Peanut ban in school?

[Maral]

It is a great plan. An even better plan would be if they had another choice for a snack.

LOL, that's what I thought, too. But it was Southwest, so I didn't expect much.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Good post, Jeana.

I was on a flight recently where they announced that since the only snack they had on board was peanuts, they were going to dispense with the snack as there was someone on board that had a peanut allergy. What a concept! A reasonable solution without having to legislate a ban on peanuts being served on all airline flights.

I've never understood why they give peanuts. No one has good breath after that! LOL Personally, I'd rather have a martini or something like that.

 

[Rachael]

Our school district has cut back on snacks. No cupcakes, candy or sweets for parties (halloween, xmas, valentines day, ect). There are going to cut them out during lunches too. For parties the kids can only have healthy snacks (fruit, cheese, veggies and dips). I know a few kids that are extremely picky eaters. The only thing these kids will eat for lunch is peanut butter and jelly. I don't know what the parents will do if our school cuts peanut butter out entirely. Maybe they should just make the kids with peanut allergies eat in different rooms where they can bring a friend or two along. I know some think that is allenating the child, but better to be safe than sorry and it's only for lunch. Again I see both sides to this issue.

 

[eve]

I've never understood why they give peanuts. No one has good breath after that! LOL Personally, I'd rather have a martini or something like that.

Me too, Jeana. My daughter flew from Mpls to Tampa last week and said they were charging $2 for a teeny sack of peanuts! Northwest! Times they are a changin.

Eve

 

[kgeaux]

OK. because you haven't read all the posts my sarcasm must have slipped by. what i was doing by capitalising and bolding out those words was copiying those who seemed to want to SHOUT their points out by capitaising. i was turning it upon them.

OhOh, Floh. I capitalize individual words for emphasis, not to shout! I am sorry if it is taken as shouting. And I am realllllllly sorry that the sarcasm went right over my head!

 

[kgeaux]

The problem with this is as someone said in a previous post.. What if little Johnny has peanut butter for breakfast and does not wash his hands? He touches something at school and then another child with a severe peanut allergy touches it? It does happen. You can stop them from eating peanut butter in school, but you can't stop them from doing it at home. I know some children who are so picky they eat nothing but pb & j for lunch. I see both sides of this issue. If my child had a friend with a severe nut allergy I don't know that I would want the friend in my home b/c I would be so afraid of something happening to the child.

Johnny not washing his hands is an accident. It is different from knowing that Sally will suffer anaphylactic shock if he brings a sandwich to school and bringing it anyway.

I am well familiar with people choosing not to entertain a child with severe allergies in their homes. Matthew and I lived with that for years. Luckily he had one friend whose mom was an absolute angel, and she actually made her home peanut free so that Matt could spend time with them. I really admire her, because if the shoe had been on the other foot, I don't know that I'd have tried that hard for someone else's child when it is so easy to just invite a "normal" child over.

People are forgetting that deaths due to peanut allergy are extremely rare.

Also that peanut airborne or touch allergies are also very rare.

Can a child have a reaction? Sure. Is it treatable? YES.

You can liken it to bee allergy, IMO, if you make children that are allergic go out on the playground.

Bottom line. If your child is allergic, teach them what to avoid, how to recognize their symptoms, how to treat themselves, and who to get help from at school.

I wouldn't think there would be any need for communities to legislate this unless there is a child in that community who does suffer from the extreme form of the allergy. From what I'm reading, anaphylactic shock reactions are increasing, as is the extreme form of the airborne allergy.

I think that if this thread, and the communities in which people live would just try and cooperate with one another, there wouldn't need to have "legislation" against taking a sandwich to school. If a child in the school one of my children attended had an allergy so bad that a sneeze could kill him or her, I would voluntarily agree to not send that food with my child. I don't see why we need to take away the "rights" of a child to have a certain type of food or why we need to get bitchy with one another on an internet forum in order to try and protect children from life-threatening allergies. If its that way where any of you live, that's sad. However, its not here and until I hear of a situation arising, I'm going to have to assume that out of the couple of hundred kids that attend school with my children, there's no need to call out the Senate to ban lunches.

