Food Allergies - Fact, Fiction and Fad

[HuckleB]

http://layscience.net/node/1092

"There are two common responses when the subject of food allergies comes up. The first, mostly but not entirely from older people, is "Stuff and nonsense. They didn't exist when I was young, we ate whatever was put in front of us. You don't see starving people in the third world with allergies". The second is: "I feel much better and have lost lots of weight since I stopped eating wheat. I know I'm allergic/intolerant because I sent my poo/blood/hair away to be analyzed".

According to one source, 25% of adults think they have a food allergy although studies show that only about 2% really do. Which means that at least nine out of ten are making a big fat fuss about nothing. Recent news said that up to 8% of children now have allergies although a spokesperson from Allergy UK said: "Parents often look for alternative ways to diagnose their children, using tests which aren't scientific at all. Parents tend to think it's an allergy without taking proper medical advice".

It's mostly middle class people with a bit of spare cash who have latched onto food allergies and intolerances (the two are often used interchangeably). Not the life-threatening A&E kind of allergy but the feeling a bit bloaty and tired, self-dramatizing kind which are not allergies at all. Some people will happily say they're 'a bit allergic' to something without any medical evidence whereas they would never say 'I'm a bit diabetic' and not bother going to the doctor.

One reason people might well feel better and lose weight by giving up wheat is that by not eating bread, pasta, pastry and pizza they are also cutting back on the high fat, high salt ingredients that go with them - cheese, highly salted meats, mayo, creamy sauces and so on. Or maybe they really are lactose intolerant and have accidentally cut most dairy out of their diet by giving up these foods. That's the trouble with self-diagnosis.

..."


----------------------------------


This does not ignore the fact that some people have very real food allergies, and that some of those can be deadly. However, we seem to live in a world where a huge proportion of people around us claim to have food allergies, yet the data suggests that many of them do not. I would love see this studied from a psychology standpoint, too.

:hi:

[S Calawag]

1. I'm over 65 and never heard of 'peanut allergy' until a few years ago.

It really does seem to me that an awful lot of contemporary ailments are psychosomatic, to a far greater degree than they were 30 or 40 years ago, it's hard for me to believe that over a generation millions of people suddenly developed all these weird 'diseases'...

[ThomasQED]

3. When I was a little kid an older relative had a mystery illness

it took quite some time to diagnose. Turned out it was gluten intolerance.

As the world changes and our food changes (what most Americans eat has little in common with what Americans ate even 75 years ago), allergies and conditions that were rare before become more common (and probably others that were common fade away).

[MineralMan]

5. Back then, it was called "Sprue," and it was probably just as

prevalent as it is today. The remedy was the same as it is today, too. Good doctors were able to diagnose it just about as well as they do today, as well.

[tabatha]

24. The kind of wheat we eat these days

is different from earlier times.

[tabatha]

2. interesting article

http://www.livescience.com/health/peanut-allergy-increase-children-100513.html

[HuckleB]

4. Yes, the peanut issue is of concern.

Still, that piece indicated 3 million Americans have food allergies, which would be an even lower actual prevalence than the article in the OP.

As for peanut allergies, it does appear that many of them are actually treatable:

Studies Show Children Can Complete Treatment for Peanut Allergies and Achieve Long-Term Tolerance
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/studies_show_children_can_complete_treatment_for_peanut_allergies_and_achieve_long_term_tolerance

And the prevalence issue may be something that needs to be looked at even closer:

Food-allergy tests in kids can trigger false alarms
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/food-allergy-tests-in-kids-can-trigger-false/

:hi:

[Warpy]

46. I love posting those studies

True peanut allergy is devastating---and RARE. It's almost faddish now, saying your kid has a peanut allergy and bullying other kids and parents to keep even the smell of peanuts away from poor Junior, utterly ridiculous.

Junior, if allergic, would have to eat them to react badly to them.

I see the same thing at work with wheat allergies, people so paranoid about it that they expect the gluten free factory to be miles--upwind--from any place that uses wheat in any way. Uh, folks, glucose in parts per billion is not going to set you off. Really. True celiac can be life threatening, but not at parts per billion.

The best bet if you suspect an allergy is to see an allergist. Unfortunately, that's not always possible in this country. Too many of us don't have insurance or have bad insurance we can't afford to use.

Elimination diets, if done properly, can turn up allergies. Unfortunately, most people don't do them properly because they're such a pain in the ass to do. So it's guesswork and Junior's bad cold becomes a peanut allergy.

[SidDithers]

55. Good point about contamination...

we're mostly gluten-free in our house, because my daughhter has celiac disease. We'll keep my daughter away from foods that have obvious gluten in them, or foods labelled "May contain wheat", but are OK with foods labelled "Made in a facility that also uses wheat in producton of blah blah blah". Hell, our kitchen is a "facility that also uses wheat in production of blah blah blah", and I bet you that major food manufacturers do a better job of cleaning their equipment than I do of cleaning my microwave.

