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.

There is a lot of very ignorant and uncaring people on this thread. It’s a tree vs a child’s life. It’s a no brainer. It’s not for the OP to verify the level of need, it isn’t in their remit. They volunteer to tend the orchard and they have been asked to help support a child by removing something that could kill them. If the OP refuses but intends to stay gardening there then how is it okay to be that discriminatory? How does OP know better? (They don’t). The family and child and professionals have lived this experience and they know what they are asking for. For anyone else to suggest they’re wrong, ridiculous, over inflating a risk etc is frankly insulting to that child and family.

Lots of people these days know best and are actually very ignorant indeed. When did community break down? When did helping each get exchanged for survival of the fittest and the rest be damned?

Just remove the trees OP and know you’ve been a decent human being about it if you do.

My child went to an extra curricular activity the other day.
Didn’t eat anything and still came home with a bad reaction.
We spent the night in A/E and had a very frightened child.
Someone must have eaten something she was allergic to before she attended.

We can’t have a spontaneous meal out, we can’t eat in certain restaurants and even booking a holiday takes a lot of effort to make sure we are safeguarding our children.

No chid deserves to be left on the sidelines because of there allergies.
I agree with the school.
The tree should go🤷‍♀️

I don't think it's a fair comparison. These trees are in a school, in an area used by the school.

How many nut trees?

Personally I'd get on with replacing them in your position. You can't seriously tell the school no.

It would be nice and educational.

I think you're being quite difficult about this, and I don't understand why.

Nuts in shells can still cause anaphylaxis.

Those saying about schools banning gluten due to being celiac, have you experienced anaphylactic shock? 🤨

It is sad for you op but schools need to e sure the safety of all of their pupils.

Quite. Upsetting to have a lovingly grow and tended nut tree felled - but not OP's problem.

It's on school grounds.

So far I am a potential heartless child killer and not a decent human being, according to some here 😂

Celiacs might be very ill after eating gluten, but they don’t risk dying from one exposure in the way people with potentially anaphylactic reactions might do.
I think policy also takes into account the frequency of the allergies within the general population and how viable it is to ban the food group, so dairy might not be viable for a whole school ban, while nuts are.

Just say I volunteered to look after the trees. Unfortunately felling them or paying a surgeon to do it is not in my remit and I don't volunteer to do that, sorry. Feel free to crack on though.

The nuts in their shell are not dangerous. Trees that grow nuts are not dangerous. It’s the ingestion of the nut protein that triggers an immune response, not the plant itself.

I genuinely understand how terrifying it must be for the parents, but sometimes a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The child needs to be taught how to live in the real world and not hyper fixate, expecting everyone to bow to their demands. As harsh as that sounds.

I wouldn't go that far but you do seem pretty misguided!

Yes. It's quite understandable op is disappointed and frustrated and they have no duty at all to resolve this for the school, but they're coming across as quite spiteful about the situation.

Well surely farms must also remove all their cows that are in close proximity to an educational setting….

The tree needs to go. If left to school they should take the cheapest option and bin it, or if you want to safely transport it to a new home thats lovely of you.

Nut allergy children and parents have so much to deal with, a nut free school at primary is not too much to ask.

I think you don't understand; I have said that we run free educational school nature events, looking after the trees and learning about bugs. Also, tree ID trails and making posters and having fun. Sorry if you interpret that as my being difficult.

everyone has to suffer?! How is not having a nut tree causing anyone to suffer?! Going into anaphylaxis, now that’s suffering.

Imagine how disheartened that child’s family would be if they died from anaphylaxis due to the nut trees? The trees will be ok if you replant them. It’s a faff but kind of first world problems to be honest.

Exactly how?

And the teachers have enough to do without checking nut allergy children are being safe around the nut trees.

Parents will teach their child to be safe every day and provide additional supervision while they learn in evenings and weekends. And secondary schools often are not nut free. Young children should be protected.

In loco parentis doesn't mean you're there giving the same individual attention parents give their children at home, which clearly isn't possible in a classroom setting, it's about giving the level of care in terms of the child's safety and wellbeing that the parents would give, but in the school environment.

For the reasons expressed - you're considering arguing with a school which is asking you to make a change for the benefit of primary school pupils.

All the 'disheartened' business is a little melodramatic.

The trees don't need to go unless the child is specifically allergic to those species of nut. As I already said, hazels don't produce nuts if they are coppiced so unless the child is so allergic that even touching the leaves would cause a reaction, then they can stay because you can prevent it from forming any hazel nuts.

Almonds are not nuts, they are the seed of a stone fruit and if the kid is allergic to them then the school will also need to remove all plums, peaches, cherries etc from its school menus as well as having the tree removed.

Whilst I'm on, did you know that apple pips contain cyanide?

@Calling As a volunteer, you decide what you can and can't do. If you've been asked to do something that you don't want to do or don't have the equipment/knowledge to do, say so. I have no idea how large these trees might be, but felling trees is typically done by professionals. I'm involved in a community project, and we use professionals to remove dead or dying trees. Weeding and watering is v. different.

I recommend consulting with your local tree warden, every county should have one.

They should be able to advise about removal & relocation of the tree.

They should come & assess the situation for you.