Peanut allergy and school

[bevelino]

In today's Sunday Times Review Section Caroline Coles has written to Chris Woodhead to ask whether he thinks a school has the right to ask parents to avoid putting items containing nuts in lunch boxes because one child at the school has a severe nut allergy. Caroline Coles is unhappy with the school. Chris Woodhead replied that the school's decision is nonsensical and that the rights of more than 200 children to eat the lunch their parents want them to eat overrides the risk to one pupil. I think Chris Woodhead is wrong to support Caroline Coles in her complaint as the school have a duty to protect all children. How could any parent not wish to protect a child with a severe nut allergy?

Exactly inmysparetime.

My DS is 16 and been allegic to nuts and seeds from the age of 4, so for nearly the whole of his education. None of the schools have had a nut ban, although the primary school did not use nuts in their school lunches, but did use seseme seeds. I have never heard of an incident in either school.

And incidently children with allergies are most at risk in their teenage years, basically because they become idiots when their brains are rewiring themselves and they don't think. Teenagers also have a sense of immortality due to the fact they are using their amygdala.
DS had a reaction to a biscuit recently. A friend gave him a biscuit from subway which turned out to be white chocolate and macadamia nut.

1. DS should have asked if it had nuts inhe didn't, friend did not know of his nut allergy.
2. he made the mistake of thinking he had that biscuit before

1. I don't even think he knew what macademia was in the first place as it is not a nut you come across very often

Dd has a peanut allergy. Both blood and skin prick tests are conclusive. No one knows the severity of it. How do you suggest we find out if giving her a peanut would cause a severe enough reaction to kill her. Shall we try it? Oh do give me a break.

If an item has a high risk of killing someone it should be banned. Traces of items are not high risk products. Therefore the risk vs benefits can be weighed differently. Any risk assessment at a school would find the risks of mixing anaphalaxic allergic children with a pure form of their allergen completely unacceptable and it would leave them open to litigation.

Dd is 3 BTW. So school and nursery should be a safe place for her. I do think teenagers should be able to take a bit more responsibility.

Where do you stand on banning dairy then?

Only4tonight- you should never ever treat anywhere as a safe place- that is why the anaphylaxis campaign are against nut bans.

Its harder for them to be safe at school when their friend insists they can share the peanut covered pretzels as they can't possibly have peanuts on them because there is a peanut ban.

If a child at primary school or nursery has anaphalactic reaction to dairy then that child should not be knowingly exposed to it. Risk vs benefit should be weighed up. 90 of children at a school should and probably do have dairy in their diet therefore a complete ban would risk the majority so should be avoided and other steps should be taken to protect the individual. A dairy free area maybe.

When it comes to peanuts the majority of children do not need them in their diet so a blanket ban is normally the easiest most proportionate step. If a child needed peanuts for one reason or another a separate area for their consumption could be provided.

"a blanket ban is normally the easiest most proportionate step."

it is not easy or even possible - how are you going to enforce it - search every child on arrival at school?

Children don't need dairy for the 6-7 hours they are in school.

i have a daughter who has anaphylatc allergies to milk, egg and peanut.

i dont have a nut free house. i dont live i na nut free world.

i do have precautions in place at home with regards to cross contimination etc, and only have peanut products when she is out of the room etc.

so far we have had no need to use the epipens. but that is ebcause untill very recently, dh and i have had sole charge of her foods and exposure to allergens.

she recently started nursery, and they made a huge deal of the nut allergy. i have to reiterate to them time and time again, that she also has anaphylatic allergies to milk and egg. the nut is actually a lower grade reaction on skin prick tests and RAST test than her nut allergy.

"Children don't need dairy for the 6-7 hours they are in school."

The problem with dairy bands would be things like packed lunches where you would have to "make" parents buy dairy free spreads rather than butter etc. From that point of view it would be unworkable in a way that "no nuts" isn't. It's easy enough not to send a child in with cheese or yoghurt though.

