Nut Allergies

I am allergic to nuts.

Usually, my reactions are manageable with orally-ingested, over-the-counter antihistamine. I've never gone into anaphylactic shock. I do get hives, my salivary glands go into overdrive, I get itchy all over, and sometimes it requires, even after taking antihistamine, that I regurgitate whatever I ate.

Even the smell of certain nuts can trigger a mild reaction. I think walnuts and almonds are the worst. If I eat a cookie that is picked up with a utensil that had been used with nuts, I may have a reaction.

When I was a kid, I could eat a Tofiffay® by eating around the hazelnut, and I wouldn't react. Today, I wouldn't think of doing such a thing. I remember that chocolate bars such as Coffee Crisp or Kit Kat had hazelnuts in the ingredients and I could eat them, but I'd get a very small reaction that didn't even require antihistamine to tolerate. Hazelnuts have since been removed from the ingredient lists of both products.

A few years ago, I had a reaction that nearly closed my throat, the first such reaction in my 35 years (at the time). Last year, I ended up in an ambulance. I was advised that there is no way to predict how I might react and that my history was no indicator of what to expect in the future. Yes, I could experience life-threatening shock, so I was prescribed an epinephrine injector.

My question is: why can I eat peanut butter?

Let's clarify that question. We're talking about smooth commercial peanut butter. I will not eat crunchy peanut butter, nor will I even attempt natural, freshly-ground peanut butter from a healthfood store.

Let me drill down the focus of the question: what is in a nut (and I don't care whether a peanut is "technically a legume" for the purpose of this discussion), that is not found in a commercially prepared butter?

What I fail to understand is, with children dying from nut allergy reactions, why is there so little research in truly understanding more of what's going on?

Should it not be a simple enough exercise to analyze the particle content of a peanut and then compare against the content in peanut butter, isolate what's present in the butter that's not in the peanut, what's present in the nut that is absent in the butter...OR, what is in both but different?

That would suggest, in my simple mind, that the allergic agent is not the whole nut itself, but something IN the nut that is somehow either modified or altogether removed when processing for a commercial butter.

Shouldn't the food services industry and health care institutions be looking for concrete answers (if even for the basest purpose of expanding the market to whom they can sell product or reducing the overload on health care services)?

Wouldn't answers to these questions also derive an added benefit of shedding some light on other food allergies, such as to shellfish, or strawberries? There is so much that we don't know, it makes sense to keep pushing to grasp what we can know - this kind of knowledge can save lives.

And, I can readily appreciate that we have arrived at an elegant work-around - I try to avoid foods with questionable ingredients or situations where cross-contamination can occur, and I have antihistamine and steroids available should I be unsuccessful in my avoidance efforts...but there's a wise old saying that I suggest may be appropriate here: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

I do, however, acknowledge, that my argument would suggest I'm calling for genetic modification of the nut so that the protein or other element that is the allergic agent is removed, but do I really believe that "franken-nuts" are a desirable alternative? After all, why change them and spoil the natural enjoyment for those who are not allergic to nuts?

I'd only accept that if I was also willing to believe that the current situation as it is does not already have any modification happening. The very fact that I can eat certain peanut butters indicates clearly that things are already being modified, albeit "by accident". As such, I'd suggest that if we can understand what is actually happening, then we can be deliberate in how and when such modification happens.

Is the Guvernator reading my blog?!

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," Governor Schwarzenegger is not reading my blog...but check out the recent headline - Building Back: How investment in infrastructure will boost the economy.

My last post included this tidbit: "investment in infrastructure...reduces costs down the road..." Shucks, I even typed it in bold.

Prescience? Probably not. Every once in a while, common sense appears to prevail.

I should close by highly recommending that you actually read Governor Schwarzenegger's article. I'm a Canadian, so I can't say I'm a Republican or Democrat, but I tend to think consistently with what would be a Democrat in today's socio-political milieu. As such, I tend to disagree in the party stances Mr. Schwarzenegger may take from time to time, his being a Republican and all. 

But this article is excellent, and hopefully might challenge America to rescue itself from a course that must lead to ruin (read his article). Too much money is being spent on the wrong things, and not enough is being spent right in America, for Americans (read his article).

