Let's have the nut discussion again

[LiveWhatULove]

Wait.. as someone that works in a hospital are you truly saying that saving a student from death is LITTLE BENEFIT?? Am I reading that correctly? If so.. wow.

I'm the mom that goes out of her way to accomodate any kid that comes to my house. My girls have friends that have food allergies, texture issues, one is vegan..dairy free, gluten free. Yeah.. I will never be okay with possibly causing one of their friends to have a reaction or die because of my selfishness or non-willingness to make sure they are safe in my home. That would extend to school as well. They make sure that their lunches on Mondays will not affect any of their friends. It was the same when they were in private school and not homeschooled. I read labels then and I still do so I can make sure their friends stay safe.
I find it shocking that someone in the healthcare field of all fields would say there is little benefit to making sure a child does not die at school because of allergies.

You ate not even comprehending what I am saying…. Of course you could enforce a policy in your home. Of course you can even enforce it Boy Scouts. Of course it was easier to enforce at daycare.

But a high school? 1200 kids with backpacks, potential lunches, and snacks. Even if 1100 kids followed the rule — 10 kids sneaking in nuts — either that’s Paige threatening and if that is the cased the child need alternative education OR it’s a low enough risk, that then o a exclusionary lunch table would do the trick anyway.

My child had anaphylactic nut allergies, I don’t even need professional experience to tel you it’s a CYA policy that is not effective in large schools for anyone with severe nut allergies due to the inability to enforce it. And if their allergy is not that severe, then a ban is not needed.

I feel like every time you respond to me, you’re hostile & judging.

I am trying to understand your POV.. You said and I quote: Little Benefit. What the heck does that even mean? The benefit is a child NOT dying. I mean..isn't that the benefit?
You are not privvy to their medical information so you have no idea if a ban is not needed. Obviously, the BOE or school is not going to ban it for kicks and giggles. There has to be a serious reason for a school that has never been nut free to issue a complete ban. To me, that says- there is a student that has a life threatening allergy and to protect that student the school is going to ban nuts.

Little benefit to A POLICY that 1) cannot be enforced 2) creates sacrifice for many other families (sensory aversions & food insecurity & just a huge life inconvenience for other) AND 3) fails to even minimize risk to an acceptable level for me as a mom or health professional that I would feel comfortable with a child with such a severe allergy not having other measure taken.

That’s my POV.

Disagree as you will.

[Traci_Momof2]

Wait.. as someone that works in a hospital are you truly saying that saving a student from death is LITTLE BENEFIT?? Am I reading that correctly? If so.. wow.

I'm the mom that goes out of her way to accomodate any kid that comes to my house. My girls have friends that have food allergies, texture issues, one is vegan..dairy free, gluten free. Yeah.. I will never be okay with possibly causing one of their friends to have a reaction or die because of my selfishness or non-willingness to make sure they are safe in my home. That would extend to school as well. They make sure that their lunches on Mondays will not affect any of their friends. It was the same when they were in private school and not homeschooled. I read labels then and I still do so I can make sure their friends stay safe.
I find it shocking that someone in the healthcare field of all fields would say there is little benefit to making sure a child does not die at school because of allergies.

I am certain that is NOT what Live meant by "little benefit". What she meant, as she's pointed out in other responses, is that "nut free" is not truly nut free. Nuts will still get on campus, either because students forget or students just don't care and bring it anyway or students bring something that they genuinely didn't realize had nuts in it. So the danger is still there to the allergic child, and perhaps even a higher danger exists now if the allergic child lets their guard down. I'm almost certain that is what she meant by "little benefit" - that the safe environment they are trying to create will never truly exist. Hundreds of students have to alter their choices, and the allergic student STILL has to be JUST AS VIGILANT as if it were not a nut free environment, otherwise the allergic student still risks death. Does that make sense?

I take exception to her wording. Her wording makes it sound like a child not dying is little benefit. Maybe it was just a poor choice of wording, but for once I agree with Bob on something. I never ever thought that would happen in a million years.
Honestly, I see this as a parenting issue- the parents need to make sure students know another student could die being exposed since nuts are also an airborne allergy. If parents are flippant, which here we area again with the parents not willing to help another child, this is what happens- students bringing stuff that can harm another.

