THE CLAIM
In a video entitled “Special chuffing dietary requirement mentalists”, Katie Hopkins complains about airline passengers with nut allergies.
She describes being prevented from eating the packet of KP peanuts she carries in her hand luggage because another passenger has a nut allergy.
Hopkins says:
“Because Belinda in seat 23C has got a nut allergy”
and:
“I travel with a special packet of KP peanuts in my bag, on my carry-on for down to see Belinda in 23C with a nut allergy that stops me having a nut.”
She then imagines going to find the passenger:
“So I go to 23C to find Belinda.”
Hopkins follows this with a joke implying that the imagined passenger is overweight:
“Clearly not allergic to any other major food group. Maybe salad.”
There are several problems with this.
A severe nut allergy is a medical condition capable of causing life-threatening anaphylaxis.
Airlines have good reasons for asking passengers to take reasonable precautions.
They also have very good reasons not to publicly identify the vulnerable passenger.
And Hopkins’ own hypothetical scenario demonstrates why.
WATCH THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins’ original video can be watched here:
WHY WOULDN’T THE AIRLINE TELL HER WHO HAS THE ALLERGY?
Hopkins invents a passenger called “Belinda” and gives her a specific seat:
“Because Belinda in seat 23C has got a nut allergy.”
But passengers do not need to know the identity of the person with the allergy in order to comply with an airline’s request.
Airline allergy procedures can involve making a general announcement that somebody on board has a serious nut allergy and asking passengers not to consume particular nut products.
The purpose is to alert passengers to a medical risk and request a reasonable precaution.
There is no need for everybody on the aircraft to be given the person’s name or seat number.
Hopkins’ own joke demonstrates a particularly good reason why.
She describes carrying peanuts and then imagines deliberately going to find the allergic passenger:
“So I go to 23C to find Belinda.”
In other words, her response to being told that another passenger has a potentially serious medical condition is to joke about identifying that person, finding her seat and approaching her with the very food the airline has asked passengers not to consume.
That is a compelling illustration of why the identity and precise location of a medically vulnerable passenger do not need to be broadcast around an aircraft.
COULD DELIBERATELY TARGETING AN ALLERGIC PASSENGER BE A CRIMINAL MATTER?
Potentially, yes.
There is an important distinction between quietly eating a packet of peanuts elsewhere on an aircraft and deliberately seeking out somebody known to have a serious allergy in order to expose or threaten them with the allergen.
Under English law, assault can arise where a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
If unlawful force is actually applied, battery may arise.
If deliberate conduct causes injury, more serious offences may potentially become relevant depending upon exactly what happened, the harm caused and the person’s intention or recklessness.
Anaphylaxis can be life-threatening.
Deliberately targeting somebody because you know they have a severe allergy could therefore have consequences far beyond simply breaking an airline rule.
Hopkins is making a joke in this video.
There is no suggestion here that she actually approached an allergic passenger or actually attempted to cause somebody an allergic reaction.
It would therefore be wrong to say that Hopkins herself committed an assault.
But the hypothetical conduct she describes should not be dismissed as medically harmless simply because it is presented as comedy.
WHY TAKE THE RISK AT 40,000 FEET?
There is also an obvious practical reason why airlines take severe allergies seriously.
An aircraft at cruising altitude is an exceptionally bad place to have an avoidable medical emergency.
Anaphylaxis can develop rapidly and may require immediate treatment with adrenaline and subsequent emergency medical care.
On the ground, an ambulance can be called and a patient can be taken to hospital.
At cruising altitude, those options are obviously much more limited.
A serious medical emergency can potentially result in an aircraft diverting and making an unscheduled landing.
Airlines therefore have a legitimate reason for trying to reduce avoidable medical risks.
Asking passengers to refrain from eating a particular food for the duration of a flight is a relatively modest precaution when weighed against the potential consequences of a severe allergic reaction thousands of metres above the ground.
There is legitimate scientific debate about the precise risk presented by airborne peanut particles, and that risk should not be exaggerated.
The evidence indicates that severe reactions caused simply by airborne peanut particles are uncommon.
But that is not an argument for deliberately increasing the risk.
Nor does it make a severe food allergy imaginary.
THIS ISN’T SIMPLY A “SPECIAL DIETARY REQUIREMENT”
The title of Hopkins’ video refers to:
“Special chuffing dietary requirement mentalists.”
But a serious food allergy is not simply a dietary preference.
Somebody who chooses vegetarian food, dislikes peanuts or follows a particular diet is making a dietary choice.
