weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 20, 2019 17:33:41 GMT -5
I have a friend who says she cannot have gluten. She gives servers a very hard time. Then I'll go to her house and she's having a bagel and chasing it with a beer. So why do you have a liar as a friend? Why don't you call her out for it? All her actions do is hurt those who DO have gluten sensitivities and do have to be extraordinarily careful when they eat out. I have called her out on it. She says sometimes she just NEEDS a bagel and a beer, and will pay the price for it later.
|
|
stillmovingforward
Senior Member
Hanging on by a thread
Joined: Jan 1, 2014 21:52:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,066
Today's Mood: Don't Mess with Me!
Location: Not Sure Yet
|
Post by stillmovingforward on Sept 20, 2019 17:43:03 GMT -5
DD1 is in medical school and has food allergies (like, she'll die) . She also has a few food sensitivities. Which I think a lot of people have but think they are allergies. Sensitivity is similar to an allergy but not as bad. She tells me that restaurants have (should have) different protocols for each. Allergies are 'scorch the kitchen' cleaning-wise where a sensitivity can be leaving ingredients out and just watching for obvious cross contamination. So, what you have/think you have depends on the medical diagnosis and how you present it.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 20, 2019 17:59:08 GMT -5
Lol you care way too much about what other people want to order. How do I care at all what people want to order? I pointed out how restaurant wording on menus doesn't likely line up with the very strict requirements and internal thoughts on what someone thinks they mean (or should mean). And then I pointed out that I think a better strategy would be to focus on a buzzword restaurants are trained in (allergy), rather than "celiacs" which typically doesn't carry the same weight because it's not really an allergy and exposure typically not as severe. You are severely parsing what's said, what's meant, what the biological mechanisms may be. Who cares? People can order what they want, the venue may accommodate them or not, and people decide which venues they will revisit. And establishments will survive or not based on revisit ratios.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 20, 2019 18:15:30 GMT -5
DD1 is in medical school and has food allergies (like, she'll die) . She also has a few food sensitivities. Which I think a lot of people have but think they are allergies. Sensitivity is similar to an allergy but not as bad. She tells me that restaurants have (should have) different protocols for each. Allergies are 'scorch the kitchen' cleaning-wise where a sensitivity can be leaving ingredients out and just watching for obvious cross contamination. So, what you have/think you have depends on the medical diagnosis and how you present it. But you cannot assume this. A 'sensitivity' can turn into a case of anaphalactic shock (and possible death) on an exposure. They say that they are allergic because they have not had a reaction that bad, but their system is primed and all it takes is the right catalyst at the right time. My friend has a gluten sensitivity, but she has the same reaction whether she eats a hamburger bun or she eats french fries that have been fried in the same oil as piece of flour coated chicken.
|
|
stillmovingforward
Senior Member
Hanging on by a thread
Joined: Jan 1, 2014 21:52:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,066
Today's Mood: Don't Mess with Me!
Location: Not Sure Yet
|
Post by stillmovingforward on Sept 20, 2019 18:23:39 GMT -5
Correct. One of my allergies started as a sensitivity and is now a life threatening allergy. I did not intend to sounds as if a sensitivity should be ignored. It should not. But the way restaurants treat them is/should be different.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 20, 2019 18:38:11 GMT -5
DD1 is in medical school and has food allergies (like, she'll die) . She also has a few food sensitivities. Which I think a lot of people have but think they are allergies. Sensitivity is similar to an allergy but not as bad. She tells me that restaurants have (should have) different protocols for each. Allergies are 'scorch the kitchen' cleaning-wise where a sensitivity can be leaving ingredients out and just watching for obvious cross contamination. So, what you have/think you have depends on the medical diagnosis and how you present it. But you cannot assume this. A 'sensitivity' can turn into a case of anaphalactic shock (and possible death) on an exposure. They say that they are allergic because they have not had a reaction that bad, but their system is primed and all it takes is the right catalyst at the right time. My friend has a gluten sensitivity, but she has the same reaction whether she eats a hamburger bun or she eats french fries that have been fried in the same oil as piece of flour coated chicken. I have a "sensitivity" to NSAIDs, meaning that I won't go into anaphylactic shock, but they could kill me nonetheless. Last time I took them, I ended up with uncontrolled internal haemmorrhage and they sent for a priest to give me the Last Rites.