You are so right, Jeana. You would just expect that in a case like this, every parent would run out and buy some soy butter or something. I cannot imagine weighing a child's desire for peanut butter against the possible death of another child, and having the dang sandwich win in my mind. That's worse than sad.

 

[Angels_Not_Forgotten]

The way I see it is this. We have spoken about the parents "sheltering" their children with wanting to ban them. What about the people who are teaching their children that they will never have to give up anything or compromise for any reason? Wouldn't you like to tell your child "No, you have to eat a (insert alternative lunch) instead of a pb&j sandwhich because Jane is allergic and she could get sick, or even worse." Instead are we teaching our children "Who cares if Jane has an allergy? You don't, go ahead and eat your sandwich." As a parent to a child with a peanut and treenut allergy, I know that even if nuts are banned, that there will be instances like the one mentioned previously where there is pb on a sleeve of a shirt. I know that. BUT to say because this will happen, why bother? That's like saying "Well the neighbor is racist, I am going to be too" well, maybe thats a stretch, and maybe its emotions fueling this feeling for me, but I just don't know what I would do if something like the need for a child to eat the PB (even if its the only thing he will eat?) is what caused my childs death. That's not an accident. You know there is a nut allergy, and you chose to ignore it so your child can have whatever they want. Thats just my opinion, please do not hate me for it.

 

[IrishMist]

The way I see it is this. We have spoken about the parents "sheltering" their children with wanting to ban them. What about the people who are teaching their children that they will never have to give up anything or compromise for any reason? Wouldn't you like to tell your child "No, you have to eat a (insert alternative lunch) instead of a pb&j sandwhich because Jane is allergic and she could get sick, or even worse." Instead are we teaching our children "Who cares if Jane has an allergy? You don't, go ahead and eat your sandwich." As a parent to a child with a peanut and treenut allergy, I know that even if nuts are banned, that there will be instances like the one mentioned previously where there is pb on a sleeve of a shirt. I know that. BUT to say because this will happen, why bother? That's like saying "Well the neighbor is racist, I am going to be too" well, maybe thats a stretch, and maybe its emotions fueling this feeling for me, but I just don't know what I would do if something like the need for a child to eat the PB (even if its the only thing he will eat?) is what caused my childs death. That's not an accident. You know there is a nut allergy, and you chose to ignore it so your child can have whatever they want. Thats just my opinion, please do not hate me for it.

Because an allergic child can be treated. Because the point of raising children is for them to become self-sufficient. Because the real world is not going to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

If there were no known treatments, I might agree to a peanut ban. If it were peanuts and only peanuts causing the problem I might agree. But it is a slew of food products, not just PB&J.

There is plenty of proof that this situation can be handled without a ban. If you read nothing else but this thread, you will see that it can be done.

And, to top it all off, the odds are much higher of a child dying in a car accident than from a peanut allergy. We are talking a miniscule amount of children that have died from this, and when you learn more about those cases, there are reasons for those. But kids who have a reaction and get treated don't die from this.

A lot of things are life-threatening. It's a big, bad scary world out there. But it doesn't follow that life-threatening means sure death. My mother, for instance has a life-threatening allergy to bees. Should everybody panic? No!
If she gets stung, she uses her treatment pen. It's called coping.

 

[Angels_Not_Forgotten]

Please know what you are saying before you say it. My child cannot be treated or "fixed". He can get an epi pen if he or his caregivers (since he is 2) gets to him in time. That saves him from DYING but regardless of what he uses, he still gets sick. If you want to say who cares go ahead, I would just be ashamed to say it in public like you.

 

[IrishMist]

Please know what you are saying before you say it. My child cannot be treated or "fixed". He can get an epi pen if he or his caregivers (since he is 2) gets to him in time. That saves him from DYING but regardless of what he uses, he still gets sick. If you want to say who cares go ahead, I would just be ashamed to say it in public like you.

