or have the school gone bonkers?

[ohballs2013]

got a letter last night, in the new teacher info pack.
the school have said that as of the new school term a few more items have been added to the not allowed in lunch box list.
we already had the normal,
no nuts
no fizzy drinks
no bars of chocolate

now we also have

no bananas
no berry fruit, including anything containing berry fruit, such as smoothies, youghurts, cereal bars etc
no fish
no eggs
no crisps
no citrus fruits
no peices of meat, ie chicken legs.

now i get that you have to protect as many kids with allergies as possible..but WTF. is it not going a bit mad?
my own child has coeliacs, so i know all about limited diets, but im astonished at this.

What can they actually eat then?

Ignore (except for the nuts & sensible requests such as no glass bottles or fizzy drinks that can explode).

I have coeliac kids too ohballs!

I would say - if there are kids in the school who are anaphylactic to those things - i.e. there is a danger it could kill them, then okay. But a mild allergy or a non-fatal intolerance, then it seems to be overkill. The school should have good policies about lunch eating that means that kids lunches don't get mixed up or contaminated (essential for coeliacs in any case).

So basically all they can have is bread and butter with some processed meat and an apple.
ridiculous.

DD would starve if I followed that!

I would raise it and tell them its ridiculous.

Sounds utterly ridiculous to me, why don't you get them to add no wheat products on behalf of your own children?
I do understand the danger of anaphylaxis but surely if the list is that extensive then the child with the allergies will have to sit separately.
Take it up with the governors if school don't relent a little.

Sell that letter to the papers! You could raise a huge sum for the PTA! It's no wonder people despise so called "political correctness" which should be simply courtesy and good sense. Name and shame and also report to the HSE Mythbusters line.

I get the allergy thing but how can you allow, say, a chicken sandwich but not a chicken leg?

Seems rather odd to me.

That is just bonkers - and nutritionally unsound.

I would write to the head and copy in the governers. Suggest they get advice from a GP / nutritionist and come up with a coherent policy.

Well that would leave my kids with cheese sandwiches for the year if they aren't allowed eggs or dish

Fish*

They are bonkers

YANBU

There is no way I would comply with that, wtf are they thinking?

Does your school do hot dinners? If so I bet they don't have the same exclusions applied

the chicken leg thing is to reduce the chance of choking on small bones.

and this is in juniors, not infants, so the kids are all over the age of 7, so if they have an allergy they know about it, they know what not to eat.

What's wrong with bananas? Dd2 lives on egg sandwiches and bananas. Sounds crazy.

So my vegetarian dd will be living entirely off cheese sandwiches and an apple if she was at your school?

ok, i was just checking to see if i was U or not. will be calling the school in a mo.

That would've been my entire lunch in the bin then.
I agree allergens do have to be kept under control around children and nuts can be very dangerous but its rather rare for someone to go into anaphylactic shock from touching a banana!
Would it not be better to have the lunch room better staffed and teach the children not to share or swap food?

Sounds absolutely bonkers. Have you asked the head about the reasons behind this? It may even be a mistake or typing error.

Fgs how padantic, what can they eat then? I would just ignore the new list tbh

How will the school dinners cope?

I'd imagine the school kitchen uses a lot of the banned products too!

Have they said it is because there is a new child starting with allergies?

I think the whole allergy 'thing' is becoming hysterical.

I say that as sometime who has a few random allergies, that were certainly serious when I was little. I ate my lunch in a separate room BUT I could bring a friend. It was no hardship and every other child could then eat whatever they wanted without fear of contamination.

The hysterics will probably say it's not fair to segregate children in such a way, but it was no hardship at all.

I do think food education is important, and if a child's best friend could have a severe reaction to a certain food, I'd make sure my child didn't have a lunch containing the obvious offenders. Reasonable care and good education is a good response. Banning all food, healthy food is about 4 steps too far.

I know how horrible it is to have an allergy, I know how unfair it is, but why should those without allergies have to suffer?

My children often have a hard boiled egg (pre-shelled and well wrapped), Raspberries and a banana in their lunch, I don't LIKE giving them bread every day.

That would discount dds favourite tuna wraps. And she eats bananas lots as they are good for energy especially when she's dancing.

It is honestly a bonkers list.

Wow that does seem excessive. No bananas or oranges, no tuna or strawberries?

I'm assuming the crisps is a 'healthy schools' thing rather than an allergy thing.

Children with allergies need to learn to manage them themselves, but when very small they still need help. So I don't mind some lunch-box exclusions, nor do I mind ones along the lines of no sweets/fizzy drinks/crisps.

But this list is too long and too restrictive. Though I suppose if you want every pupil happily eating hummus and veg crudités it's the way to go.