What would you think if someone told you...

[BeachGal]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

I for one would really appreciate if you DID link credible information about this topic. I have neither the time nor inclination to spend more than 20 minutes seeking out more crunchy but reputable sources than NPR and Berkeley, though if someone here or a reputable journalist did it for me, I'd be happy to change my mind.

How to lie with statistics is an interesting conversation but it isn't relevant to the question of whether large scale commercially farmed organic produce is actually safer for humans than large scale conventionally farmed produce. With regard to deadly food poisoning alone, it is demonstrably not safer.

 

Here is an easy to read article from Discover that discusses the problems with funding and conflicts of interest in academia. It’s from 2006 but the problems still exist. Berkeley’s funding by British Petroleum is mentioned on page 4.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 hours ago, marbel said:

Based on my experience with I don't see OP as judging anyone. She's asking a question, I assume in order to learn something and understand the person. 

I disagree. Unless the OP is actually responsible for the food needs of the person, it is not her place to evaluate wherher there is a genuine problem. The answer to the base question is that it COULD be a problem. (All the skepticism of some posters not withstanding. ).

This hits a nerve for me because as a person with autoimmune issues there can be a lot of factors that cause distress that ignorant people don’t get. People with autoimmune issues know that when they try to advocate for themselves that they are setting themselves up to be judged AGAIN on the validity of their problems. We come up with simple ways to deflect some of the judgment and ignorance while still trying to crrate an environment that won’t set us back. 

After almost 30 years of doctors, family and some friends questioning my mental health, I am at the point where I have jettisoned most of the ignorant people. I have surrounded myself with people who treat me with grace. I don’t need them to manage my health for me (with the exception of the doctors, of course. ). I don’t need them to treat me like a special snowflake. I don’t need them to pity me or give me undue attention. I do need them to believe me when I say that I need to eat gluten free without having to give yet another treatise on Celiac disease. I do need them to believe me if I am having a reaction to chemicals or scents. 

Are there people with mental or personality problems who might just want attention?  Sure. But the OP would probably see that on a whole bunch of fronts. 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Also: A mental illness IS a "valid illness". An eating disorder is just as much an illness as an allergy. Can't believe I missed that comment the first time around.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Oh and as far as dietary restrictions changing?  Many of us with  real life actual problems spend years experimenting with things like diet because there are no magic pills out there. I have tried to be nightshade free for six months (didn’t work)). I tried vegetarian. Paleo. Etc. During those experiments I didn’t know what the end result would be but I had to commit 100% to see if it really helped or not. We suggest all the time on this board that someone try to go dairy free or avoid food dyes etc. And we see all the time on this board that some ignorant family member is making things hard for them. 

[freesia]

17 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I would think they probably have an extreme sensitivity to pesticides.   I doubt I would think anymore of it than that.   

I wish I could eat only organic food.  Our budget just doesn’t work for that.  

This, b/c my dh does have an allergy to a pesticide (we haven't figured out which or if it is related to his other allergy) that is used on most fruits and peppers.  He can eat non-organic veg. fine, but has a full blown allergy attack (hives, dropping blood pressure, gastrointestinal) to non-organic oranges, apples, berries, etc.

[Guest]

*

[Supertechmom]

I would assume she has some issues that she doesn't care to go into details ..... all the way up to including she is particular about who prepares her food and it's easier to say I only eat x then to hurt someone's feelings by saying I won't eat food prepared by you (general you!, not any one person here!!)    

 

As someone who deals with food issues everyday, I have found it easier depending on who I'm talking with to just make a blanket statement and move on.

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Having been accused of the bolded - yeah, don't assume.  Unless you know the person pretty well and are aware of both their and their kids' issues, just dont' go there.  Believe it or not, it is possible for a kid to have food issues when his mom does not.  Making what border on abuse allegations does not help.

 

I don't think it really comes down to accusing or assuming.  With regard to the OP question, if I didn't know much about the person, it's just a matter of probability.  The likelihood of what she's describing is low.  The likelihood that it's a placebo/nocebo effect seems a plausible alternative, though. (Another is the issue wasn't well explained.)  I see people make that kind of error a lot, when I do know the details, so it's clearly a real possibility.

 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

 

In theory it's different than regulations.  If you're buying from a local small farm you've visited that doesn't use even organic pesticides, it is different.  But the point is that the sort of organic produce you find in supermarkets isn't grown the way most consumers think it is. We lived in Iowa for years, and met many small non-certified organic farmers at farmers markets, and visited several of their farms. From what we heard from them, the massive "organic" farms that grow the majority of things in the organic aisles in large supermarket chains DO work that way.  They use massive amounts of "organic" chemicals and it is worse for everyone.  Nicotine, for example, is toxic for everyone.

