You are viewing Allergic Living Canada | Switch to United States

Talking Allergies

* FAQ    * Search
* Login   * Register
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:31 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 823
Location: Kingston
Nuts to Chatelaine

Quote:
In an era when more people put faith in TV personalities such as Oprah Winfrey than they do in medical professionals, there appears to be a growing risk of people getting sucked in by misinformation.

If you want some lovely recipes for Christmas, go ahead and pick up Chatelaine magazine. But if you're serious about finding out medical information, you'd be much better off consulting your physician.

Yet, in this age of skepticism, people seem to doubt reputable authorities -- such as doctors and nurses. Instead, they put their faith in talk-show hosts, faith healers and herbalists with next to no education. That's a recipe for disaster.

The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America says peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related death; yet, the article in Chatelaine might lead readers to dismiss the danger as a myth.

Peanut allergies are believed to affect about one in 100 people: obviously, a lot of people. Each year, an estimated one death per 830,000 children with food allergies occurs.

Obviously, more people are sickened by allergies than are killed; however, the matter must be taken seriously because these instances are largely preventable.

There's no reason for anyone to take peanuts or food products containing peanuts into a school or workplace, but people who don't understand the risk to those with allergies will do that from time to time.

Perhaps they wouldn't if they were better educated by government or other organizations involved in health care. Then again, some people just don't care if they endanger other people, and there's probably not much that can be done with people who don't care.

As for Chatelaine, the magazine has declined an invitation for an interview from CTV. "If we feel it is appropriate to respond, we will do so in the pages of our magazine," wrote Chatelaine's Suneel Khanna.

Talk about cowardly! Chatelaine magazine should be ashamed.


http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/678298

_________________
Mary


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:17 pm
Posts: 6476
Location: Ottawa
I suspect that those who are in competition with Rogers media are happy to bring attention to news that presents in in an unflattering way.

_________________
Moderator
Daughter: asthma, allergies to egg, milk, peanuts, tree nuts, most legumes (not soy) & penicillin. Developing hayfever type allergies.
Husband: no allergies
Me: allergies to some tree that flowers in May
Cat: allergic to beef, pork and lamb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:39 pm
Posts: 2948
Location: Toronto
This is an editorial - the opinion of the Red Deer Advocate.

Was picked up on Can. Press newswire. Was published as well in the Winn. Free Press and Spectator, as Mary shows.
Think the writer is legitimately appalled. (As were we all.)

_________________
Allergic to soy, peanut, shellfish, penicillin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:26 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:17 pm
Posts: 6476
Location: Ottawa
Yes, I agree, but you won't see it in any Roger's publications.

_________________
Moderator
Daughter: asthma, allergies to egg, milk, peanuts, tree nuts, most legumes (not soy) & penicillin. Developing hayfever type allergies.
Husband: no allergies
Me: allergies to some tree that flowers in May
Cat: allergic to beef, pork and lamb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:39 pm
Posts: 2948
Location: Toronto
Many of you have been asking about where we stand with Rogers/Chatelaine on the subject of what Chatelaine will publish to right the wronging of this issue/our community. As mentioned on the previous page, so far they are talking about an Editor's Letter in the next issue (Jan.) as well an extended letters section.

Further, Sara Shannon had a good discussion with Maryam Sanati, the editor who ran the piece, about the realities of anaphylaxis.
However, now Maryam was dismissed on Friday, during a day of big cuts at Rogers. So this changes things.

FYI, whether Maryam's dismissal had to do with the pressure all of us have put on Chatelaine about this erroneous article, who knows.
Frankly, I'd rather not speculate, as our advocacy to set things right was never personal.

My own objections to the article in both the opinion piece I published on this site and the one on CBC.ca - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/ ... smith.html - raised the seriousness of having such an article run and stand as "fact" in a credible women's magazine that reached millions.

Those concerns stand, and I'm interested to see Chatelaine's January issue.
And I know Anaphylaxis Canada is too, as is Sara.

The question is: has Chatelaine done enough to rectify an article that damaged years of work to come up with accommodations for food allergies (accommodations not simply based on so-called peanut bans). I'm really interested to hear your views, too. That issue will be out in early December.

If not, I for one, will continue to press the new editorial director at Chatelaine to write another article. I remain convinced of the importance of Chatelaine setting the record straight. I guess we'll know where that stands in a little over a week. Again, let us know what you think of their response in the Jan. issue.

_________________
Allergic to soy, peanut, shellfish, penicillin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:21 am
Posts: 687
Location: Cobourg, ON
My husband and I feel that there should be pressure put on the advertisers if the situation is not resolved. I believe that epipen had ads in Chatelaine - or I could be mixing it up with Canadian Living. We should make advertisers aware of the drop in subscriptions and our concerns over the fact checking of articles and editorial decisions.

