Thanks to one of my readers for passing along the Letters section from the current (March 2008) Harper's magazine, which features reader letters in response to Meredith Brousard's "Everyone's Gone Nuts: The Exaggerated Threat of Food Allergies" from January's issue. (As of now, the online version of the letters section, and the original article, are both off-limits to non-subscribers, but you can read about the controversy the article inspired when it first appeared here.) You can find the responses on your newsstand now.
A summary: the four letters printed include two from food allergy patients (one outraged by the article and one with severe tree nut allergies who, based on doctors' shock at the severity of his allergic reactions, suspects Broussard's premise --- that the prevalence of extremely severe allergies is overstated --- may be correct) and one by Robert Pacenza, the Executive Director of the Food Allergy Initiative, a nonprofit advocacy group many of you are no doubt well-acquainted with. Pacenza discusses allergy nonprofits' role in helping patients and their families to live balanced lives: free from both hysteria and from cavalier neglect of their health.
Broussard, the author of the original article, argues that, unlike activities (like driving) that cause a relatively large number of fatalities, food allergies are a disproportionate cause of public hysteria, stating, "All risk is relative, but we tend to overestimate the prevalence of risks we see covered extensively in the press." And she responds to Pacenza's letter, stating that "the Food Allergy Initiative spends a great deal of money and time marketing the notion that food allergies are likely to be fatal rather than chronic or manageable," and questioning, as in the original article, the epidemiological study that estimated at least 150 Americans die every year from allergic reactions from food.
I know several of you sent in responses. What's your take?
I think a lot of us in the food allergy community felt frustrated after that Harper’s article, why because someone who didn’t have the credentials or correct information was attacking our parenting and making us feel as if we
were “crazy”. Don’t we deal with this on a much smaller scale everyday?
I think there is a line between overprotecting and keeping our kids
safe. For example, I am going to tell my son not to go golfing in a
thunderstorm-even though the likely hood of him being struck by lightning is slim. And the statistic is a tad more likely than lightning that our child will have a anaphylactic reaction that could cause his/her death. However, I’m not going to go golfing with him everytime to watch the weather and make sure he doesn’t get in a bad
situation, or call him everytime and advise him not to play. We have to trust he learned what we taught him at some point.
Same with food allergies. They will live and learn just like other kids, but we can make sure the likely hood is less–of course, but keep perspective and give them a compass; not a compass, plus an atlas, camera in their car, GPS tracking system, microchip under their skin so we can monitor, and advise them not to go anywhere EMS isn’t around. That would be overprotective.
I never take statistics seriously anyway…look at the most crime/violent
city one we hear about, and St. Louis, MO is ranked 2nd! Other states may not know that they don’t include the most populated areas(St. Louis County) in the statistics! Our population in the city is very, VERY small compared to the county. Of course we look like we
have the most violent city! In fact I would tell all people to take
statistics with a grain of salt. I don’t think they are EVER 100%
accurate, so why use that as a point to argue over. That’s why I just
look at statistics and listen to the trend, not the numbers.
Meredith Broussard didn’t mention that there is a proven increase in the number of people of have food allergies and that perhaps the number of deaths is less because we are doing a good job of raising awareness! She just argued the death statistic which to me, is a moot point. I still know that a person can die from an anaphylactic reaction if they don’t have an action plan in place and get medical attention quickly enough. I know this because of all the awareness.
Meredith Broussard obviously had a very strict/overprotective upbringing with her food allergies and is dealing with her anger towards her parents by attacking all of us.
The response from Harper’s was disappointing to say the very least. Some people just don’t want to get it and cause controversy so they can sell more magazines, etc.
Instead, we should choose to focus on Leslea Harmon’s article she
wrote in response titled “Guerilla Mothering: I’m allergic to semi-
humorist attacking serious subject” at:
http://www.newsandtribune.com/features/local_story_019213759.html
It was published in the News Tribune and has a wider distribution
than Harper’s Magazine.
I do not object to the notion that severe food allergy should generally be viewed more as a chronic and manageable than a constant death threat. Her TONE was the primary objection. Someone reading this article could easily come to the conclusion that foods do not need to be avoided. While exposure isn’t very likely to KILL most people, it is likely to make them very ill. And for some people it really is a life or death situation. The dismissive and antagonistic tone was offensive, even if there was some truth and even need for the underlying message.