The surrounding seats idea sounds good but it WILL NOT work with someone who has a severe peanut allergy.
A plane is a closed in space. Peanut protein "dust" is airborne and could be deadly even if there are several rows between the person enjoying their peanuts and the person who is in danger.
The only issue I have with this - is if it's that dangerous (and I understand it can be fatal) what if I have a peanut butter sandwhich at home before I leave and wipe my hands on my non sunday best jeans that I am wearing, and sit next to someone in the airport or on the plane?
I think people with that sensitive of allergies need to find other modes of transporation where they can control what they come into contact with - (not that I care if peanuts are or aren't served....but overall this seems to be more of a personal responsibility issue.)
I don't understand, Kimberly. If a person is that sensitive, how do they go out at all?
(For the record, I'm fine with banning peanuts on airplanes. I don't see why that's a big deal. But I do wonder about anyone who is so highly allergic they are affected by something eaten 10 feet away. Shouldn't they stay home?)
I'm on the fence about this. I agree that if having peanuts in an enclosed space can actually cause death, why not replace them with something else? But here's the thing (and I speak as someone with a horrific allergy to oats), to my knowledge, there have been no deaths due to nuts on the plane. In addition, from what I have determined, allergic reactions in general to airborne peanut particles are very, very rare. The thing is, what makes a person react to an airborne allergy is the protein, in the case of peanuts. An allergic person cannot get sick from smelling the peanuts, only from inhaling airborne particles. That IS more likely to occur in an enclosed area where people are shelling tons of nuts, like in a bar. Yet, I have never seen a shelled peanut on a plane:
Although a small amount of peanut protein can set off a severe reaction, it is rare that people get an allergic reaction just from breathing in small particles of nuts or peanuts. Most foods with peanuts in them don't allow enough of the protein to escape into the air to cause a reaction. And just the smell of foods containing peanuts won't produce a reaction because the scent does not contain the protein.
In the few cases when people do react to airborne particles, it's usually in an enclosed area (like a restaurant or bar) where lots of peanuts are being cracked from their shells. Although some people outgrow certain food allergies over time (like milk, egg, soy, and wheat allergies), peanut and tree nut allergies are lifelong in most people.
http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/nutrition/nut_allergy.html
For some sufferers with a particularly strong allergy, even inhaling peanut particles in the air can trigger a mild allergic reaction.
http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_debate_should_we_ban_peanuts_on_planes.html
So, what is a mild allergic reaction? Why do some report severe allergic reactions to peanuts on the plane, etc., when no deaths have been reported?:
As he explained about the popular myth that the odor from peanut products could bring on a severe allergic reaction: There are, in fact, a number of case reports in the medical literature of patients who report symptoms of difficulty breathing, chest tightness, skin rashes, itching, and various other symptomsall from smelling peanut butter or being in the presence of peanut products. However, a recent blinded, placebo-controlled trial of children exposed to open peanut butter was unable to document any reactions.
Based on these reports of allergic reactions resulting from inhalation, many parents express concern that the mere presence of any peanut product can contaminate the surrounding airborne environment resulting in an entire room or area being unsafe for a child with peanut allergy. In evaluating these reactions from airborne exposure, it is important to remember several facts. First, allergic reactions to food are triggered by specific food proteins. Without contact with protein, there is no allergic reaction.
The study Dr. Young referenced was conducted by researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. They took thirty young children with documented severe peanut-specific allergies (using IgE antibody testing and clinical anaphylaxis, contact reactions or positive reactions on double-blind, placebo-controlled oral challenges). These children underwent double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized exposures to peanut butter through skin contact and inhalation. Neither the children or researchers knew which exposure contained the peanuts or placebo (scent was masked with soy butter, tuna and mint) and contact exposure used soy butter with histamine. There were no serious reactions. They concluded that casual exposure to peanut butter is unlikely to elicit significant allergic reactions, even in at least 90% of highly sensitive children with peanut allergy.
