Dmnkly wrote:The point isn't that you can't draw a line somewhere, of course you can. The point is, why bother when your server may or may not be on the same page as you when it comes to which allergens are worth mentioning and what use of an ingredient is or isn't obvious? Why place the onus on the restaurant to make a subjective determination as to which are important enough to point out and which aren't? Why insist on a system where people's health and potentially their lives depend on everybody working off the same definition of what is or isn't an obvious use? Just ask... it seems the safest way to handle a potentially dangerous situation, the issue is quickly and easily settled, and it renders any subjective ingredient-specific notification system completely unnecessary.

My sense is that we have an area of agreement here, but that the pro-alert people (what few of us there are here) are more willing to move to the center of it than the anti-alert people are. From the beginning, I've said that allergic people should make their allergies known. Therefore, I'm not "placing the onus" on the restaurant. I've also never called for federal or state regulations requiring disclosure of allergens; therefore, I'm not "insisting on a system" of full disclosure. I'm simply asking for more sensitivity on the part of restaurants on the issue.

There already is some. Allergies are one reason restaurants list the constituent parts of their salads, sauces, toppings, etc., on the menu. And allergies are one reason that dishes containing hidden allergens (such as pureed brazil nuts in a dipping sauce) are rare. So restaurants have already demonstrated they are more willing to care for their customers with food allergies, ironically, than some on this list would be! But gaps and flaws in disclosure can have serious health consequences, so it would be a good thing to raise restaurant/server consciousness on the issue just a little higher. Customers must take responsibility for their own health, but to say that the restaurant in whose hands the customer has placed himself has no responsibility in the matter--well, that seems an extreme position to me. If I get on a bus the driver of which turns out to be untrained and reckless, and he has a collision injuring me and all the passengers, should I blame myself for not taking enough responsibility for my own health? (After all, I could have insisted on seeing a certification of his safety record before boarding.) Our world requires us to put our safety in the hands of others time after time. It would be good if those others felt some shared responsibility for our safety in return for our trust. Most of the time (restaurants included) they do. But the sense of shared responsibility, when it comes to food allergens, just needs to be ratcheted up one notch higher.

riddlemay wrote:Customers must take responsibility for their own health, but to say that the restaurant in whose hands the customer has placed himself has no responsibility in the matter--well, that seems an extreme position to me.

Whoa, to be clear, I've never stated this at all. On the idea that restaurants need to be ultra sensitive to those with allergies, we're in total agreement, and I think my posts up to this point demonstrate that. This is a disagreement about practice, not theory. Restaurants MUST take allergies seriously, and their serving and kitchen staff must both be prepared to handle customers with allergies in a careful, responsible and supportive manner. I believe I was the first in this thread to suggest that the proactive practice of asking if there are any allergies at the table is a good one that every restaurant should do.

Where my eyebrows went up was with the two instances that kicked off this thread. First, that a server who put out a bread dip without disclosing its ingredients was deserving of a tongue-lashing. I'm not totally convinced that's irresponsible on the server's part, but at the very least it struck me as a shared blame scenario. The other was the implication that a dish with pureed brazil buts should not even be served. On the former, I suspect we just disagree -- in that specific scenario. On the latter, I'm really troubled that some still seem to feel that there are some dishes that a restaurant should simply never produce because some will be allergic to them.

Dmnkly wrote:On the idea that restaurants need to be ultra sensitive to those with allergies, we're in total agreement, and I think my posts up to this point demonstrate that. This is a disagreement about practice, not theory. Restaurants MUST take allergies seriously, and their serving and kitchen staff must both be prepared to handle customers with allergies in a careful, responsible and supportive manner. I believe I was the first in this thread to suggest that the proactive practice of asking if there are any allergies at the table is a good one that every restaurant should do.

What are we arguing about, then?

