Will the biodiesel revolution kill people with peanut/soybean allergies?

April 8, 2005 3:24 AM

I've been interested in the growing chatter about biodiesel. Some friends raised an interesting question, though: peanut allergies are increasingly common and are increasingly lethal. Soybean allergies, although less common, still exist. Will biodiesel emissions from peanut or soybean oil cause negative reactions (like, well, death) in people with severe allergies? If so, what type of regulation on biodiesel is likely?
posted by Alt F4 to health & fitness (58 comments total)

And by "regulation," I mean "regulation regarding allergies."
posted by Alt F4 at 3:29 AM on April 8, 2005

Interesting question. Something that I hadn't thought about before.

I have a severe peanut allergy. Just the smell of peanuts can make me ill. I don't know if this is more psychosomatic than real, because I've always associated peanuts with extreme unpleasantness. Now I'm wondering, firstly, as biodiesel becomes more ubiquitous, whether I'm going to be subjected to peanut odour more and more frequently. Secondly, I'm wondering whether this will have adverse consequences on my health.
posted by veedubya at 4:15 AM on April 8, 2005

I don't think the peanut issue would be a problem since peanut oil is rarely used (possibly because it is more expensive?). The majority of biodiesel is from soy beans though, so this may be a problem for those allergic to soy.
There's some info here but I couldn't find anything on allergies.
posted by cushie at 5:00 AM on April 8, 2005

It is a little ironic that one of the most popular cars for the biodiesel conversion is the veedubya 1.8 TDI. I sincerely hope the increasing popularity of this alternative fuel doesn't have a negative impact on anyone's health, but I think once again, there is no free lunch.
posted by fixedgear at 6:15 AM on April 8, 2005

It will probably be no worse than the severe asthma attacks suffered by increasing numbers of poor urban youths as their homes are increasingly polluted.
posted by jmgorman at 6:33 AM on April 8, 2005

I kinda doubt it. Even though there are waste products, a diesel engine runs pretty hot (around 1300 deg F). I'm guessing this would destroy any of the allergy causing proteins in whatever oil is used.
posted by electroboy at 6:35 AM on April 8, 2005

A related problem: It's my understanding that peanut and soybean allergies have become more common because of the ubiquity of those products. That is, the rates of the allergies themselves have increased, not just the allergic reactions that people with the allergies have.

I would wonder if biodiesel fuels might cause allergice problems regardless of what kind of oil was used -- exposure to whatever kind was used would become so common that the rates of allergies to that kind would increase.
posted by duck at 6:36 AM on April 8, 2005

I sincerely hope the increasing popularity of this alternative fuel doesn't have a negative impact on anyone's health, but I think once again, there is no free lunch.

It's not really worth worrying about. Peanut allergies are the newest form of mass hysteria. As many people die of rubella each year as peanut allergies-- the 50-100 deaths you see cited aren't backed by US government stats. By the time biodiesel is ready for wide use, the public will have moved into something else to worry about.

Of course, the laws of irony probably dictate that my child will have a severe peanut allergy now. If that's the case, I'll keep him in a bubble until he outgrows it rather than insist that it's everyone else's problem.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:37 AM on April 8, 2005

Mayor Curley, I understand what you're saying, but (there's always a but), as one of the afflicted, I think that peanut allergy is something to worry about. The symptoms are horrible, and there is a very real possibility that it could kill me.

I've got a lot more sensitive to this issue since my eldest child was diagnosed with a similar allergy. As far as I'm aware, it isn't an allergy that can be grown out of.
posted by veedubya at 7:26 AM on April 8, 2005

As far as I'm aware, it isn't an allergy that can be grown out of.

A certain percentage of kids grow out of it, but not most of them. It's a big topic of conversation because my SO works for a group of Peanutfrei pre-schools.