Somebody with a severe peanut or tree-nut allergy has a medical condition.
Exposure to an allergen can cause anaphylaxis, which can be life-threatening.
Conflating the two trivialises the medical reason for the airline’s precaution.
WHAT ABOUT THE JOKE ABOUT THE PASSENGER’S WEIGHT?
Hopkins then turns the imagined allergic passenger into the object of another joke.
After saying she goes to find “Belinda”, Hopkins says:
“Clearly not allergic to any other major food group. Maybe salad.”
The implication is that the imagined passenger is overweight.
There is no sound basis for looking at somebody’s body size and determining whether they have a nut allergy, how severe that allergy is or whether they have any other food allergies.
A person’s appearance cannot tell you whether they are at risk of anaphylaxis.
Nor does being overweight make somebody’s nut allergy less genuine.
The imagined passenger has done nothing to Hopkins.
She simply has a medical condition which has caused the airline to ask other passengers to take a precaution.
IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN BEING OVERWEIGHT AND HAVING A NUT ALLERGY?
There is no basis for assuming that an overweight person cannot have a serious nut allergy.
Food allergies occur in people of different shapes and sizes.
Research does not provide a basis for looking at someone’s weight and deciding whether their reported nut allergy is genuine.
The joke therefore tells us nothing whatsoever about the medical validity or seriousness of the passenger’s allergy.
DO NUTS MAKE PEOPLE FAT?
There is another irony in the weight joke.
Scientific research does not support the simplistic proposition that eating nuts causes obesity.
A large systematic review and meta-analysis found that nut consumption did not adversely affect body weight.
Prospective research included in the review actually associated nut consumption with a lower incidence of overweight and obesity.
That does not prove that eating nuts causes weight loss.
But it demonstrates why someone’s body size provides no sensible basis for making assumptions about whether they eat nuts or whether they suffer from a nut allergy.
THE PERSON BEING RIDICULED HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG
This is perhaps the most striking feature of the video.
The person at the centre of Hopkins’ joke has not inconvenienced other passengers deliberately.
They have not demanded luxury treatment.
They have not expressed a political opinion.
They have not chosen to have an allergy.
They simply have a medical condition.
Hopkins constructs an imaginary overweight woman, calls her “Belinda”, gives her a seat number, mocks her appearance and then describes taking peanuts with her to seek out the very passenger whose medical condition has prompted the airline’s precaution.
Whatever one thinks of that as comedy, the medical reality is straightforward.
A severe food allergy can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis.
Taking reasonable precautions to reduce that risk is sensible.
And protecting the identity of the passenger concerned is also sensible.
Indeed, Hopkins’ own hypothetical scenario demonstrates particularly well why other passengers need to know about the requested precaution — but do not need to know the allergic passenger’s name or seat number.
CONCLUSION
There is a legitimate scientific discussion about the risk presented by nuts on aircraft.
The available evidence suggests that severe reactions caused simply by airborne peanut particles are uncommon, and that fact should be acknowledged.
But that does not make serious nut allergies imaginary, trivial or merely a “special dietary requirement”.
Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening medical emergency.
An aircraft at cruising altitude is an especially poor environment in which to create an avoidable medical emergency.
Airlines therefore have legitimate reasons for taking proportionate precautions when a passenger reports a severe allergy.
They also have good reasons not to publicly identify the vulnerable passenger.
Hopkins’ own joke demonstrates why.
She imagines identifying the passenger, finding her seat and deliberately approaching her with peanuts.
If somebody genuinely targeted a person known to have a potentially life-threatening allergy and deliberately attempted to expose or threaten them with the allergen, that could potentially become a criminal matter depending on exactly what was done and what harm or apprehension resulted.
There is no suggestion that Hopkins actually did this.
But presenting such a scenario as a joke does not alter the underlying medical reality.
Nor does the imagined passenger’s weight tell us anything about whether she has a genuine allergy.
The person Hopkins chooses to ridicule in this story is ultimately somebody who has done nothing more than suffer from a medical condition and ask an airline to help reduce the risk of a potentially serious reaction.
VERDICT: MISLEADING, MEDICALLY UNSOUND AND UNSUPPORTED
SOURCES
Anaphylaxis UK — Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy
Anaphylaxis UK — Navigating Allergens on Airlines: Safety Precautions and Passenger Rights
British Airways — Medical conditions and pregnancy / food allergies
Crown Prosecution Service — Offences against the Person
Systematic review and meta-analysis — Nut consumption and body weight
ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins — “Special chuffing dietary requirement mentalists”
