I prefer to know somebody's in recovery. I have a disability myself but am fortunate that it is not often perceived as a characterological issue. If someone is dealing with sobriety, it's a medical condition, quite as much as an allergy. However, I know people feel they have to be more guarded about it, as is their right.

Edited because I perhaps wrongly assumed "sober" meant "in recovery." If I'm wrong, please imagine Emily Litella saying, "Never mind!" (Old SNL joke.)

←

You had it right. There's a whole story there, of course.

[Fat Guy]

Tricking someone into eating food under false pretenses is dishonest. Saying you have an allergy when you don't is dishonest. Prying is obnoxious. I wouldn't want to be in the position of defending any of these practices.

Whether a host wants to bend over backwards to accommodate dietary restrictions is a matter of choice. It's not required -- you're already a mensch if you invite someone over for a home-cooked meal. Hosts who are willing to cook a separate meal for each guest are very kind and generous. To return the favor by lying is unacceptable.

For a guest to request anything special, outside of family and family-like relationships (such as with close friends who've indicated a willingness to accommodate), is presumptuous. If you can't eat or don't like something that's being served, don't eat it. Deletion (e.g., asking that the meat be left off your plate) is acceptable, even if it makes folks uncomfortable (once they start interrogating you, the rudeness is theirs). But anything beyond deletion should be offered by the host.

[H. du Bois]

  But also, I think the act of serving a person a meal should be a gracious one.  If a person dislikes something and isn't willing to try it then it is their problem and not the hosts.  I see my duty as the host to provide a pleasant experience for everyone and I think to try to trick someone into eating something they don't think they will like is not very hospitable.

←

This post came in the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, Goldie got it right, right away.

←

I agree with Goldie, too. I always take everyone at their word when they say that they can not, do not, or would not eat or drink something - be it for reasons of health, religion, culture or just plain personal preference. Goldie's use of the word gracious is most fitting here, and no one who is a gracious host or hostess would EVER trick someone into eating something they avoid, for whatever reason.

My point above is simply that I have recently witnessed people claiming allergies to foods which have little or no basis in reality. It isn't very nice to have gone to a great deal of trouble preparing special meals for someone who claims they are physically sickened by a food, to then later witness them consume that same food with no ill effect.

[ingridsf]

This woman would never get an invite to my house for dinner or for one of my parties.

I mean, damn...I know some people have allergies, but 38 items????  Are you sure she's not a hypochondriac?

←

She's a terrific person and, to her way of thinking, providing a neatly typed, detailed list well ahead of time is good manners. It certainly beats some of the folks I've known, including one friend of my brother's who could tell you waaaay more than you would ever want to know about the state of his mucus if he dared put half-and-half in his coffee like I did. He knew he didn't have candida but he thought mucus was bad and connected to yeast. Who knows, maybe he was right but either way, he wasn't fighting a health condition. He was living on raw mushrooms and bean sprouts at the time. I always had the urge to eat pork in front of him. I never would have tried to trick him into eating such an "impure" (his word, not mine) food. It would have been disrespecting the pig.

Come to think of it, allergies are nothing compared to some of the food-fads I've seen.

[Grub]

This thread disturbs me. I think of my fellow eGulleteers as a friendly, loving lot of folks....

←

I think Freddy Rogers of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood was a friendly and loving person -- just like our fellow eGulleteers. But if someone showed up at Mr. Rogers' dinner party with a typed out list of 38 objectionable ingredients, I'd fully expect him to take his cardigan and garotte them with it.

[eJulia]

Rebecca, you nailed it.

I spent my first 44 years of life answering the question about allergies with a grateful "not a one!"

It wasn't until I started practicing veganism and only after eating nutritional yeast several times (used by a number of vegans to get Vitamin B and enjoy a cheese-like additive), that I had a life threatening anaphylactic shock reaction. My lips swelled to several times their normal size, and my throat closed in... Only a trip to the ER and a shot of epinephrine saved my life.

Who would have "thunk"? Most people will never eat nutritional yeast in their lifetime, and had I not been toying with a vegan lifestyle, I probably never have known or developed this food allergy. (I was irritated the first two or three times after eating NY, but didn't suffer the true life threatening reaction until I'd eaten it several times.)

If someone claims an allergy, or simply doesn't care for a particular food or foods, all they have to do is say so... they won't be served that at my house, or be taken to a restaurant that doesn't offer options to fit with their desires. Anything less is just uncivilized and boorish.

