How many deaths have there been on BA flights due to a nut allergy?

When was the last one and the one before that?

Travel is not always from choice so short of hiring a provate jet (not something many people can afford) there isn't much choice if someone with allergies has to travel. IMO we should be prepared to be inconvenienced if someone needs us to behave in a certain way to stay alive but I don't think it is sensible to inconvenience everyone of the flight if there is no benefit to the person concerned.

There aren't many challenging this on this thread AFAICS. I am not. The key is "eat/come into contact with nuts". If someone is in row 1 then the evidence is that someone eating nuts at the back is not going to increase that risk. The question for me is not that we do what we have to do to help the person with an allergy but does the whole plane need to not eat nuts and should the crew wash their hands before serving someone with such an allergy?

I remember being lectured by my doctor brother about the definitions of allergy versus intolerance when he said his son had a reaction when near cats and I asked if he is allergic. I think many people use the word allergy when they mean intolerance. I am not a medic so forgive me if I am over simplifying things but it seems to me an immune system reaction leading possibly to death is different from an upset stomach or facial swelling etc etc that may be darned uncomfortable but not life-threatening

RE: Increased prevalence of peanut allergies, perhaps this can shed some light: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/2ohd7e

I think that's sort of what having a risk reduction policy is supposed to achieve, isn't it?

In fact... can anyone point me to a link where someone has had a severe allergic reaction anywhere due to airborne allergens or even to transfer from hands? I am not saying it hasn't happened but it must be quite rare. I can't find any evidence on Google (not that Google is any authority but it does catch most stuff like this IMO). Like I say... the response to this should be evidence based and reasonable. By that I mean that we should do all that is necessary to keep others safe. If it is clear that airborne allergen or transfer from hands can put others at risk then we should aim to prevent it and if that means a ban aircraft wide then so be it. The evidence, as far as I can ascertain, does not suggest that is necessary.

Does death from bee stings count as airborne allergens? ;)

There have been a few occasions I've been on an aircraft that hasn't been entirely clean and have seen numerous crumbs including nuts lying on the floor. If a passenger with a serious allergy was on this aircraft, surely this poses as much risk to them as a passenger several rows away eating nuts would? I am not sure how it could be ensured that any given aircraft was completely free of all nut traces.

It is better to be safe than sorry, but I question whether the total ban in such circumstances is overkill.

snax,
Yes. A friend of mine has a number of allergies. Nuts is one of them.
On a BA flight Bru to LHR, on landing, the plane had to go as close as it could to the Medical centre. Ambulance to bottom of steps. Friend was at risk of dying.
Undeclared nuts in a snack that had been served.

My daughter has allergies to both sorts of nuts, but has managed so far to manage the issues with travelling quietly.

Interesting. I don't keep such detailed and accurate notes, but would say in the last year somewhere between 5-10% of my BA flights have had a nut allergy announcement, and I've had one BA go-around in that time (well, technically it was Air Belgium, but I'm counting it as BA). So, in my non-scientific sample of one, you are far more likely to have a nut allergy announcement than a go-around :)

More seriously, I have noticed a definite increase in such announcements on BA in the last 12-18 months. Before that, it was noticeable to me that such announcements were a regular occurrence on my U2 flights, but hardly ever on BA. Now, there are a noticeable number on BA too.

On one flight earlier this year, CC served me a bowl of nuts in F while the "no nuts" announcement was being made over the PA. The explanation provided was that F and the flight deck were on a different air circulation system to other parts of the aircraft. I have no idea if this is true (A380), just what was said. On another flight, pax were offloaded because the crew were concerned about their health relating to allergies, can't recall if that was nuts or something else. Both flights were BA.

I am the mother of a child with a peanut allergy. We are blessed that we completed OIT (Oral Immunotherapy - www.oit101.org ) and she is not longer reactive. But the flights that we took before her OIT completion were nerve-racking experiences. We knew she was reactive only upon ingestion, but we still wiped down all seats, arm rests, tables, etc. We do have friends who ARE highly reactive and even touching something touched by someone eating nuts will send them into anaphalaxis. So if someone eats nuts on the plane and then opens the bathroom door, and then my friend opens that bathroom door, she could go into anaphalaxis. I appreciate the inconvienence, but really, this is someone's life. We flew with 3 sets (so 6 total) epi-pens - but most people can't afford to travel with $1,800 worth of medicine that they hope to never use. (yes, a 2-pack of epi-pen jr costs $600 until I hit my deductible)

1 in 13 kids have a food allergy, peanuts and tree nuts are the most common allergies. All we ask for is some compassion and understanding as we try to keep our kids alive. Allergies are indeed becoming more common. They are investigating why but some suspected reasons are: overuse of anti-bacterial cleansers and increased use of pesticides and chemicals that impact our immune systems. We have zero history of food allergies in our family and I know there are none on my daughter's donors side (a plus from having 3 generations of medical history from a sperm donor).

I have what used to be considered a severe nut (peanut in particular) allergy. That is if I eat some - it likely a trip to ER. I have benadryl and a EpiPen with me for all travel or food events.

However its not as severe as some these days where the smell or presence of nuts in a cabin would do me serious harm - only mild issues. I am also asthmatic. That said - I now carry a specially treated mask that folds flat in my backpack - not only for an issue like nuts - but for wild fires and smoke, fumes, dust storms, people hacking up a lung next to me for 4 hours.... its good for virus, smoke, etc.

The simple fact there are different levels of allergy to something like nuts as there are people who have different levels when exposed to things like pollens, mold, dust, animal hair.

the issue is knowing what your level of allergy is.....for some its just being near it vs your hand tuches something with it and then when your hand goes to eyes, nose, or mounth, an allerguc reaction occurs.

In a plane allergies are a real concern snf must ne avoided.

I have allergies to many nature things and snimal dander. i am not allergic to peanits but I am allergice to many types of seafood.

With seafood--its about eating it. someone sitting next to me will not matter. there are others who get sick just from the smell of seafood.

With a pet..If I am on a shortflight like say 1 hr I could tolerate being next to someone with a pet if its in the carry box and the person isnt pulling the pet out during flight. If it s along 6+ hr flight I have a far bigger issue.

I remember ~4 "no nuts" announcements in ~100 flights, if that's a useful data point. I also remember that on one that floor was very dirty and very likely contained nut residue (I wasn't going to poke around and look).

I think there is a "where does it stop?" question. No one is going to argue (I hope) eating peanuts on a flight is reasonable where a passenger has a severe life-threatenting peanut allergy. However, that's one extreme. Another is alcohol. I know someone for whom the very smell of alcohol will give them a severe headache. Others (recovering alcoholics, some people of some religions) are uncomfortable in the presence of alcohol. Personally I don't think it would be reasonable to ban alcohol from a cabin in which one such person travelled. Drawing the line is hard.

No, it's fairly easy to draw the line. BA has strict liability, that means they are responsible for any event that happens even if it wasn't their fault unless they've taken every reasonable precaution to prevent it. They do not have to have been negligent. There is danger of a passenger becoming seriously ill or dying. Therefore the action they take is not to serve nuts themselves, and to warn the other passengers of the situation. Other passengers can opine all they like about the actual risk being small, they are not the ones being litigated against if there is an event.