AIBU to be pissed off that the head teacher has banned nutella in the school for one child?

[eddiejo]

The story.... one boy (hers) has allergy to nuts so now nutella is banned . I totally understand the whole anaphlaxis thing but as mum to year 1 boy with multiple food allergies - i would never expect the rest of the school to stop eating what he is allergic to.

Nutella was one of the few spreads which he could eat and made the bread edible. not healthy I know but more important to get energy in him.

What do you think?

I don't run for anyone!

stewie, it's here.

Christy whisty - you are wrong.
The child on the allergies board is having DS treatment but it is ground breaking and certainly doesn't support the theory that peanut allergy doesn't get worse.
I am sitting here now looking at the info my consultant gave me last Friday when DD was diagnosed as allergic.
'...even where reaction to exposure is mild further exposure must be avoided as reaction over time is often cumulative...'
The reason why I'm so hot on this is that I realise that all those years I didn't know this I've been inadvertently allowing her reactions to worsen .

10greenbottles (your question from page 7) no it isn't just one kind of nuts. Originally when I was tested to see what I was allergic to (this was around 11 or 12 years of age) they narrowed down what I could eat to peanut butter, melba toast and rootbeer. That was it. They had a file of allergens 2 inches thick. The factories that make peanut butter don't just use one type of nut though and although they do what they can to change over from one product before starting packing of another they have to put a warning on the wrapper that there are "nut" products prepared in the same environment. You cannot separate dust from food anymore than you can separate dust from say outside. You never get it all anyway. All you can do is try and a closed environment doesn't have the circulation of air that outdoors does so even though the mother is doing all she can to limit exposure she cannot stop someone from say having it for breakfast and possibly exposing her child from a bit on the clothing or the breath.
Allergies are developed when a person that will have a reaction is exposed twice to the allergen. I don't know why some never grow out of them but instead add to them. Perhaps it is a weakening of the immune system or a half life of chemicals from other things that makes outgrowing them impossible. Again, I hope both your children outgrow their allergies. It is not a fun existence to worry about having a reaction when you go somewhere, anywhere on a constant basis.

i guess some councils find it a scalding risk, stewie, but it doesn't make sense if there is a kitchen that serves hot food.

but i suppose if a lot of these schools don't have kitchens anyway, the schools can put a ban in.

Litchick - my consultant told me tlast year that it was very unlikely that DS's reactions will get worse each time. That is not saying it may not happen but then someone who has been eating peanuts all their life can have an anaphylytic shock on their first reaction.
My son appears to have grown out of the peanut one. He is still allergic to treenuts

The trial that child is doing is based on culmutive treatment of very gradually build up of exposure to peanut protein.

Then that is very worrying no? That we've been given such contradictory information?

schools will be legally obliged to serve hot food from 2010 iirc.

Tbh I think that most people are fine with the idea of banning nuts because it's actually not that hard to do. You can live without peanut butter/nutela/you don't have to pack your child a packet of peanut m&m's .

But imagine if it was a product that would have a far greater impact on your life, and that of your child. imagine if the thread title had read "the head of our school has banned dairy products because there is a child who has a dairy alergy." Would people still be saying "I think it's everyone's responsibility to look out for this child who could diie if he/she came into contact with dairy products"? And I don't think they would.

Banning dairy products in school would make it extremely difficult. imagine:

no yoghurt, no cheese/cheese spread, no dairy based spreads such as butter/clover, no cakes, no biscuits, having to check what bread you buy because some contain milk products/no free milk for the under 5s. Where would that leave the rest of the school?

Is it fair to expect people to essentially change their own lifestyles (after all buying two lots of everything, one with and one without milk would be financially difficult as well if you weren't well off) just to accommodate the needs of one child?

I absolutely understand the concerns of parents having to send their children to school in fear that they may come into contact with an alergen, but imo the key is still education not illimination. And a line has to be drawn somewhere.

My consultant said that around 20% of people will outgrow a peanut allergy and about 20% will get progressively worse, the rest will stay roughly the same. All the experts seem to have a different view. I don't think that anyone really knows.

Our consultant told us that there is evidence that repeated exposure to peanut traces can make an allergy more severe. I did read the research and it convinced us that we would give our dd a peanut free diet. It is hard having to ensure that every little thing she eats is free from peanut traces. Every party she goes to you have to ask what they are going to have to eat.

It is awful having to trust the life of your child to other people every day of the week. People do assume that you are a helicopter parent and lots of people do think that you are exaggerating the problem.

Here is the peanut death in Australia.

here

Nuts are quite easy to avoid if it's just the biggies, ie no actual nuts/peanut butter or other nutty product (such as Nutella). I've not come across a school that said absolutely no nut products (which might include things like shampoos or creams, or things that might have traces in them). In the same way I think it would not be impossible to have a no milk/yogurts/cheese rule. I could provide lunches to my children quite easily with that restriction, and if there was a child with a severe allergy would be happy to do so. I suspect it would depend on the way that the plan/rules were presented. I think there was some thread about a nursery/pre-school that had asked children avoid eating or using certain products before school, which did seem a big imposition. If a friend of either of my children had the problem making sure their lunch was suitable for them to sit next to the child would be no problem (well minor anyway), if it was a child in their class or year, I'd probably groan more, and if it was one kid in the school then I guess that would seem more of an imposition. But it is very hard for everyone concerned, the school because they are responsible, the parents because they are very worried, and of course for the poor child whose freedoms are limited. Better information to other parents, more training for teachers and helpers, and probably more guidance from the professionals would all help.