Don't get me wrong, we as a family do support a small local non-certified organic pesticide-free CSA farm with a focus on sustainable practices. But when we buy produce at the grocery store I often buy whatever looks like the highest quality, rather than choosing organic as a matter of course. And we always cook organic greens.

 

My issue is, I think articles like that really obscure the problem.  Some person who assumed that there were no dangerous chemicals used in organic agriculture sees this blanket statement that it's false, and they conclude it's a scam.  They aren't really any more knowledgeable than they were before.

ETA - this is why I find myself wondering what the real goal of an article like that is.

[SKL]

The statement in the OP is a generalization, obviously.  Like most generalizations, it's probably made to spare both parties an annoying, unhelpful discussion.  Would you rather they lay out every specific chemical that they know or suspect disagrees with them (and how) and every food it is found in along with a caution that since the person cannot know every chemical in every food on the market, the detailed explanation given is still probably incomplete? 

"Flingfates make me fart and chingchongs give me diarrhea.  So ... let's eat!"  Nice and specific but ....

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Sure, but is treatment for an eating disrder in accommodating the disordered eating? 

I meant a valid illness that is ameliorated by eating only organic foods. 

Unless you are in charge of the eating of a minor, or have been told "I have xyz eating disorder, can you help me?" it is not your job to try to diagnose, treat or accommodate an eating disorder. 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Gracious people allow other adults to eat the way they want to without questioning it.  Gracious people allow other parents to feed their own children without questioning it as well. Really - there is a skill to telling yourself "not my business" when a thought comes across your brain.  As you do that, you stop evaluating everyone else's choices and start concentrating only on  your own.

[marbel]

11 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Gracious people allow other adults to eat the way they want to without questioning it.  Gracious people allow other parents to feed their own children without questioning it as well. Really - there is a skill to telling yourself "not my business" when a thought comes across your brain.  As you do that, you stop evaluating everyone else's choices and start concentrating only on  your own.

I agree with you.

The thing is, this should be a good place to ask questions like this. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience here so it's a great place to get different perspectives and information.  Why assume that the OP is not gracious toward this individual in her life?   Why not assume she wants to learning about something she knows nothing about - and came to a good place to ask about it?  

I think it's a safe bet that some people here are learning from this thread, but I don't think the lesson should be "it's not your place to ask questions like this."  

[Guest]

*

[Tanaqui]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Sure, but is treatment for an eating disrder in accommodating the disordered eating? 

I meant a valid illness that is ameliorated by eating only organic foods. 

 

Are you this person's psychiatrist, doctor, or parent? Are you a psychiatrist or doctor at all?

Either they're under the care of a medical professional, in which case they presumably are taking their doctor's advice, or they're not... and good manners requires you to not deliberately serve them foods they can't eat.

[Guest]

*

[Pawz4me]

9 minutes ago, marbel said:

I agree with you.

The thing is, this should be a good place to ask questions like this. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience here so it's a great place to get different perspectives and information.  Why assume that the OP is not gracious toward this individual in her life?   Why not assume she wants to learning about something she knows nothing about - and came to a good place to ask about it?  

I think it's a safe bet that some people here are learning from this thread, but I don't think the lesson should be "it's not your place to ask questions like this."  

Agreed.

I see absolutely zero evidence that the OP is anything but curious, and came here to discuss and ask opinions. Which is what happens here. If we didn't discuss things like this there wouldn't be a lot going on here.

I don't get making assumptions or jumping on the OP at all. Sure we've all done it and probably will do it again (me included). I guess it's just easier to "see" when you're not really emotionally invested in the topic. But to talk about not being gracious while one is questioning the OP's motives . . . well, that's certainly not very gracious, is it?

[Jean in Newcastle]

8 minutes ago, Quill said:

I wouldn’t try to diagnose or do anything whatsoever about my friend who came to my house for lunch and said, “I can only eat organic food; all conventional food makes me ill.” Unless it was my best friend, I would do nothing but either offer organic food if I had it or tell her to bring her own food so she will be comfortable.

The OP asked a question, “What would you think...” My answer is, “I would think the person has Orthorexia.” I would not question it to the friend, but in my head, I would think the person is wrong. It was a different poster who took issue with my saying it wasn’t a valid illness when mental illness is a valid illness. So, okay, yes, it is. But I don’t think there is an illness that would be rectified by only eating organic foods. 

