Nut ban at school

[Topazblue]

I don't understand this, well I do. But had a rather heated discussion with a 'friend' this afternoon. Her do has a peanut allergy, my dc has a dairy/egg allergy.

Both docs have to carry epi pens etc so equally serious in my mind.

My dc reacts to egg and dairy just from being nearby. We have had incidents due to yogurt splattering at pre school and being nearby when meringues were being made.
I mentioned how I didn't see why there was a nut ban and not a dairy/egg ban when the allergies are just as serious

She got quite irate saying that peanut allergy IS more serious and I told her that as far as I'm concerned anaphylactic shock whether from a peanut or other allergy is still anaphylactic shock ???

Apparently though it would be unfair to have a ban on dairy and egg as children need to eat those things whereas nuts are easy to exclude.
AIBU to think that children should be treated the same whether it's a severe nut or other allergy and if you are going to ban one thing then ban them all or none at all ?

[CrohnicallyAspie]

The school I work at (nearly 300 pupils) has not got any epipen users and hasn't since I've been working there.

Some schools have the policy of packed lunch children eating in certain classrooms when it's wet play (or even every day).

Permitting nuts might make a difference because it means children with a nut allergy are more at the forefront of your mind. And you're not going to rely on a nut ban keeping the child safe. By which I mean in a stressful situation, if there is a nut ban you might think you can take your eye off a child with a nut allergy because the nut ban will keep them safe.

And if you're telling me you've never taken your eye off the ball for a moment, even in a situation that you believe a child to be safe in, then I don't believe you. So you've never left a toddler in a safe environment while you pop to the toilet? You've never taken your eye off a child in a public place even for a second?

We all make decisions based on perceived risk everyday, I'm saying a nut ban affects the perceived risk. With a nut ban the risk is perceived to be lower, but in reality it's exactly the same.

[fascicle]

Food allergies are sufficiently prevalent (more so amongst children) that I would be amazed if any school (unless unusually small in numbers) had not come across severe reactions, had to use epi-pens etc. Teachers/other school staff are likely to be more educated than many others on food allergens, which is why I'd be surprised if they took a no nuts policy for granted. I haven't come across a school that relies solely on a nut ban, without other risk management policies in place. In your wet lunch scenario - why would there be any need for children to eat in class? If a lack of vigilance occurs due to under resourcing and exceptional circumstances, I'm not sure how you think permitting nuts on site would make a positive difference.

[CrohnicallyAspie]

not all schools will have children with severe allergies and reactions. Schools that are used to dealing with more minor reactions (eg reacts only to consumed substance) might slip up when faced with a child that reacts to cross contamination eg 'nutty' hands touching other foods. Teachers and other staff are only human. They might have 29 other children in the class- one with diabetes and needs help with monitoring sugar levels, one with epilepsy who needs watching in case of absence seizures, one with brittle asthma who can have attacks with no apparent trigger... I'm saying that something might get missed and in the chaos of the classroom the child with an allergy might not be the priority at that point in time.

Imagine it's lunch time and it's wet so the children are eating lunch in the classroom watching a DVD. Flossy needs her sugars checking before she can eat, and she's low so needs supervising while she has her lucozade. Johnny starts having an asthma attack so needs someone to supervise him taking his inhaler and call for help if no improvement. Jimmy starts to 'feel funny' (aura) so needs to be supervised sitting down in the quiet corner. In the chaos, perhaps no one's watching Alice with the nut allergy, after all, no one's allowed to bring nuts into school, are they?

[fascicle]

I can't envisage the situation you describe. (I'm thinking of the term cross contimination in its broadest sense, including e.g. nuts turning up unexpectedly in food items where they are not thought to be included as an ingredient.)

All schools will encounter children with food allergies and dealing with adverse reactions. For teachers to be ignorant of the consequences of severe allergies, they'd have to avoid reading their school's policy on allergy management and not attend staff training sessions (and be unaware of media reports on the subject). If a school is cavalier about allergy management, then the consequences are likely to be an increased number of reactions on site, some of which could potentially be fatal. I'd say that's reason enough for schools and teachers to take allergies seriously.

[CrohnicallyAspie]

I think it would be the staff becoming complacent. I think that unless they have seen first hand the consequences of cross contamination, the risk just won't be big enough in their mind to ensure that they do keep to the measures put in place.

For example they may not believe that merely touching or being exposed to an allergen is enough to trigger a reaction. Even if they have been told of scenarios, they might subconsciously believe that the child did eat some to cause the reaction, or that parents are exaggerating. They might think that no visible nuts is the same as there being no nuts.

Does that make sense?

[fascicle]

Chronically You're arguing 'risk compensation'. I think there are plenty of examples of background measures to increase personal safety, which are unlikely to affect levels of risk taking. (For example, I doubt if people's behaviour in a kitchen would change because they had e.g. a working fire alarm or a fire extinguisher available.)

