PDA

View Full Version : Customers protest due to peanut return


quagmire
Feb 16, 2009, 05:40 PM
Customers are complaining about Northwest returning peanuts to the snack menu citing allergy concerns.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/02/16/airline.peanuts/index.html

IMHO, this is ridiculous. Why should I not have peanuts because one person on the plane is allergic to them? If you're allergic to them, don't choose them as your snack. If you're case is that severe like the person in the story, tell a flight attendant so something can be worked out. This country is too busy appeasing the minority.

mkrishnan
Feb 16, 2009, 05:45 PM
The whole issue of allergy epidemiology and validity of testing protocols is quite interesting also... The Times ran a great piece on the topic not too long ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/health/03well.html?scp=3&sq=peanut%20allergies&st=cse

I would be perfectly happy if they made accommodations when a traveler disclosed a peanut allergy, as the article itself states they do, including if it meant that I got inferior pretzels (meh) to yummy peanuts. Plus the data suggests that block banning of these supposedly allergenic foods may have the opposite end result, much like overuse of antibacterials....

iJohnHenry
Feb 16, 2009, 05:49 PM
Free EpiPensŪ ;) at the departure gate.

j26
Feb 16, 2009, 05:51 PM
This thing of trying to protect everyone from even the smallest risk is just nuts.

mkrishnan
Feb 16, 2009, 05:51 PM
Free EpiPensŪ ;) at the departure gate.

If it becomes necessary, and I am seated next to you, I am trained and will not hesitate to use it. ;)

Schtumple
Feb 16, 2009, 05:53 PM
This thing of trying to protect everyone from even the smallest risk is just peanuts.

fixed

iJohnHenry
Feb 16, 2009, 06:02 PM
If it becomes necessary, and I am seated next to you, I am trained and will not hesitate to use it. ;)

No big deal, I know a girl that carries one, if she remembers.

Stab the thigh muscle, through any clothing and wait 10 seconds. Remove, and massage site.

Done.

EricNau
Feb 16, 2009, 06:03 PM
I'd gladly except cheese and crackers over peanuts. :)

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 16, 2009, 06:46 PM
Blame the lawyers, imagine serving peanuts to someone whos allergic yet still stupid enough to eat them or serving some georgia nuts and killing someone. With that said Im eating some Do-si-dos right now, feeling a little strange.:D

JML42691
Feb 16, 2009, 06:49 PM
...This country is too busy appeasing the minority.
As much as I agree that this is one of those things that is getting blown out of proportion, you may want to reconsider/rephrase that last statement, it may be taken the wrong way. Especially when viewed in historical context of this country.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 16, 2009, 07:27 PM
Blame the lawyers, imagine serving peanuts to someone whos allergic yet still stupid enough to eat them or serving some georgia nuts and killing someone. With that said Im eating some Do-si-dos right now, feeling a little strange.:D

And we have an example of the problem with this country.

We are run by the minority and special intersted groups. Long time has passed for what is best for the largest body of people.

I think it is crap because while it is the most common allergy it is still very Rare.

Everyone should not suffer because of the few.

Like the original poster said if the person discloses it I have NO problem adjusting to it. But to banned them is stupid.

My counter point is I am hypoglycemic. Peanuts are great for helping me with my blood sugar levels. It keeps them in the healthy range for a much longer period of time. I use penuts when I feel it getting low because it does not spike my system and it keeps it stable.

Why should I risk blood sugar problems every time I fly on the off chance some one can not handle peanuts.

the only person I have ever met with the a peanut allergy has no problem making it known and people where fine with it.

Mr. lax
Feb 16, 2009, 11:04 PM
I'm allergic to peanuts and i think things like this are just ridiculous. I hate governments and businesses trying to please minorities.

SMDrew
Feb 17, 2009, 01:09 AM
This thing of trying to protect everyone from even the smallest risk is just nuts.

Why don't they just address the elephant in the room? All they are doing here is promoting a shell game, and not facing the jam these passengers saddled them with. Real smooth, Northwest Airlines!

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 17, 2009, 01:54 AM
And we have an example of the problem with this country.

We are run by the minority and special intersted groups. Long time has passed for what is best for the largest body of people.

I think it is crap because while it is the most common allergy it is still very Rare.

Everyone should not suffer because of the few.

Like the original poster said if the person discloses it I have NO problem adjusting to it. But to banned them is stupid.

My counter point is I am hypoglycemic. Peanuts are great for helping me with my blood sugar levels. It keeps them in the healthy range for a much longer period of time. I use penuts when I feel it getting low because it does not spike my system and it keeps it stable.