This is patronizing nonsense:

By SmugColditz on Mon 06-Oct-08 23:02:14
Yes, Kerrymum, because a child with severe allergies in a 3rd world country dies while being weaned, nobody can afford an autopsy, and it's mother thinks it choked.

Hard as it may for you to believe, do try to understand that mothers and health care personnel (there are doctors and nurses there, would you believe) in poor countries are not all stooopid.

Nobody has yet explained to my why banning nutella is the slightest problem. It should be banned for being a mixture of sugar and hydrogenated fat - never mind its allergic possibilities!

so accessiblity to health services in very poor countries is comparable to the Uk and most of the West, is it? Really?

Because I was under the impression from many people, especially those who stand against the promotion of formula in third world countries, that people in third world countries are struggling for food, struggling for education, struggling against easily curable illnesses and illiteracy, aids, blindness, drought, food shortage.... and if this isn't the case, if it is in fact exactly the same in third world countries as it is here, and the majority of mothers are perfectly literate and have a free doctor a short and just-about-affordable cab ride away....

Then where do live aid get their footage?

I don't believe I am being patronising, why do you, cotedazur?

so accessiblity to health services in very poor countries is comparable to the Uk and most of the West, is it? Really?

Because I was under the impression from many people, especially those who stand against the promotion of formula in third world countries, that people in third world countries are struggling for food, struggling for education, struggling against easily curable illnesses and illiteracy, aids, blindness, drought, food shortage.... and if this isn't the case, if it is in fact exactly the same in third world countries as it is here, and the majority of mothers are perfectly literate and have a free doctor a short and just-about-affordable cab ride away....

Then where do live aid get their footage?

I don't believe I am being patronising, why do you, cotedazur?

Re "so accessiblity to health services in very poor countries is comparable to the Uk?"

This is a logical fallacy called "Straw Man" - You are answering a weak argument that nobody made.

You are saying that the reason why severe allergies like peanut allergy are so very rare in 3rd world countries is because mothers think their kids choke and die That shows you ignore that while health care is not at Western standards in developing countries, they DO have SOME health services, including hospitals, doctors, nurses etc.

It is also a patronising statement because it equates being poor to being stupid - a child would swell, go crimson around his mouth, his tongue would swell such that he wouldn't be able to breath, and the mother would think he "choked" on a peanut. Really?

The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense. "Struggling to get food" and "Where did live aid get their footage?" has nothing to do with (and is no justification for) your initial (wrong) statement that developing countries have extremely low rates of severe allergies because mums don't realize what kills their children.

SavoyC - that is exactly what my consultant told me last week. That the effects are cumulative.
ChristyWhisty's consultant told her no.
What is the truth?

God knows Litchick. It is terrifying though isn't it? I don't suppose they know. I am just going to keep doing what I am doing, which is avoidance, but it is horrific to think that you could be making it worse.

My consultant was really knowlagable. He answered all of our questions and seemed really on the ball. I don't see what else I can do.

How do you know my initial statement was 'wrong'? Nobody on this thread has posted a clear, researched reason why the rate of serious allergies in third worl countries is lower, so how come you suddenly have all the answers and can tell who is right and who is wrong?

I don't equate poverty with stupidity. I equate it with lack of access to medical services, and lack of general populace education.

Poor countries have some very very clever people, but half the people who need the medical care simply cannot get to it.

YOu have assumed I think poor people are stupid, and on this basis have attacked me - but I don't think poor people are stupid. I merely know they are poor, and as such do not have the same resources to pull upon as the comparitively rich people of the West.

By half, I mean "a lot of", not "50%".

I wouldn't do it knowing there was a child allergic to nuts in the class. My dc's school has no anti-nut policy and so I do give her peanut butter as it's allowed. But I'd stop instantly if I knew of a child who might be affected in the same class.

I absolutely promised myself I would not rejoin this thread but cannot ignore Litchick.

Litchick - we have been told be the consol paed allergist that nut allergy suffers are more than likey to get worse with accidental exposure. This is not to say they will and some kids may grow out of it. Some kids will be lucky enough to be desensitized and lets hope to the highest heaven the results stick and they are in effect 'cured'.

Go see your Doctor hun, get a referral to a specialist and ask your questions. This thread isn't the place as emotions are running really high.

At the end of the day we all want what is best for our kids, we all have different criteria to meet but and like noses we all have an opinion.

Good luck, hope it all works out ok.

I promised myself too...

Litchick, I think the problem is nobody knows. It drives my DH mad - he keeps asking "when will he grow out of it?" and gerts really arsey when I keep saying "They don't know. No one can tell."

All allergy specialists seem to have a different opinion.

Every time my DS has an allergic reaction to some food the company haven't bothered to label properly, I feel that if there was scientific proof further exposure makes the allergy worse I would SUE their sorry arses to kingdom come.

Savoycabbage - I already saw that article in my search but it was not the story mentioned by phdlife which was "there was a kid in Australia who died recently because he was anaphylactic to nuts and a kid who'd been eating them yelled in his face. the nut oil on his breath, breathed in by the allergic kid, was enough to do it." That is the one I can find no trace of.