Children are banned from eating Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches at school

reply to post by kaylaluv


Wow this is certainly a change in your tune from a few pages ago.

I am glad you are coming a bit to our side of the field

No one said equality was easy, but making a few compremises here and there will ensure all of use can have a safe and enjoyable time.

reply to post by kaylaluv

How about having a "peanut" table, where only the children who have brought pb&j sandwiches sit? There would probably be more of them, so they wouldn't feel like outcasts, and the allergic kids eat with the kids who aren't eating peanut products that day. My daughter only eats a peanut butter about once a week, so most times she would eat with the allergic kids.

Forgive me for playing devils advocate, but the allergic kids would still have to worry about coming into contact with stray particles of PB from the PB eaters hands due to cross contamination.

If the school bans peanut products completely, the allergic kids just have to worry about contaminated hands of the kids that made their own PB sandwich before coming to school. That, and every inch of the big world out there where PB isn't banned.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


FTR: I don't agree with overhanded legislation. And many rules now present in public schools are laughable. I am merely advocating for a rule I feel is rational. If we can, as citizens, work out which rules make sense and which are too overbearing in scope, then we can use our voices in voting and PTA meetings to try and find a more even keeled approach to how schools operate.

~Heff

Originally posted by HIWATT
That explosive increase in allergic reactions by a specific segment of our population is extremely suspicious to me. When I was in school this was almost completely unheard of.

Well as you know there are 10 million theories regarding that. One is that the kids now live in a much more sterile environment, less exposed to irritants when they are very young, so the system does not adapt.

I'm also very suspicious of the fact that in modern agriculture the DNA diversity is gone. Fifty years ago, there were many varieties of cultivars, now in case of bananas there is pretty much one. Or two. Same applies to tomatoes etc.

So if a particular food accidentally acquires allergen properties, they tend to stick around.

Originally posted by HIWATT

It was posted earlier there has been an 18% increase in allergies in the last 10 years in school age children ( !?

)

The wonders of science changing in real-time:

Scientists have developed a new more accurate test for peanut allergy after finding that eight out of ten children who previously tested positive were not in fact allergic to the nut.

link

Crazy. That's an 80% rate of misdiagnosis.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If your kid knows he has to take a pill/injection at a certain time and can take that pill/injection when he's not in school why is he suddenly relegated to dullard status once inside the school and subjected to administrative supervision and oversight?

LITIGATION

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Wow this is certainly a change in your tune from a few pages ago.

I am glad you are coming a bit to our side of the field

No one said equality was easy, but making a few compremises here and there will ensure all of use can have a safe and enjoyable time.

I never said they should be forced to eat right next to each other. I still believe that if a child wants to eat a pb& j sandwich from home, they should be allowed to. And if separate tables still bother a parent, then it's up to the parent to do something about it (take the child out of school), not up to the school to ban all pb&j sandwiches. So, no, I haven't really changed my tune.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Guess i was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My apologies.

Specific tables, specific classes, whats next specific camps?

Slippery slop i know, but you seem to be hell bent on segregating the kids. You seem to have more of a concern of lunch time sandwiches then the health and well being of your fellow citizens.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Guess i was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My apologies.

Specific tables, specific classes, whats next specific camps?

Slippery slop i know, but you seem to be hell bent on segregating the kids. You seem to have more of a concern of lunch time sandwiches then the health and well being of your fellow citizens.

If I can interject on that note... I think the objections in this matter have something to do with "the rights of the few outweighing the rights of the many"

People get bent out of shape when concessions are made for a small segment of the population that affects them directly.

This is focused on peanut butter because it's the most common allergen apparently but what about... strawberries?

One child is a allergic to strawberries, one to peanut butter.
The child who enjoys peanut butter can't have it because the kid sitting next to him is allergic... yet that same kid next to him is happily enjoying a bowl of strawberries.

Slippery slope indeed.

reply to post by Hefficide


It is voluntary. Plain and simple. That would be why there is home schooling. That would be another choice in education.

We are not dirt poor, but close. We chose to home school our oldest for a year, because that was what was in his best interest. We didn't hire tutors or have private anything. Libraries offer good solid curriculums for home schooling and it is free.

The argument that is not voluntary because your mother is a better debater than you is not very solid.

But that is off the subject of the OP.

The parent of a child sent a meal in for their child. The school took offense of the PB&J and took the kids sandwich away. That said child might eat said sandwich and another totally different child might be allergic to the sandwich of the first child. The school had a policy of not serving peanut products in trying to provide a safe environment for children.

The problem lies within the school taking a lunch away from a child that their parents provided in order to protect one child from another sandwich.

Sorry in my book, that is way ridiculous.

Life is not fair, if it was, then no child would have an allergy( could go on and on about that list, but I'll stop here).

Growing up is about learning to deal with the life you have been dealt. It can be a severe issue, no doubt. But the taking away of another child's food is not acceptable.

Peanut products are not just in food and if this were truly the reason for this then any and all peanut products would have to be banned. Lotions, lip balms..etc.

the reason for this label "manufactured/packaged in a facility with peanuts" is that many facilities deal with many different products, usually nuts. So then all nuts would have to be banned.

reply to post by James1982


This is a tough one and I've been reading the arguments on all sides for some time.

I agree banning peanuts makes little sense and likely will have the effect of placing these children at greater risk because of a false sense of security about managing their life-threatening allergy.

For me, on this subject, there seems to be a simple answer...

Rather than banning nuts or moving the children with allergies elsewhere, have nut-permissible lunch zones. In other words, move the children who want nut products in their lunches to another area on the days where they plan to eat them.

In my view, that would accommodate everyone involved. It allows for nut-based lunches...it improves protection for the children with the allergy...and eliminates the potential stigma of adopting a policy that singles out the children with these life-threatening conditions.

