I’m not allergic, but I still can’t eat it
There is an article in the NYT this week about people who think they have food allergies that they may or may not have. We all know the health food industry drill. You think a certain food might be bothering you. You stop eating it, you feel better. Or you get one of those fancy new IGE antibody tests, and it tells you that your body is producing antibodies to gluten, so you give it up. Except, chances are you aren’t allergic to any foods. According to WebMD, only about 1% of adults have food allergies. You know, the folks that can’t eat peanuts because they’ll go into anaphylacytic shock and die? That’s them. So I agree with the overall premise of the article, which is that a lot of people think they have allergies when they really don’t.
HOWEVER.
A lot of people do have an intolerance for a specific food. If I go out and drink a big milkshake, my body doesn’t produce enough lactase to digest all of the lactose. I get sick. And I think the article fails to mention that some folks may not have an allergy, but they may still get sick from particular foods. I’m not allergic to milk, but it’s a pretty serious heath concern to me. Does it seem to anyone else that the NYT article makes it sound like these “food fears” are all in people’s heads? That kind of dismissive attitude from the medical establishment isn’t good for anyone. It’s that attitude that leads to people seeking health advice from sources other than medical professionals (like the checkout girl at the health food store, who’s mom totally had the same symptoms as you and stopped eating grapes and it cleared right up).
