What McDonald's doesn't realize, is that it's not just the 2% of Canadian's with the allergy that are affected by this change. Those 2% have friends, family members, colleagues, etc. who they eat with that are also affected. Someone who is eating lunch with someone that has an anaphylactic allergy should also NOT be eating nuts in the same vicinity, which means it's not just the 2% with the allergy that decide not to purchase McDonald's for their meal, it now jumps to a MINIMUM 4% (assuming that each person with the allergy is eating with only one other person...). Obviously 2% of the population was considered to be a reasonable tradeoff for McDonald's. The question is, where's the threshold that makes this a negative tradeoff for McDonald's? 4%? 5%? 10% of the Canadian population?