Food intolerence

[Starwind]

No, PP is right. Most tree nut allergies (and I'm among them) CAN handle coconut. Coconut is a separate allergy than tree nut and should be listed as such when you are putting in allergies. It's why major food labels now also label out coconut when it is the only "tree nut" included, since most tree nut allergy folks can still eat it.

Also, be aware when traveling that the US is one of the only countries that includes coconut in the "tree nut" group for food allergy labelling purposes. Pretty much everywhere else does not include it as a "tree nut".

For the US, food allergy labelling rules require that the type of tree nut be specified if it is an ingredient.

I am ana to milk, tn, pn, fish and shellfish. Because coconut is fine for me, on my allergy cheft card I specify "all tree nuts (coconut is ok)" to make it clear for the person preparing my food.

 

[TwoMisfits]

Also, be aware when traveling that the US is one of the only countries that includes coconut in the "tree nut" group for food allergy labelling purposes. Pretty much everywhere else does not include it as a "tree nut".

For the US, food allergy labelling rules require that the type of tree nut be specified if it is an ingredient.

I am ana to milk, tn, pn, fish and shellfish. Because coconut is fine for me, on my allergy cheft card I specify "all tree nuts (coconut is ok)" to make it clear for the person preparing my food.

This is almost exactly what I write...mine is "all tree nuts (coconut/peanut ok)" b/c the 1st question chefs ask me when I have a tree nut allergy, but can't pre-inform of the allergies, is "can you have peanut"? My usual sentence is "allergic to dairy, mango, tree nuts (coconut/peanut ok)" b/c sometimes you're also limited by characters in the online submission.

 

[PinkPixel]

Why? If the OP shouldn’t have tree nuts due to an intolerance, and if saying it’s an allergy in order to ensure that tree nuts are avoided, what’s the harm?

This is basic stuff and really sad that it’s abused like so many things in life. It’s never right to lie about or inflate the severity of your own personal condition to that of a disability YOU DO NOT suffer from, to receive an accommodation that takes time and attention when you do not qualify for it or NEED it. This is the same about lying about any other disability covered by the ADA or accomdated at Disney. You do not have an allergy, lying and saying you do is 1) morally wrong. 2) taking life saving measures away from people with a true life long, severe disability. 3) Continuing a narrative in society that people with true allergies are lying and they “can have a little” and don’t need the precautions that are the only accommodation that can give people with a true disability the chance to have the rare experience of eating out like everyone else. Maybe you really need to hear this and maybe aren’t fully educated on disability abuse and what true allergies are maybe this helped you. Have a nice a day and I you understand why lying and saying you’re allergic isn’t funny or harmless. I’ll call out any person inflating their condition at the expense of those you don’t have that choice, for any life changing disability.

 

[Evita_W]

This is basic stuff and really sad that it’s abused like so many things in life. It’s never right to lie about or inflate the severity of your own personal condition to that of a disability YOU DO NOT suffer from, to receive an accommodation that takes time and attention when you do not qualify for it or NEED it. This is the same about lying about any other disability covered by the ADA or accomdated at Disney. You do not have an allergy, lying and saying you do is 1) morally wrong. 2) taking life saving measures away from people with a true life long, severe disability. 3) Continuing a narrative in society that people with true allergies are lying and they “can have a little” and don’t need the precautions that are the only accommodation that can give people with a true disability the chance to have the rare experience of eating out like everyone else. Maybe you really need to hear this and maybe aren’t fully educated on disability abuse and what true allergies are maybe this helped you. Have a nice a day and I you understand why lying and saying you’re allergic isn’t funny or harmless. I’ll call out any person inflating their condition at the expense of those you don’t have that choice, for any life changing disability.

Just because the intolerance of certain foods isn't life threatening doesn't make it where it shouldn't be taken seriously.

In fact if it isn't taken seriously, intolerance can turn into life threatening allergies.

Honestly, there is very little difference between them.

I have an intolerance to Walnuts for example that tears up the roof of my mouth. DH and I both have issues with food cooked with alcohol (we will end up in bed the rest of the day) and things like vanilla that has trace amounts arent an issue, but say cooking with brandy is. DH is mildly allergic to beets and alph alpha sprouts that results in a bad rash.

