Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Customers protest due to peanut return

BreederCreature said:
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.
Click to expand...

LeahM said:
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.
Click to expand...

mkrishnan said:
(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. So you care so much for your cousin's plight that you would subject more people to it, just to make a point?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Xenious said:
Now if they would clean planes better then we might have another story. ;)
Click to expand...
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.

Abstract said:
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.
Click to expand...
Aren't we all? However, that reaction won't kill us.

Besides, I just want cheese and crackers. :)

Abstract said:
I think we can all make that sacrifice for a few hours.
Click to expand...
Agreed. How selfish must one be to risk other's lives just so they can eat peanuts during a four hour flight?
 
Abstract said:
Nobody is calling for a ban in all public spaces.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mkrishnan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
EricNau said:
That seems like little more than a slippery slope argument, no?
Click to expand...

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?
 
mkrishnan said:
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....
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
EricNau said:
True. However, I still see no reason why this should pertain to the unique situations posed by airplane cabins.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
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.
Click to expand...

When it comes to peanut allergies, its not actually that rare.
 
NT1440 said:
When it comes to peanut allergies, its not actually that rare.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EricNau said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
LeahM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

LeahM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
Eraserhead said:
If you are that allegeric maybe they need to wear gloves and a surgical face mask.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
LeahM said:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;121/1/183#SEC6
Click to expand...

Ahem. Concluding paragraph of this section of the guideline.

American Academy of Pediatrics said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
quagmire said:
This country is too busy appeasing the minority.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ChrisA said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
quagmire said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
NT1440 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back