On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Richard Geller wrote:

> This is no doubt true. But an observation:  I think that far more people are
> allergic to peanuts than to the true nuts.

I don't have any comparison figures.  About one percent of the
adult population have actual food allergies.

In any case, it would be hard to find foods to which nobody is
allergic.  Fish, egg, and seafood allergies are about as common
as peanut allergies. Some cannot eat beef or strawberries.

> Also, there is an addictive quality to peanuts and peanut butter for many
> people, I have observed. Something strange about that. I believe that foods
> that are somewhat addictive are very questionable. Many of us have been or
> are somehow addicted to foods that are especially bad for us.

If by "addictive" you mean that we like them a lot, then I agree.
If you mean something else, then I'd need clarification.  I don't
think there's anything strange about the fact that some people
like peanuts or peanut butter.  They taste good, after all.  In
that sense I am also "addicted" to a large number of paleo foods
-- I can easily eat large quantities of them.

Peanuts and true nuts tend to be sold roasted and salted, and
this greatly enhances their flavor.  I think this has much to do
with why we may eat large quantities of them, and in this respect
peanuts are not different from true nuts.

> Does the fact that lots of people are allergic mean the food is
> questionable? Yes, I think it does.

I don't see why.  Allergy is a highly specific, individual
reaction.  Should I really avoid seafood because some people die
if they eat the stuff?

> Doesn't mean nobody should eat peanuts
> (or peppers or tomatoes), but you should be aware that they do cause
> noticable problems for many people. Perhaps they cause unnoticable problems
> in most people, long term problems of the sort we believe wheat causes.

Maybe, but if I reject all foods that are known to cause *some*
problems in *some* people, there won't be much that I can eat.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]