Mhays wrote:LAZ, in your research did you see comment on rising rates of food allergies in the US as opposed to other countries?
New York Times: Well-Intentioned Food Police May Create Havoc With Children's Diets wrote:I don't think allergies are the main reason that districts across the country are racing to put new food policies in place. After all, children are allergic to strawberries, wheat and dairy, too, but there are no proposals that I'm aware of to ban any of those foods.
I fear there's something else at work — a fear borne out by a flier my fifth grader brought home saying that at the monthly pizza hot lunch, no child would be allowed to buy a second slice of pizza. The district says the new ruling is to avoid bad feelings caused by "inequities": if everyone can't have extra helpings, no one can.
This solution may seem rather Solomon-like. But if equity is the issue, I'll eat my lunch tray.
Slate: Trees vs. Children: Are Nut Allergies Taking Over the Planet? wrote:In legal terms, solutions like this one are called "overbroad." A town that passed a law banning Internet use to protect children from X-rated content on the Web would be rebuked by the courts for banning far too much permissible speech. It's pretty easy to see the costs in the speech arena. But when what's at stake is a child's safety and comfort, it gets harder to say that the cost of erring on the safe side, by banning more foods than may be necessary, is too high.
U. S. Food and Drug Administration: Food Allergies Rare But Risky wrote:"If you have a food allergy, you really have to alter your life," Tollefson says. "You have to really read labels, and really be careful about what you eat."
Steve Taylor, Ph.D., a professor and head of Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, says the biggest problem for people with food allergies is restaurant food. Historically, restaurants have been regulated by local heath departments and have not had to label foods.
"For many restaurants, labeling of food products they serve would cause horrendous problems...what about chalkboard menus? How would you include all the ingredients? Enforcement would be a nightmare," he admits.
But steps are being taken to better educate restaurant employees. The Food Allergy Network and The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, along with the National Restaurant Association, recently produced a pamphlet on food allergies, which has been distributed to 30,000 members of the association. The brochure explains what restaurants can do to help customers who need to avoid certain foods, defines anaphylaxis, and advises employees on what to do if food allergy incidents occur.
John A. Anderson, M.D., director of the Allergy and Immunology Training Program at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, says changes in food habits may be responsible for the feeling some physicians have that food allergies may be on the rise.
"You could make a case for the fact that we are introducing peanuts, in the form of peanut butter, to people at a very young age, which would affect the prevalence rate for people who are sensitive to that allergen," he notes. "In Japan, where they use more soy, there is a higher prevalence of soy allergy. My feeling is that as soy, a cheap protein supplement, is put in a lot of commercial foods you will see an increase in the rate sensitivity worldwide."
Metcalfe say that if food allergies are rising, it is due to more common use of foods that tend to be allergenic. He cites milk as a source of protein supplement in many prepared foods, and points out that people are eating more exotic seafood and more fish.
Liz in Norwood Park wrote:Every single time I order food anywhere, I always make sure to explain my allergy & to ask that they make sure the food I am ordering does not contain or been prepared near fish or seafood...
Sometimes I get the rolled-eyes and "uh-huh" but sometimes the server totally gets it.
So, the answer is for restaurants and customers to each do their part.
riddlemay wrote:And, when "usual suspect" allergens are present in the preparation of a dish but not readily discernible to the eye or common sense, the restaurant should disclose this preemptively, either in written form (menu) or verbally (waitstaff). Down to the bread and butter.
LAZ wrote:I'm all for taking allergies seriously. I think waiters who roll their eyes at a patron for any reason need retraining.
But I don't think that the 96 percent of people who aren't troubled by food allergies should have to listen to a laundry list of potentially troublesome items before they order their meal. It's off-putting.
What I would not consider is bending the world to my will by imposing more burdensome rules and regulations on an already over-regulated industry
CoolerbytheLake wrote:I am a guest in a restaurant; I am not in my mom's kitchen. Too many people these days seem to comport themselves in public as if the latter were the case...I feel terribly for those whose allergies are much more wide-ranging. I would imagine the act of dining out to be too fraught with uncertainty and anxiety to truly enjoy it and I might consider alternatives instead. What I would not consider is bending the world to my will by imposing more burdensome rules and regulations on an already over-regulated industry.
Olde School wrote:I happen not to agree that a restaurant should be completely unfettered in expressing its "creativity." I do believe there is a shared responsibility and, frankly, think most restaurants actually want to share in the responsibility.
Dmnkly wrote:But are you really suggesting that there are some dishes that just should not ever be served in a restaurant?
Dmnkly wrote:But are you really suggesting that there are some dishes that just should not ever be served in a restaurant?
LAZ wrote:Dmnkly wrote:But are you really suggesting that there are some dishes that just should not ever be served in a restaurant?
Well, there are, of course. Dishes made with illegal substances, from hash brownies to unaged raw-milk cheeses to absinthe, if only because the diner has no recourse if they turn out to be fake or adulterated. Dishes made with with ingredients that most people react badly to, like poison ivy (85 percent of people are allergic), or difficult to judge as safe, such as hard-to-identify wild mushrooms or chemicals not tested for human consumption. Dishes made from endangered species. Long pig.
Beyond that, I can't think of any.
LAZ wrote:Do not for one minute think I do not take allergies seriously. But a fascinating statistic I just came across estimates that about 5 percent of the primary care patients in America are hypochondriacs.
riddlemay wrote:In fact, restaurants routinely conform to this already--so they apparently don't think it's a lot to ask either. When dishes contain tree nuts, in my experience it's almost always the case that menus specify not only that they do but what kind. Therefore, consciousness of the issue on the part of restaurants is already edging toward 100%.
Dmnkly wrote:Perhaps these notifications are so subtle that they're not even registering on my conscious mind, but the only places I can ever recall seeing any such warning is on the menus at major national chains, and then only occasionally. I don't recall ever seeing such a warning from an independent restaurant. You'd be more attuned to it than I would for obvious reasons, but I have a hard time believing I'm that oblivious.
If I try to put myself in the shoes of somebody with a serious allergy......
Dmnkly wrote:...turning menus into grocery lists of common allergens. If this were the only practical way to communicate the information, absolutely, I'd agree with you. It just seems unnecessary and redundant when a simple "I'm allergic to X, is there X in this?", "yes/no" -- OR a simple "are there any allergies the kitchen needs to be aware of" -- OR a similar line in the menu would all achieve the same end. I find myself asking how many levels of notification are really necessary?...I should probably also add that I find this position a little strange, since listing items on the menu seems like the least effective method of those mentioned above. If I try to put myself in the shoes of somebody with a serious allergy, and I know an item could potentially kill me, I'm sure as hell not trusting a printed menu that could be incorrect, incomplete or outdated.
Olde School wrote:If I try to put myself in the shoes of somebody with a serious allergy......
I think this may be part of the problem, Dmnkly. You're not, and as such, what's being argued here doesn't seem to be hitting you right.
Olde School wrote:To some, this will sound like even a step up in quality or "fanciness." To others, it's a nice tip-off.
To no one, though, is it a burden.
Dmnkly wrote:And I guess the other big sticking point for me is still the idea that if a server puts some kind of freebie on the table without sending up the red flag where any of the big seven might be concerned, that's somehow improper/irresponsible/inconsiderate and worthy of a tongue-lashing, which is how this thread got started.
riddlemay wrote:Nine times out of ten, the freebie isn't going to contain any of the "big seven," and so no red flag will be necessary. On the one time out of ten that the freebie does contain something potentially problematic, it's worth a mention.
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.
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.