Air Canada Ordered To Provide Nut-Free Zone 643
JamJam writes "Air Canada has been told to create a special 'buffer zone' on flights for people who are allergic to nuts. The Canadian Transportation Agency has ruled that passengers who have nut allergies should be considered disabled and accommodated by the airline. Air Canada has a month to come up with an appropriate section of seats where passengers with nut allergies would be seated. The ruling involved a complaint from Sophia Huyer, who has a severe nut allergy and travels frequently. Ms. Huyer once spent 40 minutes in the washroom during a flight while snacks were being served."
Shrimp free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should there also be a shrimp free zone for those who are allergic to shrimps, and a strawberry free zone for those who are alergic to strawberries, and maybe a sweater free zone for those who are allergic to sweaters?
Baby Free Zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm allergic to noisy babies and children who kick my seat-back. Where's my zone?
"She wants all nuts banned from all airlines." (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop serving nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait wait, What? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Canadian Transportation Agency has ruled that passengers who have nut allergies should be considered disabled and accommodated by the airline
If they are ruling that they are disabled, should they also allow them to park in the blue spaces?
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
A decent number of people with nuts allergies can react to particles in the air or find the smell of nuts absolutely revolting. They're also the most commonly fatal allergies. There is some iota of rationale.
I'm 6'5" (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I please have a special government-enforced seating zone that has an extra 6" of leg room, at no extra charge?
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Peanut Hysteria is more of a psychological issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anybody provide any real evidence that nut allergies are triggered by the "smell" of nuts? I don't think so -- as far as I know they have to be aerosolized in a cooking spray or finely crushed and thrown into the air as "nut dust". I'm betting this woman is probably just a hypochondriac who thinks she's being affected by smelling nuts when she's not. This article http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2417934 mentions that her claim is backed up a doctor's note saying that she has a reaction when in the general vicinity of nuts, but other than that there's no real evidence for this.
Air Canada and other organizations should first order complete medical studies on people like this to get the facts before taking action. Clearly, the public needs more evidence because special treatment for allergy sufferers and public bans of nuts are getting out of hand.
A quick Google search reveals the beginnings of a Britannica article which also indicates that banning nuts is a bad idea since nut allergy deaths are not unacceptably higher annually than deaths from lightning strikes and bee stings, and because banning creates a climate of oversensitivity: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/35883327/Peanut-hysteria--or-is-it
the new standard... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it is not PC to say, but this is a sad joke. People should get over themselves and stop demanding the world change around them. It is as if "only-child syndrome" is now the standard. I am starting to find myself allergic to work, bills, and anything that inconveniences me in the slightest. The plane does not bother me as I do not fly; I am allergic to paying for tickets but the airlines refuse to accommodate me. And I do not need to park in the blue spaces, as I am allergic to parking in spaces; I need to just get out of my car where I want. Now if the police would stop discriminating against me by towing my car when I leave it on the sidewalk! They will all regret it when I file a lawsuit and they learn I am allergic to verdicts against me!
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your allergy to noisy babies and children won't kill you. A severe allergic reaction to peanuts most certainly can.
No to nuts, but yes to pets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one wondering WTF?
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:1, Insightful)
An allergy is not a disability. As long as someone who has extreme reactions to a certain food or other product, then they can live full and unrestricted lives. I have a disability, a real disability, and saying someone with an allergy has a disability deminishes those with real disabilities. There is nothing someone with a real disability, such as myself, can do to avoid pain or the inability to function "normally". Cancer is a disability, epilepsy is a disability, non-functioning appendages qualifies a person as disabled; a peanut allergy is not a disability.
An irritation, maybe, but a disability? No.
Re:I'm 6'5" (Score:3, Insightful)
Actual direct exposure to a lack of leg room has a tendency to cause cramps sometimes lasting several days. Unlike someone with a peanut allergy, though, I must pay extra to tell the airline not to give me that which could cause me harm. I feel this is discriminatory and I demand legislation.
