Peanut Butter Sandwiches Banned from Schools

[Peppergirl]

Just wait until bacon becomes the problem.

Oh god, not the bacon.

Holy shit, now you've done it.

[blas87]

I was moreso wanting to commit mass murder on the cheese-protestors, myself.

That stupid Grimm Reaper thingy and how cheese is so bad for you. Well, it's only bad if you don't get enough fiber to push it out later.

[fireheart17]

I see both sides of the situation, nut allergies are dangerous but how far do we go with allergens? Nuts, milk, eggs, seafood, etc. Do we ban them all? I personally think we need to find a safer way to accommodate allergies and we really need to get to the bottom of why these allergies are becoming more and more common.

I already pointed out some of the common routes behind allergies: genetics (allergic parents having allergic children), being over-hygenic, exposure to peanut butter and the like too early in the womb.

As for the rest of those, usually the milk allergy is due to the proteins in the milk, not the actual milk itself. There are alternatives available in schools aside from milk...usually water and the like since it lasts longer.

Only in very, very, very rare cases can a child develop severe reactions from casually playing with someone who has eaten any foods that contain eggs.

http://www.allergy.org.au/content/view/143/1/ (milk allergy)

http://kidshealth.chw.edu.au/fact-sheets/egg-allergy (egg allergy)

Seafood allergies vary between children: some children may be allergic to shellfish, others may be allergic to whiting, others salmon.

Apart from the seafood allergy, usually the egg and milk allergies kids do tend to grow out of by the time they reach school. The nut allergies are more common and more persistent.

[draco664]

I just have to say... I'm surprised at the amount of vitriol and heat this debate has stirred up... All over peanut butter in school lunches. I've seen debates on child porn and pedophiles go more calmly than this one. Isn't it weird what gets us humans riled up?

It is a pet peeve psychotic hatred of mine when people try and ban something on the off chance that it would affect someone else. As a risk manager, it offends me deeply. People with no idea of the difference between risk mitigation and risk treatment are not the people to go to when deciding whether something should be banned.

[Rapscallion]

In order to cement my status as an unprofessional with a stick up my arse and a hosting account, I have to point out that there's another option of letting nature take its course and weeding out the genetically unfit.

Just saying.

I think the person this is aimed at knows it

Rapscallion

[Mishi]

@Raps: You get to say it as a pointed joke, but every time I say that, I'm accused of being a eugenicist!

[Rapscallion]

Au contraire! I get to say it as a "thoughtful, well prepared" response

It involves nobody whose posts you can see here, I have to point out. Mostly amusing myself here.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

So your suggestion is to simply ban peanut butter, but never have the children told why?
I see that failing very quickly.

Where the hell did I say that? To the best of my knowledge I never said such a thing. In fact, I said that a carpet ban period is an over the top reaction. And I know you read what I wrote as you intentionally cut out that part out in the quote.

And as for teachers teaching, need I remind you that that is what they're there for?

During class, yes. During recess and lunch when lessons aren't being taught they are supervisors and need to actively make sure kids aren't being hurt.

When I was taught about dangerous allergies as a child, the lesson took less than half an hour. The teacher talked about all the main information on the subject, then we were allowed to ask questions. Notes also went home to the parents so they were made aware as well. We knew that giving peanuts to this person was a very bad thing, so we didn't do it. We were about 5-6 years old at the time.

And this I support because it's reasonable and makes sense. Combined with proper supervision it works wonders. Kudos to your school.

Keeping children ignorant about the problem, and instead just issuing a blanket ban of peanuts at school would probably cause more harm than letting the children know. Withholding the information could lead to kids acting out and bringing the banned foods just out of spite.

I agree, which is why I don't like the idea of a carpet ban.

The adults are creating a zero tolerance environment in the school because they don't want to talk to the kids, and that's just fucking stupid.

Also agree to this, so why do you think I support it?

[Rebel]

Where the hell did I say that? To the best of my knowledge I never said such a thing. In fact, I said that a carpet ban period is an over the top reaction. And I know you read what I wrote as you intentionally cut out that part out in the quote.

What you had initially said was that a ban would make sense if a significant number of children had a peanut allergy. But that is dependant on what the parents and teachers think would be considered a significant number. Some people would consider 1 to be to many, and that you're better to be safe than sorry.

