I'm again frustrated with the lack of appropriate wording for corn allergies.
The only word we have for a potentially debilitating reaction caused by an ingested substance is 'allergy'. But when it comes to corn and corn derivatives, allergy doesn't describe the half of it.
You see, food allergies indicate potential anaphylaxis. And while with corn, we do have the potential for anaphylaxis, most professionals also associate true food allergies with food proteins.
Corn derivatives like xanthan gum, citric acid and microcrystalline cellulose are 'pure'. They don't have protein. But they still manage to pack quite the whollop. So, Corn avoiders tend to avoid all corn derivatives, at least until they figure out which ones they, personally, can tolerate.
Most allergists run diagnostic testing when determining food allergies. They start with skin tests, and then draw blood. The intention is to measure the antibodies present and then determine the likelihood of a severe reaction.
However, as this South African Journal notes, corn/maize frequently reveals a false negative result. Double blind placebo trials reveal reactions.
In short, corn/maize does NOT follow the typical allergy rules. It's not always protein mediated. And the typical allergy testing rarely reveals a positive result.
There are also multiple potential allergens in corn, although studies have not been done to evaluate them thoroughly.
While I know all this, not everyone in the medical community seems to. Even worse, the companies who produce and package my food, and everyone else's, tend to have a very tenuous hold on the understanding of corn and it's potential for causing reactions.
This understanding is encouraged by the belief that food proteins are the problematic substance when dealing with food allergies; and that the Top 8 are the main (frequently misunderstood as 'only') foods responsible for 'real' reactions.
So when I contact a company and say "Is there corn in this?", they respond with "Of course not, it's a bottle of fruit juice." When, in fact, there may be 3 or 4 different corn derived ingredients either on the label or used as a processing agent.
(If you're wondering, off the top of my head: Ascorbic acid, citric acid, xanthan gum, and vitamin enrichments are the first 4 ingredients I can think of found in juice drinks that are often corn-taminated)
Some companies get it. When they say "There are no corn derivatives" they mean that they pick the fruit, squeeze it directly into pure, clean glass bottles and seal it up for distribution. They KNOW what's in there.
Shopping with a corn/maize allergy (or whatever it is you want to call this condition) is a completely different experience from what shopping used to be. There are entire aisles in the grocery store that are off limits. And even the aisles that are inviting seem ominous. New products are tempting, and yet need to be cautiously evaluated. First, the label is scrutinized. Questionable ingredients noted. The company then needs to be contacted to verify the source of questionable ingredients, and to ask about processing. And then comes the moment of truth. The deep breath, the taste. And hopefully, if the evening passes without reaction, a full out meal.
And then it gets added to the normal rotation. However, just because an item is familiar doesn't mean that a shopping trip is filled with confidence or that each purchase is quick and safe. Every single time I go to the store, I read ingredients. I scan for red flags that sound 'different' from last time. If packaging changes, it means I need to contact the company (and/or double check with the corn-free community on delphi) to see if any portion of the packaging process has changed.
If corn were like dairy or eggs or even gluten, answers would be easier to get. The protein would be the main item of concern, the answers would be straight forward. They are for my daughter. But corn...corn is complicated. It has so many facets and is used so many different ways.
Learning life without corn derivatives is truly like navigating a maze, except that rather than navigating a complicated labyrinth to discover a vicious minotaur, the maze itself is the danger and once we find the center, the danger is over...as long as we continue to stay vigilant.
Showing posts with label study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label study. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Monday, November 23, 2009
I only have a moment tonight. But I want to post a tidbit from a current read: "Our Stolen Future" by Colborn, Dumanoski and Myers.
On pg 191-192, they are discussing the potential effects of PCBs in contaminated fish on children whose parents ate said fish. A psychologist named Helen Daly has been studying behavioral changes in rats fed Lake Ontario fish. The expected results of her test (which involved feeding a small group of rats a diet 30% fish) was that the diet would turn them into dummies. It would affect their brains and intelligence level. This seems a plausible expectation for the consumption of toxic chemicals.
However, they found behavioral changes that were unexpected. While there were no signs of learning deficits, indicating that intelligence levels were not adversely effected, the rats showed distinct behavioral changes. Standard testing showed decreased activity.