_________________
13 year old daughter -- lives with life-threatening allergies to milk, tree nuts and peanuts; seasonal allergies (birch, maple, ragweed); pet allergies; asthma; and eczema
10 year old son - no allergies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:17 pm
Posts: 6476
Location: Ottawa
We might also want to bring this to the attention of doctors, medical clinics and hospitals. I see a lot of damage being done by this article being left around waiting rooms. By it's location in a medical building, people will assume that both the information is accurate and the article has merit.

_________________
Moderator
Daughter: asthma, allergies to egg, milk, peanuts, tree nuts, most legumes (not soy) & penicillin. Developing hayfever type allergies.
Husband: no allergies
Me: allergies to some tree that flowers in May
Cat: allergic to beef, pork and lamb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:17 pm
Posts: 6476
Location: Ottawa
gwentheeditor wrote:

The question is: has Chatelaine done enough to rectify an article that damaged years of work to come up with accommodations for food allergies (accommodations not simply based on so-called peanut bans). I'm really interested to hear your views, too.


Good question. Has anyone seen the January issue?

_________________
Moderator
Daughter: asthma, allergies to egg, milk, peanuts, tree nuts, most legumes (not soy) & penicillin. Developing hayfever type allergies.
Husband: no allergies
Me: allergies to some tree that flowers in May
Cat: allergic to beef, pork and lamb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:39 pm
Posts: 2948
Location: Toronto
Quote:
That issue will be out in early December.

_________________
Allergic to soy, peanut, shellfish, penicillin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:21 am
Posts: 687
Location: Cobourg, ON
The new January edition is out. I must get my copy early in the mail out. Just for the record my gift subscription ends next month I believe!

Anyways, Chatelaine did write an editorial page about the Pearson article and included 2 pages of letters about the article. In my opinion here is the good news: - Sanati admitted that the title on the cover was a mistake
- the letters were from a variety of writers including AC, Pamela Lee from PACT, parents of allergic children including a doctor and a parent without allergic children but who wants to support allergic children.
- the letters pointed out most of the issues we have discussed on the forum in a positive and respectful way

What concerned me is the editorial page. I still get the sense from the wording and from what is not said that Chatelaine or Sanati doesn't completely get our concerns. Maybe I am just a biased reader now. Anyways the title of the page is: You reacted, we listened.

Here are a few quotes - maybe it will be posted somewhere so that everyone can draw their own conclusions.

..."It's Just Nuts" presented a contrarian view on pa and the growing attention to their prevalence. In response to their anger, my colleagues and I devote this page and the letters to voicing our readers' positions.

"I believe in discussing contemporary issues openly in Chatelaine and I am certain that journalists should be allowed to take stands on sensitive issues. That said, I want to underscore that nobody at this magazine wished to cause any anxiety for people who suffer enough of it as it is."

" In the aftermath of our story, many of the letter writers were inspired to contact us because of a call to arms issued to them via email."

She goes on the talk about Sabrina's story and includes a quote from the opening of Sara's letter.

I still think that Chatelaine doesn't get that anaphylaxis is not a controversial issue that people need to take a stand on. Most of us in our letters were not taking stands - we were pointing out errors in facts and making them aware of the reality in schools today. The article went so far beyond just talking about peanut bans. It would be one thing to discuss bans with a complete picture of the school setting and all of the medical facts accurately identified. However, Chatelaine did not do this.

Her comment about us suffering with so much anxiety bothers me too. I am not an anxious person. My family has educated ourselves and put plans in place to manage anaphylaxis. We don't want to raise an anxious child either.

Anyways I may just be sensitive now to whatever is written in Chatelaine. Just wanted to let people know that the Jan. issue is out now.

_________________
13 year old daughter -- lives with life-threatening allergies to milk, tree nuts and peanuts; seasonal allergies (birch, maple, ragweed); pet allergies; asthma; and eczema
10 year old son - no allergies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2034
Location: ottawa
Thanks Katec for letting us know the January issue is out. Ironically I was recently asked by a family member if I'd like a subscription to Chatelaine as a gift this year. I politely said no thanks.

Quote:
I still think that Chatelaine doesn't get that anaphylaxis is not a controversial issue that people need to take a stand on. Most of us in our letters were not taking stands - we were pointing out errors in facts and making them aware of the reality in schools today.


I totally agree with what you said (above). Many times I've been told that my views on allergies are an opinion. They are not an opinion or a choice...it is fact.