|
|
plugginaway22
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 10:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by plugginaway22 on Sept 20, 2019 18:40:37 GMT -5
If I had a life threatening food allergy I would never trust any restaurant completely. There are too many allergies/restrictions to keep up with. The chef could do everything right and the busboy could have peanut butter on his hand as he carries plates out. Be prepared, carry your auto injector, and consider bringing your own food.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 20, 2019 19:03:30 GMT -5
Correct. One of my allergies started as a sensitivity and is now a life threatening allergy. I did not intend to sounds as if a sensitivity should be ignored. It should not. But the way restaurants treat them is/should be different. Why, if there is a possible repercussion that is equally severe? In one case, it is known. In the other, it is a good possibility. You don’t think that they should be treated equal? As you do not, this could be the reason why someone says they are allergic when they are sensitive. They don’t want to risk having a full blown allergic reaction because sensitivities aren’t treated as seriously.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 20, 2019 20:30:15 GMT -5
How do I care at all what people want to order? I pointed out how restaurant wording on menus doesn't likely line up with the very strict requirements and internal thoughts on what someone thinks they mean (or should mean). And then I pointed out that I think a better strategy would be to focus on a buzzword restaurants are trained in (allergy), rather than "celiacs" which typically doesn't carry the same weight because it's not really an allergy and exposure typically not as severe. You are severely parsing what's said, what's meant, what the biological mechanisms may be. Who cares? People can order what they want, the venue may accommodate them or not, and people decide which venues they will revisit. And establishments will survive or not based on revisit ratios. You're worried about restaurants surviving, I'm giving people advice on how not to end up with severe allergic reactions because restaurants either don't take them seriously or because the common phrases restaurants use are not necessarily aligned with their medical needs. That's PRECISELY what people with severe allergies do in restaurants, they severely parse the meanings of things, because not doing so could mean serious injury or death. Which is exactly why a restaurant that labels an item "gluten free" is going to likely face a lot more questions about what they mean by "gluten free" depending on if the person prefers no gluten, has celiacs, or has an allergic reaction. Someone who simply prefers no gluten, or maybe even has celiacs might say "cool, I'll have that". Someone with a severe allergy might say, and probably should say "wait, what exactly is gluten free to you...how is it prepared, what else is prepared in that area, etc". That's the entire point, you have to parse out the language, because you need to know PRECISELY what they mean. So to answer your question "who cares?"...I don't know...people facing the risk of serious injury or death if they get it wrong? Your attitude is precisely why people have to parse out that language. Oh someone might die if they're exposed to this! And your response is "who cares? the restaurant will just fail if those people die or get sick and don't come back, it'll all work itself out, just eat it!". Good to see your attitude is "the venue will accommodate them or not, and if the venue gets them sick or kills them they just won't come back"...WOW. Everyone should just not worry about it, if the restaurant kills you then just don't go back there, problem solved!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 20, 2019 20:35:56 GMT -5
Correct. One of my allergies started as a sensitivity and is now a life threatening allergy. I did not intend to sounds as if a sensitivity should be ignored. It should not. But the way restaurants treat them is/should be different. Why, if there is a possible repercussion that is equally severe? In one case, it is known. In the other, it is a good possibility. You don’t think that they should be treated equal? As you do not, this could be the reason why someone says they are allergic when they are sensitive. They don’t want to risk having a full blown allergic reaction because sensitivities aren’t treated as seriously. But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. That said, I don't know that restaurants need to NECESSARILY treat them differently, but I think they end up treating them differently just based on the requests at minimum right (based on the severity of reaction, which tends to dictate the requests they receive). So if I'm sensitive to gluten, I probably know myself, and I might say "hey, I need to make sure there is NO gluten in this dish...not in the sauce, not in the salad, whatever". And that's one level of treatment by the restaurant. If I'm severely allergic I might say "I need this prepared in an allergen-free area that's never been exposed to gluten". That's a much higher level of treatment. I THINK your point is that they shouldn't just treat it casually if it's a sensitivity and risk exposure, which is totally true. But the point is they won't be equally severe, and they've probably got to take more precautions for the more severe allergic reactions than the less severe sensitivities.