This behavioral change has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Rats fed a diet of 30% contaminated fish (fish that have been raised in Lake Ontario) over react to even mildly negative situations. Daly describes them as "Hyper-reactive". When comparing hteir reactions to humans, Daly is quoted as stating "Every little stress will be magnified."
Some studies done on children with high known levels of exposure have indicated a possible correlation to human experience.
Does this remind anyone else of Sensory Processing/Integration Disorders? Or Highly Sensitive Children?
PCBs aren't only found in fish. They were used as plasticizing agents in paint, flexible plastic coating for electrical wires, caulking agents, dusting products, flame retardants, adhesives and pesticide extenders. They do not degrade readily, so are still present in our environment. They tend to accumulate in lakes and rivers, where they bind with plant life and are consumed by sea life. The higher the animal on the food chain, the higher the concentration of PCBs and other chemical contaminants. (Interesting side note: PCB production was taken over in 1929 by non other than our beloved Mons*nto, the GM corn giants.)
One of Daly's most disturbing findings is that pcb effects are seen in second generation rats. So if rat generation A eats PCB laden fish, generation B is affected, but fed only a carefully monitored diet of PCB free fish, the researchers are still seeing abnormal reactions in generation C.
In other words, what scientists unleashed on our grandparents is haunting us today. What we do with our bodies, wittingly or unwittingly, will continue to affect our grandchildren regardless of whether we are here to play a part in it.
Of course, this has nothing to do with corn. But it's interesting all the same.
In the end it's still just stress. Stress on our environment, stress on our bodies, stress on our children. However, these studies show that somehow we may be inhibiting their inborn ability to handle stressful situations.
This isn't an answer. But it sure seems like a significant piece of many puzzles our society faces.
On pg 191-192, they are discussing the potential effects of PCBs in contaminated fish on children whose parents ate said fish. A psychologist named Helen Daly has been studying behavioral changes in rats fed Lake Ontario fish. The expected results of her test (which involved feeding a small group of rats a diet 30% fish) was that the diet would turn them into dummies. It would affect their brains and intelligence level. This seems a plausible expectation for the consumption of toxic chemicals.
However, they found behavioral changes that were unexpected. While there were no signs of learning deficits, indicating that intelligence levels were not adversely effected, the rats showed distinct behavioral changes. Standard testing showed decreased activity.
This behavioral change has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Rats fed a diet of 30% contaminated fish (fish that have been raised in Lake Ontario) over react to even mildly negative situations. Daly describes them as "Hyper-reactive". When comparing hteir reactions to humans, Daly is quoted as stating "Every little stress will be magnified."
Some studies done on children with high known levels of exposure have indicated a possible correlation to human experience.
Does this remind anyone else of Sensory Processing/Integration Disorders? Or Highly Sensitive Children?
PCBs aren't only found in fish. They were used as plasticizing agents in paint, flexible plastic coating for electrical wires, caulking agents, dusting products, flame retardants, adhesives and pesticide extenders. They do not degrade readily, so are still present in our environment. They tend to accumulate in lakes and rivers, where they bind with plant life and are consumed by sea life. The higher the animal on the food chain, the higher the concentration of PCBs and other chemical contaminants. (Interesting side note: PCB production was taken over in 1929 by non other than our beloved Mons*nto, the GM corn giants.)
One of Daly's most disturbing findings is that pcb effects are seen in second generation rats. So if rat generation A eats PCB laden fish, generation B is affected, but fed only a carefully monitored diet of PCB free fish, the researchers are still seeing abnormal reactions in generation C.
In other words, what scientists unleashed on our grandparents is haunting us today. What we do with our bodies, wittingly or unwittingly, will continue to affect our grandchildren regardless of whether we are here to play a part in it.
Of course, this has nothing to do with corn. But it's interesting all the same.
In the end it's still just stress. Stress on our environment, stress on our bodies, stress on our children. However, these studies show that somehow we may be inhibiting their inborn ability to handle stressful situations.
This isn't an answer. But it sure seems like a significant piece of many puzzles our society faces.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
It's NOT just in your head...
For years doctors have claimed that the vast majority of gut complaints are the direct result of emotional stability. Stress. Anxiety. Control issues.