Here's where I stand on the "should a dish with pureed brazil nuts/your-hidden-allergen-here ever be served" question. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an ingredient should be banned from a kitchen for its potential to harm. I would say that a chef, when he chooses to use such a playing-with-dynamite ingredient, takes on an extra responsibility to make sure every customer in the restaurant knows about it before putting it in his mouth. And it sounds like we may even have agreement on that.

Almost any food can cause anaphylaxis... the commoner food causes are:

Peanut
eggs
milk
shellfish
fish

Less common or rare
Fruits
sesame
green pepper
others
--Ashtma & Rhinitis, Stephen T. Holgate, William W. Busse, ed., 2nd edition, 2000

I expect to be warned about all of these at every meal, then. Especially "others."

And thus, bit by bit, does the pleasure go out of life, replaced by the grim duty of the government and our public guardians to watch over their childlike charges in everything we do, and ultimately, to decide for us what we may and may not do.

Mike G wrote:And thus, bit by bit, does the pleasure go out of life, replaced by the grim duty of the government and our public guardians to watch over their childlike charges in everything we do, and ultimately, to decide for us what we may and may not do.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen one person on this board suggest anything of the kind.

Someday in the near future all menu items and packaging are going to have warning labels ala the "Caution Contents are Hot!" on coffee cups.

Restaurant owners and chefs are not telepathic, and should not be held responsible for causing a reaction when the patron doesn't even mention that they have a life-threatening allergy. It is the responsibility of the diner to take care of their own health. It is the responsibility of the restaurant to make sure there is a plan in place to deal with a patron with severe allergies. Where I used to work our allergy action plan went by the acronym ACTION

-The GUEST Announces that they have an allergy
-Contact the floor manager on duty
-Tell the kitchen manager that there is an allergy
-Identify the items we can serve
-Place the Order using the ALLERGY modifier
-Notify the kitchen of any reactions


Once an allergy was mentioned by a guest the rest of that person's order had to be signed off by both the kitchen and floor managers. This process is tedious, but I can only remember one guest who ever had a problem (Luckily it was just stomach issues).

On the other side, there are guests who will say that they are allergic to items like mushrooms, onions, or garlic even though they just don't care for those ingredients. This allergy policy definitely did not work in their favor.

Flip

Flip wrote:Restaurant owners and chefs are not telepathic...

But knowing that pureed brazil nuts hidden in a dip might cause real problems doesn't require telepathy. It only requires knowledge.

Again, I'm not saying a chef should never put this in a preparation. I'm saying that the chef should have a conversation with himself before he does it. "Hmmm...I know that this ingredient could cause some people in my restaurant to stop breathing...How much do I feel I need this ingredient?"

Adequate information to the customer would be one way the chef could feel better about his decision, should he decide to go ahead and use the ingredient.

Without that, there is an imbalance of information. The chef has the knowledge that brazil nuts are in there. The customer doesn't. That imbalance is dangerous.

Restaurants, by and large, already do very well at maintaining a balance of information between chef and customer. I hope that they would do better at this not because they are afraid of litigation, fines or jail, but because they want their customers to be well.

Without that, there is an imbalance of information. The chef has the knowledge that brazil nuts are in there. The customer doesn't. That imbalance is dangerous.

It is the duty of the customer with the allergy to ask about the brazil nuts. The chef should be able to serve roasted brazil nuts with a tahini sauce with sprinkled peanuts if he pleases.

Molly wrote:The chef should be able to serve roasted brazil nuts with a tahini sauce with sprinkled peanuts if he pleases.

Sure--if the chef informs his customers he's doing this.

And why would he not? I'm sure to many of his customers that list of ingredients would be enticing. So keeping it a secret would be to his disadvantage in more ways than one.

riddlemay wrote:Here's where I stand on the "should a dish with pureed brazil nuts/your-hidden-allergen-here ever be served" question. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an ingredient should be banned from a kitchen for its potential to harm. I would say that a chef, when he chooses to use such a playing-with-dynamite ingredient, takes on an extra responsibility to make sure every customer in the restaurant knows about it before putting it in his mouth. And it sounds like we may even have agreement on that.

