"Yes, the Black Thai Peanut sauce has peanut in it" and more from just one night

[Broomjockey]

Here are some interesting articles about peanut allergies and their causes.

Yes, but searching those still doesn't answer why peanuts are the one food allergy that can trigger through inhalation. It's all anecdotal evidence about children _developing_ the inhalation response.

Frankly, at this point, I'm calling shennangians on "inhalation triggered allergy responses" because in the (literally) years I've been searching for an answer to this, I've yet to run across anyone who's had that response, a doctor who acknowledges it as possible, someone who's actually seen it first hand, or anything like that. I'm betting it's just psychosomatic. Parents freak out about their child having a peanut allergy, train their child to panic at the smell of peanuts, because ZOMG TEHY COULDZ DIE!, and the child just responds to the smell as a conditioned response. As always, if someone can prove me wrong, that's fine, but I now refuse to be beholden to the panicked parents pushing peanut prohibition!

[BlaqueKatt]

I know my latex allergy is severe enough that walking by me with balloons can trigger it(any less than 5 feet away and my throat starts to close)

[RootedPhoenix]

I know that my cousin has a severe enough cinnamon allergy that her throat closes if the smell is too strong. Forget eating it. (Of course, cinnamon being cinnamon, it IS quite fragrant.)

Fragrance is a big thing. Peanuts themselves have a fragrance, they just don't bother most people. I know that if I had an allergy to them that they'd bother me.

[Kimmik]

Frankly, at this point, I'm calling shennangians on "inhalation triggered allergy responses" because in the (literally) years I've been searching for an answer to this

Yes it is possible for someone to have a reaction from air born protein particles... shelling peanuts etc... but because a peanut allergy is due to the bodies response to the protein... if the protein is not there then it is not an allergy respnce but rather a psychosomatic response.

just the aroma... no

here is a great article.

http://www.allergysafecommunities.ca..._faan_2003.pdf

[Dips]

There are plenty of allergies to inhaled proteins. Does anybody here have hayfever?

And as somebody pointed out, aroma is actually molecules of the substance itself landing on receptors in your nose. So smelling peanuts means you are inhaling peanut particles. If one of those particles is the protein which triggers the immune overreaction, then it is quite possible to die from it if the allergy is severe enough.

Does that mean pyschosomatic immune responses don't exist? No. I sure there are many cases of that. I'm not about to expose someone to peanuts to prove it, though.

If someone's throat closes up and they can't breath it doesn't matter if it's a psychosomatic response, the person is just as dead if they don't get medical help.

So if someone labels an area a peanut-free zone or says they are allergic to peanuts and can't have them in the room, I'll respect that. Whether I believe them or think they're full of crap isn't relevant.

Edit: Because I'm intrigued by this I did a very quick scan of the medical literature at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ to find out more about airborne food allergies. It turns out that there quite a few documented cases. The consensus seems to be that the allergen (aka the protein which triggers the immune over-the-top immune reaction) involved with most airborne food allergies is something called "lipid transfer protein" or LTP. It's a food protein that is light enough that people can breath it.

[Calie]

Yes, but searching those still doesn't answer why peanuts are the one food allergy that can trigger through inhalation. It's all anecdotal evidence about children _developing_ the inhalation response.

Lately I've been hearing more and more articles saying how the parents are actually making kids' allergies worse. Not by triggering psychosomatic results like you theorize Broom (cool theory btw), but by restricting their kids from everything (peanuts, milk, etc) and keeping extra clean ultra-sanitized houses. The kids are not exposed to such "horrible" things early in life so they become allergic to them.

I am not trying to make light of allergies in any way of course, I understand (having had childhood allergies I grew out of as well as family members with various allergies) that they can be serious. Luckily, my form of allergies tend to stick to annoying rashes...though my favorite is the allergies my siblings and I get to metal on our skin. My sister had to go through a year of TB drugs because she reacted to the needle. Darn chest x-rays were clean and the doc knew about her metal sensitivity, but noooo, she still had to take the drug course. OK, so health regs might have forced the doc's hand, but it was still kinda ridiculous.

[Dips]

Lately I've been hearing more and more articles saying how the parents are actually making kids' allergies worse. Not by triggering psychosomatic results like you theorize Broom (cool theory btw), but by restricting their kids from everything (peanuts, milk, etc) and keeping extra clean ultra-sanitized houses. The kids are not exposed to such "horrible" things early in life so they become allergic to them.

Has anybody done a study yet to support that theory? Who were the authors?

[Broomjockey]

Has anybody done a study yet to support that theory? Who were the authors?

Talks about rats having a decreased response due to repeated exposure. I also know that some allergies such as sunlight and water can be dampened by repeated exposure to the allergen.

[Dips]

Talks about rats having a decreased response due to repeated exposure. I also know that some allergies such as sunlight and water can be dampened by repeated exposure to the allergen.

In the study you linked, there are two groups of rats who are exposed to aerosolized egg whites. One group was exposed to formaldehyde before being exposed to the egg whites. The other group was not exposed to formaldehyde before being exposed to the egg whites.

