June 26, 2017 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #1304462
Cute, suddenly emotional health is important! lol. What is emotional health in the face of a physical danger (to paraphrase almost all the above posts)? Are we worried about him feeling….inconvenienced perhaps?
That makes no sense. He’s arguing that that how the kid feels is important, as well as the physical. He’s not pitting them against each other.June 26, 2017 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #1304466
So you have no problem having a kid skip lunch, if all he/she likes is peanut butter sandwiches?
Do you think that’s good for that child?
I’ll ask again what I asked earlier: if a kid is allergic to peanuts but all he likes is peanut butter, does he not eat in school?June 26, 2017 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm #1304473
This thread is ridiculous. Sports has nothing to do with peanut allergies. And if a kid doesn’t like anything but peanut butter, let him eat plain bread. Someone else’s life is at stake.June 26, 2017 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm #1304471
I was planning on staying out of of this, but I just wanted to say one thing.
To all the people insisting that we should make the allergic kids eat lunch alone in a classroom so that the other kids can have peanut butter: that’s called being a jerk.
Schools should be teaching kids not to be jerks.June 26, 2017 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #1304481
I prefer my daughter not eat alone and it’s unrelated to being inconvenienced. On the contrary, I’ve always preferred that I be the one who’s inconvenienced rather than other parents and children. The fact is that kids like mine will often stand out. She frequently has to step out of parties, weddings, class events, etc. because a peanut dish is served. She never complains about it, but I know she does not enjoy the attention. Her friends are very dedicated to her and she’s never alone outside, but she really just wants to be like everyone else. School is one place where she should be safe and allowed to be just a regular kid if it’s possible. Eating alone, even with a couple of friends, smacks a label on her that says “different.” Which she obviously is, but she would like to be able to forget that sometimes.
Also, after what we’ve experienced, I would not feel safe with hundreds of girls eating peanut butter in the lunchroom and then going out to play in the same place as my daughter. Even if they’re told to wash their hands, 100% compliance is not guaranteed, and sometimes clothing can also pick up traces of peanut butter.
I feel like I sound like I expect everyone to bend over backwards for my child, and believe me, that could not be further from the truth. I want to attract as little attention as possible to her allergies and just have her life run seamlessly, but I sometimes have to do things I don’t like to in order to keep her safe.June 26, 2017 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #1304485
“I’ll ask again what I asked earlier: if a kid is allergic to peanuts but all he likes is peanut butter, does he not eat in school?”
I read this twice and still don’t understand it, perhaps because I really should be in bed. If a kid is allergic to peanuts, how can all he like be peanut butter? My kid who’s allergic to peanuts has obviously never eaten peanut butter.
I get the feeling I will feel really dumb when I read this again in the morning.June 26, 2017 4:27 pm at 4:27 pm #1304489
Shemiras… The parents inform the school of their childs allergies. The school is obligated to keep the child safe in school. The school on its own determines the easiest way (for them) to keep the child safe is to ban peanuts.
If I was a school administrator, faced with a choice between dealing with a potential life threatening situation or a kid who only eats PB sandwiches, i’d opt for the latter. finicky eaters mature, dead kids dont.June 26, 2017 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #1304490
I read this twice and still don’t understand it…
I believe DY’s point was that it’s not possible that all a kid will eat is peanut butter. If peanut butter simply wasn’t an option, the kid will find something else to eat.
I also didn’t get it at firstJune 26, 2017 6:32 pm at 6:32 pm #1304494
Who said anything about eating alone? And why in the world would you direct that at me when I specifically said that they should NOT eat alone. And what is the point of having a conversation when people can’t respectfully read what you say before throwing comments back in your face. I never said eat alone, I was the one who advocated for mental health but was shot down, not always kindly, for thinking a child mental health held a candle to a physical ailment. I stopped reading the posts back up a ways and have no intention to start if I am not only ignored but then afterwards accused of saying stupid things that I not only didn’t say, but advocated against.June 26, 2017 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1304496
“I also didn’t get it at first”
because it is a lie invented in a place where “if I personally don’t know of it, then it doesn’t exist”
Even hearing it from other mom’s doesn’t change the opinion because we are an invisible faction with misbehaving inflexible kids who are only that way as a result of our poor parenting skills and some terrible infraction we must have made in a past life.