But people have explained why the person could be right.  And you (and others) are refusing to entertain that as a possibility.  I don't know (and wouldn't know even if the person was someone I knew irl) if they are right or not but I certainly wouldn't default to "they are wrong" like many here are doing.  That default?  Not gracious.  Not even knowledgeable.  And to buckle down even after people have explained possible issues?  Smh. 

(I have no problem with people asking questions on a platform like this.  I do have a problem with prejudices which often come out in choices of words that lean towards not believing anyone who needs a special diet.) 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Agreed.

I see absolutely zero evidence that the OP is anything but curious, and came here to discuss and ask opinions. Which is what happens here. If we didn't discuss things like this there wouldn't be a lot going on here.

I don't get making assumptions or jumping on the OP at all. Sure we've all done it and probably will do it again (me included). I guess it's just easier to "see" when you're not really emotionally invested in the topic. But to talk about not being gracious while one is questioning the OP's motives . . . well, that's certainly not very gracious, is it?

I actually think there is less conversation on these boards than there used to be because people don’t want to go through this sort of thing. Like I am, right now, wondering why I answered. 

[Pawz4me]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

I actually think there is less conversation on these boards than there used to be because people don’t want to go through this sort of thing. Like I am, right now, wondering why I answered. 

Don't let it bother you. These things often go the way the first few posters respond, or the way of whoever's hanging around at the time and is the most vocal. Not always, but often. The same question could be asked next week and things would go differently than now, depending on who was around to comment.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But people have explained why the person could be right.  And you (and others) are refusing to entertain that as a possibility.  I don't know (and wouldn't know even if the person was someone I knew irl) if they are right or not but I certainly wouldn't default to "they are wrong" like many here are doing.  That default?  Not gracious.  Not even knowledgeable.  And to buckle down even after people have explained possible issues?  Smh. 

(I have no problem with people asking questions on a platform like this.  I do have a problem with prejudices which often come out in choices of words that lean towards believing anyone who needs a special diet.) 

Alright, Jean. I fold. I don’t see why my opinion is such a big deal. But I’m not in a great frame of mind today, so I’ll just go delete my posts here and do something better with my time. 

[marbel]

7 minutes ago, Quill said:

I actually think there is less conversation on these boards than there used to be because people don’t want to go through this sort of thing. Like I am, right now, wondering why I answered. 

Every now and then I think of something I'd like to ask about, and having no one in my real life to ask, think to come here. Sometimes I even type up the question. But then I realize I might not word my post perfectly, and will cause someone to be offended, or tell me I should mind my own business, etc. So I just delete it and carry on being ignorant. 

Kind of odd that a board dedicated to education would lead to that line of thinking, but there it is.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, marbel said:

Every now and then I think of something I'd like to ask about, and having no one in my real life to ask, think to come here. Sometimes I even type up the question. But then I realize I might not word my post perfectly, and will cause someone to be offended, or tell me I should mind my own business, etc. So I just delete it and carry on being ignorant. 

Kind of odd that a board dedicated to education would lead to that line of thinking, but there it is.

Yeah. I relate. 

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

Tangent: Have you seen that funny commercial where the guy is at the counter ordering a bunch of meat and his friend says, “Dude, I thought you were vegan?” And he replies, “I was. I’m Paleo now.” 

There’s a reason why that’s so funny. Truth is funny. 

I just saw that commercial last night.  So stinkin' funny.

[Scarlett]

7 minutes ago, marbel said:

Every now and then I think of something I'd like to ask about, and having no one in my real life to ask, think to come here. Sometimes I even type up the question. But then I realize I might not word my post perfectly, and will cause someone to be offended, or tell me I should mind my own business, etc. So I just delete it and carry on being ignorant. 

Kind of odd that a board dedicated to education would lead to that line of thinking, but there it is.

At least you are smart enough to delete.  LOL  I just keep asking for more punishment, year after year.  

[LucyStoner]

I think that one can be gracious and mind their own business, more or less keeping their eyes on their own plate, while still suspecting that orthorexia is involved. 

My brother has a long list of things he is allergic to.  I promise you he is allergic to exactly NOTHING but in his mind, he can't have those foods.  I don't press him on it.  I even accommodate it.  The unfortunate thing is that people who do have allergies and chemical sensitivities are taken less seriously by some than they deserve because of all the people who self-diagnose and restrict many perfectly harmless things from their diet.  I take people at their word until I have good reason not to.  

