Banning nuts in classroom debate

[Spy Car]

We experienced nut bans in nursery school and at least one year of elementary school.

 

Totally cool with it if there is a risk of a young person experiencing anaphylactic shock.

 

Bill

 

 

[nd293]

I can't really respond to the poll given that it doesn't include the word 'anaphylactic' - it has nothing to do with nuts, it has to do with the severity and urgency of the type of allergic reaction caused by nuts. It's also my understanding that nuts, by their nature are more likely to contaminate the air, as it were, compared to say, seafood.

[TravelingChris]

My dd is highly allergic to citrus.  SHe obviously doens't eat it but most of her anaphalactic episodes have occured from inhalation.  SHe developed the allergy in high school.  She doesn'

t have a problem with someone putting a lemon in their iced tea but does if the squeeze it, Cutting into the fruit is sure to cause her to go into anaphalactis and since too many shampoos and other grooming products are citrus, she rooms alone with her own private bathroom in college.

[MomatHWTK]

The addition of botanicals and other organics to cosmetics is "normal" from a historical perspective, but frustrating for the food allergic. When adding milk and almonds became big, DH and I had to start being much more vigilant when shopping. : ( Citrus would be really difficult- all the natural cleaning supplies!

[Daria]

As a parent of a kid with severe seasonal allergies, I am perplexed by the idea that since my kid's allergens are not avoidable, it would be fair to expose other kids to their allergens.  As a parent of a kid who is severely impacted by allergies, I'm more empathetic to other allergic kids, not less so, and more likely to advocate for policies to protect those kids who can be protected.  

 

I also don't understand the logic that because you can't avoid something 100% of the time indefinitely, there is no value in avoiding it now.  My kid has talked about volunteering as an EMT.  EMT's sometimes need to ride without seatbelts.  Does that mean I should give up on seatbelts now?  No, there is still value in protecting him most of the time, even if he can't be protected all the time.  In addition, there are additional risks to a young child in a school setting, that don't apply to an adult who has more experience, more knowledge, more ability to self advocate, and can self carry and self inject.  

 

In this case, if there are no nut allergies in the school, then I think a nut free policy is overboard.  If there are nut allergies in the school but not the class, then it may be that the school routines involve kids in shared spaces where a nut ban is still needed.  Without more details, I can't judge.  If the other kids' parents feel that they need bans on certain foods in their classrooms to stay safe, then I think it should be considered.    Without knowing whether they've advocated for bans, or how severe their symptoms are, it's hard for me to judge.  

[AimeeM]

In theory, I'm all for banning nuts if a child needs it to be done.

 

In reality, however, I've seen schools trying to ban anything that any child is allergic to and it's insane for the parents to keep up with, when it applies to snacks and lunches (and I've even heard of schools trying to dictate what students eat at home that they may CARRY on their person back to the school!).

DD's third grade class was "allergen-free" - no nuts, dairy, soy, red dye, wheat.

[Nart]

I put nuts should be banned but only because nuts cause an anaphylactic reaction that can kill a child. Nuts cause the most deaths from allergies and typically have the most serious reaction. Any allergen that can cause that kind of reaction should be banned even if it is not nuts. Non life threatening allergies do not need to be banned. I know celiac causes a really bad reaction and even crumbs are a problem but it is not typically life threatening. I do not think nuts need to be banned if there is no child with a nut allergy in the classroom.

 

I really don't think this is true. I think more people die in the US from allergies to insect stings (including bee stings). I say this as a parent of a kid who as a peanut and treenut allergy. When he was first diagnosed I was terrified he was going to be inadvertently exposed to nuts, go into anaphylactic shock, and die. Then I calmed down and started researching and thinking. He sat next to his friend in preschool every school day for months who ate a peanut butter sandwich for a snack everyday. He sat next to us eating nuts and peanut butter and he was fine.  When I tried to look at statistics of peanut allergy deaths there is really a lack of good information. I kept reading that almost 200 people die a year from peanut allergies but the only statistic I found was that  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially documented only 13 deaths (including six adults) between 1996 and 2006. Then they stopped keeping statistics.  So is it 200 people a year or only 2 a year? I was concerned about flying in an airplane with my son if they pass out nuts on board but then I read no one has died aboard a commercial aircraft from nuts. Cynically, I really wonder if the makers of the Epi-Pen  (Mylan) have encouraged and perhaps almost exaggerated, the dangers of peanut allergies to sell epi-pens. I recently found a book that I thought was a Disney book about peanut allergies that I was given and when I looked closely it was a free book that Mylan gave out after partnering with Disney. 

We are fortunate my son doesn't have asthma, which according to his allergist, is an added risk for kids with peanut allergies and my son has never experienced any symptoms besides a slight rash on his chin after he ate a peanut butter cracker. I have no doubt there are kids who are really quite allergic. I just wonder how much my son really needs an Epi-Pen. We tell his teacher NOT to ban peanuts in the classroom just because he has a peanut allergy. 

[Bluegoat]

I kind of see food bans in general as a really imperfect sto-gap, and one that should be phased out when possible. 

 

We don't have elementary school cafeterias around here, so kids generally all eat in their classrooms.

 

I think that it is just idiotic to ban anything that no one has an allergy to, for any age.  I also think that bans are probably more an early elementary thing.  Once kids are getting older, to where they are going out into the world more, it's a less useful method.  For one things kids with allergies are needing to navigate on their own, they'll be spending a lot more time outside of controlled environments.  And because the same is true of other kids in the class, parental attempts to control what goes on are going to be less effective.

 

I think that it is probably unrealistic to say that any allergy can always, or must always, be accommodated in every class.  There are going to be some cases where that won't be possible without an unacceptable level of risk (and the same is occasionally true with other ailments.)  In cases like that I don't think it is good for anyone to try and make a classroom safe enough.

