> 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, bu

> 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. :)