Peanut Allergy

[fimac]

My sons go to a nut restricted school (nut-free). This came about after a child died of a milk allergy in another school in the school district. Since there is nothing on the board web site it looks like it is up to the individual schools to decide on there own policy. Before the school wide ban it was only the individual classes that had a child with a peanut allergy in the class room.

The first year of the ban on nuts there was a few complains, but after that nothing much.

My middle son has celiac disease, and is a very restricted eater(very picky). His main source of protein is almonds, but we do manage to feed him at school. Now if we could ban wheat products he would not have so many sick days, but that is not going to happen.

 

[jax677]

I don't understand why the school didn't ban milk products too?

 

[LisaR]

My sons go to a nut restricted school (nut-free). This came about after a child died of a milk allergy in another school in the school district. Since there is nothing on the board web site it looks like it is up to the individual schools to decide on there own policy. Before the school wide ban it was only the individual classes that had a child with a peanut allergy in the class room.

This is the problem with banning nuts. A child DIED from a milk allergy. If we allow nuts to be banned, we will need to ban milk eventually. My son is epi pen dependent due to severe nut, milk, egg, soy and shellfish allergies. How would parents feel if I insisted all of those items be banned from the school? If nuts can be banned, why not eggs and milk? Why not all soy products? Pretty soon they are going to have to skip eating!

For the record, I homeschool my son. I do not do so because of his allergies. I was already homeschooling one child that is allergy free so homeschooling my son with all the problems only made sense. That said, he attends many different classes, co-ops, etc. I never ask for special accommodations. I check it out ahead of time and if I feel he will be safe, he goes. I always supply his own food.

We keep the food he is allergic to in our house for my daughter to eat. I WANT him to be exposed to these items on a daily basis so I can see how he reacts. If I keep him in this safe bubble, what would happen when he goes to the grocery store or a birthday party? I think the more exposure he has, the better. He is going to have to live in society with all of these allergens and his system will be more shocked if I keep him hidden from everything.

I am very much against banning foods. I believe if they are going to ban one potential life threatening food, they need to ban them all, which would be ridiculous.

 

[Becky2005]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't have an opinion either way. However I do have an observation.

Would a "peanut free" school, really work, or would it rather be a false sence of security? I honestly can't believe that every single family in the school would comply, so then your thinking that it's safe, and all of a sudden, it really isn't safe.

That's what I'm thinking -- people would avoid peanut butter but there are a gazillion other items that have the peanut allergy label on them & I know I wouldn't necessarily think to check every single label if it was processed in a plant with peanuts.

I'm really not even sure if it would be possible to go completely peanut free. For all I know the bread my kids eat are made in the same plant where there may be peanuts (I've never needed to look, so haven't!).

 

[chisnpeke]

This is the problem with banning nuts. A child DIED from a milk allergy. If we allow nuts to be banned, we will need to ban milk eventually. My son is epi pen dependent due to severe nut, milk, egg, soy and shellfish allergies. How would parents feel if I insisted all of those items be banned from the school? If nuts can be banned, why not eggs and milk? Why not all soy products? Pretty soon they are going to have to skip eating!

For the record, I homeschool my son. I do not do so because of his allergies. I was already homeschooling one child that is allergy free so homeschooling my son with all the problems only made sense. That said, he attends many different classes, co-ops, etc. I never ask for special accommodations. I check it out ahead of time and if I feel he will be safe, he goes. I always supply his own food.

We keep the food he is allergic to in our house for my daughter to eat. I WANT him to be exposed to these items on a daily basis so I can see how he reacts. If I keep him in this safe bubble, what would happen when he goes to the grocery store or a birthday party? I think the more exposure he has, the better. He is going to have to live in society with all of these allergens and his system will be more shocked if I keep him hidden from everything.

I am very much against banning foods. I believe if they are going to ban one potential life threatening food, they need to ban them all, which would be ridiculous.