I wouldn't try to sneak a Jew shellfish or a Muslim pork. Why would you?

[MomOfLittleFoodies]

I know for a fact that there are rare few of us with nut and shellfish allergies about.  And yet, of late, every other person I encounter seems to have a "food allergy."  I once met a woman at a party who informed me that she was eating rice crackers instead of wheat crackers because her baby was "allergic" to wheat.  Said infant was only 6 months old, and was breast fed.  Never had a piece of toast so much as passed her lips, and yet she was diagnosed by her mother as an allergy sufferer.  Why?  Because mom believed that the baby's stools were somewhat looser after mom ate bread.  Aside from the fact that I found this to be wildly inappropriate party talk from a stranger, it struck me as less an issue of food or the child's health but rather of the mother's own neuroses. 

I'm about to comment on H. du Bois's comment about baby poop... if you've got a weak stomach, avert your eyes.

We first suspected a dairy allergy with my now 3 year old daughter when she was just weeks old. She was breastfed and would have mucousy stools after any time I consumed dairy products. When I removed dairy products from my diet, the symptoms disappeared. She's still dairy allergic to this day.

That particular symptom is a fairly common one in food allergic infants. And yes, you can tell the difference between a loose baby poop and one with mucous in it.

Proteins from a food a nursing mother has eaten do carry over into breastmilk, the same way that medications a nursing mother has taken can.

[Fat Guy]

I don't think anybody is claiming there's no such thing as serious, life-threatening food allergies and intolerances. But I also think it's well established that a lot of people who think they have them don't, and that a lot of other people fabricate allergy claims in order to get special treatment.

[ingridsf]

My friend with the list of 38 no-no items, surprisingly, is not annoying to me. Largely because I've never once seen her eat something that's on her list. Also, she doesn't talk about what she's not eating while enjoying something else, or the intimate details of her innards.

On the other hand, I've got a buddy who I've wanted to throw food at. Here's a typical situation: She comes for dinner. I'm making pasta. As I'm about to add salt to the cooking water, she says, "Can you not add that? Salt's bad for you and I've told you heart trouble runs in my family." Much as I love her, it's hard to give up proper seasoning. Yet I do. Because she's referenced a health condition that is quite serious.

We're eating and I'm reminding myself that it's the company that matters more than one underseasoned meal when my friend starts talking about her fabulous afternoon. At the ball park. Eating garlic fries that I have eaten and know have so much salt on them that if salt still functioned as the basis for someone's salary, these would be called CEO fries.

So, food allergies, food intolerances, food dislikes -- I really don't care or need to know what level alert it causes for you. But be consistent if you want me to take you seriously.

[TheFoodTutor]

Those with serious food allergies and intolerances should be outraged when those who just don't like fish lie and say they're allergic to fish.

←

I could not agree with you more if you and I were sharing the same brain, sir. Very nicely put.

I, of course, have a number of varied experiences with people who have all sorts of food preferences, allergies real or invented, dietary restrictions, etc. Let me preface any stories I share with one explanation: I will go above and beyond, as a server, to make absolutely sure that your requests are followed to the letter, no matter what the reason is behind them. In the past week, I have given a guest his entree on 3 separate plates (meat on one, sides on the other plates) because he simply said to me, "I don't like my food to touch." Fine. I also had a regular guest ask if his son, who was feeling finicky that night, could get a half of a grilled cheese sandwich and one chicken tender with fries as his meal, because the child simply couldn't decide if he wanted the tenders or the grilled cheese. Certainly, sir. Ask, and it shall be done, because fulfilling your requests is my job, and if I don't want to do that anymore, I'll simply stop coming to work.

But don't, please don't lie to me. When a person lies to me, it is insulting in the utmost, because the lie is made with the presumption that a) I'm not smart enough to tell when someone is lying and b) I'm not smart enough to simply do my job as well as I do without a life-threatening situation held over my head.