This bothers me a lot, because while it's done as a liability issue, the practical message to the parents and students is "someone else has a health issue, but it is your problem. Were I a parent, my response would be "Oh. Then I will enroll my child somewhere where he is allowed to eat what he wants."
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:42 AM on April 8, 2005

The buses here at UC Santa Cruz use biodiesel, so a wide variety of young people get exposed every day. I haven't heard of any problems. Also I believe that the oil is chemically altered to prepare it for use in vehicles (esterification). Plus, I would suspect that the allergen in peanuts was a protein or sugar, not the oil.
posted by 445supermag at 8:01 AM on April 8, 2005

Mayor Curley, don't want to cause a derail, but how is a school preventing my child from being exposed to a foodstuff that will kill him, a problem for you? Do you feel the same way about handrails for balconies and stairways?
posted by veedubya at 8:12 AM on April 8, 2005

There is a reason why peanut butter is so ubiquitous in school lunches - it is a very cheap, reliable source of protein. I can't tell you how many lunches I ate that primarily consisted of that and a chunk of gov't cheese. To tell a family that they have to send something else (that will probably be more expensive nutrition-per-dollar wise) because some kid might have a reaction is a bit worrisome to me. I had a roomate with severe peanut allergies and he was fine so long as we didn't smear the stuff on his pillow (which his brother did once). His only rule was to spread the jelly before the peanut butter.
posted by jmgorman at 8:21 AM on April 8, 2005

but how is a school preventing my child from being exposed to a foodstuff that will kill him, a problem for you?

Because it's also preventing other children from being exposed to a foodstuff that's very common and well-liked. If you have special requirements, the onus should be on you to work around them, not for other people to accomodate you.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:22 AM on April 8, 2005

If you have special requirements, the onus should be on you to work around them, not for other people to accomodate you.

My son has a peanut allergy that could kill him. He is eight years old. Apparently, this shouldn't trouble me enough to make me want to deprive other children of their inalienable right to eat peanuts. If he dies as a result of mistakenly ingesting something that contains peanuts, I just have to tell myself that it's his fault, because he wasn't smart enough to work around his problem.

Mayor Curley, no offence, but if you ever become ruler of the world, I'm leaving.
posted by veedubya at 8:30 AM on April 8, 2005

If he dies as a result of mistakenly ingesting something that contains peanuts...

How about keeping him home insteading of making his problem other peoples' problem?

You're a lot closer to being ruler of the world than I am-- you've already got a "no peanuts" decree in effect that inconveniences everyone else but makes your life easier. But of course, you're entitled because you and your son are unique snowflakes and the rest of us are just shadows.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:41 AM on April 8, 2005

How about keeping him home insteading of making his problem other peoples' problem?

So, in the interests of those people that enjoy eating peanuts, my child should be deprived of an education? I think that your priorities might be just ever so slightly out of whack.
posted by veedubya at 8:51 AM on April 8, 2005

Do you fail to see the difference in inconvenience level between 'can only eat peanut butter for breakfast and dinner, not lunch' and 'die a painful choking death'? Or even between 'can only eat peanut butter for breakfast and dinner, not lunch' and 'be forced to miss out on education and socialization by never being able to go to school'?
posted by jacquilynne at 8:52 AM on April 8, 2005

A certain percentage of kids grow out of it, but not most of them. It's a big topic of conversation because my SO works for a group of Peanutfrei pre-schools.

This bothers me a lot, because while it's done as a liability issue, the practical message to the parents and students is "someone else has a health issue, but it is your problem..."

Well, hell. I guess we should just reverse those smoking bans, too.

I never had a problem with no-peanut rules, and had even less reason to do so when my son was found to be allergic. I would have been overjoyed to have him in a peanut-free environment--as it was his daycare fed it to him TWICE, necessitating ER visits. He's not there anymore.

Might I add that there's a rather large difference between preschool kids and older ones. We've tried to impress upon my son the importance of not eating peanuts, but he's two years old, and if an adult insists, or he forgets, or a friend shares his lunch--he's toast. If he were eight, I could count on him to be more diligent. But it's unreasonable to expect a preschooler to stay away from the stuff on their own, and peanut allergies are pretty common.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 9:06 AM on April 8, 2005

Do you fail to see the difference in inconvenience level between 'can only eat peanut butter for breakfast and dinner, not lunch' and 'die a painful choking death'?

No, I definitely see it. But I certainly don't expect my problems to become the problems of other people. Abstaining from peanut butter is not a big deal, but the underlying message of "You have to accomodate me" is selfish and ugly.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:07 AM on April 8, 2005

but the underlying message of "You have to accommodate me" is selfish and ugly.