 

I do think that increases in allergies generally has made people stop and look at how to treat them in a class differently.  Just putting a blanket ban on peanuts and saying that is easy really isn't an adequate response. There is some real necessity to look more carefully at the level of risk the specific instance in that specific kid entails, what can safely and also reasonably expected of the parents of other kids and the kids themselves, and so on.

[Bluegoat]

Also - I am not convinced that there is as much agreement that peanut/nut bans are the best approach as people seem to imply.  When the schools here were looking at bans years ago, they asked the appropriate experts at the children's hospital to give an opinion.  They were not particularly supportive of bans as a good solution.

[magnificent_baby]

I think it would be fair to ban gluten products in the classroom itself and perhaps create a special place in the cafeteria (gluten free table?). That's how our district handles peanut allergies with a peanut free table. For the child in our district with life threatening peanut allergy (was on life support for several days due to exposure at school, lawsuit entailed, etc.), they have peanut free signs posted on all classroom doors in this child's grade. I would think it would be extremely difficult to ban gluten throughout the entire school. 

 

If the pork and fish allergy is not life threatening (I couldn't tell by your description), I think their precautions are reasonable. As far as environmental allergies, that's out of the schools control beyond keeping doors closed, etc. 

 

It's also possible there is someone allergic to peanuts and due to privacy and HIPAA, they aren't announcing that. 

 

(School nurse here) 

[OnMyOwn]

I really don't think this is true. I think more people die in the US from allergies to insect stings (including bee stings). I say this as a parent of a kid who as a peanut and treenut allergy. When he was first diagnosed I was terrified he was going to be inadvertently exposed to nuts, go into anaphylactic shock, and die. Then I calmed down and started researching and thinking. He sat next to his friend in preschool every school day for months who ate a peanut butter sandwich for a snack everyday. He sat next to us eating nuts and peanut butter and he was fine. When I tried to look at statistics of peanut allergy deaths there is really a lack of good information. I kept reading that almost 200 people die a year from peanut allergies but the only statistic I found was that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially documented only 13 deaths (including six adults) between 1996 and 2006. Then they stopped keeping statistics. So is it 200 people a year or only 2 a year? I was concerned about flying in an airplane with my son if they pass out nuts on board but then I read no one has died aboard a commercial aircraft from nuts. Cynically, I really wonder if the makers of the Epi-Pen (Mylan) have encouraged and perhaps almost exaggerated, the dangers of peanut allergies to sell epi-pens. I recently found a book that I thought was a Disney book about peanut allergies that I was given and when I looked closely it was a free book that Mylan gave out after partnering with Disney.

We are fortunate my son doesn't have asthma, which according to his allergist, is an added risk for kids with peanut allergies and my son has never experienced any symptoms besides a slight rash on his chin after he ate a peanut butter cracker. I have no doubt there are kids who are really quite allergic. I just wonder how much my son really needs an Epi-Pen. We tell his teacher NOT to ban peanuts in the classroom just because he has a peanut allergy.

Here is an article talking about the exaggeration of food allergy deaths and who it is promoted by. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meredith-broussard/food-allergy-deaths-less_b_151462.html

 

"The 150-200 death estimate comes from the media resource kit of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, a lobbying and educational group headed by a former marketing executive at Dey Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the EpiPen adrenaline injector (which is prescribed to millions of food-allergic patients). It’s time for journalists and doctors to stop using FAAN’s exaggerated statistic."

 

That information is somewhat shocking to me as I always considered FAAN a legitimate organization with accurate information and even subscribed to their newsletter for many years.

 

My child has a number of anaphylactic food allergies, but I don't support automatic food allergy bans. It is very rare for anyone to have a systemic reaction from an airborne food allergen or from touch. In those rare cases and for very young children, who may accidentally ingest the food, I think bans are appropriate.

 

And so often, in my experience bans have been completely illogical. In our old homeschool group, all nuts were banned, and yet we had 3 children with anaphylaxis to dairy and no accommodation, or even mention was ever made of that in announcements for group events where food would be present.

Edited September 20, 2016 by OnMyOwn

[38carrots]

Here is an article talking about the exaggeration of food allergy deaths and who it is promoted by. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meredith-broussard/food-allergy-deaths-less_b_151462.html

 

"The 150-200 death estimate comes from the media resource kit of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, a lobbying and educational group headed by a former marketing executive at Dey Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the EpiPen adrenaline injector (which is prescribed to millions of food-allergic patients). It’s time for journalists and doctors to stop using FAAN’s exaggerated statistic."

 

That information is somewhat shocking to me as I always considered FAAN a legitimate organization with accurate information and even subscribed to their newsletter for many years.

 

My child has a number of anaphylactic food allergies, but I don't support automatic food allergy bans. It is very rare for anyone to have a systemic reaction from an airborne food allergen or from touch. In those rare cases and for very young children, who may accidentally ingest the food, I think bans are appropriate.

 

And so often, in my experience bans have been completely illogical. In our old homeschool group, all nuts were banned, and yet we had 3 children with anaphylaxis to dairy and no accommodation, or even mention was ever made of that in announcements for group events where food would be present.

 

Oh wow. I never even thought to look into this. I have a child with an anaphylactic food allergy as well.

 

[SKL]

That's really interesting about the true risks.  It makes sense though.  It seems every tiny risk is overblown these days.

