to challenge the schools nuts ban

[pigglewiggle]

The school has a strict no nuts policy. Apparently this is because someone in a higher year has a peanut allergy. I can understand banning peanuts if the allergy is severe but peanuts are very different to normal proper nuts and reactions to these are not to my knowledge anywhere near as bad as peanuts. It just makes lunch quite difficult as we are vegan and would love to pop something like a nakd bar in lunchboxes.

Aibu to go to the school and at least establish if a total ban on nuts is needed / necessary?

Hi shiney in my teaching exp in various sch I have never come across a place that had lots and lots of chn with epi pens required for a variety of diff allergies so I don't know what the sch would do then, I think a case by case basis eg nut allergic child, egg allergic child ..... Dealt with as they arise, maybe I've only taught in schs where allergies aren't that common or where most kids with Epipens have them for a similar selection of allergens like nuts or eggs so it's not hard to minimise contact with these allergens. Anyway, having witnessed my dc have severe allergy response then anything the sch does to help is good for the child, ban or whatever restrictions they come up with, I'd expect that be it for nut allergy or alllergy to anything else severe enough to need epi pen.

Zoe - that's a great outcome for your DD. But there is no need to be "cross" about doctors having to be careful, as a significant proportion of the participants on "your" arm of the trial still went on to develop a full blown allergy, so it is important that they have to take this through regulatory bodies and be very careful about how it is managed.

Zoe there is probably a professional imperative for doctors to be careful. Giving peanuts is not without risk (nothing is) and for a doctor to publicly advise patients to go against official advice would be a professionally stupid thing to do. It's different in a one-to-one consultation where the risks and benefits can be explained. And it is of course right that public health bodies should go through a due diligence process before making major changes in public health advice.

It's been very interesting to read the contributions of those involved in the studies. I feel lucky that despite avoiding peanut when she was little, DD seems at worst to have a rather mild peanut allergy (she had a number of high risk factors including severe eczema and severe milk allergy, both of which she has largely outgrown).

Allergy is a funny thing - I had a full panel of allergy tests as a young adult, which showed quite a significant allergic response to a number of foods that I have eaten routinely all my life, including all tree nuts, sesame, eggs, milk and wheat. In reality, I can eat all these foods without symptoms and my only issues are with peanut and mustard (which I avoid) and occasional reactions to corn, kiwi, melon and banana (which I do eat, carefully).

Interesting thread'. No nut ban at my kids school. DS has nut allergy, including peanuts. It is impossible to minimise all risk to exposure in life. I just make sure I educate him and the school know and understand.

We still have peanut butter in the house and can manage this. Just good hygiene. Plus I eat it all!

It's quite disturbing to come back to this thread and see its still discussing the nut ban being 'saving childrens lives' despite the fact anaphylaxis UK doesn't advocate them.
Also to see that people are still totally ignoring the fact that nuts are not the only life threatening allergen and aren't discussing that whilst they send their nut free lunch boxes that they'll also eliminate dairy, fish, wheat, soya, tomato, fresh fruit - to be fair and prevent the reactions to the millions of people with these allergies.

If you ban every allergy causing substance then it would be hard to produce a balanced meal for a child.

If a vegan child needs nuts then I wonder if provision can be made for them to eat their packed lunch away from the allergic child.

youarekiddingme
The Anaphylaxis Campaign says:
Generally speaking the Anaphylaxis Campaign would not necessarily support ‘peanut bans’ in all schools.

This is a rather different position to the one you and others suggest they hold. The statement suggests to me that they may well think bans are appropriate in some school environments (depending, presumably, on the level of risk). If the statement doesn't mean that, then they would categorically state a position of not supporting a ban in schools.

I'm at a loss as to why you and a number of other posters think some people believe nut allergies are more important than other food allergies. I see no evidence to support this. If nut bans are more common than other bans, I would expect there to be reasons for this. Policy makers presumably factor in the number of people with a particular allergy; severity of allergies; ease of excluding allergens from an environment; opinions of professionals and parents concerned. Personally speaking if I shared an environment with somebody allergic to a particular food, I would be happy to exclude the allergen(s) in the shared environment, regardless of the allergen and any perceived inconvenience.

ReallyTired
A vegan child does not need nuts in their lunch time meal. They can even exist without nuts altogether. I'm not advocating that they do, but it is possible to have a balanced vegan diet without them.

Fascicle - my kids and I very rarely eat nuts qua nuts, although I suppose they are sometimes ingredients - so, in principle I agree with you. However OP implied her kids don't eat much/any soya/tofu (we don't know why, it's probably not allergy related but soya is a popular allergen so there may be many people in the country for whom banning nuts would be a bigger issue than it would be to you or me). So that leaves pulses which, again, can be incorporated into a packed lunch but not so easily (we regularly send our kids to school with bean salads or bean casseroles but they have to be bought or cooked). However- nut allergic kids don't need nut bans either, as has been established by this thread. So I think saying nobody needs nuts as a justification for an illogical ban doesn't work. Nobody needs milk either but they never ban that.

Fascicle
read the full paper rather than selectivey quoting. I dont get the impress ion you have read anything on the subject

There probably are situations in which a nut ban could be the sensible pragmatic choice for eg with very young children (preschool or infants) or in a school with an unusually high number of children with severe nut allergies and where (for example) physical space constraints make it difficult to ensure that risks are minimized.

It becomes less easy to justify IMO for older primary and certainly at secondary school and I would be astonished if lunches are checked that closely anyway.