Why should I risk blood sugar problems every time I fly on the off chance some one can not handle peanuts.

the only person I have ever met with the a peanut allergy has no problem making it known and people where fine with it.

What happens if I decide to bring a nice jar of Planters Peanuts on board?

Being a smoker that is REALLY trying to quit... lately I find peanuts a good nosh food...

What about those that bath themselves in perfume and the such? Or those who's hygiene is not up to "snuff"?

Some of these have even given me gasping for breath...

mickbab
Feb 17, 2009, 02:06 AM
Sorry Qantas, I'm allergic to chicken. Please don't serve it.

BreederCreature
Feb 17, 2009, 07:08 AM
My cousin is severely allergic to peanuts, to the point where if I had eaten peanuts within a couple hours of seeing him, he could have a reaction. He's also had reactions from peanut oil residue on tables.

I could see someone eating peanuts next to him on a plane being a huge problem, since it could more than likely kill him. I'd rather have a peanut-less plane ride than travel next to someone going through anaphylaxis.

mkrishnan
Feb 17, 2009, 07:21 AM
I'd rather have a peanut-less plane ride than travel next to someone going through anaphylaxis.

But again, (1) they make accommodations as necessary, even in airlines that do normally serve peanuts, and more importantly (2) systematic and widespread banning of peanuts, thereby eliminating early exposure to them, seems fairly likely to increase the likelihood of more children developing peanut allergies (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27596933). So you care so much for your cousin's plight that you would subject more people to it, just to make a point?

Xenious
Feb 17, 2009, 07:35 AM
Cashews, forget peanuts serve cashews. Its a seed not a nut and it tastes better. :)

Actually my 2 year old is allergic and I'd worry about her finding some peanut that had fallen in the seat and eating it. You know toddlers are quick and don't always understand their actions. Sure an epi-pen can help but it is not designed to be a fix. It is a delay tactic until you can get to a hospital. Hard to get to a hospital fast at 30,000 ft.

Now if they would clean planes better then we might have another story. ;)

Abstract
Feb 17, 2009, 07:56 AM
I'd gladly except cheese and crackers over peanuts. :)

I'm allergic to old people who either have a particular smell or make phlegm noises with their throat, passengers with children under the age of 2, obese people whose body spills into my space so that I don't have any elbow room, and people who insist on talking to me while the cabin crew turn down the lights so that people can sleep.


Unfortunately, there's no EpiPen for those allergic to life, so.......NW Airlines......you know what to do.

iBlue
Feb 17, 2009, 08:03 AM
I'm allergic to old people who either have a particular smell or make phlegm noises with their throat, passengers with children under the age of 2, obese people whose body spills into my space so that I don't have any elbow room, and people who insist on talking to me while the cabin crew turn down the lights so that people can sleep.


Unfortunately, there's no EpiPen for those allergic to life, so.......NW Airlines......you know what to do.
You too, huh? Uh oh. Make it so, airlines. You must please everyone, don't ya know?

LeahM
Feb 17, 2009, 08:25 AM
I don't really see why this should be a big deal, is everyone so afraid of change? More and more people are becoming allergic to peanuts, no matter what they eat on a airplane.

There are alot of people in the community who are severely allergic to peanuts at the school to the point where if you have it and touch the door knob, they have a reaction.

I think I would live if I went an extra 4-8 hours without being served peanuts. But someone who is severely allergic may not.

pooky
Feb 17, 2009, 12:07 PM
I don't really see why this should be a big deal, is everyone so afraid of change? More and more people are becoming allergic to peanuts, no matter what they eat on a airplane.

There are alot of people in the community who are severely allergic to peanuts at the school to the point where if you have it and touch the door knob, they have a reaction.

I think I would live if I went an extra 4-8 hours without being served peanuts. But someone who is severely allergic may not.

What you're not getting is that by systematically overreacting to these allergies by banning peanuts from public space, we are causing more peanut allergies. The proper reaction is to be prepared to deal with allergies as they occur, and otherwise act normally.

GSMiller
Feb 17, 2009, 12:39 PM
Of all things to get riled up over.

arn
Feb 17, 2009, 12:45 PM
My counter point is I am hypoglycemic. Peanuts are great for helping me with my blood sugar levels.

To be fair you won't die of your "hyoglycemia".

