Jump to content

Talk:Tree nut allergy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cause

[edit]

The whole section of "Cause" does not talk about the cause of tree nut allergies at all. You could rename it to "Cross-reactivity", at least that headline would be more related to the two paragraphs it contains.

If you want to keep the title ideas for research: cross contamination with other ingredients and nuts in factory handling and processing, pesticides, herbicides, sanitary conditions in processing, allergies to proteins

Nut_(fruit)#Nut_allergy

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(fruit)#Nut_allergy contains further information about nut allergy. The two texts should be harmonized. --80.98.231.27 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the "weight gain" line is broken. Please create a new link or find further evidence Emmorey 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tree nut allergy

[edit]

Why was this redirected from "tree nut allergy". It is almost always called a "tree nut" allergy to emphasize that peanuts and other things are not included. 70.110.195.106 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be better off as "tree nut allergy." I think I fixed it. (I think I created this article a long time ago... sorry I didn't get the name right.  :-) Also, in general this one isn't yet up to the level of the others. We should work on it! Asbruckman (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Peanuts aren't nuts, and therefore do not cause tree nut allergic reactions. Maybe find a better one?

Tree Nuts vs. non-Tree Nuts

[edit]

Why isn't there a plain "Tree Nuts" wikipedia page? We had a discussion about this and cannot find the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.142.8 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree types

[edit]

There are also some people who react to one family of trees. (conifer nuts like pine nuts often don't prompt the same allergic reaction the same as something else like a pistachio from the mango family of trees). I myself tend to have issues with almond, walnut, brazil, hazel, coconut than I do with anything in mango family like cashew or pistachio (more of a bush nut) and in reading on this subject, I think this is not uncommon and should be addressed. Johngagon (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should almonds be included at all? They are not true nuts (according to the almond wikipedia page). SCooley138 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs serious work

[edit]

For a start, the term "Tree nut" could do with defining, if it's a term that's notable enough for use here then it may as well have a wikipedia page of its own, at the moment it just seems to be used for a large group of edible seeds from various woody plants, many of them not nuts at all. The article's also very light on data that's seemingly obvious for inclusion, it gives the impression that, for example, hazel, cashew and pine kernel allergies are related, but gives no information about the allergenic substances commonly responsible for reactions in these various "nuts". At the moment portions of it read like the reckonings of internexperts.

Is the following passage attempting to suggest that cashews are "close biological relatives"(as opposed to non-biological relatives??) of walnuts, or that people with allergies to cashews may not show reactions to the related pistachio or walnut allergy sufferers to pecans?

"Someone with an allergy to a walnut or pecan may not have an allergy to a cashew or pistachio even though close biological relatives often share related allergenic proteins."

I may be completely missing the point, in which case it needs rewriting for clarity, so that the uninformed(me) aren't left puzzled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.68.120 (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. And there's no reference. A cashew isn't even a nut, biologically. It's a doohicky on a flower! I was really hoping for references, not bad conflation. 67.170.188.149 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Close biological relatives"?

[edit]

It should be noted that most tree nuts are in fact not close biological relatives of each other, as the article suggests. In the extreme case, with pines being gymnosperms, pine nuts are in fact biologically further distant from other tree nuts than almost all other major food plants are, nut or not. I'm not a doctor, but it would really surprise me if pine nut allergies were common in people allergic to hazelnuts or whatever. -- 77.187.133.7 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias

[edit]

This article is a good example for systemic bias. Data reported by references often applies to the U.S., only. Other, particularly non-Western/non-UKUSA countries, show quite different prevalences. "Most common" allergens often include cow's milk, egg, and seafood. That one nut allergy often implies allergy to other nuts is questionable as well. Pollinos, particularly to birch and pollens of the hazel shrub, is a prime cause for allergies against hazel nuts. In comparison, allergies to other nuts such as the para nut, the pecan nut, and the cocos nut are considerably less prominent. Etc. Nageh (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is is questionable that one nut allergy implies allergy to other nuts? I have both and have heard of others that do, moreso than those that have just one specific nut allergy. Systemic bias makes sense but aren't nut allergies more prevalent in the US? UselessToRemain (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of diagnosis?

[edit]

Nut allergies are one of several allergies that have only become widely known over the last 20 years or so. Prior to this there was no concern expressed in schools or restaurants over nuts. Can we add something to this article on the history of diagnosis? Have nut allergies always existed but were only identified relatively recently, or is it an allergy that has evolved recently? Speaking anecdotally I know of doctors who say they never encountered nut allergies until relatively recently, and now they're saying as many as 1 in 50 kids has one. At the very least, the fact awareness of nut allergies has widened only in the last decade or so (to the point where schools have only recently (i.e. within that last decade) begun banning nuts, restaurants have been posting warning signs, etc.) deserves some discussion. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the first sentence

[edit]

I asked for a citation because there's no citation showing that the allergy is "common", "affecting millions" or is "world wide". The first footnote citation might have said some of this or might not: it seems to be a dead link.

"Tree nut allergy" as such doesn't seem to be described on any other wikipedia yet (the three interwiki links are to short articles about "nut allergy" including peanuts, so they don't closely correspond to this article). Whether tree nut allergy has been recognised in other countries isn't clear. Andrew Dalby 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one commented, so I have removed the assertions in the first sentence that seemed unsupported by any source. The revised first sentence is supported by a scientific source, which I have now footnoted at that point. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosomatic ? Munch those nuts for Mummy Munchausen ?

[edit]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/09/opinion/oe-stein9 Explosion in nut allergy diagnoses -underoccupied parents ? greedy medical industry ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cashews (et al) aren't nuts

[edit]

Cashews aren't nuts, so therefore, aren't tree nuts. This should be clarified in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J D (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tree nut allergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_nut_allergy&oldid=1205752576"