June 23, 2017 2:37 am at 2:37 am #1302877
Maybe the whole resistance to the ban on peanuts was manufactured by The Hershey Company, who has successfully gotten to the minds of many Americans – all for the sake of protecting their Reese’s peanut butter cups and Reese’s pieces.June 23, 2017 6:15 am at 6:15 am #1302882
LB: And what about Planters, Skippy, Jif, Smuckers etc? No one company controls the peanut industry.June 23, 2017 10:18 am at 10:18 am #1302895
Is Iron Dome the solution?
Syag. I dont know what you are asking me. I dont know if you are in favor or against peanut free school policies. I was simply saying why is it such a big deal, if you want your kids to have peanuts and peanut based products, stuff them with it outside of school. Nobody ever died from not having peanut based products.June 23, 2017 10:38 am at 10:38 am #1302917
I was assuming you had read the comments and were responding to them. I think that most of my frustration (as always) is due to posters who are unwilling to leave their daled amos and accept that even though THEY can’t understand the issue, there might still be one. To me, and MANY others who are acutely aware of the ill effects the peanut ban has on some kids/families it is like walking up to a childless couple and telling them how lucky they are to have all this quality time together. And then patting themselves on the back for their support and empathy.
I no longer expect others to get it, but I have been shocked at how vehemently and condescendingly some people (less then a handful thankfully) can be toward someone else’s struggle just because they themselves don’t have the capacity to visualize it.June 23, 2017 10:38 am at 10:38 am #1302918
If someone came up to me and said that the new uniform regulations were destroying their kid, I know that MY response would not be to tell them they were entiltled, lazy, putting others in danger or anything else. I would tell them that I can’t even imagine how that could be true and ask them to either explain, or just plain accept that people have struggles I don’t even know exist.June 23, 2017 10:40 am at 10:40 am #1302919
“LC -“Health, did you eat too many peanuts?”
Hey, how many times did you pull the lever for Hil-Liar-y Clinton?!?”
Typical of extremists – on either side. (Both conservative & liberal)
If you see/hear something you don’t agree with or if someone responds to you in a way you don’t agree – even something non-political, the automatic knee-jerk ridiculous response is to accuse them of voting for someone of the other political side.
Normal person – ” I think that people (insert anything that most normal people agree with) ”
Extremist – ” you must have voted for (insert opposing political candidate who is evil incarnate) “June 23, 2017 11:04 am at 11:04 am #1302923
I have a child who refuses to eat anything other than peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Where should this child go to school?June 23, 2017 11:04 am at 11:04 am #1302927
syag: You wrote: “I think that most of my frustration (as always) is due to posters who are unwilling to leave their daled amos and accept that even though THEY can’t understand the issue, there might still be one. To me, and MANY others who are acutely aware of the ill effects the peanut ban has on some kids/families ” (snip)
I am totally confused by this comment. The school has a ban on peanuts due to possible adverse reaction for those who are allergic to peanuts. While I understand that this does “somewhat” limits the snacks and lunches that are brought to the school, it does not ban it from ones home. What “ill effects” will it have if your Yankel or Chaim’ll cant have his peanut butter sandwich or snack until he came home?
I am one who would rather see the school enforce it’s ban than seeing a child in anaphylactic shock due to exposure.
Remember SAKANTA CHOMER M’ISSUR!June 23, 2017 11:26 am at 11:26 am #1302932
iacisrmma – wow, thanks for the mentchlich post. In all honesty, I wouldn’t feel safe enough to even begin to describe the issue in this setting seeing the nasty comments coming from even mentioning there is one. I will say though, that this line, “that this does “somewhat” limits the snacks and lunches that are brought to the school” is a big part of it. For some kids it does not somewhat limit their snacks, it eliminates them.
I keep writing and erasing, trying to explain, and honestly I can’t bear to do it. Too many ignorant people, the types who tell the childless couple how much tuition they are saving. Sorry, can’t risk it. But it IS real, whether GH, and a nameless other from a separate thread want to allow room in their reality for it or not.June 23, 2017 11:26 am at 11:26 am #1302936
adocs: And what if your other child was allergic to peanuts?June 23, 2017 11:29 am at 11:29 am #1302938
I bet he would work it out because he probably doesn’t value one of his kids over the other. Parents are often able to rise to just these types of ocassionsJune 23, 2017 11:45 am at 11:45 am #1302941
What if that child became allergic to peanuts?June 23, 2017 11:45 am at 11:45 am #1302942
“Where should this child go to school?”