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand that there are severe allergic reactions.
I understand that some people are sensative to notice it within the same room.
Has there ever been a case of someone being killed by a peanut in the same room?
Or do they merely get discomforted (itchy, hot, etc) much like everyone else on the airplane?
Re:where did nut alergies come from? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can't bring your own either (Score:3, Insightful)
And next passengers will be forbidden from bringing in any food. The airlines would love such a restriction, similar to that of most movie theaters and sports venues, to sell overpriced food to a captive audience.
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Peanut Hysteria is more of a psychological issu (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, and I mean no offense, but that's not evidence. The problem with parents who tell these tales about how peanuts are like kryptonite to their kids or they're allergic to X in food is also he reason why we shouldn't base public policy on anecdotal evidence (there's another comment below about someone "who knows a family with a son who...")--so please don't take this as if I'm targeting you specifically or questioning he veracity of what you're relating; I'm just pointing that this is isn't how we gather evidence on public health issues and the stories told by parents shouldn't form the basis of public health policies.
The thing is, in the scenarios you're describing, you have a son who is quite allergic to nuts, I'm going to guess because he had something with peanuts actually in it at some point, or came into contact with the oil, and after that happened a couple of times with an allergic reaction, you figured out he was allergic. And people at the school and around him basically know this, too.
So now, when your son doesn't feel well, on a field trip, or at school, everyone looks around for the nuts. And lo and behold, you're next to a peanut farm. Or a kid at the table is having a PB&J. Or you find out his playmate had peanut butter pancakes that morning, or a snack made in a facility processing pine nuts. Or whatever. And you have your "explanation."
Except that you don't actually know how frequently your son is exposed to "peanut dust" or "contaminated surfaces" or whatever, and doesn't have a reaction. Maybe he's allergic to something else, or maybe not. Or maybe it goes down exactly as you suspect. The problem is that in the absence of a controlled study, we just can't tell. And while it makes sense (maybe) for you to just be on the safe side with regard to nuts, it doesn't make sense to make rules, regulations and laws with significant costs for others without that peer-reviewed, study-based justification.
Anyway, I hope people take this as the call for more information and for better study of the public health implications of allergies that it is, and not as an attack on a dad and his son, which it certainly isn't intended to be.
Re:Funny (Score:1, Insightful)
What the fuck kind of logic is that? "This exact situation has never occurred before, so who cares?" Fuck you.
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Peanut butter sandwiches are a staple of childhood, are cheap, and are relatively nutritious. It's a bad thing.
Re:the new standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
why is this on slashdot? (Score:1, Insightful)
This'll probably be modded down, but why is this on slashdot? I understand that many of us have allergies, but is this really nerd news? Are nerds more likely to have allergies (I have a feeling the answer is yes), and if so, why?
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Peanut Hysteria is more of a psychological issu (Score:1, Insightful)
So read the literature. Just because a study hasn't been discussed on FOX News doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It took 30 seconds to find this on scholar.google.com. I'm certain a more in-depth search would find dozens of similar studies. Note that this study tracked both objective and subjective indicators of reaction.
Re:the new standard... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogies are intentionally grotesquely flawed. As someone who has lived his entire life with a fairly severe physical disability, I find your casual comparison of these matters to "anything that inconveniences you in the slightest" to be flippant and incredibly ignorant. Of course you will then answer that you aren't really interested in the distinction, as for you it is the same thing... but if this is to be discussed objectively, there should at least be a fair effort at understanding the relative significance.
Mind you, I actually agree that the nut-stuff is probably at least partially hysteria, and the nutcases can be accommodated easily otherwise...
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
So?
Let's pull a figure out of the air (no pun intended) and say there are 300 seats on an Airplane. Peanuts are just *ONE* allergy in which some individuals have a reaction so severe, that they die.
