Like, is it when a small portion of a population has an adverse resction to something most of the species can handle just fine (i.e. a peanut allergy)? Or can it be a species thing? Like humans how get horribly itchy when the touch poison ivy, but other animal species eat the leaves and be just fine.
Would it be right to say that humans are allergic to poison ivy? If we’re not allergic, then is there another term for it?
Also, if it’s not an allergy, then where is the line drawn? I know there are a ton of people with pollen allergies, it seems pretty common. What percentage of the overall population makes an “allergy” a(n) [new term]?
In: 2
An allergy is an overreaction of the body’s immune system to a foreign substance, called an allergen, that is typically harmless to most people. Think of it like the immune system thinking the allergen is a dangerous invader and launching an attack to try to get rid of it, even though it’s not actually harmful.
Allergies can be specific to certain things or substances, and some people may be more prone to allergies than others due to genetic factors. Different species can also have different tolerances for certain substances, so just because something is harmless to one animal or plant doesn’t mean it will be harmless to another. For example, dogs and cats can have allergies too, but they may be allergic to different things than humans.
If someone gets itchy after touching poison ivy, that would be considered an allergic reaction. In some cases, people may not have an allergic reaction but simply be more sensitive to a substance due to irritation. In that case, it wouldn’t be considered an allergy.
There isn’t really a hard and fast rule for what constitutes an allergy, as it can vary depending on the substance and the individual’s reaction. But allergies are generally considered to be fairly common, with anywhere from 10-30% of the population experiencing some form of allergy at some point in their lives.
Latest Answers