This article mentions a case of someone having an anaphylactic reaction simply from someone (and in this case, just a single person) opening a bag of peanuts near them, for what it's worth.
Of which no studies have been shown that measure their air handlers effectiveness at cleaning the air. (Doubtless they're out there though.)
This is a good point, but I doubt something as fine as peanut oil is removed all that effectively, and if someone with a severe allergy can have a serious reaction simply from peanuts being opened near them in places
more open than a plane, it would take a lot to clean the air that quickly and consistently. I do think further research is in order, though; it would be stupid
not to perform any when it would answer these questions more conclusively.
And can be thousands of miles from medical attention
Or 10 feet, depending on how prepared you or the airline are.
I mean medical attention besides what is available in an epi-pen or anything else you can carry on a person. I honestly have no idea if anaphylactic shock can be successfully staved off using on-hand medication like that for a period of hours even in the presence of the allergen (in the case that the air handling system doesn't effectively treat the air), or what the side effects of it might be over that kind of timeframe, so I really can't say much there.
So the treatment worked, she didn't die, she lasted the flight and, based on that article, I'm supposed to assume that her reaction was incredibly life threatening and not just mild breathing problems. I've BEEN in the advanced stages of anaphylactic shock. My face swelled like a balloon and I couldn't even get my own tongue over my lips. If she'd be that serious, that would have made it into the article me thinks.
Yeah, I wasn't using that as a scare tactic; I was just trying to find evidence that reactions requiring medical attention can occur even just from, say, trace amounts in the environment consistent with peanuts being served on previous flights, or peanut oil in the food that other passengers are eating.
It couldn't be that a mother, who was assured by the airlines that the place would be peanut free, freaked out when she saw it wasn't and was convinced there was a reaction?
It could be, but maybe it's not. The other example I presented above seems to imply that this sort of thing definitely is possible. It's definitely a known thing that trace amounts of something in the air can trigger a reaction in an allergic person (as evidence by this, people I've known, and possibly even your own experience), so an enclosed cabin with recycled air where everybody's eating the same snacks definitely seems like a prime candidate for a bad environment for these people.
The danger posed is real but minute. The solutions available are effective and adequate. I just don't see the need for this to become a thing.
Solutions available? Someone shouldn't
have to use an adrenaline shot while on board an aircraft, and if a customer is told that a certain allergen won't be present on a flight, they shouldn't
serve food with that allergen regardless; that's dishonest and dangerous regardless of what you think about banning peanuts in general.
But yeah, I agree that more research should be done, and that it's probably acceptable for airlines to simply exclude peanut-containing things from airplanes on flights upon request, provided they actually do it successfully (if they don't, that's fraudulent, and being fraudulent when it comes to medical matters isn't exactly good practice). Airlines seem to be taking care of the problem voluntarily, from what I'm reading, and if that's the case, and it's done earnestly and successfully, then yeah, there's much less need for government to get involved.