Katherine Riley

Riley 1

COMS 332
17 March 2015

Rhetorical Criticism of Allergy Discourse

Applied to Gluten free & Restaurant Dining
Introduction
Imagine sitting across the table from a new acquaintance. You are gushing with
excitement, ecstatic by the chance to spend some quality time with a new friend. As the
waiter approaches your table briefly interrupting your thrilling discussion, all sense of
hope is lost when you receive the menu; realizing that you wont be eating at all. As you
receive irate glares from nearby diners stigmatizing you as an outsider, your waiters
irritation amasses and your new friend begins to show concern and confusion, you begin
to feel pressured to accommodate the majority as you quickly become labeled as a
problem in a simple social situation. This anxiety you may be feeling as you imagine this
situation does not compare to the pressure individuals with allergies face every time they
accept a kind invitation to eat out socially.
This rhetorical situation, characterized by the inability to enjoy a social gathering
and maintain a quality level of health, is defined by the moment the consumer with
allergies first comes into contact with allergy discourse provided by the restaurant. This
initial exposure to allergy discourse may be defined as beginning in three types of
situations. This may be defined as early as the moment a consumer with allergies begins
researching the restaurant, which may entail direct communication with the staff about
their restrictions. This rhetorical situation may also be defined as the moment the allergy
sufferer first views the menu in the restaurant, which may provide little reliable allergen
information, if any, leading the allergy sufferer to many questions of the waiter and chef.
A final definition of this rhetorical situation may begin when the server does not
understand the needs of the allergy sufferer, is unwilling to help or provides false
information in an attempt to make the consumer happy, reflecting the lack of awareness
and protocol existing for these situations. This situation, wherein allergy sufferers cannot
order food safely, has become inherently rhetorical as the discourses we use to create a
healthy system for discussing food allergies simultaneously creates and perpetuates
challenges. The allergy sufferer challenge is to order food safely without serious health or

Katherine Riley

Riley 2

COMS 332
17 March 2015

social repercussions. However, this difficulty faced by consumers with dietary restrictions
may also provide a challenge for restaurants by impacting sustainability and efficiency
efforts. As the customer with allergy restrictions spends time educating the servers on
personal allergy protocols, the speed and efficiency of the restaurant staff depreciates.
And, as incorrect meals are returned to the kitchen, both time and money are wasted. By
placing the burden of allergy management solely on individuals with food restrictions,
particular ideologies are reinforced; allowing such practices to continue. Therefore,
through the analysis of discourse provided by three top rated restaurants by
Allergyeats.com and an allergy management guidebook, I aim to uncover the ways in
which we use language about food allergies, specifically gluten free diets, to reinforce
hegemonic ideals and eliminate social responsibility for the problems these cultural
norms create, further perpetuating personal, social and safety conflicts including the
inhibition of social passing. If we ignore the ways discourse towards allergies causes
immense problems for both allergy sufferers and the food and restaurant industry, we will
continue to build these issues.
By reading this rhetorical criticism you will gain an enlightened perspective in the
ways that we as a society as well as how you, yourself, perceive and employ language
related to food allergies. First, I will explain why Standpoint Criticism is best equipped to
uncover the underlying problems presented by this rhetorical situation. Second, I will
provide an overview of the four artifacts that surround and create problems within allergy
discourse. Third, I will focus on how these artifacts provide an overwhelming amount of
you messages and how this reinforces a hegemonic ideology. Fourth, I will analyze
how such discourses actually impede the functionality of fully enjoying the dining
experience. Fifth, I will provide my own evaluation of these artifacts. Lastly, I will
conclude by articulating how this knowledge can be applied on a much larger scale than
the specific situation analyzed.
Methodology
It is estimated that up to 15 million Americans have food allergies and that
number continues to grow (Facts and Statistics - Food Allergy Research & Education). To

