Granddaughter Can't Bring PB&J to School

Boston Legal did a show exploring that very issue last night.

Some very good points were raised, but in the end it came down to whether we want to add health care provider to our underpaid teachers' already full plate. These unfortunate children do not belong in public schools if all it takes is a classmate sneaking in a candy bar with a trace of peanut in it + 20 seconds of the teacher's distraction to literally kill them.

(They also bash the TSA pretty good so the episode is worth watching imho)

Any child with such an allergy, needs to be aware that they can NEVER take food from other people. Its no good blaming the other pupil, the teachers or even the city officials.....

Why should the majority be held responsible????

Those with a Peanut allergy (which can be very very serious) just have to be in the location of peanuts in order for the reaction to start, they don't have to take any food from the other pupils/people. Many if not all airlines, for example, no longer serve peanuts for this very reason. This is nothing to do with blaming others, this situation can be a matter of life and death in some instances, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_allergy.

I do not want to dismiss the seriousness of food allergies, specifically peanut allergies, but I have never heard of anyone dying, or even getting deathly ill, from exposure to peanuts on airplanes. Has this actually ever occurred?

I do not know of anyone dying from peanut exposure on an airplane, but I would not be surprised if a small number of unpublished incidents have occurred. I personally have more than once been miserable trapped inside an airplane from my allergy reaction. This was after commandeering all of the pressurized vents to blow air past me. On one trans-continental flight that somebody had brought a PBJ sandwich, I was so noticeably green that the co-pilot came to me and asked if they should land. I said that they should continue. I think that that was a Pan-American flight that the crew was so obliging and concerned.

I am guardian of a child who is allergic to nuts, milk and other foods. He's old enough to know what not to eat now. We used to carry an EpiPin for him.

I think it's a prudent thing for the school to do. Many more children are allergic to nuts and milk than 50 years ago. I also think this was indeed communicated to the parents. Those PBnJ's could have been traded to someone for Twinkies, you know.

Just my point of view.

makes me wonder how I ever got to be 58 years old by doing all the wrong things

never wore one of those funny bike helmets back then, and still don't when biking.

tell me, will the school be taking away free speech next? have to be politically correct ya know.

When I was in school from the early 80's up to the mid 90's the kids with nut allergies just didn't eat stuff with nuts in it or trade lunch with other kids who had nuts in there lunchs. Same with the lactose intolerant kids, they just didn't eat stuff that had enough dairy products in it to mess them up.

The one person I knew who had bad allergies to some types of food carried his own little medical kit thing with him and that was it.

So when will kids have to carry insulin kits with them and asthma inhalers just in case someone who has diabetes or breathing problems forgets theirs and has a problem?

When did other peoples medical issues become everyone else's responsibilities except those of the person who has the actual condition?

Are we not talking about kids here? Granted if this was just an adult issue then fine, but this is about kids of school going age. My God what has the world come to when we don't want to protect those who are most in need and the hope for the future. Teaching kids to be more considerate of others is not a bad thing.

GA

Maybe MONSANTO and its devious attempts to rule the world also weakens the ability of bees to resist little mites?

I refuse to get started, just don't have the time and what is being said here is good food for thought anyway, Ky.

Yeah, we becoming compulsive about over cleanliness in the west fueled by TV advertising of bacterialogical this that and the other.
I don't want anti-bacterial handwash...soap and water is fine.
Old English saying 'You eat a peck of dirt before you die' (a peck being a measure of volume 14 dry pints I believe)

I like to see kids playing like kids should, that's messing about in the dirt and the stream without worrying. Plenty of time to worry later in life.
Del

Del, is your 'signature' ok to post on this thread? - "health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut." - one cannot be too carefull, these days as you must realise.

not to mention cat fur allergies.

It's not the actual fur, it's the 'lick' on the fur <dribble lick wub>
Del

Yup that's so true. I've never been fantatic cleaner - "Clean enough to be healthy and dirty enough to be happy" as on my spoon rest but I still developed random allergies. I agree that it's what we do to our food, what we feed our animals and the use of cheap fillers - like wheat and whey - in pre-prepared food that have overloaded our systems.

I now have Rheumatoid Arthritis - which is caused by an overactive immune system. Linked?