California running out of money - are you kidding me?

I saw headlines like this one this morning, and I can't help but wonder how this possibly makes sense.

There are poor states in the United States. There are poorer countries in the world. I can't believe that Louisiana has had to absorb Hurricane Katrina, and New York has had to absorb the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet California - with its tourist revenues; California, with the busiest ports in the country; California, with its film and entertainment industries; California, with its property values and property taxes; California, with its high vehicle registration fees and poor public transit to offer reasonable alternatives; California, with so many rich constituents in film, music, the tech sector, shipping,...California, "the state that's untouchable like Elliot Ness" (RIP Tupac), is now threatening insolvency.

If such is the case, the entire administration must be called to account for the squandering of the billions in state revenues (almost $100 billion). There are too many poorer states struggling to and figuring out how to get by to stand by and watch the state of California cry poor.

Yes, I said squander. I'm not suggesting running a state is cheap. I'm suggesting that many states would love that kind of take. And, after raking in all that cash, what do Californians have to show for it, in terms of investment in infrastructure that reduces costs down the road (speaking of roads, are their road repair bills high because there's so much commuter traffic? Hey, build a better public transit system, so people have more choice and can choose not to drive cars...hmmm, but then we'd lose some of that $5.9 billion in vehicle licensing revenues and $3.5 billion in highway user taxes which together don't cover the total $14 billion paid out for government, legislative, judicial and executive costs... ).

Perhaps California is not a sustainable environment for a large populace. Perhaps its deserts are too dry, fault lines are too unstable, brush fires to uncontainable for people to live there affordably. Perhaps we should move the coastline populations of the United States out of that coastal danger zone, so that earthquakes and hurricanes and Mississippi flooding can't continue to create costs we can't afford to pay to live nearby.

But, until that decision comes down from on high, each state's got to deal with its parameters. Other states get by with much less. If I can't pay my bills, nobody cries for me, I've got to be responsible and spend less than I earn, or better myself so I can earn more, and I have to manage my finances without the benefit of teams and departments and branches of educated financial managers, urban planners, architects, engineers, lawyers and accountants working on my situation Monday to Friday, 9-5.

For a state that has over $90 billion to work with and access to bright people to help out, I say what is said to me with my limited abilities and resources - figure it out.

Hey California, here's one more suggestion to help you out. Warren Buffet is the richest man on the planet, and has built his legacy on hardcore research. He reads annual reports to understand the difference between hype and real value, and he buys real value when it's relatively cheap. If he isn't the best at understanding, at a very deep level, how to assess value and opportunity, I don't know who is. Ask him to go through your Governor's Budget as though he were considering investing, and have him tell you why he would or would not invest in California. That will tell you what needs to be kept and enhanced, and what needs to be fixed or scrapped.

What is "news"?

I would like to better understand this.

The morning after Canada went to the polls as the first 1st world country to stage an election in the wake of the global economic meltdown, it's front page news for BBC (today, this article was on the front page of BBC's main website), and almost invisible on most US news outlets.

The UK is across the ocean, the US is across the border. What makes front page news over there worth nary a mention on the front page of Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC? (on most of these so-called "news" sites, one must dig into their "world" sections to find an article covering the election).


I suppose Canada remains "insignificant" in the minds of the average American, but perhaps journalism should be expected to balance pandering to "whatever sells" (should I really care about whether Madonna is getting a divorce?) with providing information about what's going on in the world that does matter, such as the election of a leader of the nation next to yours?

If energy and natural resources are important to 300 million Americans, and Canada owns so much of both, is Canada still insignificant? That Canada will grasp more of the alternative energy footprint in years to come as natural renewable sources (wind, sun, wave) develop, the politics of a country holding such sway should matter...but then being forward-thinking is a challenge, evidently.

If the St. Lawrence Seaway is economically and environmentally as important as the Mississippi, and these waters are jointly owned by both Canada and the US, is Canada still insignificant?

I am ranting, forgive me. But, I would really like to understand why the UK recognizes "news" for what it is and the media machine in the US doesn't. Something's amiss when a significant event with global implications, such as an election in a G8 nation, barely blips the radar next door even while it rightly splashes the front pages across the ocean.