Katherine Riley

Riley 3

COMS 332
17 March 2015

decipher these problems faced by allergy sufferers and the role our discourses play in
perpetuating the challenge to order food safely without serious health or social
repercussions, we must make sense of the rhetorical situation from the perspective of the
consumer with dietary restrictions. Therefore, Standpoint Criticism will be crucial to the
comprehension of the ways allergy discourse creates and perpetuates issues for this
specific, marginalized group. Defined as an approach to ideological rhetorical criticism
aimed at understanding the portrayal of various identity features and the consequences of
those portrayals, Standpoint Criticism allows us to examine rhetorical artifacts from
various perspectives or standpoints (Kolodziejski, Standpoint Criticism). This method
of criticism falls under the category of ideological criticism, which looks beneath the
surface message and structure of an artifact to uncover the underlying beliefs and values
it promotes (Kolodziejski, Ideological Criticism and Ideographs). This theory
presumes three vital assumptions. The first premise explains that when ideology becomes
hegemonic, it naturalizes the socially constructed aspects of the world. The second
deduction states that an ideology uses rhetorical strategies to maintain dominance. The
third and final notion explicates that rhetorical strategies can also be used to challenge the
dominant ideology. These assumptions will be vital to understanding Standpoint
criticism, as much of Standpoint Criticism branches from Ideological Criticism. This
methodology provides the unique capacity to analyze discourses towards allergies and
their impact on this specific group through Standpoint Criticisms inherent focus on
power distribution and the capacity to challenge the ideologies underlying the dominating
powers against a minority. This post-modernistic approach on peoples perceptions allow
us to recognize the ways in which power creates different groups within society (The
Standpoint Theory) by analyzing the assumptions made by the hegemonic group,
thereby highlighting misappropriations of power. Essentially, I am most interested in the
ways particular ideologies impact power of particular groups, the ethical implications
such discourses provide and how this information can be used to eliminate conflicts faced
by this group. Therefore, I will analyze allergy discourses from the standpoint of
restaurant consumers with specific dietary restrictions within the context of the rhetorical

Katherine Riley

Riley 4

COMS 332
17 March 2015

situation. I hope to uncover the underlying power differences and assumptions such
discourses create and how such messages serve to hinder the success of these individuals
to eat safely and achieve social passing.
Although Standpoint Criticism allows us to understand the rhetorical messages
that impact this specific group, this method, like every theory of rhetorical criticism, has
its faults. Standpoint Criticism has been criticized for its ability to find what it is looking
for and treat ideology as negative (Kolodziejski, Ideological Criticism and
Ideographs). Although I present the dominant ideologies as negative, I am not arguing
that they are inherently wrong. Instead I argue that the use of rhetoric in allergy discourse
becomes immoral in the ways that allergy sufferers are marginalized and forced to
function under oppression of particular ideologies. Therefore, it cannot be the allergy
sufferers job to face the challenges such discourses provide in the rhetorical situation
alone. The method also requires essentialism, the process of engaging in generalizations
about a group as though all individuals were the same (Standpoint Theory). Although
not all allergy sufferers have the same restrictions, experiences or lifestyles, these
individuals all share one common challenge: eating and socializing without sacrificing
their health. This characteristic shared by allergy sufferers allows us to think of all
individuals with these restrictions as a unit for the purpose of understanding the issues
they face. The awareness of such limitations will be instrumental to understanding the
underlying messages and cultural values embedded within these arguments, allowing for
more accurate interpretations of these artifacts.
Through the application of Standpoint Criticism I will also be discussing the
rhetorical concepts of hegemony, social and political spheres and social passing.
Ideologies are defined as beliefs that guide an individual, a social movement, an
institution, class or large group (Kolodziejski, Ideological Criticism and Ideographs).
These powerful forms of identification are crucial to the construction of hegemony,
defined as the privileging of one groups ideology over others (Kolodziejski,
Ideological Criticism and Ideographs). This frequently serves the dominant groups
interest often at the expense of other groups and results in a kind of social control

Katherine Riley

Riley 5

COMS 332
17 March 2015

(Kolodziejski, Ideological Criticism and Ideographs). This misappropriation of power,

created by ideologies, will be a pivotal concept underlying the analysis of discourses
surrounding allergy topics. By analyzing and interpreting these artifacts to reveal
underlying values and evaluating the issues such discourse create, I will provide
suggestions as to the way these realities can be changed (Kolodziejski, Ideological
Criticism and Ideographs). Then I intend to justify these decisions through the
explication of the underlying motives embedded within allergy discourses that will be
supported by the analysis of four artifacts (Kolodziejski, Ideological Criticism and
Ideographs).
Rhetorical spheres are defined as the grounds upon which arguments are built
and the authorities to which arguers appeal (Goodnight, 253) It is important to note the
difference between the personal and public spheres because each sphere has different
argumentative standards and techniques. The personal sphere is comprised of private
matters, conversational style and informal regulations while the public sphere manifests
itself in a semiformal nature and is concerned with issues that affect the entire
community (Goodnight, 254). Because the focus of allergy discourse on the personal
sphere will prove problematic, it is important to note the requirements for transcending
topics from one sphere to another. To shift topics from the personal sphere to the public
sphere, information should be accessible to the general population and must become
doxa, or common knowledge, for the good of the community (Goodnight, 255). These
barriers of transcendence between spheres will help highlight the misappropriation of
power within the rhetorical situation through the dominant orientation of specific
messages towards a particular sphere.
Next, it is important to understand the concept of social passing. In social
passing a person wants to blend in with the dominant group and does not want anyone to
recognize their differences (Morris, 597). In the context of food allergy management,
social passing becomes impossible because the ability to dine out without becoming
physically ill usually results in highlighting oneself as different than everyone else. These

