When less than a couple of hundred got mad cow disease, the nation stopped eating beef. When swine flu caused roughly 4% of annual influenza deaths crowds of panicked people wore useless face masks for weeks on end. When foot and mouth hit Britain, over 10 million livestock were killed to curb the spread of the disease.
In such situations, moral panics sweep the nation so that within days people become terrified about the possibility of such horrors. The world is gripped with fear, reports of fatalities and even cases are reported across the planet, maps are drawn up to see how these monstrosities have spread, people everywhere call their doctors in a panic because they become convinced their runny nose is a sure sign of their impending death.
When thousands of people across the planet are known to be so allergic to foods that merely being in the same room as them can kill them, nothing happens.
Why is it then, that allergies, which arguably are much more dangerous than any of these diseases (they can occur at any time and cause the victim nasty often fatal reactions which become increasingly severe) do not cause similar hysteria. I am aware that Britain, for example, is a country which is extremely “aware” of the threat that allergies can cause. Companies are so “aware” in fact that they even bother to write on a stick of wrapped celery that it “may contain traces of nuts”. What exactly does “may contain traces of nuts” mean? That the same factory that packs celery also packs nuts? That they pack it on the same line? That nut fumes from a factory down the road may accidentally leak into said celery because they share a delivery truck? Or is that they are so terrified of being sued that they write it on every label they produce?
This over-enthusiastic labelling, disguised as a help, actually hinders the allergy sufferer. If they choose to follow such warnings they can eat practically nothing. There is very little on the supermarket shelves of England these days which does not carry such warnings. Last time I checked, natural yoghurt “may contain traces”. Ranges of nut-free products are increasing, but tend to be limited to confectionary. It’s all very well being able to eat a bar of chocolate made in a nut-free zone but if you can’t eat an apple for fear of contamination life becomes rather difficult.
Instead, the savvy allergic one chooses to ignore such advice, this is fine if one assumes that the companies are indeed lying, but what if a product actually does contain a trace of nut and one day causes a reaction? Then what do you do? Assuming that you survive such an attack should you then avoid everything and create your own nut-free zone home where you live in quarantine and anyone that enters must be screened for traces and washed in a special nut-free soap?
Another particularly tricky problem is the issue that those severely allergic could have a reaction just from swopping saliva with someone who’s been eating nuts. Does this mean that sufferers should enquire about the dietary habits of those they are about to kiss? This
could potentially be somewhat of a passion killer. Might the allergy extend to a shared toothbrush? That could be a tricky morning-after situation; you try to leave discreetly yet brush your teeth before you escape in an attempt to cleanse yourself of the night before. Your host ate nuts the day before yesterday; traces still linger not on their breath but on their bristles. There’s one thing worse than a walk of shame and that’s a trip to A&E.
In Western society, health and safety laws have become so absurd that you practically have to fill out a risk assessment to leave the house. If one toy is found to be faulty, causing the death of one child the whole batch is recalled and parents everywhere are outraged, broadcasting their plight in the school playground, the papers and even on TV.
Nuts, cause thousands of deaths each year, and the number of cases of anaphylaxis costs the NHS thousands, if not millions of pounds a year. That’s without considering the cost of issuing each allergic person their own epi-pen. These pens costs £36 each, most sufferers carry two, and according to the label go out of date each year so each sufferer, reaction or not, costs at least £72 a year.
Do not despair, for I have answer to this problem. Over-zealous labelling is not what we need, nor is a “miracle cure” for the allergy which, quite frankly I don’t know how they propose to test. I most certainly would not be willing to participate in a medical trial where people feed me nuts to see what happens. No, the answer is more simple. If the toy is faulty and someone dies, you don’t stock it. If swine flu’s about, you try and stop it spreading. If there’s mad cow disease you don’t eat beef. If someone falls over at the train station and breaks a leg, you employ an extra “health and safety officer” and pay them thousands a year to put up pointless signs telling people to be careful. If 1 in a 100 in the
UK has a fatal peanut allergy and 1 in 200 has a tree nut allergy, everyone should simply stop eating nuts. Lives are saved, people with nut allergys no longer have to play russian roulette everytime they eat, the NHS saves money, millions isn’t wasted on ridiculous labelling, factories don’t have to control the spread of nuts, no one gets sued. Can you argue with that Mr Cameron?
Thoughts from a Latin Land 