Are the bans are perhaps to ensure other children don't accidentally expose the allergic child rather than the allergic child accidentally eating something they should't - they will be used to being careful, the other children will not.

only4tonight - this is the link to the assessment your Dd should have filled before she starts school with the guidance to the school.

www.blossomcampaign.org/docs/child_specific_protocol.pdf

I have an anaphylactic daughter at a primary school which does ban nuts thank goodness. It would be almost impossible for me to spend a day without being in extreme anxiety about her health otherwise (I am anyway to an extent, but the responsible nature of the school does help). Of course one can't obliterate every single risk factor, i.e. someone having peanut butter for breakfast and then breathing near her (as one poster said) but you can drastically cut the odds if you say no nuts in the packed lunches. No child's life should be put at risk whilst they are at school, if it was your child and you'd seen the devastating effects of a severe allergic reaction and seen how quickly a child can go downhill and die, then you would change your mind if you are not pro nut bans. I also don't think it's fair to put the responsibility on the child with the allergy, my daughter is careful to the point of paranoia but for all the care in the world, if one of her peers eats a peanut butter sandwich then shares a pen with her and my daughter then puts her fingers near her mouth she could die. How could she foresee and be responsible for that? It's easy for her to refuse to eat someone else's food and most people with severe allergies are used to that. But how can she foresee other people's hygiene? In the end, if your child unwittingly caused a life-threatening allergy in another child because they had a peanut butter sandwich, how would you justify it? It's not worth the risk in my opinion.

" if it was your child and you'd seen the devastating effects of a severe allergic reaction and seen how quickly a child can go downhill and die, then you would change your mind if you are not pro nut bans"

It is my child, I have seen a severe allergic reaction. I still think nut bans are dangerous and unworkable.

Why is a nut ban dangerous?

Because they breed complacency and a false sense of security.

Seriously? Like zebra crossings on busy roads? I can't imagine my daughter ever being complacent about her allergy. It terrifies her and one of the only places where I can leave her without her being extremely anxious is school. The fact that the school meals are nut free makes school life for her possible.

The primary schools my children went/go to have a nut ban. My children have packed lunches and I always obey it. However, I find it odd that at secondary school there is no nut ban - what's the difference between year 6 and year 7? One year no-one at school should be eating nuts and then the next year allergic child could be surrounded by snickers eating friends. Is it that secondary schools know that it would not be easy to enforce?

Also, what happens with allergic children when they are out? Do parents ask others to stop eating on train/cinema/bus? I am happy to go along with nut bans, but I don't understand what happens to an allergic child out in the world. Not everyone is nut free.

Because people don't comply with them, some mean to but then they forget, some can't be arsed, some deliberately don't, some think if they have checked a packet once then that product will be nut free forever. People have there own lives, its just not a priority for them. The nut ban gives the allergic child a false sense of security, their friends tell them food is safe and fine to share because they can't comprehend how much of a pita it is for their parent to read every single packet every time. Its much easier to tell your child to never ever share food if their friend isn't trying to persuade them to swap.

I've seen it happen with the aforementioned pretzels, except this wasn't a school with a nut ban, it was a school where a nut allergic child sat on a table with 2 friends whose parents had agreed to send both peanut and egg free food. One of the 2 girls took peanut covered pretzels in, allergic child only had a rash and swelling around one eye because she didn't eat it but she shouldn't have even touched it.

I really don't see the point of going from one extreme to another. Of course you can't control what people eat when you're out and about and that does make life hard at times. Children also have to learn to be responsible at birthday parties and all sorts of occasions. BUT when they are at school, which is a busy bustling place in which they are without parents etc. it is good to know that there is a general sense of responsibility by other parents not to bring something into that kind of environment that could potentially kill another child.

Of course peanut or any other allergic child should never share another child's food even if it's something they eat themselves at home. My daughter never shares drinks or food with anybody when she's at school. But that's not the point. The point is that if a child eats a peanut butter sandwich and doesn't tell my daughter, holds her hand after lunch, my daughter rubs her lips with her hand, she could die. How is that my daughter's responsibility?

There isn't much difference between Y6 and Y7; but there is between Reception and Y7. A nut ban at primary school gets rid of a lot of the risk, but the child and their teachers still have to learn be careful, as other parents can forget / overlook the ban, and foods can contain traces of nuts.

By secondary school, the child should have learnt to be careful about what they come into contact with (not just at school), and not having a nut ban allows them to manage their allergy as they will have to in the 'big wide world', while still in a supportive environment (first aiders aware of their allergy).

So in answer to OP - yes to nut ban in Primary, no in Secondary.

'if one of her peers eats a peanut butter sandwich then shares a pen with her and my daughter then puts her fingers near her mouth she could die'.

Presumably this could also happen if said child has had crunchy nut cornflakes or nutella, or peanut butter on toast for breakfast. How far do you want to go in banning these products from households? The problem is that although you can ban nuts, you can't 100% guarantee that everything is nut free, all the time.

I am sympathetic, but it seems to me that there is at secondary at least, no practicable way to police this.

The nut ban lessens the risk of a severe allergic reaction and lessening the risk is, for me, better than nothing.

It's not like peanuts are a staple....like bread or milk....so the school should of course ban them.