None of these will kill us and cross contamination is not an issue, but you would be surprised how often something contains one of these as a hidden ingredient that isn't listed, especially alcohol and beets (used for food coloring a lot). So we have to list them as allergies and when asked, we tell them that cross contamination is not an issue.

But to say that those with food intolerance shouldn't list them as allergies downplays how severe the intolerance can really be.

And person A saying they have an allergy doesn't stop person B from getting assistance with their allergy.

Yes, people who flat out lie completely about any disability are wrong to do so, but what the OP has is officially diagnosed as an oral allergy now, as they posted in an updated post in this thread, but even at the onset, an intolerance is not really that different than an allergy. Disney doesn't really have a mechanism in place to make the distinction and when you call the disability line, they will even tell you to list all intolerances as allergies and inform your server if cross contamination is ok or not.

Hopefully this helps you to be a little less critical of those with intolerance vs allergies, as they can still be quite problematic and a major issue, especially when on a vacation that you spent a lot of money to go on. DH and I shouldn't have to spend the day in bed because we didn't list alcohol as an allergy because it is technically and intolerance and there was something with alcohol hidden in it. Which brings up another point, recovering alcoholics and people on certain medications aren't supposed to eat anything prepared with alcohol, given how many things it is hidden in at Disney World, they likely have to list it as an allergy as well. It would be nice if every restaurant would note everything prepared with alcohol.

So again, please understand there are many reasons why someone may be listing something as an allergy, even though it technically isn't an allergy, but more of an intolerance, but it is ok and even encouraged to do so, as Disney doesn't want to make people sick in any way.

 

[lanejudy]

This is basic stuff and really sad that it’s abused

I would argue the "basic stuff" and what's "really sad" is a misunderstanding of a food intolerance. We aren't talking about a preference to eat a certain type of diet, the discussion here is about a food intolerance. Those suffering from food intolerance suffer negative physical bodily reactions. Not anaphylaxis, but it can be debilitating for at times. They NEED to avoid that food/ingredient. If there was better understanding and acceptance of food intolerances, this wouldn't be a discussion and the alternative foods would be readily available for the asking, rather than servers/chefs who want it to be an all-or-nothing decision.

What I'm hearing you say is "unless you will stop breathing, your digestive problem with that food is something you have to accept and live with." Is that really what you mean? Do you really mean someone should spend hours in the bathroom, sick from one end or the other, potentially developing dehydration -- all because they don't have an allergy and therefore shouldn't qualify for alternative food options? I have seen (and suffered) some very negative food intolerance reactions and it's not pretty or fun. No, it's not immediately life-threatening, but it can be a "lose 2 days" of regular life activity to recover. Why would you deny someone access to an alternative safe food? The problem I see is lack of understanding in the general public and among servers/chefs, who seem to want an all-or-nothing decision.

 

[TwoMisfits]

I would argue the "basic stuff" and what's "really sad" is a misunderstanding of a food intolerance. We aren't talking about a preference to eat a certain type of diet, the discussion here is about a food intolerance. Those suffering from food intolerance suffer negative physical bodily reactions. Not anaphylaxis, but it can be debilitating for at times. They NEED to avoid that food/ingredient. If there was better understanding and acceptance of food intolerances, this wouldn't be a discussion and the alternative foods would be readily available for the asking, rather than servers/chefs who want it to be an all-or-nothing decision.

What I'm hearing you say is "unless you will stop breathing, your digestive problem with that food is something you have to accept and live with." Is that really what you mean? Do you really mean someone should spend hours in the bathroom, sick from one end or the other, potentially developing dehydration -- all because they don't have an allergy and therefore shouldn't qualify for alternative food options? I have seen (and suffered) some very negative food intolerance reactions and it's not pretty or fun. No, it's not immediately life-threatening, but it can be a "lose 2 days" of regular life activity to recover. Why would you deny someone access to an alternative safe food? The problem I see is lack of understanding in the general public and among servers/chefs, who seem to want an all-or-nothing decision.

