Just to add a little data here....

The National Institutes of Health estimate that food allergies of all kinds affect 4 percent of U.S. adults. Peanut allergies affect approximately 0.6 percent of Americans, and tree nuts 0.4 percent, according to the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

So, 99 percent of American adults aren't allergic to either tree nuts or peanuts and 96 percent have no food allergies at all.

(This number includes only true allergies, not sensitivities such as lactose intolerance, MSG headaches, gassiness after eating some vegetables or other food-derived upsets.)

LAZ, in your research did you see comment on rising rates of food allergies in the US as opposed to other countries?

I am noticing that at my son's school, each year seems to have more children with progressively worse food allergies; I'm curious if it's an isolated situation, or if it's national. I heard somewhere recently that developing countries don't have near the food allergy rates we have, but I can't cite the source...

Mhays wrote:LAZ, in your research did you see comment on rising rates of food allergies in the US as opposed to other countries?

Rates of food allergies among children are rising globally, although figures seem higher in the U.S. No one one quite knows why the increase but it's at least partly because there's more recognition of allergies and they're taken more seriously. Children are more likely to have food allergies than adults (5 to 8 percent vs. 4 percent), but they often outgrow them. (I am extremely grateful to have outgrown my childhood allergies to chocolate and strawberries.)

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.

It's those rolled-eyes (all too frequent) that are so inhibiting to some who have food allergies.

You are right that people must take responsibility for their health, but sometimes that seems to require taking an attitude of "I know you think I'm an a**hole, but I don't care, a**hole, these are the things I'm allergic to, so go check it out." And who wants to start off a meal like that? So, the answer is for restaurants and customers to each do their part. And for the restaurant's part, that means training staff to care for customers with allergies: to lock their eyes in non-roll mode, and to make themselves aware of all potential allergens in all dishes (down to the bread and butter) so that that they can warn allergic customers of these. 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.

So, the answer is for restaurants and customers to each do their part.

Riddlemay, you are spot on. An example that comes to mind is when restaurants pre-emptively ask guests if there are any food allergies at the table before anything is ordered. This does a number of things. It says this is a restaurant that cares (not a bad thing when you're in the hospitality business). It serves as a reminder to guests who may be allergic to something but sometimes forget. And, most importantly, it invites an answer in a nice fashion, without in any way turning the allergic patron into the pariah at the table (cue server eye roll and thought bubble: "it's always the same with you people.")

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.

I was with you right up to here. 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. It causes imaginative people to start worrying that they may have a reaction to something even when they've never had a problem with it before. ('If they're warning me about it, there must be something dangerous about it.")

Don't you think so?

If you're even remotely susceptible, I bet I can make you itch just by mentioning two words...

Head lice.

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.

I'm for a "meeting halfway" between the customer and the restaurant. So to pick one example, the customer should say, at the start, "I'm allergic to walnuts." And the waiter should say, whether he's heard this from the customer or not, "Oh, by the way? This oil I'm bringing to the table that looks like olive oil? It's walnut oil." Because enough people are allergic to tree nuts so as not to make that warning absurd. The decision not to say that or to say that would distinguish, in my mind, those restaurants that didn't care about making their customers sick from those restaurants that did.

An example of a place that was wonderfully in the latter category was Scylla, before its decline. The waitress preemptively inquired about any food allergies right at the outset, and then looked out for us all through the meal, checking on things with the kitchen when she wasn't sure to her own satisfaction. We never had to ask. It was a refreshing change from being treated as a "problem"; we were treated as guests whose dining experience was her concern. The good will that generated with us was enormous.

As a nut allergy sufferer, I understand that the act of eating certain things has the potential to kill me. I also live in the world, and so I understand that it is not my inalienable right that mankind should make accommodations for my condition at the expense of the majority. I believe a food establishment's responsibility extends only to informing me knowledgeably of the ingredients used in any food preparation on the menu when asked. I appreciate when places endeavour to specify when nuts or other allergens are used, but I would never expect the onus to be on them to do it every time. 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.

Only certain nuts affect me, and I dine out often, so rather than engage in the same tiresome to-and-fro about what I can and can not eat, I have printed cards listing the things I cannot eat in English and Spanish. I present a card to the server with a brief explanation, and I get the answers I need with a minimum of fuss. 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.

