
EasyJet bans peanuts on all flights - kheyanne
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/easyjet-nut-ban/index.html
======
cfj
The idea that some people are extraordinarily sensitive to peanuts, to the
degree that they can't be in the same room as someone eating a Snickers bar,
is bunk. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology states[0]:

> There is no evidence to support peanut vapor as a cause of reactions or that
> peanut dust itself circulates and causes reactions.

I am a little surprised to see such uncritical propagation of this myth on HN.

[0] [https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-
travel](https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-travel)

~~~
eindiran
From your link:

> Investigators concluded that the risk of exposure to peanut on an airplane
> stems from potentially contaminated surfaces and not from airborne levels.

I've literally had someone spill their food on me on a plane, so direct
contact is certainly not out of the question.

------
dmitryminkovsky
We must put real, practical safety concerns above ideals, so this makes sense.

But why isn't there more alarm—or even action—over the fact that foods that
were near-universally consumed by people are now increasingly capable of quite
literally killing a relatively large part of the population? For example, why
is hand sanitizer still widely distributed? When will it end? When all we're
capable of consuming is powdered formula?

Edit: everyone wondering about hand sanitizer, I was thinking along the lines
of the hygiene hypothesis, ie
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12048610_Asthma_and...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12048610_Asthma_and_allergy_in_Russian_and_Norwegian_schoolchildren_Results_from_two_questionnaire-
based_studies_in_the_Kola_Peninsula_Russia_and_northern_Norway). I believe I
saw this study on here a few years ago.

Edit2: I meant this study
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527)

~~~
dragonwriter
> But why isn't there more alarm—or even action—over the fact that foods that
> were near-universally consumed by people are now increasingly capable of
> quite literally killing a relatively large part of the population?

They appear to have always been allergens to which a certain share of the
population had extreme reactions, which is what produced the advice in the US
to avoid exposure at ages when children would be unlikely to communicate a
reaction, which is what produced the surge in sensitivity since apparently
people are more likely to develop lasting and severe allergies if they are not
exposed early, which is why the advice has since been reversed to encourage
early exposure with close supervision, rather than a avoiding early exposure.

> For example, why is hand sanitizer still widely distributed?

What does hand sanitizer have to do with the issue?

~~~
ihuman
> What does hand sanitizer have to do with the issue?

I think dmitryminkovsky is jokingly extrapolating the idea of banning
allergens to hand sanitizer, since it is poisonous if you drink too much.

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
:) I figured this might get some push-back and fair enough, I didn’t bring any
explanation. I was thinking along the lines of
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12048610_Asthma_and...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12048610_Asthma_and_allergy_in_Russian_and_Norwegian_schoolchildren_Results_from_two_questionnaire-
based_studies_in_the_Kola_Peninsula_Russia_and_northern_Norway)

Erm this study
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527)

------
samrolken
Are there any cases where someone allergic to peanuts has died or had to go to
the hospital after being in the presence of peanuts, without eating or even
touching them? Is this something that has ever happened? (Even once ever?)

~~~
zaarn
Science says "very likely not ever once".

[https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-
travel](https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-travel)

~~~
eindiran
From the link:

> Investigators concluded that the risk of exposure to peanut on an airplane
> stems from potentially contaminated surfaces and not from airborne levels.

So the issue isn't not having exposure via air, but "not having touched" the
peanuts themselves, but interacting with contaminated surfaces.

------
nmstoker
The problem here is the arbitrariness of the decision - this level of care for
their passengers seems almost entirely absent from EasyJet in various other
regards, so why this?

And there are presumably other passenger risks that they are not responding to
with outright bans, so where is the cut-off?

~~~
dccoolgai
Because this is easy to put in a press release... actually fixing customer
service/safety issues would be more difficult.

~~~
dingaling
Easyjet does not have 'safety issues'. They have never had a hull loss and to
my knowledge they have never had a passenger injury as the result of
operations.

------
pattle
A good move, it must be quite nerve racking travelling by air with a severe
peanut allergy. I was on a flight recently from London to Chicago where they
requested that no-one consume any foods they'd brought that contain peanuts.
We probably should have been told this at check in as my brother had some
cereal bars containing nuts in his bag. Plus they'd only asked in English so I
was surprised the announcement wasn't made in other languages too.

~~~
curiousgal
I don't get this, how does a passenger eating peanuts affect another passenger
that's allergic to them?

~~~
pattle
The air inside a plane gets continually recirculated and some people have such
a severe allergy that even the smallest traces can causes a bad reaction.

~~~
TomK32
Wouldn't a face mask help them?

~~~
purerandomness
You still need to breathe air, and that has to come from somewhere.

Face masks are effectively preventing droplet infections, but probably
wouldn't prevent traces of peanut from being inhaled.

~~~
NikolaeVarius
Evidence of claims?

------
aitchnyu
Are there such patients who live daily life normally but get sick at a whiff
of a cracked chocolate? Will they get as sick from walking in a food court or
other places in daily life? I can't judge this policy as reasonable or
draconian.

~~~
scbrg
Avoiding a food court is relatively easy. There are other ways to acquire and
consume food.

Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand
km or so. That's a fairly big restriction.

(also, "a whiff of cracked chocolate" is perhaps not as much of a problem as
"someone sitting next to you and chewing nuts, and accidentally throwing some
of them in your face if there's some turbulence")

~~~
majewsky
> Avoiding airplanes pretty much means you never travel longer than a thousand
> km or so.