My daught was alergic to egg when she was a baby, she did some very impressive projectile vomitting across the back of a Ford Fiesta into Mother in Law's lap.
I was ok, I was in the front seat.
She grew out of that, but has now developed allergies to some fruit skins and stuff...ok if they are cooked (bit of a pain when she's a veggie).
I made a nice plum crumble from wild plums which grow in along the cycle tracks in Harlow, she couldn't eat 'em raw.
Mmmmm free crumble, must go blackberrying soon.
Del

Some UK schools seem to be turning the corner on this & are actually encouraging young children to engage in dirty play, getting their hands into the earth and similar actions.

I

You live in a different India than I know (was there 15 years) - In general people are very unhealthy and a lot of the cause is 1) diet, 2) no exercise for most, 3) Funny stuff that is considered medicine

Well, 1 and 2 make people unhealthy everywhere, not only in India; but number 3 ? some fun can always be consider medicine !

Yahlasit

funny things?? you lived there 15 years and I am Indian by birth and taking AYUVEDIC medicines from the day I came on this earth.. (now we have GARBHASANSKAR that is taking child care through AYURVEDA from the day pregnancy is confirmed..)

if you are talking about street side medicine men, with loud speaker, then you are right. they are just fake.

but if you are talking about AYURVEDA and the doctors like I mentioned in link then you can get your facts right. ayurveda is an equally powerful stream in medicines. what you see as yoga and pranayam therapy are usually accompanied by AYURVEDIC MEDICINES. we have ample of literature from our ancestors on that.

these are the lines I would like to quote from book TOTTOCHAN (PAGE 13)

Sea Food and Land Food

Now it was time for "something from the ocean and something from the hills," the

lunch hour Totto-chan had looked forward to so eagerly.

The headmaster had adopted the phrase to describe a balanced meal--the kind of food he expected you to bring for lunch in addition to your rice. Instead of the usual

"Train your children to eat everything," and "Please see that they bring a nutritiously

balanced lunch," this headmaster asked parents to include in their children's

lunchboxes "something from the ocean and something from the hills."

"Something from the ocean" meant sea food-- things such as fish and tsukuda-ni

(tiny crustaceans and the like boiled in soy sauce and sweet sake), while "something

from the hills" meant food from the land--like vegetables, beef, pork, and chicken.

Mother was very impressed by this and thought that few headmasters were capable

of expressing such an important rule so simply. Oddly enough, just having to choose

from two categories made preparing lunch seem simpler. And besides, the

headmaster pointed out that one did not have to think too hard or be extravagant to

fulfill the two requirements. The land food could be just kinpira gobo (spicy

burdock) or an omelette, and the sea food merely flakes of dried bonito. Or simpler

still, you could have nori (a kind of seaweed) for "ocean" and a pickled plum for

"hills."

If you tried to serve food like you describe in the U.S. schools, you would have a major riot. Not that it's not nutritious; I'm sure it is. In fact, I eat similar foods all the time, but I'm not a fussy eater. I was brought up in an Oriental household and taught to eat everything. I brought up my kids to eat everything and they now do the same with their kids.

"...come about through overzealous partents being letigious when accidents happen at school"

I agree. I have said for years that our society is going to litigate itself into paralysis one day. I am afraid we are not far away from that point in time.

I am undecided on this one. There seems to have been an increase in allergies lately, and in their intensity. This may be a cause for concern in which everyone must look out for everyone else. Or maybe not.

So long as schoolkid A does not partake of schoolkid B's lunch, why should anyone worry about B's lunch? If you're allergic to it, don't eat it. It is not legitimate to restrict the freedom of others by making them responsible for avoiding your own problems. (Don't eat the OP's stepdaughter's PBJ if you have problems with Ps.)

This formulation is no doubt incomplete as it stands, but it may serve as a baseline for further consideration.

This is what's happened to our country when the PH d's begin to run things. They have lost all common sense, and I am not sure what class that's taught in. As my dear old grandmother use to say "If you bathe everyday and do not let the kids get in the dirt they will be sick all of the time". It seem she might have been slightly wrong, as we have a pill for that now.

I'm curious.....is this a public or private school?

A few years ago we put our daughter into a private pre-school. They had a list of things recommended not to bring. Peanut butter was one of them. Since our daughter liked PBJ sandwiches, my wife found a substitutes for peanut butter (I can't recall the product name).

Also, almond butter is a milder taste that many peanut allergy sufferers can eat with no reaction.

It's a private school. My step-daughter is divorced and her ex-in-laws are from a 'better' side of the tracks so to speak and they pay for the school, but my daughter has custody and has to deal with the associated details.

Where my daughter is living basically and paycheck to paycheck, the other families of children at this school are doctors, CEO's, etc.