Any food can be dynamite to any person. What's dynamite to you isn't to me and vice versa.

Now, if you think taking extra responsibility means that every staff person who works front of house is aware that there are brazil nuts in a specific dish then I think we're on the same page.

If you think a server should disclose the common allergens prior to a customer placing an order then we are definitely not in agreement. When I tell a server that I have a food intolerance. I want the server to have an understanding of the issue, provide me with basic information and then verify with the chef about which items may or may not be safe for me to eat that day. I don't want to hear about all the allergen information unless I've requested it. Different strokes I guess.

riddlemay wrote:

Veloute wrote:I find it hard to believe that 9 of 10 freebies don't contain eggs, milk, soy, wheat, peanuts, tree nuts, seafood or shellfish.

I suppose that's true. But if we remove from the discussion those freebies which manifestly are unsafe for the allergic--for instance, if we can take for granted that those who are allergic to wheat will know that the bread in the basket is made from wheat, and don't need to be warned, and that a bowl of peanuts will be easily recognized as dangerous by those who are allergic to peanuts--and so forth--then the only freebies for which an advisory would be indicated are that small minority of freebies which manifestly appear not to contain allergens, but do.

To be honest, bread is just one of the hundreds of places where wheat is used. I could bore you to death with products in which wheat is a hidden ingredient. Name me a freebie and I bet I can list off a potential wheat containing ingredient.

It seems to me you only really have a problem with tree nuts.

Again, I'm not saying a chef should never put this in a preparation. I'm saying that the chef should have a conversation with himself before he does it. "Hmmm...I know that this ingredient could cause some people in my restaurant to stop breathing...How much do I feel I need this ingredient?"

This seems a distinction without a difference. The only responsible answer, the way you've framed the question, is "I should not use brazil nuts."

My brother-in-law is deathly allergic to fish. By this same logic, how could the serving of fish be justified in any public place?

Mike G wrote:My brother-in-law is deathly allergic to fish. By this same logic, how could the serving of fish be justified in any public place?

He shouldn't have to be accountable for his own well being or expected to ask the appropriate questions. I think the only responsible thing to do is ban fish!

Mike G wrote:My brother-in-law is deathly allergic to fish. By this same logic, how could the serving of fish be justified in any public place?

Repeating myself here, but since you've brought the question up again: The difference is that fish is manifestly fish. The very existence and form and name of the dish is sufficient communication of its contents. With brazil nuts pureed into a dip, not so. A bit more information is required.

But there is a way in which your reductio ad absurdum example is not absurd. Let's suppose that a dip which appears to be vegetable-based in fact contains pureed fish along with the vegetables. Should this be communicated for the sake of your brother-in-law's survival? I think it should. You may not--but that may have more to do with how you feel about your brother-in-law.

Is Thai fish sauce manifestly fish? Is anchovy paste?

My brother in law knows that his survival depends not on assuming that every restaurant will interpret this issue the same way he does (fish are manifestly fish, brazil nuts aren't), as if that were obvious and clearcut, but on knowing what he's ordering and asking questions. He doesn't expect full disclosure on every menu-- and, quite sensibly, he knows better than to trust it if it existed, given the reality of the restaurant biz.

Mike,

Add worchestershire sauce to your sauces with fishy components, specifically anchovies.

Regards,

Oh fer pete's sake....it really is time for all grown up persons to take some measure of responsibility for their own lives. If you have an allergy how difficult is it to ask the person serving you food "What is in this, I am allergic to ...stuff...?"

The real problem lies with a kitchen that can't/won't identify ingredients once asked. Not with one that doesn't disclose up front.

The world will not pad its corners for you, no matter how long you hold your breath or how much you threaten to turn blue.

I firmly believe that personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a free, democratic society and those who eschew this fail to grasp how fortunate they are to live in one.

Diannie wrote:Oh fer pete's sake....it really is time for all grown up persons to take some measure of responsibility for their own lives...
The world will not pad its corners for you, no matter how long you hold your breath or how much you threaten to turn blue.

