No tests, just a severe reaction when he was around one after he ate a cracker with just a little dab of peanut butter a well-meaning store lady gave him (with my permission--who knew?).
He ate a peanut again when he was about two at a Gators v. Noles football party, just picked it up and popped it in. The hostess felt terrible--she had meant to pick up the peanut dishes when we arrived.
The third time was at preschool when he was around four. A parent who hadn't read the allergy list at school gave him a peanut butter cookie--I got a frantic, freaking out call from school.
All three times, people were very apologetic but I'm sanguine--I try Benadryl first before popping him with the EpiPen!
My son can actually eat the fried turkey and Chick Fil A so he's not one of the severe cases, either. I, too, have heard both--it stays with you vs. you outgrow it. Who knows, I'm certainly not going to make him eat a peanut butter sandwich to test it!!
It drives my mother in law crazy--she is dying to test him but I just look at her like she's insane and she backs off. She does go out of her way to tell him how delicious peanut butter is, however! I guess he can be tested but by now he'd probably hate the stuff anyway.
Some of my favorite cookies are what we call "Peanut Butter Kisses". Peanut butter cookies with a Hershey's kiss pressed in after they are baked. I still make them but I'm sure to make his favorite cookie as well. I do know that he is not allergic to pecans, as he has eaten a cookie containing pecans (by accident the first time). I generally keep him away from all nuts, just in case.
He is also allergic to milk. He can't drink it--it gives him a rash and makes him act terrible, but I can use it in baking and cooking without a problem, and he can even have cereal with some milk, as long as he doesn't drink the leftovers. When he was little I used Rice Dream, which was a good substitute.
Me, too.
Of course, my kids have always snacked on Cheerios as babies, and this kid always had honey nut Cheerios. So I know she is not allergic to tree nuts, even though they still make me nervous for some retarded reason.
We had gone to South Carolina on a trip, and my FIL loves those little debbie things that are wafers and peanut butter dipped in chocolate. My daughter, who was one at the time, had been eating bites of these things the whole time we were there.
We brought a box home with us (long car trip), and the very next time she ate one she just went into serious allergic reaction mode. I absolutely freaked out, as she was so tiny, and soooo sick, and I had never seen such a thing.
Her doc told me that with the first exposure, the body is alerted to the allergy. The next exposure can be as mild as a torso rash that you may not notice, depending on the severity of the allergy. But it gets worse with every exposure. As a result, he knew of NO doctors who would test my kid, as in order to do so they have to expose them, running the risk of killing them just to find out!
So tell your MIL to take that and smoke it!
She does go out of her way to tell him how delicious peanut butter is, however!
And that is just mean. What is her problem?
Gator Girl, please pardon me for saying this, but your mother-in-law sounds like a fool. What does she want to do, observe your child's death first hand? As a grandmother whose oldest grandchild is a college freshman, I can't even begin to imagine overriding my children's authority. While grandparents expect to be able to spoil their grandchildren in little ways, teaching them disrespect for their parents' rules is despicable. She obviously has a very mean streak--carrying on about how delicious peanut butter is--and I wouldn't leave any child alone with her for a minute. It's obvious this woman cannot be trusted to do what's best for her grandchild. How sad.
A few years ago Monica Crowley had a guest author on her radio program. He had written a book and unfortunately I cannot remember the title--seems to me it was all numbers. It referred to a supposedly hush-hush testing lab somewhere off Long Island which was in disrepair--holes in the roof, leakage around the building where bacteria/microbes, etc. could possibly escape. It was an expose of the danger this facility presented--how many lethal exposures there might have been.
I'm not a conspiracy wacko, but his entire premise was who knows what might have been accidently released into the environment over the years. For example, Lyme disease started in New England; he mentioned new diseases--how about West Nile Virus--I can't think of any others. But it did cause me to think. Guess I'll have to check Monica's web site to see if I can track it down!