Elaine Gottschal watched a diet prescribed by Dr. Haas heal her daughter. She went on to write a book, now published as "Breaking the Viscious Cycle," which embraced the theory that gut bacteria were intrinsically linked to whole health. Especially gastrointestinal health.
Elaine went on to explain that the bad bugs crave sugar...in essence causing the human host to crave sugar. (Try and explain this to the typical MD, and he'll try very hard not to laugh directly at you.) She also explained how obesity can be caused by starvation...the bad bugs "stealing" all those yummy carbs and sugars.
After only 60 years or so, medical science has begun to wake up and agree. Those carb cravings may not be just in our heads (and tastebuds). Neither are they a product of our genes. Nope, studies have proven that people who eat chocolate have different intestinal bacteria than people who do not eat chocolate, leading to a difference in various metabolic byproducts in the blood and urine of test subjects.
Studies have also proven that intestinal flora changes after a change in weight.
Scientists feel this is exciting because if we can find ways to manipulate the bacteria, we can nudge it in the right direction for people trying to meet specific goals.
I wonder what far reaching research could lead to? They're already experimenting with certain parasites to treat Crohns disease, acknowledging that probiotics are vital for intestinal health, and begrudgingly admitting that natural vitamins might serve humans better than synthetic ones. What can gut bacteria teach us about allergies and autoimmune disorders?
What else is "all in our head", but really tied to the gut?
Elaine Gottschal watched a diet prescribed by Dr. Haas heal her daughter. She went on to write a book, now published as "Breaking the Viscious Cycle," which embraced the theory that gut bacteria were intrinsically linked to whole health. Especially gastrointestinal health.
Elaine went on to explain that the bad bugs crave sugar...in essence causing the human host to crave sugar. (Try and explain this to the typical MD, and he'll try very hard not to laugh directly at you.) She also explained how obesity can be caused by starvation...the bad bugs "stealing" all those yummy carbs and sugars.
After only 60 years or so, medical science has begun to wake up and agree. Those carb cravings may not be just in our heads (and tastebuds). Neither are they a product of our genes. Nope, studies have proven that people who eat chocolate have different intestinal bacteria than people who do not eat chocolate, leading to a difference in various metabolic byproducts in the blood and urine of test subjects.
Studies have also proven that intestinal flora changes after a change in weight.
Scientists feel this is exciting because if we can find ways to manipulate the bacteria, we can nudge it in the right direction for people trying to meet specific goals.
I wonder what far reaching research could lead to? They're already experimenting with certain parasites to treat Crohns disease, acknowledging that probiotics are vital for intestinal health, and begrudgingly admitting that natural vitamins might serve humans better than synthetic ones. What can gut bacteria teach us about allergies and autoimmune disorders?
What else is "all in our head", but really tied to the gut?
Friday, October 09, 2009
As Halloween approaches, a reason to be Thankful...
Halloween is always tough around here.
For oldest, no dye, no dairy, no gluten. Not much sense in trick or treating!
For youngest, it used to be no nuts, but this year it's no dye (and she passed the peanut challenge! Yay! Although she claims they still smell disgusting.)
Really, there aren't all THAT many options out there.
Of course, the kids made do. And adore our yearly ritual of sorting out the candy into safe piles, and then into piles by type. Then we trade in the junk for safe candy and cheap part favors. This year, they even want to use it in experiments. (As in, how long does it take a skittle to dissolve? An M&M? Jolly Rancher?)
We even have a yearly outing to a local zoo, where various local businesses set up stations and give out non-candy items. (Flower seeds are always a big hit, and they actively seek out the Apple Juice booth. No candy, please, just the juice!)
Anyways, despite the fun it's still hard to go to school and see kids gorge on multicolored confections on the beloved sugar fest we call "Halloween". We know in our heads that junk food tastes good to your tongue, and real food tastes good to your tummy, but in practice, it's hard to pass up sprinkles and gummies and frosting. (even if you have your own delicious treat waiting.)
My oldest even watched a woman bribing her son with skittles in the library, "Just be good. Here, what color? Any color. Good boy. Now be good. Fine, another color. Any color. Come on, yummy. Choose a color. Now be good, stay with...No, come back, fine. Look. Candy! Yummy!" And thanked me for not being that kind of mom. (Thankfully, not many of us are. The kid wasn't even misbehaving, just looking at the books on the shelf.)
