All peanutbutter at lunch banned to accomodate one child's allergy-Reasonable or not?

Great Debates
121

This is crazy. You’re asking strangers to now become nutritionists. A quick google on peanuts in foods gave me this list:

Terms that may mean the product contains peanut protein:

African, Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, Thai, and Vietnamese dishes
baked goods (pastries, cookies, etc.)
candy (including chocolate candy)
chili
egg rolls
enchilada sauce
flavorings (natural and artificial)
marzipan
nougat
sunflower seeds

If the child is that bad, I would imagine any one of these items would be dangerous to him. Why don’t we ban these? Why doesn’t the school, go to the supermarket…ALL AREA SUPERMARKETS, make a list of ALL the products that may contain peanuts and ban them all?

I mean we’re talking about a child’s life here, right?

God, I am so tired of parents willing to make the rest of society hop through a circus full of hoops, but are unwilling to do what has to be done to protect their children themselves.

Keep the child at home and don’t burden the rest of us…until he’s able to take care of himself. Enough with this.

Is a chocolate cupcake any less dangerous than a peanut butter sandwich in this case? If not, then you have to ban them…or what’s the point?

122

You can take my peanut butter sandwich when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
You know, I kinda feel sorry for George Washington Carver now.

123

I think the sanitization of this issue is ridiculous. Every day this country gets more and more ass backwards wasting everyone’s time that it makes me cry. I went to school with a kid with peanut allergies fifteen years ago. You know what the school did? THEY COORDINATED WITH THE PARENTS TO CARRY THE MEDICATION HE NEEDED IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. Ten years ago, this kid made it through his elementary school life without a probleml, and nobody had to stop eating PB&J sandwiches – a staple of children’s lunches. Funny, we managed to not inconvenience everyone a decade ago … nowadays everything has to be scrubbed clean and quarantined lest the parents take legislative action against the school for what could only be considered criminal negligence? What choice does the school have?

Next thing you know they’ll be hanging “THIS IS A PEANUT-FREE ESTABLISHMENT” signs right next to the "NO SMOKING - THIS IS A SMOKE-FREE BUILDING signs. And then they’ll ban perfumes, fabric softener, candy bars, and certain types of fruit juice. How’s this kid going to cope with going to the supermarket, a restaurant or bar, or any other local place? Oh, that’s right, he has to learn to cope with it on his own and learn to carry his medication like any other responsible person afflicted with the allergy has had to before he came onto the scene. And don’t say that because he’s a kid, he shouldn’t be obligated to have that kind of responsibility. The kid I mentioned carried his medication with him when he was in second grade. What makes the child in this case the exception? His parents are lawyers? :: rolls eyes ::

There used to be a saying no longer has any application in America: “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. Now we must slow down to address the needs of everyone, at the expense of those who aren’t responsible. This is not an issue that should be taken out on the child’s classmates. This is an issue that the school and the parents should address on their own, just as it used to be done.

124

4 years ago, I met a woman who had an allergy to soybean oil. This meant that if she ate anything made with vegetable oil or vegetable shortening, she’d swell up to the point where the condition could become life-threatening.

Do you have any idea how many food products are made with soybean oil? The list is staggering. Everything that includes “partially hydrogenated soybean oil” in its ingredients list could make her swell up. This includes just about every kind of cookie and cracker on store shelves, most Chinese food, anything made from Crisco, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

If you think banning all peanut products to accomodate one kindergartener’s peanut allergies is a logistical nightmare, wait’ll some little kid comes along with a soybean oil allergy!

125

I took the day off work to walk my children to school yesterday (my son’s first day at school) and they do indeed have ‘peanut free zone’ signs all over the place, but as I said earlier, peanuts aren’t so beloved a dietary component over here, so nobody is up in arms about it.

126

Moderator’s Note: Please watch the personal insults outside of the BBQ Pit.

