No Apples please: allergies and the (almost) adult

[Whitestripe]

So we've all heard about peanut free rooms and peanut free tables at lunch in elementary school, but how about college?  Recently an email went out to my campus banning apples (the fruit) and apple products (the food, not the technology) from a list of classrooms and labs.  It seems that there is a student allergic to apples. Are apple allergies deadly?  Can you have a reaction if someone sitting three rows back is munching on a Honeycrisp? If you are in college should you be able to adult enough to stay away from apples on your own? Am I missing something significant here, or is this a  case similar to the hubub over trigger warnings?

[ljkeane]

I've never heard of that before but some quick googling seems to suggest it's a potential byproduct of hay fever and it's raw apples rather than cooked products which present an issue. Given that I'd probably guess banning apples and, especially, most apple products from classrooms etc seems like an overreaction but, in fairness, they may have based the policy on some who knows a little more about the subject's opinion. 

[kairparavel]

Allergies are serious business. Apples aren't banned from the whole campus so I don't see the big deal. Apple juice on hands, on keyboards, on doorknobs, on allergic hands, in allergic sinuses and eyes. So yeah, makes sense. Being an adult as you put it still leaves you at the mercy of others. 

And if you don't know the ins and outs of this allergy, why would you seemingly default to hysteria on the school and student's part? I might be misunderstanding but that's what I'm getting from your post.

[Theda Baratheon]

Agree with kairparavel, allergies are serious and if you have to make a small concession to better try and keep someone safe then I don't see the problem. 

 

I also don't really see the problem with trigger warnings either. you find them in every day life all the time, wet floor signs, ect. 

[Swordfish]

Seems like serious allergies to apples are pretty rare, and pretty limited to direct contact with raw apples.

That said, I'd guess that there is a specific person who is the exception here and that's why they are specifically addressing it.  If it's just a general ban because there's a possibility that someone could maybe be seriously allergic, then that's different, and likely an over reaction.

[Iskaral Pust]

Potentially someone can have a severe allergy to just about anything.  I would have a problem with a large group of people being onerously restricted to serve the allergy need of an individual but it's not too unreasonable to request a ban from areas like classes and labs where food should not be consumed anyway, although I would have objected if the ban extended to the cafeteria.  Eventually the allergy sufferer has to find a long term coping strategy for the real world where apples abound, and perhaps even start now because it's likely that someone will eventually forget or ignore the ban, so risks are reduced but not eliminated.

We were on an airplane recently where the attendant announced before take-off (after door was closed) that a passenger aboard had a severe nut allergy and requested that all passengers refrain from any snacks containing nuts of any type for the duration of the flight, even products that may only possibly contain a trace amount of nuts (a warning on almost every packaged food in the US for liability reasons).  My wife was pretty miffed that ~200 people have this imposed on them with no warning, especially since she had brought trail mix and chocolate for the 4.5 hour flight.  At that point the allergy sufferer should invest in a respirator/filter for the flight.  We complied, hangrily, but I'm sure many passengers ignored it.  So what really was the value of our reluctant sacrifice?

[Whitestripe]

35 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

 

And if you don't know the ins and outs of this allergy, why would you seemingly default to hysteria on the school and student's part? I might be misunderstanding but that's what I'm getting from your post.

I didn't say it was hysteria. I was just thinking about other allergies.  I am sure there are people with peanut allergies, and yet peanut butter has free reign. Same with latex and balloons. The dining halls still have apples. They've don't do much for allergens at all except out a sign at the dessert table that says "These cookies might have tree nuts in them."  It just seems odd, to me at least. The signs appeared at the end of last semester, (not even at the beginning of the year when you would expect) There was some speculation that it was part of a     psychology experiment until there was an official email from the Dean of Diversity and Inclusion. Why is the email comming from the Office of Inclusion instead of Dean of Students or Health Center? It just seems odd, that's all.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Because severe allergy issues require reasonable accommodation, which falls under the ADA, which is usually an inclusion issue, hence Office of Inclusion.

[Altherion]

I am reasonably confident that this is just a case of some office in the university trying to preemptively protect themselves in case of a lawsuit or complaints to the various government agencies. It is incredibly unlikely that an apple being eaten by somebody else will cause problems, but the university may still be in trouble if the allergic student and/or said student's family decide to make an issue of it.

As others have said though, classrooms and labs are not places for eating in any case so no great harm is being done to everyone else.

[Theda Baratheon]

15 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Potentially someone can have a severe allergy to just about anything.  I would have a problem with a large group of people being onerously restricted to serve the allergy need of an individual but it's not too unreasonable to request a ban from areas like classes and labs where food should not be consumed anyway, although I would have objected if the ban extended to the cafeteria.  Eventually the allergy sufferer has to find a long term coping strategy for the real world where apples abound, and perhaps even start now because it's likely that someone will eventually forget or ignore the ban, so risks are reduced but not eliminated.

We were on an airplane recently where the attendant announced before take-off (after door was closed) that a passenger aboard had a severe nut allergy and requested that all passengers refrain from any snacks containing nuts of any type for the duration of the flight, even products that may only possibly contain a trace amount of nuts (a warning on almost every packaged food in the US for liability reasons).  My wife was pretty miffed that ~200 people have this imposed on them with no warning, especially since she had brought trail mix and chocolate for the 4.5 hour flight.  At that point the allergy sufferer should invest in a respirator/filter for the flight.  We complied, hangrily, but I'm sure many passengers ignored it.  So what really was the value of our reluctant sacrifice?