I firmly believe that personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a free, democratic society and those who eschew this fail to grasp how fortunate they are to live in one.

I take responsibility. I only ask that restaurants do also. I think that's a fair and equitable sharing of responsibility.

Since most restaurants already agree (making sure not to slip allergens into foods unlikely to contain them, and when they do slip these in, to inform), I'm not sure they find this as onerous a burden as some here seem, on their behalf, to think it is. I'll tell you one thing this grownup is grateful for--besides living in a free, democratic society. I'm grateful that most restaurants are more compassionate of spirit, and more concerned for the welfare of their customers, than you would have them be.

riddlemay wrote:Since most restaurants already agree (making sure not to slip allergens into foods unlikely to contain them, and when they do slip these in, to inform), I'm not sure they find this as onerous a burden as some here seem, on their behalf, to think it is.

Right, but in the case of wheat (which is as nearly as common an allergen as tree nuts/peanuts), it's nearly impossible for a diner to know for sure whether it's present in a dish. That touch of soy sauce in the salad dressing could do it, for instance.

The problem is that you're thinking specifically of the allergy that affects you and not the allergies that affect millions of other diners.

gleam wrote:The problem is that you're thinking specifically of the allergy that affects you and not the allergies that affect millions of other diners.

Although I see the point you're making, Ed--and agree that wheat allergy is a thornier problem to deal with (for restaurants and eaters) than some other food allergies--I don't think you're correct that I'm thinking only of the allergy that affects me, or that the points I'm making apply only to my allergies and not to those of millions of others. I'm talking about walnuts and brazil nuts in my posts because, yes, those are my allergies, but I'm using them as examples to stand in for "your-allergy-here." There are non-nut food allergies that are not mine but are more like mine than they are like wheat allergies--shellfish allergies, for example.

Since I started this mess, I think I should weigh in.

Point 1: when the offending item was brought to the table, it was put down by the waiter with the words, "here's a little bean dip for your bread." It was not a large portion, and served in something like a ramekin. It was a deep, dark brownish. It looked liked bean dip. We didn't see any nuts.

Point 2: I never said the restaurant deserved a tongue lashing from my wife. Her few seconds of "what for" were delivered while she in the middle of an allergic reaction.

There was ample opportunity on both sides to have avoided the whole problem.

Olde School wrote:There was ample opportunity on both sides to have avoided the whole problem.

Thanks for weighing in again, Olde School. I think you've summed up not just your position, but what I've learned--and what I hope others have learned, if they didn't know it already--from this thread.

For my part, what I've learned is that it truly is ill-advised to take anything for granted as safe in a restaurant, and that I must announce, before the waiter even takes a drink order, my food allergies. (After all, the bartender might be experimenting with some fancy new walnut vodka in his martinis that night. If a restaurant can bring bean dip to the table and call it bean dip, yet have it actually contain significant amounts of brazil nut, anything can happen.) I intend to implement this new behavior.

For the part of owners/managers/employees of restaurants (if any are here), I hope they will have new sensitivity to the needs of the food-allergic, and to implement this sensitivity by arming themselves with every bit of knowledge it is possible to have about the food allergens contained in every dish and drink it is possible to order in their establishments. It does no good--no good whatsoever--for me to announce my allergy to walnuts if the waiter does not know that the bartender is pouring walnut vodka into his martinis tonight. Or to announce my allergy to brazil nuts if the waiter does not suspect there are brazil nuts in the bean dip (as, why would he?). It also does no good if the chef himself is blithely unaware of or unconcerned about the potential dangers of the ingredients he uses, and so doesn't think to share the information. High-alert, Defcon-1, Level-Red consciousness is required on the part of every member of an establishment, to complement this level of consciousness on the part of the customer; for a customer's announcement alone will not be enough to avert serious illness and death if it is not met with, and indeed preceded by, an equivalent level of gravity on the part of every individual on the staff.

