I think I come down on this pretty much exactly where you do. One salient point which I think Nestruck overlooks is that facilities like the ACC didn't become wheelchair accessible out of the goodness of their hearts - they did so because of the introduction of legal penalties for failure to do so. The argument seems to be that because the concession was made with respect to the one (i.e., wheelchairs), it should be made with respect to the other (i.e., peanuts) - which is falsely premised on the notion that there was an uncoerced concession.

Great post

I don't know where I stand on your line of thinking on this. A line has to be drawn somewhere, of course. I'm just not sure it's where you want it to be.

But what is it with peanut allergies, anyway? When I was in school, and that was some time ago, I never heard of such a thing, no one I knew had anything of the kind, and I brought peanut butter sandwiches to school, no problem. But in my kid's class alone, no fewer than four people are running around with epi-pens.

Are our systems breaking down because of environmental factors? Or are things that were once mysterious now attributed to a peanut allergy? I'm genuinely curious, but haven't had any time to research the literature. Any ideas?

I think from the A.C.C.'s point of view, it makes sense to choose to stop selling peanuts. For the sake of argument, I'll accept your numbers. Let's say 1 out of 25 Air Canada Centre patrons consumes peanuts. How many will stop attending sporting events and concerts if they stop selling peanuts? I would wager that none of them would. I can't think of a single Leafs fan who would give up his tickets because of a change of menu at the concessions stands.

Meanwhile, using your numbers, 1 in 200 people will feel more comfortable attending games (basketball, too) and concerts at the A.C.C. Add in their families and supporters and you've pleased a lot of patrons and potential patrons. It's good public relations at minimal, perhaps no cost.

Not being able to buy peanuts could, I suppose, be considered an inconvenience to A.C.C. patrons. But so is not being able to eat the thousands of food items the A.C.C. does not already sell. The only reason stopping selling peanuts would be an issue is because they are currently selling peanuts. Had they never sold peanuts, like they've never sold, say, fish and chips, it would not be considered an inconvenience at all. People who go to see movies at the multiplex do not consider it an inconvenience that they cannot buy roasted peanuts. If they think of it, they merely think of it as just one of many choices that has not been offered to them by this private film exhibitor.

As a business and public relations decision, not selling peanuts makes sense for sporting complexes across the country. As a consumer/potential consumer, I feel no guilt about asking a company to make a minor change that will make me and my peanut-adverse brethren feel more comfortable. It's up to them, of course, to decide if making this menu change it is worth their while.

As for "Where do we stop?", it's not really a relevant question. The question is "Where will the A.C.C. stop?" and that's entirely up to them. I see this as a consumer issue, not really a grand political one. The only people who really have a stake in it are people allergic to peanuts, arguably their friends and family, the A.C.C., and people who love eating peanuts at sporting events and will be seriously upset if they can't anymore.

I'm glad to see it debated by the broader public, mind, because it brings the issue of peanut allergies into the open. Aly's story, from which this sprung, is a lesson that, yes, people can have severe reactions simply because you are eating peanuts around them. It also teaches teenagers who are allergic that when they feel a reaction coming on, they should take action immediately and that, if they are uncomfortable in a situation like this, they should move. It's also a lesson to make sure your Epipen has not expired.

And so, I appreciate all the thought you've put into post.

Just a brief note about the effects of the smell of peanuts, since you ask: While just the smell makes many allergic people uncomfortable (I can attest to that), it is hypothesized that the "peanut dust" that disperses into the air when peanuts are cracked open is the culprit when people have anaphylactic reactions without coming into direct contact with a nut. For proof that people have reactions without consuming or touching peanuts, you need only look at Aly Young. (Unless you believe she faked nearly stopping breathing or lied about the circumstances.)

If you're looking for scientific data on scent and airborne peanut particles, there isn't any to find because there has been very little scientific study done on it. That does not mean that it is not real. Allergies in general are scientific mysteries. We still have no idea why our bodies protect ourselves to death from certain harmless foods.

As for trying to glean anything about prevalence of allergies from mortality rates, it's not useful... Deaths from peanut allergies are so rare that they are statistically insignificant; it is a manageable condition that, in this day and age, should not result in death at all or even, if you're very careful, reactions. When you factor in the increased prescription of Epipens and greater public and personal awareness on how to avoid allergic reactions, mortality should be dropping. I'm not sure how you can measure incidence beyond looking at the results of allergy tests. I'm completely willing to believe that part of the rise in incidence is a result of increased testing and awareness, but I don't think it accounts for all of it.

Even though deaths are rare, that does not we should be complacent or stop treating peanut allergies as life-threatening. The sad, avoidable deaths of two teens from peanut allergies in Canada in the past year reminds us of that.

But what is it with peanut allergies, anyway? When I was in school, and that was some time ago, I never heard of such a thing, no one I knew had anything of the kind...

