latex allergies and WDW parks

[Schmeck]

If tire break-down is OK, then why did a woman I used to work with who had a medium-level latex allergy have shortness of breath, itchy throat, etc, when she entered Sam's Club near the tire storage area? That doesn't make sense to me, and I'm a bio-chemist by educational background. I don't meant to be rude, but could your husband explain it here for me?

Edited to add - I've become the latex-info person for our school, as we have students who carry epi-pens due to latex allergies, and we've been told tires have latex in them, and the students shouldn't come in contact with them. That's why I want to know how they are safe when they degrade.

 

[jckdisneybound]

Latex balloons and latex gloves are the 2 worst reactions because they are ingested through the airway causing the reactions. Both contain powder that causes the reaction. We don’t have problems avoiding latex at WDW but if they allow the latex balloons again it will be a big problem. If we are in a restaurant or on a Disney bus and someone comes in with a latex balloon there is a good chance that my child will leave in on a stretcher.

I have the same allergy(along with a plethora of other airborn ones) that has started recently and is getting progessivly worse. Gloves, balloons (due to the corn starch in them), koosh balls etc are really bad. I do everything in my power to avoid these things. My concern is at any location is the excited child who runs past me with his/her balloon and it gets me in the face. Yup I do have my epi-pen and I take my medication and I have my inhalers. But somethings you can't control like pollen off a tree/plant.

What I don't understand is this is something that Disney has done away with, people aren't used to buying them so why are people so upset that the poster doesn't want them to come back???

If they missed the balloons in the first place why didn't all these people flaming her for wanting them not to come back bombard Disney with the why did you take them aways???

 

[WantToGoNow]

If tire break-down is OK, then why did a woman I used to work with who had a medium-level latex allergy have shortness of breath, itchy throat, etc, when she entered Sam's Club near the tire storage area? That doesn't make sense to me, and I'm a bio-chemist by educational background. I don't meant to be rude, but could your husband explain it here for me?

Edited to add - I've become the latex-info person for our school, as we have students who carry epi-pens due to latex allergies, and we've been told tires have latex in them, and the students shouldn't come in contact with them. That's why I want to know how they are safe when they degrade.

I didn't say it was ok for everyone -- just my son. People with this allergy can react differently to different things. My son is ok with tires. The first time we took him to a playground to discover there were ground up tires as the cushioning agent, I was a nervous wreck -- I figured we'd be going to the hospital but he was ok. My cousin who I described earlier who can have a reaction after touching one of her children who has touched something latex can play with that foam frisbee that caused my son a reaction. There doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason behind this allergy -- each person is different and so is there allergy and what causes a reaction. If my dh wasn't in the shower right now, I'd have him come out and type a response.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I just read the other post. First off I have never seen anybody bring a balloon into a ride. I have only seen then tied to strollers, so they are outdoors (no problem according to her).

BTW In April 2005 the hotel delivered latex balloons to our room for a kids birthday. The balloons were attached to a signed photo. They lasted for 1 day and were thrown out. So maybe she has not been so safe as she thinks on her last 4 trips.

 

[Selket]

If anyone has a suggested address for writing I would be happy to write a letter. I think WDW does a great job addressing the peanut allergy (and diabetes for that matter) and I'd like to let them know that as well.

I have been reading about latex allergies after this thread appeared and it is very interesting how a few items are major sources of the reactions folks have - including balloons. Seems tires are usually not a problem because they are "hard" but soft sources of latex (balloons, rubber bands, gloves cause of the powder in them, and those koosh balls, etc) are the things that usually give folks the most concern. The allergy reminds me of my son's peanut allergy in many respects.

I do appreciate the informational posts - I have learned a lot!

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

And what of the passengers sharing my flight to Orlando who say they are allergic to dogs? So, I hang Cash out the window?
Nope.
I tell them that there is no case in which the ADA definition of disability has ever been stretched to include allergies. No ADA? No accommodation.

Where did you get this information? ADA definitely includes "breathing" as an activity of daily living. As someone who works in early childhood education, I can tell you that there have been several law suits in which lawyers have successfully argued that children with asthma and allergies are covered under A.D.A. and that child care centers need to make "reasonable accomodations" to allow them to participate -- examples of reasonable accomodations are training and allowing staff to administer epi-pens and inhalers. I am pretty sure that there have also been cases involving adults and reasonable accomodation in the workplace, but since that's not my field I don't know for sure. What is clear is that the ADA considers asthma and allergies to be a disability, and to deserve the same protections as a sensory or mobility impairment.