 

An aside, but my kid has some milk intolerance.  It is more discomfort than anything else, so I let her choose whether or not to eat milk products, knowing the likely outcomes.  She chooses not to drink milk at school.  I asked if they offer juice as an alternative.  (I pay for the school lunch, which is supposed to include a drink.)  She said yes, but only if you have a doctor's note / prescription saying you can't drink milk.  So she drinks water.  (We will ask the chiro about a note at her next visit.  Though, I wonder if that would then prevent her from having other things she eats at school, such as cheese and sour cream.)  Of course water is probably better than juice, but isn't it strange that they require a doctor's note for the kid to have juice, though there are so many kids with milk issues?

[StephanieZ]

Personally, I'd find a new classroom for my kid(s). Seems like a nutty situation. How can anyone eat properly if you abide by ALL those restrictions?

 

To me, it is basic human decency to accommodate someone with a serious allergy (life threatening and/or serious illness such as Celiac's) . . . . But that may require "flex" on all parts.

 

I personally have a life-threatening food allergy. I am only impacted if I *eat* the foods I am allergic to, so my allergy doesn't require anyone else's cooperation -- other than professional cooks/servers who need to be responsible for knowing the content of what they serve me (that it doesn't contain the foods I am allergic to, after I've clearly explained my allergy -- or they tell me they can't guarantee that, in which case I just don't order it). I just am careful about what I eat. If I'm in doubt, I don't eat it. If needed, I bring my own food. Personally, I think kids can handle this responsibility after a certain age, and before that age, it's on the adults to protect that child. You really shouldn't count on other kids/families following your rules to keep your child safe. Nothing is 100%. I have an acquaintance whose kid has a life threatening nut allergy. Those ones are super duper extra scary due to the sensitivity to air-borne and/or contact exposure (not just eating it). Not only do my kids (and all others) who attend activities at his school/etc abide by no-nuts rules, but also his mom goes *everywhere* with him. I think he's going on 12 now, and I think she's just now starting to trust his school (where my kid goes to an activity weekly) not to kill him. I have a feeling it's more trusting her kid's judgment than anything else. It's her FT job to keep her kid safe. I respect that she's been able to enable him to participate in lots of things by personally taking responsibility for keeping him alive. 

 

I think that with severe allergies as common as they have become, schools need to move to food-only-in-the-cafeteria . . . so families of kids with allergies can know that their classrooms are safe. Cafeterias should probably evolve into multiple dining rooms, so kids with various categories of allergies can go to certain eating spaces. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by StephanieZ

[Nart]

Here is an article talking about the exaggeration of food allergy deaths and who it is promoted by. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meredith-broussard/food-allergy-deaths-less_b_151462.html

 

"The 150-200 death estimate comes from the media resource kit of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, a lobbying and educational group headed by a former marketing executive at Dey Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the EpiPen adrenaline injector (which is prescribed to millions of food-allergic patients). It’s time for journalists and doctors to stop using FAAN’s exaggerated statistic."

 

That information is somewhat shocking to me as I always considered FAAN a legitimate organization with accurate information and even subscribed to their newsletter for many years.

 

My child has a number of anaphylactic food allergies, but I don't support automatic food allergy bans. It is very rare for anyone to have a systemic reaction from an airborne food allergen or from touch. In those rare cases and for very young children, who may accidentally ingest the food, I think bans are appropriate.

 

And so often, in my experience bans have been completely illogical. In our old homeschool group, all nuts were banned, and yet we had 3 children with anaphylaxis to dairy and no accommodation, or even mention was ever made of that in announcements for group events where food would be present.

Thank you for posting this info. That must be where I read about the 200 deaths per year.

[heartlikealion]

It depends on the type of allergic reaction and the feasibility of a ban.  Based on what you have written, the nut ban seems reasonable.  The others not as much.

 

 

I'm confused. No one has a nut allergy in the school but the nut ban seems reasonable? Is that because it's more likely to cause a serious reaction should a child later enroll that has an issue?

 

[Spryte]

I'm confused. No one has a nut allergy in the school but the nut ban seems reasonable? Is that because it's more likely to cause a serious reaction should a child later enroll that has an issue?

 

 

I haven't responded in this thread, and actually clicked on in accidentally.  I thought I'd try to steer clear of an allergy thread for once.  (ha!)  

 

But - having only read this last post, and no more... I just thought I'd respond to you, heartlikealion.  I'm not one who thinks that there need to be arbitrary bans of foods, but I can see why some think it's a good idea.  Peanut and nut allergies can go from unknown to severe and life threatening, and within the span of seconds.  So in the interest of protecting themselves, some schools might opt to ban all peanut/nut products - as those are more likely, in kids, to be fatal, than some other allergies.

 

Again, I'm not promoting that idea, just explaining the possible rationale.

 

The idea of a peanut or nut ban with no known peanut/nut allergies made me think of this little girl, in Richmond, VA:  http://www.richmond.com/news/article_01a73b4a-eb34-520f-a047-1312f838dca6.html

 

The story I linked came out right after her death, and it doesn't mention this, but the rest of the details came out later, and during the subsequent court case.  I don't have the heart to search for more, and some I know from my SIL, who is a 4th grade teacher in the school, but for the sake of your question... Little girl did not know she was allergic to peanuts.  They knew she had some type of allergies but not what - like she'd have minor itchy reactions, and benadryl would fix them - but she didn't have a known peanut allergy, and she *didn't* have an epipen or an action plan for one.  Thus, when she was going into anaphylaxis, there was a terrible, tragic delay.  I won't go through the details but a lot of phone calls had to be made, the ball was dropped during all the bureaucratic phone calls, and she died.  

 

I think a school has the option of making itself a nut free or peanut free zone, and if they do - they might avoid situations like little Amarria experienced.  