I totally agree! People can be allergic to anything. What if another child is deathly allergic to milk? Should that be removed too? What are kids going to eat? The majority of people are not allergic to these things so I think it is wrong to ban an item just because one child has an allergy to it, even if it is life threatening. That child should go to another location to eat. There are going to be contaminants everywhere you go, getting rid of it at school isn't going to protect your child completely. A child is going to have to realize that they have something that most others don't have so they have to change how they do things, not make others change for them. People need to be responsible for their own health and stop wanting everyone else to be responsible for them. What makes one child's allergy more important than another's? Where does the banning of foods people are allergic to end?

 

[livndisney]

I totally agree! People can be allergic to anything. What if another child is deathly allergic to milk? Should that be removed too? What are kids going to eat? The majority of people are not allergic to these things so I think it is wrong to ban an item just because one child has an allergy to it, even if it is life threatening. That child should go to another location to eat. There are going to be contaminants everywhere you go, getting rid of it at school isn't going to protect your child completely. A child is going to have to realize that they have something that most others don't have so they have to change how they do things, not make others change for them. People need to be responsible for their own health and stop wanting everyone else to be responsible for them. What makes one child's allergy more important than another's? Where does the banning of foods people are allergic to end?

Wonderful points!!!!! This is how we live with our allergies.

 

[sha_lyn]

This is the problem with banning nuts. A child DIED from a milk allergy. If we allow nuts to be banned, we will need to ban milk eventually. My son is epi pen dependent due to severe nut, milk, egg, soy and shellfish allergies. How would parents feel if I insisted all of those items be banned from the school? If nuts can be banned, why not eggs and milk? Why not all soy products? Pretty soon they are going to have to skip eating!

For the record, I homeschool my son. I do not do so because of his allergies. I was already homeschooling one child that is allergy free so homeschooling my son with all the problems only made sense. That said, he attends many different classes, co-ops, etc. I never ask for special accommodations. I check it out ahead of time and if I feel he will be safe, he goes. I always supply his own food.

We keep the food he is allergic to in our house for my daughter to eat. I WANT him to be exposed to these items on a daily basis so I can see how he reacts. If I keep him in this safe bubble, what would happen when he goes to the grocery store or a birthday party? I think the more exposure he has, the better. He is going to have to live in society with all of these allergens and his system will be more shocked if I keep him hidden from everything.

I am very much against banning foods. I believe if they are going to ban one potential life threatening food, they need to ban them all, which would be ridiculous.

Doesn't minor exposures increase the severity of the allergy and likelihood of a more serious reaction?

 

[mjkacmom]

My nephew is allergic to nuts, wheat, milk, eggs, and bananas - however, you can't ban all of these things in school. Our schools have the peanut free tables, ban all nuts from treats and bake sale items, but every parent of a peanut allergy kid don't let their children eat these items, anyway, because someone not familiar with allergies might use a bake mix processes in a plant that uses peanuts.

 

[Aristomommy]

Doesn't minor exposures increase the severity of the allergy and likelihood of a more serious reaction?

In peanut allergies (and many others) small doses of exposure build immunity/tolerance. A person with lactose intolerance can also consume very small amounts of dairy and gradually build up tolerance to it. Our Allergist does frequent peanut trials with his peanut allergy patients, but many parents are against it due to fear of reaction. I personally would allow it, since the Dr. knows what to do when there is an allergic reaction.

 

[monkey68]

Doesn't minor exposures increase the severity of the allergy and likelihood of a more serious reaction?

I always thought it was the other way around, that minor exposures can help to build tolerance. Not too sure though.

I think it would be impossible to make a school truly allergen free, people are just allergic to too many different things. What will be left for kids to eat? And you can't tell people to be sure to check the labels on everything they buy to make sure it's allergen free. If you ban peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, milk, soy, wheat, and any other major allergen, how many foods can you find that actually are safe then? I'm sure somebody will say their kid is allergic to all these things, and they can feed them, but how much harder is it, and probably more expensive because you're limited in what you can get. And if your child is allergic to all those things, you do it because they're your kid and you love them, you can't guarantee that others would so willingly do it.

