no Peanut Butter for lunch in school

Great Debates
81

My second son, age 8, is very allergic to peanuts. We always have an EpiPen around but have never had to use it, thank God. A friend once gave him a Ritz Bitz tiny cracker, about as big as my thumbnail, and he got very flushed and rashy, but fortunately had no problem breathing.

There are a half-dozen other kids in his school who have peanut allergies, a few much more severely than him. We’ve never requested, let alone demanded, that the school become peanut-free, but the school administration decided to go that route anyway. Fine with us, but not vitally necessary. The school nurse has a stockpile of EpiPens and knows just which kids might have to be treated in an emergency.

There does seem to be a much higher level of peanut-allergy incidence than in years past. Dunno why. It wasn’t like that at all when I was growning up - my classmates and I ate truckloads of PB&J.

82

[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
As far as I understand, allergies are not a disability, and the ADA covers accommodations for disabilities only.

[/QUOTE]

I was wondering that, so I looked it up.

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=5&sub=74

“The ADA applies to anyone who is disabled in some way, which is described as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities or who is regarded as having such impairments. This includes, for instance, breathing, eating, working, and going to school, all of which are considered to be major life activities and can be substantially impacted by asthma or allergies. Even when symptoms are controlled by medication, asthma and allergies are considered disabilities under the ADA.”

83

Would soy nut butter be allowed? It tastes very close to peanut butter, and it’s very tasty.

84

[QUOTE=villa]
I was wondering that, so I looked it up.

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=5&sub=74

“The ADA applies to anyone who is disabled in some way, which is described as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities or who is regarded as having such impairments. This includes, for instance, breathing, eating, working, and going to school, all of which are considered to be major life activities and can be substantially impacted by asthma or allergies. Even when symptoms are controlled by medication, asthma and allergies are considered disabilities under the ADA.”
[/QUOTE]

In a relatively quick scan of what I could find detailing 504, the texts I found didn’t state specifically whether restricting the allergens/irritants were a “reasonable accommodation” or whether the section is merely stating that they are not to be kept from medications to treat a possible reaction (zero tolerance policies in regard to medication can be ridiculous in schools) and that they’re not to be singled out for discrimination because of their allergies. I haven’t seen anything that specifically states it’s SOP according to the ADA to ban an allergen from schools if there’s even just one student who has an allergy to it. They’re also not being super clear about how severe the allergy has to be to be a disability, so it could be interpreted (albeit in a hyperbolic manner) that someone who gets the sniffles from a particular allergen is considered to be “disabled,” which is a bit ridiculous.

DeadlyAccurate: But what if people are deathly allergic to soy? They’ll have to ban that too! :rolleyes:

85

My daughters school has a peanut-free table. It’s no big deal - after all, what’s the counter-point? You’re going to make another child sick for a peanut butter sandwich?

The only lunch issue that I had problems with was when Sophie’s pre-school got docked points from some state evaluation when the parents packed too many Lunchables for their kids! Now we don’t eat that junk, but I don’t see where the State should penalize the school for the parents lunch choices.

86

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
It isn’t about rights, it’s about common sense. You are placing a burden upon not only the administration, but the students as well. It’s not the burden of restriction, but responsibility. 8 year olds should NOT have to worry about checking every snack they eat because of a single classmate whom they may not even interact with. If your hyper-allergic kid dies because Johnny has peanut breath, you’ll scar that kid for life. It isn’t fair to your child, or the others. Your kid has a serious medical condition that needs addressing for them to lead a normal life in the real world. Restricting everyone else and expecting them to remember the plethora of things that you had to learn to accommodate your very unique child’s needs is selfish.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for raising this topic.

Like one other poster earlier in this thread – my child’s school is not only peanut/nut-free. You are also not allowed to bring in any food that was processed in a facility that also processes tree nuts or peanuts.

Have you read the back of boxes or loaves of bread lately? It is really hard to find stuff that says it was made in a nut free facility. Many boxes don’t say anything at all. The school would then say you (the parent of a non-allergic kid) have to call the manufacturer! I think almost everything at Trader Joe’s has the “may also process” warning. The manufacturers want to pass off the legal responsibility. The schools want to pass off the legal responsibility. It all falls on the parents and kids. If you are an allergy-skeptical parent, you don’t care enough to do the diligence required to find items that meet this level of nut-free-ness. As a parent who actually tries to follow these rules, I can tell you that it is insane.