If your accommodation of me results in inconvenience, and my accommodation of you results in possible death, which seems the more ethical alternative?
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 9:17 AM on April 8, 2005

Well, hell. I guess we should just reverse those smoking bans, too.

That's a terrible analogy and you know it. Smoking bans benefit everyone (even smokers). Peanut bans force hundreds to accomodate the needs of one.

I didn't want to bring my own examples into this, but what the hell-- maybe it will get the point across that I'm discussing an ugly principle and not a trivial menu exception: I myself had a severe nut allergy until late puberty and I had two close calls involving panicky emergency room visits, respiratory distress until I was unconscious (once) and painful adrenaline shots. And mind you, they were triggered by inhalation, not ingestion. I went to preschool and I went to public school. And nobody was ever asked to modify their habits for my problem. If I wanted to live normally, it was up to me and my parents to deal with it because I am just one person. And while I may be the most important person in the world to my mother, I am no more special than anyone else to the world at large. I am happy to make allowances as needed for my friends and family, and even for strangers if I am in a position to help. But I would never ask for special treatment and I resent deeply when I am forced to modify reasonable habits (like eating peanut butter, which I don't even frigging do) to accomodate someone else's problem.

So stop insinuating that I'm some cold, detached Stalinist with no point of reference. I lived it, and I did it properly.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:24 AM on April 8, 2005

You know about the children who die from exposure to too much light, right?

Perhaps any school district where such a child lives should be required to remove all light bulbs and windows from all schools within a 10 mile radius. Hell, let's throw in all other government buildings while we're at it.

The fact is that nerfalizing the world to protect everyone from everything will leave the world a place that even Snake Plissken would hate. Mmm, American Spirit... Goes down smooth.

ALL THAT BEING SAID... It certainly is fair to protect the stupid from themselves, and it is fair to say children in pre-school are going to behave like raving morons. But I've seen anti-peanut-butter rules extend into middle schools. At that point I hope we can say that having a peanut butter allergy does *not* automatically make you a raving lunatic moron that needs protection from himself. Because if the world has to protect you from yourself, yikes!
posted by shepd at 9:32 AM on April 8, 2005

Mayor Curley isn't a cold, detached Stalinist, but he refuses to drive any car that has a passenger side airbag. Because, you know, they didn't have them when he was a kid.

shepd, sometimes people, whatever their age, make mistakes. That's why many people do not consider it unreasonable to take measures to minimise the consequences of such mistakes. Personally, maybe because I have a personal stake in the matter, I don't happen to think that it's unreasonable to stop children eating peanuts during school hours, if the alternative is the accidental (but totally preventable) death of even one child.
posted by veedubya at 9:39 AM on April 8, 2005

but he refuses to drive any car that has a passenger side airbag. Because, you know, they didn't have them when he was a kid.

You really are the king-- of crappy analogies. Do you really think that penalizing the many for the betterment of the few hadn't been invented by the 70's? It is true that Whitney Huston hadn't recorded "The Greatest Love of All" yet, so we didn't know that the children are our future and "think of the children" (or "my child" in this case) hadn't yet become a trump card that no one was allowed to argue against.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:52 AM on April 8, 2005

Wow, Mayor Curley, you must really, really love your peanuts.
posted by veedubya at 9:56 AM on April 8, 2005

That's your retort? If you had waited until something good came to you I'd probably still see it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2005

No, actually, I thought of a lot of things, but none of them were particularly polite, and certainly wouldn't have helped make this thread any better.

The problem, I guess, is that, from my perspective, it's a matter of life and death. That's no exaggeration. My little boy could die, if he accidentally ate something that was contaminated with peanuts. Therefore, I would prefer that the risk of him eating such a thing was reduced to the absolute minimum. You're right when you imply that I'm being selfish in wanting to protect 'my child', but that seems to me to be a fairly natural instinct. I don't honestly know if I'd feel the same way if it wasn't a problem for 'my child'. I suspect that I would, but I don't know for sure.

It just never occurred to me that anybody would seriously equate being prevented from eating peanuts during school hours, with being oppressed. If that's the way that you feel about it, I don't think that anything is going to change your mind about it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by veedubya at 10:16 AM on April 8, 2005

If people aren't willing to sacrifice peanuts so that someone else's child can live, then we really don't have much of a chance of building a society. Protecting individual rights are important, but not for something as small as peanuts.