But when 'everyone else' is eating something that looks good, smells good, and you know tastes good; and they keep tempting you to just take a tiny taste; it's hard to say no. And it's hard to watch your kids struggle with that self control. Self control that many adults have failed to master. (Just ask anyone whose ever tried a fad diet how often they cheated.)
However, there is a reason to be grateful for forced moderation. British studies show that kids who eat an excess of sugar in their formative years actually may be at increased risk for arrest due to violent crimes. Of course, the next question is why those kids ate so many sweets to begin with. Was it a parenting issue? A chemical imbalance? Were the sweets a cause or a symptom? And was it sugar itself or the rise in the use of petrochemicals in sweets over the past 20 or 30 years? (This is purely my speculation, but clearly an avenue investigators will have to explore further, as you can see in the article.)
At any rate, maybe it will be easier to ignore those naysayers who 'tsk, tsk" and tell me that my poor kids are so terribly deprived. Not only are they missing out on sugar highs, migraines, stomach aches and mood swings, their risk of acquiring a violent criminal record is dropping.
Maybe we should celebrate.
Candy, anyone?
For oldest, no dye, no dairy, no gluten. Not much sense in trick or treating!
For youngest, it used to be no nuts, but this year it's no dye (and she passed the peanut challenge! Yay! Although she claims they still smell disgusting.)
Really, there aren't all THAT many options out there.
Of course, the kids made do. And adore our yearly ritual of sorting out the candy into safe piles, and then into piles by type. Then we trade in the junk for safe candy and cheap part favors. This year, they even want to use it in experiments. (As in, how long does it take a skittle to dissolve? An M&M? Jolly Rancher?)
We even have a yearly outing to a local zoo, where various local businesses set up stations and give out non-candy items. (Flower seeds are always a big hit, and they actively seek out the Apple Juice booth. No candy, please, just the juice!)
Anyways, despite the fun it's still hard to go to school and see kids gorge on multicolored confections on the beloved sugar fest we call "Halloween". We know in our heads that junk food tastes good to your tongue, and real food tastes good to your tummy, but in practice, it's hard to pass up sprinkles and gummies and frosting. (even if you have your own delicious treat waiting.)
My oldest even watched a woman bribing her son with skittles in the library, "Just be good. Here, what color? Any color. Good boy. Now be good. Fine, another color. Any color. Come on, yummy. Choose a color. Now be good, stay with...No, come back, fine. Look. Candy! Yummy!" And thanked me for not being that kind of mom. (Thankfully, not many of us are. The kid wasn't even misbehaving, just looking at the books on the shelf.)
But when 'everyone else' is eating something that looks good, smells good, and you know tastes good; and they keep tempting you to just take a tiny taste; it's hard to say no. And it's hard to watch your kids struggle with that self control. Self control that many adults have failed to master. (Just ask anyone whose ever tried a fad diet how often they cheated.)
However, there is a reason to be grateful for forced moderation. British studies show that kids who eat an excess of sugar in their formative years actually may be at increased risk for arrest due to violent crimes. Of course, the next question is why those kids ate so many sweets to begin with. Was it a parenting issue? A chemical imbalance? Were the sweets a cause or a symptom? And was it sugar itself or the rise in the use of petrochemicals in sweets over the past 20 or 30 years? (This is purely my speculation, but clearly an avenue investigators will have to explore further, as you can see in the article.)
At any rate, maybe it will be easier to ignore those naysayers who 'tsk, tsk" and tell me that my poor kids are so terribly deprived. Not only are they missing out on sugar highs, migraines, stomach aches and mood swings, their risk of acquiring a violent criminal record is dropping.
Maybe we should celebrate.
Candy, anyone?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Stress? Or endocrine disruption?
Newsflash. A common herbicide, atrazine, has been linked with endocrine disorders among some amphibians. Namely, it chemically castrates adult male frogs. (Among other things) And, it takes a very small level of exposure to do so.
How small? Well, according to Tyrone Hayes in this article, the amount required to cause damage is equivalent to the weight of 5 grains of salt divided by five thousand. And atrazine used in crops (mostly corn) not only contaminates the crops themselves, but the soil and groundwater around them. Runoff reaches rivers, streams and lakes which means that many aquatic ecospheres are affected. (Not to mention human drinking water.)