The point is that some people are fatally allergic to peanuts. If most of the world were immune to anthrax but you were not, would you not object with them serving it on the plane you are riding?

arn

LeahM
Feb 17, 2009, 01:12 PM
What you're not getting is that by systematically overreacting to these allergies by banning peanuts from public space, we are causing more peanut allergies. The proper reaction is to be prepared to deal with allergies as they occur, and otherwise act normally.

I don't understand how we're causing more peanut allergies by removing them from an airplane ride. A lot of the time what causes allergies is parents introducing foods to children/babies too soon.

What if someone were to have an anaphylactic reactions on the plane in a 4 hours flight? The epipen would give you an extra 15-30 minutes to arrive at a hospital, its not used to stop the reactions entirely. I don't know what kind of jet service you use but it normally takes a longer time just to land the plane and by then the person could have died. Personally I just think it makes more sense to ban the peanuts from a plane then not. Why take the risk? Plus it would be easier then having the load the cart and reload every time the attendants look at who is boarding, instead maybe they could spend their time cleaning between the seats

Abstract
Feb 17, 2009, 01:21 PM
My cousin is severely allergic to peanuts, to the point where if I had eaten peanuts within a couple hours of seeing him, he could have a reaction. He's also had reactions from peanut oil residue on tables.

......I'd rather have a peanut-less plane ride than travel next to someone going through anaphylaxis.


What if someone were to have an anaphylactic reactions on the plane in a 4 hours flight? The epipen would give you an extra 15-30 minutes to arrive at a hospital, its used to stop the reactions entirely. I don't know what kind of jet service you use but it normally takes a longer time just to land the plane and by then the person could have died.

(2) systematic and widespread banning of peanuts, thereby eliminating early exposure to them, seems fairly likely to increase the likelihood of more children developing peanut allergies (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27596933). So you care so much for your cousin's plight that you would subject more people to it, just to make a point?

Actually, after reading some of the posts here, I change my stance on this. It's strange at an internet forum, right? ;)

Banning peanuts from a 4 hour flight isn't going to cause children to develop peanut allergies. I'm sorry, but there are far more hours in a day, days in a week, weeks in a month, and months in a year for children to be exposed to peanuts. Nobody is calling for a ban in all public spaces. An airplane is a closed space where you really can't just get up and leave, or possibly go to a hospital if someone has a nasty reaction. In a restaurant, it would be different because if they feel something coming on, they can leave. If it's too late, they can be taken to a hospital if the reaction is severe.


I think we can all make that sacrifice for a few hours.

EricNau
Feb 17, 2009, 02:21 PM
Now if they would clean planes better then we might have another story. ;)
Another excellent point. Peanut residue will accumulate flight after flight, day after day, making it nearly impossible for anyone with a peanut allergy to step foot on a plane.

I'm allergic to old people who either have a particular smell or make phlegm noises with their throat, passengers with children under the age of 2, obese people whose body spills into my space so that I don't have any elbow room, and people who insist on talking to me while the cabin crew turn down the lights so that people can sleep.

Aren't we all? However, that reaction won't kill us.

Besides, I just want cheese and crackers. :)

I think we can all make that sacrifice for a few hours.
Agreed. How selfish must one be to risk other's lives just so they can eat peanuts during a four hour flight?

mkrishnan
Feb 17, 2009, 04:09 PM
Nobody is calling for a ban in all public spaces.

I agree with what you're saying, with the only reservation that the bans have tended to be kind of epidemic in nature -- a few years back, peanut butter was being banned from wide swaths of childhood environments -- e.g. a lot of schools, etc. I agree that sacrificing them on a plane is not a big deal, but if it's part of the process that leads to them being banned in many other places -- not through any particularly logical process but through fear -- then I think the evidence doesn't bear out that this is a good strategy to manage food allergies.

EricNau
Feb 17, 2009, 04:12 PM
I agree with what you're saying, with the only reservation that the bans have tended to be kind of epidemic in nature -- a few years back, peanut butter was being banned from wide swaths of childhood environments -- e.g. a lot of schools, etc. I agree that sacrificing them on a plane is not a big deal, but if it's part of the process that leads to them being banned in many other places -- not through any particularly logical process but through fear -- then I think the evidence doesn't bear out that this is a good strategy to manage food allergies.
That seems like little more than a slippery slope argument, no?

Each situation should be addressed individually in a logical manner. There's no need to make generalizations.

mkrishnan
Feb 17, 2009, 04:17 PM
That seems like little more than a slippery slope argument, no?

A slippery slope argument based on the data when exactly this thing happened on this exact, same topic over the past decade seems to be less an exercise in analogical reasoning and more an exercise in wishing history not to repeat itself....

