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.

You can almost guarantee that the child with the allergy will be sensible. They have probably grown up with this all their life and are aware of the consequences. It’s the hundreds of other children which, understandably, would not take the risks as seriously and would pose a threat.

No, I wouldn’t agree that milk, cheese, yoghurt, wheat or eggs should automatically be banned from schools. I think there’s a really important difference between a child eating an allergen-containing food as a snack or at lunchtime, in a controlled environment where there can be rules around where it’s eaten, cleaning surfaces and washing hands, and having a nut tree growing in the school grounds.
A nut tree is a permanent, uncontrolled source of nuts. They can fall wherever they want, be blown around, be picked up, cracked open or handled by children, put in pockets, stepped on and potentially spread around the playground. You can’t exactly put a fence around every nut that falls from a tree or supervise every child who comes across one.
I absolutely agree that children with allergies shouldn’t have to live in a completely allergen-free world, and I’m not suggesting that every possible allergen should be removed from schools. But where there is a known child with a serious nut allergy, I think it’s reasonable for the school to look at whether there are avoidable sources of exposure on its grounds.
I can completely understand why the volunteers are upset after putting so much work into the orchard, and I’m not questioning their intentions at all. But I think the focus needs to be on whether the risk can realistically be managed, rather than on whether the tree itself was originally planted with good intentions. The tree isn’t anyone’s fault, but if the school has decided it presents an unacceptable risk to a particular child, then unfortunately the child’s safety has to take priority.
I also don’t think anyone is saying the volunteers are “potential child killers” or that they deliberately did anything wrong. It’s perfectly possible to appreciate the work they’ve done, recognise that nobody realised there would be an issue, and still accept that circumstances have changed and the trees may now need to be removed.

No, absolutely not. I don’t think volunteers in their 70s and 80s should be expected to physically remove trees because the school has now decided they pose a risk.
The school needs to take responsibility for this. They allowed the orchard to be planted on school grounds and, from what’s been said, nobody raised an objection to the nut trees at the time. Whether that was because they didn’t check what was being planted or because they simply left the volunteers to get on with it, ultimately the school is responsible for what happens on its own grounds.
If the trees now need to be removed because of a child’s medical needs, then I think the school should arrange and pay for their safe removal. That doesn’t take anything away from the years of work the volunteers have put in, and it certainly shouldn’t mean expecting elderly volunteers to sort it themselves.

You are entitled to your opinion, but this child will come up against hundreds if not thousands of allergen risks in their life- uprooting trees in the school will not significantly reduce their exposure.

I have actually read about the case I mentioned, although I’m certainly not claiming to know every detail or the full circumstances, which is why I didn’t name him or pretend to speak for his parents. My point was simply that cases like this are why I think allergy awareness and education are so important.

I’m not suggesting schools should be completely allergen-free, or that foods containing allergens should be banned. I completely agree that education, awareness and sensible protocols are hugely important.

But I do think there’s a difference between a child eating an allergen-containing food in a controlled environment, where tables can be cleaned, hands washed and children supervised, and a nut tree continually shedding nuts into an area where hundreds of children have unrestricted access.

You can educate children not to touch them, but you can’t guarantee every child will follow the rules every time. There will also be children with additional needs who may have limited impulse control or may not understand the consequences of picking something up. Nuts can be picked up, cracked open, put in pockets, trodden on and moved around by wind or wildlife. You simply can’t supervise every child and every nut.

If, as I understood from the original post, the orchard isn’t fenced off and children have access to it outside of organised small-group lessons, I just don’t think a canopy and supervision during lessons addresses the wider risk.

So I’m absolutely in favour of education rather than blanket bans. I just think there’s a distinction between managing an allergen that’s being consumed in a controlled setting and having an avoidable, uncontrolled source of nuts growing in the school grounds.