If I screw up one day and send my kid in with some crackers that happened to be made in a facility that also happened to process peanuts, and this truly is dangerous enough to kill your kid – how will my kid ever live with herself? For years she will have been told (and seen signs everyday when entering the school) that it is her responsibility to keep the school nut-free for the safety of the other kid(s). As Acid Lamp points out, the kids and parents are facing an awfully big responsibility here with the potential for hugely serious consequences.

I have no problem with a ban along the lines of “No peanut butter sandwiches or Reese’s”. But we have gone so far past that here in the town where I live, and no parent will dare to say “Stop” because if they do they are accused of wanting to kill a kid.

87

[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
In a relatively quick scan of what I could find detailing 504, the texts I found didn’t state specifically whether restricting the allergens/irritants were a “reasonable accommodation” or whether the section is merely stating that they are not to be kept from medications to treat a possible reaction (zero tolerance policies in regard to medication can be ridiculous in schools) and that they’re not to be singled out for discrimination because of their allergies. I haven’t seen anything that specifically states it’s SOP according to the ADA to ban an allergen from schools if there’s even just one student who has an allergy to it. They’re also not being super clear about how severe the allergy has to be to be a disability, so it could be interpreted (albeit in a hyperbolic manner) that someone who gets the sniffles from a particular allergen is considered to be “disabled,” which is a bit ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

Of course you won’t find that - reasonable accomodations tend not to be amenable to laying down in stone. They fluctuate depending on the situation. I assuming having the sniffles would not count because it doesn’t “substantially limit a major life activity.” Which from memory is the standard in the ADA.

You said you didn’t think the ADA covered allergies. It does. Whether a particular allergic reaction is covered, or whether a particular reaction by the school authorities is needed, on the other hand, is a fact based situation that simply cannot be answered without much more information. What might be a reasonable accomodation for one school may be unreasonable for another - for example an agricultural high school will likely have more exposure to certain allergens than a technology magnet school.

88

[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
As far as I understand, allergies are not a disability, and the ADA covers accommodations for disabilities only.
[/quote]

As has already been pointed out, this is not correct. However, ADA is not the only program which covers schools, in any case. As I already mentioned, an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) can be written for any student with special medical needs. Furthermore, the school wide allergy accommodations, once again, are mostly put in place by the schools themselves, to avoid lawsuits. (And dead kids.)

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I wasn’t referencing any case at all, but lobotomyboy63’s suggestion that we set a tail on the parents of allergic kids to see if their exposure to peanuts is similarly limited outside of school. He suggested that Mom having a peanut butter Twix before picking the kid up from a peanut free school was fraud in some similar way to insurance fraud. I don’t think it is.
For what it’s worth, I do think the banning of food saying it might have been processed in a plant that also processes nuts is going over the line, as well. I can’t say exactly why that’s where my line is, but then again, I don’t have to make these decisions for a whole school.

89

[QUOTE=LilyoftheValley]
If I screw up one day and send my kid in with some crackers that happened to be made in a facility that also happened to process peanuts, and this truly is dangerous enough to kill your kid – how will my kid ever live with herself? For years she will have been told (and seen signs everyday when entering the school) that it is her responsibility to keep the school nut-free for the safety of the other kid(s). As Acid Lamp points out, the kids and parents are facing an awfully big responsibility here with the potential for hugely serious consequences.

I have no problem with a ban along the lines of “No peanut butter sandwiches or Reese’s”. But we have gone so far past that here in the town where I live, and no parent will dare to say “Stop” because if they do they are accused of wanting to kill a kid.
[/QUOTE]

A few months ago, a young female teacher at my school expressed concern that if a fight ever broke out, she didn’t know what she would do. I and another veteran teacher said: “Whatever you do, don’t touch the kids. Get an administrator.” We’re trained to know when we’re out of our depth. Administrators will come and do what needs to be done if there are fights (or weapons or drugs).

Similarly, if you go to your family doctor with a problem and he thinks it could be serious, he may refer you to a specialist because he recognizes he’s out of his depth.

Putting a kid with such intense allergic problems in a school is along these lines. Suddenly everybody has to be an expert on what might contain nuts. Suddenly everyone has to walk a tightrope of making sure they didn’t recently have nuts before talking to the kid. Suddenly nobody can eat peanut butter on the bus because if they leave a trace of it, maybe that kid will come in contact with it when he rides the bus the next day. Suddenly, when the kid sees his friend at the mall and wants to run over and say hello, he has to stop and think.