I abhor unnecessary governmental restrictions on matters like this, but I'm also a parent.

If I were wearing those shoes (fortunately we don't have this problem), I'd want to know that my son had all of the help possible to avoid something that might actually kill him.

reply to post by froglette


Banning all nuts isn't the issue. Peanut allergies are by far and away the biggest culprit for nut allergies. Comparing them to say cashews is irrational because allergies are much less frequent.

As it happens, we are discussing the number one food allergy. Not a very minor one.

If public schools somehow manage to become profitable and end up with gads of money, we might find ourselves debating crab and lobster allergies too. It's just not likely to happen.

~Heff

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Guess i was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My apologies.

Specific tables, specific classes, whats next specific camps?

Slippery slop i know, but you seem to be hell bent on segregating the kids. You seem to have more of a concern of lunch time sandwiches then the health and well being of your fellow citizens.

Exactly - what is next - banning peanuts from the world? What is to stop a kid from eating peanut butter on his waffle for breakfast at home, and wiping his peanut butter fingers on his pants -- then going to school with said peanut butter on his pants? My daughter used to eat peanut butter spread on top of a whole grain muffin for breakfast all the time. I could make her wash her hands, but sometimes we were rushed and she didn't wash. Even if she did wash, she often wiped her hands on her pants first, and I didn't always catch it.

The fact is, you cannot get rid of peanuts from every place on earth, and peanut residue is bound to show up anywhere, anyplace, anytime -- even in a nut-free school. If an allergic child is taught to be careful, and has the tools to deal with an attack, they should be okay. If a child is so sensitive that they have an attack walking past a kid that ate peanut butter for breakfast, well - that is truly sad, because that child probably needs to live in a bubble.

And there isn't one gigantic table at school lunch, so there has to be separate tables anyway, right? There has to be some separation, so might as well separate by foods eaten as any other reason.

I think the slippery slope is dictating to parents what their child is allowed to eat or not eat. I don't want any school telling me that my daughter is now not allowed to eat peanut butter even at home, because peanut residue might remain on her hands or clothing. I see that as the next step in all this.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I am pleasantly surprised how long this debate has continued but i would like to boil it down to a yes or no question posed to you.

Is your child rights to have a Peanut butter sandwich at school more important then the lives and and welfare of other students who need to go to the same school?

If you answer no, then you understand where i am coming from, if you answer yes well, thats for another thread to debate...

I don't think it's the peanuts they are "allergic" to. I think what they are experiencing is a reaction to aflotoxin, which is in just about all peanuts and peanut products. That's why you didn't see this a couple of generations ago.

Meanwhile, I am allergic to watermelons, and I feel the cold hand of oppression and discrimination on my shoulder. Watermelons should be banned at schools, just like peanuts. Anything less is discrimination against us watermelon-challeneged people.

I remember when my kids were in grade school. The school banned the bringing of cupcakes to school so a class could celebrate a birthday. Why? Because the kids in other classes might feel left out because THEY didn't get a cupcake!

finally, the one thing I miss from grade school:

getting full funds from the rents and getting a reduced cost pb&j at skool in order to have the rest towards the puffage.

oh when the world was soo much easier...

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I am pleasantly surprised how long this debate has continued but i would like to boil it down to a yes or no question posed to you.

Is your child rights to have a Peanut butter sandwich at school more important then the lives and and welfare of other students who need to go to the same school?

If you answer no, then you understand where i am coming from, if you answer yes well, thats for another thread to debate...

My answer is that there is no reason you cannot have both. My child's rights to eat what she wants, separation of peanut eaters, and allergic kids having the skills and tools to deal with any accidental exposure. That's a win/win in my opinion.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I am pleasantly surprised how long this debate has continued but i would like to boil it down to a yes or no question posed to you.

Is your child rights to have a Peanut butter sandwich at school more important then the lives and and welfare of other students who need to go to the same school?

If you answer no, then you understand where i am coming from, if you answer yes well, thats for another thread to debate...

My answer is that there is no reason you cannot have both. My child's rights to eat what she wants, separation of peanut eaters, and allergic kids having the skills and tools to deal with any accidental exposure. That's a win/win in my opinion.

That is not the question i posed, seeing as the ban is for the complete removal of the peanut product, no middle ground.

So i again pose the same question and require a yes or no.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I am pleasantly surprised how long this debate has continued but i would like to boil it down to a yes or no question posed to you.

Is your child rights to have a Peanut butter sandwich at school more important then the lives and and welfare of other students who need to go to the same school?

If you answer no, then you understand where i am coming from, if you answer yes well, thats for another thread to debate...

(interjecting... again )

Please see my last post.

You're unnecessarily polarizing the argument.

What about the "rights" of the kids allergic to strawberries? mango? banana? whole wheat bread? ..... should the "right" of that child to be "protected" from peanuts come at the expense of other children who happen to be allergic to what HE'S eating???

Doesn't matter if peanut allergies are most prevalent, as your argument seems to be based on the fact that allergies can kill. ANY allergies can kill.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by MDDoxs

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I am pleasantly surprised how long this debate has continued but i would like to boil it down to a yes or no question posed to you.

Is your child rights to have a Peanut butter sandwich at school more important then the lives and and welfare of other students who need to go to the same school?

If you answer no, then you understand where i am coming from, if you answer yes well, thats for another thread to debate...

My answer is that there is no reason you cannot have both. My child's rights to eat what she wants, separation of peanut eaters, and allergic kids having the skills and tools to deal with any accidental exposure. That's a win/win in my opinion.

That is not the question i posed, seeing as the ban is for the complete removal of the peanut product, no middle ground.

So i again pose the same question and require a yes or no.

Sorry, not playing by those rules. Rights and safety CAN co-exist in real life, whether you like it or not.