Katherine Riley

Riley 6

COMS 332
17 March 2015

three rhetorical components are essential rhetorical elements for analyzing the selected
artifacts through the lens of Standpoint Criticism.
Why this Artifact?
Through the exploration of discourse provided by Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
P.F. Changs China Bistro, Outback Steakhouse and FARE: Food Allergy Research and
Education, I aim to uncover the ways language about food allergies, specifically gluten
free diets, reinforce hegemonic ideals and eliminate social responsibility for the problems
these cultural norms create, further perpetuating personal, social and safety conflicts
including the inhibition of social passing. These specific artifacts were selected to provide
a representative sample of analysis of allergy discourse. By selecting menus from the
most highly rated restaurants in America by Allergyeats.com, comparing the rhetorical
and functional tools within these three menus to the recommendations outlined in the
allergy guide published by FARE, we can analyze discourse towards allergies internal
and external to the rhetorical situation. Through analysis of these artifacts, the rhetorical
situation will be defined on a much broader scale and more accurate interpretations of the
underlying ideologies and power distributions supporting the use of the rhetorical devices
will become apparent. This will in turn provide insight into the forces perpetuating the
allergy sufferers challenge. Additionally, through the lens of Standpoint criticism, we
will gain insight into the ways everyone perpetuates the problems experienced by
individuals with allergies and how these problems can be eliminated.
Summary of Artifacts
Before analyzing the rhetorical implications of the discourse provided within
these artifacts, it is important to be familiar with their basic composition and purpose.
Although all four artifacts reflect the same hegemony, focus on the personal sphere and
provide similar implications for impeding social passing within the rhetorical situation,
each artifact is inherently unique.
The Red Robin Gourmet Burger menu functions quite differently than
traditional menus by providing an interactive environment where consumers can

Katherine Riley

Riley 7

COMS 332
17 March 2015

customize their meals. This application, which can also be found on the Red Robin
Gourmet Burger website or used on a mobile device, utilizes this medium to provide
consumers with options. This application allows you to select your allergy from a short,
pre-set list and then select menu items that may be modified to fit your allergy. There are
then options to remove or add each item of the meal. However, once your meal is created,
there is no way to use the application to order. Additionally, legal information is hardly
legible and may be found in small black writing underneath the introduction page, barely
visible when initially opening the application. This text, hidden behind a dark red
background, calls into question how much Red Robin Gourmet Burger wants their
customers to read about their service. Although some aspects of this application may be
helpful from the standpoint of managing allergies, the time it takes to use, the inability to
order through the application and its blatant aim to hide important legal information is
problematic. Unlike Red Robin Gourmet Burger, P.F. Changs China Bistro does not
require the consumer to follow long steps to finding a safe meal.
P.F. Changs China Bistros Gluten free Menu, which may be found online or on
the back of the restaurant menu, has an entire page of set meal items that are marketed as
gluten free. These sections, unlike Red Robin Gourmet Burgers menu, include meals
that have been planned as Gluten free and do not require changes to be suitable for gluten
intolerant individuals or those suffering from Celiac Disease. Red Robin Gourmet Burger,
which is more focused on adapting existing items to the specific consumer, shows one
commonality with P.F. Changs China Bistro in relation to the ways they provide legal
information. Both restaurants provide conflicting legal comments in small font at the
bottom of their menus. Specifics will be explained in further detail in the subsequent
sections.
Outback Steakhouse on the other hand, does not link their gluten free menu to
their website. They require consumers to find it on third-party sites or wait until they get
to the restaurant, assuming they know it exists and know to ask for it. This menu, which
is separate from the normal menu, is two pages long and consists of meal options from
the extensive menu that could be modified to be gluten free. The menu is covered with

