Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:33:40 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
<199902222055.PAA06781@zircon> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
>Lamb is a prime constituent of hypoallergenic diets too (like rice)..
>presumably because it's not a 'typical' food in the American diet so
>there's less tendency for people to have an allergy to it.
>
>Donna
When a very reputable allergenist and MD tested me for allergies, I
tested positive for lamb, but negative for fish, poultry, and beef.
I found this odd, since, as you say, lamb is usually considered
'hypoallergenic'. Has anyone else experienced this, or does anyone have
a plausible explanation? Just curious.
I didn't mind learning that I was possibly allergic to lamb; I've always
found its taste to be vaguely unpleasant...musky or something.
cheyenne
|
|
|