127

Believe me, I’ve been finding out just how many things have peanuts in them. But asking parents to refrain from packing peanut-butter sandwiches, nut snacks, and Reese’s candy really would take care of the majority of the problem, as long as the kid in question isn’t wantonly food-sharing (which the teacher/aide is supposed to watch out for). I can’t let my kid eat yogurt raisins that have been processed with nut snacks, but I wouldn’t expect the sticky residue or the airborne particles to be a problem, because most of those types of products would contain only the tiniest amount of nut. Peanut butter, however, is very strong stuff which gets everywhere.

There is no such thing as a 100% safe environment, and I doubt that the parents expect that. But taking plain peanut butter out of the equation lessens the risk enormously.

As for the nurse aide in the OP, I don’t know enough about the situation to comment, but I would expect her to be capable of acting as an aide as well. The big movement in American schools for the past 15 years or so has been to mainstream every kid who can possibly be mainstreamed, and some who probably would be better off in a special school. No, this is not efficient. But the powers-that-be have decided that it is important, and that’s how it’s going to be for the next few years, at least.

And we can’t force these people to homeschool. Saying that they should is not particularly helpful, since apparently they have decided that they can’t or won’t. Homeschooling is IMO a great thing and we’re considering it ourselves, but it’s also a huge undertaking that not everyone can handle or even consider.

Oh, for pete’s sake. Most parents do try to protect their children themselves. But we can’t do everything, and we need some help. And I had always understood that society is set up partly so that people can help each other have better and safer lives. I have no guilt about asking the parent’s in my child’s nursery school class to keep her allergies in mind when providing snacks for the class. Obviously I monitor the snacks anyway, but it helps to eliminate the probablility that peanut butter and walnuts will be the snack for the day.

The characterization of parents as either criminally negligent or criminally overprotective is getting a little old. We do our best, and that’s about all we can do. We’re not perfect, but neither are you.

128

Experience of many communicable diseases (most obvious being chicken pox) at an early age can either prevent or lessen the affects of the same or similar diseases in adults. Just because handwashing lowers the amount of sick days the kids experience, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are ‘healthier’ overall, and may in fact be in danger of dying of a severe flu later in life because their immune system didn’t get enough practice on moderate flus early on.

This isn’t to say that I am against handwashing. Just that I am against the OCD level which most ‘Health Conscious’ parents tend to force on their kids nowadays. Oh, and Anti-bacterial soap should in general be avoided, or used sparingly, for individuals not exposed to high risk (like nurses/doctors, et cetera).

129

Who’s talking perfection…? I WOULD NOT demand that the entire school FORCE other parents to cater to the dietary needs of my child. If I can’t trust my kid to protect themselves, then I have a problem. But I realize it’s my problem not yours.

Yes, I would love to have parents tell their children not to feed my kids gluten, but I don’t expect or demand that they don’t. I expect my my kids, the same way the religious members of my family either bring their own food to family functions or they don’t eat.

It’s our burden. period.

There’s been several posters who have dealt with the same problem, without forcing the school system to restrict what other parents feed their kids. No homeschooling, no demands, just being prepared and teaching their kids to be responsible.

Are they super kids? Were their parent’s special? No, they simply played the hand they were dealt, without having to resort to “looking at the other player’s cards…”

I have a neighbor whose husband had left her, and she was too proud to ask for Welfare or any public assitance. She and her kids lived on peanut butter and pasta for months while she looked for a better paying job. That’s all she could afford.

What about her? She should be forced to go to public assistance, to beg for a handout, to be a burden on society…because one kid can’t have peanuts?

Would you have any guilt for her kids? Or would you call social services and have her kids removed…?

130

And you know what’s really ironic?

There’s some evidence that exposure to bacteria at an early age can lessen your chances of developing allergies later on!!

131

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TeaElle *
** it’s the loss of the instructional aide so that the school could hire the nurse just to monitor the classroom to protect this one child.

The state has a $38 billion dollar deficit ($56 billion or more, depending on whose figures one uses). Janitors, aides, administrators, part time educators, emergency credentialed teachers, teachers without full credentials and teachers with the lowest tenure were let go across the state because of the state budget. There are caps on enrollments to state colleges & universities. School budgets for salaries & operating expenses are under tremendous pressures.