That doesn't erase a sense of skepticism, especially not for people I know very well.  If I don't know you, I have no basis for thinking what you are saying it less than true, even if it is statistically unlikely.  But if you are my brother or a good friend and I've seen you eat pizza a million times, I know you do not have a grave illness caused by tomatoes.  

I have a friend who is definitely orthorexic and I guess it's not skepticism so much as I know that it's an eating disorder and anxiety rather than an allergy or other ailments.  I acknowledge it like I do any friend with a mental health issue.  No shame, no guilt, no prognosticating but I might gently encourage them to get help if the relationship and the opportunity arise.  Example:  it would be unacceptable for me to tell the mom sitting next to me at soccer practice she needs to get some help if she drones on endlessly about her restricted eating.  I'm not going to challenge her and for all I know she is really allergic to common pesticides or all of the least allergenic foods on the planet.  It is, however, acceptable for me to express worry to a dear friend who is going broke for a needlessly and insanely restrictive diet which appears to be making her ill and see that she is clearly spiraling with ongoing mental health issues and gently ask her what her plan is for getting help and letting her know that I am there to help if she needs help finding a good specialist.  Because she would do the same for me (and did when she thought I had PPD). I wouldn't tell her what to eat or argue with her anxiety (that's futile) but I would listen and encourage and steer her, if possible, to see a trusted medical professional who can help.   

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

My issue is, I think articles like that really obscure the problem.  Some person who assumed that there were no dangerous chemicals used in organic agriculture sees this blanket statement that it's false, and they conclude it's a scam.  They aren't really any more knowledgeable than they were before.

ETA - this is why I find myself wondering what the real goal of an article like that is.

 

Eh, I guess I tend to think the purpose of the article is to explain the issue is more nuanced than than common usage suggests.  Some people are capable of understanding nuance, others aren't. An article can't give a reader critical thinking skills if they lack them.

I guess to me the OP's question is ultimately about the requirement making sense OR implying the person is a special snowflake.  As someone with a special diet (I'm a diabetic with a wheat allergy, a hive-inducing histamine intolerance, saturated fat raises my blood sugar more than sugar, and one child is allergic to dairy), I get the need for blanket statements about not eating things. But I tend to dismiss things as "we have multiple food allergies" to people I don't know well and "I'm trying a ridiculous new diet" to people I do know well when I was trying the low-histamine thing. If I made a nonsensical statement I would not expect anyone to take me seriously. So "elimination diet" makes sense in a way that "non-organic diets make us sick" does not. For one thing, "non-organic" has too many variables.  How do they know it's organic, and not complete coincidence without an elimination diet or an allergy test?  The answer is they don't. It could just as easily be the wax on the produce or the uncooked onions or a fructose intolerance. There are far too many variables for it to make sense.

[Jean in Newcastle]

19 minutes ago, marbel said:

Every now and then I think of something I'd like to ask about, and having no one in my real life to ask, think to come here. Sometimes I even type up the question. But then I realize I might not word my post perfectly, and will cause someone to be offended, or tell me I should mind my own business, etc. So I just delete it and carry on being ignorant. 

Kind of odd that a board dedicated to education would lead to that line of thinking, but there it is.

I have zero issues with the OP.  She asked a question.  She has not come back to rebut any of the people who patiently explained possible real issues. The people who have explained these things are educating the OP and others on those issues.  

I do have issues with people who mock those with food issues by talking about how they are fooled into thinking they have issues when they really don't or are just following the latest fad because they don't know any better.  Are there people who might do those things?  Sure.  But again - what is your default thinking on this?  Is it going to be to accuse people in your mind of being a special snowflake?  Or is it to allow for the possibility that they actually have an issue with food and need to eat ____________ food? 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

[Pawz4me]

8 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But again - what is your default thinking on this?  Is it going to be to accuse people in your mind of being a special snowflake?  Or is it to allow for the possibility that they actually have an issue with food and need to eat ____________ food? 

I don't think one necessarily needs to have a default. It's quite easy to hold both of those possibilities in ones mind at the same time, and to do it w/o using such loaded language (or thought/feeling) as "accuse." One can have some skepticism while at the same time comprehending the possibility that something, however statistically unlikely, does indeed exist. I think most people here are perfectly capable of holding those two things in their heads simultaneously.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Do you want to know why I'm bothering to spend time posting repeatedly on this thread?  Its because family members who didn't take me at my word regarding real food restrictions for my children would slip my kids things because "they knew better" and because I was "making things up".  And I was left to deal with a screaming toddler who was in pain and anguish because of those "imaginary food issues".  Having a default against food issues being real leads to that kind of stuff in families. 