I have a feeling that the extreme nature to which this rule is written and enforced probably has something to do with a school benefactor or two that have over protected, spoiled kids with issues and they want to 'buy' peace of mind that little Stephan and Yvonne are not in any harm.

Part of this feeling is reinforced by the recent news that my daughter wanted to become a member of the PTA for the school and is getting the cold shoulder.

Apparently because her car is rusty (dependable mechanically though, I make sure of that) and she shops at discount stores, she is not of the right caliber to be on the PTA of 'that' school.

In response to the suggestion that we bring these conditions upon ourselves by eating overly refined and processed foods, and taking meds every time we have a slight fever or headache… undoubtedly.

I have issues with my back, neck, and knees (the result of military duty and living a very physical life) and generally am in some kind of pain constantly, but I rarely take meds… only when it's bad enough that I can't sleep, but almost never during the day unless I can't even do my daily kata. I don't drink bottled water, unless it's all that's available… etc.

My wife (2nd wife to be correct and mother to my step-daughter) has a back injury as well (was a collegiate cheerleader) and about a year into our marriage, we were light-contact sparing and she dropped down into the splits and pivoted to do a leg swipe and tweaked her back pretty good, couldn't move and had to call the ambulance. She ended up being bed-ridden for a week and on pain meds for a month. After she got off the meds, there was a noticeable reduction in her tolerance…. things that would not even make her flinch before now had her limping or 'favoring' an appendage because it hurt. Paper cuts, in-grown nails, minor burn or superficial cut had her in sever pain. She's pretty smart and self aware and knew that it was a change in tolerance because she felt no pain for month while on the heavy meds so she soldiered through it. It probably took about three months to get her tolerance back where it was before the accident.

Can you imagine how low a person's natural pain tolerance is that has taken meds for every little ache and pain for years? They would run to the medicine cabinet to treat pain caused by something that I might not even feel.

I really feel kind of sorry for people that live in an overly protected environment… under exposure to germs and over exposure to processed foods and medicine.

Now, I do try to buy organic and healthily foods as much as I can, but not because I'm allergic, fearful of the chemicals, or a health nut, but mostly because they taste so much better, in my opinion. Yeah, I acknowledge we use way too much fertilizer and bug-a-cides, and other chemicals in our food production in the West, but I always leaned towards natural and organic since I was young just due to taste preference. I can tell you this though, because of that, when I do end up eating something overly processing… it tastes so foreign… processed cheese is a good example… yuck.

As for where will our society be in regards to weak, or altogether none existent immune system,… if we continue down that path of not exposing our bodies to the nasties in the world, there will come a day when the common cold will become deadly, when an ingrown toenail will be an excuse to miss a weeks worth of work, where a paper cut could lead to amputation.

In closing, my opinion of this hoity-toity school that is seemingly no more than a testament or badge of the regions socialite snobs… yes, they have an obligation to not only instruct our youth but provide for their safety as well while they are in their care… however… over protection is just as bad as, if not worse than, none at all. And they need to stop catering to their benefactors and start teaching their students, not only in basic academics but life skills as well, to include lessons on why it is importation to get dirty and not take a pill for every bump and bruise.

JavaHead

Actually a lack of perspective on the reality outside of the specific school environment in which a educator belongs is exactly what qualifies most educators under school boards standards. I was listening to the Oakland teacher on strike a few weeks ago, bitching about pay and benefits. The school district was broke in part because the State had to take the District over for severe chronic underperformance, the state improved the performance, but now the District has to have both its own administrators and State administrators to oversee them (obviously they weren't cutting it on their own so it makes good sense to have someone qualified there to monitor them for a little bit before dumping the responsibility back on them). At any rate the union felt the District had too much administration cost with all these administration staff, and wanted to be paid equivalent to the teachers in the more affluent communities where the students had not been under performing for decades. I think it would be a good idea to require some real world working experience after college for teachers (outside of schools), just so they have an idea about how pay for performance and skill works.

Gentle education of the children to understand that others have these reactions may help reduce the food swap action. Just need to watch out for the budding psychopaths...

Bravo ER... an ounce of understanding is worth a ton of 'rules' in most situations.

I have to ask but why do you need to wash a banana?

Have I been eating them wrong all my life by taking the skin off first?

I suspect they mean to wash the outside of the banana to avoid salmonella or pesticides. I've never heard of either being a problem with bananas though.

I do agree with you but surely those things will only be a problem if you eat them! Also can the school force you to buy organic fruit and veg?

Perhaps if one gets any residue on your hands while peeling the banana one could then pass the contaminant to their mouth.