No one lost a job and no child was denied an education to protect this one child.

132

Playing Devil’s Advocate for a moment…
It is just a type of food, sure. What if there are kids who are vegetarians or who are financially strapped? They either won’t or can’t eat ham & cheese or tuna fish for lunch. Maybe their only choice for protein at lunch is PB. What should they do? It could be a major inconvenience for some kids.
Disclaimer:
Just for the record, I know the peanut allergy is very real and can be very severe. As I mentioned before, I teach Nusery School, and we’ve had PB allergic-kids in my school before, and have to establish peanut-free tables for the lunch program. We’ve never had to resort to an all-out PB banning.

133

That doesn’t make sense to me. The point that keeps being made seems to be that this is such a threat to the child that even the slightest contact with peanuts or peanut oil could be deadly. How would taking care of the “majority” of the problem help? If the situation is really as dire as portrayed, it would only take ONE instance of the child contacting peanuts to cause death.

Telling the child not to eat or touch peanuts or any of his classmates’ food, and having him carry the proper medication just in case would also take care of the “majority” of the problem.

But the claim is that even the tiniest amount will cause death. It seems to me that either the school is overreacting, OR they are attempting the impossible.

Well I was getting the distinct impression that they are expecting it to be 100% safe. I keep hearing the argument that the child is too young to be expected to understand the importance of not sharing food. Well, you either have to trust that the child will be able to protect himself, OR that ABSOLUTELY no peanut products will ever enter the school. If it’s truly a life and death situation, how would “lessening” the risk be sufficient?

The way I see it, if you say only eliminating peanut butter is sufficient, then you are admitting that the risk was exaggerated.

But if you say that the risk has not been exaggerated, then you can’t also say that eliminating peanut butter, and not all those other products, is enough.

BTW, how did this end up being compared to SMOKING? That’s the silliest analogy I’ve ever heard.:rolleyes:

134

Just to chime in w/ Bibliocat I think banning peanut butter may be more that just an incovenience for some folks…peanut butter sandwiches were the only things some of my friends could bring with them to school due to cost issues…they didn’t even get jelly…it could be taxing for a family like that to try to accomodate this child…

135

Um, if an epi-pen is always assured to be handy, is exposure to peanuts really a fatal thing?

I had lots and lots of allergies when I was that old 20 years ago. My parents got special permission from the school so that I could carry my necessary medicines with me, and I knew how to use them (so did the teacher). It didn’t require me to be in a dust free or a pollen free environment. I’m sensing the reason why schools are going “peanut free” is just another symptom of an increasingly litigious society. I don’t even think see-saws or jungle gyms are allowed in playgrounds in most places these days for fear of lawsuits. Certainly not those things that spin real fast I adored when I was young. I think that Americans are becoming so afraid of crazies filing lawsuits against them, that it’s just easier to ban anything even remotely dangerous…and I see this as a distrurbing erosion of personal freedom.

136

I wonder if such hypersensitivity might not be psychological:[ul][li]Kid eats peanuts[/li][li]Kid has allergic reaction and nearly dies[/li][li]Kid associates peanut smell with this narrowly-averted disaster[/li]Next time kid smells peanuts, panic sets in[/ul]Believe me, I’ve nearly passed out due to the aroma/sensation of something I associated with a Very Bad Experience, and my reaction was enough to make a doctor think I had an allergy to the thing that I was smelling/feeling rather than to the experience it reminded me of.

137

I think some of you are overreacting to this story. You’re overreacting to people overreacting. When you read about the staff searching lunches, you’re probably invisioning a squad of secret police rapelling from the sky, pinning the little tykes to the ground, and searching their lunch boxes for contraband. This isn’t what’s actually happening (at least I hope not). The initial lunch searches were a kneejerk reaction to avoid a potential lawsuit, and they’ll stop soon enough I’d imagine.