This idea that one person has a problem and the rest of the world should be shackled with it, nah. Sure we should mainstream kids as much as possible and all that—I have a nephew with Downs Syndrome and a niece with autism. But making every administrator, cafeteria worker, secretary, security guard, janitor, teacher, bus driver, and **CHILD ** responsible for a life-or-death problem, no.

If the kid can be home-schooled, great. If the district can provide a tutor to visit the home, great. Maybe there is a room in the school that they can sterilize and where a select group of highly-trained staff can work with the kid. Or maybe there’s a special school that can accomodate the allergen issue.

The solution isn’t depriving everybody else. I posted earlier that I think parents have a right to send PB to school and I stand by that, though I haven’t devised a better argument for it. Again, I think most if not all parents would do it but as the above quote conveys, it’s possible to make mistakes and could be a lot to ask.

But mainly, why are we telling every child that they are responsible for the life of another? Why are we saddling their young psyches with that?

90

I think it’s interesting that part of the reason for the reaction here appears to be the sheer popularity of peanuts - if it was, let’s say, pomegranates that were the dangerous allergen, would the people arguing on principle about the infringement of freedoms/rights still be doing so? I don’t think they would, or at least not so many, and not so strongly - and yet, if it really is a matter of principle, then we should expect that they would.

91

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
I posted earlier that I think parents have a right to send PB to school and I stand by that, though I haven’t devised a better argument for it.
[/QUOTE]

You can keep saying this, but you haven’t justified it in the slightest. Why is it a “right?” Is the right to send any product to school that it would be legal for the child to have at home? I can see problems with that. Or is it more general, that a person has a right to do anything which, on a review of the balance of harms of the action as against benefits of it, does not prove overly net negative? That might make more sense, but it is a pretty massive dilution of the concept of “right” to the degree that it becomes essentially meaningless.

What is this basis of the “right” to send a child to school with peanut butter?

92

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
… lobotomyboy63’s suggestion that we set a tail on the parents of allergic kids to see if their exposure to peanuts is similarly limited outside of school. He suggested that Mom having a peanut butter Twix before picking the kid up from a peanut free school was fraud in some similar way to insurance fraud. I don’t think it is.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not what I meant, but I fault my writing and not your interpretation.

I meant that I see a lot of hypocrisy out there and helicoptering parents (I think your earlier post mentioned that, WhyNot). I meant that some of us are skeptical about allergic reactions and such…while I’m sure they do exist, if in fact the problem here is** truly ** that severe, why is the kid in school in the first place and not in a bubble at home? I meant that if it really is that severe, could the parents even take the kid anywhere? Walk past the snack aisle of a convenience store and they have those pb/cracker things, for instance. The kid’s in the car with mom getting gas and when she goes in to pay, the child stays in the car, right?

My allusion to the insurance fraud thing was to say that if the allergy is really that bad, the parent(s) should be walking the walk. If my (imaginary) kid had this severe, I would have to say I’ve eaten my last peanut, for starters. But what parents claim and their behavior don’t always correlate.

A conversation you’ll never hear but teachers and administrators would think : “Now that we’ve all jumped through hoops to make sure your allergic child is safe, Mrs. Johnson, I wanted to ask you about how Jennifer was able to fly to California last summer. Were there no peanuts on that plane? Did the flight attendants go through the pockets on the back of the seat? As you know, travelers often discard their wrappers there. Did they give the passengers pretzels or something else, get all peanuts off the plane before you boarded?”

How does one completely avoid it? Something as simple as peanuts—they’re out there, in places we don’t normally think about. Depeanutification at home, you’d have a task. At school, nigh impossible. In the world, forget it. Maybe the parent has taken these zillion steps, great. But I’ve met parents who would have you in front of the school board for saying “Damn,” while they let their kids watch any movie they want.

93

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I think it’s interesting that part of the reason for the reaction here appears to be the sheer popularity of peanuts - if it was, let’s say, pomegranates that were the dangerous allergen, would the people arguing on principle about the infringement of freedoms/rights still be doing so? I don’t think they would, or at least not so many, and not so strongly - and yet, if it really is a matter of principle, then we should expect that they would.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not that peanuts(or nuts) are popular-it’s that they are everywhere. Eliminating all foods that might contain remnants of these products consists of a bit more than banning peanut butter sandwiches. Check the labels of candy bars, cookies or crackers the next time you get a chance. Is it reasonable to ask all parents at a school to carefully scan the ingredients of every single food item they send with their child?