Now -- does this mean biofuels have to go? Good question.
posted by ontic at 10:21 AM on April 8, 2005

Protecting individual rights are important, but not for something as small as peanuts.

Then how big an issue is important enough? And who decides?
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:26 AM on April 8, 2005

Now -- does this mean biofuels have to go? Good question.

I think, that from the little that I know about the actual mechanism of my peanut allergy, what's been said here about it being a protein that causes the problem seems to ring true. That protein would probably break down at engine temperatures, so it wouldn't cause an allergic reaction.

So, the problem for me might not be life threatening, but, if there was still a smell of burning peanuts, I'd be nauseous walking down the street. Given time, I wonder if I'd get used to the smell, and it would no longer bother me.
posted by veedubya at 10:29 AM on April 8, 2005

It's an important enough issue when -- for a preliminary position -- people's lives would be seriously inconvenienced. Nostalgic reflection on the gustatory pleasures of PB & J are expendable when options with an equivalent level of nutrition exist and the gustatory pleasures stand a chance of killing someone. We're literally and metaphorically giving up "peanuts". And while I think we can discover this level of trade-offs is just without much wrangling, society decides.
posted by ontic at 10:43 AM on April 8, 2005

It's an important enough issue when -- for a preliminary position -- people's lives would be seriously inconvenienced.

What's "seriously"? Give me some guidelines that aren't subjective. I need to know when it's proper for someone else to dictate what I can and can't eat.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:09 AM on April 8, 2005

You already know what seriously means. And no one is dictating what you can or can't eat. What a caring society will try to dictate is what 5-12 year-olds can bring to and possibly freely share at a public school or what is made and served at that school.
posted by ontic at 11:39 AM on April 8, 2005

You already know what seriously means.

Yes, and we don't agree on what it means. No three people are going to reach a consensus on it. And even if they did, it's still wrong to force me (school-age me) to accommodate someone else's exceptional circumstance.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:00 PM on April 8, 2005

Not that it matters much, but I agree with the Mayor.
posted by yodelingisfun at 12:51 PM on April 8, 2005

But is there anything that someone is not allergic to? Some people have extreme reactions to other common foodstuffs, pretty soon nothing will be allowed. Any of you peanut banners have any problem with banning milk or wheat from schools (some people can go into anaphylactic shock from these too)?
posted by 445supermag at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2005

Back on track, some people are allergic to conventional fuels...
posted by 445supermag at 1:14 PM on April 8, 2005

I'm in a rush, and haven't had time to do more than skim other replies, but I don't think this has been covered yet.

Except for very, very low volumes of fuel from recycled food waste, most biodiesels will probably not contain peanut oil. Peanuts are one of the more expensive sources of vegetable oil and almost certainly will not be used on any commercial scale.

In fact, most biodiesel products won't be made from plant oils directly. The blends I've seen are mostly made with fuel additives that are refined from plant oils or are synthetic products (derivatives) of the original plant oil, so the proteins that cause the alergies would be left out.

Sorry, gotta run. I'll check back later.
posted by bonehead at 2:00 PM on April 8, 2005

My little boy could die, if he accidentally ate something that was contaminated with peanuts.

This is key. I've worked in the food industry for a number of years as a server and cafeteria supervisor. Food gets contaminated daily and there's not a damn thing you or anyone else can do. It's very easy to be cooking food on a table and have a worker be too lazy to properly clean up the table or clean the utensils causing cross-food contamination and *BOOM* you have peanuts in your meat.
posted by jmd82 at 2:13 PM on April 8, 2005

If we're going to ban peanuts from near-adults (children in middle school have reached the traditional "age of maturity" and really ARE old enough to know not to eat things that will kill them) because just one person might die, well, I can save a lot more lives right now. Enough to make the peanut problem sound like the joke of the week.

Ban school buses (heck, any conveyance with people under the age of 18 in it) and we should be able to save at least 10,000 children's lives a year. Add another 0 and that's probably how many we could save worldwide yearly.

As I said, I understand the necessity to keep people who are a danger to themselves away from dangerous things, but there comes a point in a child's life where you need to give them responsibilities. Such as the responsibility to not kill themselves. If grades 7+ aren't that category, I think it's fair to say the "child" will end up mentally handicapped in the responsibility category due to a lack of education in that field (the education being that they will be exposed to this problem for the rest of their lives and will need to learn how to avoid it).