This is what I find fascinating as well. I was in primary and middle school during the 1980s, and I can say with a fair degree of certainty (since the schools were relatively small) that there was no one in my grade or the grades around me who had peanut allergies. I can only think of one person who had peanut allergies, and I knew her from a part-time job I had. Nowadays they're everywhere. All of the (extremely limited) literature I've read on it regarding increasing incidence can be roughly summed up as "who the hell knows?" - but there's got to be something that someone can point to. Environmental factors would seem the most likely culprit (food additives would be my guess, if forced to choose), but does anyone have a link to anything which has explored this in-depth?

Motor vehicles kill more people then peanuts do.

Ban motor vehicles to save lives.

Gosh, I don't think there's been a zamboni death or injury in ages. So, I think banning motor vehicles in sporting arenas would be a little over-the-top... But I guess if you wanted to ask the A.C.C. to voluntarily consider your proposal, it's up to them to decide.

This is ridiculous.

This is asshole-centric behaviour.

Tart Cider is right, and J Kelly is making a mountain out of a molehill. Is this really worth wasting everyone's time over?

Being peanut-allergic is NOT like being in a wheelchair.

Ugh.

Sorry I'm not as well-spoken or well-thought as our hosty-host.

Jkelly, I wrote nothing about banning motor vehicles in sporting arenas. I'll repeat what I wrote:

"Motor vehicles kill more people then peanuts do.

Ban motor vehicles to save lives."

Now, is my first assertion incorrect? If it is correct, what is wrong with my idea, based on your same logic?

Sigh. Okay. I'll spell it out.

In what you wrote, you are:
a) Suggesting banning cars.
b) Suggesting banning them everywhere.

In what I wrote:
a) I did not suggest banning peanuts.
b) What I did suggest was that sports arenas voluntarily stop selling peanuts.

Do you see why what you've written has nothing to do with what I wrote? Do you get my Zamboni joke now? See what I was doing there?

"In what you wrote, you are:
a) Suggesting banning cars.
b) Suggesting banning them everywhere."

Correct. Cars can kill everywhere.

Don't you see that the logic you are using is flawed for even suggesting banning peanuts anywhere?

Ian, methinks he doesn't get it....

I shouldn't have said "asshole-centric" - I apologize, sincerely.

I'm of the opinion that this whole debate is an example of why Star Trek:TNG was flawed in it's conception of the future. People who have sensationally easy lives, with replicators and more free time than Spock and Kirk, don't turn to studying art and literature and history in their spare time - they turn to grievances and irritations, making their personal issues bigger than they would have dreamed of just 100 years earlier.

Quibbling about peanuts and comparing it to wheelchair access is ignoring the real issues in the world today. It's personal and insular and it is, to me, self-absorbed. Instead of writing about Senate elections or military spending, or anti-Semitism, or global conflict, we want to stop and talk about US, about ME.

This is like when homosexuals rallied around gay marriage, most of them having stood idly on the sidelines, indifferent, through the gun registry, abortion questions, and Iraq.

In today's easy-life society, we care more about our individual selves than we do about the bigger issues and questions facing us. Now, rather than ask what a nuclear Iran means, Aly and J Kelly ask instead, "Hey, did you guys know I'm allergic to peanuts? Do you even know what that means?"

I think it's navel-gazing and blind, but I should not have said "asshole-centric", and I take that back, with apologies.

Ian:

1. Asking an organization to stop selling a particular product is not the same as banning a particular product. I am not asking the A.C.C. to ban peanuts from its premises -- that would be unenforceable. Reread my post and my comments.

2. Banning something everywhere is not the same as banning something in a particular place. More relevantly, banning something everywhere is not the same as not selling something in a particular place.

3. Cars are a terrible analogy. Cars are extremely regulated -- you must have licenses to drive them; you must drive only on roads; you must follow very strict rules as to how you ride them (speed, etc.). You cannot drive cars everywhere. They are banned from sidewalks, backyards, the Air Canada Centre, etc.

I won't argue this anymore. If you don't see why your analogy is ridiculous, you don't see it.

But then how on earth would banning peanuts at the ACC help, JKelly? If you want them banned only in one particular place and not everywhere - what happens when you step outside of the ACC into the Paramount, where someone could be having peanut M&M's? What about the CNE? Or Hanlan's Point or Dream In High Park or the Eaton Centre?

I don't Ian's point is as far off as you say - despite all the regulations regarding driving, there are *vastly* more people killed by cars each year than by peanut allergies. Still, we don't see them confined only to city-to-city or province-to-province or nation-to-nation travel -- they are allowed in neighourhoods and districts all over every city.

The risk of being killed by a car is far, far, far greater than the risk of being killed by a peanut allergy. Yet sane people aren't calling for a ban on cars.

I'm not indifferent to the restrictions placed on the life of someone with a peanut (or other) allergy. But I don't feel you have the right to expect others to stop eating peanuts around you. You have the right to be notified that foods contain or may contain peanuts or traces of peanuts.

That's good enough.

"Yet sane people aren't calling for a ban on cars."

I should've said "pedestrians", not "sane people".

My bad.