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,937
|
Post by MN-Investor on Sept 20, 2019 22:40:06 GMT -5
Unless there was a major issue, neither my DH nor I would complain at a restaurant. However, we chuckled for years about one time where DH was assertive at Famous Dave's. After doing yard work all afternoon, my DH was tired, dirty, and hungry. I had a coupon for Famous Dave's so we called in an order. Unfortunately, it wasn't even started when we got there to pick it up. "Come back in 15 minutes." Ok, we drove around just chatting for 15 minutes. I go in to pick it up. "Sorry, there was a mix-up. We're fixing it. It will just be 5 or 10 minutes." Silent fume. After standing there about 5 minutes my DH came in to see what was holding things up. I explained it to him. That's where the fun began. My sweetie was a friendly, outgoing person who loved chatting with folks. But his patience was at an end. My sweetie was also 6'3" and built like a football player. Usually he had a smile on his face. Not at this point. He stormed up to the counter. "I want to speak to the manager!" "Can I help you sir?" "Yes, find the manager. I want to speak to her." The manager did come up and my husband, who has a booming voice, expressed his displeasure. He was not shouting, he was not out of control. He worked in Sales and knew how to get his way by clearly expressing what the issue was and asking what they were going to do to remedy the poor treatment we had received. By the end, when we had our meal, I think we paid a fraction of the price plus got a gift card for more than what the meal cost originally. In fact, I had my husband in mind last week when I went to Subway with a coupon. When the server rang the order up, it would not take the coupon. He tried a couple of things and told me that the register was not accepting any coupons. My natural inclination was to say "Just forget it, I'll use the coupon next time" but I thought of my sweetie and I knew that's not how he would handle it. Being in Sales, he was big into customer satisfaction. So I just stood there, waiting to see how the clerk would handle this situation. He solved it by ringing it up with an employee discount so I got 50% off the sandwich. That employee had done the right thing. Nice to see.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 20, 2019 22:44:02 GMT -5
I have a friend who says she cannot have gluten. She gives servers a very hard time. Then I'll go to her house and she's having a bagel and chasing it with a beer. So why do you have a liar as a friend? Why don't you call her out for it? All her actions do is hurt those who DO have gluten sensitivities and do have to be extraordinarily careful when they eat out. ^^^^^^^all of this.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 20, 2019 22:46:32 GMT -5
Why, if there is a possible repercussion that is equally severe? In one case, it is known. In the other, it is a good possibility. You don’t think that they should be treated equal? As you do not, this could be the reason why someone says they are allergic when they are sensitive. They don’t want to risk having a full blown allergic reaction because sensitivities aren’t treated as seriously. But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. That said, I don't know that restaurants need to NECESSARILY treat them differently, but I think they end up treating them differently just based on the requests at minimum right (based on the severity of reaction, which tends to dictate the requests they receive). So if I'm sensitive to gluten, I probably know myself, and I might say "hey, I need to make sure there is NO gluten in this dish...not in the sauce, not in the salad, whatever". And that's one level of treatment by the restaurant. If I'm severely allergic I might say "I need this prepared in an allergen-free area that's never been exposed to gluten". That's a much higher level of treatment. I THINK your point is that they shouldn't just treat it casually if it's a sensitivity and risk exposure, which is totally true. But the point is they won't be equally severe, and they've probably got to take more precautions for the more severe allergic reactions than the less severe sensitivities. do you feel that a reaction isnt ALLERGIC!! unless it is anaphylactic? trying to figure out your logic here. help me out, please?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 20, 2019 23:40:14 GMT -5
