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

reply to post by Hefficide

You are missing the point.

It is called cross contamination.

Anyone with a peanut allergy can attest to this.

That is why there are warning labels on foods.



This item doesn't have peanuts in them but can be just as dangerous.


Here are some ingredients that you want to stay away from to maintain a no-peanut diet:

Peanuts can show up in unsuspecting places, but they are especially prevalent in Chinese dishes, egg rolls, chocolates, candy bars, and pastries. If you can’t read the ingredients – don’t eat it!

Anything that says NUTS

From [url=http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-483-PEANUT%20OIL.aspx?activeIngredientId=483&activeIngredientName=PEANUT%20OIL]WebMD[/ur l]

WebMD
In manufacturing, peanut oil is used in skin care products and baby care products.

To actually say we are doing this to protect the children. All nut products that are either unknown were they are processed or processed with peanuts would have to be banned.

All skin care products that are either unknown to contain peanut products or known to contain peanut products would have to be banned.

That would be the point.

It truly is not just a sammich (sandwich) issue.

reply to post by HIWATT


Did you read the original OP sir, the issue is surrounding the ban of peanut products and yes it is fair to polarize the issue and it breaks down into these two extremes.


You either ban peanuts or you allow for the potential for peanut related deaths or health issues,

reply to post by froglette


Agreed. And that is a separate issue to address. Companies tend to use peanuts and peanut oil for a lot of things because it's cheap. If pressure mounts for them to find a less dangerous alternative then they will bow to pressure. The reality of America is that the votes we make with our wallets mean a LOT more than the votes we make at polling places.

~Heff

reply to post by kaylaluv


obstaining from the difficult questions is not an option.

Within the context of the OP there are only two options available. If the policy had posed something to the effect; More safeties to be put in place around Peanut products, then yes you have a point. But i am afraid to say it is one option or the other.

I understand i have put you in a position here, but the question is valid.

This is not really a new issue in schools. My daughter is 22 now and from kindergarten forward school policy to protect students with severe peanut allergies was banning peanut butter, peanut oils and any homemade snacks for birthdays and such. If the parent wanted to bring something it had to have store listed ingredients on it and be in sealed packages.

No one really had any problems with it

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...

That's a sneaky way to put the question. Is not OUR job to take care of these kids. It's not like they are mentally disabled and abandoned on the side of the road to die, for heaven's sake, it's just lunch.

If it's a matter of life and death, those kids shouldn't be in a school, amongst healthy kids.

Children with special needs should not set the rule for all the children. Give them special attention and facilities, yes, but don't force everyone to behave like disabled when they are not, for the sake of a small percent.

Diabetics never asked for sugar and sugar products to be banned from schools or public institution. Why would allergics deserve a special treatment?

So the answer is no ban of peanuts, clearly. Alert the teachers to watch for those kids, teach the kid to eat only his food, and let the other kids be. Very soon being healthy or normal, and not asking all the time for special privileges will be seen as a disability.

reply to post by WhiteHat

That's a sneaky way to put the question

Yes, it is meant to finalize the debate

Diabetics never asked for sugar and sugar products to be banned from schools or public institution. Why would allergics deserve a special treatment?

Diabetic complications are not necessarily the result from physical contact (not including injestion). Allergies can be triggered by far more removed mediums such as smell, or any kind of residuals.

There is a big differance in my opinion

Edit: Will have only enough time to reply to one more comment until later. Just FYI

Originally posted by MDDoxs

reply to post by WhiteHat

 

That's a sneaky way to put the question

Yes, it is meant to finalize the debate

In a sneaky way?
Well, what about the small minority of kids with problems to set the rule for all kids?
I remember that lowering the standards so everyone fits, and "no student is left behind" didn't work very well. Now we should all give up specific foods because some of us do no tolerate it?

reply to post by MDDoxs

And what if you kid only eats PBJ...and that is what you can afford?

There should be places to eat what little Johnny and little Janey wants.
The majority have rights. too.

This seems like a reasonable solution
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As i stated many pages back i am playing the part of devils advocate here.

Out of the context of the OP either to ban or no ban, i chose to argue for ban. This was for fun you see.

I know there is a lot of middle ground and i would agree that those solutions would probably be better. I am just arguing the less popular position. Though i did see some concerned parents chime in in favor of my position.

Further, i decided to stick two the two option paradigm with regards to this topic and have tried to stick to my guns in that sense. If a third, middle ground position was allowed, i knew my argument was doomed.

All in good fun people. I hope to spur more critical thinking on everyone’s part, that topics such as these are not so clear cut!

I reduced the discussion down to a two question answer, because i felt it was the best way to illustrate my point.

In conclusion, i appreciate everyone’s participating and i enjoyed it thoroughly and isn’t that what ATS is all about, denying ignorance and having fun while doing it

My own actual personal belief is that some middle ground position would be the best fit and donttradonme pointed out something to this effect.

Best wishes to all

MDDoxs

At my kids school there is a specific lunch table for the peanut allergic students.

They are segregating our children! ATTICA! ATTICA! ... jk ...

It's a workable solution IMO

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by MDDoxs

 

And what if you kid only eats PBJ...and that is what you can afford?

There should be places to eat what little Johnny and little Janey wants.
The majority have rights. too.

This seems like a reasonable solution
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Have separate tables for the peanut-eaters. Anyone not eating peanuts, regardless of allergies, sits at different tables. Rights AND safety, co-existing.

More than 3 million people in the United States report being allergic to peanuts, tree nuts or both. (AAAAI)
Approximately 1% of the U.S. population has a peanut allergy (Sicherer, SH, "Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US...")

Sooooo, 99 percent of the kids should give up their rights so the defective one percent aren't inconvenienced?

If your kid is so deathly allergic to peanuts, keep him away from peanuts. It's not everyone else's fault.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
As i stated many pages back i am playing the part of devils advocate here.

Out of the context of the OP either to ban or no ban, i chose to argue for ban. This was for fun you see.

I know there is a lot of middle ground and i would agree that those solutions would probably be better. I am just arguing the less popular position. Though i did see some concerned parents chime in in favor of my position.

Further, i decided to stick two the two option paradigm with regards to this topic and have tried to stick to my guns in that sense. If a third, middle ground position was allowed, i knew my argument was doomed.

All in good fun people. I hope to spur more critical thinking on everyone’s part, that topics such as these are not so clear cut!

I reduced the discussion down to a two question answer, because i felt it was the best way to illustrate my point.

In conclusion, i appreciate everyone’s participating and i enjoyed it thoroughly and isn’t that what ATS is all about, denying ignorance and having fun while doing it

My own actual personal belief is that some middle ground position would be the best fit and donttradonme pointed out something to this effect.

Best wishes to all

MDDoxs

edit on 14-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

You sneaky thing, you. You agreed with me the whole time. Sometimes black or white just doesn't work though, does it?

reply to post by kaylaluv


Haha, no it does not. It especially to argue that things are black and white. There is always varying degrees. I appreciate the discussion

reply to post by James1982


So are they still going to serve milk to students, even though some of them are lactose intolerant?

reply to post by James1982


Double post.

It's really remarkable to me how poorly constructed the analogies are in this thread.

Anaphylaxis is not the same as substantial discomfort...

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by MDDoxs

 

This seems like a reasonable solution
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


I was one of those poor kids - I got free school lunch. FTR I think I'd have enjoyed the taste of PB&J more ( except for pizza day ) but I hesitate admitting this for fear that it will undermine my own debate position.

~Heff