I think it's more important to teach the kids to be responsible and let them realize that the world does not revolve around them. Yes, everybody wants their child to be safe, but there's only so much you can do. What will happen in the future, in college or the office? Are you going to say that the college campus should be nut free? Better to teach them early so that it will be their normal and won't think of it as anything difficult.

 

[LisaR]

In peanut allergies (and many others) small doses of exposure build immunity/tolerance. A person with lactose intolerance can also consume very small amounts of dairy and gradually build up tolerance to it. Our Allergist does frequent peanut trials with his peanut allergy patients, but many parents are against it due to fear of reaction. I personally would allow it, since the Dr. knows what to do when there is an allergic reaction.

I am always pushing for food trials. I want a safe environment that can tell me if my son is going to die if he touches PB, egg, milk, etc. I just don't understand how a parent wouldn't want to know. Many INSIST their child will die if they touch PB when they haven't had a reaction in years and they have never had a trial. Just because a child reacted to PB when they were one does not mean they will react to touching it at the age of 10 or 15. If I ran a school, the only way I would make it peanut free (or free of any food) is if the parent provided proof from an allergist that showed they have had a food trial and they reacted to just the touch of the food. In most cases, kids can not eat the offending food but they can be in the same room with it and not have any problems. Study after study shows this to be true but most people insist their child will die if they look at a jar of PB. Seriously, I think this whole thing has gotten out of hand.

 

[LisaR]

Doesn't minor exposures increase the severity of the allergy and likelihood of a more serious reaction?

Not at all. Allergy shots are the offending allergen diluted down. The more exposure, the better. Every allergist my son has ever seen agrees with this. They have all supported me exposing him to his allergens.

I can tell you that my son has gotten BETTER with repeated exposure instead of worse. Maybe it is a coincidence or maybe he is slowly outgrowing things but I can't imagine leaving him in a bubble for years and one day walking into a school, church, library, grocery store, etc that has a giant display of nuts. That doesn't seem wise to me.

 

[livndisney]

Doesn't minor exposures increase the severity of the allergy and likelihood of a more serious reaction?

In some cases, the allergy gets worse. My food allergy (not peanut) was minor- now it is life threatening. With each exposure it has gotten worse. But then again, I have always been the "odd" one medically LOL.

 

[Talking Hands]

I dunno. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But aren't you saying that *your* medical issues are more important than hers? That it's more important for you to get your peanut butter so you can live, even if it means the other child has to die? So meat can go bad - why not carry a thermal container like most people carry their lunches in anyway?

I'm sorry, forgive me if I'm missing something. But there has to be a better solution here for everyone involved. Your adamant position that you MUST have your peanut butter is no better than a parent's insistence that the school MUST be peanut-free.

I am adamant about this because my doctor is adamant that this is the best option for me. He doesn't want me taking any risk as far as possibly getting ill as it will blow my blood sugars into a range where I go into ketoacidosis. Since I also take medication that surpresses my immune system we are super vigilant. Fortunately I primarily work with high school kids and not elementary except if I get pulled to the elementary school for deaf classes.

 

[Michelle67]

I always thought it was the other way around, that minor exposures can help to build tolerance. Not too sure though.

I think it would be impossible to make a school truly allergen free, people are just allergic to too many different things. What will be left for kids to eat? And you can't tell people to be sure to check the labels on everything they buy to make sure it's allergen free. If you ban peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, milk, soy, wheat, and any other major allergen, how many foods can you find that actually are safe then? I'm sure somebody will say their kid is allergic to all these things, and they can feed them, but how much harder is it, and probably more expensive because you're limited in what you can get. And if your child is allergic to all those things, you do it because they're your kid and you love them, you can't guarantee that others would so willingly do it.

I think it's more important to teach the kids to be responsible and let them realize that the world does not revolve around them. Yes, everybody wants their child to be safe, but there's only so much you can do. What will happen in the future, in college or the office? Are you going to say that the college campus should be nut free? Better to teach them early so that it will be their normal and won't think of it as anything difficult.

