Why "only 1-2% really have food intolerances" drives me nuts.
I saw this today in a cook book (Amazing Grains, bought because we need a wider range of options) and once more it made my teeth grind, not because it's wrong, but because the writer doesn't understand the implications.
So here's a summary.
1% = one out of your hundred friends.
1% may be clustered, so a family you know may have serious issues with food intolerances and still be only part of that 1%
"Food intolerance" often indicates a specific reaction that the medical profession recognises in that time and place, but I am not the only person whose first realisation of lactose intolerance was indicated by joint pain, not by stomach problems (although I've just checked and the joint pain may indicate the casein intolerance that means I can't manage even the hardest of cheeses, or low lactose products) so for many years I was told firmly that I didn't have lactose intolerance.
Technically, the chocolate = migraine reaction isn't an intolerance, yet over 10% of the population get migraine and chocolate is a notorious trigger (for those of us who get the damn things even without chocolate as well).
So it isn't that the 1% is wrong, it's that it's a clinical definition being applied to dismiss people who get very uncomfortable symptoms if they eat X as food faddists. Which is very annoying.
[One of my problem areas is bananas: I am not intolerant or allergic but I am clearly on the edge of something because an under ripe banana will cause me to gag. The problem is solved by either ripening or mashing it, but it makes me sound faddy to insist I can't eat *that* banana when I have clearly relished *this* banana. Similarly, I can eat tinned pineapple and love it, and even fresh if it's been standing awhile, but *very* fresh pineapple (or kiwi) feels like razor blades.]
So here's a summary.
1% = one out of your hundred friends.
1% may be clustered, so a family you know may have serious issues with food intolerances and still be only part of that 1%
"Food intolerance" often indicates a specific reaction that the medical profession recognises in that time and place, but I am not the only person whose first realisation of lactose intolerance was indicated by joint pain, not by stomach problems (although I've just checked and the joint pain may indicate the casein intolerance that means I can't manage even the hardest of cheeses, or low lactose products) so for many years I was told firmly that I didn't have lactose intolerance.
Technically, the chocolate = migraine reaction isn't an intolerance, yet over 10% of the population get migraine and chocolate is a notorious trigger (for those of us who get the damn things even without chocolate as well).
So it isn't that the 1% is wrong, it's that it's a clinical definition being applied to dismiss people who get very uncomfortable symptoms if they eat X as food faddists. Which is very annoying.
[One of my problem areas is bananas: I am not intolerant or allergic but I am clearly on the edge of something because an under ripe banana will cause me to gag. The problem is solved by either ripening or mashing it, but it makes me sound faddy to insist I can't eat *that* banana when I have clearly relished *this* banana. Similarly, I can eat tinned pineapple and love it, and even fresh if it's been standing awhile, but *very* fresh pineapple (or kiwi) feels like razor blades.]