Since is this a “kosher” board, I will simply reply. Be a parent.June 23, 2017 11:48 am at 11:48 am #1302945
And what if we were having a serious conversation and you thought it was okay to be funnyJune 23, 2017 11:48 am at 11:48 am #1302946
Be a parent.
Bingo! exactly the lack of understanding I assumed would come next. (if I understand you correctly to be wrongly assuming it’s a parenting issue)June 23, 2017 11:54 am at 11:54 am #1302949
Syag: I use the term “somewhat” as we are starting to see snacks being made in plants that are “peanut free” to avoid this problem (I know of at least one but I think their product is chalav stam). What I am worried about is the school that does not have the peanut ban in place, a child has a severe allergic reaction and sues the school. What will happen then?
However, your point is that “banning” is not the only solution is addressed in the NYS guidelines regarding allergies (not just peanuts). The document can be found on the NYS Health department website entiltled “caring_for_students_with_life_threatening_allergies.pdf”.
Here is the full link if the moderator allows it:June 23, 2017 11:58 am at 11:58 am #1302953
Not trying to be funny.
You said the parents would work it out. They would also work it out, I believe, if sending peanut to school wasn’t an option.
V’ho raya, the allergic kids eat.June 23, 2017 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm #1302975
its very funny that you see a connection there. A parent working out his son’s eating issues in his home is a raya that his son can go without peanut foods at school. Sure, makes sense.June 23, 2017 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm #1302994
iacisrmma – if a peanut ban was the only solution, I might (but I doubt it) feel differently. There are too many options, working options IN PLACE, that do not involve requiring hundreds of kids to make changes to their food. Why refuse to try things that work? Why refuse to try ways that are proven to accommodate every student instead of just one or two? And here’s a newsflash – many times ( it may even be most) the peanut emergency is NOT because of a missing ban but rather an ignorant, uninformed, poorly trained or irresponsible adult.June 23, 2017 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm #1303013
“(if I understand you correctly to be wrongly assuming it’s a parenting issue)”
there is a lot of assuming going on here. I assume you have no idea what my opinion is, and I assume (actually I am almost certain), I have no idea what your opinion is.
To be clear. I have no issues if a school bans peanuts and other foodstuffs if their are students with allergies (I pay tuition to such a school). to those who say, well my shuey or ruchy wont eat anything but a pb&j sandwich, I say, be a parent.June 23, 2017 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm #1303016
so basically it’s not just assumptions but some serious judging. I will just assume Gd gave you different challenges, count your blessings.June 23, 2017 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm #1303022
If schools would accommodate the needs of every student, they would be unrecognizable.June 23, 2017 1:58 pm at 1:58 pm #1303043
adocs -“even something non-political, the automatic knee-jerk ridiculous response is to accuse them of voting for someone of the other political side.”
Actually you’re the one is having knee-jerk reaction! I honestly don’t know why he responded the way he did.
I responded the way I did, because I’m familiar with that poster.
Do yourself a favor – don’t come here and post your ingenuity, unless you’re a full time poster!June 23, 2017 2:26 pm at 2:26 pm #1303051
“Actually you’re the one is having knee-jerk reaction! I honestly don’t know why he responded the way he did.”
Neither do I. But you’re the one who accused him of voting for “hi-liar-ry” (ah…such maturity and ingenuity) even though that was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
“I responded the way I did, because I’m familiar with that poster.”
So what? Again, what does anyone’s voting choice have to do with their opinion on this matter?
“Do yourself a favor – don’t come here and post your ingenuity, unless you’re a full time poster!”
Really? Is there some rule about posting frequency that I’m not aware of? (Actually I have a full time job, that prevents me from being a “full time poster!” (Emphasis yours) ) Do you not like what i have to say and want me shut down? That sounds like an attempt at censorship. In my experience, it’s the liberals who try to censor opposing viewpoints they don’t like.June 23, 2017 3:17 pm at 3:17 pm #1303109
its very funny that you see a connection there. A parent working out his son’s eating issues in his home is a raya that his son can go without peanut foods at school. Sure, makes sense.
The allergic kids eat in school too.June 23, 2017 3:17 pm at 3:17 pm #1303110
And here’s a newsflash – many times ( it may even be most) the peanut emergency is NOT because of a missing ban but rather an ignorant, uninformed, poorly trained or irresponsible adult.
So? If a ban minimizes the risk, why does it matter if the risk is that someone will make a mistake? We’re dealing with humans, and humans make mistakes.June 23, 2017 3:21 pm at 3:21 pm #1303112
iacisrmma -“What I am worried about is the school that does not have the peanut ban in place, a child has a severe allergic reaction and sues the school. What will happen then?”