 

Amarria's story is close to my heart.  Partly because my SIL was there, and has been impacted by this in a big way, and also because Amarria was the same age as my DS.  We homeschool because we weren't comfortable with our local school's handling of allergies, and this happened right after we started HSing.  It was like a horrible, tragic confirmation of our fears.  :(

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm confused. No one has a nut allergy in the school but the nut ban seems reasonable? Is that because it's more likely to cause a serious reaction should a child later enroll that has an issue?

 

 

We don't know if anyone has a nut allergy.  Just because the parents don't know of one doesn't mean there isn't one.

[ReadingMama1214]

All foods that cause an anaphylactic reaction to someone in the classroom should be banned. This often is nuts but can be other foods. Often other allergies are not anaphylactic in nature. This is something that should be addressed by the parents of children with allergies and the school administration. ie. It shouldn't be just up to the teacher.

Exactly this. If it is a life-threatening allergy, I don't see an issue with it being banned in the classroom

 

But it sounds like your poll is about the lunchroom? In which I feel like they made appropriate decisions. You can't ban all of those foods. It would make it incredibly difficult for parents to feed their children. Especially if it isn't a life threatening allergy and just makes the person feel sick. In that case, banning them in the class seems appropriate and making accommodations in the lunch room seems appropriate as well.

[ReadingMama1214]

I haven't responded in this thread, and actually clicked on in accidentally. I thought I'd try to steer clear of an allergy thread for once. (ha!)

 

But - having only read this last post, and no more... I just thought I'd respond to you, heartlikealion. I'm not one who thinks that there need to be arbitrary bans of foods, but I can see why some think it's a good idea. Peanut and nut allergies can go from unknown to severe and life threatening, and within the span of seconds. So in the interest of protecting themselves, some schools might opt to ban all peanut/nut products - as those are more likely, in kids, to be fatal, than some other allergies.

 

Again, I'm not promoting that idea, just explaining the possible rationale.

 

The idea of a peanut or nut ban with no known peanut/nut allergies made me think of this little girl, in Richmond, VA: http://www.richmond.com/news/article_01a73b4a-eb34-520f-a047-1312f838dca6.html

 

The story I linked came out right after her death, and it doesn't mention this, but the rest of the details came out later, and during the subsequent court case. I don't have the heart to search for more, and some I know from my SIL, who is a 4th grade teacher in the school, but for the sake of your question... Little girl did not know she was allergic to peanuts. They knew she had some type of allergies but not what - like she'd have minor itchy reactions, and benadryl would fix them - but she didn't have a known peanut allergy, and she *didn't* have an epipen or an action plan for one. Thus, when she was going into anaphylaxis, there was a terrible, tragic delay. I won't go through the details but a lot of phone calls had to be made, the ball was dropped during all the bureaucratic phone calls, and she died.

 

I think a school has the option of making itself a nut free or peanut free zone, and if they do - they might avoid situations like little Amarria experienced.

 

Amarria's story is close to my heart. Partly because my SIL was there, and has been impacted by this in a big way, and also because Amarria was the same age as my DS. We homeschool because we weren't comfortable with our local school's handling of allergies, and this happened right after we started HSing. It was like a horrible, tragic confirmation of our fears. :(

I also agree with this. I'd rather ban peanuts/nuts than have one child die. That child's life is more important than my kids desire for pbj

[Crimson Wife]

Celiac is not the same as an allergy that causes anaphylactic shock. I am ok with a teacher banning a food that causes anaphylactic shock but not gluten. And I say this as a mom of a child on a gluten- and dairy-free diet.

[Crimson Wife]

The county my sister lives in has gone peanut free. Not all nuts, just peanuts. If you forget and bring it, it's confiscated and you're given the choice of buying lunch or a cheese sandwich.

 

I totally disagree with this. If there is no individual at the school with a serious peanut allergy, then there should be no ban at that school. Banning them in the absence of a known allergy unfairly burdens families of kids dealing with other food allergies/intolerances because it eliminates a "safe" food.

[Crimson Wife]

I also agree with this. I'd rather ban peanuts/nuts than have one child die. That child's life is more important than my kids desire for pbj

 

It's tragic but no more tragic than a child with a previously unknown heart condition dying during gym class. Should we ban PE because it might save a handful of kids' lives?

[SKL]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of banning peanuts from places where kids play "just in case" one of them is allergic.  Wouldn't that basically put the peanut industry out of business?  Peanuts are an important food because they are nutritious, affordable, and have a good shelf life.  Especially important for people with limited resources for feeding their kids.

[poppy]

It's tragic but no more tragic than a child with a previously unknown heart condition dying during gym class. Should we ban PE because it might save a handful of kids' lives?

 

Or ban popcorn- a known choking hazard that has killed children.

[ScoutTN]

Your poll doesn't leave room for my answer. 

 

Foods children are allergic to with anaphylactic reactions should be banned because they are potentially life threatening. 

 

Foods which cause lesser reactions (such as skin reactions or digestive issues) should not be banned. Sensible precautions taken so that vulnerable children are not exposed.

 

Age is also a factor. Strong protections are necessary fro younger children. Typical teens can be expected to fend for themselves much better and likely don't need as much help. 

 

Another factor is the location. My church runs a school. All share the same facility.The school has banned nut items for allergy protection. The church has not. The school is small. The church is quite large and over 2000 people use the building weekly for a variety of purposes. While the church kitchen does not usually prepare or serve foods with nuts in them, the church cannot make the entire property nut/allergen free for all events and activities. Basic precautions like no outside food in the Early Childhood department and food allergy moms overseeing snacks for children's ministry make it safe enough. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Farrar]

Your poll doesn't leave room for my answer. 

 

Foods children are allergic to with anaphylactic reactions should be banned because they are potentially life threatening. 

 

Foods which cause lesser reactions (such as skin reactions or digestive issues) should not be banned. Sensible precautions taken so that vulnerable children are not exposed.

