Posted on 09/03/2014 10:02:25 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The parent of a child with a life-threatening peanut allergy is fighting for new rules to protect airline passengers who have severe food allergies.
Lianne Mandelbaum, who says she was practically kicked off a United Airlines flight last year because of her son’s condition, has been lobbying for new protections for allergy sufferers.
Now, more than 14,000 people are coming to her aid, petitioning lawmakers and federal regulators to establish a "buffer zone" around passengers who are allergic to certain foods.
“I am not after a nut ban,” Mandelbaum said. “Just the ability to preboard, wipe down the seat area and make an announcement that will let everyone live with their own moral compass around me.”
The petitioners are calling for a rule that would prohibit airlines from serving snacks containing nuts to any passenger sitting near someone with a peanut allergy. Furthermore, passengers who bring peanuts on board would not be allowed to eat them during the flight, if they are sitting within the buffer zone.
The buffer zone would extend to passengers sitting in the three rows in front of or behind someone with a severe peanut allergy.
The rules would also prevent airlines from removing passengers who have peanut allergies.
When Mandelbaum reported her son's allergy to United Airlines, she recalls being told: "Well, if you think he's going to die, don't get on the plane."
"Children and adults with food allergies should be able to report their allergy without fear of being kicked off a flight," Mandelbaum said. "As it stands, they have no such rights and cases have been reported of people being taken off a flight for reporting a food allergy."
Currently, there are no federal rules protecting airlines passengers who have peanut allergies, Mandelbaum says — something she is hoping to change.
Mandelbaum successfully convinced the New Jersey Senate to protect airline passengers with peanut allergies in 2013.
But she is pushing for federal rules that would expand the protections for passengers around the country.
Mandelbaum is also meeting with officials at top airlines, asking them to establish company policies protecting passengers with peanut allergies. She noted that "different flight crews on the same airline will react differently to a food allergy request" without set policies.
She has had some success in her efforts.
WestJet has stopped serving peanuts on board, while Jet Blue Airways will create a buffer zone for allergic passengers upon request, Mandelbaum said.
However, United Airlines has shown "no signs" of changing its policy, following the incident where she was asked to take her son off the flight, Mandelbaum said.
Delta Airlines has not responded to her request, she added.
The petition is being hosted by Care2, an activist website that hosts petitions from public interest, environmental and health groups.
I'm allergic to liberals and muslimes, so how about both?
Terrible analogy.
Smoking in a public area is just a rude activity in general - driven by the inconsiderateness of addicts.
And a much, much higher percentage of the population have asthma, emphysema, and other lung conditions that can be exacerbated by stewing in smoke for hours.
Peanut allergies are far less common, and peanuts are not burned and dissipated through the air.
But our politicians are cool with flying foreign ebola carriers around on commercial planes.
What happens if a peanut falls on the floor and rolls down the aisle into coach? Do they have to do an emergency landing?
LOL!
About an hour ago I opened a bag of un-shelled peanuts in my cubicle. After eating a few dozen I emailed my colleagues in the same room as a precaution in case any of them were deathly allergic to them. Bass-ackwards on my part. Turns out none of them are allergic, and all of them wonder how it is we never heard of peanut allergies until after the Jimmy Carter days.
I mind.
And making ‘just’ a few rows peanut free is control and will result in the entire aircraft being peanut free. The airlines can’t risk a stewardess making a mistake and giving the darling a peanut.
To be clear, since you missed it: “What did people do ABOUT PEANUT ALLERGIES when flying in, say, the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s. . .etc?”
Egads!
Letting a peanut roll back to the hoi polloi. . .NEVER!!
A couple of questions, not because I don’t believe you. Just curious.
Did he simply touch peanut butter, or did he transfer the allergen by rubbing his eyes, nose, etc?
Were the parents and the school aware of the child’s peanut allergy? Was an epi-pen available for the child at school? One would think an epi-pen would be standard fare for emergency situations. A child with any documented allergy severe enough to cause anaphylaxis should have one at the school with his name one it.
I am having a little trouble comprehending why a peanut allergy is different from a bee sting allergy. Anaphylaxis is anaphylaxis.
For decades people smoked in public... wherever, wherever they wanted and no big deal was made of it. I lowered the window when a person smoked in a car.
And a much, much higher percentage of the population have asthma, emphysema, and other lung conditions that can be exacerbated by stewing in smoke for hours.
The conditions you mentioned are caused more by smog than any short term exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. My cousin had emphysema...never smoked but lived near the refineries on the Gulf Coast.
I wouldn't mind giving up peanuts.
I mind fat people hanging over into my space.
Bottom line...we all have different "minds."
“For decades people smoked in public... wherever, wherever they wanted and no big deal was made of it.”
