free fruit in schools. but no nuts allowed

[stitch]

another rant i'm afraid.

dc school has decided that they dont think the chidlren get enough veg and fruit, so will be providing evry child with a free piece of fruit. the school is a state school, in an affluent area, so full of poncy wannabe, organice lentil weaving moms, who frown on jam sandwiches and fruit as being not healthy enough for their lo's. needless to say that ballet lessons and gym memberships are almost derigeur.

but the same school declares itself a nut free zone. yet nuts are an extremely healthy snack. they are full of essential oils. minerals, etc. tiny packets of energy, they will be far better at keeping the kids going, than half an apple, or whatever.almonds are chock full of calcium, essential not only for good bone developement, but boossts immune systems wonderfully. etc etc etc.
the kids come out of class at least twice a week clutching crappy sweets full of artificial flavourings andcolourings becuaes it is someones birthday. a practice theschool positively encourages. and of course, the siblings also get given the artifical crap by the birthday childs mother.
surely a bar of chocolate would be healthier than the crappy chewy maom they come out with?

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

'tis because of nut allegies.

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

'tis because of nut allegies.

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

'tis because of nut allegies.

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

'tis because of nut allegies.

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

'tis because of nut allegies.

[stitch]

and yes i know that some children are allergic to nuts. but the risk of a child having an anaphylactic shock are far far lower than a child choking on a scarf. or falling and breaking an arm. or even drowning in the school pool. yet the school bans the healthy nuts. and encourages the other stuff.

o, and this is also the school that allowed a seven year old to walk out, unchallenged, from the school, all the way home. and when i complained, they were more worried that i was going to sue them, than about the child. the heads exact words were 'we are not responsible for this'

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

Oooop sorry , don't know what happened there?

Looks like I'm really trying to stress the point.

[stitch]

there arent that many nut allergies.
why dont they then ban sugarry stuff. there are more kids int he school with insulin dependant diabetes than their are with nut allergies.

[stitch]

yes , it did.
zero nut allergy sufferers this year, and last.
three diabetics

[DANCESwithLordPsGhost]

The key issue is that the chances of a child DYING from eating a maom bar is very slim compared to the chance of a child dying from eating a nut (for those who are allergic or even for a child with an undiagnosed allergy)

If you want your child to have nuts give them to them at home.

I know you haven't asked but you are being unreasonable.

[WhereWolfTheWildThingsWere]

Hmmm I do see you point but my goddaughter has a potentially fatal nut allergy and it is to peanuts, hazelnuts and walnuts.

It's much easier to police if children are just not allowed nuts.

On ds first day I put a homemade flapjack containing peanut butter into his packed lunch. Felt very guilty when I got the letter saying 'You sent your child with an iten we think may of contained nuts.....'.
I just didn't think.

[travellingwilbury]

So if you had a child come round for tea and the mum told you they were highly allergic to nuts would you still give them to your children while the allergic child was in your house ?

Geniune question

[stitch]

well, as i said, i think i may be ranting.
but a peanut butter sandwich is far far far superior healthwise than a jam sandwich, or a chicken slice sandwich.
the way i see it, they are depriving the children of essential nutrients because of the unlikely situation of a child having an allergic reaction.
its a risk asessment i disagree with. but before i present my case to the school, i need some hard facts to back it up. rather than the ranting tone i am using right now.

[chopchopbusybusy]

Nut allergy has been debated many times on here. Yes, they are nutritious, so feed them to your children after school. They will survive nut free quite happily for a few hours.

[stitch]

no. but that is a differet situation.
my children would be able to have the nuts on another occasion. in school, however, they spend something like 70% of their lives, and for that seventy percent, the school is depriving them.

look, i know that my tone is ranting and unreasonable right now. but i also know i have a valid point. i would like some help on how to put this accross to the school, without sounding like a selfish cow.

[travellingwilbury]

I think they actually only spend about 25 % of their waking lives at school (unless boarding of course) and I don't see why they can't do without nuts for that part of their life .

You say you wouldn't give them in your own home so I don't really see the difference .

What is so wrong with fruit anyway ?

[stitch]

nothing. but i dont see the need to waste the money providing something that the kids get at home. particularly when they are depriving them of a major food group in th efirst place. i think it is incredibly hypocritical.
my kids have nuts at home. but if i had a guest with a nut allergy, then i would nt give them nuts in the presence of the guest.

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

I agree with Stitch actually.
If there really are no children with nut allergies at the school they should not ban nuts.
The fact is that for the majority of children nuts are a Good Thing and they ought to be eating more. For a minority of children they are hideously dangerous and those children should not have to risk coming into contact with nuts at school, and nor should they be excluded from anything or made to feel different because of it.
Why can't the school have a nut policy which is regularly reviewed, ie nuts are allowed until there is ACTUALLY a child at the school with a nut allergy?
That's how you operate outside school after all - you feed your child whatever is healthiest for them until there is a reason not to, eg a nut-allergic child comes to visit.

[edam]

I don't think there is any way to put this across to school while sounding reasonable - how do you know there aren't any nut allergic children or teachers?

[Bramshott]

Fruit in school is a govt policy though - they get it free for infants.

Most primary schools are nut free these days.

I would agree with you about the sweets in class though [grr]

[Eniddo]

if there are genuinely no nut allergies in the school yes I agree with stitch that it is crazy.

[Eniddo]

[titchy]

school is providing fruit and / or veg and is DEPRIVING them Me thinks you should look up deprivation in a dictionary.

If you have an issue with the sweets thing take THAT up with the school, don't argue that your child should be able to have nuts even if it does risk (albeit a very slight risk) some other kid's life.

If you want your kid to have something more filling than an apple or a few carrot sticks send them in with a banana.

[titchy]

Not that crazy to have a blanket rule irrespective of whether there are allergic kids. Imagine if every year you got a letter home saying this year we're nut-free, then the next year this year we're not not nu free. No-on would be able to remember from one year to the next. Blanket rule easiest all round.

[Eniddo]

nuts ARE very good for you though