The school can require what they want, they are a private institution. That being said, the parent can purchase what they desire and see what happens. I don't know how a school official can look at a banana and tell if it's organic or not (assuming the parent was smart enough to take off any labels).

Stickers on bananas just tend to say the country or company of origin.

I haven't seen one yet that states that it was grown using lots of chemicals.

That may be true, but if the sticker doesn't say "organic" then maybe it isn't.

Funny, we buy almost exclusively organic fruits and veggies and I can't for the life of me picture what the banana sticker looks like.

I don't think so, and the school in question is not forcing her to buy organic. But their policy is that non-organic must be washed thoroughly. Pretty much an unenforceable rule, except in my granddaughter's case where they found the sticker on the banana and argued that the sticker shows the banana not to be organic and that since it was still on showed that the banana had not been washed.

I think the banana facet to this story is collateral damage from the 'shock and awe' reaction to the PB&J.

JavaHead

I had that argument with a bf's mother - I couldn't see why I'd need to wash an orange when I wasnt going to eat the skin...

Quote: "Interesting topic - and good comments"

Yeah, quite more than I expected. Original post was just a spur of the moment rant, which I did not expect to even get posted due to it not being engineering related, let alone this much traction.

But the more and more this develops, the more apparent it is that this is an engineering issue. Life cycle and evolution are a process. Inputs have changed which have had a negative impact on final product quality. A natural evolution generally makes positive changes, makes a species 'more' resilient, 'more' adaptable, 'more' durable… how and why are we then evolving to be less resilient, adaptable, and durable.

It seems that our applied technological advancements are counter to our natural advancement. A very generalized statement, but after hundreds of years eating processed foods, we can't really go back to eating certain raw things because the organs that use to process and filter the associated toxins haven't been used in hundreds of years, so now they don't work at all.

JavaHead

Well said Rose. GA.

A very good answer English Rose. If I could send you a dozen roses, I would. You, Del and Rorschach seem to be the few here to have any sympathy for a person who has a violent food allergy. I guess that I should understand that by now, the rest of you just do not know what it means to live with a food allergy that should kill.

I agree that policing of what foods a person actually eats ultimately lies with the person with the allergy and that often when dealing with other people's children authorities will overreact. But you know have no idea what it takes to live this way.

As you may guess, I have several food allergies. I would like for you to understand a little of what this means. My food allergies happen to be very neatly grouped into two categories, all seafood and all nuts. Now the most heinous of these allergens for me is peanuts. I've had these allergies all of my life, I never developed an inability to digest any of these foods. An inability to digest a food is an intolerance to that food, not an allergic reaction. My allergic reaction is an immediate rejection of the troubling food. How do I know that it is immediate, well one day a cute girl I was trying to date decided to treat me with her homemade chocolate-chip cookie by shoving it in my mouth. Every walnut morsel in this cookie that touched the moist flesh of the inside of my mouth immediately swelled to pea sized angry welts. This was quickly followed with some abusive words on my part that destroyed any amorous possibilities forever along with one of the most disgusting half hours of my life of projectile vomiting in a gas station toilet. In my case though the projectile vomiting is actually a nauseating blessing. Several allergists have told me that my automatic purging has likely prevented me from dieing from anaphylaxis shock many times. The most disturbing realization of the kind of a mixed blessing I have was when I heard that somebody was finally pursuing research on a drug for treatment for food allergies on a radio report. I contacted immediately the research group doing the human trial studies. When we discussed my reaction they decided that I would not be a good candidate for their studies, and the researcher warned me that I might lose this safety response before I gained a tolerance. Not six months later, a different food allergy treatment study group sadly made the news with a fatality in testing from a runaway anaphylaxis reaction.

Now for all but one of my food allergies, I can unknowingly easily tolerate being in the vicinity of something I won't eat. But somebody eating peanuts and the more aromatic peanut butter will drive me out of the room. Of course room size and ventilation can easily solve this. But if you've ever wondered why you never got your mid-air peanut snack, it might be because of my bribe of the flight attendant. I also avoid salad bars and buffets when any of the food might be for me cross contaminated. I avoid pot luck meals. My food shopping time has been recently shortened now that manufacturers have a separate listing for allergens. But it does get frustrating to read "This product may contain nuts."

So I'm sorry that people like me have made your lives so inconvenient. I'm disturbed to think why India has nobody with any food allergies. I guess when you have over a billion people, those that die from a food allergy won't be noticed or missed.

