I know that I can appear insensitive when it comes to other peoples "allergies", but I now have even more valid support in my argument! I have long believed that food allergy tests can cause paranoia and overreaction among many people, specifically parents. Am I really allergic to rice, rye and corn? I highly doubt it. I attempted to cut out certain foods to see if it affected me in any minor way, and so far I have come up empty handed. I have eaten corn my entire life and never once have had any sort of reaction whatsoever. Luckily, I understand the potential lack of validity that can occur with the use of food allergy skin testing. However, others may not quite understand this concept and take the test results to the extreme. This is a huge annoyance for me, as I actually know what happens when one is really allergic to foods... hives, itchy throat, gastrointestinal upset, anaphylactic shock, etc etc. The tests are great, don't get me wrong, but the results need to be managed in a realistic way. It is also important for people to understand the severity of their allergies. Believing the same reaction will occur with every varied allergy is a naive assumption. Also, many allergies (especially pollen, dander etc.) can transform over time, becoming less or more severe. It is important for the minor positives on skin tests to be examined in a realistic way. Perhaps if enough people begin to understand what is meant through the results of these tests, we will be better able to serve those with real, legitimate allergies. And I will no longer feel like a bitch for being annoyed at what is rather a false positive or intolerance (that's a whole other situation).
Here is the link to the Wall Street Journal article (under Health 1/26), hopefully opening up the subject to further investigation and exposure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025013194645130.html
