To think allergy mum is OTT

[Boogiewoogieanddance]

I genuinely don't know if I am or not, this is a genuine question as I thankfully haven't got any experience in having a child with serious allergies. I am, of course, happy to do what I can to prevent a reaction.

There is a child in my DDs class who is allergic to a list of things so we aren't allowed them in pack lunches. That's fine, I have no issue as I know kids can be careless and gross about their food hygiene. My issue is with the nuts, literally anything that says "may contain nuts" or "may contain traces of peanuts" is not allowed... if the occasional time I don't realise and send something (These are not nut flavoured things or anything with nuts in the ingredients, but I assume are just made in the same factory as nuts.) it is sent home unwrapped and she hasn't been allowed to eat it.

But is it really possible that an allergy can be so served that something that may contain nuts could cause a reaction if opened in the same room.

Many thanks!

Hilarous.

So who pays for this person to stay in hospital for potentially 80+ years? Do they get their own room or do they have to stay in award? Do they get an education? What happens if they try to leave?

No because the comparable situation would be you just having sat next to that mug of coffee. Not you drinking from it.

And again- milk products give my child anaphylaxis. Why can't I ask for cheese sandwiches and yoghurt etc to be banned from school grounds?

Yes it is possible

I think banning "may contain traces" is overkill. My dd has a nut allergy and in this scenario she would have to eat that item, not the other child.

This child is probably more at risk from peanut butter hands/breath from children's breakfasts before school.

Just thinking that in most bakeries nuts are used, so does that mean you can't put a sandwich in your child's packed lunch? Only salads and fruits?

I'm allergic to peanuts and carry epipens. I can't walk past any of the market stalls that sell nuts, dried fruit etc.

I have a child with a nut allergy classmate and another with a dairy allergy classmate. We eat both at home. Based on this everything in both lunchboxes could be considered 'contaminated'. Plus things like one having peanut butter toast and hugging the other. I get allergy can be awful but that kind of ban is completely unworkable

I was helping on a school event sorting food that had been donated. A mother there had a child with a nut allergy. She said that literally everything says 'may contain traces of nuts' and she said that stuff was fine, it was things that actually have nuts that aren't allowed. While I understand different severity of allergy, I don't know how that mother has any packaged food at all.

Parent of allergy child. "May contain" messaging on packaging is optional, not compulsory. So even products that don't mention may contain nuts can still contain traces of nuts, unless it specifically states "free from" nuts. And even then there have been recalls of free from products.

IMO banning "may contains" is overkill as effectively to guarantee no nuts they'd have to only allow "free from" products which cost a small fortune.

And again, if that is true there is NO logic to the schools request is there?! To ban all 'may contain nuts' as opening them in the classroom is such a serious risk while NOT pointing out the much higher risk to the child of children eating nut products for breakfast is nonsensical.
Either theres no need to ban those products in the classroom or caution also needs to be practised with consuming actual nuts/making lunch on surfaces which nuts have been etc

I said similar upthread but appears to be missed.

A product may contain an allergen from manufacturing methods or cross contamination but doesn’t have to be labelled as such. Therefore it is not any safer to the allergy child than a product that is labelled with ‘may contains’.

But is it really possible that an allergy can be so served that something that may contain nuts could cause a reaction if opened in the same room.

Yes! it is really possible for an allergy to be THAT severe. I don't have any allergies in my family but i'm a grown adult therefore know that some people can have a reaction if a packet is merely opened near them. Your child may eat their biscuit or whatever then go touch the child with the allergy - that could trigger a reaction. In this day and age its not really that hard to check your snacks.

My kid's old school banned all chocolate spreads because Nutella contains nuts.🙄

I would imagine that food made in my kitchen, where a lot of peanut butter and nutty muesli is used, is at least as much of a risk as non-nut products that "may contain traces".

I would just use a nice sectioned lunchbox and decant everything into the little sections so no one could tell what "may contain" or not!

Yes the allergies really can be that severe.

The poll has a majority for YABU so it doesn't seem like you are backed in this by the majority of posters as your most recent post states.

That’s about packet of the actual food to which the person is allergic, though. This post isn’t about that. It’s about products made near other products containing the actual food to which the person is allergic having the potential to cause airborne allergies or not.

If only the people who had fully read and understood the question were allowed to answer the poll might look a bit different, though. People are responding as if the OP is asking about products containing peanuts when she is in fact asking about products that do not contain peanuts (but were made in the same place as products that do).

Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride is not a registered doctor in the UK she is a nutritionist like Gillian McKeith
Up to 80% of children with allergies grow out of them, please exercise extreme caution with anyone who claims to cure allergies or autism.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gaps-diet/

Some quack making up a syndrome to sell books and overpriced suppliments.

Because the question is, are nut allergies really that severe, and the example confirms that. It's not just hysterical parents being dramatic about their beloved DC, or an opinion-based matter, or a school/nursery thing.

Really surprised I had to explain a link so obvious, but mumsnet I guess.

But what if you’d had a different chocolate bar that didn’t contain nuts but had a ‘may contain’ warning? Would you have still have opened that? Because that’s the actual comparison here, no one is disputing that actual nut products are harmful - should it extend to products that may or may not have come into contact with the allergen?

No because it was very clearly part of the instruction we were given that those were included too.

But if unclear, the safest thing is to operate from a worst outcome scenario. If the worst outcome in a situation is that someone is seriously ill or dies, do everything possible to avoid it being possible even if the chance is minute.

Yes, the May contain thing is just annoying but it is sadly true.

If people were told to avoid anything that ‘may contain’ nuts, then I can see that your example is comparable to the OP.

However it is not failsafe as manufacturers do not need to put a ‘may contains’ warning on a label. Two products could be manufactured in the same factory, one brand decide to put a warning on, the other doesn’t. Both are equally safe or unsafe to the person with the allergy.

The posts from people that live with allergies daily, either their own or their families are overwhelming saying that the op is NBU. There's next to none that say the OP is BU. It says more about the general users on this forum than it does about the subject.