I don't understand what the problem was here. If you're allergic to tuna, don't order a dish that contains tuna. Substitutions to accommodate an allergy are nice but are certainly not required.

As for peanuts, restaurants serve them because they're delicious and most of their customers enjoy them. We shouldn't take this away from people just because some people are allergic. If you're allergic to peanuts, you should avoid ordering dishes that contain peanuts, not somehow expect all restaurants to avoid serving them in the first place.

There are legitimate complaints here. Some restaurants simply don't take this stuff seriously, and either don't take precautions against contamination or just outright ignore allergy-related requests. But expecting them to go beyond keeping allergens out of dishes that aren't supposed to contain them is odd.

English restaurants have to by law know about a range of allergens and to provide that information to anyone who asks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30395142

> "We'd both like the chef's choice please. But no tuna for her, she's allergic to tuna."

> "No substitutions!"

They're probably doing the right thing there. You've said that she risks death if she eats tuna. That then becomes the most important thing to them. Keeping the "no tuna" part of your order correct through the various parts of the kitchen is tricky. It's worth it if an error means a bit of grumbling; it's not worth it if an error means a noisy visable death and ambo call out and press coverage.

> Why aren't the people who work in restaurants concerned about food allergies?

IME, they tend to be. If you let them know about them, they will let you know if various menu items contain the thing that is the subject of the allergy.

That doesn't mean that they will always modify menu items (especially things like "chef's choice") to account for them. And, while its nice if they would, I don't see why one should be surprised that they don't -- expecting people to order something they aren't allergic to from the menu doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you're allergic to tuna, you shouldn't eat at a sushi restaurant.

That was the very first time in her entire life she had eaten sushi.

She was depending on me to ensure she wasn't killed by her supper.

> My concern though was that her allergy might be so bad that just having a little tuna juice on her plate, or for her other sushi to be cut on the same chopping board or with the same knife as the sushi could kill her.

I think that would be their concern, too. If they gave you a meal and didn't add the tuna, how can they ensure that every station, utensil, and dish hasn't touched something contaminated by tuna? They probably can't.