For the part of others, who may not have food allergies themselves but who have been interested enough to contribute to (or just read) this thread--and whose consciousness of the issue was not as high as it could be--I hope their consciousness of the issue has been raised just a bit. (There are several on this thread among the non-allergic whose consciousness of the issue was already quite high, it gratifies me to observe.) Even if these people have not moved off their position (which, in its most extreme form, could be summed up as, "a chef's God-given right to put in hidden allergens and my God-given right to eat them trumps your right to live"), I hope that the act of starting the thinking process will have consciousness-raising effects in the long run. I know this thread has been a learning experience for me.

Diannie wrote:Oh fer pete's sake....it really is time for all grown up persons to take some measure of responsibility for their own lives. If you have an allergy how difficult is it to ask the person serving you food "What is in this, I am allergic to ...stuff...?"

The real problem lies with a kitchen that can't/won't identify ingredients once asked. Not with one that doesn't disclose up front.

The world will not pad its corners for you, no matter how long you hold your breath or how much you threaten to turn blue.

I firmly believe that personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a free, democratic society and those who eschew this fail to grasp how fortunate they are to live in one.

I don't think I could have stated my opinion better than this if I tried 100 times. Very, very well put! Refreshingly succinct and pertinent. Thanks, Diannie! Your first two paragraphs are my EXACT sentiments.

When an issue such as this presents itself for discussion I like to think of what I would do if I owned a restaurant vis-a-vis allergies. Here are my thoughts:

Full disclosure - I have no significant food allergies save an excessive amount of red pepper flakes sometimes causes reddening and swollenness on the tip of my tongue.

My mother, whom I love as much if not more than anyone in this World including myself, is deathly allergic to some nuts, especially peanuts. She carries around various pills and an emergency shot. If she eats enough peanuts or other nuts she's allergic too she breaks out in hives and her throat swells eventually blocking her air passage thereby ceasing her ability to breathe or at least severely hampering it. This takes less than 5 minutes in the worst of circumstances that we've seen a couple of times.

My mother carries around a card (and has backups) with very detailed descriptions listing ALL of her food allergies. Mom's close friends and family members know of the 3 or so food allergies (all types of nuts) that could KILL her. My mother ALWAYS...let me say this again...ALWAYS...informs the server of her "Big Three" deathly nut allergies before ANY meal...let me say once again...before ANY meal. She also informs the server she will eat NOTHING with ANY nut product even the nuts she's not in any way allergic to. She does this discreetly, none of her dining companions gives two shits that shes does this, often we don't even notice, and she does this so tactfully that she has NEVER, over 20+ years gotten an unprofessional or clearly negative response from any restaurant. And, if she did - we would all walk out and go someplace else.

Now, this is the way you handle your allergies at a restaurant.

What would I do if it were my restaurant -

1. I would NOT preemptively ask patrons if they had any allergies.

2. I would NOT put a notice on my menu asking patrons to inform our staff of any allergies

3. I would list the MAIN, or any especially exotic, ingredient in my dishes on my menu WITHIN REASON. I would NOT write more than one phrase or sentence per dish. I would do this to provide ALL customers with a description of the items available that day, to entice them to order something, to alert patrons about some offering they might NOT like, and also to highlight as best I could some potential food allergens.

4. I would train my staff to take any patron's mention of food allergies VERY seriously and have a plan in place for such notifications. Note the onus would be COMPLETELY on the patron to prompt a discussion of allergies but once stated I would do everything I could to help them WITHIN REASON.

5. If a staff member of mine failed to act reasonably regarding a patrons allergy notification or did not take it seriously they would soon be out of a job.

6. I would make whatever the hell I wanted and would NOT, in any way shape or form, EVER take potential allergies into consideration when constructing my dish. (However, remember, I would put detailed descriptions on my menu and respond in detail to any patron's notification of their particular allergies).