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

A problem with this discussion is that we're getting a lot of overstatement of the issue. No one said to come down hard on restaurants. No one said it's a restaurant's responsibility. No one even hinted at the idea others should bend to the will of the customer. Rather, much of the argument is whether the restaurant should be cognizant of the perils and participate in the process or not.

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.

How exactly is the restaurant industry "over-regulated"? I'd be curious to know what you'd do away with.

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.

With that as your guiding principle, how would you characterize Scylla's caring treatment of us? As loathsome molly-coddling? As a regrettable embrace of the nanny-state? As a preemptive, exhausted waving of the white flag in the face of a juggernaut of rules and regulations and liability lawsuits? To us, it just seemed like they were being nice. Niceness--what a concept!

I do like your idea of printing your allergies on a card to hand to the waiter, to save the spiel.

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.

THIS is the best expression of the sentiment I just can't get past. We clearly all agree that restaurants have some level of responsibility in the matter, and we all seem to agree that restautrants should always be sensitive to allergies, take them very seriously, know all of the ingredients used, and be able to efficiently deal with problems once identified. There are some differing opinions on whether or not certain ingredients should be identified with or without prompting from the diner. 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?

Could we agree that there are some dishes that should not ever be served in a restaurant unless there is clear communication (verbal or written) that they contain common food allergens?

No, I didn't think so. (Sigh.)

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.

So there are more of them, or at least as many, as food-allergy sufferers. I'd be concerned that even the query, "Does anyone have any allergies?" is likely to make these folks afraid that they must have.

Which would likely worsen the problem that the truly allergic have with being taken seriously.

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.

I'm no so sure illegal substances shouldn't be served in restaurants. Those foie gras and duck sausages at Hot Doug's were so damned tasty.

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.

Allow me to amend to more accurately capture my meaning:

Are you really suggesting there are some dishes that, because some might/will be allergic to them, should not ever be served in a restaurant?

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.

If 5% are hypochondriacs, and another 5% have genuine food allergies, should the latter 5% not get adequate warning of the presence of allergens just because the former 5% don't need the warning?

Since Dom amended his question to read, "Are you really suggesting there are some dishes that, because some might/will be allergic to them, should not ever be served in a restaurant?", I will amend my responding question to read, "Could we agree there are some dishes that, because some might/will be allergic to them, should not ever be served in a restaurant unless there is clear communication (oral or written) that they contain common food allergens?" I don't think it's a lot to ask. 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%. That it would be a good thing for it to continue to edge ever closer to 100% is self-evident to me.

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%.

Are we going to the same restaurants?

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.

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.

I think the disparity is that you may be thinking I'm talking about something other than what I'm talking about. What I'm referring to wouldn't be called a warning or a notification--I'm referring to menu descriptions. E.g., the name of an item itself (as in, "walnut pancakes"), or the line of description under the item (as in, "endive and tomato with bleu cheese and walnuts"). I know you've seen that! And since such disclosure of allergens is so common already, I'm saying that the disclosure should be universal, not just common. And in those (increasingly rare, thank goodness) occasions when the menu doesn't contain the information, it should be communicated orally.

Hi,

I dined at Fried Green Tomatoes in Galena, IL over the weekend. Very plainly stated on the menu was a request to alert staff to allergies. Smart as well as a declaration the allergy sufferer will be heard as well as protecting their own derriere if nobody alerts them.

***

Re: "Difficult to ID Wild Mushrooms"

The problem in commercial sales of wild mushrooms isn't their identification, it is an authority who will confirm the identification. A few years ago, the manager from the Oak Park farmer's market approach me about finding a certified mushroom identification expert. While there were mycologists throughout the state as well as expert amateurs, there were no board certified mushroom identification experts. There was also no examination or state authority who could conduct the test.

The Oak Park farmer's market initial reaction was to suspend wild mushroom sales until this expert could be located. I noted from reports on this board that wild mushroom sales were at Oak Park's market this year. The mushrooms I saw were in the easy to identify, no poisonous look-alike category.

Like Hammond, I do get my dander up when commercially raised mushrooms are on the menu as wild.

