No. It's not about what who many think (get your heads out of the gutter), it's about peanuts (peanut butter).
I'm not a kid, but I love my extra crunchy peanut butter and jam (marmalade) sandwiches on occasion. Loved them as a kid in (grade and high) school years ago too. But, because there is a small (tiny) number of students with a deadly reaction to peanuts (there are other foods), certain food products were (are) banned from school premises.
I am so sorry that there are children with this deadly allergy. I am also very sorry, they the rest of the children must be deprived a favourite snack because of silly bureaucracy. Isolate those with the allergy, have them eat in a different clean area, since beyond the school gates and for the rest of their lives, they must fend on their own - life moves forward.
I find it silly and totally discriminating toward the rest of the student body, who are robbed of this pleasure. I have relatives who have severe allergies to certain foods, and take the proper and necessary steps when they visit. The epinephrine kit they carry, the short life term, the cost, the remembering, is heart breaking.
As time goes go (the expression states), medical science helps us understand, teaches us how to deal with improved studies, but should not rob the rest of us, especially kids, from being kids, acting their age as kids, by trying to temporally shield kids from their peanut butter, Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
Hey MB - I do agree, to an extent. The problem as I see it is; many children (and their parents) are often totally unaware of this potentially fatal allergy until the child actually experiences an attack, and by then it can be too late!!
Cheers...Jim
I would also agree, except there are tests out there. Delaying tactics by partial protection is also just as dangerous, since those with these problems can receive an attack at anytime and anywhere else. It's more of a bureaucratic bandage solution. Children receive shots for known deceases, as do seniors for the flue strain.
Would it not be better and safer to have children tested for the most common allergies in a controlled environment, then have them find out at a much later date that their lives were in danger all that time.
Sometimes trying to over protect is worst, IMHO, Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
[quote:2gyx7zx5]Would it not be better and safer to have children tested for the most common allergies in a controlled environment[/quote:2gyx7zx5]
Absolutely MB, and nobody could argue with that sound logic. However, a common factor again raises its ugly head...money!!!!
Don't know the exact statistics but I would imagine the percentage of children (per capita) suffering from such an allergy would be nowhere near as great as those who would contract common childhood diseases covered by current immunization. Cost = money = bandaid solutions.
Hm. This has me thinking.
We were allowed PB&J (as us States-ians call it) in school when I was a kid.
Now it's banned to protect those children with a peanut allergy.
OK, fine.
I'm allergic to shellfish (almost as allergic as those with a peanut allergy). I know I'm not alone with this. Better ban shellfish from schools too.
I'm lactose intolerant. Better ban all lactose products as well.
I have a friend who is allergic to wheat. (yeah, it's rare but exists). Better ban all gluten products.
Some people have problems with eggs. Better ban all eggs as well.
What's left?
Snickers bars. Mmm....oh wait, does that have peanuts?
My problem with a ban on peanuts is that the same logic can be applied to everything and the kids sit there and eat lettuce at lunch because it's the only thing allowed. Yum.
Hey Zig,
I do agree in principle, the statistics suggest that it does indeed smack of an overreaction. The one aspect I can see which may set a peanut allergy apart from the rest is the manner in which foods (and confectionery) which contain peanuts tend to specifically target children. (I wish shellfish had been normal school tucker when I went to school - LOL).
When our youngest daughter was about 3 years old she suffered a severe allergy attack, she swelled to near double her normal size...all over. When the swelling finally started to subside it left her little body completely covered in bruises, she was black and blue from head to toe. Very scary!! We never discovered exactly what caused it, although we suspected pickled onions of all things, and she has never suffered a similar attack since...she is now 34.
[quote:w0ee3gqp]I have a friend who is allergic to wheat. (yeah, it's rare but exists)[/quote:w0ee3gqp]
I also have a friend who is allergic to wheat...maybe not so rare mate. It took many years of of visiting lots of different doctors (even psychiatrists) before she was finally diagnosed with celiac disease. Poor thing was so sick for so long, they even thought it was all in her head at one stage, and all she needed to do was avoid certain foods.
Cheers mate...Jim
Since I mentioned I too had relatives with food allergies, might as well share theirs. One to Sesame seeds (bummer not being able to eat at fast food joints. The other to pineapple, which makes things more complex, since pineapple is served in foods and drinks (making the bar scene very risky).
Someone once mentioned that those with the peanut allergy might also need to keep away from fruits which contained a large nut in the core (forget which one was named as a possibility).
Yes human life is sacred. Seeing an attack is beyond words. Punishing (by depriving others) is just as terrible, Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
[quote:1n286nqx]Punishing (by depriving others) is just as terrible[/quote:1n286nqx]
Ouch, that's a tad harsh MB. We [i:1n286nqx]are[/i:1n286nqx] talking about kids here and just one part of their overall activities, not a general all encompassing ban.
As I said, I am not condoning it, merely trying to appraise the situation from the viewpoint of the authorities. Look at it from this point of view: a child at school has a Snicker bar in his lunch pack. He offers a bite to his little friend who is unknowingly allergic to peanuts. The fiend goes into anaphylactic shock and dies within minutes. The parents ask...could this have been avoided? It's a lose, lose situation; a child is dead, parents are grieving and the school is most likely going to have to pay millions in compensation.
I don't know what it would be like to lose a child or grandchild, I can only imagine, and I sincerely hope I never find out.
I have given this topic much consideration, saying to myself, it's only one or two meals (snacks) a day, out of a seven day week.
[quote:115u4k4r]We are talking about kids here and just one part of their overall activities, not a general all encompassing ban.
[/quote:115u4k4r]
No big think, till you consider this happens for a ten to eleven year spam. Yes, a simple silly tragedy might be avoided. I'll avoid the legal suing, since I believe it's best for another topic.
But what about after school; might not the same exposure still happen? I understand a human life is at stake, and we must try to protect - but don't accidents, injurious, even death happen to children no matter.
In sports, there are some laws being sought to ban body checking in hockey to children. This should have been banned from the start. Wearing helmets while cycling is still not enforced. And don't forget about drinking, smoking, and drug usage in and around schools. The list of deaths due to these factors, well, makes me crave for a peanut, Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
[quote:1gu9j0h5]But what about after school; might not the same exposure still happen?[/quote:1gu9j0h5]
Absolutely!! But a school is a somewhat insulated environment where at least some semblance of control is possible. Plus, if the rule is in place, the the fault/blame/whatever can be deflected away from the school and directed somewhere else. So I can fully understand the reasoning.
Mate, I do agree in principle. I believe we are already way over-governed. A lot of the laws are forced upon us by civil libertarians and do-gooders. I've always said...you cannot legislate against stupidity. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the government tries to do!
Cheers now...Jim
[quote="ozbloke":28a3w8e1] I've always said...you cannot legislate against stupidity. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the government tries to do!
[/quote:28a3w8e1]
In the US at least, it is our new mission:
[url=http://huffygirl.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/its-time-to-legislate-against-stupidity-no-more-texting-while-walking/:28a3w8e1]It
1 Guest(s)