If this claim isn't reasonable, what is the countervailing explanation for why peanut allergy rates are increasing in the absence of an increase in market penetration of peanut butter?

EricNau
Feb 17, 2009, 04:26 PM
A slippery slope argument based on the data when exactly this thing happened on this exact, same topic over the past decade seems to be less an exercise in analogical reasoning and more an exercise in wishing history not to repeat itself....
True. However, I still see no reason why this should pertain to the unique situations posed by airplane cabins.

If this claim isn't reasonable, what is the countervailing explanation for why peanut allergy rates are increasing in the absence of an increase in market penetration of peanut butter?
Correlation doesn't always equal causation. In no way am I going to claim to be familiar with this subject, but there are undoubtedly other plausible explanations which must also be investigated.

Similarly, what's causing the large increases of autism cases? In all likelihood there's more than one factor for both cases.

Abstract
Feb 17, 2009, 11:48 PM
True. However, I still see no reason why this should pertain to the unique situations posed by airplane cabins.


Agreed.

We're only talking about peanuts on an airplane. Whether I agree with a ban on peanuts in other environments, both public spaces and private, is another topic. It depends on the situation in question. With regards to airplane rides, I guess I don't mind this decision by the airline.

NT1440
Feb 18, 2009, 12:02 AM
I dont think some of you understand how severe these kind of allergies often are. Even the RESIDUE of the peanut oils coming in contact can cause SEVERE life threatening reactions. Its not a matter of just keeping it away, a plane has many shared surfaces like in the bathrooms. I personally think its just not worth the risk.

But dammit if airline peanuts arent the BEST peanuts around. I always get 8 or 9 bags worth.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 18, 2009, 12:26 AM
I think it is stupid to put this one them.

If some one reaction is that bad then they have other things to worry about but how rare is it really to have it life threating.
It just stupid and I stand by what I said. This does not stop people from bring peanuts onto the plane and that leaves the same problem.

NT1440
Feb 18, 2009, 12:28 AM
I think it is stupid to put this one them.

If some one reaction is that bad then they have other things to worry about but how rare is it really to have it life threating.
It just stupid and I stand by what I said. This does not stop people from bring peanuts onto the plane and that leaves the same problem.

When it comes to peanut allergies, its not actually that rare.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 18, 2009, 07:01 AM
When it comes to peanut allergies, its not actually that rare.

I want a percentage for people who have life treating reaction to them. I have yet to met some one who has that type of issue.

I know that the number of people who are truly that deadly to them is VERY VERY small. People are making a big deal about this but really how often is it.

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2009, 07:18 AM
Correlation doesn't always equal causation. In no way am I going to claim to be familiar with this subject, but there are undoubtedly other plausible explanations which must also be investigated.

This is true, and there likely are other causes -- but the hypothesis that early avoidance increased the likelihood of the allergy, as far as I know, wasn't one the community set out to prove -- the prevailing belief in science and medicine had been much more that it was good to avoid these things because the allergies were latent but already there. As far as I know, this idea is much more recent -- likewise it's only recently that scientists have become wary of things like overusing antibacterial soap.

I think another thing though, that's much more direct, that no one advocating a flight peanut ban has addressed that I can see so far, is this: as the article states, Northwest, which has not been giving out peanuts, is merely adopting the approach taken by Delta (use peanuts but impose a clean space around a person who declares an allergy and serve nearby passengers other snacks), which Delta has "been doing for years," per the article. So as far as I am aware, Delta's policy has been working just fine for some time. As it also works fine with other airlines that serve them, such as SW.

So what is the reason that Northwest doing what Delta and others have already been doing will have catastrophic consequences?

Eraserhead
Feb 18, 2009, 07:59 AM
There are alot of people in the community who are severely allergic to peanuts at the school to the point where if you have it and touch the door knob, they have a reaction.

If you are that allegeric maybe they need to wear gloves and a surgical face mask.

I don't understand how we're causing more peanut allergies by removing them from an airplane ride. A lot of the time what causes allergies is parents introducing foods to children/babies too soon.

Source?

CorvusCamenarum
Feb 18, 2009, 10:20 AM
I want a percentage for people who have life treating reaction to them. I have yet to met some one who has that type of issue.
About 1.3% according to this article. (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15618)

I know that the number of people who are truly that deadly to them is VERY VERY small. People are making a big deal about this but really how often is it.

Squeaky wheel and all that.

