Food allergy fascists make peanuts of us all

Julie Coker-Godson says:

12:56pm | 09/03/10

In my young girl days, we called these check dresses “Gingham” and just about every girl wore it at some stage or another.  Since when have some kids been having fits when they see them?  Is this for real?  I never heard of a single case of fitting in these circumstances until I read your post acker.  Unbelievable!  I really believe we’ve got to stand up to these people and the Food Nazis.  I was brought up to believe it was rude to comment on what another person was eating and have never done so.  It is very very wrong I believe to humiliate children in this way….they remember you know….they never forget.

acker says:

01:33pm | 09/03/10

It’s true Julie some doctor in Southern NSW apparently has suggested it.

Raewyn Wisnewski says:

06:33pm | 09/03/10

I homeschool. Almost enough said…I do have a friend whose daughter has life threatening nut allergies.  I sympathise hugely and am very happy my 7 kids have no allergies at all (although one has juvenille diabetes).  That said, I hate anyone other than my husband having a say in what our kids can/can’t eat.  That’s for us to decide - if I want to give a treat, I expect to be able to and I wouldn’t risk anyone’s life to do so.

Brad says:

11:02am | 11/03/10

Does this also mean that nobody should smoke near my children anyhere, any time? Or does it only apply to peanuts? Why?

Rose says:

11:48am | 11/03/10

My child is Coeliac - if she eats gluten it can be life threatening but not in an “anaphylatic” way.  But peanut butter is one spread she can have (& nutella) - vegemite is no go for her.  I think it is unfair that she is not allowed to bring peatnut butter sandwiches to school.  Anyway she packs her own lunch and I do not always check so she probably is taking something “illegal” to school

xiaoecho says:

08:53am | 09/03/10

Fred, you could always just laugh

Dingo_aus says:

09:18am | 09/03/10

The article does a good job of addressing what is the most silly of nanny-state situations. The approach taken is appropriate considering the subject matter.  No one wants to read a dry dissertation on peanut allergies and the appropriate social policies to be implemented in public institutions…<yawn>

julia says:

10:21am | 09/03/10

Fred: I went to my first tupperware party three weeks ago and they sell a backpack with chiller pockets and lunchboxes for around $60. These have been designed with nutritionists and day care workers to ensure they meet food requirements and they can be slotted into the fridge quickly and easily.

The drink bottle has a little screw off bottom so you can put some change into it or a housekey.

The lunchbox has more compartments than a car, and can keep food fresh for days on end. Just in case you want to pack one lunch a week and leave it at the school/daycare centre.

It might seem like hyperbole to you, but unfortunately it’s true. The school lunch is a huge issue.

Kris says:

02:47pm | 09/03/10

Fred, you obviously are not a parent of a child currently in the scholling system or you would be aware of these issues (well we would hope anyway). As a member of my daughters school P & C, I do know there are things that the canteens are no longer allowed to sell because of allergy fears, but as schools have a ‘no food sharing policy’, I have issues with the fact that some random strangers could be going through my daughters lunch box and saying because some small % of kids have a peanut (for example) allergy, she can’t have a peanut butter sandwich (which she loves). I send my child to school with a sandwich or roll with vegemite, peanut butter, cheese sometimes, or cold meat(almost always on wholemeal or grain bread of some sort), at least one peice of fruit, and one or 2 snack bars/packets of savoury or sweet biscuits, or muesli/cereal bars, or fruit bars. That is plenty of food for her for 2 breaks (lunch and recess), and she knows not to share with other kids, and doesn’t to the best of my knowledge. But it is also a basically healthy lunch too and it is no ones business but mine what she takes to eat each day. I don’t think this lunch checking is appropriate at all.

Rebekah says:

07:39am | 10/03/10

Actually, Fred is right.  This article does not do a good job of arguing the point.
The author , in wanting to make a point about allergies, has incorporated the argument about fancy lunch boxes and the quality of the food therein.  It could definitely be said that things have changed a lot since the vegemite sandwich days and that people need to mind their own business about what others are feeding their children.  However, by blending this complaint with the health issue of severe allergies and the consequences of those in schools, she has not presented a good argument.  A life threatening condition should not be compared to the design of a lunch box. 
I guess you can be thankful Jacqueline, that you do not have a child with life threatening allergies and that all you really have to worry about is the style and contents of your children’s lunch boxes.