I am never ashamed to say what I think in public or otherwise.

 

[michelle]

Please know what you are saying before you say it. My child cannot be treated or "fixed". He can get an epi pen if he or his caregivers (since he is 2) gets to him in time. That saves him from DYING but regardless of what he uses, he still gets sick. If you want to say who cares go ahead, I would just be ashamed to say it in public like you.

I agree with what you are saying. What if a caregiver does not get to them in time and they die. How awful, over peanut butter.

 

[Floh]

I agree with what you are saying. What if a caregiver does not get to them in time and they die. How awful, over peanut butter.

I think it's not 'peanut butter' per se. i believe it's any product with peanut in. of which are many, is my understanding.

so how awful peanuts are so prevalent. who knew?

 

[kgeaux]

Because an allergic child can be treated. Because the point of raising children is for them to become self-sufficient. Because the real world is not going to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

If there were no known treatments, I might agree to a peanut ban. If it were peanuts and only peanuts causing the problem I might agree. But it is a slew of food products, not just PB&J.

There is plenty of proof that this situation can be handled without a ban. If you read nothing else but this thread, you will see that it can be done.

And, to top it all off, the odds are much higher of a child dying in a car accident than from a peanut allergy. We are talking a miniscule amount of children that have died from this, and when you learn more about those cases, there are reasons for those. But kids who have a reaction and get treated don't die from this.

A lot of things are life-threatening. It's a big, bad scary world out there. But it doesn't follow that life-threatening means sure death. My mother, for instance has a life-threatening allergy to bees. Should everybody panic? No!
If she gets stung, she uses her treatment pen. It's called coping.

As a mother of a child with a life threatening peanut allergy, I'm going to give you some grace here and think you just don't understand.

Because it can be treated? Do you know what that entails? It means my child must FIRST go into anaphylactic shock.......he must suffer the agony of his airways shutting down, feel his body screaming for oxygen, feel the panic of imminent death, all before his "treatment." We are not talking about rubbing antibiotic cream on a bobo. We are talking DEATH. That epipen your momma carries around is not a guarantee. It doesn't always save the person's life.

A lot of things are life threatening. But do we, as parents, really need to threaten someone's life ON PURPOSE? And justify our decision because the child with anaphylactic shock MIGHT survive....and believe me, there are those who don't, and it's not just an abstract "miniscule" amount of kids if it is YOUR family that has lost a child! That number is GROWING, too. This is a problem that is getting WORSE, not better. We have to deal with it.

Kids die in car accidents, you are right. So what did the government do to try to mitigate those deaths? They mandated seat belts in cars. Then they mandated child safety seats. Did this interfeer with my personal freedom to decide whether I felt like belting my children into car seats? I guess so, but I do it because it is for their safetly. And I would belt your child in, too, for his safety.

Government mandated these safety laws because there are doofuses on every streetcorner who drove around without a care about the safety of their children, or the safety of others. If LEGISLATION is needed to solve this peanut problem, it is because there are azzhole parents who truly believe their child's sandwich is worth more than my child's life. There would be no need for legislation if all parents were willing to do whatever it took to protect the little ones around them. But they aren't. Just look at some of the comments on this thread! There really are people who say "but my kid won't eat anything else!" "there's too many things that contain peanuts!" There really are people who are absolutely not willing to take simple precautions to protect little bitty children.

I honestly cannot understand why in God's earth people wouldn't do something so simple for MY child. I do not comprehend it at all.

 

[kgeaux]

By the way, for all of you who are blessed to not have to drag an epi-pen around with you wherever you go, I'll share just a little tidbit with you.

Every single time you use an epi-pen, you are running the risk of brain hemmorage. It's a really big deal, people.

So the "treatment" sometimes slows the allergic reaction or stops it, but the person being "treated" still dies.

 

[eve]

As a mother of a child with a life threatening peanut allergy, I'm going to give you some grace here and think you just don't understand.