Your thoughts on this are rather simplistic and serve to encourage people with Severe Entitlement Disorder.
Consider these points:
1) What are all the other allergies that can cause death in extremely sensitive individuals? How do those allergies relate to each other?
2) Are we going to section off whole planes with complex databases of codes of what chemicals, foods, etc. can be present in that single section?
3) What about allergies so sensitive that even the smallest presence in the *WHOLE* plane can cause extreme reactions including death?
4) Even with 300 seats could we possibly account for all the variations required?
5) Are we going to have to include a manifest to every passenger on the plane on what items are allowed for their zone?
6) Would any of this require abandoning seating models currently in use and the exclusive usage of assigned seating rules from now on? (highly likely)
7) Do we have to just sanitize the whole plane and have people wear hazmat suits?
Or do we just say "heck with it" and give people with peanut allergies preferential treatment?
People who have allergies, even life threatening ones, have the *SOLE* responsibility to limit their exposure. It is not the responsibility of the rest of the world to get rid of what causes their allergies in every possible place they may decide to do to. That is just ridiculous.
I can emphasize with people who have these unfortunate allergies, however the option is not to fly. I don't find it reasonable to force an airline to have preferred seating just for them. Especially, since indirect exposure is not mitigated enough with just a couple of seats anyways.
It is also not technically possible to service all the allergies, and since it is not possible, it is *NOT* fair to just get rid of the peanuts.
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Thanks for your courtesy and understanding. People that don't control their children are they reason I kept gay porn going in a monitor near the window at my old apartment. Took about three days for the parents to move their kids somewhere different. I hope they enjoyed any questions that little Timmy asked them.
I would've loved to have talked to them and asked them to stop playing football right outside my window in the parking lot at 0700...but...some people have attitudes like yours...screw you...deal with it, that's what they do. When we exercise our rights without courtesy to others--everybody loses.
You know, baby's shit too. The lady in the seat next across me on my last flight changed the damned diaper on the seats tray table. Nevermind the smell. No changing blanket...just put him up on it.
Bottom line--I don't care what people do--leave me my space, and I'll respect yours. Don't...and I'll do anything in my power to introduce you to tubgirl. Respect--it's two sided, and your children don't deserve any until they're smarter than a will trained chimp.
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:1, Insightful)
An allergy is not a disability. As long as someone who has extreme reactions to a certain food or other product, then they can live full and unrestricted lives.
I think you typo'd this. Did you mean if they avoid eating it or something?
I have a disability, a real disability, and saying someone with an allergy has a disability deminishes those with real disabilities. There is nothing someone with a real disability, such as myself, can do to avoid pain or the inability to function "normally". Cancer is a disability, epilepsy is a disability, non-functioning appendages qualifies a person as disabled; a peanut allergy is not a disability.
An irritation, maybe, but a disability? No.
A girl who was in my class at at school developed a life-threatening allergy and eventually had to leave because of this.
We're not talking about what- I get the impression- would be your idea of someone getting a nasty rash after eating half a Snickers. We're talking about going into life-threatening shock after being in the vicinity of where someone else has recently eaten peanuts or similar.
The last I heard- admittedly this was a few years ago now- was that she was hardly able to leave the house and led a very limited life due to the extremeness of her allergy.
"Real" disability or not, this is way more than an "irritation". Whatever your condition, it doesn't appear to have stopped you making ill-informed judgements about others.
Re:Peanut Hysteria is more of a psychological issu (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd disagree with you as to the symptoms of my son not being considered evidence (e.g. the swelling, difficulty of breath he got during these episodes). Your point, however, is correct - too many parents of kids who have these allergies get overly paranoid, and want to throw out the peanuts altogether just because. (Also, didn't feel targeted).
Yes, he did come into contact with some peanut based foods, and the extreme sickness he got sent us to the doctors where we did get the testing done, and education for us to identify how to recognize the symptoms, and how to deal with it (e.g Benedryl/anti-histamine first, then if they start throwing up and can't keep Benedryl down or face is swelling a lot/breathing issues then apply the Epi-Pen and get to hospital).
