Maybe, but going by that 5% of the population have severe food allergies and only ~1% use wheelchairs, so if we accept wheelchair ramps etc. as being a worthwhile investment (which I do) then proper labeling and disclosure of allergens seems reasonable as well?

▲

WarmWash a day ago | parent [-]

The labeling and disclosure is pretty much solved. The killer and the cost monster is the handling. That's why you see that "Processed in a facility that also processes XYZ" label on some foods.

I had an old coworker with a severe milk protein allergy. So bad that he would get a reaction if he (lip) kissed his wife after she drank milk or had ice cream. So eating out was basically impossible, because his food would pretty much need to be made in a totally separate kitchen to avoid any contamination risk.

So we are right back at my point. Do we force every restaurant to have a secondary allergen free kitchen so my coworker can eat there? Or does my coworker just deal with it and stick to vegan places (like he did)?

If your point is that cost doesn't perfectly match frequency, sure, it was off the cuff, but it doesn't change the underlying nature of "accommodating everyone".

	▲	Anamon 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Did the goalposts move? I thought the discussion was about restaurants being required to declare allergens, not that they have to be able to accomodate every allergy under the sun and be able to offer a meal for everyone. I don't think that's the law anywhere, either. It's a perfectly fine response to say, sorry, all our ice cream is made with milk so I can't offer you an alternative. It's only about requiring them to be able to answer the question.
	▲	slopinthebag a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		My friend is less sensitive and so just accepts the risk of cross contamination in restaurants, but she chooses restaurants which don’t really use much of her allergen and tells the kitchen so they can take precautions. It’s really about risk reduction.