The problem was brought to light in 2002. Now, in 2009, the EPA has decided to take action and require...not that atrazine be banned, but that 67 chemicals contained in pesticides and herbicides be tested for their impact on the endocrine system and their potential harm to humans. Eventually, all chemicals will be required to undergo testing.
Theoretically, the next step would be to phase out the harmful chemicals, and replace them with...less harmful ones. And, at some point, clean up the mess left behind.
I wonder how long it will take them to look at the pervasive nature of corn in our current society, and examine it's relationship with endocrine and hormonal disorders among us? In February of 2002, researchers released information that corncob bedding inhibited the mating activity of lab rats, and caused problems with hormonal imbalance. The chemicals these problems were traced to are present in fresh corn and tortillas as well as the cobs...in other words; humans are exposed as well. And I haven't found any good studies showing the affect of corn on our endocrine systems.
Perhaps the public will become more concerned if they trace the increased need for viagra to their corn stuffed mattress and super soft ingeo pillows? I suppose that's another symptom the professionals like to blame on stress...
How small? Well, according to Tyrone Hayes in this article, the amount required to cause damage is equivalent to the weight of 5 grains of salt divided by five thousand. And atrazine used in crops (mostly corn) not only contaminates the crops themselves, but the soil and groundwater around them. Runoff reaches rivers, streams and lakes which means that many aquatic ecospheres are affected. (Not to mention human drinking water.)
The problem was brought to light in 2002. Now, in 2009, the EPA has decided to take action and require...not that atrazine be banned, but that 67 chemicals contained in pesticides and herbicides be tested for their impact on the endocrine system and their potential harm to humans. Eventually, all chemicals will be required to undergo testing.
Theoretically, the next step would be to phase out the harmful chemicals, and replace them with...less harmful ones. And, at some point, clean up the mess left behind.
I wonder how long it will take them to look at the pervasive nature of corn in our current society, and examine it's relationship with endocrine and hormonal disorders among us? In February of 2002, researchers released information that corncob bedding inhibited the mating activity of lab rats, and caused problems with hormonal imbalance. The chemicals these problems were traced to are present in fresh corn and tortillas as well as the cobs...in other words; humans are exposed as well. And I haven't found any good studies showing the affect of corn on our endocrine systems.
Perhaps the public will become more concerned if they trace the increased need for viagra to their corn stuffed mattress and super soft ingeo pillows? I suppose that's another symptom the professionals like to blame on stress...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
There's Mercury in that Corn...
Well, as a corn allergic individual, I've learned that the vast majority of the time, "There's Corn in that. And there's Corn in that, too." However...I did not know that High Fructose Corn Syrup was contaminated with the heavy metal Mercury. In fact, it contains a LOT of mercury.
The Corn Refiners Association argues that they have cleaned up their act. Not only is there now no mercury in corn syrup, they now are using mercury free processing agents.
Amusing. If there never was mercury in corn syrup, why are they "now" using the mercury free versions of caustic soda and hydrochloric acid? And why has it never come out before that this "all natural sweetener" used to have mercury?
With all of the hype about corn syrup causing obesity, one would think that if there had been evidence before, even suspect, that it would have found it's way into American's ears. Unless, of course, there was a cover up. (Is this when Mel Gibson shows up at my door with "Conspiracy Theory" theme music?)
Perhaps the study was flawed? Then why was it confirmed by a second study conducted by the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy? This one showed that around 31% of the food and beverage products that contain high fructose corn syrup which were tested (purchased straight from supermarket shelves) contained mercury. The study was limited, meant only to challenge the findings of the first study after a notable lack of response from the FDA and other consumer advocacy groups. And it proved that the first study...had some merit, after all.
But corn is good. The Corn Refiners Association is huge industry. Corn is in everything, and they are looking for ways to stick it in products that lack this miracle food. It has fiber. And it grows well in North America. Most importantly, it's government subsidized. And it has so many other potential uses, such as ethanol.
Some days, I think that's about all corn is fit for...burning. At least it will kill us slowly, and it burns cleaner than coal.
The Corn Refiners Association argues that they have cleaned up their act. Not only is there now no mercury in corn syrup, they now are using mercury free processing agents.