7. If I offered a special free plate or appetizer or sauce, I may have the server describe same to my patrons or I may not. I would not feel any obligation to describe the free dish (presumptively NOT on my menu) to my patrons. The onus is 100% on the patron to ASK what is in this free offering AND to describe ALL of their allergies in detail to the server. Then and ONLY then would some burden shift to my staff to provide as detailed description of this dish as possible again WITHIN REASON. And we would take this VERY seriously.

Bster
[/b]

Bster wrote:1. I would NOT preemptively ask patrons if they had any allergies.
[/b]

I guess I can agree with the rest of your points, but I don't quite get this one. This seems like one of the best ways to identify any issues early and give patrons who do have allergies an opening to say something early without feeling as if they are being difficult. For the same reasons, I always try to ask this question to any friends who come to dinner. In a simlar vein, I don't really see any problems with putting a note on the menu to notify the waiter of any allergies. This just seems like a small courtesy to the customer at no cost to the restaurant.

Hey Wak,

I don't think asything is horrible with putting a small note on the bottom of the menu regarding allergies if that's what you want to do. I won't but fine. While we're at it why not also include menu messages regarding smoking, raw eggs, alcohol, gratuity, legal disclaimers, etc. You get my drift.

Asking every single solitary patron every single solitary day at every single solitary meal if they have alleriges, to me, is absurd. Assuming statistics in this thread are accurate you're talking about a hit rate of 1 in every 100 patrons.

This is where I get on my "Personal Responsibility" high horse. My dear mother ALWAYS originates discussion of allergies at the start of all dining out meals. Why can't everyone else? Why does 99% of the population have to sit thru a allergies spiel from the staff when they will never need it to make our food allergy loved ones "feel more comfortable" about expressing their allergies? This is where, IMHO, we get into ridiculous territory.

Have a little backbone, take some very minor ownership of your health issues and at least prompt the allergic discussion for Chrissakes. My goodness - can any reasonable person think this too much to ask? Then, when you make that one itty bitty step of acknowledging your food issues with the server you work together to come up with food options you can eat. Problem solved. Very easy.

Bster

The Wall Street Journal had a piece yesterday saying that at many colleges, permits are now required for college pranks. Yes, you have to get Big Mommy College's permission before painting bright blue genitalia on the statue of the founder or leading a cow into the science labs. Because we have to make sure that every drunken late-night adolescent act is safe, respectful of gender differences, and contributes to a positive discourse which makes each student feel valorized and martinized. I have only one response to this (not entirely safe for work):

Pranks

Anyway, although I am sympathetic enough to this problem that I or my wife makes a soynut and jelly sandwich every day for one son because of the kid in his class who has a deadly peanut allergy (and am fully prepared, when the kid comes to our house, to stab him with an epi pen if necessary), at the same time, it's all too easy to see where this could go, and it's not good for either the minority with allergies or the majority without them, though as always, somehow the lawyers come out ahead.

I see a future where every meal out begins not with the civilized pleasures of cocktails, introductions, and bonhomie, but with a legal checkoff list ("Peanuts?" "No." "Shellfish?" "No." "Belgian endive?" "No." "Sign here, and initial here, here, here, here, here and here. In the event of an allergic event, you agree to mandatory arbitration of any claims arising from this meal in Panama City, Panama...")

Of course, the real purpose at that point will NOT be to discover any actual issues the diner will have-- it will be to cover the restaurant's butt. The actual sharing of useful information will become secondary to a lawyer-dictated process driven by liability, not your pleasure, the chef's creativity, or your safety. And certain items will simply disappear from menus as insurance company lawyers start telling chefs and owners that shellfish, for instance, will send premiums through the roof.

This is why I believe it's in all of our interests to keep this an informal, non-us vs. them process. A chef who learns about a patron's actual issues will take control of the issue and react creatively to it. A chef who knows that every diner has to be treated as if he's one spoonful from death and a lawsuit throughout the meal will be a cog in the wheel daring nothing and innovating nothing. And then it's over. To which I say: Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

You know what's interesting (and maybe a bit off-topic, but hey, I think it's interesting)...