According to the kid’s mother, this isn’t a normal peanut allergy. She could be (and probably is) being overprotective of her Special One, but for the sake of argument lets give her the benefit of the doubt, because blaming the parents is too easy and doesn’t make a good debate. If this child cannot stand to come in contact with peanut “dust” then this is an extreme circumstance. Banning peanut products for a child who only reacts to the ingestion of peanuts would definitely be out of hand. However, according to his mother, airborne peanut particles of death could be potentially fatal. This leaves open a few options:

  1. Put the kid in a plastic ceiled environment ala Bubble Boy.

  2. Have the child go to a special school or be home schooled.

  3. Make the child’s classroom a safe environment until he’s old enough to protect himself.

Option 1 would turn the kid into a social nightmare and the story would made into a TV movie on Lifetime, so lets avoid that if we can.

Option 2 seems reasonable to a lot of you, but here’s the thing - everyone is allowed public education. Back in The Day, if someone had a disability, ANY disability, they were put into a special school. That means that people with peanut allergies, severe mental retardation, blindness, deafness, or muscular dystrophy such as myself were all crammed into the same room. This denied a lot of people their right for a proper education. Now, they do the opposite. They’ll put everyone into public schools, even those with such severe mental problems that they don’t even benefit from education. This is far from perfect too, but I’ll take this extreme over the other one. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t be here typing to you today, I’d still be counting bugs and matching colors with the autistic kid and the blind kid in a small dank room.

Taking those into account, does option 3 really seem so unreasonable? The kids can’t take peanuty foods to school for a few years. Oh horrors. It’s a small request when you’re dealing with a fatal condition. Would you like to live with the fact that your son or daughter brought the fatal candy bar that killed a young child? It’s a lose-lose situation here folks, and in these types of situations we should take the path that has us sacrifice a bit to help someone in need. The reason we’re all becoming hyper-aware is because, well, we’re more aware of such illness these days.

Now, the mother is probably overprotecting (as mothers often do, that’s their job to a certain extent), and all of this is probably moot. But as it stands, we’re dealing with a RARE situation that needs some special treatment. That being said, I think the best solution is to make some “peanut free” lunch areas like a few of you already mentioned, and avoid an all out peanut ban.

Absolutely. The point is, we shouldn’t decide whom to selectively eliminate from the gene pool. We should all help each other survive and let the person decide if he/she wants to cure cancer or start a nuclear war.

138

I agree with this up to a point, but if the kid is so sensitive that peanut dust is toxic, then how is he ever going to be able to protect himself? Even as an adult? If it’s that bad for him that peanut dust is a killer, it’ll still be a killer when he’s in high school, or at a job where people bring PB&J sandwiches in for lunch, or, (as someone mentioned on another thread, I think) Disney World (where they sell PB&J sandwiches).

Only if, perhaps, his extreme sensitivity will be reduced if he is not exposed to it so much in his formative years (as I think someone suggested earlier on this thread) does it make any sense. But even then, I’d think that the parents would be best off just keeping the kid at home until he’s old enough and his immune system is less sensitive (if that’s how it works–that if he avoids peanuts now, he becomes less sensitive to them later).

Hey–it’s their kid’s life at stake. One glitch at school and the kid’s messed up. Better be safe than sorry.

Sure, legally they might have a right to demand that every other kid not have anything to do with peanuts–even the low income kids who can’t afford anything, or the vegetarian kids who have limited choices for lunch–but that seems kind of selfish, to be honest. But, sure, they have that right. Let the poor kids just find something more expensive to bring in their lunch. So what if they can’t afford it? Too bad, too sad, right? Who cares how put out the other kids are?

139

It should, I think, be staggeringly obvious that if the budget is already under severe pressure, adding an extra staffer for the benefit of one child is not what one would call helpful to the rest of the kids in the system. If you already can’t really afford to run the school, and you add a person, you have even less ability to afford it now. This is fair how?

140

Did I not make myslef clear? I hate peanutbutter, only a deviant would eat it. Infact I hate all kinds of nuts.