Because it can be treated? Do you know what that entails? It means my child must FIRST go into anaphylactic shock.......he must suffer the agony of his airways shutting down, feel his body screaming for oxygen, feel the panic of imminent death, all before his "treatment." We are not talking about rubbing antibiotic cream on a bobo. We are talking DEATH. That epipen your momma carries around is not a guarantee. It doesn't always save the person's life.

A lot of things are life threatening. But do we, as parents, really need to threaten someone's life ON PURPOSE? And justify our decision because the child with anaphylactic shock MIGHT survive....and believe me, there are those who don't, and it's not just an abstract "miniscule" amount of kids if it is YOUR family that has lost a child! That number is GROWING, too. This is a problem that is getting WORSE, not better. We have to deal with it.

Kids die in car accidents, you are right. So what did the government do to try to mitigate those deaths? They mandated seat belts in cars. Then they mandated child safety seats. Did this interfeer with my personal freedom to decide whether I felt like belting my children into car seats? I guess so, but I do it because it is for their safetly. And I would belt your child in, too, for his safety.

Government mandated these safety laws because there are doofuses on every streetcorner who drove around without a care about the safety of their children, or the safety of others. If LEGISLATION is needed to solve this peanut problem, it is because there are azzhole parents who truly believe their child's sandwich is worth more than my child's life. There would be no need for legislation if all parents were willing to do whatever it took to protect the little ones around them. But they aren't. Just look at some of the comments on this thread! There really are people who say "but my kid won't eat anything else!" "there's too many things that contain peanuts!" There really are people who are absolutely no willing to take simple precautions to protect little bitty children.

I honestly cannot understand why in God's earth people wouldn't do something so simple for MY child. I do not comprehend it at all.

kgeaux,

There are also people on this thread who are in the trenches with kids every day and do everything they can to protect them. From all kinds of things. Believe me, I have seen my child's asthma attacks and also know an anaphylactic reaction is a terrible thing. My dad is allergic to bees and I am too. I have a friend who has mystery anaphylactic reactions and doesn't even know why, after much testing. My stepson struggles everyday with things we all take for granted, with his immune disorder.

Most people WILL do something simple (and more) to help a child. I believe in most classrooms everyone will try their best to protect the peanut allergic. What really bugs me about this, though, is the ever-more common "solution" of enlisting rules, bans, and/or legislation to deal with something like this.

I do not comprehend how you do not comprehend that one can care a helluva lot about kids' safety and still have an issue with the liability such bans will impose on people like me, who teach kids every day. Who is gonna get blamed, sued and worse when despite the bans, kids react to a substance some other kid brought in on his clothes or whatever, and heaven forbid, even die.

Also, I know you and I are not this way, but I have parents who don't read notes home, come to conferences drunk, send their kids to school in filthy clothing, don't even feed their kids regularly or give them ramen noodles (and probably peanut butter) night after night. How confident am I that these people would even respect the perimeters of a ban? They won't!

I want kids safe, I just have no confidence that a ban will alleviate this problem if peanuts are as extensively used in foodstuffs as they appear to be. Also when does it end? There are many allergies and disorders.

My stepson almost died of salmonella because he came into contact with a lizard. All kinds of classroom pets are threatening to him. He was in intensive care for 6 days. Now why do I suspect that because his condition happens to be much rarer than your son's that I won't get much support in wanting accomodations made for him? Is he less worthy of such because his disorder is rare? Would anyone advocate classroom changes for him? I wonder.

Eve

 

[luvbeaches]

I honestly cannot understand why in God's earth people wouldn't do something so simple for MY child. I do not comprehend it at all.

If it were as simple as banning peanut butter from schools...then I think that would be fine.

But it's not.

Peanut butter or forms of peanut butter is in all sorts of things (someone posted a list). What about transfers? The kid who had peanut butter for breakfast and wipes his face, and then transfers it to the drinking fountain? Or the handrail? Or the book in the library? If it's that toxic, then there are going to be many other ways for this product to enter the area where your child will be.