Katherine Riley

Riley 8

COMS 332
17 March 2015

comments in red text crammed next to the item titles explaining how the item should be
modified to be gluten free. Similarly to the other two artifacts discussed, this menu
provides troublesome legal statements. Similar discourses reinforcing one hegemonic
view may be found in the fourth artifact: the allergy guide.
The supplemental artifact used to further understand allergy discourse, external to
the rhetorical situation, is a document titled Your Food Allergy Field Guide, provided
by FARE: Food Allergy Research and Education, a leading source of allergy information
and the largest privately funded provider of allergy information. This artifact will provide
a supplement to the three menus analyzed. I have included this supplemental artifact to
analyze discourse external to the rhetorical situation to provide a perception outside the
framework of restaurant menus, offering insight into other discourses surrounding allergy
management. Through the analysis of the discourse provided specifically to aid in
individual management of allergies, we see the continued support of dominant ideologies,
perpetuating the challenges the document was created to assist. Although informative,
this document reinforces the focus of food allergies on the personal sphere and within one
dominating hegemonic perspective. This twenty-seven-page document outlines how
individuals with allergies are responsible for their own wellbeing therefore aiming to
educate such individuals on ways one can eat safely with allergies. Most importantly, it
provides recommendations for eating out and dealing with the rhetorical situation in
question (Your Food Allergy Field Guide).
Through the description and analysis of such discourses provided by these
artifacts, it will become clear that the dominant hegemony and rejection of the allergy
sufferers challenge as important to transcend the personal sphere to become a collective
issue within the public sphere, places the burden of managing allergies on the individual,
inhibiting social passing. This is achieved through an overwhelming amount of you
messages that dominate the menus, disclaimers and allergy guide. These discourses and
the underlying hegemonic values in turn hinder the functionality of such artifacts. In the
following section I will provide a deeper analysis of these you messages followed by a
discussion on their functionality within the rhetorical situation.

Katherine Riley

Riley 9

COMS 332
17 March 2015

Analysis
You messages, or sentences that explicitly commanding or instruct an
individual to take a particular action overwhelming the three artifacts provided by some
of the most highly rated allergen friendly restaurants for large establishments on
Allergyeats.com ("The Most Allergy-Friendly Restaurant Chains in America!"). Upon
further analysis, these menus and their adjoining disclaimers employ you messages to
explicitly attack and influence the behavior of the consumer. These messages serve to
promote dominant ideologies, reliance on the personal sphere and inhibits social passing.
Therefore these you messages help perpetuate the allergy sufferers challenge
You Messages & Menus
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers states that the purpose for creating their application
is: to help meet your individual dietary needs so that you can substitute just the right
ingredient for your needs. It becomes increasingly evident that it is you, the consumer
who is in charge of creating a meal that works for you. Although Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers provides suggestions based on your input, the allergy sufferer is ultimately
responsible for completing the monotonous series of steps required for creating a safe
meal option. As consumers input their needs and scroll through the menu, selecting and
editing their options, it becomes clear that Red Robin Gourmet Burgers requires
consumers with allergies to spend an absorbent amount of energy and time preparing to
dine safely at their restaurant. However, these consumers with dietary restrictions
complete the process of drafting a suitable meal with no end. The application does not
provide a way to order once a suitable meal has been created, limiting the usefulness of
this interactive menu. Additionally, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers has not created a menu
with pre-set meal recommendations that coincide with the primary allergens they aim to
serve. So, despite the fact that consumers must begin using the application by selecting
their allergies, existing meals must be additionally edited to meet the needs of these
individuals.
Outback Steakhouse also utilizes you messages within their gluten-free menu,

Katherine Riley

Riley 10

COMS 332
17 March 2015

hampering their credibility as an allergy-friendly restaurant. Menu items on the allergy

menu are simply selections that have been reprinted from the normal menu. However,
the gluten-free menu includes instructions written directly adjacent to the food items
instructing customers on the modifications necessary to make these dishes free from
gluten. Such messages read: order vegetables without seasonings or substitute with
baked potato or avoid both dressings. All recommendations are found in red, bold
letters; however, some are even in all capital letters, urging those with allergies to
AVOID THE BREAD. These imperative statements imply this focus on the individual
as the structures of such sentences imply a command, request or instruction. Although not
explicitly stated with the word you the command towards the audience is implied and is
constructed to impact the actions of allergy sufferers.
You Messages & Disclaimers
Although it is important to note the ways that you messages hinder the effects
of these menus and allergy guide, it is also crucial to notice how these messages and other
factors perpetuate the allergy sufferers challenge within the legal comments or
disclaimers of these documents.
You Messages & Menu Disclaimers
The use of you messages within the disclaimer section of Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers interactive menu additionally highlights the dominance of hegemony, forced
reliance solely on the personal sphere and helps inhibits social passing. Within the
disclaimer Red Robin Gourmet Burgers provides, responsibility is placed solely on the
customer and Red Robin Gourmet Burgers suppliers, not the restaurant itself. Red Robin
Gourmet Burgers claims that they relied on their suppliers statements of ingredients in
deciding which products did not contain certain allergens and that consumers should
check this list [of ingredients] to make sure that the menu item you like still meets your
dietary requirements. Red Robin Gourmet Burger also adds that when dealing with
inventory shortages we cannot be sure that the substitute products will be free of the
allergen you wish to avoid. Additionally, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers notes, As we