_________________
DD 12 yrs -no allergies
4 yr old DS - asthma/eczema Anaphylactic to Peanuts, all tree nuts, sesame , all pea/lentil legumes, gelatin.
Allergic to trees, grass,ragweed, feathers, dander, mold and dust.
Outgrew eggs, fish, shellfish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:55 pm
Posts: 412
Location: Vancouver, BC
I haven't seen the new issue, but what you are saying causes me concern.

I don't like how emotions are being brought up. The problem is that their article presented a serious health concern as an annoying irritation for one mother, who said implied that 1) there was a cure 2) testing was flawed 3) the response was based on hysteria 4) anaphylaxis to other allergens was not dealt with in the school system. Among other things.

It's not about feelings, it's about safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:39 pm
Posts: 2948
Location: Toronto
I'd appreciate hearing more from people about Chatelaine's response in the January issue.

My own view is similar to Kate's when she says:
Quote:

I still think that Chatelaine doesn't get that anaphylaxis is not a controversial issue that people need to take a stand on. Most of us in our letters were not taking stands - we were pointing out errors in facts and making them aware of the reality in schools today.


And I second Aaronsmom when she says this is still being dealt with as if it's an emotional issue rather than one children's health and safety. Why do we need "stands" on health protection issues in the schools AFTER they've already been fully (even exhaustively) discussed? Chatelaine still welcomes "debate" because editors there and the writer of this article seem to have been asleep during the years of debate that were followed by resolution at the provincial and school board levels.

Those of us who met with Chatelaine are still trying to work with them to see if a better response can be had.

In my view as a longtime editor, it is wrong for a publication to correct factual errors through letters from others. In her Editor's Letter, former editor Maryam Sanati has not backed away from the erroneous statistics presented as "facts" in the article she published. Because Chatelaine is known as a credible publication, other parents will be confused by this article and assume the facts presented are fact. This means this article will haunt parents of allergic children in their schools in years to come.

I don't see how an Editor's Letter that only corrects that there is no "peanut allergy myth" and sympathizes with Sara Shannon's tragic loss while ignoring the many flaws in the original Pearson article will do much to mitigate the damage done. I don't know about others, but I don't want tea and sympathy for anaphylactic allergies, I want respect for them as a health condition. And when it comes to the schools, some consideration that the significant increase in food allergies and the under-supervised school environment of today do require some different approaches to food (not all of them so-called 'bans' by the way).

So I was dismayed by Chatelaine's response. Some of the letters were very good, but Chatelaine's former editor's response felt begrudging at best. She suggested there was only an outpouring in response to a "call to arms" (e.g. Sara Shannon's request that the higher-ups at Rogers be written to). Many e-mails did follow Sara's suggestion - but what of the hundreds of letters already posted on Chatelaine's website in the month and a half preceding it?

This just shows again that the former editor really doesn't get that parents of allergic kids were genuinely responding to the risks presented by that article to their children's safety at school. Again, it's the approach to this community as "nervous Nellies" rather than understanding of the day-to-day challenges in classrooms where you combine: children with serious food allergies who can react to trace exposures; an increased volume of food in classrooms; less trained adult supervision than ever.

But enough of my view. Read the response for yourselves and let us know here what you think. Thanks, Gwen

_________________
Allergic to soy, peanut, shellfish, penicillin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:38 pm
Posts: 1643
Location: Toronto
gwentheeditor wrote:
She suggested there was only an outpouring in response to a "call to arms" (e.g. Sara Shannon's request that the higher-ups at Rogers be written to). Many e-mails did follow Sara's suggestion - but what of the hundreds of letters already posted on Chatelaine's website in the month and a half preceding it?


I think before Sara's suggestion there was an e-mail sent out by an organization (anaphylaxis canada?) letting people know about the article, and suggesting they respond to Chatelaine. I'm not on their mailing list - but if anyone did get something about the article from them, and if you still have it -- would you consider it a "call to arms"? That does not sound like their style to me. Like AL -- I wouldn't expect such behaviour from you either. You let us know about situations, and when possible post links so that we can read it for ourselves and make up our own minds about it. Ana. Canada, in my opinion, doesn't tell it's members how to feel.

_________________
self: allergy to sesame seeds and peanuts
3 sons each with at least one of the following allergies: peniciilin, sulfa-based antibiotic, latex, insect bites/stings


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:39 pm
Posts: 2948
Location: Toronto
Good points AM.

What do others think? Since there are followup discussions going on with Chatelaine, I'd find it quite helpful to know what others thought of the Chatelaine response in the January issue to negative reaction to their "It's Just Nuts" article. That response, again, included the Editor's Letter and two pages of Letters to the Editor.

:thanksign everyone.

_________________
Allergic to soy, peanut, shellfish, penicillin


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group