Interestingly enough, I know several people allergic to seafood, but several of them can eat "hand caught", without any reactions.

Similarly I know a number of people allergic to the similar sulfite preservatives, used in trawler operations nowadays, as used in wine.

I'm reasonably certain a lot of the 'elevation' in allergies is preservative driven and the severity is growing because you can't avoid them and/or people can't become attuned to feeling poorly as the result of eating some particular thing, not some other.

E.g. I don't eat things that gave me a "feeling poorly". These quite separate events enabled me to identify the culprit, and avoid it, so sensitivity hasn't escalated.

But how do you identify it, if it's NOW in just about everything?

First one of about 60,000 googling "sulfite preservatives"

Sulfite Strategy

Be CAREFUL!!

CR4 is also full of nuts!!

Fred, I can sympathize with your nut allergies, and I agree that restricting nuts and nut products is a reasonable precaution in this situation. But Lactose? Organic fruit? Neither of these are going to cause nearby kids to fall out with hives and difficulty breathing because they sat next to somebody drinking milk or eating a Chiquita banana. I'm pretty sure food allergies to bananas, organic or no, are pretty rare.

This tells me that this has very little to do with child safety, and everything to do with political crap. And for that, these people need a good whack up side the head (euphemistically speaking.) for their stupidity.

My tolerance for nuts is equally low, but the nuts I'm intolerant of have two legs. That is what they invented Thorazine for.

I agree that lactose intolerance and organic fruit preference are not a sufficient ground for banning these foods into a school. But you should recognize that you are making an assumption that these are the reasons for the ban. Though I cope with a common allergy I will not say that these foods cannot be a fatal food risk to someone. I am not an allergist or other physician and I'm fairly certain that you are also neither. This is why the school's administration should make it well known that a physician's note is required for any ban and that it will only be used the years that that child is in that particular school.

Redfred,

No need to apologize and I am empathetic to your situation, it must have been quite difficult until recent history has required adequate marking on products to provide you with ample warning.

Where the debate is here though, is to what level do we accommodate those with allergies?

So we ban all products that might contain nuts from our schools. But there are those, like you, with additional allergies of similar severity to seafood. So, let's ban all products that might contains seafood as well from our schools. Heck, as mentioned previously about the school in question, they are even banning dairy that contains lactose.

So… my original post started as a rant… but the thread has brought to light many issues, on both sides of the discussion that are valid and should be talked about. For me, I agree that accommodations and considerations should be provided to those with allergies, but my question is… to what extent?

Redfred, as someone with sever allergies, I value your input and opinion. If you were in a position to develop the rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, etc… that governed this topic in the NYC school district, what rules would you make? What would be allowed to be brought in and served? And if you were in a position to make this decision, would you also apply these rules to all public places and even businesses?

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$ either… I mean it is a serious question, knowing that certain types of foods can kill, simply by exposure… in order to protect all life and not discriminate, what do we do? As one with these conditions, I really would like to hear your thoughts.

JavaHead

I believe the real flaw lies in exactly how you have grouped things. A school district's policy for elementary student's lunch programs should be on an individual school basis. This way each school has a policy to work with the dietary limitations of the students taking at that school. To take your NYC example, a child with my condition going to a school in the Bronx should not affect the eating habits of a student in Manhattan. Now to warrant a ban on a specific food at a school the parents must produce a doctor's note that proximity and/or accidental consumption by a child that doesn't know any better will cause physical harm to the child. But these standards should be only for elementary students who as I mentioned earlier may not know what they cannot eat or be in proximity with.

By seventh grade a child sitting alone with my condition has learned to politely move to another part of the cafeteria if a group happens to have a PBJ sandwich. Also by that time that child's friends know not to bring a PBJ sandwich if they want to sit with that child. Similarly that child will have learned the value of friends when a lone PBJ sandwich eater tries to sit next to that child and the group of friends, because the friends will ask for the PBJ eater to leave or trade their sandwich with somebody else so that they can join the group.

The critical factor for all public places and businesses hinges on the mobility of the public and a recognition that any enticing aroma for one individual might be a repellant for another individual. So if the business or public space must limit the movement of a person to a small space (airplane) then the aromas in that space must be controlled somehow.

My point in this whole discussion is that all parties must learn how to be tolerant of other people's condition and not impose your values and standards onto another. They may not be capable of accepting your conditions. But this is true for both the allergy sensitive and insensitive alike.