Actually, we don't. If he has the specific symptoms of anaphylaxic shock (e.g. swelling of face, breathing, and throwing up) we treat the symptoms as we were taught. However, if he gets sick and isn't showing these symptoms, we do the normal care we would for any other normal kid (when H1N1 went through my house, we didn't go searching for the peanut bogeyman).
Excellent point - you're correct, we really don't know. However, in my son's case, we did have him tested (and unfortunately for him he tested out at the top of the sensitivity scale). We do take proper precautions (e.g. have some space between kids if one is having a PBJ sandwich) to make sure that he doesn't get unnecessarily exposed, but we don't worry too much about it now. However, the last thing I want to do is to ban all peanuts from everywhere - it's something that my son is aware of, and knows how to live with.
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Allergies that can kill are no joking matter, and a nut free zone might be a better solution....
So perhaps the best solution would to not allow these nuts with allergies on board? If their reaction is so severe as to be life threatening just from being in the same room (and an extremely well ventilated room with excellent air filtration at that) as a bag of nuts then it is clearly not safe for them to be out in public where anyone might be eating nuts. If the problem is that they are scared to be in a room with nuts because they are allergic to them then this is a psychological problem of theirs and not a medical requirement at which point it becomes reasonable to ask why I should have to give up my freedoms instead of them giving up theirs.
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
BWAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH!!! Social Darwinism!!?
That's hilarious. So my position is essentially one of letting the "fit survive"? Sense of entitlement strikes again.
Like somebody else pointed out, this is not a disability. However, let's assume that it is a disability.
As it stands right now it is fairly easy to accommodate people with physical disabilities. 99.999999% of them require the assistance of a wheel chair, motorized wheel chair, etc. It is reasonable, and moreover, technically feasible for society to design around the needs of these people. It is also not even remotely an inconvenience to people without physical disabilities to enjoy the same benefits, such as ramps, larger bathroom stalls, tables with allowances for wheel chairs, etc.
I don't consider blindness to be a physical disability, in that it does not have the same requirements as people physically challenged. Accommodating their needs is also very reasonable and technically feasible. Audible alerts, braille messages on walls and information areas, etc. Once again, not an inconvenience to people with sight at all. In fact, the audible alerts and braille messages could just as easily be used by sighted people as well.
The only inconvenience at all, is handicapped parking spaces. They make me walk farther. Which is perfectly fine with me. I am willing to walk another 100 feet to make it easier for somebody that has a very hard time walking even 5 feet.
How reasonable or technically feasible is it to make allowances, throughout all of society, for peanut allergies? Not remotely reasonable. We would have to have special peanut handling regulations pretty much everywhere. Thai restaurants would need separate kitchens and seating. Same for any restaurant with peanuts, or foods including peanuts.
Just to make sure that every public space, and spaces owned by corporations serving the public, was either free of peanuts or had spaces in which it was free of peanuts.
It's just ridiculous to an insane degree to even contemplate. My position is *NOT* social Darwinism in which I am callous to the special needs of others. It's about what is reasonable.
Another reason why your position is absurd, is that allergies are not confined to peanuts. There are allergies to seafood, tomatoes (I have it), potatoes, corn, dairy, etc. So what do we do? Create sections on planes and in restaurants where peanuts are ok, but not seafood and dairy? No peanuts, no tomatoes, but seafood? The variations are so great that there are *NOT ENOUGH SEATS AND TABLES TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM ALL*.
That's why it is ridiculous. We cannot reasonably accommodate food allergies as disabilities without severely inconveniencing the rest of society to an unreasonable point.
It is also not reasonable or *FAIR* to service the needs of the peanut allergic members of our society without also servicing the needs of other allergies.