I understood that you were against a ban over one child being affected, but would agree if there was a significant number of children affected. The grey area was to what number you though was enough.

I had cut that quote out initially because I was focusing on the idea that you had put forth that "allowing teachers to teach" wasn't a good idea because it could, and has, lead to zero tolerance policies. Also because children don't eat in the classroom, which by you're own words, destroyed my argument right there.
I didn't agree with this on a few points:

1.) The impression that I got from your "allowing teachers to teach" point was that this would immediately lead to a zero tolerance classroom, as it has in the past. But in many of the cases of food banning in schools, I have heard very little about the children being educated as to why it is happening.
There were also arguments about how this could lead to bullies using this against the allergy sufferer. A counter point is that the other children could know how to react should this ever occur and save the other child's life.
Zero tolerance policies could be put in place, but only if the children are aware of why it is there and why breaking the rules could have very serious consequences, but they still did it anyway. At that point, they are deserving of punishment.

2.) Depending on the age of the child, sometimes they do eat in the classroom. Snack time for the Kindergarten classes. Peanut allergies start up at a young age. Even kids this young can learn about them, keep the allergy sufferer safe, and still enjoy their PB sandwiches.
It seems to be a common practice these days, however, to have parents be asked to bring snacks that have no peanuts, no gluten, no eggs, no lactose, etc. So the blanket bans seen to be happening already in some places.

3.)Dependant on the school, teachers are present during lunch periods. It makes their job a lot easier if all the children already know the risks of the allergies. Teaching it in the class can make their lunchtime supervisions safer for every child.
The teaching about allergies should also happen school wide, not just in the classrooms with allergic children. That's just common sense.

I do apologise if my initial response to you came off as too abrupt, but it had appeared to me that you were attacking my idea of having the teachers teach instead of issuing bans.

I'm just astounded at how many schools in America these days seem to be simply banning foods at school for their potential to possibly be harmful.

[Rapscallion]

I think a lot of it is advice from legal types about potential costs from litigation and reacting to that and budgets.

Rapscallion

[MadMike]

Mostly amusing myself here.

...and those select few of us who can see it!

[HYHYBT]

I personally think we need to find a safer way to accommodate allergies and we really need to get to the bottom of why these allergies are becoming more and more common.

It's being worked on... but that takes a long time, and even then it might not be something correctible. Meanwhile, people have allergies *now.*

The most interesting thing I've read suggested a link to parasites. Apparently, in areas where people are exposed to tapeworms and such regularly, allergies are rare. On the other hand, we probably don't want to start giving people worms on the off-chance it will prevent their developing allergies.

[Duelist925]

It's being worked on... but that takes a long time, and even then it might not be something correctible. Meanwhile, people have allergies *now.*

The most interesting thing I've read suggested a link to parasites. Apparently, in areas where people are exposed to tapeworms and such regularly, allergies are rare. On the other hand, we probably don't want to start giving people worms on the off-chance it will prevent their developing allergies.

I've read some theories that link it to uber cleanliness--basicly, our immune systems going haywire because they don't have enough to do, thanks to the over abundance of parents who dont let their kids play in the dirt and the like. Which would tie into the parasites angle, if you think about it....

[AdminAssistant]

The article I read about this mentioned a form of therapy where the kids are given very small doses of the allergen in a controlled situation, gradually increasing the dose until they no longer react to it. However, the article also mentioned that the treatment was still in trials and about 10 years away from common, widespread use.

[fireheart17]

I've read some theories that link it to uber cleanliness--basicly, our immune systems going haywire because they don't have enough to do, thanks to the over abundance of parents who dont let their kids play in the dirt and the like. Which would tie into the parasites angle, if you think about it....

I actually did point this out earlier as one of the potential theories. A friend of mine has a now 3-year-old kid. When said child was around 13-14 months, she had her first time on the grass. She freaked out like crazy! Then further down the track, there's a photo of her with her face covered in mud.

The article I read about this mentioned a form of therapy where the kids are given very small doses of the allergen in a controlled situation, gradually increasing the dose until they no longer react to it. However, the article also mentioned that the treatment was still in trials and about 10 years away from common, widespread use.

I've heard about that treatment before. There was also a story I put up here ages ago about parents holding "peanut butter parties" to check to see if their child was allergic to nuts. This was usually when the kids were around 2.