Why Do Airlines Still Serve Nuts?

Allergies have become seemingly more prevalent in recent years. Anecdotally, almost everyone can now name multiple people who likely have one or more allergies. Theories as to why this is are varied and that is a topic for another day.

Some people report they will have a reaction just to the scent of a food. Interestingly, the odor of an allergenic food cannot actually cause a reaction since the odor does not emanate from the protein. For example, it is the peanut protein that causes the reaction. An allergic reaction generally occurs when someone licks, tastes, or otherwise ingests some of the allergenic food by accident. What gets misconstrued as allergy inducing odor is actually protein of the allergenic food in the air. Normally, your surrounding area is too dilutive and while the smell may make someone uncomfortable, it will not actually harm them. “The only exception” according to Dr Ham Pong is if a “person breathes enough of the [peanut] protein in the air, the person can have a serious reaction, asthma attack or anaphylaxis.” While this is unusual, it can happen “if a large number of people are opening packages of peanut at the same time – e.g. when peanut packages served on an airplane – and the peanut protein dust gets into the air in an enclosed space”[1].

This begs the question – why do they still serve nuts on airplanes? While the annual estimates for deaths by anaphylaxis is less than 100 per year[2], some 20 to 25 million people are hospitalized every year with allergic reactions in the US alone. Most survive because of the rapid treatment they receive once in urgent care at a hospital, but someone experiencing an allergic reaction on an airplane is robbed of that critical care. Further, anyone with an allergy can attest to how nerve racking it is to know that you can be trapped in an aluminum tube 30,000 feet in the air with something that you may ingest and kill you; panic sets in and makes things worse.

Ninety percent of all allergies are cause by just eight foods – milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy, and wheat.[3] And of these, only two are served regularly and cause anaphylactic reactions – peanuts and tree nuts. While they are luxury to have, it’s not of paramount importance that Joe Passenger has his bag of almonds or peanuts on the 1-hour flight from Boston to NYC. So, would it not be simpler to just remove the majority of allergens from airplanes?

Evidently, no.

According to the guardian, there are no blanket policies that have been created to cover allergies or allergenic foods. Many companies, like British Airways, Emirates, Easyjet, Qatar, American Airlines, Delta and many other serve nuts regularly and/or will not guarantee a nut free flight. Some companies even go so far as to say it is policy not to make announcements even if it could be life-saving, as was the case on a Mango Airlines flights in South Africa[4] and an Air Canada flight from Las Vegas to Toronto.[5] Some airlines, like Virgin, Southwest and Lufthansa have phased out the serving of nuts but that doesn’t mean other passengers do not pull out their own.

Those against the outright ban of allergens argue that this would create a false sense of security for passengers, but logic would follow that the more you remove the foods that can induce a reaction, the less likely someone is to come in contact with it. Those with severe allergies will always remain vigilant, whether there is a blanket ban or not. Making matters worse, in the US Epinephrine auto-injectors are not required by law to be present on an airplane. That means someone who does experience a reaction would need to have their own or be lucky enough to find another passenger on board who does. Frustratingly, precedent for this type of life saving device exists – defibrillators are mandated on all airplanes. In Canada, airlines carry vials of epinephrine, but those require a medical professional to administer. The Canadian Transportation Agency however did study and make recommendations in 2016 that included carrying stock epinephrine auto-injectors.[6]

Historically speaking, why are peanuts and other nuts even served in the first place? Opinions range on the topic. Food is served to help with the change in air pressure and aiding in the equalization in the ears (via chewing, swallowing). Nuts were also cheap and can last for a long time, making them an inexpensive alternative for airlines. The cynics will argue that nuts are also salty and encourage passengers to purchase drinks, boosting the revenue for the airlines. All of these are valid, but many if not all of these could be accomplished with simpler, less risky foods. Pretzels and chips offer many of the same benefits, without the inherent risk. Indeed, more and more airlines are offering these alternatives to peanuts, but the move should occur quicker.

The inherent role of government is to keep its citizens safe from the large, war like scenarios down to the small, seemingly insignificant details. When you assess the risk reward profile of serving allergenic foods versus not, the benefits of banning common allergens far outweigh the costs. It would be wise for governments across the world to pass legislation banning the sale of nuts, peanuts, or foods containing these two items from airplanes and to mandate that all airplanes carry epinephrine. At the very least, proper labeling on all served foods should be required. Inability to act is simply not a good reason to needlessly endanger a human life.

[1] https://www.allergicliving.com/experts/can-i-react-to-the-smell-of-peanutnuts/

[2] https://www.aaaai.org/global/latest-research-summaries/Current-JACI-Research/death-anaphylaxis

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.pdf

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/apr/24/nut-allergy-food-intolerance-airline-policy

[5] https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/08/10/gta-woman-has-terrifying-flight-experience-hopes-for-policy-change/

[6] https://foodallergycanada.ca/2016/08/new-report-canadian-transportation-agency-air-travel-food-allergies/