I do not want to ban Red Lobster restaurants from serving any seafood because I have an allergy. But I am offended if the business dinner that I'm told I must attend will be at a Red Lobster because I won't even trust the water there for myself. I know that this will never be a solved scenario because people who don't have to deal with these types of restrictions forget.

I work with a nice supervisor who loves to bring in a cake or pie whenever somebody has a birthday in the group. Naturally she specifically invites the birthday person to the break room but everyone usually goes in the group to have a good time and snack. At these type of events I normally don't make a fuss, I just don't eat. For my first birthday in the group, she made a chocolate cake with walnuts. I thought that I properly, quietly explained my situation and thanked her while politely refusing. This past June for my birthday she made a pecan pie. I just looked at the pie, and said goodbye.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention about restricting which food could be brought to an elementary school. I would make sure that the list of what was banned that was sent to the parents included a description of what the concerned parents had to do to obtain the ban. I would not identify the child susceptible in the note, but I would make sure that the susceptible child's parents knew that it will become known which child's and what condition but not from the administration. I would also emphasize that the child must be able to live in the real world one day and this partial isolation will not be available by seventh grade.

Fred, I'd ask her if she was intentionally trying to kill you. You have told her repeatedly that you are severely allergic to nuts, but she continues to try to tempt you into eating something that could potentially kill you. Ask her what part of "no nuts" is she unable to understand?

Once or even twice might be an oversight but at this point it sounds to me like she is trying to off you.

At first, I thought of the same as Rorschach, Jesus christ ! you didn't make a casual comment to her, you let her know about your condition, or put in other words: a quick way to kill you.

But now that you apologized for her, the only explanation I can find is that perhaps it is the only recipe she knows, and she'd better be guilty than ashamed for baking a crappy cake?.

But still I don't think everyone else's got to modify their lunch because of you, it is obvious that you grew this old by watching for yourself; with no need for rules like:

"All nuts are bananned from this school, they cause analphabetic shock." or the like.

Yahlasit

P.S. Look for that lady of your youth and tell her you hope she has NOT forgiven you, so you can find some relief by feeling you paid by being hated.

Wondering if Soylent Green has been fully tested for alergic reactions.

The biggest laughs of all are that:

1) Organic doesn't mean no pesticides but allowed pesticides which happen to be in the more toxic group

2) Organic doesn't mean no chemical fertilizer as all fertilizers are chemical

3) Organic doesn't really mean anything except for a premium price.

Chemically, Organic means carbon based. These freaking hippies have it all screwed up!

or·gan·ic

   /ɔrˈgænɪk/ Show Spelled[awr-gan-ik] Show IPA –adjective

1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

2. characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms: organic remains found in rocks.

The definition concerning "grown without pesticides" is like #10 on the list of definitions.

So simply inform them that it IS organic and point to definition #1 and watch with glee as their heads explode.

And "all natural" does not mean safe for human consumption either. Mercury is "all natural" as is Arsenic and Rattlesnake poison and ricin!

It would be interesting to know in what lunatic country your daughter lives in.

The school could do away with all the rules by simply requiring that children not share with other children.

Children with allergies need to be badged, or those without!!! For the benefit of the teachers and the other children.

What a W****D up world we live in!!!

A normal person might have taken the food and given it back to the parents, but just disposing of it like that.....idiotic and wasteful, there are millions of children on this planet with almost no food!!!!!!Think about them and what REAL problems are!!!!

Under the local laws, I am sure a case could be made to allow each to his own!!!!

The countries with the most idiotic laws (and lawyers) are the USA and Germany, without a doubt!!

As indicated it is a private school so they can establish their own policies. As previously stated, some major benefactor is probably driving these policies. You build a wing to a hospital you expect secial attention to your needs, make a huge donation to a school expect things to be named after you and you children to be afforded every benefit (and if the donation is large enough and the school can do it without being de-certified, they will grant a degree no matter the qualifications). I can see the nuts, obviously a acute mortal allergic reaction could occur, lactose well a nuissance, organic is just being PC (and could potentially lead to multiple E Coli deaths amongst the children).

Andy, remember that it is only Germany that does not allow schools outside of the government run ones to educate kids. In other places people have choices and can choose to educate their kids themselves or send them to private or parochial schools. those private entities therefore don't have to follow every little governmental dictat that is geared towards the lowest common denominator in every case.