Katherine Riley

Riley 11

COMS 332
17 March 2015

cook, prepare and serve your meal, the listed menu option may come in contact with the
allergen you want to avoid. Therefore, because menu items, including ingredients
change on a regular basis, they urge consumers to make sure to inform your server of
your specific dietary needs when ordering (Customizer Hub). Thus, although the
company aimed to help individuals make choices with their application, their data cannot
be validated and are not supported as seen by the analysis of their disclaimers.
Additionally, the quality of control of these products may vary by location, further
complicating the burden of the allergy sufferer. This statement significantly decreases
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers credibility and calls into question the utility of the
information.
Although P.F. Changs China Bistro provides almost twenty pre-set gluten-free
options, they also perpetuate the allergy sufferers problem through the use of you
messages as well as contradictory statements within their disclaimers. P.F. Changs China
Bistro mentions how products containing gluten are prepared in our kitchen and that
our restaurants use ingredients contain all the major FDA allergens (peanuts, tree nuts,
eggs, fish, shellfish, milk, soy and wheat). This means that although the restaurant
provides a menu specifically for gluten allergens, wheat, a primary component of gluten,
is abundantly used in their kitchen. Instead of ensuring consumer safety with this menu
that is marketed as Gluten-free they actually recommend that before placing your
order, please inform your server if a person in your party has a food allergy or a special
dietary need at the bottom of the menu in tiny, almost illegible font. Therefore, it is up to
the consumer with allergy restrictions to ensure their order does not experience crosscontamination, which could be life threatening for some. Although P.F. Changs China
Bistro mentions that they aim to do [their] best to accommodate your needs, they
simultaneously urge individuals to be aware of their practices. Therefore, not only does
one of the most highly rated allergen-friendly restaurants provide a menu that accounts
for only one allergy: gluten-free, but, the restaurant additionally provides a disclaimer
revoking all responsibility of the company, placing the burden on the individual to eat
safely. These discourses reinforce how restaurants dubiously hide their actual allergy

Katherine Riley

Riley 12

COMS 332
17 March 2015

management practices; contradicting the allergy friendly perception advertising has

created (P.F. Changs China Bistro).
Lastly, Outback Steakhouse provides equally contradicting statements through the
use of you messages within their disclaimers. Outback Steakhouses disclaimer states
patrons are encouraged to consider this information in light of their individual
requirements and needs because Outback Steakhouse, in conjunction with the Gluten
Intolerance Group, assume no responsibility for its use and information. It is telling
how this comment is provided in small font, without bolding and at the end of the menu,
arguably out of the way and unlikely to be read. Although this text is next to a gluten-free
signifying image, it seems to contradict the purpose of this symbol. At the very bottom
the menu reads: items may vary by location, further complicating the validity of the
menu and again placing the responsibility on the individual to seek additional information
and confirm the credibility of this document (Gluten Free Menu Outback Steakhouse).
Through the overwhelming use of you messages and contradictions between the
menu content and disclaimers, it is clear that the discourse used to discuss food allergy
management places the burden of safety and food management solely on the individual
and perpetuate the allergy sufferers challenge. Although we must be aware that this
language may be used to avoid lawsuits since the restaurants are not functioning under a
strict allergen policy, it seems realistic, knowing the implications of such discourses, that
we should stop removing power from the food providers and burdening the individual
with all the responsibility in turn for more truthful language that reflects the kitchens
practices. Collectively, all artifacts share particular downfalls and in all instances the
legal information is hard to find, usually hidden or at the bottom of the artifact and in
barely legible font. The hope is that the food industry would change their practices to
reflect the needs of so many of their consumers. This shift from focusing purely on output
and created a perspective of group effort towards facilitating an environment scarce of
challenges faced by both the allergy sufferer and the restaurant, the process of eating out
would become less time consuming and more efficient. This shift of focus from the