Trains exist, and in first-world countries they're usually pleasant to use,
even if it takes longer than an airplane.

But then again, if being in an airplane cabin with a peanut eater is
dangerous, then being in a train wagon with one probably is as well.

~~~
notacoward
> even if it takes longer than an airplane.

A _lot_ longer. There's at least a 5x difference between typical plane and
train speeds. So a 5-6 hour flight becomes a 25-30 hour train ride. That's a
pretty major cost and inconvenience you so blithely dismiss as long as it only
affects someone else. Also, please note that it's not that uncommon any more
for people to travel over water, and there are no trains there. But I suppose
you'd say those people who aren't you should just constrain their choice of
job or occupation accordingly.

Nothing's a big deal when it's somebody else's problem, right?

~~~
majewsky
I'm not aware of my dismissing anyone's concerns "as long as it only affects
someone else". I flagged your comment since you clearly violate the guideline
"Assume good faith".

------
bloak
This seems quite moderate compared to some UK primary schools banning all nuts
even though several species are growing wild on the school premises.

------
wink
I'm pretty sure I was given peanuts as the only snack on my last flight in
December (iirc not EasyJet). Not saying this is in any way a bad idea, but I'm
really wondering if this will be more widespread in the future or if half of
the airlines will go out of their way and half of them will do the exact
opposite.

------
MaupitiBlue
Talk about 1% dictating to the other 99%...

If I told EasyJet that I was gluten intolerant, would they ban glutens for me?

~~~
pattle
The thing is though is people can die if they get an allergic reaction. Is not
being able to eat peanuts for 12 hours or so worth someones life?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Is not being able to eat peanuts for 12 hours or so worth someones life?

No. But seeing decisions being made based on the lowest common denominator to
the inconvenience of everyone else (able bodies people are not inconvenienced
by wheelchair ramps) is annoying to everyone who is inconvenienced (edit: for
small values of everyone) regardless of whether or not it's an objectively
good decision. Some people want peanuts and they're pissed they can't get them
because of an edge case. I'm not saying it's right but it's human nature.

~~~
all2
> But seeing decisions being made based on the lowest common denominator is
> annoying to everyone else (edit: for small values of everyone) regardless of
> whether or not it's an objectively good decision.

I don't agree. Vehemently. I am not irritated by the fact that there are ramps
on most sidewalks to accommodate those in wheel-chairs, or that there is
seating set aside on public transit for those who need it, or that sidewalk
crossings speak to those who cannot see...

Have you no love for your fellow man? Are you so disconnected from others that
their lives are now just an irritation to you?

What you've said makes me sad. And angry. All life is valuable, sacred even.
Assuming there is some "lowest common denominator" that must be "catered to"
places a value judgement on those who have different needs and abilities. Are
some people really worth less to you?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>I don't agree. Vehemently. I am not irritated by the fact that there are
ramps on most sidewalks to accommodate those in wheel-chairs, or that there is
seating set aside on public transit for those who need it, or that sidewalk
crossings speak to those who cannot see...

You listed a bunch of accommodations that do not actually inconvenience you.
The people who enjoyed peanuts as one of the few remaining "nice things" about
air travel are rightfully annoyed that the airline is canning them because of
an edge case. Personally I think they made the right decision but I'm not so
dense as to express bewilderment as to why some people don't like it.

>Have you no love for your fellow man? Are you so disconnected from others
that their lives are now just an irritation to you?

>What you've said makes me sad. And angry. All life is valuable, sacred even.
Assuming there is some "lowest common denominator" that must be "catered to"
places a value judgement on those who have different needs and abilities. Are
some people really worth less to you?

I hope this is just virtue signaling (and I mean that in the purest dictionary
definition way with none of the political charge the term seems to have taken
on) and you don't actually take my previous comment to mean what your reply
seems to think I mean.

In any case, I assure you the tone of your comment is not making me love my
fellow man any more.

~~~
all2
I apologize for my tone and the implications. This is a sensitive subject for
me and I didn't handle my response to your comment well.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I appreciate that you did not double down. That's rare around here.

------
bassman9000
Doug Benson warned about this

------
protonfish
Great, more anti- peanut hysteria
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/nut_allergy_hysteri...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/nut_allergy_hysteria/)

~~~
cletus
I'm sympathetic on this one. You can't just look at the number of deaths. The
thing about nuts is they tend to be in foods small children want to otherwise
eat. Reeses, pretzels filled with peanut butter [1], etc. The presence of nuts
can also be non-obvious (eg a coworker had severe reaction to a curry IIRC
that wasn't labelled as containing nuts.

[1] [https://fox13now.com/2013/04/26/boy-11-dies-after-severe-
all...](https://fox13now.com/2013/04/26/boy-11-dies-after-severe-allergic-
reaction/)

~~~
protonfish
Obsessing over a single data point instead of prioritization of dangers to
children based on actual risk factors - frequency and level of effects - is
the very definition or irrational action.