LeahM
Feb 18, 2009, 12:39 PM
If you are that allegeric maybe they need to wear gloves and a surgical face mask.

or people could just stop being *******s but that'll never happen, Think of it, your confined to an area where the air is being basically being recycled. How hard is it to stop being peanuts for 4 hours of your day.

Source?

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;121/1/183#SEC6
http://www.naturalchild.com/research/solid_foods.html
http://www.parentmap.com/content/view/133
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Solid-Food-May-Put-Infants-at-Allergy-Risk-12832-1/
http://www.googobits.com/articles/p0-2885-introducing-solid-foods-to-your-baby.html

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2009, 12:43 PM
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;121/1/183#SEC6

Ahem. Concluding paragraph of this section of the guideline.

In summary, the evidence from these conflicting studies, in balance, does not allow one to conclude that there is a strong relationship between the timing of the introduction of complementary foods and development of atopic disease. This raises serious questions about the benefit of delaying the introduction of solid foods that are thought to be highly allergic (cow milk, fish, eggs, and peanut-containing foods) beyond 4 to 6 months of age; additional studies are needed.

Iscariot
Feb 18, 2009, 04:52 PM
In a closed environment like an airplane, I think it's only prudent to control factors such as common allergens.

Outside of controlled environments, however, this allergy hysteria is pretty ridiculous. About 150 people die every year from severe food related allergies. Barely double estimates of lightning related deaths, and more than five times lower than accidental firearm fatalities.

ChrisA
Feb 18, 2009, 05:53 PM
This country is too busy appeasing the minority.

They do that because there is a huge risk in a pure democracy. If it were simply "one person, one vote" then we could vote to require everyone taller then 6-6 ware a pink wig when in public. Any democracy must have strong safeguards in place to protect minorities.

There are also practical concerns. As many a 1 in 50 people do not like to be around peanuts. Do you really want to piss off 2% of your customers?

quagmire
Feb 18, 2009, 07:17 PM
They do that because there is a huge risk in a pure democracy. If it were simply "one person, one vote" then we could vote to require everyone taller then 6-6 ware a pink wig when in public. Any democracy must have strong safeguards in place to protect minorities.

There are also practical concerns. As many a 1 in 50 people do not like to be around peanuts. Do you really want to piss off 2% of your customers?

A) The US is not a pure democracy it is a republic. B) Yes, we have to protect the minority, but not to appease it. Case in point is the Happy Holidays crap and people offended that a Catholic school has the cross on the walls.

As posted the number that have a severe allergy to peanuts is ~1%. If they have that severe of an allergy they have to take precautions too. They can't expect the airlines to do everything for them by banning peanuts so the responsibility is lifted off of them.

So the 98% of people who want to eat peanuts can't them so the 2% won't be pissed off? That is right there what is wrong with this country today! That is appeasing.

NT1440
Feb 18, 2009, 07:18 PM
As posted the number that have a severe allergy to peanuts is ~1%. If they have that severe of an allergy they have to take precautions too. They can't expect the airlines to do everything for them by banning peanuts so the responsibility is lifted off of them.

Is it honestly the end of the world to not serve peanuts on that one flight with someone who is deathly allergic? Is it REALLY that hard for you to "appease the minority" in this one case?

quagmire
Feb 18, 2009, 07:24 PM
Is it honestly the end of the world to not serve peanuts on that one flight with someone who is deathly allergic? Is it REALLY that hard for you to "appease the minority" in this one case?

Maybe not for that one flight, but for every single one by the off chance there is a person on board that has that severe of an allergy?

CorvusCamenarum
Feb 18, 2009, 08:01 PM
Maybe not for that one flight, but for every single one by the off chance there is a person on board that has that severe of an allergy?

That's when you cleverly insert some fine print regarding peanuts into the Terms of Carriage.

yorkshire
Feb 21, 2009, 05:10 AM
This is madness. Some people are just plain stupid.

allmIne
Feb 21, 2009, 05:54 AM
This is madness. Some people are just plain stupid.

Well done on avoiding the pun ;)

I really don't see a problem with this.

MacRy
Feb 21, 2009, 11:43 AM
Perhaps this'll make everyone happy :rolleyes:

Rinky dink link (http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKTRE51J2KE20090220)

Mr. Giver '94
Feb 21, 2009, 12:45 PM
Well done on avoiding the pun ;)

I won't.

This is NUTS!!!!:D

I do agree that airlines should take into consideration people's specific needs, but like Abstract said, I'm allergic to obese lardos, nasty people (one time my dad had to sit next to this lady who was painting her toenails on the plane BARF!!!), crying puking babies, and annoying talkers.