3 ms·

It could go both ways. I can't speak for the OP, but I can say that I've found it's sometimes easier to explain sensitivities as allergies to people who don't u

It could go both ways. I can't speak for the OP, but I can say that I've found it's sometimes easier to explain sensitivities as allergies to people who don't understand the differences. So, giving that poster the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume they either don't know the difference themselves, or they DO know but don't want to split hairs on the matter in case someone doesn't know. As a personal anecdote along these lines and since discovering my own sensitivities to canola (and rapeseed oils in general), I've learned that simply calling it a "sensitivity" doesn't always convey the need to avoid certain ingredients. So, sometimes I tell people instead to "think of it as a food allergy," which they usually understand. I think that at least part of the problem is that, to a layperson, sensitivity doesn't sound as urgent or at least is suggestive of "optional avoidance." For some people, chemical sensitivities are anything but optional avoidance...

Dylan16807 12y ago
Does it even qualify as a sensitivity? The problem is that the body ignores the lactose.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  Who were you replying to? I didn't say anything about lactose. Did you mean to reply to your comment's sibling?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    DiabloD3 said: lactose (a sugar that some people are allergic to maxerickson said: Lactose intolerance is not an allergy. You replied: I can't speak for the OP, but I can say that I've found it's sometimes easier to explain sensitivities as allergies to people who don't understand the differences. Then I suggested the idea that lactose intolerance was not even a chemical sensitivity. I definitely meant to reply to you. But it looks like the term "sensitivity" has been defined that way, no matter if it's misleading. A sensitivity defined by total lack of interaction, ugh. I guess I'm sensitive to breathing a bunch of argon, too.
maxerickson 12y ago
Given the life threatening nature of many allergic reactions, I think people should be careful to not trample the definition. So calling the simple inability to digest a sugar that causes some digestive discomfort an allergy is pretty much entirely off the table. The situation with chemical sensitivities is harder, but I guess I still don't want people in general deciding for themselves what chemical sensitivities they have that are equivalent to allergies, they should talk to an allergist about it.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  > Given the life threatening nature of many allergic reactions, I think people should be careful to not trample the definition. Don't get me wrong: I agree, but it's sometimes counter-productive to resort to such pedantry if all you're doing is ordering a meal and wish to avoid a specific substance that causes discomfort (or worse). Further, allergies can present with such a broad spectrum of symptoms that it's almost pointless to suggest it shouldn't be used as an analogy for someone who doesn't understand why sensitivities may be problematic is somehow adulterating the definition. Though, sensitivities/intolerances are, AFAIK, never fatal. (Strictly speaking, allergies are a response to foreign proteins; it's important to note that the word itself doesn't convey the nature or severity of the reaction.) That said, if you're speaking with a layperson who might be providing some service in a capacity that it's important they understand you need/want/wish to avoid a particular ingredient because of the effects it has, using a term that's fairly readily understood (such as allergy) can be useful to avoid misinterpretation. And, speaking from personal experience, certain sensitivities don't necessarily require speaking with an allergist to determine whether or not they're somehow "equivalent," and I think a GP is better equipped to make the decision first regarding what type of specialist (if any) you should see if you do suffer from sensitivities. Of course, if you have a sensitivity and it's blindingly obvious both in terms of the cause and the symptoms it presents, it's easy enough to determine on your own how bad it is and to what extent you should avoid the substance that causes it. :)
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The sane definition of a sensitivity is an allergy to something very specific (so just literal, the persons immune system is sensitive to that thing). Of course that is not the common definition. In my world, people that are lactose intolerant should just carry some lactase pills and not bother the server about it. They shouldn't conflate their inability to digest a particular sugar with a life threatening condition. So no, I do not agree that people should express their food preferences to restaurants in terms of self diagnosed "allergies".

Dylan16807 12y ago

Does it even qualify as a sensitivity? The problem is that the body ignores the lactose.

Zancarius 12y ago
Who were you replying to? I didn't say anything about lactose. Did you mean to reply to your comment's sibling?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  DiabloD3 said: lactose (a sugar that some people are allergic to maxerickson said: Lactose intolerance is not an allergy. You replied: I can't speak for the OP, but I can say that I've found it's sometimes easier to explain sensitivities as allergies to people who don't understand the differences. Then I suggested the idea that lactose intolerance was not even a chemical sensitivity. I definitely meant to reply to you. But it looks like the term "sensitivity" has been defined that way, no matter if it's misleading. A sensitivity defined by total lack of interaction, ugh. I guess I'm sensitive to breathing a bunch of argon, too.

maxerickson 12y ago

Given the life threatening nature of many allergic reactions, I think people should be careful to not trample the definition. So calling the simple inability to digest a sugar that causes some digestive discomfort an allergy is pretty much entirely off the table. The situation with chemical sensitivities is harder, but I guess I still don't want people in general deciding for themselves what chemical sensitivities they have that are equivalent to allergies, they should talk to an allergist about it.

Zancarius 12y ago
> Given the life threatening nature of many allergic reactions, I think people should be careful to not trample the definition. Don't get me wrong: I agree, but it's sometimes counter-productive to resort to such pedantry if all you're doing is ordering a meal and wish to avoid a specific substance that causes discomfort (or worse). Further, allergies can present with such a broad spectrum of symptoms that it's almost pointless to suggest it shouldn't be used as an analogy for someone who doesn't understand why sensitivities may be problematic is somehow adulterating the definition. Though, sensitivities/intolerances are, AFAIK, never fatal. (Strictly speaking, allergies are a response to foreign proteins; it's important to note that the word itself doesn't convey the nature or severity of the reaction.) That said, if you're speaking with a layperson who might be providing some service in a capacity that it's important they understand you need/want/wish to avoid a particular ingredient because of the effects it has, using a term that's fairly readily understood (such as allergy) can be useful to avoid misinterpretation. And, speaking from personal experience, certain sensitivities don't necessarily require speaking with an allergist to determine whether or not they're somehow "equivalent," and I think a GP is better equipped to make the decision first regarding what type of specialist (if any) you should see if you do suffer from sensitivities. Of course, if you have a sensitivity and it's blindingly obvious both in terms of the cause and the symptoms it presents, it's easy enough to determine on your own how bad it is and to what extent you should avoid the substance that causes it. :)
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The sane definition of a sensitivity is an allergy to something very specific (so just literal, the persons immune system is sensitive to that thing). Of course that is not the common definition. In my world, people that are lactose intolerant should just carry some lactase pills and not bother the server about it. They shouldn't conflate their inability to digest a particular sugar with a life threatening condition. So no, I do not agree that people should express their food preferences to restaurants in terms of self diagnosed "allergies".