Then call it a poor word choice if that makes you feel better. But I could see immediately that she didn't mean "child not dying = little benefit". It's about how effective is this policy and is it wrongly giving the student a false sense of security?

On the concept of "parents need to make sure students know another student could die", maybe I'm going cynical now but look at our nation as a whole. We can't even keep kids from bringing guns to school and intentionally killing other students. How are we supposed to do it with food? I mean, yeah, the vast majority of parents and students do care, but there's always at least one. KWIM?

[mcginnisc]

You ate not even comprehending what I am saying…. Of course you could enforce a policy in your home. Of course you can even enforce it Boy Scouts. Of course it was easier to enforce at daycare.

But a high school? 1200 kids with backpacks, potential lunches, and snacks. Even if 1100 kids followed the rule — 10 kids sneaking in nuts — either that’s Paige threatening and if that is the cased the child need alternative education OR it’s a low enough risk, that then o a exclusionary lunch table would do the trick anyway.

My child had anaphylactic nut allergies, I don’t even need professional experience to tel you it’s a CYA policy that is not effective in large schools for anyone with severe nut allergies due to the inability to enforce it. And if their allergy is not that severe, then a ban is not needed.

I feel like every time you respond to me, you’re hostile & judging.

I am trying to understand your POV.. You said and I quote: Little Benefit. What the heck does that even mean? The benefit is a child NOT dying. I mean..isn't that the benefit?
You are not privvy to their medical information so you have no idea if a ban is not needed. Obviously, the BOE or school is not going to ban it for kicks and giggles. There has to be a serious reason for a school that has never been nut free to issue a complete ban. To me, that says- there is a student that has a life threatening allergy and to protect that student the school is going to ban nuts.

Little benefit to A POLICY that 1) cannot be enforced 2) creates sacrifice for many other families (sensory aversions & food insecurity & just a huge life inconvenience for other) AND 3) fails to even minimize risk to an acceptable level for me as a mom or health professional that I would feel comfortable with a child with such a severe allergy not having other measure taken.

That’s my POV.

Disagree as you will.

Thank you. I misunderstood your little benefit remark completely. I apologize. I do disagree with you, but I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

[LiveWhatULove]

I am trying to understand your POV.. You said and I quote: Little Benefit. What the heck does that even mean? The benefit is a child NOT dying. I mean..isn't that the benefit?
You are not privvy to their medical information so you have no idea if a ban is not needed. Obviously, the BOE or school is not going to ban it for kicks and giggles. There has to be a serious reason for a school that has never been nut free to issue a complete ban. To me, that says- there is a student that has a life threatening allergy and to protect that student the school is going to ban nuts.

Little benefit to A POLICY that 1) cannot be enforced 2) creates sacrifice for many other families (sensory aversions & food insecurity & just a huge life inconvenience for other) AND 3) fails to even minimize risk to an acceptable level for me as a mom or health professional that I would feel comfortable with a child with such a severe allergy not having other measure taken.

That’s my POV.

Disagree as you will.

Thank you. I misunderstood your little benefit remark completely. I apologize. I do disagree with you, but I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

I appreciate that, sorry, I got irritated too.

[Traci_Momof2]

Wait.. as someone that works in a hospital are you truly saying that saving a student from death is LITTLE BENEFIT?? Am I reading that correctly? If so.. wow.

I'm the mom that goes out of her way to accomodate any kid that comes to my house. My girls have friends that have food allergies, texture issues, one is vegan..dairy free, gluten free. Yeah.. I will never be okay with possibly causing one of their friends to have a reaction or die because of my selfishness or non-willingness to make sure they are safe in my home. That would extend to school as well. They make sure that their lunches on Mondays will not affect any of their friends. It was the same when they were in private school and not homeschooled. I read labels then and I still do so I can make sure their friends stay safe.
I find it shocking that someone in the healthcare field of all fields would say there is little benefit to making sure a child does not die at school because of allergies.

I am certain that is NOT what Live meant by "little benefit". What she meant, as she's pointed out in other responses, is that "nut free" is not truly nut free. Nuts will still get on campus, either because students forget or students just don't care and bring it anyway or students bring something that they genuinely didn't realize had nuts in it. So the danger is still there to the allergic child, and perhaps even a higher danger exists now if the allergic child lets their guard down. I'm almost certain that is what she meant by "little benefit" - that the safe environment they are trying to create will never truly exist. Hundreds of students have to alter their choices, and the allergic student STILL has to be JUST AS VIGILANT as if it were not a nut free environment, otherwise the allergic student still risks death. Does that make sense?