We get this all the time.June 26, 2017 6:34 pm at 6:34 pm #1304518
As DY said, I’m worried about the physical and emotional health of these children. I’m not worried about the child feeling inconvenienced. I fear for his self esteem. Eating lunch alone, or even getting to pick two friends to eat with, can have detrimental effect.June 26, 2017 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #1304522
Meno -“To all the people insisting that we should make the allergic kids eat lunch alone in a classroom so that the other kids can have peanut butter: that’s called being a jerk.
Schools should be teaching kids not to be jerks”
Of course your desire that your kid shouldn’t eat alone, trumps any kid who doesn’t like anything but peanut butter! It really doesn’t matter if the kid goes hungry. Your kid comes first!
I agree – Schools should be teaching kids not to be jerks!June 26, 2017 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #1304539
If you think a thread is ridiculous, stay off it.June 26, 2017 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1304548
Yes, Meno, that was my point.
If the rule is no peanut butter, kids will adapt. I don’t believe any kids have gone insane or starved to death because they couldn’t eat peanut butter in school.
I do believe being singled out can be socially detrimental.
I think using the term “mental health”, on either side of the argument, is going overboard.June 26, 2017 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1304550
Health, are you honestly saying that the wants of a picky eater come before the needs of those allergic?June 26, 2017 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1304551
What if the only thing a kid will eat is peanut butter and jelly sandwiches!
Great! Start with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches today.
Tomorrow, make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with 1/6th less peanut butter, 1/6th almond butter (or soy butter or sunflower seed butter or whatever else is permitted). Add a little extra jelly or change up the jelly.
Then go from there – if all is well, keep increasing the other butter, and decreasing the peanut butter.
Eventually b’esrat Hashem, the kid will still only want to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and won’t know that it’s actually peanut free now!
Solution 🙂June 26, 2017 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm #1304579
Lightbrite, soy butter is a lie. It superficially resembles peanut butter, but tastes more like sawdust.June 26, 2017 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm #1304610
DY -“If the rule is no peanut butter, kids will adapt. I don’t believe any kids have gone insane or starved to death because they couldn’t eat peanut butter in school”
They’ll just skip lunch! I remember as a kid skipping supper.
Because you think that the whole school has to ban peanuts.
Honestly do you think that’s fair to most of the student body?
I posted a compromise and I’m sure that there are other solutions!
Think with your sense, not with your emotions.June 27, 2017 1:37 am at 1:37 am #1304677
“Who said anything about eating alone? And why in the world would you direct that at me when I specifically said that they should NOT eat alone. And what is the point of having a conversation when people can’t respectfully read what you say before throwing comments back in your face.”
First of all, I apologize if I did not read your words carefully before responding.
Secondly, I was using the word “alone” loosely to mean not eating where everyone else eats. And that was in response to this:
“In our school, those kids have the privilege of choosing two or three friends a day to have “special lunch” with them in the office. Yes, it actually is very good for that child.”
That really does sound nice for some kids, but again, it is a form of singling out, and we try as much as possible to avoid doing that. There are times when it’s impossible, but in school, I wish that would not be the case. My daughter prefers not to have special privileges. She really just wants to be a regular kid.June 27, 2017 1:37 am at 1:37 am #1304678
“I believe DY’s point was that it’s not possible that all a kid will eat is peanut butter. If peanut butter simply wasn’t an option, the kid will find something else to eat.”