Amusing. If there never was mercury in corn syrup, why are they "now" using the mercury free versions of caustic soda and hydrochloric acid? And why has it never come out before that this "all natural sweetener" used to have mercury?
With all of the hype about corn syrup causing obesity, one would think that if there had been evidence before, even suspect, that it would have found it's way into American's ears. Unless, of course, there was a cover up. (Is this when Mel Gibson shows up at my door with "Conspiracy Theory" theme music?)
Perhaps the study was flawed? Then why was it confirmed by a second study conducted by the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy? This one showed that around 31% of the food and beverage products that contain high fructose corn syrup which were tested (purchased straight from supermarket shelves) contained mercury. The study was limited, meant only to challenge the findings of the first study after a notable lack of response from the FDA and other consumer advocacy groups. And it proved that the first study...had some merit, after all.
But corn is good. The Corn Refiners Association is huge industry. Corn is in everything, and they are looking for ways to stick it in products that lack this miracle food. It has fiber. And it grows well in North America. Most importantly, it's government subsidized. And it has so many other potential uses, such as ethanol.
Some days, I think that's about all corn is fit for...burning. At least it will kill us slowly, and it burns cleaner than coal.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Food Allergy study Rant
Apparently, hundreds of parents are simply crazy. Yes, folks, studies have shown that regardless of parental confidence in their children's "allergies"; medical facts can't prove that the kids do, medically speaking, react.
Poor children are being deprived of "life giving" nutrients because the parents are hypochondriacs. At least, according to some specific guidelines that don't appear to take into consideration the potential for outgrown allergies, or exageration of symptoms to invoke cooperation, or the possibility that the reaction is delayed or even needs time to build up because maybe, just maybe, these parents have done a decent job of avoiding exposure and thus reaction.
Now, I don't know about you, but I find it absurd that its even a question of who's right, dr's or parents. Do schools need to accommodate parental requests regarding what children are told to ingest? Do parents need to relinquish control since they are required to send their children to school anyways?
I think that we've reached a point where the schools are providing too many throw away foods period. The kids don't need it to begin with.
But no, it's the parents who have a problem. How dare we be concerned with kids health! How dare we deny them donuts! How dare we nix nuts! How can we possibly ban pizza?
Many children spend half their waking hours under supervision of their school. Most then skip off to daycare for a few hours before heading home for dinner and bed. Is it really unreasonable that parents are noting symptoms and looking for answers?
Attitudes such as this "Fake food allergies" make parents feel even more out of control. Because their valid concerns are undermined by those who side with statistics. Statistically, I'm not going to drop dead when I hand out popcorn at the spring fling. That doesn't mean that the nasty rash and intestinal discomfort I later experience (or even begin experiencing after a few minutes) isn't going to irritate the heck out of me. And my kids?
I want anyone in a position of authority over them to take this whole "certain foods cause unpleasant symptoms" thing seriously. That may mean labeling a "little intolerance" as an allergy. At least until the medical community gets their act together and comes up with an appropriate label to be used for those who need food restrictions but are not anaphylactic.
A hundred years ago, food allergies may not have been prolific. But, foods were easier to avoid. They weren't nearly as invasive. They were often "whole". Easy to identify. I don't know about you, but common sense tells me that if every time I ate cornbread I threw it up and spent the next several days in a good deal of discomfort, I wouldn't have even bothered tracking down a doctor and trading a few chickens for his diagnosis of "I wonder if it's something known as an allergy..." I'd have followed my instincts and stopped eating corn bread. And I'd probably have noticed in a hurry that Grandma's cornstarch thickened pudding bothered me too.
A hundred years ago, I'd have had a few other options. Not the ones I have now, perhaps. Tapioca, rice, buckwheat, quinoa, amaranth weren't well known and variety wasn't necessarily the spice of life. But, seriously...salad would have been safe. Potatoes, apples, water, milk...
Food intolerances need a label now because our society has changed. Parental wishes need to be followed because we are the parents. We are the ones who put the kids to bed at night and wake them up in the morning. We brought them into this world, and we have every right to not only keep them in it but keep them happy to be here. Some would call it an obligation.
