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?

I agree exactly. I don't understand the attitude that says we can't make it foolproof so let's not bother doing anything at all.

I agree exactly. I don't understand the attitude that says we can't make it foolproof so let's not bother doing anything at all.

because this happens

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

You need to treat every situation as though there may be nuts, and not get a false sense of security.

How would parents feel if I took into school a loaded gun and left it lying around for a child to pick up, or passed it to them deliberately. Or if I smeared rat poison over the lunch table and said it's up to you to make your child washes their hands and anyway a small amount won't kill them.

I've watched my child have an allergic reaction and I'd do anything to avoid the risk. I can not understand the attitude that I will potentially kill a child (let's not forget adrenaline doesn't always reverse a reaction) or severely distress them for my child's selfish convenience. No-one needs to eat nuts.

For those who need the information - about half of those with peanut allergy develop tree nut allergy, I don't know if the figure is higher in those who have anaphylactic reactions.

At one secondary school pupils threw nuts at a girl with nut allergy to see how she reacted - swollen face, adrenaline, trip to hospital. Of course those with nut allergy are never safe at school, or anywhere else, but it is possible to reduce the risk.

If you manage you allergy in "real" life when there are no nut bans then you can manage it at school. There is no such thing as a safe place whether nuts have been banned or not. What about the other children who have life threatening allegies to products other than nuts, are we going to ban those as well?

From the anaphylaxis campaign website

Nut bans

"Some schools choose to enforce ?nut bans?, where it is forbidden for any pupil to bring the problem food to school. However, without wishing to undermine the good intentions of any school taking this approach, The Anaphylaxis Campaign believes there are several pitfalls in this approach. It would be impossible to provide an absolute nut-free guarantee so the danger is that allergic children may be led into a false sense of security. There is a strong case for arguing that food-allergic children will gain a better awareness of their allergies, and learn avoidance strategies, if they move in an environment where allergens may turn up unexpectedly."

At one secondary school pupils threw nuts at a girl with nut allergy to see how she reacted - swollen face, adrenaline, trip to hospital. Of course those with nut allergy are never safe at school, or anywhere else, but it is possible to reduce the risk.

If they are going to do this type of thing anyway I very much doubt they will take any notice of a nut ban are they!

bruffin, I don't see why you're repeating what you're saying in bold. I'm not disagreeing that a child at school needs to not share food with another child. They need to not share food with another child regardless of whether the school has a no nut possibility or not. But children make mistakes and a school with a no nut possibility is protecting a child more than one that doesn't. Simple fact. I don't think the feeling of responsibility a child feels towards their food ever goes away if they have a severe allergy and I certainly don't think it's made worse by a school having a no nut policy. In any case, the example you're giving was at a school without a no nut policy so I really don't get your point.

I just don't buy it. If a child can die from an allergy to something, the danger should be avoided in a school situation. And it is not the same as any other environment a child might find themselves in. There is a far greater ratio of child to adult than you would be likely to get anywhere else in your everyday life elsewhere. It is hard to get noticed if you're feeling ill, it is potentially very dangerous at school for a nut allergic child even if there is a nut ban. Why make it worse? Bogus argument on behalf of the anaphylactic society if you ask me. I've never met a nut allergic child with a false sense of security before. That story about the girl eating the pretzel just shows that a) neither she nor her friends bothered to take her nut allergy seriously and b) her parents had not drilled into her enough about reading labels. I wouldn't say that is the norm.

my daughter could die from milk. its not banned in schools.

she and her friends were only 4/5. She couldn't read. The parent of the other child made a mistake. Even though she knew it was a big deal because her dd was one of only 2 dcs who would sit with the allergic child she still messed up. Imagine how careless/complacent parents of children who don't know the allergic child will be.

But none of those things mean that peanuts should not be banned. You said that happened in a school without a nut ban.

misdee I feel very sorry for you with that. My daughter's friend has nut, milk and wheat allergies and has a very difficult time with it. I think milk is a much harder food to replace than nuts, however, and I don't see that a school could ban it. I don't think that's a reason for not banning nuts though. My daughter is also allergic to sesame and some other seeds but I wouldn't suggest the school bans those. Nuts are easy to ban and anaphylactic reactions to them amongst the most common.