94

[QUOTE=villa]
You can keep saying this, but you haven’t justified it in the slightest. Why is it a “right?” Is the right to send any product to school that it would be legal for the child to have at home? I can see problems with that. Or is it more general, that a person has a right to do anything which, on a review of the balance of harms of the action as against benefits of it, does not prove overly net negative? That might make more sense, but it is a pretty massive dilution of the concept of “right” to the degree that it becomes essentially meaningless.

What is this basis of the “right” to send a child to school with peanut butter?
[/QUOTE]

It could be that we’re at an impasse, like discussing religion insofar as I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. But I’ll keep thinking about it and see if I can’t post something.

95

It isn’t an impasse, because you have made no effort to convince me that there is a right at stake here. You never know, you might be correct. I’m generally a freedom loving kind of guy. And you, as an educator, know more about what is allowed in school settings and what isn’t than I do.

All I am asking is why you think this is a right. I accept it may be utterly wrong to ban peanut products from schools, because the costs/impositions to those not allergic may massively outweigh the benefits to those with allergies. The converse may also be true. But what I don’t understand at all is where you are getting this right to send peanut butter to school from.

Sorry if I am repeating myself, but if you think we are at an impasse you are misunderstanding me. It isn’t that you have told me why you think this is a right, and we have a disagreement on first principals. It’s that you haven’t given me the first clue why you think taking peanut butter to school is a right.

96

[QUOTE=DeadlyAccurate]
Would soy nut butter be allowed? It tastes very close to peanut butter, and it’s very tasty.
[/QUOTE]

I never imagined that my OP would actually spawn a real-life debate, and I have been enjoying/learning much. Not to diminish all the other posts, but this is a tangible step I can take to replace PB/J with SNB/J if it is, indeed, peanut-free. Thanks!

97

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
It could be that we’re at an impasse, like discussing religion insofar as I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. But I’ll keep thinking about it and see if I can’t post something.
[/QUOTE]

The big thing that I keep saying that I don’t feel like you’re hearing is that - in the only school bans I know of personally, anyhow - it’s not the parents of allergic children who ask for a total ban. It’s the school administrators, fearful of a lawsuit, who hear that a child has a peanut allergy and institute a total ban without consulting the parents or the kid’s doctor.

You (and other posters) keep talking about overprotective hysterical parents demanding total peanut bans, but I don’t think you’ve shown us any evidence that the *parents *have anything to do with it at all. It’s the schools, and it’s out of a fear of getting sued, not out of a realistic risk assessment on each individual kid. And, in this litigious society, *and *given that allergies are idiosyncratic and what was an annoying rash at one exposure can indeed turn into anaphylaxis at the next exposure, I can’t say that I blame them all that much. The school doesn’t give a rat’s ass if the kid dies at the circus or the movie theater - they just don’t want it to be on their watch, when they’re responsible for it.

Why should the parent of a child (who might be just fine with everyone else having peanut butter, but wants the teacher to make sure that the allergic kid isn’t handed a peanut butter cup on her birthday) similarly overprotect their kid when they’re not in school?

When the school decides to ban a legal item - whether it be a gun or a red bandana or a miniskirt or candy or a peanut - then the student *has *no right to it. Rights are freedoms granted by authority. “God-given rights” don’t apply when you’re a minor under someone else’s roof - someone else who is legally and financially responsible for your well-being.

My kid wants to play with Play-doh*. I don’t feel like dealing with the mess right now, so I suggested crayons instead. She’s not happy, but she doesn’t have a “right” to Play-doh, and I don’t even have to give her a good reason for it. The school is a parent, in absentia. I think it’s nice that they often give reasons for banning things, but logically and legally, they don’t have to.

phungi, I think soy nut butter tastes like ass, but it’s worth a try. I much prefer cashew butter, but by golly is it high in fat!

*Which, BTW, bears a warning label now for those with wheat allergies.

98

[QUOTE=villa]
It isn’t an impasse, because you have made no effort to convince me that there is a right at stake here. You never know, you might be correct. I’m generally a freedom loving kind of guy. And you, as an educator, know more about what is allowed in school settings and what isn’t than I do.

All I am asking is why you think this is a right. I accept it may be utterly wrong to ban peanut products from schools, because the costs/impositions to those not allergic may massively outweigh the benefits to those with allergies. The converse may also be true. But what I don’t understand at all is where you are getting this right to send peanut butter to school from.

Sorry if I am repeating myself, but if you think we are at an impasse you are misunderstanding me. It isn’t that you have told me why you think this is a right, and we have a disagreement on first principals. It’s that you haven’t given me the first clue why you think taking peanut butter to school is a right.
[/QUOTE]

Oh but I have been making an effort, just not something you were able to read. yet. I’ve been reflecting, examining why I believe as I do and trying to formulate a thoughtful response.