I image that back then the smoker, realizing smoke was an intrusion, would politely ask “mind if I smoke” before lighting up.
“I lowered the window when a person smoked in a car.”
Hard to do in an airplane. . though some have tried.
We live in a society where a liberal mentality wants to remove all risk of all types for all people, and that liberal mentality sees it as the government’s job to do so.
Financial risk? Someone else who makes more money will pay for your benefits, retirement, food, cable, cell phones and medical care.
Playtime risk? Ban the activity, be it monkey bars or tetherball.
Self esteem risk? Ensure that nobody “fails” at anything, which also devalues accomplishment by an equal amount.
Educational risk? Lower the standards so low that industry finds it difficult to hire qualified people, mandate that others subsidize the cost of higher education lest someone be denied an opportunity because they didn’t go to college, no matter how irrelevant and watered down the curriculum becomes.
Travel risk? Mandate that your car is equipped with expensive equipment you may not want, but have to buy nevertheless.
Climate risk? Mandate unrealistic fuel and car construction standards that both increase the cost of cars and reduces the mass of the vehicle to dangerous levels.
Medical risk? Make malpractice suits so commonplace and lucrative that people are denied various services because the clinicians choose not to practice there.
Sexual disease or pregnancy risk? Offer government mandated coverage for treatment that everyone else is obligated to pay for to cover the risky activities of the few.
And so on. The volume and intrusiveness of legislation at the local, state, federal (and now global) levels has grown so huge and all encompassing that at any given moment, any single person could be (and likely is) in violation of any number of laws. Add to that the crippling effect all this has on business, it is no surprise that a capitalist would choose to open a factory in Sri Lanka rather than the United States or most Western countries.
Make no mistake about it. This is not innocent legislation. It is another straw. Sure, the thought process says to make an exception for this situation because peanut allergies affect so many children, so we will “do it for the children” and pass this legislation. All the reservation software would need to be rewritten. Filters on ventilation systems might have to be changed. People will need to be tasked with ensuring there is no peanut residue on any seats. Peanuts would be banned from being opened and eaten on planes. They might mandate a detector like an explosives sniffer when people board a plane.
Your ticket prices would go up some percent, and airlines, who operate on slim margins, would need to both pass on costs to their passengers and cut more corners somewhere. Perhaps, instead of buying that fuel control for the CFM56 engine on the 737 from GE, they buy it from an unauthorized aftermarket provider, perhaps built or overhauled in China or Russia, but branded as GE.
People would read this and exclaim “Oh, you are being ridiculous...that is over the top. The government would never mandate all that.
To that, I would say “Oh, really?”
And what about the next condition down the road. Why stop at peanuts? I am sure there are a multitude of issues that affect millions of people, and many of those issues can find a sympathetic ear in the government. And why not? For what purpose does it now exist, except to pump out legislation?
LOL, now that is true. If you saw me with onions, you would understand completely. Heck, I could get legislation passed to force restaurants to isolate onions from other foods.
Youi originally said you feel people would not mind giving up their peanuts if given a choice.
Thing is, in this case, that choice is to be taken away from them.
I am convinced that when I flew internationally in coach on the militarily dime, there was a regulation that specifically stated that the sweaty, 400lb German that didn’t bathe HAD to sit next to me. . .that or the 18-month old colicky baby that screamed for the entire flight.
People smoked openly in New York City up until a few years ago - until idiot Bloomberg unconstitutionally banned it. Everyone accepted outdoor smoking, nothing unusual. And no one asked permission.
It doesn't say anything about someone sitting across the aisle. What about when he has to go to the potty? Is she going to make an announcement to the entire plane and wrap him in a blanket so he's protected all the way to the back of the plane? Is the recirculated air going to somehow magically be kept from the buffer zone? That's like announcing you have to have a buffer zone from underwear bombers, crying babies, liberals, stinky people, anyone infected with anything from the sniffles to HIV and ebola, gays, black/white/purple people, muslims, old people, and most especially short people with their little hands and little eyes and tiny little teeth. Sorry, crazy mama, but I you don't want him to die then don't fly or charter your own extra special peanut free plane.
They have a right and a responsibility to protect their child. That means they should not board an airplane with their son if his allergies are bad enough to require these measures. Would they really risk their child's life on the good faith of someone 2-3 rows away who might whip out a pb&j sandwich, a baggie of trail mix, or a pack of chips cooked in peanut oil, whether that passenger ignores their request out of hunger, ignorance, forgetfulness, or indifference? Whether the airlines are being more responsible than the parents because the flight attendants care more about children than these parents or out of fear of a lawsuit, the fact is that the airlines have the correct answer and these parents should listen to the professionals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.