I don't care if someone out there thinks that food allergies are some freudian fraud, or if they are simply another Darwinian method to thin the herd. I don't care how many people are actually at risk for anaphylaxis. I want it acknowledged that it is a valid threat.
I want it acknowledged that food can be fatal. I want it acknowledged that food is just food, it isn't the end of the world if you can't feed me or my kids. It isn't the center of all celebration. No one is suffering for lack of sugar, or need for pizza, or wasting away for the want of a PB&J. Food restrictions make life hard. And "studies" like this, that indicate people choosing to improve their or their children's health through dietary intervention are actually in need of a psychiatrist simply make life harder for those who have valid reasons for adapting their diet.
Even if we don't have a valid reason, if it makes us happy to avoid something like the plague who is it hurting to accept that choice?
Poor children are being deprived of "life giving" nutrients because the parents are hypochondriacs. At least, according to some specific guidelines that don't appear to take into consideration the potential for outgrown allergies, or exageration of symptoms to invoke cooperation, or the possibility that the reaction is delayed or even needs time to build up because maybe, just maybe, these parents have done a decent job of avoiding exposure and thus reaction.
Now, I don't know about you, but I find it absurd that its even a question of who's right, dr's or parents. Do schools need to accommodate parental requests regarding what children are told to ingest? Do parents need to relinquish control since they are required to send their children to school anyways?
I think that we've reached a point where the schools are providing too many throw away foods period. The kids don't need it to begin with.
But no, it's the parents who have a problem. How dare we be concerned with kids health! How dare we deny them donuts! How dare we nix nuts! How can we possibly ban pizza?
Many children spend half their waking hours under supervision of their school. Most then skip off to daycare for a few hours before heading home for dinner and bed. Is it really unreasonable that parents are noting symptoms and looking for answers?
Attitudes such as this "Fake food allergies" make parents feel even more out of control. Because their valid concerns are undermined by those who side with statistics. Statistically, I'm not going to drop dead when I hand out popcorn at the spring fling. That doesn't mean that the nasty rash and intestinal discomfort I later experience (or even begin experiencing after a few minutes) isn't going to irritate the heck out of me. And my kids?
I want anyone in a position of authority over them to take this whole "certain foods cause unpleasant symptoms" thing seriously. That may mean labeling a "little intolerance" as an allergy. At least until the medical community gets their act together and comes up with an appropriate label to be used for those who need food restrictions but are not anaphylactic.
A hundred years ago, food allergies may not have been prolific. But, foods were easier to avoid. They weren't nearly as invasive. They were often "whole". Easy to identify. I don't know about you, but common sense tells me that if every time I ate cornbread I threw it up and spent the next several days in a good deal of discomfort, I wouldn't have even bothered tracking down a doctor and trading a few chickens for his diagnosis of "I wonder if it's something known as an allergy..." I'd have followed my instincts and stopped eating corn bread. And I'd probably have noticed in a hurry that Grandma's cornstarch thickened pudding bothered me too.
A hundred years ago, I'd have had a few other options. Not the ones I have now, perhaps. Tapioca, rice, buckwheat, quinoa, amaranth weren't well known and variety wasn't necessarily the spice of life. But, seriously...salad would have been safe. Potatoes, apples, water, milk...
Food intolerances need a label now because our society has changed. Parental wishes need to be followed because we are the parents. We are the ones who put the kids to bed at night and wake them up in the morning. We brought them into this world, and we have every right to not only keep them in it but keep them happy to be here. Some would call it an obligation.
I don't care if someone out there thinks that food allergies are some freudian fraud, or if they are simply another Darwinian method to thin the herd. I don't care how many people are actually at risk for anaphylaxis. I want it acknowledged that it is a valid threat.
I want it acknowledged that food can be fatal. I want it acknowledged that food is just food, it isn't the end of the world if you can't feed me or my kids. It isn't the center of all celebration. No one is suffering for lack of sugar, or need for pizza, or wasting away for the want of a PB&J. Food restrictions make life hard. And "studies" like this, that indicate people choosing to improve their or their children's health through dietary intervention are actually in need of a psychiatrist simply make life harder for those who have valid reasons for adapting their diet.
Even if we don't have a valid reason, if it makes us happy to avoid something like the plague who is it hurting to accept that choice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)