Well, I think it’s a poor premise to start out with “what has changed in peanuts?” If that is your starting point, you are already excluding a number of scenarios without even examining them. For example, the possibility that the allergies are being faked, or misdiagnosed, or the scenario someone else proposed on the thread that environmental exposure to peanuts in non-food products has increased.
Then, I think we should also take into account that, even if peanut allergies seem to be more common, they are still only affecting a tiny percentage of the population. So it is much more likely that there is something different about those people than that this is due to something different about the peanuts. If the peanuts themselves were “toxic”, then it would affect everyone who eats them, and not just a few people.
Ok, if you’re saying something in people has changed in the last ten years, then what is it?
I’m not buying the hand lotion example. As you said, “If the peanuts themselves were “toxic”, then it would affect everyone who eats them, and not just a few people.” If that works with peanuts, it also works with other products.