I would hope that no one would argue against a nut ban if a risk assessment had been done and it was the best (most effective) way of minimizing risk. However this implies that you would also be prepared to ban other allergens in certain circumstances. In practice that might be rather difficult (I'd pity the head teacher trying to impose an egg or milk ban for eg, and I think even sesame would meet strong resistance from some parents).

Fascicle
read the full paper rather than selectivey quoting. I dont get the impress ion you have read anything on the subject

Bruffin
I'm not sure why have an issue with my use of the quote from the Anaphylaxis Campaign (which has been misused by several others to suggest the Campaign is anti bans per se). If you think my use of their words needs qualifying, then explain why, rather than making inaccurate assumptions about what I have and haven't read.

While you're at it, perhaps you can provide evidence for your claim that bans result in less vigilance. I can't find any information to support that and it's certainly not borne out by my experience.

GentlyBenevolent
The 'need' for nut consumption and the ease of nut avoidance is not a sole justification for a ban but they are a consideration. I listed others.

When you talk about an 'illogical ban' - how can you say a ban is illogical if you don't know the basis for it and the effect of it? If an allergen is banned to which no child is allergic, that would be illogical, as is suggesting the policy on different allergens should automatically be equal - the profile of allergy sufferers within a setting is clearly relevant to deciding policy.

I see the objective of a ban as nothing more than reducing the likelihood of a child suffering a serious reaction. We (parents, schools) take steps to reduce all sorts of risks for young children until they are better equipped to manage risks themselves. I see this as no different.

I pretty much agree with Mistigri's post above.

fascicle
It is very hard to have a balanced diet for a vegan child. A vegan child needs protein in their diet and cannot have protein from meat, fish, eggs or dairy products. If they are not allowed nuts then what do you suggest they eat for protein. It only really leave quorn or perhaps pulses. If a child's diet becomes too restrictive then they will get vitamin deficencies.

I suppose you might argue that a child does not need a vegan diet, but often the parents feel very strongly about not eating animal products. Are you suggesting that a child should stop being a vegan so that the nut ban can be implemented without the child suffering nutricitional deficencies. Pos

Schools try to cater for the needs of all children whether those are relgious or medical or ethical beliefs. However parents do need to be realistic. It might be an option to take the vegan children home for lunch.

Reallytired - quern isn't vegan. :) The alternatives to nuts are soya products or pulses.

Fascicle - it's an illogical ban because it has no scientific basis (in most cases nut bans are probably driven by insurance considerations, ultimately). Nobody needs a nut ban even though some people may think they do. Nobody needs to eat nuts though some people may think they do. why priorities one perceived need over another? Neither are real.

PrioritISE. My typing is atrocious.

When you have a child with allergies you generally research about them and safety measures etc. The anaphylaxis campaign cannot categorically state they don't support nut bans as would be in a whole host of difficulty if a child had a reaction.

My DS and I don't eat nuts. It's never been an issue he'd take something nutty into school. Same way I didn't ask the school to completely ban all tomato products. I did however meets he school, school nurse and kitchen staff and come up with a safer way for him to eat. Then met with lunch staff to advise them.

He never had a reaction in school - he did with me

I am not trying to play allergen bingo. But defending the OP by saying all those who've been downright nasty and basically accusing her of wanting to willingly endanger children due to her choice of veganism need to consider that they are packing their own childs lunchbox full of potential life threatening allergens. Would these people also be willing to go completely dairy, egg, gluten, fresh fruit, wheat and soya free (this includes things such as beef etc) because after all, it's only through choice you eat these foods - not necessity.

I am 1 of many mums I know that don't support allergen bans despite having children with anaphylaxis.

'basically accusing her of wanting to willingly endanger children due to her choice of veganism need to consider that they are packing their own childs lunchbox full of potential life threatening allergens'

^this, absolutely! The most hysterical posts on this thread have been from parents whose kids don't actually have allergies. Its easy to be self-righteous. Those of us going through it know that even in your own home its hard to be 100% reliable. . The question of nuts or no nuts in your child's lunch box is in most cases totally tangental when it comes to addressing the kinds of risks our kids face every day of their lives. It is complacent and smug to lay into the OP for what was really an entirely reasonable question.

GentlyBenevolent
it's an illogical ban because it has no scientific basis

In that case, I'm presuming the scientific basis for your argument extends beyond this comment:

nut allergic kids don't need nut bans either, as has been established by this thread.

What evidence do you have to support other (non ban) allergy management interventions in schools?

ReallyTired
Non nut vegan proteins would include legumes, seeds and grains (even bread contains a decent amount, although not a 'complete' protein). Fruit and vegetables contain a small amount.

It's not hard to give children a balanced vegan diet (minus nuts at lunchtime). Not in my experience, anyway.

Are you suggesting that a child should stop being a vegan so that the nut ban can be implemented without the child suffering nutricitional deficencies.

I'm not in the business of discouraging fellow vegans. I know it's possible to do without nuts for one meal.

YANBU op. Despite having a child who has an allergy to raw pineapple I would never expect a school to instigate a ban to protect dd. Dd has had 2 reactions, her initial reaction and one at school 7yrs after diagnosis. The school was horrified and asked if they should ban raw pineapple, I explained to school we didn't feel this was appropriate and instead we looked as staff awareness/training. There are so many potential allergens out there I don't feel bans are the answer but education and awareness for all. My dd second exposure occurred when a member of staff cut dd apple with a contaminated knife.