Good post, and I'm a parent of an allergic child who agrees with you.

We could (maybe, in theory) ban the big 8 from schools. Trouble is, the "big 8" are just the most common allergens. What about people like my sister, whose most severe reactions come from things like tomatoes, apples, grapes, and celery? Might not sound so bad until you start reading juice labels and soup labels, btw. A child can potentially be allergic to pretty much anything.

Next, your comment about offices and colleges. Picture this job interview:

Yes, Mr. X, I'd really love to come and work for your company. I know I will be a great addition to your team. Here are my qualifications, my salary and benefits desires, and....oh....by the way...you will need to make certain that your premesis are completely eggmilkdairynutapple...blahblahblah...free. When do I start?

Of course every single person who posted on this thread values the life of a child over a sandwich. Of course they do. Some of those who have disagreed with the idea of banning are people who actually live with this issue. We aren't heartless and unconcerned. We just happen to believe that the best way to deal with the issue is to educate ourselves and our children on how to stay safe and function in the world as it is.

The poster who said she has her daughter (or son? sorry, don't know where it is now) lay out a napkin on the table before unpacking her lunch had a great idea. Another great and very basic idea is simple hygeine. I agree with the poster who asked why there are not a row of sinks in every lunchroom. But even without that, there are sinks in the school. My kids' schools have one in every classroom, plus the restrooms. There is absolutely no reason that the kids shouldn't be washing before and after meals, and no reason they shouldn't wash when they arrive at school. This would cut down on a lot more than food allergy issues; it would cut down on the rampant sharing of germs common to school environments. Yes, it takes a few minutes of teaching time away, a couple of times a day. Compare this to days, weeks (or potentially even lives) lost due to illness and reactions, and it is a very minor loss. I think we would be better served, and more successful, lobbying for basic hygeine measures in our schools rather than food banning.

 

[mamacatnv]

Good post, and I'm a parent of an allergic child who agrees with you.

We could (maybe, in theory) ban the big 8 from schools. Trouble is, the "big 8" are just the most common allergens. What about people like my sister, whose most severe reactions come from things like tomatoes, apples, grapes, and celery? Might not sound so bad until you start reading juice labels and soup labels, btw. A child can potentially be allergic to pretty much anything.

Next, your comment about offices and colleges. Picture this job interview:

Yes, Mr. X, I'd really love to come and work for your company. I know I will be a great addition to your team. Here are my qualifications, my salary and benefits desires, and....oh....by the way...you will need to make certain that your premesis are completely eggmilkdairynutapple...blahblahblah...free. When do I start?

Of course every single person who posted on this thread values the life of a child over a sandwich. Of course they do. Some of those who have disagreed with the idea of banning are people who actually live with this issue. We aren't heartless and unconcerned. We just happen to believe that the best way to deal with the issue is to educate ourselves and our children on how to stay safe and function in the world as it is.

The poster who said she has her daughter (or son? sorry, don't know where it is now) lay out a napkin on the table before unpacking her lunch had a great idea. Another great and very basic idea is simple hygeine. I agree with the poster who asked why there are not a row of sinks in every lunchroom. But even without that, there are sinks in the school. My kids' schools have one in every classroom, plus the restrooms. There is absolutely no reason that the kids shouldn't be washing before and after meals, and no reason they shouldn't wash when they arrive at school. This would cut down on a lot more than food allergy issues; it would cut down on the rampant sharing of germs common to school environments. Yes, it takes a few minutes of teaching time away, a couple of times a day. Compare this to days, weeks (or potentially even lives) lost due to illness and reactions, and it is a very minor loss. I think we would be better served, and more successful, lobbying for basic hygeine measures in our schools rather than food banning.

Bravo if there were a standing ovation smilie it would be _______ there! Well said, well thought out, logical and totally do-able.

