Allergies

[kellogs100]

Why do people in some countries seem to have a lot more allergies than others. Also is it only a fairly recent thing that people have mant allergies - like to nuts?

[rov1200]

In Britain nearly 50% of the population are allergic to milk. This is because they do not have the gene to break down lactose in cows milk. I assume other allergies are caused by similar gene defects.

[unigirl]

Sorry rov1200 - your claim, explanation and assumption are all incorrect.

[rov1200]

Many people are not allergic to cow's milk kellogs? It is nothing to do with lactose (cows sugar) kellogs? It is not due to a gene deficiency kellogs? Then please enlighten me!

[rov1200]

Kellogs some useful info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleran ce

[rov1200]

Obviously directed to Unigirl?

[unigirl]

OK, to begin with, I'm not with you: who is this Kelloggs you are referring to? If this is someone who you've had a difference of opinion with on AB, then rest assured I'm not him or her. I suggest you complain to the Editor if you have a beef with some individual on here. Now to your questions.

You said in your original post "nearly 50% of the population are allergic to milk". In your second post, you now assert that it is "many" instead without specifying a figure. Now rov1200, "50%" is NOT "many" and vice versa. So let's go back to the original post: would you now like to give us a more realistic figure? I'll give you a clue: it's not 50% nor many.

The problem I have with your post is that it's glaringly obvious that you are confusing lactose intolerance with milk allergy. Not to put to fine a point on it, you might as well be comparing chalk and cheese. Have a good read of the following link:

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/may/milk .htm

for clarification, Note the relevant percentages.

I didn't say that the milk allergy " has nothing to do" with lactose. I said that your second explanatory sentence in your first post was incorrect. It is. The reason it is incorrect is that milk allergy is not solely attributable to the lack of the gene, which is what you claimed. Read the cited article and you'll see that this is so.

You really do need to appreciate the difference between milk allergy and milk intolerance. Admirable that your Wikipedia link is, it confines itself to milk intolerance. Try Googling milk allergy for the bigger picture.

[unigirl]

Incidentally, yo're again mistaken in thinking that "other allergies" as you put it are "caused by similar gene defects".

I've become allergic to runner beans in the last few years in that I my skin becomes inflamed upon touching the pods and foliage and I get what you might call "hot flushes" upon eating them. Prior to this I ate them gusto for over twenty years. So, where do my genes play a part in this? Are you telling me I once had the gene to tolerate runner bean consumption, but now it's gone? How?

[theprof]

I would recommend that you look further into this rov1200 before posting again.

[theprof]

By the way, lactose is NOT "cow's sugar". Lactose is commonly correctly referred to as "milk sugar". Human milk contains considerably more when expressed as a percentage than cow's milk.

[musicmummy]

Emm uni girl, check the name of the person who posted the original question.

[rov1200]

My apologies to Kellogs. My reply was to you Unigirl! I undersestimated the number affected by by lactose intolerance, it was not 50% but nearer to 75%. Did you not read the reference article?.

Members of my family are allergic to cows milk. Note the work 'allergic'. Compare the word with allergies. It is gene related.

[unigirl]

rov1200, you're first post said:

"In Britain nearly 50% of the population are allergic to milk."

Your reader editable Wikipedia source says:

"It is estimated that 75% of adults show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood worldwide. The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from nearly 5% in northern Europe to more than 90% in some Asian and African countries"

Your last post says;

"I undersestimated the number affected by by lactose intolerance, it was not 50% but nearer to 75%. Did you not read the reference article?"

[unigirl]

Let's put your last post in a nutshell. You're saying that close on 75% of the population is affected by lactose intolerance. Yes?

Sorry, but it's not true. Read the Wikipedia article again. It says that 75% of adults have some degree of lactose intolerance. It does not say that 75% of the population are AFFECTED by that intolerance. Accept that partial intolerance exists - many people display no symptoms whatsoever of lactose intolerance and remain totally unaware of it.

Incidentally, your first post talks about a 50% ALLERGY of cow's milk in the general population. Yet your last post wishes to increase that figure to 75% of LACTOSE INTOLERANCE. They are not the same thing, so how can you increase one to the other in this way? It does seem that you are confusing the two as theprof seemed to be implying.

Finally, what's all this about the difference between allergy and allergic? Are you telling us that milk "allergy" is gene related? Are you saying that every case of milk allergy is down to genes?

[theprof]

Just to clarify this interesting thread, only congenital lactase deficiency is a genetic disorder. Primary and Secondary lactose intolerance are caused by environmental factors or disease/parasites respectively.

[theprof]

Incidentally, neither "allergic" nor "allergies" per se imply genetic involvement rov1200.