My wife is a student teacher at the moment. Before that she was a teacher's assistant at a pretty affluent private school on the north side. She was in a 5th grade class. The place was absolutely anal about peanut allergies. I think the whole building was a "peanut free zone" or something like that. Every kid seemed to be allergic to something or another.

She is now a student teacher in a 4th/5th grade class at a charter school. The school is primarily attended by children of immigrants. In fact, I don't think there are more than 1 or 2 kids in her class right now whose parents were born in this country. At this school there is absolutely no discussion about food allergies. I don't think they pay attention to them at all. Based on what she's told me, the only reason the kids in her class will avoid some foods is for religious purposes.

I fully respect the need of those who currently have potentially life threatening allergies. But maybe it wouldn't hurt to expose the next generation to a bit more of the world.

Maybe there isn't a child with peanut allergies in the new school.

Those precautions at the other school are very necessary. A person with a peanut allergy can have an attack triggered just by being in the same room with someone who has eaten peanuts, or by touching residue of peanuts.

I'd like to recommend again, in case anyone missed the link, that you visit the website www.foodallergy.org Browse the site for a minute or two & you will get a better understanding of what people (especially children) with food allergies have to deal with everyday.

Most people do not realize that the protein of the food that triggers the attack does not always have to be ingested. Protein can be emitted through odors of food, that protein is what creates the odor. This is especially difficult for children to avoid, in that they usually are not in charge of their surroundings.

For my part, what I've learned is that it truly is ill-advised to take anything for granted as safe in a restaurant, and that I must announce, before the waiter even takes a drink order, my food allergies. (After all, the bartender might be experimenting with some fancy new walnut vodka in his martinis that night. If a restaurant can bring bean dip to the table and call it bean dip, yet have it actually contain significant amounts of brazil nut, anything can happen.) I intend to implement this new behavior.

For the part of owners/managers/employees of restaurants (if any are here), I hope they will have new sensitivity to the needs of the food-allergic, and to implement this sensitivity by arming themselves with every bit of knowledge it is possible to have about the food allergens contained in every dish and drink it is possible to order in their establishments. It does no good--no good whatsoever--for me to announce my allergy to walnuts if the waiter does not know that the bartender is pouring walnut vodka into his martinis tonight. Or to announce my allergy to brazil nuts if the waiter does not suspect there are brazil nuts in the bean dip (as, why would he?). It also does no good if the chef himself is blithely unaware of or unconcerned about the potential dangers of the ingredients he uses, and so doesn't think to share the information. High-alert, Defcon-1, Level-Red consciousness is required on the part of every member of an establishment, to complement this level of consciousness on the part of the customer; for a customer's announcement alone will not be enough to avert serious illness and death if it is not met with, and indeed preceded by, an equivalent level of gravity on the part of every individual on the staff.

For the part of others, who may not have food allergies themselves but who have been interested enough to contribute to (or just read) this thread--and whose consciousness of the issue was not as high as it could be--I hope their consciousness of the issue has been raised just a bit. (There are several on this thread among the non-allergic whose consciousness of the issue was already quite high, it gratifies me to observe.) Even if these people have not moved off their position (which, in its most extreme form, could be summed up as, "a chef's God-given right to put in hidden allergens and my God-given right to eat them trumps your right to live"), I hope that the act of starting the thinking process will have consciousness-raising effects in the long run. I know this thread has been a learning experience for me.

Riddlemay,

I think you have it just right. Too bad that instead of your post eliciting thoughtful response (positive, negative or in-between), the thread took a turn back to the previous screw-you-allergics attitude.

Oh well.

Olde School wrote:I think you have it just right. Too bad that instead of your post eliciting thoughtful response (positive, negative or in-between), the thread took a turn back to the previous screw-you-allergics attitude.

OS,

This thread is volatile enough without stirring the pot.

Let's keep to the subject at hand please.

Regards,
Gary for the moderators