Actually even in Texas the State and Federal government sets standard for schools, failure to follow the State standard could de-certify the school to provide educational services, and failure to follow even stricter standards from the federal government could mean a loss of federal funding to the school and if compliant State agencies. Even private schools receive some federal funding through various programs that may not even relate to the education, things like school lunch programs and such. However, these minimum standards are not the only standards that apply to public schools as they are fully funded through public resources, which have strings to favor union participation (the teachers unions are two of the largest lobby groups in the US) and standardize education progams.

eh yes and no. to a certain extent you are correct, but private entities have a lot more leeway than public schools do, simply because of the lack of strings attached to the money. most private schools do not get federal money.

Oh you might be surprised at the route by which private schools do get federal funds through State Administered programs for odd thing like lunches, grants, low interest loans to provide scholarships to impoverished students, and other stuff people frequently do not realize. Most State programs are comingled funds from both the State and federal sources (frequently with the federal source being the largest portion) that are administered through the State and must meet certain Federal guidelines. Many county and district programs are partially funded through State programs, and so on. Each agency involved attaches some strings to the money that may not be directly related to the program funded. Luckily the federal requirements for using the funds are generally looser than the requirements for public education where everything is publicly funded, and the private schools tend to perform better on scholastic testing, so the Federal Government doesn't have any impetus to strictly interpret or enforce requirements many times and States don't want to mess with them as long as they do well and dont bring bad press on the board of education or other agencies.

"It would be interesting to know in what lunatic country your daughter lives in"

Tennessee, USA

It's where her ex-father-in-law the Doctor lives with his Doctor wife and where their son made my step-daughter move after they were married so he could be close to mommy.

During Katrina, the charity outfits were giving away peanut butter by the case. I received a lot of it. Fortunately I love the stuff. I would suspect people who were allergic to peanuts knew it and declined receiving any items that they were allergic to.

I would be angry also in your position, but there are some very good points to consider as others have brought up. It is a difficult question to address as children's safety if paramount. I don't want to see schools with a "nut, lactose, inorganic police force" searching every kids lunch for compliance. Pretty soon kids will have to walk through metal detectors like in airports. (I think they already do in some inner city schools). The world has become more complicated as we progress, taxing our every effort to live in a sane world. Clearly, we have reached a plateau and are now on a downward spiral. Things will get a lot worse before they get better (if they ever do).

Very well put. GA!!

Oh how ignorant and yet opinionated you are. Yes, the school board of this school or more accurately the rule relayed by a little girl to here grandparent who posted here appears to be an overreaction to the likely medical conditions that are happening at this school. I suspect that this is actually an exaggeration somewhere in the chaotic way we've gotten this broad collection of food limitations or that this is part of the school's early attempts at trying to find a reasonable balance between the wide assortment of food restrictions the variety of parents insist that their children be exposed to and the real world.

Likely there is or was one child who does have a potentially fatal food allergy. This prompted the school board to query all parents on the limitations on available food for all children. In stepped all of the real medical limitations, theological limitations, philosophical limitations and discretionary taste limitations that parents wish for their child. Hopefully, the administration was capable to get the offended parents to accept the discretionary food choices dropped from the forbidden list. But with the list being so large and to the point of being ridiculous, if this is real, I suspect the administration maybe trying to teach the parents a lesson on tolerance.

But let's not forget that this starts with a real medical concern. There are people of all ages that cannot tolerate certain foods.

Here's an added wrinkle for those of you who can only accept "normal" people having "normal" problems. We also do not know the age or mental state of all of the children at this facility. A colleague of mine has an autistic son that has type one diabetes. Wrap your head around that combination for a few moments before you continue. An unattended plate of cookies can quickly turn into weeks of hospital care, or death. Does this child never get any contact with other children by being institutionalized?

Life is not fair, it never has been. We do not know the reasons why this school has these rules on brought in food. But I am certain these rules are there for a reason. The reasons maybe trivial to you but they certainly weren't trivial for a caring parent at one time. Hopefully the rules can be revised overtime as conditions change.

I wish to add TVP45 and Lynlynch to my list of people who show compassion to people with dietary restrictions. Thank you for showing that compassion. I hope that I've convinced a few silent readers of my replies that food related allergies and medical conditions are serious concerns that should not be mocked. To those who think that a persons food limitations are an imposition on you that you can tease over, I wish for you to get diverticulitis.

Hi redfred

Thinking twice has never hurt nobody. My view on this has changed considerably. I have no contact with any one suffering, hence my ignorance. If it is as serious as it is documented here, then it looks like its not going to get better soon.

Your signature line has another meaning to me now, Ky.

Funny how little of a problem there was with all sorts of illness when I was a kid. People were just expected to suck it up and get along except for severe cases.

I had never heard of peanut allergies until fairly recently.