Katherine Riley

Riley 13

COMS 332
17 March 2015

individual or personal sphere to a collective effort discussed within the social sphere will
cause immense effects in the lives of all individuals involved.
You Messages & FARE Allergy Guide
You messages are prevalent throughout the entire allergy guide presented by
FARE despite the fact that the organization serves to educate individuals in ways to deal
with allergies. FARE claims that these educational materials, along with the extensive
resources on our website, www.foodallergy.org, are designed to equip you with the
knowledge you need to actively manage food allergies (p. 3). The checklist found on the
first page of information provides a list of things the individual should do to help you
manage (p. 5) your allergies. Although not directly related to ordering out, the section,
which outlines recommendations for purchasing products with allergy restrictions
additionally, utilizes you messages. This section states manufacturers are not required
to warn you if the product is processed on lines or in a facility with any other food (p.
12). The only recommendation the article is able to offer is that consumers can call the
manufacturer (p. 12) despite the fact that manufacturers often do not wish to, disclose
this information. Again, the responsibility is solely placed on the consumer with little aid
beyond urging them to read all product labels carefully before purchasing and
consuming any item and to be aware of any unexpected sources of allergens (p. 12).
However, these recommendations seem difficult to follow when we just read how labels
do not always contain all information someone with allergies will need to know. The
dining out with food allergies section, which is most important for understanding the
nature of the discourse used by Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, PF Changs China Bistro
and Outback Steakhouse, provides even more areas of contention than the
recommendations for reading labels. FARE recommends particular actions the individual
could take when selecting an establishment, preparing to dine out and when the
individual is at the actual restaurant. There are even recommendations for ordering food,
with the disclaimer that sometimes, the safest choice is to avoid eating, enjoy the
company of friends, and find a safe meal somewhere else afterwards (Your Food Allergy
Field Guide, 16). Not only is this unhelpful when trying to live a normal lifestyle but

Katherine Riley

Riley 14

COMS 332
17 March 2015

this option may be unrealistic when an individual with allergies cannot simply go home
and cook. Additionally, this reinforces the idea that social passing is no longer possible
for these individuals. Are these artifacts actually achieving what they were written to
reach?
Functionality
Even though the dominating you messages throughout these artifacts provide a
challenge to this specific group, there are some additional factors worth mentioning
which determine the functionality of such materials and consequently the discourses
embedded within them.
Menu Functionality
Although the interactive menu, The Customizer, used by Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers provides an innovative platform for finding information about the menu, there
are more aspects than the domination of you messages throughout the menu, legal
information and disclaimers that perpetuate the allergy sufferers problem. The intention
of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers to meet the needs of their customers fall short as the The
Customizer only provides an exhaustive process to finding nutrition and allergy
information with no end result. Once a meal has been created there is no way to order it.
Even though this menu seems useful for educating consumers about the restaurants
options, there is little applicability of this information since the application does not allow
you to order through the system. Not to mention that you just spent thirty minutes
manually editing every possible ingredient of existing menu selections even though your
allergy was a pre-set option. Shouldnt there be an easier way to eat safely without going
through this process every time you wish to eat? Therefore this orientation of information
is unhelpful. It hinders the success of such individuals because the end result is still the
same- allergy sufferers must take responsibility to find a way to order food they can
safely consume by asking questions in person at the restaurant or over the phone before
dining out.
P.F. Changs China Bistro provides additional challenges to allergy sufferers

Katherine Riley

Riley 15

COMS 332
17 March 2015

through contradicting messages and blatant disregard for other allergies, revealing the
companys carelessness towards helping allergy sufferers. In addition to the dominance of
you messages in their disclaimers and separation of the menu from the rest of the
regular one, we notice that the only allergen that is offered is gluten-free. Even though
P.F. Changs China Bistro mentions using all allergens in their kitchen, gluten is the only
one that has pre-existing menu selections consumers may choose. Also, from previous
experience, if you have an allergy to dairy, for example, you must call the restaurant in
advance, ask to speak with the manager, explain your situation, make a reservation and
have the kitchen set aside the proteins you wish to consume so they are not marinated.
This process cannot be done the same day because they pre-marinate everything before
opening. This is only one example of the ways in which individuals with allergies
continuously face obstacles that require initiative and time to overcome. The nonexistence of other allergens on the menu further hinders the aims of these individuals,
reinforcing how underrepresented this group has become within the restaurant industry.
P.F. Changs China Bistros menu could put a lactose intolerant person at risk if that
individual did not explicitly ask about the meal they wish to consume. Since these
restaurants hide so much information from allergy sufferers through the vague discourses
provided, it becomes the job of the allergy sufferer to become a skeptical consumer. Thus,
allergy sufferers are forced to ask about all potential elements of a dish that may include
even a trace of their allergen. These allergens can hide in sauces, marinades and even
ingredients of pre-purchased packaged components of recipes. Most do not even think to
ask these questions and experience damaging effects after requesting a seemingly safe
meal. Additionally, this information that allergy sufferers are forced to request is often
unknown to the server, not recorded or tracked and therefore takes time and effort to
receive accurate help from the restaurant staff. This forces allergy sufferers to rely on
their server to provide a safe meal when the restaurant staff may not have previous
knowledge, training or even the correct tools to provide safe meals. These issues
reinforce how inefficient current restaurant practices and discourses are in helping allergy
sufferers order food safely and enjoy the social aspects of dining out.

