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.

Given how restrictive that list is - I think it would be totally reasonable to ask the school (with the help of a local NHS nutritionist - after all this is impacting a large cohort of children) to provide a booklet of acceptable packed lunch ideas that are nutritionally balanced.

I don't think it is fair to put these sort of rules in place without offering any sort of support to the parents who have to work with them.

Apples do not contain citrus fruit. Fact.

As a matter of interest - when schools hand down these edicts what would actually happen if a parent chose to ignore it? I'm not talking about allergens - obviously peanuts and the like have to be avoided and that's common sense - but what about if a parent wants their child to have a bag of crisps? Is the school allowed to confiscate? I think it's bloody outrageous and I'd be so tempted to push at the boundaries of this just to see what happened

Apples do contain citric acid

I think the school needs to explain further.

When we had children with allergies, the school explained that that was why nuts were banned. The school didn't say who it was, just that there were children with allergies.

If it's to do with allergies, people will be sympathetic. If there are other reasons, people are more likely to be reasonable if they know what they are.

Otherwise, you will get a lot of people just saying "fuck that", as posters have done, above.

Oh - citric acid - well that's not what Altinkum was saying is it? A quick Google shows -

Citric acid is found in cherries, sweet apples, sweet peaches, sweet plums, mangoes, figs, olives, and persimmons -

and in fact Pineapples have a higher citric acid content than apples.

My DD (High School) has taken a tuna sandwich, 2 satsumas and a cereal bar today - whoops they are all on your banned list!

ive called the school and im waiting on the head calling me back.
the secretary tried to tell me they cant discuss it with me as some of the items are on there due to a childs medical issues which are confidential.

I think I'd be asking for clarification. Such an extensive list is ludicrous. Also have a look at what they offer as a school lunch. I bet they're breaking their own rules.

When the latex allergic child arrives they will ban plimsolls .... no?

Actually I'm sure many schools do have a latex allergic child (after all they don't use ordinary stick plasters) and I've never heard of a plimsoll ban, ever, so banning all that for 1 child (unless the school dinners will also conform, Oh and don't forget the staff lunches too) it's a bit OTT.

I don't understand why the whole school has to change what they have to eat for one child's allergies?

But your not asking for details? medical issues is enough of an explanation. They just need to tell u how far the list goes and a list of suggestions. Good luck

Oh crossed post. I see you have asked. Awaiting reply with interest then.

They're going to have a high old time patrolling lunch boxes for so many items.

People aren't necessarily sympathetic to allergies as a reason, especially not when the results are very restrictive. In fact, the more restrictive the list, the less likely parents are to bother with it at all.

Apart from anything else, there will be a significant number of parents who just refuse to believe that many of the things on the list are potentially dangerous to anyone. You have to think very carefully about banning foodstuffs because it relies on people's compliance (and therefore doesn't actually guarantee anything).

Altinkum, it's CITRIC acid. Not to be confused with citrus fruit.

Citric acid is a very common ingredient, it's basically vitamin C, and is added to bread among other things.

Ridiculous! Do you think it is a push to get more kids eating school dinners as someone has suggested already? Or a super allergic child (poor thing:() starting?

no nuts, no fish, no eggs, no meat basically = no protein!

sounds barmy to me

surely they need to have a list of "approved" foods to acompany the "banned" food list... otherwise parents are just going to get confused and frustrated.

i also agree that they need to include clear reasons why certain things are banned... obviously without giving out personal details (ie, we have a child who will to this item)

I think I am being a bit thick. I do apologise but I have no direct experience of children with allergies.

I truly didn't know that some allergies are so severe that masks are needed Altinkum, that's frightening.

Jam sandwiches it is then! :)