 

Age is also a factor. Strong protections are necessary fro younger children. Typical teens can be expected to fend for themselves much better and likely don't need as much help. 

 

Another factor is the location. My church runs a school. All share the same facility.The school has banned nut items for allergy protection. The church has not. The school is small. The church is quite large and over 2000 people use the building weekly for a variety of purposes. While the church kitchen does not usually prepare or serve foods with nuts in them, the church cannot make the entire property nut/allergen free for all events and activities. Basic precautions like no outside food in the Early Childhood department and food allergy moms overseeing snacks for children's ministry make it safe enough. 

 

This. Anything that can cause an airborne reaction should also potentially be banned, which is my understanding of why so many nuts get banned as well - some kids can begin to experience a reaction just from smelling them or catching a dusting of nut on their skin. A raspberry or some spinach is way less likely to go airborne.

[Mom-ninja.]

All foods that cause an anaphylactic reaction to someone in the classroom should be banned.  

 

This. If a food can cause a person to die then it should be banned. 

 

Celiac reaction will not cause an emergency that could lead to death. It will make that person very very sick. That person could end up in the hospital due to dehydration. However, the reaction will not cause restriction to breathing. That said, repeated long term exposure to gluten can lead to cancer, other autoimmune diseases, malnutrition, and such but that is long term chronic exposure to gluten. An infrequent exposure, while hell cause it feels like having noro virus, will not cause immediate death. So it is not on the same level as an allergy that can lead to suffocation. 

 

A celiac can touch gluten. They just have to be very careful about not touching their hands to their mouth, and make sure they wash hands thoroughly. Gluten can not pass through the skin. It does not cause a reaction through the airway. 

 

I have celiac. I am a very sensitive celiac. I too have eliminated all body care products that have gluten. This was after putting lotion on my body and eating without washing my hands. I got sick. I have banned gluten from my house. I am very careful about not eating food with my hands when I am not home. The mother of the young child has good reason to not want her child to touch gluten because such a young child cannot be responsible enough to make sure s/he does not touch gluten and not wash hands. That said, there is no reason to ban gluten. Sitting in a room with other people eating gluten will not get the child sick UNLESS the child touches gluten and doesn't wash hands. 

[Bluegoat]

I really think the idea of banning nuts on spec is a bad one.  In the sense that it simply isn't reasonable - there are many things that are more likely to cause a death inadvertently that we don't treat as risks.

 

Nuts are a really healthy food with a lot of benefits from a health perspective and they are also important for people with some other food restrictions, many people like them, and restricting foods when it isn't necessary doesn't have much to reccomend it in general - if anything it seems to increase allergies.

 

Yes, an unknown reaction could cause a death.  But there aren't even many deaths from known ones.

 

ETA:  Also, I think it needs to be clear whether we know a particular person will have an anaphylactic reaction, or whether it is a lesser reaction that could become worse.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Bluegoat

[merry gardens]

This. If a food can cause a person to die then it should be banned. 

 

Most foods can cause allergic reactions in someone. Very, very few foods are universally non-allergenic. I have a friend who has a child with a wheat allergy. It's a true allergy, (not gluten intolerance), and the daughter can go into life-threatening reactions from exposure to wheat. She even needs to be careful of airborne exposure to wheat.

 

The family homeschools.

[Caroline]

It's all well and good to say we shouldn't restrict nuts when there is not a kid who is allergic. However, as parents of kids in a school, we have no way of knowing that there isn't a kid who is allergic. My child has celiac and asthma. Her teachers know. The school nurse knows. Any substitutes who are in her classroom are told. However, it is no one else's business. So, I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know that there is a kid with celiac and asthma in their kids' science class. The OP cannot know there are no peanut allergies legally. Period. And just because some mom who volunteers a lot says it's so, doesn't make it so.

[Daria]

Or ban popcorn- a known choking hazard that has killed children.

Popcorn is banned under most daycare/preschool licensing standards for kids below Kindergarten.

[Bluegoat]

It's all well and good to say we shouldn't restrict nuts when there is not a kid who is allergic. However, as parents of kids in a school, we have no way of knowing that there isn't a kid who is allergic. My child has celiac and asthma. Her teachers know. The school nurse knows. Any substitutes who are in her classroom are told. However, it is no one else's business. So, I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know that there is a kid with celiac and asthma in their kids' science class. The OP cannot know there are no peanut allergies legally. Period. And just because some mom who volunteers a lot says it's so, doesn't make it so.

 

If the school or district says they have a nut ban regardless of whether there is an actual allergic person, that's something that can be addressed.  And saying that there is an allergic student doesn't have to mean saying anything about who that student is.

[heartlikealion]

I see. That's true, allergies are not always known.

 

Wow this thread is hitting home today. I'm embarrassed to say we haven't done the formal allergy tests for ds because of financial reasons and not being able to get an accurate quote on what it would cost. Anyway, we know he has a bad reaction to ant bites (took him to the dr over one) and has issues with grass sometimes (seems better now). We know peanuts are okay, but he did once have a weird reaction to a mixed nut box that was at a family member's house. We couldn't figure out what kind of nut he had, though. Well all this to say, yes I totally agree it's possible to be unaware of allergies. Today he said he got stung by a bee at school. The teacher asked him if he was allergic to bees and he said no (he didn't know, I didn't know!) and they treated it with something and everything was fine. But boy did that scare dh and I hearing he got stung by a bee. Obviously I need to make allergy testing a priority. How scary.

[Crimson Wife]

 

Wow this thread is hitting home today. I'm embarrassed to say we haven't done the formal allergy tests for ds because of financial reasons and not being able to get an accurate quote on what it would cost. 