Repeating in bold is quoting what other posters have said , it is common MN practise.
It is not a bogus arguement, it is a common sense arguement. The child was lulled into a false sense of security because she was told that she would be provided with a nut free snack so didn't bother to check. If she had not been told that she would have most likely have checked, which is exactly what AC are saying.

I just find that a strange argument against banning nuts in school. One family made a mistake in a school without a nut ban so that's a sign that all children would become complacent and not read labels? If that's the worry then the school could spend more time encouraging allergic children to read labels although in my experience with dd and the children in the anaphylactic group she belongs to, they are very diligent, in fact the tendency is to be over-cautious and avoid eating at all. I've been through months when all dd would eat was food cooked at home with me. She wouldn't eat out at all and she wouldn't eat anything anybody else had made. She's been like that since she was younger than four.

just because peanut anaphylatics is apaprently more comman does not give it status above other form of anaphylatics.

The sort of anxiety these kids are in over how ill they can get doesn't fit with the idea of complacency. For my dd, the reassurance that her school lunches are nut free is a lifeline. And she never trusts what her peers bring to eat even with a nut ban.

The school did not have a nut ban but the child sits at a separate table with only 2 other children .This table is nut and egg free, except it isn't.

But if it is impossible to ban milk does that mean that we have to not ban anything else either, misdee?

Are anaphylactic reactions to nuts more common than to milk, eggs, or other allergens?

I do find it strange that so many people agree with nut bans, but find banning dairy - something that is much harder to avoid so more dangerous - impossible. Why are some allergies more important than others?

Dingle you are repeating the myth that there is something special about nut allergy, therefore contributing to a sense that only nut allergies need to be taken seriously. DS is more allergic to seseme seeds and tree nuts than he ever was against peanuts. Why ban peanuts and not seseme, that just doesn't make sense, then ban milk, fruit, potatoes and tomatoes, shellfish, avocado, chickpeas, celery,egg all of which can be highly allergic. It doesn't leave much for anyone else to eat.

As I said, that's one unusual example, there's no precedent there for making a rule. I can think of far more cases where a nut ban at dd's school has prevented allergies from happening. In fact dd has NEVER had an allergic reaction at school which is a huge comfort to me.

ds has never had an allergic reaction at school either unlike the girl at the dumbass nut free table

no, but it doesnt mean that nuts should be banned in a school setting either.

i cannot guarentee that my dd4's life will be egg, milk and nut free, her risk of exposure is high. i do everything i can to educate those looking after her, and to try and make them take the milk and egg parts of her allergies more seriously than her nut allergy. there is a comman misconception amongst people who dont know much about allergies that nut ones are the 'worst'. they arent. anything that can cause an anaphylatic child to have a reaction is the 'worst' for them, regardless of whether that is nuts, milk, eggs or citrus fruit, vegetables etc.

But most of those allergies don't cause the severe anaphylaxis that nut allergies do. It's not a case of saying one allergy is more important than another, it's not a competition. I have total sympathy for people with an anaphylactic allergy to milk although that level of reaction to milk is not as common as milder forms of allergic reaction. If a school could ban milk safely or find a way for children who are allergic to it to avoid it, then I would be all for it.

[bangshead on brick wall]

you do know that ANY allergy has the potential to turn into anaphylatics dont you?

"But most of those allergies don't cause the severe anaphylaxis that nut allergies do"
That is not true!

And my DS has never had a reaction at school where there has been no nut bans either

IA I think that's very unfair of you to call that family dumbass. I would just say that they made a mistake and didn't take the allergy seriously enough.

Misdee I can't guarantee nut and seed free life for dd either. She also has brittle asthma and has spent a lot of time in intensive care. I can't protect her from those things and I worry a lot about how she will cope in her teenage years which are apparently the most dangerous. But when there is something that I can do which might help I can't help but want to go for it.

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

This is why I see bans as even more problematic in North America - peanut butter is a major staple of the childhood diet there, in a way that it isn't in the UK, so a peanut ban can be a problem for a) parents of kids who won't eat much other than a PB sandwich for lunch (I was one for a quite a few years!) and b) low income parents, since PB is a cheap, nutritious protein. In fact my mother's friend, whose daughter is allergic to just about everything, has always opposed peanut bans over there because they punish the poor.