Thanks. I realized this sometime between Modeh Ani and negel vasser this morning.June 27, 2017 1:38 am at 1:38 am #1304681
Just want to add that I wasn’t saying necessarily that all that justified a peanut ban. For my child, the decision was made based on safety alone. Still, I wanted to point out that that solution might not be optimal for every child.June 27, 2017 2:00 am at 2:00 am #1304694
Shmiras Haloshon: There are some kids who will only eat certain foods. My cousin pretty much only eats soup with those Osem botnim and cereal with milk. (I know they’re both foods with spoons and liquids and bowls and floating objects – but I think it’s more complicated than simply turning his salads into bloated gardens and dinner plates into free style swimming chicken and potatoes).
All of his older and younger siblings eat everything, and he’s refused to eat much else since he was a kid. I think he feels sick afterwards. He’s willing to go hungry if forced to eat something else. I’m not his mom and I know his mom has done a lot. But I don’t think he’s the only kid with a monopoly appetite. The trick, I think and I’m no expert, is to work with what the kid already likes and is willing to eat and go from there.June 27, 2017 2:01 am at 2:01 am #1304695
in regards to this comment:
it is a form of singling out, and we try as much as possible to avoid doing that. .
you may be unaware that the reality is that your child’s name will come up frequently, every week for several years, when requesting, purchasing and packing snacks. I think requesting an entire school to accommodate a child, and then expect the child not to be singled out is a lot to ask.
For my part, I always did my best to make sure it was not presented negatively, but the result really depends on the child and their needs.June 27, 2017 3:09 am at 3:09 am #1304704
Syag Lchochma: Thanks for sharing! I didn’t think of the part about being singled out. That’s a lot to deal with – and I commend you for presenting it positively! ☺June 27, 2017 8:04 am at 8:04 am #1304722
“Lightbrite, soy butter is a lie. It superficially resembles peanut butter, but tastes more like sawdust.”
Sunbutter might be somewhat closer to peanut butter in taste.June 27, 2017 8:04 am at 8:04 am #1304723
SH and SY: While in the case of SH’s daughter, the ban came after something happened. Many schools today don’t wait for that child; the ban is in place without even having a child with sensitivity to peanuts even enrolled. This way nobody gets singled out.June 27, 2017 8:04 am at 8:04 am #1304721
“you may be unaware that the reality is that your child’s name will come up frequently, every week for several years, when requesting, purchasing and packing snacks.”
I am aware, and this is one of the reasons I was opposed to a peanut ban lechatchila. But sometimes it’s about choosing the lesser of 2 evils.June 27, 2017 9:03 am at 9:03 am #1304692
What you bleeding heart liberals don’t understand is that pandering to a few individuals at the cost of the silent majority can cause massive unintended consequences.June 27, 2017 10:39 am at 10:39 am #1304886
Lot -“Many schools today don’t wait for that child; the ban is in place without even having a child with sensitivity to peanuts even enrolled.”
That’s so nice. Do they have a ban on playing sports? If not, why not?!?June 27, 2017 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm #1305000
One more time, you can prevent sport injuries with proper precautions. And the worst injuries are not as bad as anaphylaxis. Heart conditions can be tested for.June 27, 2017 3:52 pm at 3:52 pm #1305659
Matan1 -“One more time, you can prevent sport injuries with proper precautions. And the worst injuries are not as bad as anaphylaxis.”
How come you don’t read the posts before responding?!?
Let’s see – do high school and college football players wear protective gear? Yes, they do!
So how come they die?!?
And I guess that death is not as bad as anaphylaxis!
And when you retort -“that’s football”- unknown heart conditions & heat-related deaths would apply to all sports. From previous:
“Each year in the U.S. an average of a dozen high school and college football players die during practices and games, according to a new study that finds heart conditions, heat and other non-traumatic causes of death are twice as common as injury-related ones.
Researchers reviewed data from the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research and found 243 football deaths recorded between July 1990 and June 2010.