Forcing mental handicaps onto children is not cool, but that's just me.
posted by shepd at 2:33 PM on April 8, 2005

As my mother has been sent to the hospital by smelling someone else's peanut sauce in a restaurant, and nearly killed by accidental food contamination with peanuts in a handful of other circumstances, I can't say I agree with the good Mayor at all.

As for this:
"If that's the case, I'll keep him in a bubble until he outgrows it rather than insist that it's everyone else's problem."

Peanut allergies seem to be a kind that only get worse, as per last time I asked my allergist. :-/
posted by hototogisu at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2005

I just think the principle, "When you can drastically reduce someone's chance of dying without seriously inconveniencing someone else, you should take steps to drastically reduce someone's chance of dying." is a pretty good moral principle. Since the inconvenience in this case is having to buy food different than peanut butter (the school system or people preparing Susie's lunches), I think this does not meet reasonable standards of "serious inconvenience".

If peanut butter were one of the only foods available, then it might very well be a serious inconvenience. But it's not. Having to accomodate someone's unusual circumstances is a burden, but sometimes this burden is small and easy to deal with. I don't think there's a slippery slope here. And, I'm sorry to say hototogisu, but I think it is much more reasonable to ask people with severe peanut allergies to choose alternative restaurants than to abstain from public education.

And as much as I really do want to hash this one out, I'll stop derailing now.
posted by ontic at 3:10 PM on April 8, 2005

As my mother has been sent to the hospital by smelling someone else's peanut sauce in a restaurant, and nearly killed by accidental food contamination with peanuts in a handful of other circumstances, I can't say I agree with the good Mayor at all.

eh? so you want to ban peanut sauces from restaurants too, in case someone smells one? at what point does it become your mother's problem?

i don't like cars. i don't own one. you can live without them. cars kill a lot more people than bloody peanuts. draw your own conclusions.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:34 PM on April 8, 2005

Are peanut allergies genetic?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:37 PM on April 8, 2005

shepd, it's not that easy. Really.

A couple of weeks ago, I went into a sandwich place for lunch. The person in front of me ordered a sandwich with peanut butter. The server prepared the sandwich, handed it to her, and she left. The server was wearing those rubber gloves that everyone in the food service industry seems to believe absolves them from all food-poisining related blame. I asked for my sandwich, and noted that the server hadn't changed the gloves. I had to make a specific point of asking that the gloves be changed, all with a hungry lunch-time queue behind me, thinking that I was some sort of prima-donna asshole, making a fuss about nothing.

The point of this is that, had I happened not to be paying particular attention to the person in front of me, I would have inadvertently consumed peanut-contaminated food, and risked a pretty unpleasant incident. If that had been a busy school restaurant, would a fifth-grader have noticed? Would a tenth-grader? Would they have deserved to die for not noticing?

The bottom line is, I'm 35 years old, and I still get caught out, and eat stuff contaminated by peanuts. At a rough estimate, I accidentally peanut-poison myself about once every two two years. Anything that stops my son dying of a similar mistake is a good thing for me. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.
posted by veedubya at 3:52 PM on April 8, 2005

There is a person in my wife's workplace who is allergic to celery. There is a person in the massage therapy school allergic to bananas.

Perhaps celery and bananas best be banned, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:57 PM on April 8, 2005

TheOnlyCoolTim, our doctor told us that there was a 25% chance of our children inheriting my peanut allergy. My first-born is allergic like me, my second-born isn't. I guess that I'd have to have a hundred more kids before this became a meaningful statistical sample, but it's compelling enough for me.

On preview: five fresh fish, it's not just the fact that some peple are going to be allergic to something. It's the percentage of people that will be allergic to that something, the potential ramifications of that allergy, and the inconvenience of preventing those ramifications. That's why we have roofs strong enough to protect us from the rain but not, on average, strong enough to protect us from nuclear explosions.
posted by veedubya at 4:03 PM on April 8, 2005

Are allergies actually more common these days? Or is the information just more widespread? Is it possible that people being overly cautious about potential allergies ends up causing allergies? Ie, maybe making absolutely sure that kids never touch peanuts is what ends up making their system incapable of handling peanuts, some percentage of the time... Maybe we 'learn' to process certain foods by reacting to them, the way we create immune systems by suffering lots of little colds when we're young.
posted by mdn at 8:50 PM on April 8, 2005

There's at least a couple different Ask Mefi's in this thread.