 

If a family is requesting accommodations from the school related to the child's medical issue (such as a nut ban in the classroom for a child with an allergy), I think it is reasonable to require documentation to support the need for accommodations. It's the same for any medical issue requiring accommodations. I needed to provide hearing test results in order for my child to receive accommodations for her hearing impairment.

 

[maize]

I see. That's true, allergies are not always known.

 

Wow this thread is hitting home today. I'm embarrassed to say we haven't done the formal allergy tests for ds because of financial reasons and not being able to get an accurate quote on what it would cost. Anyway, we know he has a bad reaction to ant bites (took him to the dr over one) and has issues with grass sometimes (seems better now). We know peanuts are okay, but he did once have a weird reaction to a mixed nut box that was at a family member's house. We couldn't figure out what kind of nut he had, though. Well all this to say, yes I totally agree it's possible to be unaware of allergies. Today he said he got stung by a bee at school. The teacher asked him if he was allergic to bees and he said no (he didn't know, I didn't know!) and they treated it with something and everything was fine. But boy did that scare dh and I hearing he got stung by a bee. Obviously I need to make allergy testing a priority. How scary.

Why were you so scared about the bee sting? People get stung by bees all the time, they hurt but are not dangerous for the vast majority of people. If your son has never reacted badly to a sting in the past there was no particular reason to think he would react badly now. Even less reason if he had never been stung before, as allergies do not tend to develop in the absence of exposure. Edited September 23, 2016 by maize

[Bluegoat]

I see. That's true, allergies are not always known.

 

Wow this thread is hitting home today. I'm embarrassed to say we haven't done the formal allergy tests for ds because of financial reasons and not being able to get an accurate quote on what it would cost. Anyway, we know he has a bad reaction to ant bites (took him to the dr over one) and has issues with grass sometimes (seems better now). We know peanuts are okay, but he did once have a weird reaction to a mixed nut box that was at a family member's house. We couldn't figure out what kind of nut he had, though. Well all this to say, yes I totally agree it's possible to be unaware of allergies. Today he said he got stung by a bee at school. The teacher asked him if he was allergic to bees and he said no (he didn't know, I didn't know!) and they treated it with something and everything was fine. But boy did that scare dh and I hearing he got stung by a bee. Obviously I need to make allergy testing a priority. How scary.

 

I'm not sure why this is an issue?  Lots of people have allergies but don't get tested.  And most people aren't allergic to most things.  I've never actually heard of a doctor recommending allergy testing across the board.

 

My dd8 has asthma and some seasonal allergies.  My dd11 might have an allergy to scallops.  All my kids have been stung by bees and wasps.  We haven't done any testing, and none of these things are concerns.

[heartlikealion]

Why were you so scared about the bee sting? People get stung by bees all the time, they hurt but are not dangerous for the vast majority of people. If your son has never reacted badly to a sting in the past there was no particular reason to think he would react badly now. Even less reason if he had never been stung before, as allergies do not tend to develop in the absence of exposure.

 

Because he had an ant bite swell up so big once it looked like it might be an umbilical hernia. It just happened to be by his belly button. That's probably the appt where we discussed allergy testing with the dr. A referral was put in, but we didn't go because we couldn't get a straight answer... one of those things where you wouldn't have a quote til after the fact? It may not be a logical train of thought to think bees might pose a problem, but it's just something that nagged at us I guess. Also, I think the fear was from him being at school and us not knowing what happened/being there in case of an emergency. Obviously the school felt it was under control as we received no phone calls. Luckily the school was able to treat/contain it, but had he needed an epi pen or something the hospital nearest his school is crap and I just hate to think of how the events would have unfolded. Also, maybe dh and I can't shake that movie My Girl?

 

[heartlikealion]

Kinda replying out of order here. Sorry.

 

If a family is requesting accommodations from the school related to the child's medical issue (such as a nut ban in the classroom for a child with an allergy), I think it is reasonable to require documentation to support the need for accommodations. It's the same for any medical issue requiring accommodations. I needed to provide hearing test results in order for my child to receive accommodations for her hearing impairment.
 

 

We didn't have any requests. I'm just stating that allergy testing might be useful for us.

 

I'm not sure why this is an issue?  Lots of people have allergies but don't get tested.  And most people aren't allergic to most things.  I've never actually heard of a doctor recommending allergy testing across the board.

 

My dd8 has asthma and some seasonal allergies.  My dd11 might have an allergy to scallops.  All my kids have been stung by bees and wasps.  We haven't done any testing, and none of these things are concerns.

 

Well I'm pretty sure the dr encouraged the allergy testing for ds. We just didn't follow through.

 

It's probably best he was stung at the school and not at home. I don't have anything for stings here. I actually just looked at some products recently, but was leery of the ingredients. I should probably have something to keep around just in case. I don't think we did anything really special when I was a kid and got stung at school. I think they gave us some sort of cold pack. But I guess the products do help reduce the reaction.

[Bluegoat]

Kinda replying out of order here. Sorry.

 

 

We didn't have any requests. I'm just stating that allergy testing might be useful for us.

 

 

Well I'm pretty sure the dr encouraged the allergy testing for ds. We just didn't follow through.

 

It's probably best he was stung at the school and not at home. I don't have anything for stings here. I actually just looked at some products recently, but was leery of the ingredients. I should probably have something to keep around just in case. I don't think we did anything really special when I was a kid and got stung at school. I think they gave us some sort of cold pack. But I guess the products do help reduce the reaction.

 

I think most will just affect pain and swelling, not an allergic reaction, other than something like Benedryl. 

 

But you can use a baking soda paste or witch hazel on stings and they will give some relief.  Those sticks with ammonia, I think? work well too.