One hundred of the fatalities resulted from an underlying heart condition, 62 were due to a brain injury – typically a subdural hematoma – and 38 were from heat-related causes, according to findings published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine.”
EditedJune 27, 2017 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1305687
1) I don’t think high school students should be playing football.
2) Require everyone to have a heart examination before playing.June 27, 2017 8:40 pm at 8:40 pm #1305765
Matan1 -“2) Require everyone to have a heart examination before playing”
That’s nice. Which school will implement such a requirement?
And secondly, if you believe in a peanuts’ ban, why not a sports ban?!?
You didn’t read my whole post.
Again from above:
“One hundred of the fatalities … and 38 were from heat-related causes, according to findings published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine.”June 27, 2017 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #1305785
So don’t play in the heat.June 28, 2017 10:30 am at 10:30 am #1306129
Matan1 -“So don’t play in the heat.”
The American Athletic Society states that in 80 degree temperature with 100% humidity, there’s a high chance of getting a heat-related illness! So IDK of any Yeshiva that stops kids from going outside in such a case.
“Despite enumerable studies on the prevention and treatment of heat illness, EHS not only continues to be a leading cause of death among athletes in the United States, but disturbingly, the incidence is on the rise.”
So again – if you believe in a peanuts’ ban, why not a sports ban?!?June 28, 2017 10:41 am at 10:41 am #1306188
The upside of allowing kids to play sports is tremendous. You can’t simply ignore that.
The upside of allowing peanuts in school is not as great.June 28, 2017 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm #1306226
Allowing peanuts in schools enables kids to get married.June 28, 2017 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm #1306228
Health, did you compare the yearly related deaths between EHS and anaphylaxis?
EHS is a concern in extreme sports such as marathons or other extreme sports, not the typical sports that are played at schools and yeshivas.
On the other hand, Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition that can kill a child pretty quickly.June 28, 2017 1:07 pm at 1:07 pm #1306243
DY -“The upside of allowing peanuts in school is not as great.”
Says who? You?!?
The fact is many kids will skip lunch if they can’t eat peanut butter!
Stop with the banning attitude!
Btw, it’s not personal – my kids eat almost anything.June 28, 2017 1:36 pm at 1:36 pm #1306254
2scents -“Health, did you compare the yearly related deaths between EHS and anaphylaxis?”
I thought it was obvious from all my posts. Read them!
“EHS is a concern in extreme sports such as marathons or other extreme sports, not the typical sports that are played at schools and yeshivas.”
We weren’t just talking about EHS. Any heat – related illness. When I was a counselor in camp, years ago, heat illness was pretty common. I wasn’t involved with any bad outcomes because they were treated.
I remember when my kids were younger, sometimes they came home with heat – related illness, that wasn’t treated!
Probably it wasn’t even detected!June 28, 2017 1:40 pm at 1:40 pm #1306288
2scents, is’t not a matter of life or death, it’s a matter of school or no school.June 28, 2017 1:44 pm at 1:44 pm #1306291
Health, the paragraph that you posted directly concerns EHS, not other heat related illnesses. cellular injury and death is only from heat stroke, not other illnesses.June 28, 2017 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #1306852
RebYidd23, Not sure what your point is, I have not really been following this thread that closely. Seems like a bunch of people that are emotionally invested in their opinions. This topic is not new and there are arguments to be made on both sides.
I just popped in when I saw the reference made to heat-related illnesses, the ones that are life threatening are the severe ones with core body temperatures above 105, for which simple rapid cooling would help.
I was not trying to hijack this thread or steer it off topic.June 29, 2017 10:07 am at 10:07 am #1307212
2scents -“Health, the paragraph that you posted directly concerns EHS, not other heat related illnesses. cellular injury and death is only from heat stroke, not other illnesses”
You actually have to read all my posts before you comment to me!
I posted this previously:
“One hundred of the fatalities … and 38 were from heat-related causes, according to findings published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.