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I have zero issues with the OP.  She asked a question.  She has not come back to rebut any of the people who patiently explained possible real issues. The people who have explained these things are educating the OP and others on those issues.  

I do have issues with people who mock those with food issues by talking about how they are fooled into thinking they have issues when they really don't or are just following the latest fad because they don't know any better.  Are there people who might do those things?  Sure.  But again - what is your default thinking on this?  Is it going to be to accuse people in your mind of being a special snowflake?  Or is it to allow for the possibility that they actually have an issue with food and need to eat ____________ food? 

 

Again, I have multiple physician-diagnosed food issues in my family. But I still get somewhat irritated with special snowflakes.  We have seen too many people claim to need a gluten-free diet and then go on to eat half a regular wheat crust pizza. Or adults who claim to have celiac that makes them deathly ill for days eat multiple pastries two days after a 30 minute recount of how many weeks it took them to get the gluten out of their system. Or another claim a strawberry allergy go out of her way to eat the only food with fresh strawberries on the table. In my experience only about 50% of people who claim a food allergy actually have them. I give people the benefit of the doubt until I see them cheat on their own diet. These are always the same people with whatever diagnosis is trendy.  In one case I know a woman claimed to systematically have 6 different medical diagnoses over the course of 10 years, none of which were actually diagnosed by a doctor.

On the other hand I don't judge people who claim intolerance but are vague about it.  There is a difference between ridiculous attention-grabbing special snowflake claims and those who are sufficiently vague or accurate enough that it waives the questions.  DH has eaten gluten free for enough of his life with me that he's mentioned he thinks he might have an intolerance to gluten.  He knows he feels better off of it, but he still loves it.  He doesn't go around making a big deal about his intolerance when most of the time he eats whatever looks good to him. But after a few weeks of sticking to whatever I make for him he will mention feeling better.

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Do you want to know why I'm bothering to spend time posting repeatedly on this thread?  Its because family members who didn't take me at my word regarding real food restrictions for my children would slip my kids things because "they knew better" and because I was "making things up".  And I was left to deal with a screaming toddler who was in pain and anguish because of those "imaginary food issues".  Having a default against food issues being real leads to that kind of stuff in families. 

But you also seem to be making a big assumption that those of us who are skeptical haven't had similar food related issues to deal with. Which at least in my case--and I suspect others posting here--isn't true at all.

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Do you want to know why I'm bothering to spend time posting repeatedly on this thread?  Its because family members who didn't take me at my word regarding real food restrictions for my children would slip my kids things because "they knew better" and because I was "making things up".  And I was left to deal with a screaming toddler who was in pain and anguish because of those "imaginary food issues".  Having a default against food issues being real leads to that kind of stuff in families. 

 

I totally get it. I've warned people that if they snuck DS dairy I'd be expecting THEM to be at my house rocking and pacing with him while he screamed and had diarrhea and a bleeding diaper rash for days. But there's a difference between internal skepticism and sneaking a child food they are allergic to.  I'd be tempted to cut family out of our lives for that behavior.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

Again, I have multiple physician-diagnosed food issues in my family. But I still get somewhat irritated with special snowflakes.  We have seen too many people claim to need a gluten-free diet and then go on to eat half a regular wheat crust pizza. Or adults who claim to have celiac that makes them deathly ill for days eat multiple pastries two days after a 30 minute recount of how many weeks it took them to get the gluten out of their system. Or another claim a strawberry allergy go out of her way to eat the only food with fresh strawberries on the table. In my experience only about 50% of people who claim a food allergy actually have them. I give people the benefit of the doubt until I see them cheat on their own diet. These are always the same people with whatever diagnosis is trendy.  In one case I know a woman claimed to systematically have 6 different medical diagnoses over the course of 10 years, none of which were actually diagnosed by a doctor.

On the other hand I don't judge people who claim intolerance but are vague about it.  There is a difference between ridiculous attention-grabbing special snowflake claims and those who are sufficiently vague or accurate enough that it waives the questions.  DH has eaten gluten free for enough of his life with me that he's mentioned he thinks he might have an intolerance to gluten.  He knows he feels better off of it, but he still loves it.  He doesn't go around making a big deal about his intolerance when most of the time he eats whatever looks good to him. But after a few weeks of sticking to whatever I make for him he will mention feeling better.

Well yeah.  That would irritate me too. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

The unfortunate thing is that people who do have allergies and chemical sensitivities are taken less seriously by some than they deserve because of all the people who self-diagnose and restrict many perfectly harmless things from their diet.

 

No, they're not.