[poppy]

It's all well and good to say we shouldn't restrict nuts when there is not a kid who is allergic. However, as parents of kids in a school, we have no way of knowing that there isn't a kid who is allergic. My child has celiac and asthma. Her teachers know. The school nurse knows. Any substitutes who are in her classroom are told. However, it is no one else's business. So, I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know that there is a kid with celiac and asthma in their kids' science class. The OP cannot know there are no peanut allergies legally. Period. And just because some mom who volunteers a lot says it's so, doesn't make it so.

 

It is not reason to ask which child is allergic. It is reasonable to ask, is this ban based on an existing allergy.

[poppy]

Popcorn is banned under most daycare/preschool licensing standards for kids below Kindergarten.

 

I don't think "most".  Popcorn Smartfood is a very popular preschool / pre-k snack, as I've observed. It's also not less of a choking hazard at age 5 than it is at age 4.... I'm sure it's most dangerous for toddlers, but, it is still.  Popcorn is clearly more of a risk than peanuts for an elementary-aged kid who is not allergic to peanuts.

[Caroline]

It is not reason to ask which child is allergic. It is reasonable to ask, is this ban based on an existing allergy.

And it is reasonable for the school to say the health conditions of any child in this school but your own are none of your business.

[Bluegoat]

And it is reasonable for the school to say the health conditions of any child in this school but your own are none of your business.

 

No, it isn't reasonable if I am only asking things that pertain to policy and nothing about identified individuals.  School policy pretty directly affects all parents, and if it is stupid they have a stake in that, totally apart from having a political role as citizens.  Across the board nut bans are a policy issue, and all the school has to say to communicate this is "No, we don't have an across the board ban we make decisions on this according to X criteria."

[Crimson Wife]

I'm not sure why this is an issue?  Lots of people have allergies but don't get tested.  And most people aren't allergic to most things.  I've never actually heard of a doctor recommending allergy testing across the board.

 

My dd8 has asthma and some seasonal allergies.  My dd11 might have an allergy to scallops.  All my kids have been stung by bees and wasps.  We haven't done any testing, and none of these things are concerns.

 

But you're not requesting accommodations in a school as a result of those possible allergies. Once you're going beyond just having your child avoid the possible allergen himself/herself to requesting the school ban other children from bringing foods containing the allergen, you need to get actual medical documentation.

 

My child has issues with gluten and dairy but as we don't need a ban, they aren't part of her IEP document. If she had life-threatening reactions such that we needed a ban, we'd have to submit the documentation.

[Spryte]

For the record, my kid has multiple life threatening allergies, and I'm not in favor of an arbitrary food ban in schools for peanuts and tree nuts, or any other food.  I understand why a school might do it, and even understand that with such a ban in place - parents like me might feel more comfortable sending their kids to school.  But I don't think it's necessary.

 

I do think that if any child has an anaphylactic allergy, that allergen needs to be kept out of their classroom, their personal lunch area (note: I did not say the entire cafeteria, if there is one.  I said the child's personal lunch area.)  And they need a plan to have recess and go to school assemblies, and wait for the bus.  I don't think it has to mean that the recess area/school assembly area/bus line need to be free of allergens - but certainly kids can be encouraged not to eat during those times, and a teacher could carry an epipen in case of need.

 

I can name one case in which a high school student in CA stayed out of a classroom because of an activity that involved peanuts, for the whole day.  The next day he returned to class only to have anaphylaxis from residue or airborne particles.  After it had been "cleaned" - peanut butter is notoriously difficult to remove from a classroom, and has been likened to loose glitter and how it seems to spread despite cleaning.  We've all experienced that, right?  The Glitter Explosion.   :)

 

So, yeh, I do think that if there is a kid with *any* anaphylactic allergy - that allergen needs to be kept out of the classroom and the area where the kid eats.  And when the kid is out and about in the regular school area, exposed to potential allergens - then there needs to be an action plan.

 

All of this can be addressed via IEP, or in cases of severe allergy, a 504.  And no other parents in a school need know about it, in fact it's sometimes encouraged that parents of students with allergies *not* disclose that it's their child with the allergies to discourage bullying.  Children with food allergies are often bullied.  And, sadly, not just by other kids but by other parents.  (Grrrrr!)

 

As for the other allergies - well, my kid has tons of them.  He's only anaphylactic to peanuts, tree nuts, sesame, banana, lentils.  And of those, in a perfect world, I'd only ever ask for a peanut, tree nut, sesame free classroom.  (Banana and lentil are served in ways that don't lend themselves to going airborne.)  But he's also got IgE mediated allergies to dairy (severe asthma); wheat (asthma and eczema); almost all raw foods (severe OAS); and he has an anaphylactic allergy to cats; along with seasonal allergies.  I'd never ask that all of that be avoided in the classroom.  That would be unreasonable.  The only thing I'd ask is that the things that could kill him, within minutes, be excluded from the classroom.  So, things like celiac disease, etc - well, yes, that's serious, but we're not talking an immediate risk of death in front of a classroom full of impressionable children.

 

You know what though?  What concerns me even more than this, for the sake of the kids with allergies, isn't bans or allergen free zones.  It's access to epinephrine.  In my school district, epipens are kept locked up, in a cabinet, in the nurse's office.  The nurse's office is a locked room off of the main office area.  It is locked 3 days a week, because the traveling nurse is only in the school 2 days per week.  So if there's a reaction on a day the nurse isn't in - not only do they *run* a child to the office (a person in anaphylactic shock should be lain down, feet elevated, not made to run), they have to get through 2 locked doors.  That is a terrible protocol.

 

But I digress, because this thread is not about the safety of kids who might die.  It's about allergens in classrooms, and what feels "fair" to people.  

