Waiting to board our plane and....

[Dizlvr]

Perhaps then that isn't the best environment to put yourself in if you have a sever allergy? Just a thought. Also, at a theme park you touch 9 million things a day. There is no way on earth that you can completely eliminate the risk there. Not even close.

There are ways to lessen it, just like there are ways to lessen it when you are on a flight. One of those ways is to put in a request for no peanuts. People with life threatening food allergies are well aware of the fact that they can't eliminate every risk, they (or their parents) just do what they can to lessen those risks so they can do normal things like the rest of the non allergic people. I can't believe so many people have issues with that.

 

[sam_gordon]

There are ways to lessen it, just like there are ways to lessen it when you are on a flight. One of those ways is to put in a request for no peanuts. People with life threatening food allergies are well aware of the fact that they can't eliminate every risk, they (or their parents) just do what they can to lessen those risks so they can do normal things like the rest of the non allergic people. I can't believe so many people have issues with that.

I don't think many people DO have an issue. What the majority of "pro-nut" people have requested:
1) Let passengers know WELL before they board that peanuts are not desired. This announcement should not be made for the first time in the boarding area, or on the plan. That will allow people to make other arrangements if they are bringing snacks on board.
2) If your child actually MAY die if a peanut is found anywhere on the plane, it might be a good idea to find another mode of travel. If you can prevent contact/triggers (wiping down tables & seats) and are confident that (and not having a release of 150+ small peanut bags) is enough, more power to you. Wanting others to not eat the snacks THEY chose (for whatever reason) and not even knowing where those people are sitting, or wanting airlines to BAN peanuts from being on board (which was suggested in this thread), is crossing a line IMO.

 

[piccolopat]

While it would be nice if everyone refrained from eating peanuts on the plane, if it is a last minute request it isn't fair to them. They may have brought food for the plane and if there isn't time to get something else they shouldn't have to go hungry. If the person is that allergic they should wear skin and respiratory protection and not count on things being perfect for them.

 

[bookgirl]

my take on it is I travel with food, because I have multiple allergies, nuts are not on my restricted list so guess what I almost always have. Nuts or a peanut butter sandwich.

It is almost impossible for me to buy food in an airport. I could by potato chips. But that's not really a meal.

Would I eat my nut snack/sandwich if an announcement was made, probably not. Would I be annoyed, probably.

That doesn't make me selfish, or un empathetic, or difficult. It makes me an annoyed customer walking around with an uneaten sandwhich.

But as a caregiver and legal guardian of my friends son, a young man who is a non verbal autistic with diabetes and epilepsy, only a moron thinks that a firm scolding about how he chooses to have issues, is going to make him eat anything he doesn't want. He goes low, he goes into seizure, he goes into a coma, he dies. Yeah his parents or I are going to "reason" with him and insist he eats a snack he doesn't want. What an ignorant and reckless statement.

But then again He has really smart parents. He only travels by car, and even then only with two or more adults, so that there is never a chance that he has a medical emergency and is cut off from care and odds are that at least one adult will be able to care for him.

They did travel with his younger brother some but he had the same form of epilepsy as his brother and did not monitor his Meds as well as he should have and went into seizure while swimming and drowned at 21.

So they are very careful with their remaining child.

 

[Dizlvr]

I don't think many people DO have an issue. What the majority of "pro-nut" people have requested:
1) Let passengers know WELL before they board that peanuts are not desired. This announcement should not be made for the first time in the boarding area, or on the plan. That will allow people to make other arrangements if they are bringing snacks on board.
2) If your child actually MAY die if a peanut is found anywhere on the plane, it might be a good idea to find another mode of travel. If you can prevent contact/triggers (wiping down tables & seats) and are confident that (and not having a release of 150+ small peanut bags) is enough, more power to you. Wanting others to not eat the snacks THEY chose (for whatever reason) and not even knowing where those people are sitting, or wanting airlines to BAN peanuts from being on board (which was suggested in this thread), is crossing a line IMO.

#1 I can agree with.
#2, well I guess I'm just not the type of person that would begrudge a family flying somewhere just because I want the snack I brought and nobody is going to tell me I can't have it. I also don't have a problem with airlines choosing to ban peanuts, then everyone knows beforehand (like what was requested in #1) that if they want a snack they have to bring something else.