Here it is.

When I was a kid, my mom sometimes sent PB sandwiches to school with me. There was never a call from the school objecting to this. My parents had the right to decide what was suitable for me, nutritionally, in the form of something that also fit their budget. OTOH my mother didn’t have a right to pack a beer in with that PBJ and the school would have called. But that’s because of how it would affect ME, not the kid next to me.

You can say that parents shouldn’t send a PB sandwich with their kid in this scenario because of the extenuating circumstances and I’d AGREE. But what we “shouldn’t” and “aren’t allowed to” do are different. I say it was a right for my mother to do it, and it’s the right of the parents to do it here. First, parents are responsible for the well-being of their OWN child, not someone else’s. They have freedom of choice to do as they see fit in that respect. Second there may be economic or dietary reasons (e.g. veganism) for doing it but damn, they shouldn’t have to justify a PBJ any more than my mother. “Because it’s part of childhood” works for me.

Third, and probably most importantly, there are alternative solutions. E.g. a peanut free table or let the kid eat outside or home school him or whatever. Very often I think we should go an extra step in these discussions.

“This allergic kid has a right not to be exposed to this.” I agree.
“My kid has a right to his PBJ.” I also agree.

And that’s the impasse where discussions like this often end. If our rights are EQUAL, whose rights prevail? The next step could be:

“Then my kid has a right to demand that the school provide another place to eat.”

I agree. Wow. Hey, that could be win-win! But what about peanut butter residue from the lunch the other kid ate? The allergic kid has more rights, like to demand a special form of education, be that with tutors or whatever. And a special bus that has never had peanuts in it. And “virgin” textbooks because who knows if the kid who had the book last year was eating PB while doing homework and smudged a page? And maybe a school that has actually been run through an enormous autoclave. And so on.

Recapitulating then, I can’t take away the allergic child’s rights, fine. But why can he take away mine?

99

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
…Recapitulating then, I can’t take away the allergic child’s rights, fine. But why can he take away mine?
[/QUOTE]

You won’t die without a PB&J, while he might die if you and other kids routinely have them. If the school can’t find space for a separate lunchroom (and many public schools are already bursting at the seams) for allergic kids, then banning all peanut-based foods starts to look like a reasonable accommodation.

100

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
The big thing that I keep saying that I don’t feel like you’re hearing is that - in the only school bans I know of personally, anyhow - it’s not the parents of allergic children who ask for a total ban. It’s the school administrators, fearful of a lawsuit, who hear that a child has a peanut allergy and institute a total ban without consulting the parents or the kid’s doctor.

You (and other posters) keep talking about overprotective hysterical parents demanding total peanut bans, but I don’t think you’ve shown us any evidence that the *parents *have anything to do with it at all. It’s the schools, and it’s out of a fear of getting sued, not out of a realistic risk assessment on each individual kid. And, in this litigious society, *and *given that allergies are idiosyncratic and what was an annoying rash at one exposure can indeed turn into anaphylaxis at the next exposure, I can’t say that I blame them all that much. The school doesn’t give a rat’s ass if the kid dies at the circus or the movie theater - they just don’t want it to be on their watch, when they’re responsible for it.

Why should the parent of a child (who might be just fine with everyone else having peanut butter, but wants the teacher to make sure that the allergic kid isn’t handed a peanut butter cup on her birthday) similarly overprotect their kid when they’re not in school?

When the school decides to ban a legal item - whether it be a gun or a red bandana or a miniskirt or candy or a peanut - then the student *has *no right to it. Rights are freedoms granted by authority. “God-given rights” don’t apply when you’re a minor under someone else’s roof - someone else who is legally and financially responsible for your well-being.

My kid wants to play with Play-doh*. I don’t feel like dealing with the mess right now, so I suggested crayons instead. She’s not happy, but she doesn’t have a “right” to Play-doh, and I don’t even have to give her a good reason for it. The school is a parent, in absentia. I think it’s nice that they often give reasons for banning things, but logically and legally, they don’t have to.

phungi, I think soy nut butter tastes like ass, but it’s worth a try. I much prefer cashew butter, but by golly is it high in fat!

*Which, BTW, bears a warning label now for those with wheat allergies.
[/QUOTE]

Touché, whynot, with regard to my glossing over the fact that it’s administration pushing the panic button. I’ll drop this from my line of argument. :smack: