School telling us to remove nut trees from community orchard

[Calling]

We are in a local voluntary group and local people planted an orchard in the grounds of a school, for the school.

Now, the school has written to say that we have to remove the nut trees because one pupil has a bad nut allergy.

There are fruit and nut trees, that the local people planted some years ago and we have put a lot of work into weeding and watering. The yield was actually for the kids and we are volunteering with the school with and nature sessions outside.

Before anyone says we are potential child killers, we do understand the importance of safety. There is a management plan in place, but the school has been asked by a parent to remove our trees.
I do feel disheartened - nobody in the school said no to nut trees originally.

Well no we need fixtures and fittings <unlike nut trees> and kids don't tend to have life threatening anaphylactic reactions to said fixtures and fittings.

That's a stupid argument. You need fixtures and fittings in schools and there are strict regulations around building work and electronics.

You do not need a nut tree. Clearly these were not grown altruistically for the school if the school have deemed them unsafe and the volunteers are kicking up a fuss about removal.

I do agree the school should undertake the work rather than the volunteers themselves if the school initially permitted these species.

There will be more children, and possibly staff with allergies. If not now, in the future. To be honest, planting nut trees wasn't a good idea in a school in the first place. Just get them cut down.

Walls are dangerous too… if my clumsy child is anything to go by. Best just knock the school down to be safe.

It sounds like the school are simply not a good fit for a volunteer partner model as they’ve been too passive for too long, and that exposes you and the volunteers to risk and or tension.
I would really take a step back, and partner with other spaces where you can directly pursue your love of sharing nature and green spaces with a site which understands nature, risk etc.

I don't know if it's correct but I think so. Google tells me that children are allergic to the protein inside the nut, which is inside a hard shell. They are not allergic to the shell or the tree or its blossom.

This is surely a non issue?

Volunteer plant folk need to use a bit of common sense with their planting. Maybe some poisonous mushrooms op, that next on the list?

Request that the school share their risk assessment with you. It should be based on the student’s healthcare plan, but the risk assessment itself should not have any identifying information about the student. If it does, they can redact a copy for you.

It should contain information about the nature of the allergy, then control measures such as restricting access to the nut trees, especially during nut drop season.

For example

Remove fallen nuts from the ground promptly. Consider netting trees in nut drop season.

Train staff to recognise and respond to anaphylaxis and keep medical supplies to treat.

Train students not to pick, handle or share nuts. Students who want to can get involved with nut harvesting can come along to a supervised session (that you could run), with a parent or guardian outside of school time if desired.

Adapt lessons to avoid nut handling.

Fence them off and put up simple signs.

Remove trees only if risks cannot be adequately controlled. (Which would also need a risk assessment - and probably a professional contractor to do the work.)

From the school’s point of view, it may be a capacity issue. They have a parent who is desperately anxious and on the phone regularly - nut allergies can be terrifying. Staff may also have their concerns about if anything happens, as they are on the front line. No one in the school is a qualified allergist or otherwise confident enough to manage the risk - there might be insurance concerns in the mix. Keep talking to the school staff.

And if the trees have to go, be assured that you have still done a lovely thing for those students over the time you’ve been involved.

It does not make them
nature unfriendly.

If they were that, then they would be extinct.

There is a place for every tree in nature, its diversity in action, before diversity was diversity as it is now.

But then are all kids to be told they can’t have any nuts ever. What if a kid had peanut butter before they went to school? What about people walking around in say a shop who had peanut dust on their hands and picked up something, put it down and the child picked it up.

surely keeping the kid out of the orchard is the more sensible learning point

Daffodils ok for you?

Wow you are really digging in here. That is a completely ludicrous comparison. Yes there are risks in every day life that we all navigate, including the low but possible chance of a light fixture hitting us on the head. A severe nut allergy is not the same.

Somebody with a nut allergy has to frequently navigate being in spaces where people are eating nuts or where nuts are present and just deal and manage with it as best they can, despite the real threat to their life. Not long ago a young woman with a nut allergy tragically died on a flight because pret didn’t label a sandwich correctly. This is very serious for some people and the anxiety that comes with it is also serious too,
it can have a huge impact on the mental health of them and their parents just trying to keep them safe.

Personally I would hand over all responsibility to the school. Not worth the aggro. Presumably your supposed be enjoying your volunteer role and once you have to jump through lots of hoops for others that's when the work no matter how forfilling outweighs the benefit. There's no way I would down healthy trees with no real justification.

Where does it end? Next time something else will cause a problem and then something else. Your time is too valuable. It's the school's problem. There's always a sick elderly relative that can be invented to bow out without drama if need be. Who else is going to care for Auntie Eileen after her hip operation if you don't?

And what about someone with a dairy or wheat allergy?

There's a very frustrating myth that nut allergies are the worst allergy, but that's not how allergy works, an anaphylactic reaction is an anaphylactic reaction, whatever caused it. Almost anything can cause an allergic/anaphylactic reaction. We must get away from thinking a nut allergy trumps other allergies:

"Cows’ milk was reported to be the most common cause of fatal anaphylaxis in children aged under 16 years."

Source: science.food.gov.uk/article/122329-using-nhs-data-to-monitor-trends-in-the-occurrence-of-severe-food-induced-allergic-reactions-work-package-1

(I've only read OP's posts so apologies if this has been said already)

Does it really make sense to have such an extensive management plan, some of which is based on small children remembering and understanding it, over just removing the tree? We won't lose all our pollinators by not having nut trees on school grounds...

We can go as far as taking steps to minimize risks in places where there are large numbers of children who may not be being intensely supervised during play. It is commonplace now for schools to be nut free. It may not have been when the trees were planted.

If I am with my child, I manage the risks around us. If he is at school, it is better that they remove risks rather than having to navigate multiple dangers. Allergies are high stakes. That’s why the laws have strengthened.

Having a child with allergies is exhausting. Every day experiences can be stressful and scary, as a parent you have to be constantly vigilant. Schools cannot ensure the same level of vigilance and so the answer is to make the environment safer.

Some children at a school I know ate poisonous seeds recently. 8 year olds and they should have known better than to eat seeds but of course they didn’t know they were poisonous enough to kill someone (laburnam). At least once child was hospitalised. I bet all the parents agreed unanimously that the tree (growing over the boundary on an adjoining property) should be removed!! Nut trees are my child’s poison. I’m a huge nature lover and also very pragmatic about risks, but I’d be asking for their removal too if I were the parent.

Exactly. I hope all the posters shouting about the OP not caring about killing kids would support dairy-free schools?

There aren't wheat fields or milking sheds on the school grounds so these are covered. The canteen set up will be managed.

It can be anxiety inducing. That doesn't mean the parents reaction is appropriate or proportionate.

The best possible thing the parent can do is assume EVERYTHING is risky. Then ensure any adults around the child are trained and have an epipen.

How does 'trumping' other allergies come in to it? They're not choosing between having either free flowing milk or nuts for everyone.
It's a question of whether a particular risk should be removed.

She still needs to see the risk assessment. An extensive management plan may not be necessary. These are just examples. It depends on the nature of the risk being managed.

Nursery and some reception kids are given free dairy milk in school and nursery settings. They literally give it out.

Wheat and dairy are literally everywhere in schools… but obviously you would support dairy free schools because it’s the most common cause of death from anaphylaxis in under 16s.

Ban grass because of the hay-fever sufferers.

That's just the bulbs.