 

Every child needs access to a safe space, and I think school should be safe, too.  Even for kids with life threatening allergies.  Kids with life threatening allergies are protected (per our allergist) by the ADA, and will have a documented action plan and an IEP at a minimum, usually a 504.   Their parents need to work with the school to find a solution and plan that will work for them, and hopefully the school and everyone involved will be supportive, and not get into a tit for tat sort of situation with regard to allergens that don't cause anaphylaxis.  

 

Oh, and heartlikealion, please do get your kiddo checked for allergies. If there's been a reaction to some sort of mixed nuts, but you don't know which one, and your doc has recommended it - you need more info.  Reactions tend to worsen with exposure, and there's no way to know what or when something might happen next.  If you can't afford allergy testing with an allergist, talk to the doc that made the recommendation and at least see about getting an epipen, and know the symptoms of anaphylaxis, just in case.  We were in your exact shoes, years ago, we suspected an allergy and just sort of avoided what we suspected.  But we were not well informed, and I see now that we were very, very lucky.  Allergies stink.  I hope your kiddo doesn't have them!

Edited September 23, 2016 by Spryte

[Dmmetler]

One thing that surprises me-don't schools with kids with anaphylactic allergies have to have emergency response plans? I know mine did, and one thing we had to list was every student with medical issues and how they would be managed. That included epipen access. In my case. I was one of several teachers in the building who had them on hand at all times and were "on call". When we wrote the plan, we asked for teachers who were willing to carry epipens, and we ended up with about a dozen-almost all of which were either adults with allergies themselves or parents of kids with allergies. Usually there was a teacher in most grade levels, and most of the specialist teachers as well, so it was fairly easy to place kids with allergies in a classroom setting where there was an adult who could administer. Epipens were kept in the classroom, and went with the class to support classes. It still wasn't a given that there would be an adult who could administer right there, but it was much better than having the epipen behind multiple closed doors.

[Nart]

If a family is requesting accommodations from the school related to the child's medical issue (such as a nut ban in the classroom for a child with an allergy), I think it is reasonable to require documentation to support the need for accommodations. It's the same for any medical issue requiring accommodations. I needed to provide hearing test results in order for my child to receive accommodations for her hearing impairment.

 

Slightly off topic but audiology is a related service under sped law. School districts encourage parents to get private hearing testing but they are responsible for audiology assessments under sped law (but not for hearing aids or implants). I am lucky that I live in a county in California that has a great sped audiology team. When my just turned 3 year was found to have speech/language delays after being privately assessed, I called my local school district and requested a speech/language evaluation and told them it was recommended he get a hearing test as well. The encouraged me to get him privately tested since we have health insurance but I told them I saw on their website they have audiologists and preferred they test him. They had a fantastic hearing center with masters level audiologist and pediatric sound booths. He failed, got ear tubes, and got rechecked by the school district. Later we went to an audiologist that was in the ENT's office and she was good but didn't have the educational perspective the district ones did. Edited September 23, 2016 by Nart

[Daria]

One thing that surprises me-don't schools with kids with anaphylactic allergies have to have emergency response plans? I know mine did, and one thing we had to list was every student with medical issues and how they would be managed. That included epipen access. In my case. I was one of several teachers in the building who had them on hand at all times and were "on call". When we wrote the plan, we asked for teachers who were willing to carry epipens, and we ended up with about a dozen-almost all of which were either adults with allergies themselves or parents of kids with allergies. Usually there was a teacher in most grade levels, and most of the specialist teachers as well, so it was fairly easy to place kids with allergies in a classroom setting where there was an adult who could administer. Epipens were kept in the classroom, and went with the class to support classes. It still wasn't a given that there would be an adult who could administer right there, but it was much better than having the epipen behind multiple closed doors.

 

That's the way it should be, but many places it's not that way.

 

In the area where I used to teach, the law was that kids could "self carry", if their doctor, and the nurse felt they were mature enough.  Otherwise, the pens were locked in the nurse's office, which might be staffed 2 or 3 days a week.  Generally highly educated families advocated and their kids were allowed to self carry from a very young age, in a fanny pack, and we teachers all knew that in an emergency we'd "help" the kid self administer.  But since the kids were supposed to be the experts, there were no training or instructions given.

 

Where I work now is HS, and in a different jurisdiction.  All our epi pen kids self carry, but we have several trainings.  We also keep epi pens that aren't assigned to individual kids (this is allowed here) and they train all the teachers on using them, and do an assembly for all the kids on what to do if they see someone in trouble (get an adult, call 911 if asked or if they feel it's right, go to the nurse or the trainer to get a generic pen if asked).  

[Crimson Wife]

Slightly off topic but audiology is a related service under sped law. School districts encourage parents to get private hearing testing but they are responsible for audiology assessments under sped law (but not for hearing aids or implants). I am lucky that I live in a county in California that has a great sped audiology team. When my just turned 3 year was found to have speech/language delays after being privately assessed, I called my local school district and requested a speech/language evaluation and told them it was recommended he get a hearing test as well. The encouraged me to get him privately tested since we have health insurance but I told them I saw on their website they have audiologists and preferred they test him. They had a fantastic hearing center with masters level audiologist and pediatric sound booths. He failed, got ear tubes, and got rechecked by the school district. Later we went to an audiologist that was in the ENT's office and she was good but didn't have the educational perspective the district ones did.

Our district has an audiologist but they don't do booth testing, only the kind of basic screening that the pediatrician's office does. That particular screening test missed my daughter's high frequency loss (twice because it was both at the school and at the pediatrician's office) because it only tests a few frequencies. I don't want to say the screening is pointless because it will catch losses that are severe enough in the tested frequencies, but it gave false reassurance about my daughter.