If it were as simple as banning the product and that would end all the problems, then I would say do it. But it's not that simple. There are just too many other ways this product can enter the environment of a child. It's like sticking a piece of gum in the hole in the concrete. It may stop the leaking for a moment, but it certainly isn't a long-term solution.

I have a daughter who has asthma, so I am aware of life-threatening issues. I remember for pet-day in grade school, I had to keep her home from school. She couldn't deal with all the different types of animals. It was a pain, but what were we to do? Tell them they can't have it because it might kill my kid?

I know that this was a one-time thing, and you deal with this daily, but there are just so many ways peanuts can make their way into an environment, that banning peanut butter is IMO, only going to give you guys a false sense of security. What about the kids who hide their PB cookie and bring it to school? Or sandwich? Or all the other products that have peanuts in them, and the list is long...many things I had no clue.

And who is going to police this? The teachers? Right. Like they don't have enough on their plates as it is...now they have to spend time inspecting each food product brought into the school. And what teacher is going to want to be responsible for this? If we aren't careful, there's not going to be anyone who wants to deal with all this and we're not going to have teachers. So then what?

It's terrible your child has this problem, and it's scary to think that they could die, but I just don't see where banning is going to matter, if you look at the big picture when it comes to how it can be introduced into a specific area.

And what about the kid who is allergic to bees? Are all field trips outside and all outdoor gym classes cancelled because this particular child could die from a bee sting?

Like I said, I have a kid who has asthma. And I know that we could be in the hospital at any given moment, or even worse. But we have to modify her enviroment, we don't ask others to modify theirs.

 

[Julessleuther]

If it were as simple as banning peanut butter from schools...then I think that would be fine.

But it's not.

Peanut butter or forms of peanut butter is in all sorts of things (someone posted a list). What about transfers? The kid who had peanut butter for breakfast and wipes his face, and then transfers it to the drinking fountain? Or the handrail? Or the book in the library? If it's that toxic, then there are going to be many other ways for this product to enter the area where your child will be.

If it were as simple as banning the product and that would end all the problems, then I would say do it. But it's not that simple. There are just too many other ways this product can enter the environment of a child. It's like sticking a piece of gum in the hole in the concrete. It may stop the leaking for a moment, but it certainly isn't a long-term solution.

I have a daughter who has asthma, so I am aware of life-threatening issues. I remember for pet-day in grade school, I had to keep her home from school. She couldn't deal with all the different types of animals. It was a pain, but what were we to do? Tell them they can't have it because it might kill my kid?

I know that this was a one-time thing, and you deal with this daily, but there are just so many ways peanuts can make their way into an environment, that banning peanut butter is IMO, only going to give you guys a false sense of security. What about the kids who hide their PB cookie and bring it to school? Or sandwich? Or all the other products that have peanuts in them, and the list is long...many things I had no clue.

It's terrible your child has this problem, and it's scarey to think that they could die, but I just don't see where banning is going to matter, if you look at the big picture when it comes to how it can be introduced into a specific area.

And what about the kid who is allergic to bees? Are all field trips outside and all outdoor gym classes cancelled because this particular child could die from a bee sting?

Like I said, I have a kid who has asthma. And I know that we could be in the hospital at any given moment, or even worse. But we have to modify her enviroment, we don't ask others to modify theirs.

Thank you, you are so much more elequent than I was in stating the asthma dangers. I agree.

 

[LinasK]

If it were as simple as banning peanut butter from schools...then I think that would be fine.

But it's not.

Peanut butter or forms of peanut butter is in all sorts of things (someone posted a list). What about transfers? The kid who had peanut butter for breakfast and wipes his face, and then transfers it to the drinking fountain? Or the handrail? Or the book in the library? If it's that toxic, then there are going to be many other ways for this product to enter the area where your child will be.

If it were as simple as banning the product and that would end all the problems, then I would say do it. But it's not that simple. There are just too many other ways this product can enter the environment of a child. It's like sticking a piece of gum in the hole in the concrete. It may stop the leaking for a moment, but it certainly isn't a long-term solution.