Sid

[Warpy]

56. I see my bumbling fingers and inability to proofread

the posting box font have sabotaged me again.

Gluten, not glucose, you fumblefingered git!

Other than that, what I posted was correct. Kudos to you for realizing that exposure to minute particles of even a severe allergen won't do much.

Honestly, some wheat free people act like they're keeping Kosher to an extreme, breaking any dishes that have been contaminated with both meat and dairy inadvertently, only in this case it's trashing anything that they've found out was made in a factory that uses wheat in a completely different area.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

6. Diet definitely affects ones sense of well-being.

Ignoring that is stupid. Calling it an allergy in the absence of an immune system response is merely illiterate. Really separating things that don't make you feel good from things that cause an allergic response is something for scientists and doctors, the rest of us can make do with paying attention to how we feel.

[HuckleB]

9. The matter of being illiterate goes further, for many, however.

Too many people equate one anecdotal incidence of feeling off, or sick with a food product, and then decide that the food must have been the cause, when the cause could be any number of things. The ignorance of the basic rule that correlation is not causation may be at the root of this whole issue.

[bemildred]

10. Well no, that is illogical or unscientific or whatever, but it is not illiterate.

Illiterate is writing "allergic" when you mean "unpleasant" or "I didn't enjoy it". The feeling is correct, whatever the error in assignment of cause.

[HuckleB]

11. You are correct.

Uh, partially. The issue of scientific illiteracy is genuine, and that's what I would call not understanding correlation vs. causation.

Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future…and It’s Scientists’ Fault
http://blog.nature.org/2009/08/scientific-illiteracy-unscientific-america-peter-kareiva/

:hi:

[bemildred]

14. Well, I'm OK with that. Innumeracy, scientism, etc.

Dogma is dogma, wherever one finds it. Humility is the only sensible attitude. There was an interesting piece I read recently about some person who was questioning the ability of "scientists" to assign "gayness" to specific regions of the brain. :rofl:

[HuckleB]

15. I have no idea how that connects to the discussion at hand.

Humility is needed. Of course, if you're labeling science as scientism, I'm not seeing any humility in that.

PS: The link was added simply to show that scientific illiteracy is something that is being discussed.

[bemildred]

18. That's OK.

I wander when I feel like it.

Science is not scientism, but a lot of what purports to be science is not science either. Those who "believe" in "science" are as subject to their dogmas as any other believers.

[HuckleB]

19. What constitutes a "belief" in science to you?

And how does that "dogma" compare to "other believers?"

[bemildred]

22. That's it, I'm done, you want to argue now.

I insulted science or something.

[HuckleB]

26. WOW!

I asked you a couple of questions.

You appear to have strong beliefs about "scientism." Can't you define them?

:rofl:

[bemildred]

28. I'm not the one that appears to have "strong beliefs" here.

I think that scientism, that is the taking of science as a belief system rather than a method, is dogma, just like any other dogma. Science is a method, right?

[HuckleB]

31. So what is your definition of science?

I'm just discussing, you chose to get upset over nothing.

PS:

Who’s Afraid of “Soulless Scientism”?
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/whos-afraid-of-soulless-scientism/

[bemildred]

35. I'm not upset, I'm amused.

Science is the reification of what scientists do, the treatment of a method as a thing. What scientists do is apply the scientific method to understanding the observable world. This produces, in the best cases, theory that is supported by and coincides with repeatable experiment and observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[HuckleB]

36. Do you equate that with "scientism?"

Also, can you actually explain what you think scientism is (sorry, but your one-liner doesn't cut it), and, perhaps most importantly, can you explain why you would bring up such an ad hominem item in this discussion in the first place?

[bemildred]

39. That's ridiculous. I said nothing of the sort. Not the same thing at all.

You can easily look up the definition of "scientism" without my help.

[HuckleB]

41. I'm just trying to get a clarification on your beliefs.

The term "scientism" has different meanings for different people.

Please answer the final question in my last post.

Thank you.

[bemildred]

42. I was trained as a mathematician, I don't have beliefs, I have doubts.

I favor radical skepticism about pretty much everything. I favor dictionary definitions for language usage, anything else, with occasional exceptions, leads to muddle.

[HuckleB]

43. That's a nice claim.

Can you answer the question?

BTW, you do know that many, if not most, words in the dictionary have more than one dictionary definition. Right?

[bemildred]

44. So, you doubt my word? nt

[HuckleB]

45. You still haven't answered the question.

The longer you evade, the more I doubt.