Anyway, I like peanuts somewhat, but I loooove strawberries. Still, I would no problems refraining from eating them in circumstances where there was significant risk to others. Conversely, I don't expect the whole world to ban peanuts for my son's allergy. But preschools? Yeah, that'd be nice, since peanuts are both a common allergy and a common food (and, a more serious allergy it seems). And of course there's the fact the littler ones are harder to teach.

In any case we can certainly vote with our money--we didn't have a peanut free place to send him, or we would have. Distant relatives of George Washington who are militant peanutistas can boycott the peanut boycotters. :)
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 10:03 PM on April 8, 2005

veedubya, I feel for you, as I don't have a life-threatening allergy to consider in my day to day. But, really, can we on a WHOLE as a society cater to each and every allergy that rolls around? I'm not sure that banning peanuts from a grade school is so horrifyingly awful, although I tend to agree with Curley for the most part, but what of the others?

On Oprah the other day (shut up), they had a family whose kids were, literally, deathly allergic to milk. Like, if it touched them it could kill them. They didn't ask for milk-banning in the school, but the mom came in every day to the caf to make sure the kids didn't come into contact wiht milk. A luxury, yes indeed, that she could, but it seems to me a reasonable solution to a personal problem. Should she have rallied to ban milk from her kids' school?
posted by tristeza at 10:06 PM on April 8, 2005

ontic: Now -- does this mean biofuels have to go?

No, the reason they have to go is that they're a net energy loser, being grown using petrochemical fertilizers. The only reason they make the least bit of sense at the moment is thanks to really badly planned subsidies. It'd be much more efficient not to make the fertilizer and grow the soybeans, but then some unfortunate middlemen would be out of a job.
posted by Aknaton at 11:42 PM on April 8, 2005

Distant relatives of George Washington who are militant peanutistas can boycott the peanut boycotters. :)

Thta would be George Washington Carver.
posted by fixedgear at 3:24 AM on April 9, 2005

If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.

of course it doesn't make you a bad person. but if you push the rest of us to change for you we're going to push back. we're not bad people either. we're just not you. you are responsible for you. we are responsible for us. they are different things. m'kay?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:18 AM on April 9, 2005

Thanks, all. It looks like the final answers are ...
- biodiesel probably won't hurt anybody with allergies
- peanuts for all
- peanuts for none
- peanuts for some, tiny American flags for others


FWIW, subsequent research on my part shows that there's a theory that peanut processing methods (prep for consumption) might be what causes allergic reactions (link). If that's true, peanuts for biodiesel (however they're used, processed, or refined) probably wouldn't lead to health problems (unless, of course, the same processing method was used for the biodiesel).
posted by Alt F4 at 8:48 AM on April 9, 2005

Peanut allergy rates seem to be at about 1% in North America, inclusive of all ages and all adverse effects. The percentage of people who are deathly allergic is, of course, well under 1%.

Milk allergies run upward of 10%. Eggs at around 5%. Shellfish at about 3%.

source
posted by five fresh fish at 10:34 AM on April 9, 2005

Oddly enough andrew, I don't recall saying that. It is her problem--which is why she didn't order anything with peanuts in it.

I also don't recall saying we should ban peanuts from schools either. Now, I do remember posting to point out that peanut allergies don't just "go away". So maybe take your righteous indignation and...well, you can decide.
posted by hototogisu at 11:51 AM on April 9, 2005

This question interested me a great deal. I live in soybean country here in central Iowa. So I emailed the question to the farm guys on WHO radio. They passed the question to the Iowa Soybean Association, and they passed it to an authority on the subject. His answer follows...

The portion of soy (or peanuts for that matter) that people are sometimes allergic to comes mostly with the protein, so it is not usually founding the oil. Even if some got into the oil, then it would probably leave with the glycerine in the reaction, and even if that didn’t happen it would burned up in the combustion process and not be an issue.

This was actually asked about peanut oil a while back…..like 8 years!

Steve Howell
MARC-IV Consulting
posted by kc0dxh at 11:16 AM on April 13, 2005