So do both...

Tell the kids not to bring nuts, and be super vigilant when you have a nut allergy.

So here's what I don't understand. And I'm not trying to be difficult, I am truly trying to understand. If we assume the student is still going to be super vigilant whether the campus is nut free or not, then the one student's life isn't any different either way. The one student still has to act as if their life is in danger at every turn, and has to take the same precautions to protect their own life.
So then why inconvenience 1000 other students, if it really doesn't change how the one student has to live their life? THAT is the part I don't understand. It feels like we are inconveniencing a whole bunch of students, and the one student doesn't even get anything out of it.
If the sought after benefit is the student not dying, that's not being achieved by a nut free campus. It's being achieved by a super vigilant student who knows their own condition, and helped by a lunch environment specific for that student (away from the masses) that is nut free.

[LiveWhatULove]

I am certain that is NOT what Live meant by "little benefit". What she meant, as she's pointed out in other responses, is that "nut free" is not truly nut free. Nuts will still get on campus, either because students forget or students just don't care and bring it anyway or students bring something that they genuinely didn't realize had nuts in it. So the danger is still there to the allergic child, and perhaps even a higher danger exists now if the allergic child lets their guard down. I'm almost certain that is what she meant by "little benefit" - that the safe environment they are trying to create will never truly exist. Hundreds of students have to alter their choices, and the allergic student STILL has to be JUST AS VIGILANT as if it were not a nut free environment, otherwise the allergic student still risks death. Does that make sense?

I take exception to her wording. Her wording makes it sound like a child not dying is little benefit. Maybe it was just a poor choice of wording, but for once I agree with Bob on something. I never ever thought that would happen in a million years.
Honestly, I see this as a parenting issue- the parents need to make sure students know another student could die being exposed since nuts are also an airborne allergy. If parents are flippant, which here we area again with the parents not willing to help another child, this is what happens- students bringing stuff that can harm another.

Then call it a poor word choice if that makes you feel better. But I could see immediately that she didn't mean "child not dying = little benefit". It's about how effective is this policy and is it wrongly giving the student a false sense of security?

On the concept of "parents need to make sure students know another student could die", maybe I'm going cynical now but look at our nation as a whole. We can't even keep kids from bringing guns to school and intentionally killing other students. How are we supposed to do it with food? I mean, yeah, the vast majority of parents and students do care, but there's always at least one. KWIM?

And there is no data that school but nut bans even prevents death…there is more and more data that shows the less exposure is resulting in increased allergies, so they could actually be harmful!

[LiveWhatULove]

Just one quick Google search too:

Bans do not work and are not medically necessary

Banning peanuts from schools does not reduce the risk of food allergy reactions. In a study of 567 food allergy reactions in a Canadian pediatric cohort, 4.9% of reactions occurred in “peanut-free” schools compared to 3% in schools that allow peanut foods. Authors warned about a false sense of security when foods are banned. (Cherkaoui S., 2015)

https://peanutallergyfacts.org/for-schools/

[Anonymous 2]

You ate not even comprehending what I am saying…. Of course you could enforce a policy in your home. Of course you can even enforce it Boy Scouts. Of course it was easier to enforce at daycare.

But a high school? 1200 kids with backpacks, potential lunches, and snacks. Even if 1100 kids followed the rule — 10 kids sneaking in nuts — either that’s Paige threatening and if that is the cased the child need alternative education OR it’s a low enough risk, that then o a exclusionary lunch table would do the trick anyway.

My child had anaphylactic nut allergies, I don’t even need professional experience to tel you it’s a CYA policy that is not effective in large schools for anyone with severe nut allergies due to the inability to enforce it. And if their allergy is not that severe, then a ban is not needed.

I feel like every time you respond to me, you’re hostile & judging.