Why, if there is a possible repercussion that is equally severe? In one case, it is known. In the other, it is a good possibility. You don’t think that they should be treated equal? As you do not, this could be the reason why someone says they are allergic when they are sensitive. They don’t want to risk having a full blown allergic reaction because sensitivities aren’t treated as seriously. But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. That said, I don't know that restaurants need to NECESSARILY treat them differently, but I think they end up treating them differently just based on the requests at minimum right (based on the severity of reaction, which tends to dictate the requests they receive). So if I'm sensitive to gluten, I probably know myself, and I might say "hey, I need to make sure there is NO gluten in this dish...not in the sauce, not in the salad, whatever". And that's one level of treatment by the restaurant. If I'm severely allergic I might say "I need this prepared in an allergen-free area that's never been exposed to gluten". That's a much higher level of treatment. I THINK your point is that they shouldn't just treat it casually if it's a sensitivity and risk exposure, which is totally true. But the point is they won't be equally severe, and they've probably got to take more precautions for the more severe allergic reactions than the less severe sensitivities. You don't know that.....and more importantly, neither do they. A sensitivity can be a precursor to a full, anaphylactic reaction. You can have a sensitivity to a substance and have a limited immune response, but it can blow out of control on a subsequent exposure and you do not know when or if this will happen. I have not had sulfa drugs since I was a child. I got a rash. However, that limited rash was sufficient for me to avoid sulfa drugs for 55 years. I may only get another rash if I am exposed to sulfa drugs......OR I might have a full, anaphylactic reaction. Doctors are not inclined to test this out, it is better to avoid the substance altogether.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 20, 2019 23:41:07 GMT -5
So why do you have a liar as a friend? Why don't you call her out for it? All her actions do is hurt those who DO have gluten sensitivities and do have to be extraordinarily careful when they eat out. ^^^^^^^all of this. We've been friends since we were eight. We've been through primary school, high school, college, husbands, divorces, heartbreak and the death of parents together. She's a bit of an odd duck who believes in crystals, chakras, homeopathy and live water. I'm the opposite. We're good as long as we don't discuss health, because that's when the arguments start. I'm not going to give up a friendship which has lasted over half a century because of this. I do love her. She's incredibly bright, well-read, well-traveled, and does a great deal of charity work. I asked myself..."What's more important? Being right or having her as a friend?" The friendship won.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 21, 2019 5:08:38 GMT -5
But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. That said, I don't know that restaurants need to NECESSARILY treat them differently, but I think they end up treating them differently just based on the requests at minimum right (based on the severity of reaction, which tends to dictate the requests they receive). So if I'm sensitive to gluten, I probably know myself, and I might say "hey, I need to make sure there is NO gluten in this dish...not in the sauce, not in the salad, whatever". And that's one level of treatment by the restaurant. If I'm severely allergic I might say "I need this prepared in an allergen-free area that's never been exposed to gluten". That's a much higher level of treatment. I THINK your point is that they shouldn't just treat it casually if it's a sensitivity and risk exposure, which is totally true. But the point is they won't be equally severe, and they've probably got to take more precautions for the more severe allergic reactions than the less severe sensitivities. do you feel that a reaction isnt ALLERGIC!! unless it is anaphylactic? trying to figure out your logic here. help me out, please? My logic is that if you say someone is NOT allergic to something, and then say "what if they have a full blown allergic reaction" you've missed the boat somewhere. You can't have an allergic reaction if you're not allergic. So the argument of sensitive vs allergic...you can't say "what if the person who is only sensitive has an allergic reaction?". That's impossible. So the comment I responded to was essentially about having 2 equally severe reactions. My point is that in a single exposure, allergic reactions tend to be far and away more severe than sensitivity reactions. So it makes sense for restaurants (or anyone else) to take more precautions with potential allergic reactions than someone who is sensitive...and that will likely be driven by the customer because someone with a sensitivity is unlikely to be as detailed as someone who is actually allergic. For example, a loaded gun and a screwdriver COULD both kill me. Just because they COULD both kill me doesn't mean I need to be equally careful with both. One is MUCH more likely to kill me if I treat it without caution. It doesn't mean I should be stupid and use the screwdriver irresponsibly, but you simply can't be on total high alert at all times...it makes sense that I'm on high alert with a gun, or with someone who says they have a severe allergy, as opposed to using a screwdriver or someone who mentions once they have a sensitivity.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 21, 2019 5:20:24 GMT -5