Personally, I believe a lot of this stuff is just in peoples heads!

You are so right.

I strongly believe that many of these illnesses are developed by mothers who are FAR TO CLEAN, and try and bring kids up in a completely sterile environment.....

there are far too many products around that "Kill all known Germs" and the children.

Keeping the bodies defenses fit means they have to exercise....with nothing to exercise on....

I have noticed that it is really rare (like never!) to find a household with pets (from an early age or before birth of the children) that has anyone with allergies....

I was brought up with dogs and cats, so were my children. None of us have anything like that.....

I am actually supposedly (according to the doctors) allergic to cat & dog hair under allergy tests, but it does not show up in real life, only under test!!!! We have two cats and a very big bitch Weimaraner, who is with me 24 hours every day.....

Private school you say. They don't give a damn about their students, They are just worried about their legal liability should one of the rich little brats gets a boo-boo and their parents want to sue. Our lives in the US are totally controlled by lawyers and insurance companies. This incident just points out how ridicules things have become when we give up responsibility for our own lives.

There is something more than liability there, else they would have only addressed the nuts issue. The lactose intolerance is not a liability issue, and the recomendation for organic products could actually cause more liability. The exclusion of nuts could be a reasonable request from some perspectives. Children won't know better and nuts actually pose a dangerous threat to those who are acutely allergic, which is fairly common. To other children it could seem stupid and they might actually pick on the child by throwing something like peanut butter or such at him, or some other nut based prank. If that child dies becasue of a prank from a minor, who is to be held responsible. If the child was an adult he would pay the suit and go to jail, but as a child are the parents going to jail and paying the law suit?

On the other hand, lactose, not relly a good law suit no real liability, and organic foods can pose a greater risk of exposure to dangerous bacteria and heavy metals, thus opening a door for parents to sue the school for making such a recommendation and enforcing it.

Hi piolenc

Well observed and down to earth statements. Bee keeping aih (I read your bio) very interesting subject. I'm preparing something for the CR4 community to have a look at but just lack the time at the moment.

Welcome to CR4, Ky.

Sorry, I just HAD to give you a GA for common sense.

I know you did not want it, but its there now so accept it in good faith!!!

GA!

When I was in school, the staple desert served at least twice a week, to everyone, was those chocolate/peanut butter squares... man, I loved those things.

I do not recall ever hearing of any event associated to that desert being served in our public schools.

Can anyone even recall when 'peanut allergies' were first documented? Maybe we could invoke our engineering skills do some critical thinking and root cause analysis to find the real source behind this.

Who knows, maybe we'll find that Biologist John Doe crossbred the peanut, back in the 80's with a mango in order to hasten the growth cycles and that in people with a certain bloodline posses a recessive gene which then causes your white blood cells to find your red blood cells very tasty? Maybe we'll also find that breathing in fumes from E85 combined with electrolyte further hastens the process. Such that immediately after eating your PB&J, and getting in your hybrid creates a deadly situation.

Seriously though... when did the whole peanut allergy thing start and was there a notable change in the process of peanut production?

JavaHead

This is ridiculous!

Here are some more things to think about. (referring to US schools), I'll keep my comments to myself, since they would slide me quickly to the naughty chair.

Al Gore's movie, which has been shown to be inaccurate, is required to be watched in many schools.

Homosexuality is to be taught as a healthy and viable lifestyle, to all kids. i.e. Feel free to experiment, it's completely natural. (I'll teach my own kid what's right and wrong, Thank You)

Progressive thinkers want to start teaching kids as young as 5th grade, sexual positions as part of sex ed.

Kids are being kicked out of school for praying or wearing the American flag on their clothing. (These things are now considered to be controversial and possibly offensive)

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag has been banned. (Same reason as above)

I could go on.....these are all facts and I will keep my opinions to myself. But I have to ask myself the question, " Gee, I wonder what the hell is going wrong with public education in the US?" over and out.....

Unfortunately, common sense cannot be taught in a formal classroom format.

However, the life learned common sense that we do have, seems to be striven to be untaught under the same.

It's only when taught as in history lessons, of the follies and misadventures that previous cultures, empires and civilizations pursued, that led to their collapsing downfalls. I'm afraid, that is what's happening to some degree in today's world.

Common sense is rapidly becoming a lost art, necessary for survival of ourselves (individually as well as whole entities).

I'm afraid that common sense is rapidly being legislatively as well as litigally and scholastically being driven from what we all were naturally born with to nurture.

My respectful thoughts - Loupy.