Katherine Riley

Riley 16

COMS 332
17 March 2015

Although Outback Steakhouses menu contains an overwhelming amount of

you messages and only accounts for gluten-free just like P.F. Changs China Bistro, the
way allergy discourse is presented reinforces this burden on the individual. Outback
Steakhouses gluten-free menu is not posted on their website and is not a part of their
regular menu. It must be requested at the restaurant or found on third-party websites. This
means that after searching for a gluten-free menu on Outback Steakhouses website and
finding only their regular menu, you must Google Gluten free menu Outback
Steakhouse where you can find a PDF of the menu under Google images. This long
exhaustive process intensifies the amount of work allergy sufferers are expected to deal
with, just to dine at their restaurant. This further reinforces how careless these companies
are, lowing their credibility as cognizant allergen-free food providers. Additionally, the
cluttered presentation of the analyzed restaurant menus further enforces this burden on
the individual. As allergy sufferers are forced to decipher through the recommendations
of each food establishment, they must also take specific action to ensure their meal is
prepared correctly. Through the use of comments crammed near meal options in bright
red font, this burden is illuminated. Despite Outback Steakhouses aims to help allergy
sufferers with this organization, this format coupled with the rhetoric used, hinders the
ability for individuals with allergies to ensure safety when eating out.
All of the menus analyzed revealed rhetoric and stylistic features that provided
faults contradicting their aims. The thin typeface and small font of disclaimers reinforces
these companies lack of support and credibility concerning allergies. Additionally, meal
prices were not included on any of these menus, forcing allergy sufferers to reference the
normal menu in addition to the gluten-free menu to figure out how much their meal
costs. This, along with many other aspects discussed, reveals how little responsibility
food providers take for and how much extra work is placed on allergy sufferers group.
FARE Allergy Guide Functionality
The allergy guide provided by FARE also provides gaps in their suggestions for
allergy sufferers dealing with the rhetorical situation. This document recommends that
individuals with allergies should talk to everyone (p. 17) and ask what is in your dish

Katherine Riley

Riley 17

COMS 332
17 March 2015

and how it is prepared (p. 17) but the document doesnt account for the problems that
arise when the staff members of the restaurant have no knowledge about your problem,
how to accommodate you or why you even have these restrictions in the first place
(Your Food Allergy Field Guide). This document purely focuses on the allergy
sufferers, eliminating responsibility from food companies, giving them the power in this
situation. This underlying support of hegemony perpetuates conflict within the rhetorical
situation and disproportionately represents the needs of allergy sufferers.
Evaluation
The discourse used to discuss allergy management strips power from food
providers and assumes that responsibility must solely derive from the food allergy
sufferer, specifically within the personal sphere. However, this orientation curbs the
ability of these individuals to engage in social passing, highlighted by the domination of
this hegemony through the use of you messages and other stylistic devices, hindering
the overall functionality of these artifacts. These rhetorical devices govern the discourse
surrounding issues of food allergy management, further perpetuating unhealthy
ramifications for both the allergy sufferer as well as participants within the food and
restaurant industry. Through the analysis of these rhetorical devices, their role within the
four artifacts analyzed and the effects they create within the context of dining out, it is
clear that these implications are not only unethical but additionally reflect a
disproportionate balance of power. Therefore, education and awareness of these rhetorical
devices and their implications are extremely important, especially within the context of
the allergy sufferers challenge, to minimizing these immoral and life-altering
implications. As awareness increases and this issue is understood through the lens of this
marginalized group, a collective can form in advocacy for reform. Individual
advancement towards the goal of minimizing dominance of power that damages the
health and social lifestyles of millions of people can begin at any time. By altering the
way we think and speak about allergy management, accountability for these issues may
be shifted away from the allergy sufferer. Instead we can advocate for change in the

