The hard facts about the peanuts-on-a-plane rule everyone’s talking about

Editor’s note: This is part twelve in a series about the Transportation Department’s sweeping new airline passenger protection rules. You can read the entire document here (.DOC). Please take a moment to comment on these proposed rules at The future of air travel depends on it.

Ban peanuts? Really?

That’s the first reaction I get when I mention the final, and perhaps the most ridiculed, of the Transportation Department’s proposed new rules. Seriously — why would the government do away with peanuts on a plane?

The regulatory analysis (PDF) I’ve referred to throughout this series of posts doesn’t even address this contentious issue.

But the facts are these: Every time I write about peanut allergies, or any kind of allergies in connection with air travel, I get a flood of emails from allergy sufferers who implore the airlines to create allergen-free flights. (No pets, no peanuts, no shellfish at a minimum.)

I don’t suffer from allergies, and neither does any member of my family. So while it’s easy for me to dismiss these requests as frivolous, it’s true that I’ll never know what it’s like to live with a life-threatening allergy.

The government feels it’s time to take these requests seriously. Under 14 CFR Part 382, airlines are prohibited from discrimination against passengers with disabilities. And an allergy can be a disability.

If a person’s allergy is sufficiently severe to substantially limit a major life activity, then that person meets the definition of an individual with a disability. Part 382 states that major life activities means functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. Airline passengers with severe allergies to peanuts have a qualifying disability as defined in Part 382.

The government is considering several rules to remedy the problem.

Related story:   Oops, wrong city! Stupid travel mistakes and how to avoid them

1) Banning the serving of peanuts and all peanut products by both U.S. and foreign carriers on flights covered by DOT’s disability rule.

2) Banning the serving of peanuts and all peanut products on all such flights where a passenger with a peanut allergy is on board and has requested a peanut-free flight in advance.

3) Requiring a peanut-free buffer zone in the immediate area of a passenger with a medically-documented severe allergy to peanuts if passenger has requested a peanut-free flight in advance.

Interestingly, the government has tried going the peanut-free-zone route in the past, but was stopped by Congress.

[The] Department was directed by Congress to cease issuing guidance on this subject or face a cutoff of funding for its Aviation Enforcement Office. See, for example, section 346 of Public Law 106-69, (October 9, 1999)–“DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,” which stated that none of the funds made available under that Act could be used to require or suggest that airlines provide peanut-free buffer zones or otherwise restrict the distribution of peanuts.

The prohibition hasn’t appeared in any recent legislation, so the DOT thinks it has a green light to renew its peanut prohibitions.

But how far do you take the ban? Would passengers be prohibited from taking their own nuts on board? How about crackers with peanut butter or something deep-fried in peanut oil? How would you enforce such a ban?

I really don’t know about this one. I love peanuts. I don’t mind giving them up for a flight, but are flight attendants really going to confiscate my daughter’s peanut butter cookie before boarding? Are they going to ask if those french fries I bought at the food court were fried in peanut oil — and then toss them in the garbage if they were?

Related story:   What does your airline owe you when it cancels your flight?

It’s one thing to tell Southwest Airlines to stop serving peanuts. But creating allergen-free flights will be difficult, if not impossible. It might make more sense to stock each flight with a handful of epinephrine auto-injectors.

What do you think?

The Rulemaking Series

I’ve written this series of posts in order to help you understand the Transportation Department’s proposed rules and offer the most informed feedback during its commenting period. Please take a moment to read them and then tell the government what you think at

Part 1: New tarmac delay contingency plans — what’s in it for you?

Part 2: Government will require airlines to offer “complete picture” of ground delays

Part 3: New rules would require airlines to meet “minimum” customer service standards

Part 4: Government to airlines: Put it in the contract!

Part 5: New requirements would force international airlines to monitor and respond to passenger complaints

Part 6: Everything you need to know about the new denied boarding compensation rules

Part 7: The truth about the government’s new “full fare” disclosure rule

Part 8: Transportation Department wants airlines to reveal all fees and an airfare — or two

Part 9: New rule: No more price increases after you buy a ticket

Part 10: Airlines must “promptly” notify passengers of flight delays under proposed rule

Part 11: No more lawsuit limits for passengers under proposed government rules

Part 12: The hard facts about the peanuts-on-a-plane rule everyone’s talking about

Related story:   Victim of seatback police: "It felt like we had somehow landed in a World War II movie"

If you have any feedback on this series, please send me an email. And thanks for reading.

(Photo: Euro Magic/Flickr Creative Commons)

Christopher Elliott

Christopher Elliott is an author, journalist and consumer advocate. You can read more about him on his personal website or check out his adventures on his family adventure travel site. Contact him at

  • Amberjpy

    I am against the ban. i do not believe an epi pen is the perfect solution..  I have a sever airborne allergy. I wear gloves and take allergy medicine before leaving the house and Carrie an epi pen everywhere.. However allergy medicine wasn’t enough. I practically became a hermit. My allergy doctor suggested getting an allergy mask. I started with a cheap one and found it helped, so much so that I am going to invest in a better quality Mask. 
         My only problem is discrimination. I’ve been denied service because people were afraid of what other customers might think, was I contagious and such. Still I feel that more people with allergy’s should use them, Even if only on a plane. And have found some great products Including a few hepa certified.       Now if the airlines provided some cheap gloves, wipes, and a cheap mask, wouldn’t that be more conducive to comfortable flight for allergy sufferers as well as showing the company’s concern as well?     As an added bonus for airlines keeping the cheap medical masks on board and offering them as a courtesy to passengers suffering form oh mild seasonal allergy’s or colds would also decrease the spread of germs making the flights heather.As for the few that even that is not enough well there are other options. Hire a private plane, travel by car, bus,  train, or even a boat. There are even services where you can hire a driver to take you. 

  • Anon

    The use of an EpiPen requires getting medical attention within 15 minutes so that is not the answer to dealing with life threatening allergens when on a plane. People that are unwilling to not eat a peanut laced snack for a short period of time to prevent a medical emergency of a fellow human is selfish at best.

  • Rigoberto Sanchez

    Completely avoiding peanuts is dangerous and unhealthy. Several studies have been done where a slow introduction of peanuts will gradually reduce an individuals allergy, at least to the point where they wont die if I enjoy a few peanuts and am near them. Just food for thought, even if you may be allergic to that food.

Get smart. Sign up for the newsletter.