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.

Sounds like the school is going way OTT.

Our school has the usual not nuts, fizzy drinks or chocolate bar rule. I did ask about sesame seeds once as I wasn't sure if they were classed as nuts and was told they were fine and they wouldn't ban everything as it would be unworkable.

I grew up with a wide range of allergies, and my own children also suffer some. BUT I would never ask or expect that an entire school full of children are restricted in their food to suit mine. It's ridiculous. And its not like you do that everywhere else, so why school? If I bring my children anywhere I don't lead the way with a loudhailer insisting everyone with certain foods on their person clears the space immediately.

If my children were so badly allergic to so many things I would think it safer for them to sit on their own, since this ban won't help anyway. So you've banned peanuts from the school, but what about the kids who have eaten it for breakfast? It's all nonsense.

I've remembered a letter we had years ago. Infant school. (my kids are teens now) saying that a child who had a severe nut allergy was going to start the school and talking about all the things that the kids couldn't bring in but it also told us to not let them have peanut butter etc for breakfast.

I just obeyed at the time, but thinking about it now, it was probably really stupid of them, because they had no way of knowing if everyone did (I bet they didn't) and so they may not have taken proper precautions.

there's a cross post and a half, Kobayashi!

Truth is, there's only so much they can control and the more they think they're controlling everything, the less vigilant they may be.

Also, to be clear, if my children's schools had an arrangement where the children are in class and couldn't have citrus fruits (for example) because little johnny (and let's face it, I'd know it was little johnny because the kids always know these things and would tell me) has a serious allergy to them, I would be totally supportive. I'd see it as a good educational experience for them because it's important to understand that we sometimes need to modify our own behaviour so as not to exclude others. That's a great message for life in general.

I'd be unsupportive to a long list of blanket banned foodstuffs that clearly wouldn't be policed in any effective way. Not least because it's a completely tokenistic pretence at inclusion rather than anything else.

Exactly Arbitrary! What I wanted to say but couldn't articulate.

I understand the need to be careful due to allergies, and don't actually care much about the general policing of lunchboxes, but that list is very long. Rather than go in demanding changes, I would do what a PP has said and ask for a leaflet or booklet of acceptable pack lunches, that are nutritious and varied, as well as the risk assessment that this policy has been based on. I would also ask if there is any guidance on avoiding these food before school, and possibly then ask for a leaflet/booklet of acceptable breakfast foods. If they're going to implement this, then parents are going to need help. I look at that list and am actually coming up with nothing that I would be able to make as a pack lunch.

And lets not forget the cost - this will probably add to the cost of packed lunches?

Though at the minute I think DS would starve if he didn't eat apples or bananas.

What the hell's wrong with bananas, fish, eggs and citrus fruits?!
YANBU, that's absolutely ridiculous.
OK, I can understand chicken legs and the risk of choking, but the rest is utter bonkers!
Mine have packed lunches and there's no juice, or chocolate allowed. If they suddenly banned everything on your list I'd be going in and asking them to explain why and what the reasoning behind it was!

HelgaHufflepuff, my ds has a child in their daycare that can get an anaphylactic reaction to even touching an egg carton. They have to be extremely careful. Egg is one of the more common allergies.

Those who are suggestingthat a child be segregated for their allergy absolutely astound me. How would you react if your child was expected to sit on their own because of special needs or a disability?

I would be horrified.

However, if my child was expected to sit on their own in order to keep them safe I would be fine. I would imagine that my child's friends may tailor their lunch-boxes occasionally to keep them company though.

The thing is, if this really is a life-threatening allergic condition, it's not going to be good enough to say 'don't put these things in lunches'. Some parents will check labels carefully and find alternatives. Some will not bother (or not consider that they should). A few may well just think 'oh, it's only a little bit of banana in this smoothie and it's in a carton anyway, it'll be fine'. It would be a massive task to check every lunch, given that some people won't care and some will just find it way too hard. We have several parents at school recently arrived from other countries who do not speak or read English very well. I am really not sure some of them would be up to checking labels on bread for allergen traces, even if they really wanted to conform with the rule. And I can think of some parents who persistently send in Nutella sandwiches even though nuts aren't allowed because they literally haven't made the connection between the name and the possible contents.

I am more than happy to make sure that my child's lunch Isn't a danger to another child (eg nuts - dairy would be difficult as I refuse to use margarine) except where it seriously restricts what my child can bring. If it gets to the point where the list is as in the OP, that is when other tactics need to be explored.

However, I don't think this is purely allergy driven.

The thing is that it is entirely possible to keep a child safe and to not segregate them from their peers. It just takes a bit of imagination, consideration and compromise from everyone and a understanding of the child's needs.

Not if it involves restricting the diet of everyone else to the level indicated by the OP.

Especially when it is pretty much pointless and impossible to police anyway.

No, there is need for that sort of list SoupDragon, it's absolutely insane. I have never come across a child with a contact or airbone allergy to that many items.

I share the view that this is bonkers. Even if it is due to allergy in one or more children then unless each parent is informed exactly what avoidance of the allergens means practically and is highly motivated to comply then the child is inadequately protected. Total avoidance of the allergens is thus practically impossible.

If it were my child I would prefer segregated lunches with (hopefully) a friend who can be compliant. I would definitely be ok with the list if my child was the accompanying child.

"Segregation" as a word/concept has quite horrible connotations and it would obviously be utterly awful to insist that all children with allergies, illnesses and disabilities must eat separately from their peers. But I agree with Soupdragon that there is a huge difference between this and making special arrangements because of a child's specific needs. For example I have worked with several autistic children who find the bustle noise and smell of a school dinner hall hideously distressing and overwhelming. I would have no problem with arranging for such a child to access a quieter environment away from others to have their lunch. Equally, I think it would be quite ok for a child with extremely severe allergies to a wide range of foods to eat separately with a friend in another classroom on safety grounds. I would have loved that as a child, actually.

I have never heard of a citrus allergy.

The things I learn from MN.

Dd and others in her school have anaphylaxis reactions dd to fish and others to nuts. All teachers are epi pen trained but there are no banned foods, rather all children are taught that food swapping isn't allowed and there are sensible precautions in the dining room so that when fish is served there is an alert that dd has a severe allergy so that staff are more vigilant.
It is enough for dd and I have to say that if dd couldn't be in the same room as fish then I would request that she ate elsewhere rather than try to dictate to a school's worth of parents.

YANBU, the school have gone completely bonkers :)

MidniteScribbler I also doubt the list is allergy driven - or certainly not just by one child.

I am more than happy to accommodate allergies up to a point, but I feel there is a point where the needs/well-being of the rest of the school need to be considered and take priority.

If there were genuinely a child with the limited diet indicated by the original list, I feel it would be better for the school to arrange a separate, safe, dining area. If my child were friends with such an allergic child, I would happily ensure their lunchbox was safe occasionally so they weren't eating alone.

Mind you, even separate a dining area would be problematical as other children would still be contaminated by the allergen after lunch.

Primary schools seem to get a big power kick about meals - because the day the kids hit year 7 it all goes out the window
1500 teenagers eat while playing football or in their tutor rooms or in the canteen or the deli or at the chippy down the road

and primary schools that have taught children NOT to think for themselves about food are doing more harm than good

Bananas?!