It would probably help if folks understood the reasons for having one or the other - allergies are from an immune system reaction, intolerances are from a digestive system reaction. B/c one is an immune system reaction, that's why it can have the immediate lethal effect on one's health, but taking in the product will have serious negative short and long term effects on one's health for both groups of folks. Both are horrid to have to experience and if I was a chef, if someone has a large enough intolerance that they are listing it, I'd rather treat the intolerance as an allergy, since the intolerant person can likely only handle (at most) cross-contamination of their foods with their intolerance, but not actual ingredients from the intolerance, so you're gonna have to make their foods without the product either way. And if you have to make them with the same allergy-safe ingredients, you're likely to have to make them in the allergy area. So, for a "food prep and personnel" needs standpoint, I'd rather known I'm gonna have more "safe prep" needed meals going into the day and staff those foods and those chefs with expertise in allergen prep accordingly, vs finding out last minute.

That's probably why Disney takes the stance it does (of recommending listing certain severe non-allergic effects as allergies), b/c it does tend to attract more eaters with needs than your local chain restaurants.

 

[PinkPixel]

.

 

[Betty Rohrer]

This is basic stuff and really sad that it’s abused like so many things in life. It’s never right to lie about or inflate the severity of your own personal condition to that of a disability YOU DO NOT suffer from, to receive an accommodation that takes time and attention when you do not qualify for it or NEED it. This is the same about lying about any other disability covered by the ADA or accomdated at Disney. You do not have an allergy, lying and saying you do is 1) morally wrong. 2) taking life saving measures away from people with a true life long, severe disability. 3) Continuing a narrative in society that people with true allergies are lying and they “can have a little” and don’t need the precautions that are the only accommodation that can give people with a true disability the chance to have the rare experience of eating out like everyone else. Maybe you really need to hear this and maybe aren’t fully educated on disability abuse and what true allergies are maybe this helped you. Have a nice a day and I you understand why lying and saying you’re allergic isn’t funny or harmless. I’ll call out any person inflating their condition at the expense of those you don’t have that choice, for any life changing disability.

I treat my reflux like an allergy which you say is a lie but what happens if I get something that sets off my reflux most likely I will not make it to the bathroom before it comes back up. Question do you really want me by your table when this happens? just asking because I have had it happen and it happens that quick

 

[PinkPixel]

I treat my reflux like an allergy which you say is a lie but what happens if I get something that sets off my reflux most likely I will not make it to the bathroom before it comes back up. Question do you really want me by your table when this happens? just asking because I have had it happen and it happens that quick

It is a lie. You’re not allergic, that is how a lie works. You do not require an allergy protocol to safely consume food. You are not allergic to traces of an allergen, you do not require the chef or server to wash their hands in between or change their gloves and use a separate area of the kitchen to prepare or handle your plate, cup or food.

 

[Moliphino]

It is a lie. You’re not allergic, that is how a lie works. You do not require an allergy protocol to safely consume food. You are not allergic to traces of an allergen, you do not require the chef or server to wash their hands in between or change their gloves and use a separate area of the kitchen to prepare or handle your plate, cup or food.

Not all allergies are severe enough to require all of that, either.
WDW's Special Dietary Requests even lumps allergies and intolerances together under Allergies.

 

[mcall12]

At the end of the day, whether it’s a food intolerance or an allergy, the fact is that there are certain foods people cannot have. NO ONE should be shaming people about how they choose to communicate that information to people who are not medical experts and to whom the reason makes no difference (the CMs who are taking your order, as an example). It literally makes no difference to them why you can’t have the food/ingredient. If it’s safer for an individual to avoid an ingredient, as it may cause any kind of adverse reaction, the simplified explanation is likely best in this situation. Too much detail can result in confusion and errors.

 

[Betty Rohrer]

It is a lie. You’re not allergic, that is how a lie works. You do not require an allergy protocol to safely consume food. You are not allergic to traces of an allergen, you do not require the chef or server to wash their hands in between or change their gloves and use a separate area of the kitchen to prepare or handle your plate, cup or food.

yes but when reflux happens you have no control of when or where it comes up. felt really bad for table I was going by when it happened. they were just getting their food. and now with covid how do you know it is reflux or covid. your at that table with your allergy how is your dinner going to go. granted none of us are going to hospital but I bet you will not enjoy your meal as I can not control it and it is that fast

 

[PinkPixel]

At the end of the day, whether it’s a food intolerance or an allergy, the fact is that there are certain foods people cannot have. NO ONE should be shaming people about how they choose to communicate that information to people who are not medical experts and to whom the reason makes no difference (the CMs who are taking your order, as an example). It literally makes no difference to them why you can’t have the food/ingredient. If it’s safer for an individual to avoid an ingredient, as it may cause any kind of adverse reaction, the simplified explanation is likely best in this situation. Too much detail can result in confusion and errors.

