A huge thanks to our nut-free venues

I (like many others) have a life-threatening nut allergy, which means if I accidentally eat even the tiniest amount of nuts, I’ll have an anaphylactic reaction. Throat closure, cricket-ball-sized hives, purple skin, swollen lips, difficulty breathing, increased heart rate, dizziness etc. are symptoms I’ve experienced in the past.

These kinds of severe nut allergies are sadly quite common, but what’s less commonly known is that, for people like me, even airborne contact with nut proteins and nut dust can be a problem. This makes controlling times when I might come into contact with nuts really challenging – or often impossible.

Relaxing is quite alien to me because my survival relies on always being on high alert. If you spot someone staring at your chocolate bar on the train, it might not just be because they’re jealous. It might be that, like me, they’re trying to work out if it’s got nuts in and they’ll have to move carriages and take medication to manage/avoid a reaction.

Allergy awareness is sadly very lacking. This is very much the case in films where representation is not only rare but sometimes dangerous. For example, far too many films make allergies the butt of jokes – even children’s films like Peter Rabbit (2018), where a man with a severe blackberry allergy is pelted with blackberries and needs to use his EpiPen.

Global Anaphylaxis Awareness and Inclusivity created a petition asking the film distributor, Sony Pictures, to apologise. They said the film “mocks the seriousness of allergic disease and is heartbreakingly disrespectful to the families of those that have lost loved ones to anaphylaxis.” I can understand this being a matter of debate, as some people make the case for this being an acceptable example of dark humour.

However, I would argue that there should at least be a content warning. Currently, the BBFC has quite an extensive list of content warnings it will highlight: discrimination, adult themes, offensive language, violence, gore, drug abuse and more – but one more for allergies could be really helpful. I would also argue that writers can do so much better than reaching for what feels like a lazy source of humour and adding to the struggle of allergies far too often being trivialised.

Under similar scrutiny, the 2025 film The Roses, starring Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch, contains a scene where a husband deliberately feeds his wife a food he knows she is allergic to, then withholds her EpiPen until she agrees to sign divorce papers. Worse than using allergies as a punchline, it also spreads dangerous misinformation.

Firstly, the idea that you can withhold adrenaline medication shouldn’t be perpetuated, because three minutes can be the extent of the small window you have to administer medication. Even worse than this, the film depicts the administering of this life-saving medication incorrectly in the arm instead of the outer thigh, which is totally unnecessary to the plot and dangerously miseducates. Important allergy charities The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and The Allergy Team sent open letters of complaint to the producers of The Roses.

Other films in which allergies are trivialised or misrepresented include Nancy Drew, Hitch, The Smurfs, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Monster-in-Law, Horrible Bosses… the list could sadly go on. Trying to think of examples of accurate, informative representations of allergies is far more of a challenge. I do remember the TV programme Freaks and Geeks doing a good job of highlighting the seriousness of anaphylaxis. 49.6% of survey participants in a 2009 (Gupta) study responded that television is the best way to learn about food allergies. So, I strongly believe there’s a need for TV and film producers to do better and be more like Freaks and Geeks and less like The Roses.

Our small non-profit venues in Leeds are making a difference by being nut-free, so big-budget Hollywood companies should do their bit too.