If you are capable of understanding that you need to take people at their word about what they can and cannot eat even though some people are lying liars who lie, then I assure you, so is everybody else.

There are people in this world who are too lazy or stubborn to do this. That's their lookout. It has nothing to do with the people who have made up sensitivities for themselves that they don't really have. And in the end, does it matter why so-and-so doesn't want to eat something? (Other than quickly figuring out if cross-contamination is a possible issue, I mean.)

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

No, they're not.

If you are capable of understanding that you need to take people at their word about what they can and cannot eat even though some people are lying liars who lie, then I assure you, so is everybody else.

There are people in this world who are too lazy or stubborn to do this. That's their lookout. It has nothing to do with the people who have made up sensitivities for themselves that they don't really have. And in the end, does it matter why so-and-so doesn't want to eat something? (Other than quickly figuring out if cross-contamination is a possible issue, I mean.)

Well, of course we can take them at their word.....we have to, right?  But it does make it more difficult to smile and nod at all the many many people who have food allergies.  And because so many people claim to have food allergies I AM more skeptical. Skeptical doesn't translate to sneaking someone a food they claim to be allergic to.  Or voicing skepticism.  

[SKL]

I'm only responding because it bugged me that the majority of the responses assume the person is either crazy or easily swayed by woo.  Personally I think that is disrespectful, assuming I don't have a history with that person to make me skeptical of everything she says.  Also I think it is illogical to expect that general comments about food will be perfectly accurate.

[Jean in Newcastle]

8 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Well, of course we can take them at their word.....we have to, right?  But it does make it more difficult to smile and nod at all the many many people who have food allergies.  And because so many people claim to have food allergies I AM more skeptical. Skeptical doesn't translate to sneaking someone a food they claim to be allergic to.  Or voicing skepticism.  

While it is true that some might make up food allergies (either on purpose or because of hypochondriac tendencies or whatever. . . ) it is also true that more and more people are legitimately discovering that they have food allergies or autoimmune problems (which aren't always an allergy as such) or other reactions to foods or the chemicals involved in modern foods.  Why is this?  It might be because of processing issues now affecting the human body or farming issues or the added onslaught of pollution etc. on our bodies or all kinds of reasons.  And yet. . . a lot of food problems are still undiagnosed.  Take celiac for example (on my mind simply because we are dealing with it in our family).  It is an autoimmune reaction to gluten (not a food allergy) which experts say affects about 3 million people in the US alone.  And that 97% of those people are undiagnosed.  (How they get those figures is not something I understand.  I'm just quoting in this case the University of Chicago Medicine site on Celiac Disease.) 

[Pawz4me]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

My problem with organic is that it is so non-specific.  There is huge variability on that spectrum that wouldn’t really make sense if autoimmune or allergy issues were at play.  Even pesticides and MSG aren’t something uniform to organic or conventionally farmer foods, given the labeling issues and crop differences. 

Exactly. My responses have been with the specific person in the OP in mind, not in general towards people with food issues.  It doesn't seem likely to me that someone could react to ALL non-organic food. It makes no sense. Now we could assume the person is just using those words to simplify things, but even that really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. This situation is way different than someone who says she has Celiac disease, a nut allergy, is lactose intolerant, etc. It seems to me a certain amount of skepticism is warranted with this specific claim. Does that mean I'd call her out about it in person, or that if she were a guest in my home I wouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate her? Of course not.

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

My problem with organic is that it is so non-specific.  There is huge variability on that spectrum that wouldn’t really make sense if autoimmune or allergy issues were at play.  Even pesticides and MSG aren’t something uniform to organic or conventionally farmer foods, given the labeling issues and crop differences. 

 

I’m the crazy diet person, the one who looks like a nut job at any restaurant or potluck. But yeah, I’d be thinking eating disorder if someone had an organic-only restriction that was medical and not a preference.  But I’d also probably ask more questions before making a judgment, since it’s a topic I have a lot of interest and experience in, too.

But I could see just for ease and convenience sake, just deciding to limit everything to organic foods - if one could afford it, that is.  (Which I can't).  When it comes to food chemicals or farming chemicals, I could see it being a royal PITA trying to track down what was used for what and what was safe and what wasn't etc. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I think it's fine to ask here. There is literally nothing to lose and possibly info to gain. That said, here are my thoughts on this thread:

Food allergies and intolerances are on the rise. That's neither hype nor woo. There's no point trying to guess whether a person we've just met has disordered eating or disordered guts, that's a pretty personal analysis and none of our business if we are not providing food for them. (Probably not even then. There may be a Q as to whether we will host a person who drives us batty but it's not really our business why they won't eat XYZ.)