It does make a difference and impacts my daughter's life and safety everyday and could very well effect her at Disney the more this attitude that it is no big deal to casually up the severity of a condition to that of a life-threatening one for "convenience" and personal "assurance". I will advocate for her rights and the respect severe/true food allergies deserve and I will remind people who think its harmless and say it's just fine that no, it's not. Knowingly saying you have a more severe medical condition, which is a disability, when you don't is wrong and an abuse of the accommodation in that its adds additional time and work for the kitchen staff that is not required. How sad my daughter grows in a world where people who don't suffer her limitations, will without thinking twice, say they have her condition, to get accommodations they don't require.

 

[OurBigTrip]

It does make a difference and impacts my daughter's life and safety everyday and could very well effect her at Disney the more this attitude that it is no big deal to casually up the severity of a condition to that of a life-threatening one for "convenience" and personal "assurance". I will advocate for her rights and the respect severe/true food allergies deserve and I will remind people who think its harmless and say it's just fine that no, it's not. Knowingly saying you have a more severe medical condition, which is a disability, when you don't is wrong and an abuse of the accommodation in that its adds additional time and work for the kitchen staff that is not required. How sad my daughter grows in a world where people who don't suffer her limitations, will without thinking twice, say they have her condition, to get accommodations they don't require.

I don’t understand how this affects accommodations for your daughter. Is there a limit on the number of allergy meals that can be prepared in a day?

And you keep saying that people who don’t have allergies don’t need these accommodations…so it’s ok for people to get very ill, so long as they don’t die? Even when their accommodations make not one whit of difference for your daughter’s accommodations?

 

[Evita_W]

It does make a difference and impacts my daughter's life and safety everyday and could very well effect her at Disney the more this attitude that it is no big deal to casually up the severity of a condition to that of a life-threatening one for "convenience" and personal "assurance". I will advocate for her rights and the respect severe/true food allergies deserve and I will remind people who think its harmless and say it's just fine that no, it's not. Knowingly saying you have a more severe medical condition, which is a disability, when you don't is wrong and an abuse of the accommodation in that its adds additional time and work for the kitchen staff that is not required. How sad my daughter grows in a world where people who don't suffer her limitations, will without thinking twice, say they have her condition, to get accommodations they don't require.

As has been pointed out, them getting the food they require by calling it an allergy takes nothing away from your daughter and ensures they don't get sick either. I do feel bad for your daughter that her parent can't accept that not all food issues have the same severity in symptoms, but are still an issue that needs to be accomodated.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Double post

 

[PinkPixel]

I don’t understand how this affects accommodations for your daughter. Is there a limit on the number of allergy meals that can be prepared in a day?

I have personally experienced stressed out and overwhelmed chefs and servers on multiple occasions at Disney pre Covid and it has scared me. They were willing to do this for my daughter but will it be ok with the way they just said "it's another allergy" in a stressed and exasperated tone. It's clear at times they don't have the time, but they made accommodation. So yes I would think it's kind of common sense that special accommodations for a food allergy should only be used for a food allergy, where all cross contact is avoided, separate smaller parts of a kitchen are used, time is taken out to change gloves, wipe down surfaces, the chef is gets involved etc are limited by reality of running a restaurant at a packed theme park. I even saw people asking "Why are they special? Why is the chef talking to them?. My daughter is special in a lot of ways, but I would give anything to not have to worry about her getting lost in a flood of people wanting special treatment when they don't have a severe allergy and can order from an allergy menu without worrying about cross contact etc

 

[Starwind]

As someone with multiple life-threatening food allergies, I don't have a problem with someone with a food intolerance (which btw can also be a disability) claiming it to be a food allergy when eating out. It is likely safer for them, and in some situations will allow clearer/less confusing communication. Hopefully, they do understand the consequences of labelling it an allergy in terms of the increased steps/precautions/work the kitchen will apply and have weighed whether those steps are necessary in their situation. Certainly if the opportunity is available to have a fulsome conversation with the chef/manager to explain the nuance of the situation that is the ideal, but that is not always an option when one eats out.