 

[sam_gordon]

#2, well I guess I'm just not the type of person that would begrudge a family flying somewhere just because I want the snack I brought and nobody is going to tell me I can't have it. I also don't have a problem with airlines choosing to ban peanuts, then everyone knows beforehand (like what was requested in #1) that if they want a snack they have to bring something else.

I didn't state myself very well, I apologize. I am also one who wouldn't break out the peanut snack if asked (unless there were extreme circumstances). HOWEVER, if someone eating a PB&J sandwich in aisle 27 will possibly kill your child sitting in row 12, I don't think it's smart to fly. That person may be eating the sandwich for many reasons. It could be health related, or they could just be a jerk. The point is you can't prevent it, so why take the chance. I also believe such a severe allergy is so rare, banning peanuts is an overreaction.

ETA: You're relying on 150+ passengers (total strangers) on the plane doing the "right" thing, PLUS the airline cleaners got every trace of peanuts off the plane from previous flights. Sounds like a lot to hope for IMO.

 

[morgan98]

I didn't state myself very well, I apologize. I am also one who wouldn't break out the peanut snack if asked (unless there were extreme circumstances). HOWEVER, if someone eating a PB&J sandwich in aisle 27 will possibly kill your child sitting in row 12, I don't think it's smart to fly. That person may be eating the sandwich for many reasons. It could be health related, or they could just be a jerk. The point is you can't prevent it, so why take the chance. I also believe such a severe allergy is so rare, banning peanuts is an overreaction.

ETA: You're relying on 150+ passengers (total strangers) on the plane doing the "right" thing, PLUS the airline cleaners got every trace of peanuts off the plane from previous flights. Sounds like a lot to hope for IMO.

Yes. and if you are willing to rely on 150 other people and the fact that there is no chance for any kind of cross contamination, then good luck to you. I would not be betting on that fact.

Or your allergy is not as "deadly" as claimed in the first place.

 

[piccolopat]

But there's the rub. You don't have to deal with a life threatening allergy so it's easy to say, in theroy with nothing at stake, that you just wouldn't fly.

My eldest dd has a class six peanut allergy. Her first reaction was at 18 months old. The very first time she ever ate anything with peanuts in it her eyes swelled shut. She's now fifteen and a half and through careful diligence and HELP FROM OTHERS, she made it all the way to and through desensitization without ever even needing an epipen. People who have never dealt with a serious food allergy always make the super helpful suggestion to "stay home". Thanks. That's useful.

Seriously, our job as parents of kids with allergies is to help them learn how to manage it and keeping them at home to avoid a reaction just isn't living. I don't want to ask you for help. Trust me. I know how some people feel about accommodating people with serious food allergies. My favorite were the people who referred to kids with peanut allergies as "peanutards" and figured that it would just be natural selection if a reaction killed them. Do you think I want to ask people for help knowing othrts feel that way? I do not. But, I have to. We worked hard to minimize impact on others with dd's allergies.

There are so many products that contain peanuts (even when not obvious) or are made with peanut oil. Do you really expect a plane load of people to check the labels before eating on the plane?

 

[bcla]

There are so many products that contain peanuts (even when not obvious) or are made with peanut oil. Do you really expect a plane load of people to check the labels before eating on the plane?

Refined peanut oil is missing any of the allergens. I asked that at my kid's preschool, and was told that peanut oil wouldn't be an issue even with allergic kids. There are standards for labeling where "cold pressed" or similar peanut oils must be labeled as such since the haven't had the proteins removed. Refined peanut oils don't require any special labeling.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceReg...RegulatoryInformation/Allergens/ucm106187.htm

 

[ILoveMyDVC]

While it would be nice if everyone refrained from eating peanuts on the plane, if it is a last minute request it isn't fair to them. They may have brought food for the plane and if there isn't time to get something else they shouldn't have to go hungry. If the person is that allergic they should wear skin and respiratory protection and not count on things being perfect for them.

GO HUNGRY? Really? As in starve; suffer organ failure; failure to thrive because there was no other food possibly available. A bit dramatic, eh?

