|
|
|
|
|
by halefx
1274 days ago
|
|
The difference is access to testing. Most of the people in the US who "test" positive for an allergen aren't actually allergic to it, but that is often not explained properly. Simply, allergists have three types of testing: skin test, blood test, actual exposure. If you can eat something without a reaction, it doesn't matter what the skin and blood tests showed (they can be "positive" for other reasons). Skin and blood tests are mostly used to determine severity of an allergy after exposure has already proven to be a problem. But allergy testing is covered by insurance (and it's VERY profitable), so a ton of allergists will do skin and blood tests on people who don't need it, and now there are independent scam companies doing "allergy" testing by mail for curious people. |
|
Dealing with allergies is such a PITA and a burden that follows you every day, every single time you´re trying to eat anything. It´s such a mental toll that I see people going for allergy tests usually after they had their first reaction and went through ER, or when there is precedents in the family and they have a pretty decent chance to have common allergies.
Even after getting positive results we had a pretty thorough talk with the doctor about the tests and the actual reaction we saw when we discovered the allergy.
I understand people randomnly buying gluten free stuff as a fad, but they still continue eating gluten in other foods in general. Food allergies and avoiding ingredients is another level of inconvenience altogether.