Who do you think would be complacent in an environment with a nut ban - staff/and or children? I would expect staff and children with allergies to be knowledgeable enough about food allergens and adverse reactions to know that a ban cannot possibly guarantee an allergen free environment - it can only seek to reduce the quantity of allergen within the environment.

Your example of risk compensation doesn't work for me because it doesn't factor in the risk of cross contamination which will be less visible or even invisible, and will always pose a risk, regardless of whether a ban is in place or not.

I have direct experience of two schools - a primary with a nut ban, and a secondary without a ban (although no nuts are used in its catering). Both of them have some measures in common in terms of awareness of students with food allergies, but the primary school (with ban) has a number of additional practices in place that the secondary school (no ban) does not offer, e.g. annual sessions with epi-pen training for parents and teachers, with an opportunity to discuss the school's policy and practices for allergy management; a no food sharing rule - hardly a sign of complacency.

[NinjaLeprechaun]

"I think the common view though is that whilst all peanut allergies tend to be (or become) life threatening, many people who claim to suffer "severe allergies" to some things like dairy in fact don't mean anaphylaxis at all."

It is possible to have a "severe" allergy without having a "life threatening" allergy. I have a severe allergy to shellfish - I get the same symptoms you would expect from very bad food poisoning, and I'll leave it at that - and it's airborne. I'm not going to minimize how bad it is because somebody else has a worse reaction. If you have a life threatening allergy, then say "life threatening allergy" and that will avoid any confusion.

[CrohnicallyAspie]

fasicle it's human nature though. Nut bans should be part of a range of measures, not the only measure, but I'd put money on the other measures sliding out of complacency. I don't have any direct evidence but thinking of a similar scenario:
My local high street is pedestrianised, ie there is no separate pavement/road and there are signs saying no motor vehicles permitted between x and y hours. However, on the rare occasion that there is a car driving down it, I have been known to walk right in front of it. The 'knowledge' that there are no cars there overrides my usual 'crossing the road' precautions.

In a similar way, I can see the 'knowledge' that there are no nuts in school overriding other precautions that should be taken.

[bruffin]

See my last post re research in canada. The conclusion was exactly what i have been saying all along ie complacency is a problem in nut ban schools and that schools without nut bans were better equiped to deal with reaction.

[fascicle]

bruffin
You challenged and i answered you before, you selectively quoted which misrepresented the AC stance.

Absolute rubbish. I quoted their position directly from their website, as I have done on this thread, to show that it is inaccurate to simply claim that they do not recommend nut bans, when what they actually say is that they don't necessarily support them in all schools. If you have an issue with the direct quote I've used, you should be able to explain why you think it's not reflective of their policy.

Why dont you provide evidence that schools with nut bans actually have less incidences than those that dont.

Because that is not a claim I've made. On the other hand you are making statements which you haven't evidenced such as Nut bans do not reduce risk, they make it worse because of complacency. Interestingly the article/research you've now referenced does not support your claim that nut bans create more risk due to complacency.

There seems to be a daft assumption that an environment with a no nuts policy means that no other measures are in place to protect those with severe allergies, or that those with allergies take less care because of a false sense of security. There's absolutely no reason why nut bans cannot be part of a range of measures to limit the occurrence of exposure and reactions in susceptible individuals.

[mabythesea]

Doesn't seem like there's any evidence a "ban" makes anyone safer though?

What would you serve for a school lunch that is egg, dairy and nut free

[BeeBawBabbity]

maybe yes, if the allergies were serious enough to cause life threatening reactions on contact or from volatile proteins. It's only one meal a day.

I realise it's not foolproof, but it must reduce risk. I don't think it would give anyone a false sense of security. If you have a child who could die from eating a food you will always be on guard. Truth is other parents probably won't care much- probably won't even know - if there's no ban. Nobody makes kids wash their hands etc at our primary school, even with no ban. Teachers barely have time to teach, lunch supervisors are busy trying to get 400 kids fed in an hour. Contamination could easily happen and I'm in favour of anything that makes vulnerable kids a bit safer.

[CrohnicallyAspie]

Surely hygiene procedures would be higher if there is no nut ban in place? For example, ensuring tables are wiped down and children wash their hands after lunch. If there is a child with anaphylaxis to nuts and nut oils, and one of the safety measures in place is that all children must wash their hands before entering the classroom, aren't staff far more likely to ensure it is enforced if they think there is a possibility of a child having consumed nuts? Otherwise they might let it slip, after all it doesn't matter because no one is allowed to bring nuts into school. Except one day little Johnny is brought to school by his grandma and she's made his favourite peanut butter sandwiches as she didn't know about the nut ban...

A nut ban could only really work if there is some foolproof method of checking every substance that every child brings to school, and of checking/decontaminating the children and their clothes too (in case they have had muesli or similar for breakfast).