 

[ILoveMyDVC]

While it would be nice if everyone refrained from eating peanuts on the plane, if it is a last minute request it isn't fair to them. They may have brought food for the plane and if there isn't time to get something else they shouldn't have to go hungry. If the person is that allergic they should wear skin and respiratory protection and not count on things being perfect for them.

GO HUNGRY! Like orphans during the war; GO HUNGRY; OMG, really? Most folks on a plane can could stand to skip a few dozen meals.

 

[piccolopat]

GO HUNGRY? Really? As in starve; suffer organ failure; failure to thrive because there was no other food possibly available. A bit dramatic, eh?

You're the drama queen here. If someone packs a pb&j sandwich because of a tight connecting flight schedule, they should be able to eat it if they haven't eaten in a few hours. If someone's allergy is that severe they can wear protective clothing and a respiratory mask.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

So OP, how was the flight?

 

[NHdisneylover]

If an announcement is made and the parents can prove that the passengers were well aware their child had an anaphylactic reaction to peanuts, and someone purposely exposed said child and child then coded...well I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that lawsuit or criminal charges.

I think you have hit on one reason people get so testy about this whole thing. The thought that someone could be held legally responsible for harming someone else simply by eating their own, perfectly legal and normal snack is, sadly, not as far fetched as it ought to be and it is ridiculous.

Let's go back to the man who was banned from future RyanAir flights when the peanuts he ate caused an anaphylatic reaction in a young passenger near him.
This man was a non native English speaker who did not understand verbal announcements about not eating peanuts and had no real reason to believe the announcements being made were anythign other than the normal and basic flight safety, and "drink service will be starting soon" types of things. He had been served peanuts on a prior flight so had no reason to think they were not appropriate flight food. He was totally minding his own business and having a simple snack and then was suddenly made to feel that he was to blame for this medical issue and also lost the ability to fly with the carrier in the future. How is that right or fair? How is it OK for the family of the child with an allergy to place that kind of responsibility and guilt on perfect strangers?

What if someone does not speak English or speak it well enough to follow such a random announcement in a hard to hear environment (as happened above)?

What if he A/V system on the flight (or speaker in one section of the aircraft) is such that announcements are garbled and the passengers cannot understand it? (I had that on my most recent flight)

What if a passenger is deaf and does not hear?

What if a passenger is tired and not really focusing on those preflight things and misses hearing the announcement?

What if a passenger does not realize there are nuts in the snack mix or granola bar they have with them?

etc, etc---I think it is patently wrong to hold other people, total strangers, with no real warning and only the most basic ways of informing them, responsible for the life and death safety of a child; especially when the child can die from the stranger simply eating a common snack.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Reading back a bit more, one of the most commonly used terms on the thread is SELFISH.

In my honest opinion, I think it is SELFISH to place a hundred or more perfectly normal, law abiding strangers in the position of possibly being responsible for the death of your child if they eat a snack (for any reason--even if it is being a jerk, much less if they missed an announcement or failed to understand for any reason). Why is it ok to force that kind of responsibility on so many other people?

 

[CandleontheWater]

Reading back a bit more, one of the most commonly used terms on the thread is SELFISH.

In my honest opinion, I think it is SELFISH to place a hundred or more perfectly normal, law abiding strangers in the position of possibly being responsible for the death of your child if they eat a snack (for any reason--even if it is being a jerk, much less if they missed an announcement or failed to understand for any reason). Why is it ok to force that kind of responsibility on so many other people?

This is so true, I don't want to be in any way responsible for causing anyone's death. We are a family that LOVES our peanut butter. Me and the kids eat it on toast for breakfast, on crackers for snacks, often in sandwiches for lunch, and then will frequently follow up with chocolate peanut butter ice cream for dessert. If it has peanut butter, we love it! Because we consume so much of it, and likely would have consumed it that morning before the flight, I wouldn't feel comfortable getting a flight with that child. Our clothes could be contaminated, my kids could have trace amounts on their person, or under their fingernails, and I don't want that responsibility.

