Talk:Food allergy

	This food related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Real

Food allergies are 'real enough' for a percentage of people. Most of us won't know if we are allergic to foods we are unlikely to encounter; and some 'food allergies' may be a mild dose of food poisoning/a reaction to something other than the obvious (eg viruses and moulds rather than mayonaise and peanuts).

How much do the 'real tests' indicate 'an allergy' without indicating 'how much of the stuff experienced for how long' will cause a problem?

The flaw with many 'test-yous' is the fail-basic-science tecnology: has anyone done a blind test with samples of hair that have been brought into contact with a range of hair dyes, shampoos, ocnditioners and other materials (so 'a 3D matrix' - hair, product and testers). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm ... not quite following your line of questioning here. What do hair and hair products have to do with food allergies again? --Tracer (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, as to blind test with just hair: you can't test for allergies without, ya know, the immune system involved; hair samples fail this condition. PacWalker 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Hypothesis

Is there a study out there on this, or some research? --Castaigne (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis

Erm, while there may be non-immunological causes of anaphylaxis, it itself is an allergic reaction... I'm fairly sure... biology is really not my thing though. Can anyone help with this? PacWalker 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

There is the statement 'the dead do not have allergic reactions.[citation needed]' - which is the 'Zombie Medicine/Pathology' department providing papers to be cited from? Anna Livia (talk)

The section on “food sensitivity” is itself pseudoscientific

As a medical faculty infectious diseases and immunology specialist I’m quite disquieted that this section on “food sensitivity”, which is indeed bereft of citations and stuffed with misinformation, contradictions, incorrect definitions and outright false statements, has snuck past such lengthy existence on such a core pseudoscientific juggernaut RationalWiki page as “Food Allergies” without being savaged. I’m really not certain it can be fixed in its present form; it’s so not even wrong that I think it should be tossed outright and rewritten in a completely different format. It’s truly a mess because it contains sections with line items that don’t belong in the section headings at all, and in fact it doesn’t present the topic of food sensitivities/intolerances, some of which are valid (and a great many are not) correctly in the first place—starting with a cogent definition of the scientific term itself. I’m willing to give a go at it, but I thought I’d first give any who have contributed to it (and others) the opportunity to defend/correct it before I proceed. I’ll give it a couple of weeks, and in the interim I welcome others’ thoughts and input that I’m happy to include in my rewrite. Thanks! Srkbear (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)