People do try a million lifestyles (becoming evangelical about each) because the SAD plus sedentary living and stress, makes them feel like garbage, whether they have measurable sensitivities or not. Almost any adherence to plain foods will probably make them feel better. That has ratcheted up since we got the Internet, but it was a topic in the 1970s, too. We've had diet and exercise zealots since before then, including people who wouldn't drink coffee with sugar, had to have saccharin, but who might eat a second piece of regular cake!

People with celiac disease have suffered from societal misunderstanding since the first diagnosis, literally hundreds of years ago. That's how long we've been looking out for ourselves. It's never been easier to find food; my four celiac young adults can navigate life pretty easily these days. Even fifteen years ago, a lot of situations were impossible, but it's gotten so much better.

Im just saying that there's no new reason why we have to call everybody on their diet peccadilloes now. We can host them or not, cook for them or not, eat with them or not, same as in any other time and place. Their existence and their diagnoses or lack thereof, take nothing from people with diagnoses. If you've got celiac or a true allergy, you have to stay on guard forever. That's life, no matter what anyone else says or thinks.

As far as people feeding children something their mother said they were allergic to, that's got nothing to do with the existence of hypochondriacs in the community. If someone effectively poisons or harms a child after being told, call an ambulance and then call the police! Don't keep taking the child to them after that.

 

[Scarlett]

11 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

While it is true that some might make up food allergies (either on purpose or because of hypochondriac tendencies or whatever. . . ) it is also true that more and more people are legitimately discovering that they have food allergies or autoimmune problems (which aren't always an allergy as such) or other reactions to foods or the chemicals involved in modern foods.  Why is this?  It might be because of processing issues now affecting the human body or farming issues or the added onslaught of pollution etc. on our bodies or all kinds of reasons.  And yet. . . a lot of food problems are still undiagnosed.  Take celiac for example (on my mind simply because we are dealing with it in our family).  It is an autoimmune reaction to gluten (not a food allergy) which experts say affects about 3 million people in the US alone.  And that 97% of those people are undiagnosed.  (How they get those figures is not something I understand.  I'm just quoting in this case the University of Chicago Medicine site on Celiac Disease.) 

I have paid attention to this closely for years.  And yes you are right there are more and more people who are coming down with auto immune disease or food sensitivities or allergies.  I ALSO see that the trend (a real trend) triggers some to think they must be one of them.  

Right now I just feel fortunate to have no sensitivities or allergies.  

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Indigo Blue said:

To answer the OP's question...

My mind would think, "Wow, I've never heard of such a thing. Could this be scientifically possible?" Then I would (because I'm a curious person) investigate and try to find information pertaining to this. If this were just an acquaintance, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt... in my mind. If I had known them for years and this just seemed like another one of their kooky ideas, I might be more skeptical...in my mind. Either way,I'd be polite and respectful. This would be my response and reaction.

I don't eat gluten. It makes me have huge, debilitating painful sores in my mouth. I've suffered life-long. I've never been to the doctor for this. I just eat as if I have celiac (I'm very sensitive) and go on about my business. I discovered this because of the onset of the popularity of gluten-free foods. This is what gave me the light bulb moment to try to do without gluten to see what happened. Unfortunately for me, along with this discovery about what was causing painful ulcers in my mouth, was the beginning of the era of "people coming out of the woodwork claiming to have a problem with gluten". So, I got lumped in with that stereotype (probably because I never went to the doctor and just claimed "gluten sensitivity" and got labeled by some as a band-wagon jumper. I've been told that it's placebo effect...science hasn't proved any true sensitivities...etc. It's all anecdotal... etc. Of course, this was/is hurtful.

Well, my thought is everything is anecdotal before it's "proven" by science and written in some journal. But because of my experiences, I'm also much more accepting when someone says something they eat or don't eat makes them feel better.

But still, I've never heard of someone who can only eat organic food because they otherwise get sick...it sounds odd, but I suppose it could be possible??

 

 

 

Ha you and I were cross posting....yeah if you were my friend and feel better eating gluten free I would just say 'well, great, I am glad you feel better.'  I still might secretly and briefly wonder if it was all in your head.  But Shrug....no one is harmed by going gluten free.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Ha you and I were cross posting....yeah if you were my friend and feel better eating gluten free I would just say 'well, great, I am glad you feel better.'  I still might secretly and briefly wonder if it was all in your head.  But Shrug....no one is harmed by going gluten free.