The truth is until I came upon this topic in the CR – I never researched this topic. But I just did and I’m posting what I’ve found!
I believe the article. All schools should ban sports, much more than peanuts!
Our society is controlled by a few elitists!
“Food Allergy Deaths: Less Common Than You Think
By Meredith Broussard
In her December 8 New York Times article, “Researchers Put a Microscope on Food Allergies,” Karen Ann Cullotta cites a statistic commonly used in articles about food allergies: “Up to 200 deaths each year are attributed to the most severe reaction, food-induced anaphylaxis,” she writes. A similar statistic appears in Nicholas A. Christakis’ recent British Medical Journal article, “This Allergies Hysteria is Just Nuts,” which is referenced in the Times‘ “Well” blog today. Dr. Christakis writes in the BMJ that “Only 150 people (children and adults) die each year from all food allergies combined.” Having seen these statistics used over and over again in the media and the medical literature, I wondered: how many people really die of food allergies? 150 or 200? As it turns out, the real number of food allergy deaths is much smaller: just 11. The 150-200 death estimate comes from the media resource kit of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, a lobbying and educational group headed by a former marketing executive at Dey Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the EpiPen adrenaline injector (which is prescribed to millions of food-allergic patients). It’s time for journalists and doctors to stop using FAAN’s exaggerated statistic.
We don’t need to rely on estimates for numbers of food allergy deaths because we have actual data. Since about 1998, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been tracking the number of food allergy deaths just as they track all the other causes of death across the United States. When someone dies in the US, his death certificate data is pumped into a massive database and indexed according to the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death (ICD-10), a standardized system developed by the World Health Organization. ICD-9, the previous standard, did not have a code for food allergy deaths, but now we have solid data for almost ten years. The underlying number of food allergy deaths according to ICD-10 codes isn’t publicly available in CDC databases because it is so small—statistically insignificant, according to the CDC. A call to the CDC press office revealed that the number of deaths from food allergies, as collected from 2.5 million death certificates across the country, is miniscule. Only eleven people died from food allergies in 2005, the last year for which we have data available. More people died from lawnmower accidents.
FAAN justifies its exaggerated estimate by citing a 1999 article from the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology called “Epidemiology of Anaphylaxis in Olmsted County: A Population-Based Study.” Deaths from anaphylactic shock are quite rare—so rare that the Olmsted County study is one of the very few studies that provides any rough numbers suggesting prevalence.
The study gives us useful data on the potential prevalence of anaphylaxis, meaning a severe or multi-system allergic reaction. It does not give us very good data on anaphylactic shock, the most severe consequence of anaphylaxis. Not a single person in the Olmsted County study died from food allergies. Of the 133 Olmsted County residents who had allergic reactions over the course of five years, and furthermore out of the six people admitted to the hospital for allergic reactions, not a single person died of anaphylactic shock subsequent to a food allergy.
Only one person in the Olmsted County study died. The cause of death: his throat swelled up while exercising. Yet we see schools calling for bans on peanuts, not gym class—even though, as Dr. Christakis points out in his BMJ article, about 10,000 children are hospitalized each year for sports-related traumatic brain injuries.
The flawed food allergy death statistic has been questioned, investigated and debunked in articles published in Forbes, Child, the New York Times, and in a piece I wrote for Harper’s earlier this year. I understand why the inflated number persists: 200 annual deaths make food allergies seem like a terrifying potential health crisis. Health crises attract research dollars. Pharmaceutical firms can profit substantially from health crises: concerned parents are happy to buy a device like an Epi-Pen (and renew the prescription every six months for the next twenty years) if it means preventing a child coming to harm. But our world is already terrifying enough. Do we really need to exaggerate the threat of a health condition as manageable as food allergies?
The time has come to stop using FAAN’s wildly exaggerated estimate of food allergy deaths. Food allergies are real, and certainly deserve respect and research, but stretching the truth about food allergy deaths creates unnecessary anxiety and fear for everyone. Especially those of us with food allergies.”June 23, 2017 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #1303125
So? If a ban minimizes the risk
Yup. If.June 23, 2017 3:42 pm at 3:42 pm #1303128
If it didn’t, I would definitely not want to inconvenience parents and kids for no reason.June 23, 2017 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #1303134
Judging?June 23, 2017 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #1303139
judging their parenting. assuming that if a kid isn’t coping it must be their parenting. If a kid needs certain accommodations (except of course peanut free zones) than they must have weak parenting. It’s not about “ruchy only likes pb&jelly”, and I still don’t know why you think I would argue a point if that was all it was about.June 23, 2017 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm #1303168
Syag, it would help if you could explain your reasoning.June 23, 2017 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #1303175
For all the usual ranting and raving going on here, I still have yet to see anybody explain what a possible downside to a peanut ban could be (although It’s certainly possible that I missed a post).
