Which is really the point.  The word "allergy" in the public usage is a colloquial for indication of food + severity, not mechanism and co-morbidity with other diseases it's actually related to.  Saying it's not an allergy isn't saying it's not a disease, or speak to its impact. 

For that matter wheat allergy and anaphylaxis isn't the same as wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis.  Unfortunately, these are important parameters that have adverse consequences in real life.  Case in point: a waitperson or food service giving a gluten-free item that contains an individual's allergens because the terms are misused.  All we have is communication and must compete for a food server's (or otherwise) attention.

What I would have rather seen, or actually need, is reference to avoidance because of need and not made it only eating-related, which is one of the defining differences. 

Quote from: guess on December 04, 2014, 10:52:58 AM
I didn't care for the use of allergy aggregated with intolerance when that was supposed to be the the article's purpose, to differentiate the two from one another. Or did I read that wrong?

Medically diagnosed intolerances can be quite severe.  I could see why they included this with allergy, although specifying that they are different (one can kill, whilst the other may just leave you writhing in pain) may have been useful.  Celiac isn't an allergy, but should be treated in a similar manner when it comes to food handling. 

But those fictitious 'intolerances' that are preferences, random items on an E95 blood test (etc.), or otherwise not medically diagnosed - those are the lies I think they are referring to.

". . . really piss me off."

That's what I thought when unread GN's subject line.

Thanks for sharing this. I took my Weight Watchers leader to task a few years ago when she suggested to our meeting that we tell wait staff that we're "allergic to butter" to avoid eating fattening foods. That is never acceptable.

I didn't care for the use of allergy aggregated with intolerance when that was supposed to be the the article's purpose, to differentiate the two from one another. Or did I read that wrong?

I read this last night and ended up in tears.  She said all that I have wanted to say over the years.  Am I grateful that fad diets exist, yes because my journey with DS1's wheat, rye and barley allergy so much easier.  I have friends whose son was diagnosed with Celiac disease 30 years ago who had almost no resources available.  And here we are and I can find just about every safe sub for my son available (albeit limited by his egg allergy, but even that not so much).  But then you look at places like Domino's and Whole Foods who so often cater to those with "false allergies" and you wonder what chefs in other restaurants who seem to get it understand that no, this is life threatening not a choice.

The article is pretty awesome-- which may be the first time I've said that about something in Cosmo in about thirty years.

The comments are the usual mix of grateful "thank you for saying this" and completely ignorant, with a few other things thrown in.

From Cosmopolitan Magazine:

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a33064/people-lying-about-food-allergies/