I have a daughter who has asthma, so I am aware of life-threatening issues. I remember for pet-day in grade school, I had to keep her home from school. She couldn't deal with all the different types of animals. It was a pain, but what were we to do? Tell them they can't have it because it might kill my kid?

I know that this was a one-time thing, and you deal with this daily, but there are just so many ways peanuts can make their way into an environment, that banning peanut butter is IMO, only going to give you guys a false sense of security. What about the kids who hide their PB cookie and bring it to school? Or sandwich? Or all the other products that have peanuts in them, and the list is long...many things I had no clue.

And who is going to police this? The teachers? Right. Like they don't have enough on their plates as it is...now they have to spend time inspecting each food product brought into the school. And what teacher is going to want to be responsible for this? If we aren't careful, there's not going to be anyone who wants to deal with all this and we're not going to have teachers. So then what?

It's terrible your child has this problem, and it's scarey to think that they could die, but I just don't see where banning is going to matter, if you look at the big picture when it comes to how it can be introduced into a specific area.

And what about the kid who is allergic to bees? Are all field trips outside and all outdoor gym classes cancelled because this particular child could die from a bee sting?

Like I said, I have a kid who has asthma. And I know that we could be in the hospital at any given moment, or even worse. But we have to modify her enviroment, we don't ask others to modify theirs.

My daughter's preschool was nut-free. Although they keep an epi-pen on site and all the teachers know the precautions. It is ultimately the responsiblity of all the parents and parent volunteers to make sure their children have washed their hands and mouths if they have peanut butter or a peanut product (more likely a breakfast bar) for breakfast before coming to school and not to bring snacks with peanut products in them. The child who had a special diet still brought his own snacks. We were also provided with a list of suggestions for good snacks. It really is a simple policy that works. If someone forgot and accidentally brought the wrong snack or clothes with peanut butter on them, I'm sure they wouldn't have allowed it, and I know the school had stored back-up snacks. Yes all the teachers did enforce the policy, it wasn't a problem.

 

[luvbeaches]

Thank you, you are so much more elequent than I was in stating the asthma dangers. I agree.

I think your posts were right on the money. I agree with you completely.

 

[kgeaux]

kgeaux,
Most people WILL do something simple (and more) to help a child. I believe in most classrooms everyone will try their best to protect the peanut allergic. What really bugs me about this, though, is the ever-more common "solution" of enlisting rules, bans, and/or legislation to deal with something like this.

I do not comprehend how you do not comprehend that one can care a helluva lot about kids' safety and still have an issue with the liability such bans will impose on people like me, who teach kids every day. Who is gonna get blamed, sued and worse when despite the bans, kids react to a substance some other kid brought in on his clothes or whatever, and heaven forbid, even die.
Eve

Most people will do something simple and more. But some people WON'T. For whatever their reasons, they won't. How would you keep a child with an airborne peanut allergy safe in that case? The number of children with anaphylactic reactions to peanut allergies is growing, so this is not a problem that is going away.

It is a problem that has to be dealt with. And since there are azzhole parents who won't comply with the "please don't send peanut containing foods to school because little Johnny might die" then legislation may be what it takes. Until "most" people willing to comply becomes "all" people are willing to comply, then we may have to force those who are unwilling.

I do comprehend the liability that the peanut ban would have on schools and teachers. I think very few parents would sue the teacher over an accidental exposure, but I'm sure there are some. I'm willing to bet that there are insurance companies willing to sell the school boards policies to protect them and their employees against suit.

And the bottom line from my point of view; you may have to deal with a legal proceeding, while Little Johnny's mother might have to deal with the death and burial of a child. So while I sympathize with the impact legislation might have on teachers and others in the school system, and while I grieve that legislation is made necessary by the callousness of others, I do think legislation is what is called for.

I don't even think it's out of the realm of government to legislate this type of thing, because government is already legislating safety on many levels.