The allergic reaction to the egg whites was measured in both groups.

It was found that the group which was exposed to formaldehyde had a less severe allergic reaction to the egg whites.

The conclusion is that increased formaldehyde levels seem to reduce the severity of inhaled egg white allergies.

Edit: I just edited my post because I originally transposed the results. That's what I get when I try to read technically dense material while tired. My apologies for the mistake.

[Broomjockey]

The conclusion is that increased formaldehyde levels seem to reduce the severity of inhaled egg white allergies.

30 second google search for "increased exposure reducing allergic reaction." That's what I get.

However, if you look in the treatment section for the sunlight allergy: http://allergies.about.com/od/urtica...rurticaria.htm

It is possible to desensitize the skin with repeated exposures to sunlight so that hives will not occur with future exposures. This specialized form of therapy, which should only be performed by an allergist or dermatologist, typically only lasts for a few days, and therefore needs to be repeated frequently.

Yes, it only lasts a few days, but the theory is still in place. If it's possible to decrease the reaction to one allergy, for a short period of time, you should either be able to eventually lengthen the period, or apply it to different allergies.

[Dips]

The first link described exposing rats to an unrelated chemical irritant (formaldehyde, which is not an allergen) to test if exposure would reduce the symptoms produced by an inhaled allergen (in this case, egg white protein).

I was taught that only a protein could be considered an allergen. Sunlight is not a protein, nor is water. However, I've been out of research for many years and things change, so that may no longer be the case.

I'll take a look at the second link in a bit. The aroma of my lunch is calling me.

Edit: That link confirms that there is no such thing as an allergy (in the clinical sense) to sunlight itself. What happens is that sunlight triggers changes in the patient's own skin proteins and they have an allergic reaction to the changed proteins in their own skin. Yeesh. It makes me itch just thinking about it.

The treatment where they expose patients to sunlight which is described in the article doesn't cure the condition. It just give you a few days relief, then it has be repeated. They are also quite clear that you should never try something like that unless you are under the care of your doctor and he knows what he's doing.

Since I've gone off on a tangent (again ) I'll sum the thread up so far for everyone:

1. Yes. Inhaled food allergies are real.

2. The customer in the OP is an idiot. Knowingly exposing yourself to something you are allergic to is very, very stupid.

3. Scientists and doctors are working on the causes of and cures for food allergies (inhaled or otherwise). They have some interesting ideas.

It think that covers it.

Edit: Nope. Not covered. I forgot one...

4. Some people who say they have an allergy are, indeed, full of shit (or under the influence of parental suggestion). That doesn't make it OK to diregard warnings to keep (whatever it is) away from someone.

[Andara Bledin]

Fun fact: the changes caused by light shining on things is called actinism.

I only know this because I was researching different forms of radiation and related for a name for a City of Villains character. I'm such a geek.

Back on topic, a 2000 article from Immunology Today has this abstract:

Many asthma attacks are precipitated by respiratory viral infections, and severe infections in infancy are strongly linked to asthmatic disorders in childhood. However, as discussed at a recent meeting*, an antigenically rich (dirty) environment may be essential for normal immune maturation, preventing atopic disease. Shifts in cytokine production seem to explain these phenomena.

Unfortunately, the article isn't more directly related to cleanliness and allergy development, but it does appear to indicate that an overly-sterile environment may indeed stunt development of proper immunities, resulting in allergic reactions to what should only cause minor irritation.

^-.-^

[Geek King]

Has anybody done a study yet to support that theory? Who were the authors?

Quick Google-fu (Search: lack of early exposure increased allergies) finds the following:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10231320

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...40673601062523

Oddly, folks seem split on early exposure to peanuts.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/11/977

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...may_be_peanuts

There are also numerous other studies under that heading, many which are above my head in terminology, but may be of interest to someone who knows the lingo.

[Dips]

Many thanks to both Broomjockey and Geek King for the work they did digging around to find sources.

For those reading along:

Geek King's first link goes to an abstract describing a statistical study conducted by questionairre. What they were looking for was if there was a signifcant difference in allergies to pet dander in people who were exposed to pets at a an early age. The children who had pets were less likely to have allergies to pet dander.

The second link I couldn't access. I'm out of the field and not willing to pay.

The third link goes to a study where they looked at previously collected data (which they later confirmed through interviews and testing) and found a correlation between exposure to peanuts and/or exposure to soy milk with later development of peanut allergy.

The fourth link goes to a well-written secondary source. It is an article that describes some research published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The study described was also statistical and collected by questionaire. These results are the opposite of what was found in the third link. In this one children exposed to peanuts have a lower incidence of peanut allergy.

As the third and fourth links show, two reliable sources often will come up with opposite results. That's just how it is. It's frustrating for people who expect definitive answers, but perfectly normal.

I think a death match between research teams to determine who's truth is the one and only truth would be really cool, but scientists would rather conduct further studies.

Killjoys.

[Ironclad Alibi]

Fun fact: the changes caused by light shining on things is called actinism.

I only know this because I was researching different forms of radiation and related for a name for a City of Villains character. I'm such a geek.

What name did you come up with? The Actinator?