I don’t disagree with you about swearing. Though you’re in the wrong fucking place if it bothers you that much 😁

I rarely swear in everyday life. I find habitual swearing unintelligent. I agree, in some contexts, excessive profanity can absolutely reflect poor emotional regulation.

But deep down, you know you cannot do confidently infer my emotional regulation, ability to cope under pressure and even my conduct around patients from my deliberate use of language on Mumsnet.

I shouldn’t be joining in with this derailment of a thread, but since you brought my patients into it… my client group use a lot of profanity. I wouldn’t dream of dismissing somebody’s distress or frustration, or making assumptions about the substance of what they were communicating, simply because I disliked the language they used. Nor would I speak to them the way I speak on Mumsnet. Obviously.

Coming back to the actual subject…

Several people have made fair points about “nut-free” schools. Major allergy organisations do generally advocate allergy-aware rather than blanket nut-free schools. A “nut-free” label can create false reassurance, and nuts are certainly not the only allergens capable of causing fatal anaphylaxis.

And children severely allergic to milk, egg, gluten etc etc? I don’t have an answer. But I do know those children matter every bit as much… it’s devastating for affected families, that some allergens are so embedded in everyday diets that complete avoidance at school is extraordinarily difficult.

Schools should be genuinely allergy aware, with individual plans and risk assessments, reasonable reduction of avoidable exposure, and increasing independence as children become developmentally capable of managing more themselves. But it’s not reasonable to expect much younger children to cultivate independence they are not developmentally ready for. It’s ok for parents to advocate for their kids.

There’s also some confusion about “exposure”. Early introduction of allergens to babies can help prevent some allergies developing. That is NOT the same as exposing a child with an established severe allergy. Oral immunotherapy is a specialist medical treatment, not casual exposure, and families still need to follow their own allergy team’s advice.

Nor can parents somehow guarantee prevention. Allergy is complex and multifactorial. You can follow current pregnancy and weaning advice perfectly, and still have a child who develops a severe allergy.

Regardless of where people disagree on the details, these are families managing potentially life-threatening medical conditions. We can debate the evidence without treating frightened parents with contempt.

The science is complicated. Being kind really isn’t.

Some posters do tend to waffle on.

And some tend to snipe from the sidelines rather than engage with the substance. We all have our little ways.

I rather like intelligent debate. I love to learn and I enjoy shifting my perspective.

If somebody sees a few paragraphs, and thinks “wall of text” and reaches for a personal insult instead of engaging with any of the ideas in them, I’m not sure it’s my writing that’s exposing the intellectual limitation.

Are you sure?

Have you RTFT?

The logical outcome is tarmacing the whole area.

This child is allergic to nuts in shells/cases; I know someone who is allergic to pine trees (breathing difficulties, especially when the needles drop).

We will have to be felling every darn tree if allergies trump nature. What about school trips? They are often to gardens/natural spaces. Better ban those trips or, better still, insist all greenery is removed.

This thread is about nut trees on school grounds that the school want removed not trees in the general area. The op needs to pass the responsibility onto the school.

If the school want the nut trees removed your group planted them so need to remove them. I would not however be planting anymore trees to replace the ones removed. I am sure there is a community garden or nursing home or somewhere similar that may be glad of the trees so hopefully you can find a lovely new home for them

The difference being nut allergies can be extremely more dangerous through contact than dairy allergies. Plus your stats aren’t quite correct. Dairy allergy singularly counts as the top allergen. But peanuts and nuts combined count for nearly half of all deaths from allergies. Considering most children who have a tree nut allergy have the allergy across multiple nuts too. This isn’t even an equal comparison. We are talking about hundreds of nuts all over the floor where the children play against something that is contained. It doesn’t rain milk. However, if the school said we are going milk free, I literally wouldn’t mind no. As someone who doesn’t consume dairy myself. It wouldn’t affect me. And if I did consume dairy, I could wait 6 hours to down my glass of milk when I get home no problem.

