When I was four years old, I bit into half of a cashew and had to be immediately rushed to the hospital. For those like me with anaphylactic allergies, coming into contact with an allergen is a serious matter. In about 20 minutes, I can go into complete cardiac arrest without proper help.

McDonald’s is one of those places that I’ve always gone to because it’s there, it’s easy, and it’s safe. The fact that I, among millions of others, now literally risk my life by eating there is quite a turn off.

McDonald’s has gone nuts. By that, I mean they’ve gone the way that so many restaurants have, by becoming an area contaminated by allergens. Because of new items that require them to stock non-packaged nuts — namely, the almonds for the Skor McFlurry — the rest of the menu is now under a warning for potential cross-contamination with allergens.

McDonald’s Canada’s decision to bring unsealed nuts into a once-safe environment will affect millions of people negatively, including myself. In an increasingly accepting society, this policy seems to be moving backward, closing off an entire demographic from the consumer base. Anyone who knows a person with severe allergies, they will understand that this is a big deal for those who have to constantly monitor their food.

For those who may not be able to understand the seriousness of the situation, picture this: you go on a road trip with some friends, and as you are nearing exhaustion you decide to get food. McDonald’s is, of course, the easy option which litters every city.  You go in and order a Big Mac and some fries and sit down to eat your glorious meal.

After taking only one bite, you start to feel as if something is stuck in your throat and when you take a drink or cough, it doesn’t stop. Kids from the PlayPlace are screaming, and that’s when you notice it: there are little pieces of Skor bar accidentally in your burger. Mayhem ensues.

This may seem like a far-fetched, dramatic example, but for those who have allergies, it can be a very real nightmare. McDonald’s used to be a safe haven of a fast-food restaurant. Shoving the allergy community out the doors so a few people can enjoy a Skor McFlurry and feel a little more fancy is a poor decision from a business perspective.

Millions of people in North America alone have a nut allergy; the Skor McFlurry is just one item out of of many, and one that is not likely to bring in a comparable number of new customers on its own. In other words, the number of people McDonald’s attracts with this is far less than the number they’re pushing away.

McDonald’s has placed a sign in their stores that clearly outlines the risk of nut contact to their customers. To those with severe allergies like myself, this kind of sign is a frequently-seen ‘NOT WANTED’ sign pointed directly at me. Perhaps that’s the idea – of course I’m glad to have the warning rather than the onset of allergy symptoms – but all the same, it feels awful to be essentially banished from somewhere which for so long has been one of few safe places.

This new policy is disappointing and frustrating. My immune system fights against nuts, and McDonald’s new, “inclusive” policy means I’ll have to stand at odds with the corporation too, as will all of the people who’ve now been excluded.

If there’s one big threat to a status quo, it’s the rise of competition that you can’t just sweep under the rug. When people see the holes in the way things are being run, it’s pretty much a given that somebody’s going to come out of the woodwork to try and take you down. Prime example: the mediocrity of taxicabs, targeted by the ascension of ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft.

This, understandably, is a threatening concept. When Uber started muscling in on taxicab territory, it was just a matter of time before the legal actions started going off.

A few months ago, the taxicab industry launched a $215 million lawsuit against Ottawa for allegedly not doing enough to defend their livelihoods. Similar cases have been cropping up across North America for the past couple of years in places like New York. Uber themselves faced upwards of 50 lawsuits in 2015 alone.

Don’t get me wrong; in a lot of respects, the way Uber does things is just a little bit shady. For instance, the whole dispute over just what Uber drivers are considered to be (Employees? Independent contractors? Random citizens linked up to give each other rides by a social media app?) has raised questions about how things like tax laws and labour laws should be applied to them and their company.

But the ethics behind how Uber runs their operation are a separate conversation. The problem I have is this: competitors are cropping up, and rather than this being an impetus for the taxicab industry to improve, it’s been a source of three-way conflict eating up time and money better spent elsewhere.

Taxis aren’t in danger because of Uber. They’re in danger because they’re stuck in a rut of conducting themselves the same way as they always have, partially through their own lack of change and partially because their municipal governments aren’t giving them the freedom to compete properly.

People like Uber for a lot of reasons: it’s cheaper, it tracks the car called to you, it’s often perceived to be faster, etc. If cities that enforce base charges upon taxis gave more freedom for the companies to decide their own rates and make other changes to compete with Uber drivers, we’d have a healthier system of different drivers competing and forcing each other to become better.

At the same time, there are plenty of simple ways for taxis to stay ahead of Uber that aren’t generally restricted by city laws — for instance, investigating the claims that Uber provides quicker pickup times and faster transport, establishing better communication between drivers and those getting picked up, and developing a stronger online presence.

I understand the frustrations faced by taxis right now, but firing off lawsuits like this isn’t the best. Not only does the deluge of legal actions make it harder and harder to take any one issue with Uber seriously, but it comes before any real concentrated efforts to improve. Beyond all that, people just aren’t likely to sympathize with taxis when they’re flat-out happier with Uber.

It doesn’t matter how many times taxis win their suits. Until they do their jobs better, they’ll always be fighting uphill battles. Both city governments and taxi companies need to take companies like Uber and Lyft as incentives to work together and be better.