 

For this specifically, they can be, if they eat a lot of gf flour goods. Too much rice (arsenic), too much fat, not enough fiber, not enough B complex.

Eliminating grains, if the vitamins and minerals are covered, is ok. Switching to naturally gf seeds and grains is ok. Swapping fortified, whole grain wheat goods for commercial GF bread, doughnuts, pizza, crackers, etc. is not. Those should only be a rare treat.

[Scarlett]

Just now, Tibbie Dunbar said:

 

For this specifically, they can be, if they eat a lot of gf flour goods. Too much rice (arsenic), too much fat, not enough fiber, not enough B complex.

Eliminating grains, if the vitamins and minerals are covered, is ok. Switching to naturally gf seeds and grains is ok. Swapping fortified, whole grain wheat goods for commercial GF bread, doughnuts, pizza, crackers, etc. is not. Those should only be a rare treat.

Right....but the harm is not in the 'gluten free' part...it is in the excess or lacking of other key nutrients.

[goldberry]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

 "Needing" organic foods are just another faddish placebo effect.

I know you guys don't intend it this way, but some of these comments come off incredibly arrogant.

I'm all for scientific backing, and make decisions for myself mostly based on verifiable research.  But to tell other parents that their observations are just projections, or that someone is only having a psychological reaction and not a physical one.... The way I look at it, we are making choices based on the science we have *right now*.  Science used to not have a problem with cigarettes either.  Things change.  So just because there is not a scientifically supported reason why someone might feel well on organic food and not well off of them, doesn't mean there won't be one discovered, or that person is automatically just working out some weird psychological food issue.  Why do I need to make that judgment anyway?  It's their issue, not mine.  

Humility is a useful trait.  We don't know what we don't know, so why pretend otherwise?

[LucyStoner]

54 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

No, they're not.

If you are capable of understanding that you need to take people at their word about what they can and cannot eat even though some people are lying liars who lie, then I assure you, so is everybody else.

There are people in this world who are too lazy or stubborn to do this. That's their lookout. It has nothing to do with the people who have made up sensitivities for themselves that they don't really have. And in the end, does it matter why so-and-so doesn't want to eat something? (Other than quickly figuring out if cross-contamination is a possible issue, I mean.)

 

I do think that people are somewhat less likely to believe someone has a legit issue when they are exposed to a lot of people who make false claims. 

There are people who will, like Jean related, lie about what's in a dish or sneak a kid some food they shouldn't have.  Those people are putting people at risk.  I think such people are emboldened in their disbelief by those who make false statements about food issues.  That translates to more people who are less likely to do due diligence when prepping food for a group snack etc.  Many of my friends with kids who have serious allergies or celiac disease or who have those food needs themselves have told me that their food restrictions becoming seemingly fad-like has been both a boon (way more GF and allergy safe products available) and a curse (people are more likely to assume that it's a preference rather than a serious issue.)  Because they gave cross-contaminated food to one person and it was fine, must mean it's ok to do that all the time.  I'm very meticulous in this regard but a lot of people are not.  

[Loowit]

If someone told me that my first thought would be that there may be some sort of reaction to pesticides or some other chemical additive in processed or non-organic foods.  I wouldn't automatically go to "It's all in their head".  There area few people I know personally that go through fad diets and have for many, many years.  I tend to just smile and nod when they talk about their latest thing they are doing.  My MIL is one of those.  As long as she isn't pushing it on me or my kids we are fine.

I do get a bit sensitive about food topics though.  My youngest has severe food allergies and he gets a lot of people that don't get it and some that think we are making it up.  It is very frustrating to me, and him, when others claim "allergies" and then go on to eat that food with no problems when it suits them.  Their "allergies" are just a preference, at their own admission.  So it makes me angry when people claim to have allergies when they don't, because then people who do aren't always taken as seriously as they should be.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Indigo Blue said:

Not to get off topic, but, as others have mentioned, strange sensitivities do seem to be on the rise, and you can even see this in domestic pets. They have more rashes and tumors than ever...and this doesn't seem to be imaginary...I had a talk with my vet once about this. He says he sees many more cases of cancer and skin problems now. So something is definitely causing all this, that's for sure. I known of a few people who have been advised by their oncologist to do a huge diet change after having been diagnosed with cancer. Diets full of organic fruits and veggies and no processed foods. I've always wondered why they don't advise this before you get sick, lol. 

 

I agree.  My last two dogs both had tumors all over their bodies....I don't remember that at all as a kid.  And we had a doctor tell us that gall bladders are going bad at an alarming rate. Something is up for sure.