I am trying to understand your POV.. You said and I quote: Little Benefit. What the heck does that even mean? The benefit is a child NOT dying. I mean..isn't that the benefit?
You are not privvy to their medical information so you have no idea if a ban is not needed. Obviously, the BOE or school is not going to ban it for kicks and giggles. There has to be a serious reason for a school that has never been nut free to issue a complete ban. To me, that says- there is a student that has a life threatening allergy and to protect that student the school is going to ban nuts.

Little benefit to A POLICY that 1) cannot be enforced 2) creates sacrifice for many other families (sensory aversions & food insecurity & just a huge life inconvenience for other) AND 3) fails to even minimize risk to an acceptable level for me as a mom or health professional that I would feel comfortable with a child with such a severe allergy not having other measure taken.

That’s my POV.

Disagree as you will.

I imagine the school, parents, and student are aware that the policy will not eliminate risk, but informing parents and students and implementing a no-nut policy will reduce the risk and isn't that worthwhile, despite the inconvenience?

I understand how this could negatively impact students with sensory aversions and would hope that the school would implement accommodations for those students. Not seeing how this would impact students with food insecurity as most food insecure students receive free lunch. I've also never seen a food pantry give a bucket of peanut butter to a family as a week's worth of food. Food pantries understand that they must provide allergy free options as well.

[Deleted User 1990]

I am certain that is NOT what Live meant by "little benefit". What she meant, as she's pointed out in other responses, is that "nut free" is not truly nut free. Nuts will still get on campus, either because students forget or students just don't care and bring it anyway or students bring something that they genuinely didn't realize had nuts in it. So the danger is still there to the allergic child, and perhaps even a higher danger exists now if the allergic child lets their guard down. I'm almost certain that is what she meant by "little benefit" - that the safe environment they are trying to create will never truly exist. Hundreds of students have to alter their choices, and the allergic student STILL has to be JUST AS VIGILANT as if it were not a nut free environment, otherwise the allergic student still risks death. Does that make sense?

So do both...

Tell the kids not to bring nuts, and be super vigilant when you have a nut allergy.

So here's what I don't understand. And I'm not trying to be difficult, I am truly trying to understand. If we assume the student is still going to be super vigilant whether the campus is nut free or not, then the one student's life isn't any different either way. The one student still has to act as if their life is in danger at every turn, and has to take the same precautions to protect their own life.
So then why inconvenience 1000 other students, if it really doesn't change how the one student has to live their life? THAT is the part I don't understand. It feels like we are inconveniencing a whole bunch of students, and the one student doesn't even get anything out of it.
If the sought after benefit is the student not dying, that's not being achieved by a nut free campus. It's being achieved by a super vigilant student who knows their own condition, and helped by a lunch environment specific for that student (away from the masses) that is nut free.

The point is reducing risk.

It doesn't change how cautious the person has to be, its an attempt to reduce the amount of times they come into contact with something that will kill them.

[LiveWhatULove]

I am trying to understand your POV.. You said and I quote: Little Benefit. What the heck does that even mean? The benefit is a child NOT dying. I mean..isn't that the benefit?
You are not privvy to their medical information so you have no idea if a ban is not needed. Obviously, the BOE or school is not going to ban it for kicks and giggles. There has to be a serious reason for a school that has never been nut free to issue a complete ban. To me, that says- there is a student that has a life threatening allergy and to protect that student the school is going to ban nuts.

Little benefit to A POLICY that 1) cannot be enforced 2) creates sacrifice for many other families (sensory aversions & food insecurity & just a huge life inconvenience for other) AND 3) fails to even minimize risk to an acceptable level for me as a mom or health professional that I would feel comfortable with a child with such a severe allergy not having other measure taken.

That’s my POV.

Disagree as you will.

I imagine the school, parents, and student are aware that the policy will not eliminate risk, but informing parents and students and implementing a no-nut policy will reduce the risk and isn't that worthwhile, despite the inconvenience?

I understand how this could negatively impact students with sensory aversions and would hope that the school would implement accommodations for those students. Not seeing how this would impact students with food insecurity as most food insecure students receive free lunch. I've also never seen a food pantry give a bucket of peanut butter to a family as a week's worth of food. Food pantries understand that they must provide allergy free options as well.

I posted a link to just one of several studies, that demonstrate this policy does not have the data to support it’s effectiveness at saving lives. Nut bans are not recommended, hearts in the right place, but misplaced.