Sorry to be frank but this is such an entitled attitude though. what, you were deprived of a certain snack for a few hours to better ensure the genuine health and safety of another person in close proximity to you? Honestly, I don't see the problem. It's hardly a huge sacrifice. I'm sure it was very tasty trail mix and you really wanted to eat it but someone can DIE from a severe allergic reaction and I think it is entirely reasonable to ask people to ya know, try and help that NOT happen. I mean, granted, if it was possible it would have been better to have let the flight attendants know before hand so they could maybe send an email out to people ?? but even then, there'd be people complaining. 

[Theda Baratheon]

And just because some people are careless assholes who disregard the safety of others doesn't mean you have to be/ that yoy not behaving that way is in vain. 

[Swordfish]

Yeah...  I thought it was pretty much common knowledge at this point that it's kind of a dick move to bring nut based snacks on airplanes.

Grab some pretzels and move on.

[Theda Baratheon]

I mean, I agree that if someone has an allergy they can't assume their whole life is going to be protected by total strangers but when it's possible and in certain places/situations where food really shouldn't be consumed anyway then I see it as totally reasonable to just limit a certain food product when in close proximity to that person. It just seems like basic decency to me. 

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Sorry to be frank but this is such an entitled attitude though. what, you were deprived of a certain snack for a few hours to better ensure the genuine health and safety of another person in close proximity to you? Honestly, I don't see the problem. It's hardly a huge sacrifice.

It's might not be a huge sacrifice, but it is a very nearly pointless one. First, it is very unlikely that even a tiny fragment of something you are eating winds up in the vicinity of somebody allergic to it. Second, most people probably won't even be aware which nuts are in their food. I know this because my sister is allergic to almonds (to the point where she doesn't eat them, not to the point where everybody around her can't have them) so I know there's a surprising number of foods which contain these nuts. I suspect peanuts are even more widely distributed.

I think most people would be willing accept the restrictions if there was some quantitative proof that they are in fact contributing to the health and safety of another human being. However, as it stands, these regulations are almost always intended primarily to cover the organization making them in case of a very low probability incident and they are almost uniformly illogical, unenforceable and widely violated (out of obliviousness rather than malice).

[Whitestripe]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

As others have said though, classrooms and labs are not places for eating in any case so no great harm is being done to everyone else.

No, you shouldn't eat in a lab, but perhaps a student has an apple or bottle of juice tucked in their backpack for later consumption.

The ban (it was an all campus email and of course I'll comply should it ever come up) asked that no apples or apple products ever be brought into a list of classrooms (and a few labs) on campus. (Presumably the classrooms where this person has class.) That's ever at all times, not just during instructional hours. (I am assuming that is to keep the identity of the Apple Allergy Sufferer anonymous.) It  also asked that no catering with apple products be ordered for those areas. Some of the classrooms are pretty swank new seminar rooms in a new building that is often used for conferences/receptions/seminars/etc. Those events are sometimes catered. (But I guess not with apple cider and donuts, no matter who is attending) 

[Theda Baratheon]

"Very unlikely" not totally impossible then? And when it comes to the possible life and safety (however blown out of proportion) of another person I'll just have to make that tiny lil sacrifice of not eating a certain kind of food around them

[Theda Baratheon]

1 minute ago, Whitestripe said:

No, you shouldn't eat in a lab, but perhaps a student has an apple or bottle of juice tucked in their backpack for later consumption.

The ban (it was an all campus email and of course I'll comply should it ever come up) asked that no apples or apple products ever be brought into a list of classrooms (and a few labs) on campus. (Presumably the classrooms where this person has class.) That's ever at all times, not just during instructional hours. (I am assuming that is to keep the identity of the Apple Allergy Sufferer anonymous.) It  also asked that no catering with apple products be ordered for those areas. Some of the classrooms are pretty swank new seminar rooms in a new building that is often used for conferences/receptions/seminars/etc. Those events are sometimes catered. (But I guess not with apple cider and donuts) 

Maybe that's overboard but maybe it's just easier to deprive oneself of apples in these few situations. Is it really making a difference? Maybe, probably not but I'm of the opinion that when we are talking of genuine safety and health that the maybe far outweighs the probably not 

[Whitestripe]

1 hour ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I also don't really see the problem with trigger warnings either. you find them in every day life all the time, wet floor signs, ect. 

Theda: Different trigger warnings. Some say that using trigger warnings  is just another example of coddling college students, others think it's a good idea.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Theda,

There is an awful lot that is "highly unlikely" but deadly.  Using that standard we could ban pretty much every food substance from everyplace.

[zelticgar]

I count myself and my family lucky that we don't have to deal with these issues. Schools in my area seem to deal well with peanut allergies and are pretty consistent in their application of the policies around it. The sad reason for this is that there were some deaths in the region due to exposure to peanuts. As other posters have said, allergies can be serious business. 

Unfortunately the rise of allergies has also given some individuals encouragement to exaggerate their situations and request accommodations where they are not needed. I know of a number of cases where acquaintances claim allergies on behalf of their children where none exist or they have never actually gotten a diagnosis outside of one episode of a rash. I don't claim to understand the dynamics of this but from personal experience I know it happens.  

Apple allergies is a new one to me. Curious to find out how common that one is. Hope the person does not live in New England. Early fall could be a deadly time around here. Apples are all over the place.