But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. That said, I don't know that restaurants need to NECESSARILY treat them differently, but I think they end up treating them differently just based on the requests at minimum right (based on the severity of reaction, which tends to dictate the requests they receive). So if I'm sensitive to gluten, I probably know myself, and I might say "hey, I need to make sure there is NO gluten in this dish...not in the sauce, not in the salad, whatever". And that's one level of treatment by the restaurant. If I'm severely allergic I might say "I need this prepared in an allergen-free area that's never been exposed to gluten". That's a much higher level of treatment. I THINK your point is that they shouldn't just treat it casually if it's a sensitivity and risk exposure, which is totally true. But the point is they won't be equally severe, and they've probably got to take more precautions for the more severe allergic reactions than the less severe sensitivities. You don't know that.....and more importantly, neither do they. A sensitivity can be a precursor to a full, anaphylactic reaction. You can have a sensitivity to a substance and have a limited immune response, but it can blow out of control on a subsequent exposure and you do not know when or if this will happen. I have not had sulfa drugs since I was a child. I got a rash. However, that limited rash was sufficient for me to avoid sulfa drugs for 55 years. I may only get another rash if I am exposed to sulfa drugs......OR I might have a full, anaphylactic reaction. Doctors are not inclined to test this out, it is better to avoid the substance altogether. Actually, yes, I do know that. Someone who is not allergic to something will not have an allergic reaction to it. That's an objective fact. That's literally the definition. Someone else defined a situation specifically by someone not being allergic. If you're going to retroactively pretend they are allergic, then obviously that changes the entire thing right? If someone says "Hypothetically a person is dead, should I bury them"...I'd probably say "sure, sounds fine". You're now coming back and saying "what if they're actually still alive though?". Well that would change everything, but this isn't a specific person we're speaking about, it's a hypothetical, and in the hypothetical they have been defined as being dead. If your concern is "what about all the people who don't know they're allergic"...well that would apply to pretty much everyone right? By that logic nobody should ever consume anything, they might be allergic and not know it! I don't think we should be placing the same standard of care to people who know they are allergic as we do to people who "may have no idea they are allergic". That's unrealistic.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 21, 2019 5:30:51 GMT -5
So why do you have a liar as a friend? Why don't you call her out for it? All her actions do is hurt those who DO have gluten sensitivities and do have to be extraordinarily careful when they eat out. I have called her out on it. She says sometimes she just NEEDS a bagel and a beer, and will pay the price for it later. Let's be clear though, people can have gluten sensitivities, or celiacs (and maybe an allergy, though that seems less likely in this scenario) and STILL have gluten. My nephew has celiacs (doctor diagnosed, not self diagnosed). He'll still go to restaurants and ask about having things gluten-free (he's a teenager, so he's not super picky about preparation, and stuff like that, more like asking "does this have gluten, I can't have gluten")...but on special occasions...he'll have a donut, or a slice of gluten-filled pizza. He likely won't even pay the price for it later as long as he doesn't over-indulge. Particularly when it comes to sensitivity, there are different levels of reactions. It's not so dissimilar from people who might have some issues with dairy...it doesn't mean they can't indulge occasionally...they just have to be willing to pay the price for it (and if that price isn't a severe allergic reaction, and just means you'll be in the bathroom a lot later...some people think that's occasionally worth it for a treat they love to eat). Obviously I don't know exactly what the friend says. But I don't put too much stock into "I can't have gluten"...that could mean a wide range of things, and is unlikely to literally mean "I can't" (because everyone can right? It's just the reaction they have to deal with which may mean death, but you CAN still have it). I'd put a different spin on it if she's like "no birthday cake for me, I can't have gluten" vs "I can't have gluten, so nobody can bring bread into the office" and then you see her having a beer & bagel later.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,687
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Sept 21, 2019 8:19:43 GMT -5
The point mich is trying to make is you can suddenly develop an allergy. I was good with eggs for the first 25 years of my life. And then suddenly I wasn't. It does show up as an allergy when tests are run. I'm not just sensitive to it. So if your body reacts poorly to it then its best to avoid it. The next time you could be badly allergic.