Dr. Youngs article goes on to explain how food particles containing proteins can become airborne, such as during the peanut shelling process which can create a cloud of peanut particles, or releasing particles under pressure in an enclosed space; or high heat processing of peanuts; all of which can affect food industry workers. So, while there are case reports of severe asthma from airborne exposure to food in these extreme situations, the typical inhalation reaction would be similar to that suffered by a cat-allergic person exposed to a cat walking into a room: itchy eyes, sneezing, and runny nose. As he said, the chance of a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction from airborne exposure is very small.
But smelling peanuts or the odor of any other food cannot cause an allergic reaction, he stressed.
To understand this, we have to understand what actually happens when we smell an odor, he said. The chemicals responsible for the odor and flavor of foods, including peanuts, are volatile organic compounds but they have no protein and cannot cause allergic reactions. So, the reports that some have had reactions to the odor of peanuts is like the nocebo effect [see here, here and here], or a conditioned response to the fear of peanuts in those whove had a severe reaction.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/02/food-fears-run-amuck-government-outlaws.html
Much more at link.
I have posted before about how my brother was accidentally poisoned as a child. After that, he was "poisoned", twice more, had almost the same reactions etc., and ultimately could not even walk down the cleaning products aisle of a supermarket without reacting. But the thing is, the ER visits showed no signs of poisoning after the first experience. He was simply panicking and creating symptoms that felt very real to him.
People say that replacing peanuts with pretzels is fine. Not for me. I need protein in a form that won't rot, during plane rides, due to low blood sugar and fear of flying that is exacerbated by low blood sugar. I bring an apple or other fruit but I need nuts for the protein and I'm sure a lot of people's bodies need a high protein snack during a ride that lasts more than an hour or so. Pretzels usually contain sugar and have no protein.
But, I would find some other way to compensate for my problem if it meant potentially saving a life. Of course, I would. It's just that I am not convinced that prohibiting others from consuming certain products will save a life.
I also understand the argument that if a person is so allergic that an airborne particle could kill them, banning handing out peanuts on planes is not likely to save them.
I don't want to live in a nanny state. I do bend over backwards to be helpful and courteous to my fellow man and I will inconvenience myself to aid another. I just feel that if science shows that only people with the most severest form of peanut allergy would be close to having a reaction from airborne particles, and that the actual medical reaction they would have would be similar to a cat allergy, not an anaphylactic reaction, we need to at least have this debate and not just jump to banning things without more dialogue, studies, statistics, etc. Because our society is ruled by fear right now and the list of does and don'ts can become bigger and bigger based on that fear.
I also think, as callous as it sounds, that we must weigh risks when determining a course of action. We have bubble wrapped our children so tightly they can no longer breathe. Kids no longer know how to fall without hurting themselves because they are not allowed to fall. In fact, the high rate of peanut allergies today as compared to the past may be due to the ultra sanitary environments we have created, overuse of antibiotics, etc.:
Its increase could be attributable to the "hygiene hypothesis" -- the idea that less exposure to allergens and bacteria in childhood leave the immune system underdeveloped and vulnerable, the researchers speculated.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/AllergyImmunology/Allergy/20113
(And if you really want to read an in depth analysis of the studies, etc., about this, read:
http://www.allergicchild.com/causes_food_allergy.html).
So I don't think we can so totally control every environment to prevent every possible death that could happen. Thus, for now I am on the fence. If science shows me that a person can actually die from exposure to peanuts on the plane and that the risk of that happening is more than extremely low, I'm for the ban. Otherwise, I think if a person is flying with such an allergy, they should book way in advance, alert the airline and then have the airline alert the passengers that there will be no peanuts on that flight and to bring an alternative if need be.
I am open to suggestions and will listen to every argument. I don't want to be inflexible or without compassion. But, I don't want to live in a world controlled by fear either. I have been there and it's miserable!