I think part of the reason that very real and extremely dangerous food allergies are not taken seriously is that so many people claim food allergies when really they just don't like something or have a mild intolerance to it.
I was at a conference luncheon recently at which two people at my table decided they didn't like the (rather tasty) salmon entree and requested--no,
demanded--a vegetarian dish. (Context: If they'd been truly vegetarian, they'd have received little "coupons" in their registration packets that they could then place on or near their plates in an effort to help the servers understand that they needed the vegetarian option.)
The upshot: Not only did these two overly entitled people speak nastily to the servers when the servers questioned where their coupons were, and lied about having "lost them," but they also complained
vociferously when their spur-of-the-moment decision to "go vegetarian" meant that they received their (piping hot) meal 20 minutes later than the rest of us.
When they were criticized for their behavior by someone with an even more biting wit than I normally employ in a professional setting, they continued to act like entitled snowflakes, insisting that "the customer is always right" and "the servers should have been able to bring us a vegetarian meal immediately." They only shut up when the sardonic critiquer casually said something that meant this: "Y'know, I've met your boss, and after this meal I'm going over to talk with [hu] about [unrelated topic] . . . ."
I'm fine with accommodating food allergies, dietary customs, religious restrictions, and the like. In fact, as an organizer of several conferences with 250-plus attendees, I'm used to making those accommodations and thinking sensitively about other people's health. [Thanks for helping me understand what "celiac" means, earlier posters to this thread!]
But this kind of behavior can influence how people receive a statement of a genuine food issue.