|
|
JustLurkin
Well-Known Member
This is what you look like right now.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 5:28:20 GMT -5
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by JustLurkin on Sept 21, 2019 8:24:32 GMT -5
Why, if there is a possible repercussion that is equally severe? In one case, it is known. In the other, it is a good possibility. You don’t think that they should be treated equal? As you do not, this could be the reason why someone says they are allergic when they are sensitive. They don’t want to risk having a full blown allergic reaction because sensitivities aren’t treated as seriously. But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. If my son has nuts with his meal, his grand mals will begin. It's a sensitivity, not an allergy. It's none of the servers business, just bring us his chicken without it encrusted in nuts. At least the most recent time I returned his plate the waitress asked if he needed new chicken or a whole new plate (chicken only). I don't ever act like an ass at a restaurant, maybe because I too am in customer service. We actually leave the waitress alone as much as possible--we're more of a "bring us the food and go away" kind of table.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 21, 2019 11:37:14 GMT -5
The point mich is trying to make is you can suddenly develop an allergy. I was good with eggs for the first 25 years of my life. And then suddenly I wasn't. It does show up as an allergy when tests are run. I'm not just sensitive to it. So if your body reacts poorly to it then its best to avoid it. The next time you could be badly allergic. Very much this....thanks.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 21, 2019 11:56:34 GMT -5
But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. It's none of the servers business, just bring us his chicken without it encrusted in nuts. Exactly! Not only is it none of their business - they don't even care!! Do you think they want a diatribe on your maybe allergic/possible sensitivity? One time eating at band camp and google said story? Why even start? They need to communicate to the customer what the kitchen is able to accommodate, and communicate to the chef what the customer is requesting. I'm not sure why people think that someone - who for example - hates seafood, and tells servers they are allergic are some how endangering those who are allergic? I would think that it would promote attention to this kind of thing at many venues making it easier for them. In the case of persons who 1 particle of a substance is going to send them into sever anaphylaxis that an epipen may not be able to stem, I'm not sure what kind of venue kitchen protocols would be safe to take a chance with. In regards to those who are not truly allergic and those who have reactions that are not life threatening - do you think that any small contamination in a meal requested to be nonallergic should engender an outcry from the allergic person? If someone gets a mildly scratchy throat, swollen lips, or some hives - do you imagine that in every case they are going to go complain to the restaurant and that somehow they will adjust the kitchen protocols to perfection? I'm just not getting the logic here.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Sept 21, 2019 12:42:06 GMT -5
Got Glutened last night I think, or sweet potatoed. Massive diarrhea and coma level sleep by 8:30...
Should I give a server all the details? Would that help?