As others have pointed out, a lack of peanuts has never killed anybody. Peanuts have. Shouldn’t the answer here be obvious?June 23, 2017 4:57 pm at 4:57 pm #1303180
Syag, it would help if you could explain your reasoning.
I thought about that, but I had already gotten enough push back about the idea that there even *could* be a reason so why risk it. When I said some people have a legitimate reason the response was that they are entitled, they have undisciplined kids or possibly bad parenting skills, or they are making a big deal out of nothing because of course it can only be nothing. To put it out there and get those types of responses would be a bit too harsh for me. It is a painful topic and not one people are real open to being empathetic towards.June 23, 2017 4:58 pm at 4:58 pm #1303182
mw13- based on your reasoning I think we should all make up our own chumras about health issues and just start enforcing them. Because even if they are overkill, or found not to be the core cause or even the solution, if a bunch of posters in an online forum think it makes sense to them – by golly run with it!June 23, 2017 5:27 pm at 5:27 pm #1303186
Well, I think if you explained your reasoning it could help us understand your argument.June 23, 2017 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #1303188
There is a libertarian perspective that there should be NO regulation or interference with individual use of any product or service, no matter the risk to a minority. SouthWest Airlines, for example, got a lot of flak when it agreed not to serve peanuts on any flight where any passenger claimed to have an allergy risk, without even requiring any proof. Legally, they are required to accommodate such requests along with any other reasonable requests. Its gotten silly since on a flight to Las Vegas last month, a passenger in the row behind me boarded with a real pig that she characterized as a “companion animal” which must be allowed on board. The flight was too crowded for me to change seats.June 23, 2017 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #1303200
There’s nothing wrong with companion animals.June 23, 2017 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #1303202
Mw13 -“As others have pointed out, a lack of peanuts has never killed anybody. Peanuts have. Shouldn’t the answer here be obvious?”
As the statistics have pointed out, a lack of sports in school has never killed anybody. Sports have. Shouldn’t the answer be obvious?!?June 23, 2017 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1303205
The lack of peanuts does kill people. Peanuts are one of the best weapons against malnutrition.June 23, 2017 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1303206
Sports aren’t an inherently dangerous activity. Exposing someone with a peanut allergy to a peanut is.June 23, 2017 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #1303216
Some people have heart conditions that don’t allow them to participate in sports, much the same as some people are allergic to peanuts.June 23, 2017 7:12 pm at 7:12 pm #1303221
Sports aren’t an inherently dangerous activity.
are you sure about that?
Some people have heart conditions that don’t allow them to participate in sports, much the same as some people are allergic to peanuts
that’s just silly. Why insert comments like that into this discussion?June 23, 2017 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #1303224
It’s been going on the whole thread.June 24, 2017 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm #1303237
I am. What is inherently dangerous about sports?June 24, 2017 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #1303281
The way people find out about their heart conditions that don’t allow them to play sports is when they have an incident when playing a sport. This makes sports dangerous.June 24, 2017 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #1303299
Or you could test for heart conditions before playing. Another good way to find out.June 25, 2017 12:33 am at 12:33 am #1303304
People who pay tuition can’t afford healthcare.June 25, 2017 2:13 am at 2:13 am #1303326
But have time to troll…June 25, 2017 7:15 am at 7:15 am #1303335
What about Bein Adam L’Chaveiro?
I have a child with a severe milk allergy in High School. When they had a program with Dairy, she spent the next lesson in the yard, because the whole school smelled of chocolate milk. Most people can’t smell dairy, but it makes her itch in her throat, Touching dairy is worse. And eating dairy is anaphalactic.
She is a totally normal girl, who can’t eat dairy.
Why can’t we all think of others who have to cope daily with the not so easy task of being allergic?! What about the fine print on packaging? Marshmellows that are made from fish products (for those allergic to fish)? Etc.?
The school has a tremedous responsibility to children with special health needs (i.e. allergies, diabetes, etc). They want their children safe.
If a parent doesn’t like it, send their child to another school. Aren’t the children in school to learn middos and derech eretz? Derech Eretz kadma L’Torah. If you don’t like it – leave!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.