 

[3Gsandme]

This is so true, I don't want to be in any way responsible for causing anyone's death. We are a family that LOVES our peanut butter. Me and the kids eat it on toast for breakfast, on crackers for snacks, often in sandwiches for lunch, and then will frequently follow up with chocolate peanut butter ice cream for dessert. If it has peanut butter, we love it! Because we consume so much of it, and likely would have consumed it that morning before the flight, I wouldn't feel comfortable getting a flight with that child. Our clothes could be contaminated, my kids could have trace amounts on their person, or under their fingernails, and I don't want that responsibility.

This is where the hyperbole gets exhausting. The odds of someone reacting because you had peanut butter four hours ago (and presumably washed your hands and brushed your teeth after breakfast because that's just good hygiene) is just microscopic. It's ridiculous on both sides. I mean, do you routinely leave the house with visibal food smeared on you? Are you hugging or kissing strangers? Touching things that belong to others? I bet you aren't so this "I ate peanut butter two weeks ago. You should drive" is as exhausting as someone saying that you consuming peanut butter hours prior will cause a deadly reaction. Unless someone gets inappropriate, nothing will happen.

I hate the drama on this from both sides.

And, I'm going to hold to my selfish label. If you can do something small to help another person and you won't because "my rights!" you probably are not only selfish, you're also probably not very nice and I don't care what the situation is. That's true, for me, across the board.

 

[sam_gordon]

And, I'm going to hold to my selfish label. If you can do something small to help another person and you won't because "my rights!" you probably are not only selfish, you're also probably not very nice and I don't care what the situation is. That's true, for me, across the board.

I'm sorry, I don't remember anyone claiming that on this thread. Would you be so kind as to point it out? I thought it was fairly unanimous that the "pro-nut" crowd WOULD give up their peanut snack. The only exceptions I remember are those who said they use PB snacks to help control blood sugar.

 

[SandiR]

Wow, okay so I’m not going to read through 30 pages here and I’m going to assume some or all of my points have already been covered, but I’ll give my opinion anyway.

My son has severe allergies to a lot of things. The worst is pet dander. It was much worse when he was younger and he had to be hospitalized a couple of times. It wasn’t from being around pets since I know better than that. It was from being around people with pet dander on their clothing. So, I’m very sympathetic to parents of children with allergies. I would never argue that anyone is being selfish if they are motivated by keeping their children safe.

That being said, I am strongly against peanut bans. Here are my reasons.

1. There is no such thing as an airborne peanut allergy. Peanuts must be ingested. Now, this was a surprise to me because there is a very loud contingency of parents at my kids’ school who swore that their children had airborne peanut allergies and therefore no one could bring any packaged goods that even said they were made in the same place as other things with tree nuts or peanuts. But it doesn’t actually exist. Some people have a psychosomatic reaction to the smell of peanuts due to knowledge of their own allergy. It is not life-threatening. I didn’t know this until a doctor told me and I read it on dozens of medical websites. Since an airborne peanut allergy does not exist (unlike my son’s airborne allergy to pet dander), it is radical to try to ban them.

2. It creates a false sense of security. Not everyone will comply whether it be intentional or accidental. You cannot eliminate the risk anyway.

3. Lack of exposure to an allergen can make allergic reactions worse. When you ban an allergen, you are potentially creating more allergic people.

4. It’s completely unfair to other allergic people. When my son was younger, he could have severely reacted if he was seated next to someone with dander on their clothes. If there was a peanut ban, shouldn’t I also have been permitted to demand that everyone refrain from touching their pets before boarding? Why should one allergy be more important than any other?

As I said, I do sympathize with parents of children with allergies. But, I don’t think allergen bans are fair or realistic. If your child or you are so severely allergic that a life is at risk, air travel may not be for you.

 

[3Gsandme]

I'm sorry, I don't remember anyone claiming that on this thread. Would you be so kind as to point it out? I thought it was fairly unanimous that the "pro-nut" crowd WOULD give up their peanut snack. The only exceptions I remember are those who said they use PB snacks to help control blood sugar.

Then don't apply it to those people. My opinion stands. If no one on this thread said that they wouldn't give up their peanut snacks because it's their right to have it then they don't fit that descriptor. But this isn't my first allergy debate rodeo. I've run across enough people who have stated they would continue to eat/serve peanut products because they could to be totally comfortable in my assessment.