[bemildred]

47. I have, but you didn't accept the answer.

Apparently dictionary definitions are not good enough for you, or it's not clear how to construe them in this context or something.

But it's nice to see you share my postive attitude towards doubt.

[HuckleB]

48. You have not answered the question.

Not even close. I asked it once, but you didn't answer, so I asked again. I've had to continue to ask, as you reply with apparent diversion attempts. Yet you have yet to answer the question. Please don't pretend otherwise.

I'll help you out again: It's the last question in post 36.

[bemildred]

49. I don't have to do squat.

If you can pretend I have not answered you, I can pretend anything I like. I will say that you seem confused about what ad hominem arguments are though, I was trying to ignore that, but no such luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I have not tried to refute any argument, and I have not attacked anyone, other than pointing out the obvious, that you are in an argumentative mood. Perhaps that is my fault too.

[HuckleB]

50. I know full well what an ad hominem attack is.

Apparently, you don't, however. I find it very interesting that you can't answer the question. I just tried to get you to explain yourself. That is apparently not something you're willing to do. I have no idea why, but it is what it is.

So I'll leave the question on the table, what was your point in bringing up the term scientism on this thread? What did it have to do with the discussion?

[bemildred]

52. Well, this has been entertaining, but I really must go.

:hi:

[HuckleB]

53. I guess you think evading questions is entertaining.

Whatever.

[KurtNYC]

7. So people notice their reaction to certain foods and label it "allergy"

why is that so terrible?

Stressed immune systems can prompt reactions to foods and other things that come and go as the immune system strengthens and weakens. It is a nebulous affliction.

Many believe strongly that they are allergic to MSG when in fact they are reacting to some other ingredient in chinese food which isn't common in their diet. So they stop eating it. They are wrong about the allergy but RIGHT TO STOP EATING it. It is not a "big fat fuss about nothing" as your article so ineloquently states. There is plenty of food out there that people should not eat. Thank god some notice the reactions that their bodies have and stop. If they want to call it an allergy BFD.

[HuckleB]

8. Hogwash.

Equating every time one feels off with having eaten some food is ridiculous. I know too many people who have done that over time, and it's impossible for anyone to invite them over for dinner. They seem to believe that the only way they ever come down with anything is via food. Often, they've decided they're allergic to foods that they end up eating without knowing and doing just fine. However, because they don't know, they continue to believe that they have a problem/allergy with that food.

Correlation is not causation, and it is not the equivalent of actually paying attention one's body. In fact, in order to truly pay attention to one's body, one must know the basic science of the body. Unfortunately, it's clear that many of the people who claim to have food allergies don't possess that knowledge.

Finally, this is not the first time this issue has been brought up. The piece in the OP is very much a follow up type piece. Thus, your ad hominem attack on it is worthless.

Doubt Is Cast on Many Reports of Food Allergies
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/health/research/12allergies.html

[KurtNYC]

12. You seem to be saying that people who notice food / feeling combos

are either crazy or uneducated, or both.

And my attack is on the relevance of this idea that people who don't want to eat certain things are wrong or not entitled to that decision. That is not ad hominem. Or are you talking about "ineloquently" ?

[HuckleB]

13. In other words, your only response is to put words in my mouth.

Of course people are entitled to eat what they want, and to not eat what they don't want, as long as they can afford it. However, if they are going to run around talking about their food allergies, making an issue of it at every turn, despite the fact that they probably don't have food allergies, then others should have the right to point out what's happening in the real world. (Remember 25 -30 percent of people claim to have food allergies, but apparently only 1 -3 percent actually have them.) In addition, I've seen some of these folks try to convince partners and friends that they, too, must have food allergies. Sure, they're entitled to such advocacy, but I'm entitled to advocating a truer picture of the matter at hand. Do you think we should hide this information from the public? Would it be bad if some of these people took a second look at what they're avoiding, and why?

Thank you for noticing your ad hominem soundbite.

[KurtNYC]

20. wait, you said you "would love see this studied from a psychology standpoint"

doesn't that state a viewpoint akin to people who don't know what they are reacting to are crazy ?

[HuckleB]

21. Hardly.

Psychology researches behavior in general. Diagnoses derive from such studies, when needed. However, a mental health diagnosis should be made only if the "condition" leads to serious disfunction. I would like psychology to see look into what motivates people in this area.

Further, are you really using terms like "crazy?"

Goodness.

[KurtNYC]

29. is condescension an ad hominem attack ?

how about a ROFL emoticon?

YCDIOBYCTI

have a good night

[HuckleB]

32. Perhaps it is.

I'd say it was earned, especially since your initial response is full of condescension.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

16. +100 n/t

[HuckleB]

17. .

:rofl:

[tabatha]

23. Yep, I agree.

In two years amongst many, I had allergies in spring, having never had them in my life before.