 

[chisnpeke]

In peanut allergies (and many others) small doses of exposure build immunity/tolerance. A person with lactose intolerance can also consume very small amounts of dairy and gradually build up tolerance to it. Our Allergist does frequent peanut trials with his peanut allergy patients, but many parents are against it due to fear of reaction. I personally would allow it, since the Dr. knows what to do when there is an allergic reaction.

I think I read somewhere that kids that grow up with pets are less likely to be allergic to them. So I think that might go along with the idea that exposure builds an immunity.

 

[Aristomommy]

I think I read somewhere that kids that grow up with pets are less likely to be allergic to them. So I think that might go along with the idea that exposure builds an immunity.

I believe you are correct. When DD was 18 months and hospitalized for the second time for breathing difficulties, I asked if we should get rid of our beloved cat. Our Allergist did not think it was necessary as long as the cat did not go into the bedrooms. He tested DD for pet allergies and it was not the primary trigger (may have been a contributing) and in time her pet allergies have actually become non-reactive during testing. Our Allergist felt that kids can't live in a bubble and all allergies need to be tested again at a later time.

 

[weregoingtodw]

I am adamant about this because my doctor is adamant that this is the best option for me. He doesn't want me taking any risk as far as possibly getting ill as it will blow my blood sugars into a range where I go into ketoacidosis. Since I also take medication that surpresses my immune system we are super vigilant. Fortunately I primarily work with high school kids and not elementary except if I get pulled to the elementary school for deaf classes.

But that's not what you said.

You said:

We do keep peanut butter in the house as I use peanut butter crackers as a snack and peanut butter sandwiches if we run out of meat to take for lunch like we did today. Obviously I can't take a cheese sandwich if I don't have meat.

and

Meat will spoil and at least for me dairy will make me very ill. Since I am a teacher I could not survive in a peanut free enviroment.

To me, those are contradictory. In one sentence, you are saying that you take meat in your lunch. The next sentence, you're saying that you can't take meat because it will spoil. You say that meat would do the trick for you (if you could keep it from spoiling), but then say you could not survive (i.e., you'd die) in a peanut-free environment.

My point isn't to be argumentative here, but to get people to think about what they're saying. "I have a legitimate reason to eat peanut butter, and I'll die without it" is distinctly different from saying "I have a legitimate reason to eat peanut butter, and I'll be inconvenienced if I have to carry something else instead."

Unfortunately, people with food allergies don't have the luxury of being inconvenienced. Instead, we live with the reality that there are many locations we can't even visit. Our families live with the fact that their favorite restaurants can't be visited as a family. We live with the fact that the next reaction might be fatal. It's not inconvenient. It's fact.

No, you can't live life in a bubble. And like I've stated before, I don't feel that attempts to entirely eradicate allergens are the answer. But I DO believe that common courtesy is key, and if people could see beyond their own direct experiences, and think of others, we might actually get somewhere with all of this.

Again, I would ask if those who are discussing this have actually experienced and/or witnessed true anaphylaxis (and I don't just mean breaking out in hives either). If so, I think the responses would be very, very different. I've seen the before & after reactions enough myself to think that people might indeed change their minds.

 

[Michelle67]

snip

To me, those are contradictory. In one sentence, you are saying that you take meat in your lunch. The next sentence, you're saying that you can't take meat because it will spoil. You say that meat would do the trick for you (if you could keep it from spoiling), but then say you could not survive (i.e., you'd die) in a peanut-free environment.
snip

I think what she was talking about is that meat is fine to take in a lunch that you will definitely eat that day, but that people with blood sugar issues typically keep non-perishable foods on hand to head off a crash and that peanut butter is the best option there is for us. I'm not diabetic, I'm hypoglycemic. I also keep peanut butter crackers in my desk when I am working, in the jockey box in my car, etc. They can stay there safely for months until/unless I need them.

I'm not arguing the rest of your point, just saying that I don't think she contradicted herself. She was talking about two different applications or needs. One is a meal you know you will be eating the same day, another is something you need to have on hand just in case, which works best if it is not perishable and does not require refrigeration.