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,687
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Sept 21, 2019 13:29:04 GMT -5
It's none of the servers business, just bring us his chicken without it encrusted in nuts. Exactly! Not only is it none of their business - they don't even care!! Do you think they want a diatribe on your maybe allergic/possible sensitivity? One time eating at band camp and google said story? Why even start? They need to communicate to the customer what the kitchen is able to accommodate, and communicate to the chef what the customer is requesting. I'm not sure why people think that someone - who for example - hates seafood, and tells servers they are allergic are some how endangering those who are allergic? I would think that it would promote attention to this kind of thing at many venues making it easier for them. In the case of persons who 1 particle of a substance is going to send them into sever anaphylaxis that an epipen may not be able to stem, I'm not sure what kind of venue kitchen protocols would be safe to take a chance with. In regards to those who are not truly allergic and those who have reactions that are not life threatening - do you think that any small contamination in a meal requested to be nonallergic should engender an outcry from the allergic person? If someone gets a mildly scratchy throat, swollen lips, or some hives - do you imagine that in every case they are going to go complain to the restaurant and that somehow they will adjust the kitchen protocols to perfection? I'm just not getting the logic here. They are endangering the allergic people. It makes servers take it not seriously. If John Doe says he's allergic to whatever and somehow he still gets it and nothing happens, the server is thinking no big deal. That is the problem. If you don't like something choose your dish accordingly. But don't claim to be allergic and endanger the rest of us. Sorry oped. I always feel like I've been run over by a truck when I'm done puking.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 21, 2019 14:35:05 GMT -5
Exactly! Not only is it none of their business - they don't even care!! Do you think they want a diatribe on your maybe allergic/possible sensitivity? One time eating at band camp and google said story? Why even start? They need to communicate to the customer what the kitchen is able to accommodate, and communicate to the chef what the customer is requesting. I'm not sure why people think that someone - who for example - hates seafood, and tells servers they are allergic are some how endangering those who are allergic? I would think that it would promote attention to this kind of thing at many venues making it easier for them. In the case of persons who 1 particle of a substance is going to send them into sever anaphylaxis that an epipen may not be able to stem, I'm not sure what kind of venue kitchen protocols would be safe to take a chance with. In regards to those who are not truly allergic and those who have reactions that are not life threatening - do you think that any small contamination in a meal requested to be nonallergic should engender an outcry from the allergic person? If someone gets a mildly scratchy throat, swollen lips, or some hives - do you imagine that in every case they are going to go complain to the restaurant and that somehow they will adjust the kitchen protocols to perfection? I'm just not getting the logic here. They are endangering the allergic people. It makes servers take it not seriously. If John Doe says he's allergic to whatever and somehow he still gets it and nothing happens, the server is thinking no big deal. That is the problem. If you don't like something choose your dish accordingly. But don't claim to be allergic and endanger the rest of us. Sorry oped. I always feel like I've been run over by a truck when I'm done puking. What exactly is the server suppose to learn and how do they learn it? Is the expectation that someone is going to drop over in full anaphylaxis and then the server will be more careful next time? So if John Doe says he's allergic and he accidentally gets it and dies in the restaurant - John is still dead. What training or knowledge has the server gotten that is going to help John? If servers or kitchen are sloppy - they are going to be sloppy. If someone dies from that sloppy - the restaurant will put disclaimers on their menus, as many do, that while care is taken they cannot guarantee cross contamination free food. As has been covered - many allergies do not start out severe but grow over time - so many truly allergic people will get cross-contaminated and have mild reactions and not go back to the restaurant to complain. I'm not sure how servers "not taking it seriously" is impacted by some people claiming an allergy.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 21, 2019 14:37:10 GMT -5
But they won't have a "full blown allergic reaction" if they're only sensitive and not allergic (ALLERGIC reaction). And the repercussions won't be equally severe, that's why the distinction between allergy and sensitivity. I think that's probably stillmovingforward's entire point right? That if your reaction is going to be super severe, they should treat that differently than someone who is likely to have a more mild reaction. If my son has nuts with his meal, his grand mals will begin. It's a sensitivity, not an allergy. It's none of the servers business, just bring us his chicken without it encrusted in nuts. At least the most recent time I returned his plate the waitress asked if he needed new chicken or a whole new plate (chicken only). I don't ever act like an ass at a restaurant, maybe because I too am in customer service. We actually leave the waitress alone as much as possible--we're more of a "bring us the food and go away" kind of table. It has nothing to do with whether it's the server's business, it has to do with keeping your kid safe. If your attitude, like Rukh's is "who cares, if they screw it up just don't go back" that's fine, it's your kid. Most people take their own health, and the health of their children, a lot more seriously than that depending on the seriousness of their reaction. That's why it is important, whether you use terms like sensitivity or allergy or not, to make it clear what needs to happen. There's a world of difference between "it shouldn't be on his plate" and "it can't be prepared in the same kitchen space as nuts". It's absolutely the server's business if you say "no nuts" and they bring no nuts, and then someone dies because the plate had no nuts on it but it was contaminated from other food in the kitchen, because they're going to end up sued. It's shocking to me that anyone thinks potentially killing someone is "none of their business".
