[Closed] Explain nut allergies to me.

The thing is that if you ban nuts do you ban everything else that people can be allergic to. Why single out nuts? It leads to the assumption that nut allergies are the only severe allergies and nothing else is life threatening.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1419842/Cereal-killed-dairy-allergy-baby.html ]Milk allergy death[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4289187.stm ]Tomatos[/url]

It's an environment where, given half a chance, kids are likely to stick peanuts up their nose and eat crayons.

This plus this:

The thing is that if you ban nuts do you ban everything else that people can be allergic to. Why single out nuts?

Makes for a difficult decision.

ebygomm - Member

The thing is that if you ban nuts do you ban everything else that people can be allergic to. Why single out nuts? It leads to the assumption that nut allergies are the only severe allergies and nothing else is life threatening.

Er, you realise they're only banning them because they have a child with a serious nut allergy? It's not random!

The thing is that if you ban nuts do you ban everything else that people can be allergic to. Why single out nuts?

Because you have a kid in the class who's allergic to them?

Because you have a kid in the class who's allergic to them?

If it's only one child it's easy to manage without banning nuts.

So what if you also have a child who is allergic to bananas, and another allergic to egg and another allergic to milk? Are you banning everything?

I know people who have children with severe allergies to cows milk protein, one thing they struggle with is the assumption that it's not life threatening because it's not a nut allergy and nobody would insist that a school becomes dairy free because of it.

[b]GT1972[/b] - In conversation with them they said that they would never say it was a 'bad idea' when all parties are willing to sign up to the policy but they did say that that is very often impractical because it means all parents effectively need to approach their child's diet as if the child was allergic to a given food stuff, at least as far as providing them with the meals they take to the nursery is concerned.

Noone is suggesting a peanut ban in all schools. Your NURSERY are proposing one in this instance whilst they have a child who is at risk. The final caveat of the paragraph undermines the entire thrust of the rest of your argument.

Now I know that neither I nor my wife have that kind of bandwidth without it being something we absolutely have to subscribe to.

No idea what that means. You appear to have confused business jargon with the process of raising children and having some idea what you are feeding them

Unless my son has the allergy, I'm just not prepared to start scrutinising everything we give him to take to nursery.

nice - I hope you never require anything from the parents of any other children now or in the next 13 odd yrs of schooling!

I'm happy to avoid the obvious food stuffs but that's not what a 'nut free zone' means.

Well it would be a really good start. If you assume nut allergy risk is directly correlated to concentration of nuts in it - then its probably reasonable to assume that anything you know has nuts in it is bad and anything where it is a hidden ingredient (they usually have very clear warning!) is not.

The more effective approach is to manage the situation on site. Of course I don't believe that my son has one to one supervision at all times. But if you know you have one child who does have the allergy, then the obvious thing to do is make sure you have that child covered at meal times. That is both very effective and entirely practical.

its neither practical nor particularly effective. If Johnny gets 1:1 attention at meal times the other kids get reduced attention. Nurseries are already staffed to the limit. What happens if little Jamima or George spill something or wet themselves. That attention would need to be incredibly diligent, to stand any chance of success but given the reports of people having severe nut allergies just from being in the same room as nuts I can understand why a nursery might not even want to risk it.

The other thing that was pointed out to me was that trying to remove 'nuts' as one food group should also mean you try to remove all food groups that are problematic. So anything with milk, gluten, eggs whatever should also be on the list of banned substances. Which pretty soon makes the policy ridiculous as well as untenable.

whilst allergies (or intollerances, or disorders) with those other foods are relatively common severe life threatening anaphylaxis is not. IF you had a child with anaphillaxis to another food it might be just as appropriate to exclude that.

What the Anaphylaxis Campaign was saying is that management of the situation is a far more effective approach than banning offending foods.

They certainly aren't suggesting that you just let people have anaphylaxis as one of your earlier posts seemed to hint at - they are suggesting developing procedures to avoid exposure (that might mean the Nursery provides all foods so it is in 'their control' (but not all parents will approve of their choices and not all parents will be happy with an inevitable price rise).

One final point. The note we had said 'due to the large number of children with nut allergies'. That's a problem for me because short of a statistical miracle, I can't imagine in a class of 20 that there is more than one child with this problem and even that would make it an unusual event. The instance is at worst, one in 50 (for all nuts and legumes, not just nuts).

you need to learn more about statistics then. I'd suggest you start by looking at Poison distribution.

Parents claiming their child has a nut allergy is not the same thing as the child actually having a nut allergy and let's face it, the negative comments about allergies on this thread do indicate that there are at least some people guilty of hysteria and over reaction (if you'll pardon the pun) when it comes to their kids. I've had this conversation with friends before who claimed their kid was allergic to xyz and when pressed the only evidence they could present was circumstantial and not an actual antibody test.

on this count I do agree, and I'd like to think that a nursery going to this extreme (it will affect their own staff, and their own buying too) were acting in response to severe allergy with a clinically identified risk of anaphylaxis. Several years ago when I used to have 'parental responsibility' for other people's children for weekends - I only really sat up and paid attention to allergies (not that I didn't accommodate others but I didn't worry too mucj) if they were coming with an Epipen - as that signified that a Doctor somewhere believed there was a real risk of a severe reaction.

If it's only one child it's easy to manage without banning nuts.

Ban the child?

Cougar speaks sense.

[b]ebygomm [/b]
I know people who have children with severe allergies to cows milk protein, one thing they struggle with is the assumption that it's not life threatening because it's not a nut allergy and nobody would insist that a school becomes dairy free because of it.

Would that be a proportionate response? It accidental ingestion likely? Is a small amount likely to cause potentially fatal reaction (each case is different - but typically nut allergen requires much lower dose to cause a problem)? What are the consequences for everyone else? In some extreme circumstance that might be the right answer. Particularly if you somehow had 2 or 3 children who would require special attention at meal times to prevent mix ups, and perhaps another 2 or 3 who's parents have said they are allergic (but perhaps to a minor degree) for rapidly changing staff knowing who's who and what's what could be difficult. If its one child who gets the runs and vomits if they have a teaspoonful of milk it might be disproportionate.