I think those years were not good food years, and reverting to proper diet, the allergies went away.

[bemildred]

25. Yeah, mine got much better when I made some "lifestyle changes".

And staying away from fast food and processed food are a big part of that. Lower stress matters a lot also.

[KT2000]

27. This is a really biased and rude

article. "self dramatizing kind?" "A big fat fuss out of nothing?" What kind of comments are those? - certainly not scientific. In fact the article attempts to create a straw man argument out of opinion.

If it is true that few people actually have food allergies, then there is work to do to figure out what the problems are - not create insulting characterizations of people.
We live in an atmosphere that has never existed before - for example, we are ingesting chemicals that damage the tight junctions in the intestinal tract. Nursing babies ingest PCBs with their milk resulting in immune problems later in life etc.,

Remember - TB was once thought to affect only people of low morals and "artistis types."
Drapetomania is the mental disorder slaves had when they attempted to escape.
Article such as this one should not be taken seriously.

[tabatha]

30. agreed

[HuckleB]

34. Any excuse to ignore the real world, right?

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

33. Oh, no. Someone challenged a huge percentage of people who are doing what?

Self dramatizing their lives?

What else would you call it?

Sometimes a spade is a spade.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dorian Gray]

38. Food allergies are interesting to me....

I tend to believe people when they say that they are allergic to one specific food. (IE Peanuts.) But when they are allergic to a whole variety of foods, (Shellfish, Wheat and Dairy), I suspect it's more a food sensitivity type issue. (The food doesn't agree with them sometimes.)

I went to a wedding this summer, and the reherasal dinner was a Chinese Banquet. A woman at my table asked for each dish: "Is there wheat in this? Dairy? Etc.?" The waiter looked at her blankly each time and said he didn't know, yet she kept asking. It was sort of amusing, but it was also considered to be rude by some of the people at the table. But what can you do?

[supernova]

51. She was a dolt

She should have eaten before the event if she was that sensitive.

Geez. I follow a gluten free diet, but I don't expect others to cater to me, especially when it's not about me as a friend's wedding would surely not be.

[Dorian Gray]

59. I agree

If there is some reason I can't eat something, I eat beforehand. (Recently, I joined friends who were having a sushi dinner, so I ate first before going. -- I'm pregnant. -- I did order a couple of pieces of pregnancy friendly pieces: a california roll and tamago, but I ate enough beforehand so I wouldn't feel deprived. It's just common sense!)

[SidDithers]

54. Self diagnosed food sensitivities drive me nuts...

all the people and parents out there who could be setting themselves, or their kids up for a lifetime of unwarranted dietary restrictions.

My daughter has celiac disease. We know this because she had an intestinal biopsy which confirmed the villi of her small intestine were laying flat. It was difficult to continue feeding her gluten while waiting for the biopsy, but the test wouldn't have been conclusive if we'd started to change the diet when we only suspected CD. By having proper testing done, we were able to rule out dairy as a cause, and my daughter is able to live her life without having to eliminate milk products from her diet.

Sid

[HuckleB]

57. A little more on the topic, re: the recent "bully" study.

Bullied over food allergies? What the media got wrong.
http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/bullied-over-food-allergies/

"Heard the buzz about food allergies and bullying? From CNN to WebMD, news agencies are citing the latest study, suggesting that approximately one-third of American school kids with food allergies have been bullied, harassed, or teased about it. Disturbing? Yes. A good estimate of the real rate of bullying? Maybe not. Let’s check out the details.

As reported in an upcoming issue of Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, researchers went to some conferences about food allergies. There, they distributed questionnaires to everyone in attendance, asking people with first-hand experience of food allergies to fill them out. It appears that people were allowed to look over the questions before deciding whether or not to participate.

About 61% of the conference participants turned in a survey, leaving the researchers with a total of 353 questionnaires. Some of these were from adults who wrote about their own experiences. But most–over 90%–were from parents who answered on behalf of their food-allergic kids.

...

The numbers sound bad. And certainly any amount of bullying or harassment is bad. But is the problem really that common? We can’t say—not on the basis of this study.

..."


It should also be noted that these numbers are not compared to a general school population, or any other group.

This is poor study at best. A study using proper techniques should be performed, but nothing can be gleaned from this study, in reality.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. "Self-dramatizing"???

I have food allergies, and I've been tested for them. I am allergic to lots of mold and plants cat hair and dog hair, wool (which is sheep hair) and lots of other stuff. I know what not to eat.

Either the food comes back up, or else I feel very tired the next day because of the stress on my system. As in "stay in bed all day feeling crappy".

[HuckleB]

60. Thus, you actually have food allergies.

A huge percentage of people who claim they have food allergies do not. The author was referring to them, not to people who actually have food allergies. That is quite clear.