Katherine Riley

Riley 18

COMS 332
17 March 2015

process of preparing, ordering and manufacturing food and begin to perceive health as a
public problem- tackled effectively as a collective.
Conclusion
Through the application of Standpoint Criticism, an enlightened perspective
towards the allergy sufferers challenge presents itself. Analysis of three gluten-free
menus and one supplemental allergy guide revealed that the rhetorical concepts of
ideology, personal and political spheres and social passing caused unethical implications.
Such repercussions were presented through the domination of you messages hindering
the functionality of the problems such discourses were created to eliminate. These
immoral implications created by these three rhetorical devices highlight the powerful role
such tools hold. These hegemonic ideologies behind allergy discourses become immoral
through the ways that they impact the ability of allergy sufferers to live a social and
healthy lifestyle, this perspective must be challenged. Therefore, through the
understanding of rhetorics role in perpetuating the allergy sufferers plight, we may
begin to share and apply this knowledge to other situations and on a much broader scale.
Although the allergy sufferer challenge, to order food safely without serious
health or social repercussions, may not seem to directly affect your life, as a participant in
discourse concerning allergies, you help create this framework of culture that essentially
determines the ideologies that become fundamental to creating these challenges. Whether
you actively realize this or not, you engage in placing this burden on this group simply by
functioning under a hegemonic ideology. By accepting this popular viewpoint you help
perpetuate these problems. Therefore, by understanding the power that rhetoric plays in
this situation, on this specific minority, you will be more aware of the ways in which your
actions oppresses this minority and therefore, be better able to avoid oppressing this
group, specifically by helping to decrease or eliminate these challenges.
Awareness towards the ways that restaurants, companies and manufacturers
minimize responsibility and accountability through the use of the analyzed rhetorical
devices, further reinforces the power that hegemony holds and the immoral structure of
many of these establishments. Therefore, we may begin to see the flaws presented in the

Katherine Riley

Riley 19

COMS 332
17 March 2015

structure and protocols of many companies. Within the restaurant industry, we can
interpret the efficiency of their service towards allergy management by analyzing the
reliance and focus of discourses within the personal sphere. This reinforces the notion
that allergy management cannot function effectively as a problem discussed solely within
the personal sphere. It must transcend the personal sphere and be viewed as an issue for
the entire community. This shift in agency towards the collective will increase the
accountability of food production, management and services. As a community aware of
these problems, we will become better equipped to tackle these challenges by actively
implementing programs and procedures to ensure the health and safety of all customers
and consumers.

Works Cited
Charles E. Morris III, Pink Herring & The Fourth Persona: J. Edgar Hoovers Sex Crime
Panic (2002)
"Customizer Hub." Red Robin Gourmet Burgers. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.redrobin.com/customizer_hub#_allergen>.
Gluten Free Menu Outback Steakhouse Web. 5 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.outback.com/docs/default-source/standard-menus/gluten-free.pdf>

Katherine Riley

Riley 20

COMS 332
17 March 2015

Goodnight, Thomas G. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. The Personal,

Technical, and Public Sphere of Argumentation. New York: Guilford, 1999.
Print.
"Facts and Statistics - Food Allergy Research & Education." Food Allergy Research &
Education. Web. 7 Feb. 2015. <http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats>.
Hedengren, M. (Director) (2014, November 13). Mere rhetoric: Habermas and the public
sphere. Habermas and the public sphere. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from
http://mererhetoric.libsyn.com/habermas-and-the-public-sphere
Kolodziejski, Lauren Ideological Criticism and Ideographs. California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo. 9 February 2015. Lecture.
Kolodziejski, Lauren Standpoint Criticism. California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo. 17 February 2015. Lecture.
"Menu - P.F. Chang's China Bistro." Menu - P.F. Chang's China Bistro. Web. 5 Feb.
2015. <http://www.pfchangs.com/menu/>.
"Standpoint Theory." Standpoint Theory. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
<http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0767430344/student_view0/chapter27/in
dex.html>.
"The Most Allergy-Friendly Restaurant Chains in America!" The Allergy Eats Blog.
Web. 5 Feb. 2015. <http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/the-most-allergyfriendly-restaurant-chains-in-america/>.
"The Standpoint Theory." Communication Theory RSS. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
<http://communicationtheory.org/the-standpoint-theory/>.
Your Food Allergy Field Guide Food Allergy Research & Education. Web. 7 Feb.
2015. <http://www.foodallergy.org/document.doc?id=263>

Katherine Riley
COMS 332
17 March 2015

Riley 21