As far as what is "reasonable" clearly hanging Cash out the window is not an option. On the other hand, rearranging seating so that Cash and the person with asthma and allergies are as far apart as possible meets the standards of "reasonable", as does allowing the person to fly standby on a later flight. You could also make the case that it would be reasonable for people to receive advance notice if a service animal is flying on a specific flight, and have the right for a refund, or transfer to a different flight.

In this case, latex is a very common allergy, one which can be life threatening. Disney has already decided that avoiding the use of latex gloves is "reasonable". It may also be that they will decide that banning latex balloons is not reasonable (since it could inhibit their profit) but that offering to store balloons in the cloakroom of a restaurant, or offering a "balloon free" seating area in their restaurants is. Similarly, Disney may decide to offer latex allergic individuals GAC's that would allow them to bypass crowded lines where they are less likely to get away from balloons. On the other hand, a judge could easily decide that given the size of Disney and it's profits, that it is indeed reasonable to ask them to stick to only selling Mylar balloons.

 

[aubriee]

Where did you get this information? ADA definitely includes "breathing" as an activity of daily living. I am pretty sure that there have also been cases involving adults and reasonable accomodation in the workplace, but since that's not my field I don't know for sure. What is clear is that the ADA considers asthma and allergies to be a disability, and to deserve the same protections as a sensory or mobility impairment.

I am a RN who works in a pschiatric hospital. I have a mental health worker who is allergic to the powder in gloves, however for her job she must wear gloves. We were required to provide her with powder free gloves. This sufficed for a time, but over the last few years her allergy has gotten worse and now we are required to use only powder free gloves for everyone on our unit (all three shifts). It was also decided that she would not be allowed to float to another unit due to her allergies= (violation of her coworkers rights to fair treatment vs application of the ADA?) We have had people float to our unit, see our gloves, then request regular ones. When the situation is explained, we have had people ask what makes our unit so special that we get special, more expensive gloves and we have to explain that we have an employee protected under the American Disabilities Act. So yes latex allergy is covered under the ADA.

 

[Selket]

The ADA does cover asthma, allergies, diabetes, etc.

http://www.allergybuyersclub.com/faqs/aafaADA.shtml#q2
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/carsonlg.htm

I could probably pull up better links but there's the first 2 that came up.

 

[ducklite]

Using the train of thought being presented here, WDW should replace all the trees I'm allergic to with trees I'm not allergic to. After all they cause a life threatening reaction covered under the ADA...

Anne

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Using the train of thought being presented here, WDW should replace all the trees I'm allergic to with trees I'm not allergic to. After all they cause a life threatening reaction covered under the ADA...

Anne

Not replacing the trees doesn't fall under "reasonable" accomodation because it would represent a signifcant financial hardship for WDW.

Generally, the ADA comes into play when people make changes -- for example, an organization may not be required to retro-fit an existing building to put in an elevator if that presents, but if they build a new building, or make significant renovations they are required to include an elevator. Similarly, if you update or replace a playground you're required to include accessible equipment, but old playgrounds are grandfathered in. New rides at WDW are required to have "mainstream lines" but old ones are grandfathered in.

In your case you certainly could make a place that WDW needs to "reasonably accomodate" your allergy, for example by providing you an airconditioned place to wait and avoid outdoor lines, thus reducing your exposure. They might need to "reasonably" accomodate your allergy by helping you find a hotel room that is farther away from allergy-causing trees. They also might need to provide special cleaning of your hotel room in case the people before you opened the window and pollen got into the room.

In a similar case, my son is very allergic to hay and the mold that grows in hay. Asking a pumpkin patch to not offer hay rides on his class field trip is probably not reasonable. Asking them to allow me to drive him directly to the field (thus bypassing the hay ride) or asking the school to allow him to stay behind (perhaps acting as a "student teacher" in a younger class) might both be considered "reasonable accomodations".

In the case of the latex balloons, WDW is changing a policy that is already allergy-friendly. They need to be able to make a case that they need to change this policy, and that not being able to do so presents a "hardship" to them.

 

[ducklite]

Not replacing the trees doesn't fall under "reasonable" accomodation because it would represent a signifcant financial hardship for WDW.

I realize this, I was being sarcastic.

Although now that you mention it, when replacing diseased trees I supposed they could be required to use trees that have less risk of allergic reaction to the majority of the population.

Anne

 

[Quinn222]

"She is concerned about how to deal with it"

Actually this is incorrect.She is trying to organise a letter writing campaign to get Disney to BAN latex balloons.

I would have no problem with the OP asking how to avoid them and cope but she is not.She is asking for everyone to bend over completely backwards for her.