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Sept 21, 2019 14:37:56 GMT -5
This was my fav restaurant. I’ve only ever had one other incident there... last time Husband and I ordered same thing only mine gf. I told him from now on we order the same, it’s all gfree. This time, I have no idea, there was some new ingredient in my bowl last night. It usually comes with sp fries, I said no fries, but didn’t mention a sp reaction... I don’t think there were any? But it was a rice bowl with lots of components
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 21, 2019 14:39:15 GMT -5
They are endangering the allergic people. It makes servers take it not seriously. If John Doe says he's allergic to whatever and somehow he still gets it and nothing happens, the server is thinking no big deal. That is the problem. If you don't like something choose your dish accordingly. But don't claim to be allergic and endanger the rest of us. Sorry oped. I always feel like I've been run over by a truck when I'm done puking. What exactly is the server suppose to learn and how do they learn it? Is the expectation that someone is going to drop over in full anaphylaxis and then the server will be more careful next time? So if John Doe says he's allergic and he accidentally gets it and dies in the restaurant - John is still dead. What training or knowledge has the server gotten that is going to help John? If servers or kitchen are sloppy - they are going to be sloppy. If someone dies from that sloppy - the restaurant will put disclaimers on their menus, as many do, that while care is taken they cannot guarantee cross contamination free food. As has been covered - many allergies do not start out severe but grow over time - so many truly allergic people will get cross-contaminated and have mild reactions and not go back to the restaurant to complain. I'm not sure how servers "not taking it seriously" is impacted by some people claiming an allergy. You're not sure how the impact of hearing the same lies repeated over and over again to someone makes them stop taking those claims as seriously? This is a concept children understand, you might check out the story of the boy who cried wolf.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Sept 21, 2019 14:41:08 GMT -5
I only puke shrimp. My daughter pukes shrimp and tomatoes. My mother pukes mushrooms. Most of our other reactions are not puking... intestinal, fluid retention, hives, fuzzy head, having to sleep it off.... When sis, mom, daughter and I go out the server has a great time
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 21, 2019 14:47:54 GMT -5
If my son has nuts with his meal, his grand mals will begin. It's a sensitivity, not an allergy. It's none of the servers business, just bring us his chicken without it encrusted in nuts. At least the most recent time I returned his plate the waitress asked if he needed new chicken or a whole new plate (chicken only). I don't ever act like an ass at a restaurant, maybe because I too am in customer service. We actually leave the waitress alone as much as possible--we're more of a "bring us the food and go away" kind of table. It has nothing to do with whether it's the server's business, it has to do with keeping your kid safe. If your attitude, like Rukh's is " who cares, if they screw it up just don't go back" that's fine, it's your kid. Most people take their own health, and the health of their children, a lot more seriously than that depending on the seriousness of their reaction. That's why it is important, whether you use terms like sensitivity or allergy or not, to make it clear what needs to happen. There's a world of difference between "it shouldn't be on his plate" and "it can't be prepared in the same kitchen space as nuts". It's absolutely the server's business if you say "no nuts" and they bring no nuts, and then someone dies because the plate had no nuts on it but it was contaminated from other food in the kitchen, because they're going to end up sued. It's shocking to me that anyone thinks potentially killing someone is "none of their business". oh brother - I never made any such claims. I just mentioned that in passing as a potential consequence to the establishment if they are careless with honoring these kinds of requests. Not sure how many of you have worked in restaurants here - but either the restaurant is good about this and willing to accommodate allergies and has training/protocols for requests - or they don't. They may even say they do, think they do, try a little, and are sloppy. Or they can tell you they can't accommodate it, and that is that. Walking into a place that has no training and no protocols and asking for special accommodations isn't going to make a server able to do this for you. Your expectations that servers are sloppy about requests just because they were sloppy for someone else and nothing happened is naive. And why more and more restaurants have disclaimers on the menus about cross-contamination. If they have nuts and you are severely allergic to nuts, they will make your food without nuts, but they aren't promising you anything.
|
|