Where it is a problem is when someone claims allergy and then *in the same meal* starts eating some of their claimed allergen - eg having "just a taste" from their companions meals or wolfing down the bread that has an ingredient they claimed they were allergic to. These people may have an intolerance, a preference, or even an allergy but believe they can safey have a some of their allergen.

This type of situation causes confusion and distrust among the restaurant staff regarding not just this claim of allergy, but potentially all other claims of allergies -- which ones are legit and which ones are not ?? The 'good' staff will continue to operate as if all allergy claims are legit, but some staff may not. And that can be dangerous or even fatal for someone who does have a real life-threatening allergy. It could also potentially lead to an establishment refusing to make ANY allergy accommodations due to the perceived wasted time and resources involved.

 

[Evita_W]

As someone with multiple life-threatening food allergies, I don't have a problem with someone with a food intolerance (which btw can also be a disability) claiming it to be a food allergy when eating out. It is likely safer for them, and in some situations will allow clearer/less confusing communication. Hopefully, they do understand the consequences of labelling it an allergy in terms of the increased steps/precautions/work the kitchen will apply and have weighed whether those steps are necessary in their situation. Certainly if the opportunity is available to have a fulsome conversation with the chef/manager to explain the nuance of the situation that is the ideal, but that is not always an option when one eats out.

Where it is a problem is when someone claims allergy and then *in the same meal* starts eating some of their claimed allergen - eg having "just a taste" from their companions meals or wolfing down the bread that has an ingredient they claimed they were allergic to. These people may have an intolerance, a preference, or even an allergy but believe they can safey have a some of their allergen.

This type of situation causes confusion and distrust among the restaurant staff regarding not just this claim of allergy, but potentially all other claims of allergies -- which ones are legit and which ones are not ?? The 'good' staff will continue to operate as if all allergy claims are legit, but some staff may not. And that can be dangerous or even fatal for someone who does have a real life-threatening allergy. It could also potentially lead to an establishment refusing to make ANY allergy accommodations due to the perceived wasted time and resources involved.

Precisely why when you speak to a server, you can tell them if cross contamination is an issue or not. We always tell them it isn't for us, but thst we either need to know if there is a hidden ingredient or need a modification, so they know not to worry about spending the extra effort to avoid cross contamination. But having been on the wrong end of a hidden ingredient, I can tell you that is always safer to call it an allergy and then inform about cross contamination than to call it an intolerance.

 

[PinkPixel]

[

As someone with multiple life-threatening food allergies, I don't have a problem with someone with a food intolerance (which btw can also be a disability) claiming it to be a food allergy when eating out. It is likely safer for them, and in some situations will allow clearer/less confusing communication. Hopefully, they do understand the consequences of labelling it an allergy in terms of the increased steps/precautions/work the kitchen will apply and have weighed whether those steps are necessary in their situation. Certainly if the opportunity is available to have a fulsome conversation with the chef/manager to explain the nuance of the situation that is the ideal, but that is not always an option when one eats out.

Where it is a problem is when someone claims allergy and then *in the same meal* starts eating some of their claimed allergen - eg having "just a taste" from their companions meals or wolfing down the bread that has an ingredient they claimed they were allergic to. These people may have an intolerance, a preference, or even an allergy but believe they can safey have a some of their allergen.

This type of situation causes confusion and distrust among the restaurant staff regarding not just this claim of allergy, but potentially all other claims of allergies -- which ones are legit and which ones are not ?? The 'good' staff will continue to operate as if all allergy claims are legit, but some staff may not. And that can be dangerous or even fatal for someone who does have a real life-threatening allergy. It could also potentially lead to an establishment refusing to make ANY allergy accommodations due to the perceived wasted time and resources involved.

Your comment will get you likes from this crowd, who wants to be told they should be treated like those with a life threatening condition by restaurant staff, just to make it easier to order. But the last part of your post explains why saying you have an allergy when you don't hurts those who needs cross contact controls and why its possible they won't be eating out at even Disney in the future.