I cannot emphasize enough that the constant claiming of allergies when none exist causes restaurant employees to become jaded enough that I'm ready to simply recommend that all people with real allergies avoid restaurants altogether. We had an incident, not too long ago, when a person with a life-threatening allergy to tomatoes ordered the roasted chicken, which comes with our couscous, and the couscous contains large chunks of tomatoes. The guest saw this when the dish was delivered, and then stated that she did not know there were tomatoes in it (I suppose she didn't ask because it didn't seem like a likely addition to that dish), and then requested an entirely new dish. The chicken could not be re-used for her, because it had touched the tomatoes. This is not an unreasonable request. However, one of the cooks who did not respect the severity of the instructions given all down the line from the server and the manager simply moved the chicken from one plate to another, and there were a couple of grains of couscous left on the chicken, indicating it was the same bird (a fortunate sloppy move on his part, since it may have saved someone's life.) The whole ordeal ended in a very costly comp and someone leaving the restaurant without eating at all.

Now, there is absolutely no excuse for sloppy behavior, but restaurants have a lot of work to deal with when it comes to just normal operations and handling people who are actually allergic to foods. The trend of inventing allergies, in order to get special treatment in restaurants, is a very, very bad trend that can, as mentioned, lead to food preparers ignoring claims of allergies and possibly endangering someone's life. I have never taken anyone's claim of allergy less than deadly seriously, but I cannot speak for everyone in the restaurant industry.

[Fat Guy]

Aesop . . .

A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.

    The Wolf, however, did truly come at last. The Shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: "Pray, do come and help me; the Wolf is killing the sheep"; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The Wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock.

    There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.

[Eden]

I don't think anybody is claiming there's no such thing as serious, life-threatening food allergies and intolerances. But I also think it's well established that a lot of people who think they have them don't, and that a lot of other people fabricate allergy claims in order to get special treatment.

←

two quick points

1) unless you're their allergist I don't think you can really know for sure that a person is only imagining an allergy, no matter how much it may seem that way on the surface, especailly because there are levels of allergic response, and (as I said before) because the term gets used to cover a range of real but non allergic reactions...

2) are there really "a lot" of people who deliberately fabricate allergy claims, or is it just that we are so appalled by those who do this that the level of attention makes it seem like there are more of them? I certainly prefer to beleive that this is a rare phenomenon.

edited for typo & emphasis

Edited April 18, 2006 by Eden (log)

[TPO]

2) are there really "a lot" of people who deliberately fabricate allergy claims, or is it just that we are so appalled by those who do this that the level of attention makes it seem like there are more of them?  I certainly prefer to beleive that this is a rare phenomenon.

←

The only time I saw someone fabricate an allergy was on Sex and the City where one character claimed she was allergic to parsley because otherwise, parsley always ended up on her food. I think it's possible this happens in real life because there seems to be a vicious cycle -- some people despise a certain food, and other people either ignore them or try to force them to learn to eat the ingredient in question.

Fortunately, the only time I saw someone ignore a serious allergy claim also was on television. In a one-hour crime drama (I can't remember which one) someone ordered a soup with pureed seafood in it for a friend with a seafood allergy because she thought it would make the friend get sick and have to stay home. However, the friend died.

I hope that in real life, both types of people are rare.

[Fat Guy]

From a statistical perspective, it doesn't really matter why an allergy claim is false. Whether it's a deliberate lie or an earnestly believed falsehood (or a self-fulfilling psychological condition), it undermines the credibility of all allergy claims equally.

Here's what we do know:

Prevalence of Allergies

Accurate statistics on food allergy are difficult to obtain. As many as one-third of consumers in North America and Europe believe they have food allergies. However, the literature suggests that true food allergy (defined as an immediate, IgE-mediated Type I hypersensitivity reaction) is uncommon.

Based on double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges, skin tests, and blood tests to detect antifood antibodies, the consensus seems to be that food allergy affects up to 8% of children under the age of 5 and 1% to 2% of the adult population. Food allergy is more common in children than adults, and the majority of food-allergic children experience symptoms of food-related allergy during the first year of life. Most food-allergic children outgrow their early food allergies, especially to cow’s milk and egg proteins, by roughly the age of 5, but some IgE-mediated food allergies may persist throughout life.

Good article. Worth reading. http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives...d_0805p10.shtml

That's quite a large gap: 1/3 versus 1-2%. The population of the United States is currently just shy of 300 million. That means between 3 and 6 million people have actual food allergies, and 100 million believe they do (okay, you have to subtract out children, but close enough). In other words, somewhere around 95% of food allergy claims are false. This should be extremely worrisome to the 5% whose food allergy claims are true. The boy who cried wolf phenomenon, in this instance, isn't about any one person lying. It's about the knowledge that when someone tells you he or she has a food allergy, the statement is false 19 out of 20 times.