Given Benedict Blythe (of Benedict’s Law) died after having cheese thrown at him, and we have at least one parent on this thread whose child reacted severely from touching milk, I’m not sure how you can state how much more dangerous nut allergies are. What is your source?

I’m well aware of how Benedict died yes and of course I would support the school going dairy free yes. I don’t consume dairy myself as my son has cmpa and I breast feed him. I gave up the day he was diagnosed and 14 months later I’m still breastfeeding and still haven’t touched a dairy product. When my (other) son was diagnosed with a life tgrestening peanut allergy and rushed to hospital in an ambulance, we became a peanut free house. My teens love peanut butter, love a Reece’s. But not once have they every for a second said “but what about us, we are all fine eating peanuts and only one person in the family can’t, why should we be peanut free for one person” they would never even question it. In fact ive encouraged them to eat peanut products when they are out or round fronds and they do not even want to risk the potential cross contamination just incase because they value their brothers safety over eating one single food item. Having an allergy sucks. And for all the sacrifices people have to make for small portions of their day to accommodate somebody else’s safety, trust me, it still sucks 100x more the person who it affects for their whole entire life. I don’t understand how literal children can have more humanity than grown adults sometimes.

The difference being nut allergies can be extremely more dangerous through contact than dairy allergies.

Can they?
Not sure if this is true.
It’s quite rare to get a systemic, life-threatening reaction to either nuts or dairy from external contact, though obviously it does sometimes happen and can have tragic consequences as we know.

Or do you mean oral contact?

I’m honestly shocked you’ve been asked to do this! The nuts are in very hard shells, they wouldn’t be able to open them without a nut cracker! I also love trees so am upset on behalf of the trees. Could you write to the school and explain how much hard work it would be to dig them up especially as they’ve grown and rooted. Suggest they get quotes from professionals for the removal. Then you’d be happy to plant different types of trees. If that is the case? Would those trees find a home? It’s a shame those trees won’t be old enough for a TPO.

Keep encouraging your other kids to regularly eat nuts when out and about, as it’s thought they will then be less likely to develop nut allergies themselves.
Easier said than done I know.

I would look at your own source again. That’s not how he died.

I think pp was thinking of a different case which also had a tragic outcome.

No, you are right, it’s another recent death of a child from a milk allergy. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/boy-with-allergy-died-cheese-flicked-at-him-london-inquest-told

The OP is now in an awful position. If she says, no, she and the elderly volunteers cannot possibly remove mature trees and the school will need to pay for it, the school is likely to be annoyed.

BUT if she says yes, the school will also be annoyed. They aren’t up for the hugely messy, disruptive, time consuming job that this will be. They want the trees replanted elsewhere by “responsible people”. This tells me that they don’t really want to deal with or even think about the trees - they don’t want other parents to get annoyed that mature trees were destroyed, they want to shut that conversation down by saying they were rehomed.

There is a good chance that they hope this will take a day at most - at the absolute worst, a weekend (and they’d give the volunteers access to do it fairly grudgingly). That it would take the volunteers weeks to do this may not have occurred to them.

I don’t blame the school - they have other priorities. But they are going to be horrified when they get quotes and timescales from professionals.

Nobody owes me their time, I never suggested that they do. You’re under no obligation to read my ‘sea of musings’ 😅 Though you seem quite invested in doing so, and in analysing my character rather than engaging with what I’m actually saying.

I’ve tried to bring this back to the actual subject but you seem to be more interested in me.

The science may be complicated, but being kind isn’t. We can debate evidence without treating understandably frightened parents with contempt.

If you disagree with that, or with anything substantive I’ve said, then disagree with it. But critiquing me personally isn’t an argument.
You make a lot of assumption. Why have you assumed I’m a man?

Thats not correct. Milk allergies are just as dangerous as nut allergies.

Both my children have had severe reactions from skin contact to milk.

And Karanbir Cheema died from skin contact with cheese