With all due respect, the offered suggestion is no less bullshit than your constant complaints both against the Quality and against any possible way of the GM making the quality impact the player. But hey, if the player wants to not eat, that's fine. Would you prefer me asking the player "Did you eat this morning? No? Why not?" then randomly determining whether they're currently starving? Sounds like a plenty fair approach if you're really insisting the GM cannot state the player has eaten something bad.
Besides, no work required and not forced upon the player? "Roll to see whether you piss off the Bouncer as you walk past him" is just as bad as "roll to see if you ate something bad". Targetting Elf/Ork Poser requires far more time than an allergy test and that at a mere 6 karma. Addictions require the player making clear to the GM he's getting his fix and the GM checking what that costs, this requires far more time than an allergy test. Checking when Uneducated might require the player to make a die roll requires far more GM time and even rolling time than an allergy check.
So if you want to claim bullshit, go right ahead but at that point I claim the right to claim bullshit regarding your attitude. Just because you WANT X, doesn't mean there's no decent arguments against X. Denying or ignoring them without proper support won't change any opinion here, all it does is make it seem as if you're unwilling to debate and are simply trying to push your own opinion through. Right now you don't sound to me like you actually believe it's not possible for a GM to target this fairly and not piss off the player, you more sound like you WANT it to be impossible because you're unwilling to admit any of your arguments might not be valid and your opinion might in fact not be supported enough to be convincing.
Aside from ignoring many counter-arguments and simply insisting a GM cannot target Quality X in a fair and short way despite any examples given to the contrary, I note you have not yet told Bull to explicitly forbid Food Allergies for Missions. If you really believed beyond a doubt that this should NOT be Missions legal period, rather than it being up to the Missions GMs to determine (as the rules state about character audits) and there being plenty support for it being okay and targettable, then you would have long ago gone off and posted in Bull's topic that Food Allergies should be explicitly forbidden. Since you, despite repeated urging, have no interest at doing so I see no use in debating with someone who doesn't just not listen, but also doesn't seem to actually believe in their own arguments enough to convince the guy that matters.
- - -
Short summary: I see no reason to forbid Food Allergies for Missions, as long as it follows the requirements of being easy for the GM to introduce. The common examples listed in the rules seem perfectly fine, and with other ones and uncommon ones I'd simply check whether I consider them plausible and targettable. Any character who comes to me with an Allergy fitting the official requirements I will not fail when performing Character Audits. Seafood (including Krill) and Soy I consider Common and targettable, and thus will not forbid. I have seen no reliable arguments to the contrary that have withstood counter-argumentation and I do not think any player taking it will make objections when I target their negative Quality, as long as I do not do so beyond reason. They are perfectly according to the guidelines that the Missions temp FAQ has put forth, and I will not defy the official Missions and SR5 rules, as is my duty as Agent.