So stop trying to equate it to a person in a wheel chair, with the same level of ease in accommodating their needs and then making the claims that anyone that does not support your position hates the disabled.
Re:the new standard... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal to make such a small accommodation that could save a person's life. Are you really saying that they should be stuck at home for the rest of their lives, just because you don't want to make the most simple of accommodations for someone?
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone that allergic to nuts deals with it on a regular basis. I'm really getting tired of a very small minority forcing the much larger majority to adapt.
This is just the first step. If this gets implemented every special interest will get in line. Know all of those handicapped spots in the US?? The original intent was to provide a place so that wheelchair vans had ample room to discharge and load passengers. There were many complaints about drivers getting back to their van, only to find some inconsiderate asshole had parked so close they couldn't get in. Now, almost anyone with any type of mobility problem can get one. A few months ago, when I got a broken foot in a motorcycle crash, I was told I was eligible for a handicap sign because I had to use a wheelchair for a couple of months, and then crutches (I refused, I needed the physical exertion, I was going nuts not being able to walk.) Someone who is morbidly obese and has trouble walking can get a handicapped plate. My father, who had emphysema, got one because he had trouble walking long distances.
I have no problem with laws requiring government and government sponsored services be made available to all. But when businesses have to start spending extra money to cater to customers that do not provide a revenue offset, it has gotten out of control.
If there were enough people allergic to nuts to justify this, the airlines would be clamoring for their business.
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. They are the one with the 'disability' - not me. When there is an easy solution to the problem such as this you take it.
I mean, if you are a cripple you have a wheel chair. If you have airborne allergies you wear a mask.
Re:the new standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to eat peanuts - that's your preference. Why should the significant minority of the population who suffer nut allergies be forced to change their behaviour (by staying off aircraft - the only practicable means of travelling more than about 1500 miles, though this could equally apply to trains & buses) to suit you?
With my balancing:
You can choose to travel on the aircraft (suffering the minor inconvenience of not being able to give yourself heart diease), or stay at home.
With your balancing:
The person with the nut allergy can choose to travel on the aircraft (knowing that they may end up dead if they, say, get your peanuts chucked on them by turbulence), or stay at home.
You want to err on the side of freedom to do as you please (within the law) in public - I want to err on the side of the freedom to be in public (i.e. people with fairly common allergies being free to use public places*). I suppose they're just different forms of freedom.
*An aircraft may be privately owned, but it is a public place
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that's not a bad idea -- instead of inconveniencing whole planeloads of people and making it uneconomical for the airline to keep flying, why not issue a disposable hazmat suit to anyone who wants it? wouldn't have to be the full gear, just sufficiently tough to survive one flight. Material similar to exam gloves should be adequate, and is not expensive (exam gloves cost under 10 cents apiece). Better yet, the same breatheable-barrier material now used in snowmobile gloves.
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do tell how that's supposed to work in practice. Families never fly business or first class? Business class is never close enough to families in first or coach to hear crying babies? They have sound proof doors on the airlines you fly?
Re:Shrimp free zone? (Score:1, Insightful)
your freedom to eat nuts, are you serious?
And yes i have a nut allergy, so fuck you.
Re:the new standard... (Score:3, Insightful)
*An aircraft may be privately owned, but it is a public place
No, it's private property. You have no inherent right to use someone else's property, and most definitely not an inherent right to demand that owners of these properties modify them to suit you. With my balancing:
The person with the nut allergy can wait for a flight that specifically accomodates people with allergies or a flight which offers pretzels instead of nuts. The airline company has the sole right to control the environment of a plane that they paid for.
Re:Baby Free Zone? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's also my responsibility to not walk into traffic, to watch my step incase I walk off a cliff, to make sure my food isn't rotten, to not go out in a t-shirt in the dead of winter, and many other things that help keep me alive. Allergies is just one extra thing on the list, I'm so used to it I barely notice my list of precautions I take on a daily basis, it's not even much of an inconvenience (much less a disability).