That is how to cope and I totally agree. There is no need to have latex balloons at WDW. We could be waiting in line for a ride and some kid walks up behind us with one and it could kill us. How is it bending over backwards to ask that a toxic substance be banned? Latex is highly toxic to a very large number of people and latex balloons are deadly to birds and animals. Of course the solution offered on the other board was 'don't go to WDW.'

Latex allergy is a HUGE issue and WDW should take the lead in safety by banning them. Nothing sheds latex worse than balloons.

If someone can offer constructive help for those of us with a latex allergy I need to know what the wrist bands for special events are made from. We are going to MNSSHP and MVMCP this year and both involve a wrist band. If it is made of rubber I will not be able to touch it, much less wear it.

 

[mickeyfan2]

We are going to MNSSHP and MVMCP this year and both involve a wrist band. If it is made of rubber I will not be able to touch it, much less wear it.

They are plastic.

 

[Quinn222]

They are plastic.

Thank you so much, I've really been concerned about that.

 

[Selket]

Using the train of thought being presented here, WDW should replace all the trees I'm allergic to with trees I'm not allergic to. After all they cause a life threatening reaction covered under the ADA...

Anne

There are some excellent documents on the ADA website: http://www.ada.gov/ I think Title III has to do with businesses like WDW. There are discussions about outdoor accomodations for walkways and nature areas, etc. but I haven't seen anything that specifically deals with trees.

Here is some commentary on allergies however from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html:

Many commenters asked that environmental illness (also known as multiple chemical sensitivity) as well as allergy to cigarette smoke be recognized as disabilities. The Department, however, declines to state categorically that these types of allergies or sensitivities are disabilities, because the determination as to whether an impairment is a disability depends on whether, given the particular circumstances at issue, the impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities (or has a history of, or is regarded as having such an effect).


Sometimes respiratory or neurological functioning is so severely affected that an individual will satisfy the requirements to be considered disabled under the regulation. Such an individual would be entitled to all of the protections afforded by the Act and this part. In other cases, individuals may be sensitive to environmental elements or to smoke but their sensitivity will not rise to the level needed to constitute a disability. For example, their major life activity of breathing may be somewhat, but not substantially, impaired. In such circumstances, the individuals are not disabled and are not entitled to the protections of the statute despite their sensitivity to environmental agents.


In sum, the determination as to whether allergies to cigarette smoke, or allergies or sensitivities characterized by the commenters as environmental illness are disabilities covered by the regulation must be made using the same case-by-case analysis that is applied to all other physical or mental impairments. Moreover, the addition of specific regulatory provisions relating to environmental illness in the final rule would be inappropriate at this time pending future consideration of the issue by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor.

I can't find specific information but I would think that items in the natural landscape like trees or bees would be considered uncontrollable (sort of like a hurricane being called an "act of nature" or "act of God", etc). Perhaps the items causing the allergic reaction cannot be naturally occurring in the landscape. By doing some more research on ADA law you can find out if businesses would have an obligation to replant using trees that cause fewer allergic symptoms.

Good luck!

 

[SueM in MN]

I was gone to a conference in Tampa from 6/11 to 6/14 (late evening) and didn't expect to see a flaming controversy when I returned.

I will leave this thread open for now, but am reminding people that everyone needs to "play nice". Differences of opinion are OK, personal attacks are not. Please keep in mind that sarcasm or humor can be easily misinterpreted - the writer knows that is what they mean, but the reader often doesn't.

Having been on our hospital system's latex committee, I can add some history and other information.
In the early 1980s, when AIDS was first identified, it was recommended that health care workers wear gloves for most contact with patients. This was a big change; before that, gloves were worn much less frequently.
The glove manufacturers rushed to make enough gloves to meet the demand.
When latex production is rushed, there are more proteins left in the latex and the ones that are left are more likely to cause allergies because of impurities in the proteins.
In latex allergies, it's not the latex itself that causes the problem; it's the latex proteins that are shed into the air during use of the gloves and balloon during use that cause the problem.
Because of frequent exposure, health care workers and people with frequent health care related exposure to latex products are more likely to become latex allergic (for example, between 50 and 60% of people with spina bifida are allergic to latex).

Products like gloves and latex balloons used cornstarch or other powders to prevent the surfaces of the gloves/balloons from sticking together. The powder became an additional way for the latex proteins to get into the air and be breathed in.
As time went on, some manufacturers made changes to their production process that produced latex with less impuries (so their gloves were less likely to cause allergic reactions). Other manufacturers made powder free gloves (low powder or no powder means less latex proteins get into the air). Many hospitals substituted gloves made from other substances - like vinyl or nitrile.