[Pontormo]

I've read another article based on these statistics and also found them interesting.

One of the problems is that the person claiming to have the allergies isn't lying; the doctor's diagnosis may be to blame. I don't know if pediatricians still blame food allergies for problems they see in their patients at the rate they did 20-30 years ago, but I know at least a handful of people who were told they could never, ever eat wheat (NOT gluten; wheat) again who are now scarfing pizza with abandon.

My parents were told this after I was tested. All those swollen, red bumps left after needle pricks up and down my arm looked like scientific evidence. We believed the kindly doctor and lab technicians. I did cookies, croissants and spaghetti instead of cigarettes, booze and pot. Nothing bad happened. As adult, I was told I probably grew out of it.

Years later, visiting a friend in New York who had a very severe, serious allergy, I was shocked to find her with a huge slice of Ray's. HER doctor told her these things weren't 100% sure, but she had better continue avoiding foods containing wheat flour. She was livid; couldn't believe the lack of sensitivity behind such cavalier professional advice. Told him off and is living happily ever after.

[nocturnalsunshine]

I almost forgot about this thread.

But im glad its still here. Lots of interesting information.

I agree with a lot of ideas here, specially that the people who falsify allergies make it bad for those with real allergies.

Weirdly enough ive never heard of people growing out of allergies till now.

Now I've heard getting over them by building immunity.

I read the Soul of a Chef a while back and there is a part about Michael Symon. He talked about being allergic to rabbit and how he got over it. He ate a little everyday even though his head would get swollen.

My girlfriend is even allergic to most treenuts, they make her mouth and gums itch. But she eats them anyway and puts up with it. Since we have been together she has gotten pretty much over it and only walnuts bother her slightly now.

After reading these posts im almost nuts about that 5% chance of my kids being allergic to foods.

[Kouign Aman]

If one defines allergies as tightly as above (IgE mediated histamine hypersensitivity reaction), what is one to call it, if eating a certain food causes projectile vomiting, headaches or other unpleasantries that may not be IgE mediated?

Would it be sufficiently detailed and pleasant to ask:

"Hi Miss Waiter, is there seafood in this soup? Because seafood makes me ill. Even eating something cooked in the same pan make me ill." ?

Note that the person asking is not reactive to all seafood, but the list of culprits is sufficiently long as to get tedious to recite (does this soup contain a, b, c, d, e ,f, g, or h?). So this person might subsequently be spotted eating grilled salmon, with no ill effect.

It is annoying to have people cry wolf about this, but its imperative to respect them. Their reason may be for attention or it may be to simplify communications.

[TPO]

If one defines allergies as tightly as above (IgE mediated histamine hypersensitivity reaction), what is one to call it, if eating a certain food causes projectile vomiting, headaches or other unpleasantries that may not be IgE mediated?

←

We don't seem to have clear definitions of allergies. I take allergy medication daily because without it, I suffer from postnasal drip, intense sinus pain, and other problems that are not life threatening. If my father goes near a cat he'll itch and probably need to take asthma medication. Both of us have been diagnosed with allergies even though neither of our conditions are fatal.

But when it comes to food, we seem to only consider near-fatal reactions to be allergies, and the rest to be intolerances. Perhaps if we used definitions across the board or had separate terms for "so allergic it could kill me" and "allergic enough to make me sick for the rest of the night" no one would have to overstate or understate their problems.

Edited April 18, 2006 by TPO (log)

[chefpeon]

Ok, is it just me?

When I started in the food business about 16 years ago, I rarely heard "food allergy" or "lactose intolerance" or what have you. The only special food requests I got were from diabetics who requested sugar free items.

Then I started getting the low-fat and the fat-free requests from people watching their weight.

It just seems to me that all this "food allergy" stuff and how COMMON it has become, has kind

of popped out of nowhere.

What do you all think are the reasons for this?

Better diagnoses from doctors from recent nutrition research?

Allergies developing from years of eating preprocessed food and extremely unbalanced diets?

Genetic mutations in babies from drug and environmental conditions?

Bioengineered food?

Naturopaths that are convinced that all you need is a special diet to relieve all your symptoms?

Insight and opinions......all welcome. Bring it on!