Regards,

Regards,

Okay, yes, we're talking about two different things. I was thinking along the lines of *this item contains peanuts, wheat and soy. But I'm still not certain I agree. It seems clear we're not really talking about allergens here, but rather nuts as the most common allergen. Are you also advocating the same treatment for items like shellfish, wheat, soy and some others which, while not quite as common as nuts, I understood to be extremely common? (If my understanding is incorrect, please correct me) I think that clearly is not happening on restaurant menus, and I think what you're talking about is, whether by design or by indirect effect, 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. I'm only going to trust a very careful exchange with my server regarding every single item that goes in my mouth. And in that case, what is the menu achieving that isn't already done?

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.

Let me try again. No one's saying a menu needs to be a grocery list, just a description. For example: salad with lobster and walnuts. This is a description virtually all restaurants would want to make for a number of reasons. It tells the guest what's in it. It helps sell the dish. It lets people who don't like it (or something in it) know not to order it. It also lets people who have an allergy know they should avoid it.

Sometimes a restaurant will go further. Salad with lobster and walnuts in our house-made balsamic vinaigrette. Rightly or wrongly, the guest will typically assume this means oil olive dressing with the balsamic vinegar. But sometimes a chef will want to use hazelnut oil, which is of course his right. But, as this diverges from the norm of olive oil and brings up an allergy issue, many restaurants want to specify this on the menu (Salad with lobster and walnuts in hazelnut oil vinaigrette).

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:...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.

Speaking for me, I have found the menu-description "level of notification" to be sufficient and satisfactory--when it exists. Only when a dish contains common allergens and this is not disclosed in a menu description does the information need to be disclosed some other way--e.g., orally. So, although the opponents of allergen-disclosure might like to imagine that we proponents are asking for some kind of crazy, multi-level, fail-safe upon fail-safe protection, we're not.

If I saw a menu that read "Please inform us of any food allergies" I would immediately be put at ease, because I would be assured that the restaurant staff is trained to accomodate people with food allergies and are knowledgeable about how important it is to make sure the guest with food allergies is accomodated.

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.

I'm tryin', honest

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.

No, you're right, I really was thinking more along the lines of packaged food notifications. And I agree, that's hardly onerous, provided you're just talking about nuts and maybe shellfish. But it still seems to me that if you hit all of the big seven, it's a whole 'nother story and starts to get cumbersome. And also, I realize none of these are a huge deal on an individual level -- I'm just not convinced it isn't a redundant practice, and between these and undercooked seafood and raw meat and other disclaimers, not to mention all of the proposals out there to start including nutritional information, it really does seem like restaurant menus resemble grocery store packaging more and more every year. I find that unfortunate.

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.

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.

Of those, I'll go with irresponsible.

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.

I speak also as someone without any allergies, so if you think people without your condition can't understand, ignore me.

Anyway: with tree nut/peanut allergies affecting about 1% of the population, I really think the burden is on the diner.

Celiac disease also affects about 1% of the population, and very few restaurants list wheat gluten as an ingredient on menus. So celiacs take the initiative. They talk to the waitstaff, they talk to the managers, they talk to the cooks, and they make sure there's nothing that will hurt them.

The restaurant shouldn't be responsible for notifying you in advance of all of the possible allergens in every dish, but they should work diligently with you as soon as you bring your allergies to their attention.

A restaurant should have a specific game plan in place for guests with allergies. But I very strongly disagree that they should list every possible allergen (or even every common allergen) on the menu/on the spoken specials/when handing out the amuse/on a card in the bread basket/etc.

It takes very little effort to say something to the wait staff when you arrive. Do it. Don't put your well-being in someone else's hands without doing all you can to protect yourself.

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.

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

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.

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.

But there again, we're into this very gray subjective realm. Which allergies are important enough to point out? At what percentage of the population do we make that cut? What's an obvious use and what isn't? And do you really want the restaurant making those judgment calls?

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.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense for a restaurant to call out some common allergens in item descriptions, if it won't be awkward, to perhaps make your menu browsing more pleasant. But you're still going to ask, right? And we're approaching our third page on this subject, we're just a few people, and we're nowhere near a consensus on which allergens are important to note and what uses should or shouldn't be obvious to every diner. How can we expect the nation's restauranteurs to reach that same consensus, and then hold them accountable if their subjective assessment of any given dish is different from ours? Again, if this were the best way, sure, it'd be another discussion entirely. But why pursue it when there's another way that's easier, quicker, safer, non-subjective and doesn't involve those for whom it's not important?