Is it reasonable for 10 children to tuck into a peanut containing lunch at nursery?

[bobbybob]

Ds is allergic to eggs, latex, peanuts and bananas (and some other stuff).

I recently found out that the new vegetarian nursery menu relies heavily on peanuts for it's protein. I complained and said it was not suitable for any child under the age of 2 to be eating peanuts, it certainly wasn't suitable for 20 of them to do it right next to my ds.

here are an extract from their response.

"we do not believe that the removal of all peanut based products from our meals is justified or in the best interest of all the children that we care for."

I'm in NZ so the law will be different, but some massive buck passing is going on here. They are saying that the inclusion of peanuts was to satisfy the heart foundation for an endorsement.

Anyone got some points for me to make in my response, suggestions for what to do next, or articles that back up that children under 2 simply should not be eating meals based on peanuts?

response to my e-mail. I'll reply saying not good enough, in my view doesn't comply with the guideloines etc

Thank you for you enquiry about peanut protein and early childhood.

The Healthy Heart Award is a health promotion programme that encourages
early childhood teachers to promote nutrition and active movement to the
Under 5s and their families. Heart Foundation staff offer early
childhood centres advice on nutrition, based on the Ministry of Health
Food and Nutrition Guidelines. With regards to peanut products, these
state that peanut products are a nutritious choice for children unless
there is a strong family history of allergy.

Many of the centres and schools we work with request, through policy,
that parents refrain from sending any peanut products with their
children. The decision to allow/disallow peanut products at a centre or
school is entirely up to the school community. This decision does not
affect centres achieving their Healthy Heart Awards.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any further queries.

Strong family history consists of the following:

Any parent or sibling with

asthma, eczema, hayfever or allergic to any food or anything else for that matter.

This would surely cover most families. I think they are confusing the meaning of the word "strong" to mean "severe" rather than just a close relation with one of the conditions on the list.

i got a similar response. TBH I just don't think their dietician can be bothered altering the website.

I faxed a response last Friday and then chased up a week later, the woman never called me back. We are all full of the flu at the moment, so I haven't got around to giving her another earful.

I have been investigating some home based care for ds - I sent off for an information pack having carefully explained his allergies - the pack contained a balloon! Nobody truly understands unless they have been there do they?

A balloon??? yes, they never know... [put hands on head emoticon].

I've spoken to the childminder herself and she was a lot more switched on. There would only be one other boy there (he's 4) on the afternoons ds goes. I will meet her next week.

Only other option is a nanny, and I'm not sure I have enough hours for that.

Just a quick update:

It's really kicked off now, but I seem to have the MP and Ministry of Education on my side.

They are now claiming they have never had peanut products (so I obviously imagined the tins I saw.)

Just read this through, I can't believe so called professionals caould care more about an award than the health of a child.
Well done for pushing this and Good Luck.

BB! Keep us posted - you're doing a good thing here.

(And cuddle gorgeous Bob from me )

Much playing telephone tag - but no progress.

If they deny everything and have removed all the evidence what on earth shall I do? It would be much better for them to admit it and tell me how they have changed things - even if they say "but we were going to do it anyway" to save face.

Apparently the lady that wrote the "please leave" letter was not in full possession of all the facts.