[bruffin]

this article has a link to research paper that shows no difference in a&e admissions between nut ban schools and those that dont ban
"We did not observe a difference in the percentage of AEs occurring in schools/daycares prohibiting (4.9%, 95% CI, 3.3, 7.1) versus allowing peanuts (3.0%, 95% CI, 1.8, 4.8). Failure to observe such a decreased rate in facilities restricting peanut may be due to increased awareness and enhanced vigilance among parents, school personnel, and children in schools permitting peanut. Further, peanut-free policies may create a false sense of security and foods brought to such facilities may inadvertently contain peanut and children who are allergic may believe that it is safe to share foods as they believe they are guaranteed to be peanut free."

[Helenluvsrob]

And the airborne allergens are awful - though I think rarer. Fish being cooked is the classic really tricky anaphylactic agent.

[Helenluvsrob]

Nut bans give a false sense of security. They can't ban the " prepared in a factory where nuts may be present " type stuff and cannot regulate for a kid having peanut butter at breakfast and touching / hugging an allergic child - at which point there would be a whole faff of " it can't be anaphylaxis as we are nut free " etc whilst the child becomes seriously ill.

It also possibly gives a nut anaphylactic child the false understanding that they can share at bit if their friends sandwich or what ever - after all at school there aren't nuts about. Different if they are year 5 or 6 and at the cinema or what ever.

Anaphylaxis is anaphylaxis and just as bad what ever causes it.

[BarbarianMum]

As I explained above, certain allergens are more likely to produce volatile proteins than others - so milk allergies, for example, never warrant a ban, likewise egg bound up in cake won't cause a problem but nuts may if you have a super-allergic child.

[howabout]

YANBU
Also it is often the case that a peanut allergy goes with allergies to other things like lentils and chickpeas but they are seldom banned.
In general I think an individual approach to children affected and their circumstances within school has to be better than treating peanuts as a special case and everything else as something awkward for the affected child to deal with.

[mabythesea]

BeeBaw - so if a school had children with peanut, sesame, milk and egg allergies then all those things should be banned?

[BeeBawBabbity]

I support bans where there is a seriously allergic child in a primary school. I support banning any food where this is the case. Imagine it was your kid! You can't send them off at 4 to "take responsibility for their allergy"! They can't even read!

It's totally different by time they are 11 or 12 and off to secondary.

That said I wouldn't trust a food ban to eliminate that food, but as has been said before, any reduction in risk is surely a good thing.

[bruffin]

You challenged and i answered you before, you selectively quoted which misrepresented the AC stance. Why dont you provide evidence that schools with nut bans actually have less incidences than those that dont.

[fascicle]

bruffin
Fascicle we have spoken about this before and you were midquoting and very ignorant of the situation. Nut bans do not reduce risk

I've challenged you before on the same subject - misrepresentation of the Anaphylaxis Campaign's position on a nut ban and your thus far unsubstantiated view that a nut ban leads to complacency.

The quote I used in my previous post was from the Anaphylaxis Campaign's FAQ: Schools page.

Can you not see the difference between your claim:

Allergy specialists such as the anaphylaxis campaign do not recommend nut bans

and the AC's actual position, from their website?:

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

They are saying very different things.

If you make the claim that 'nut bans do not reduce risk' and that they lead to complacency, you should be able to provide evidence that this is the case. Calling me ignorant, and falsely accusing me of misquoting, does nothing to support the credibility of your argument.

[BarbarianMum]

I think bans are fine (in fact essential) if you have a child allergic enough to react to the volatile proteins from a particular allergen. Ds1 was allergic to peanuts but wouldn't react just because someone opened a bag of them across the dining table - hence no nut ban needed. A friend's dc is highly allergic to milk - including to splashes on his skin - he sits at a separate table with another super-allergic child at lunch but no need for a milk ban. Another friend is the teacher of a student who reacts to traces of peanut on someone's breath. Her school has a total peanut ban and his class don't eat nuts for breakfast either - no one gets complacent, they've seen him blue-lighted too many times.

Certain allergens, including nuts, are more prone to shed allergenic proteins then others hence the need to ban them. I once worked in an open-plan office where whole citrus fruit was banned from the entire second floor as a member of staff could be sent into anaphalaxis by the oils in the peel being released during peeling.

[mabythesea]

Nut "bans" definitely do make school staff complacent - "oh don't worry we don't have nuts at school".

Which is complete bollocks, because even a nut ban school will have loads of children knowingly or unknowingly bringing in nut products because lunch boxes aren't policed.

"Nut ban" means - school dinners aren't made with nuts, and hopefully the amount of nut products in lunch boxes is lower than it would be without a ban.

[bruffin]

Fascicle we have spoken about this before and you were midquoting and very ignorant of the situation. Nut bans do not reduce risk