This is a good website with information about latex allergy.

For most people with latex allergies, the biggest problem is latex particles that get into the air - like latex gloves or balloons that shed latex particles during normal use.
Things like carpeting, tires and latex coatings on handrails, etc. don't tend to shed latex particles during normal use, so are not as much of a problem for most people with latex allergies. Some people have allergy problems if they get into direct contact with those items, but may not have any problem with them being in the environment. That is very different than gloves and balloons.

It would be a "reasonable accomidation" for health care providers and businesses to avoid using latex gloves and balloons. There are alternatives available that can be substituted (and for balloons, there are additional reasons - like animal/bird hazards - to avoid using them).

I would like some information about how/where anyone saw that WDW is considering re-introducing latex balloons. They have not sold them for many years and I wondered where the information came from that says they are going to be selling them again.

 

[ducklite]

Selket,

My tree allergies are severe enought hat they cause acute respiratory distress. Earlier this year during peak pollen season I missed several days of work, was not able to go outside without wearing a mask, had a functioning lung capacity of under 25%, and my physician wanted to hospitalize me.

Medical testing proved that the tree pollen was causing the allergic reaction that was triggering my asthma so severely.

Now, I am being facetious when I say that Disney should remove the trees.

However, as I am unable to use my Seasonal Pass because of the plethora of trees on their property that I'm allergic to during late February and March--peak pollen season--I wonder if under the ADA they would be obligated to pro-rate the cost?

I'm certainly not going to ask them to do so, even with the loss of those six weeks it's still a great bargain IMHO, but it's certainly food for thought.

Anne

 

[Selket]

In no way do I minimize seasonal or outdoor kinds of allergies - they can be extremely serious! My 4 yr old is type 1 diabetic and peanut allergic but also seems to react to tree and grass pollen this time of year. The past 3 years he has been on albuterol and prednisone for the asthma - and was almost admitted to the hospital last May because of it. With the diabetes, without getting too technical, the prednisone is an absolute disaster on his blood sugars because it almost triples his insulin doses. It is just a nightmare when he has to take it. So far this summer, knock on wood, we've hopefully got him on the right meds and he hasn't had an asthma type reaction yet.

I guess the question is how the ADA applies to the natural environment. I know there are issues about accessability (like for wheelchairs) on nature trails and so forth. Yet no one suggests they build wheelchair ramps down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon I suppose. I'm not sure if this falls under "reasonableness" or some other part of the ADA that I'm not aware of.

I have heard that folks who moved to places like Arizona to get away from seasonal allergy causing things have problems now because of so many imported trees and/or grasses and the like. Yet since these are homeowners it probably isn't affected by ADA. But the state could perhaps limit this type of landscaping. (?) I really don't know. It could be that the trees, etc. that bother you with allergies are not just at WDW but all around Orlando, etc. (rather like the grasses and trees that bother William) so it could be said that it is not a controllable problem. My guess is that it wouldn't be covered under ADA but the only way to know for sure is to ask a lawyer - which I'm sure isn't cheap!

I found it to be an interesting (and perhaps academic) question. Of course I think that the disney chefs are more food allergy aware not because of ADA but just because that is a company policy or priority. And the latex balloons in the park would probably be the same way. I don't know about for employment issues (WDW park employees allergic to latex - that is back to ADA).

I think it is a positive thing to encourage places like WDW to make what changes they can to accomodate guests with allergies/asthma, etc. whenever possible. Making your needs known is never a bad thing although for many of those issues it is up to the company to make the decision.

 

[SueM in MN]

Of course I think that the disney chefs are more food allergy aware not because of ADA but just because that is a company policy or priority. And the latex balloons in the park would probably be the same way. I don't know about for employment issues (WDW park employees allergic to latex - that is back to ADA).

In my experience (having worked in Public Health in the past), most places that prepare food did not use latex gloves anyway. If they used gloves at all, they used vinyl gloves (some states speecify that gloves are not required - it is more important that food handlers be aware of contamination and wash their hands frequently/when they become soiled).

Reasons were that vinyl gloves were much less expensive (and still durable enough for the intended use), don't have powder, smells or tastes that can get into food. The vinyl gloves are mostly similar to "glove shaped" food storage bags.

So, most places that handle food didn't change from latex gloves; they never used them in the first place.

 

[going2disney]

The info about the balloons again being sold is posted under recent WDW news on touringplans.com, along with a CM holding a bouquet of the balloons on Main Street.