Jayne says:

10:05pm | 11/03/10

Unfortunately Fred this is how it is at my sons primary school. We also have the water ‘police’ checking that all have drink bottles contain only water. Thankfully we only have 2 years left of our sentence and young Pud goes to high school. Cant wait

Myrtle says:

09:13am | 09/03/10

Surely you must have vertigo up there on your high moral horse?

Max says:

09:14am | 09/03/10

“Must be difficult putting on the seatbelt when you get in the car, closing the childproof gate as you take the kids into kinder and not cutting yourself when handling sharp objects.”

Oh the irony, it burns!

Occasionally, others should look out for their own safety.

Anecdotally, I don’t think I have ever met anyone with such a sever allergy to something that casual encounter would cause an issue.  I’ve never had someone refuse to eat food at a restaurant because the restaurant also serves shellfish/sesame/peanuts/etc.  I can’t imagine that the problem is so prevalent that an entire school should be banned from certain foods because someone ‘might’ come into contact with someone elses lunch.

persephone says:

09:42am | 09/03/10

Max

we have a lot of laws in this society which are designed to prevent us from harming others.

Your lack of life experience is not an excuse to put other’s in harm’s way.

Of course, schools have to deal with the other slight inconvenience that they can be sued to buggery if they know that a child has a problem and they don’t take steps to deal with it.

If ths school knows that a child has an allergy and they have not taken reasonable steps to protect that child, they are legally liable.

Apparently the courts don’t just leave it up to the parent or the child concerned.

Hev says:

09:46am | 09/03/10

Well said!

Jackie, you might expire after a mouthful of mango, but there are kids out there who might expire just breathing in peanut dust. Surely you can see that one is more difficult to monitor than the other. While I agree that the parents and kids have to take responsibility for themselves, there is a limit and some of these allergies are so severe that it’s difficult to control. Kids are kids, after all. They come into physical contact with each other far more than adults do and the risk of these kids inadvertently ingesting something potentially fatal is pretty high. Surely it doesn’t take that much effort to avoid packing peanuts in your kids’ lunches—if it’s really that much of a burden perhaps you should consider what the parents of allergic kids go through.

martinX says:

10:01am | 09/03/10

Max, it’s not just coming into contact with someone else’s lunch, it’s coming into contact with peanuts from anywhere: other kids’ hands, mouths, clothes. They are messy eaters at the best of times.

Also, don’t underestimate the ability of older children to use another child’s allergy as a bullying tactic.

The problem is real, children do die.

BTS says:

10:13am | 09/03/10

What about the kids who have asthma?
What about the kids who have ADHD?
What about the kids who have been abused?
What about the kids who have been bullied?
What about the kids who have lactose intolerance?
What about the kids who have sole parents?
What about the kids who have come from foster families?

In fact, why are we having kids if we have to tread around everyone else’s issues?

We live in a society where we no longer have personal responsibility for anything and everyone else has to step carefully and raise my child properly - for me.  If your child has a food allergy, do something about it.  Nobody else has to nor should they.  Take responsiblity for your own actions.

julia says:

10:22am | 09/03/10

Good one, Myrtle.

Hev says:

10:29am | 09/03/10

BTS, this is a nonsensical list. The issue of peanut allergies is totally different to kids being abused, coming from sole parent or foster homes etc. The issues are simply not comparable. No child is going to die from coming into direct physical contact with an abused child or a foster child.

The only thing in your list that is even remotely relevant is the issue of lactose intolerance, and if you knew anything about the physiology of the two conditions you’d understand that the level of contact lactose intolerant people can have with milk products before having a reaction is far higher than peanut-allergic kids can have with peanuts.

BTS says:

10:44am | 09/03/10

Couple of things Hev, it’s no more nonsensical than people who have nut allergies demanding the rest of society completely change their lives to fit the demands of a few.

The list indicates just a few of the issues that the general population has to pussy foot around because of the ridiculous expectations of some minorities who think that the world owes them something.

‘No child is going to die from coming into direct physical contact with an abused child or a foster child.’

Are you sure, because there was one last month in Queensland.

Again why does the world have to change for you.  Take responsiblity for you own actions.  If you have a child with an allergy, you do something about it.

SLF says:

10:55am | 09/03/10

I completely agree if the ban was relating to peanut buitter etc and pourely peanut based products.

Unfortunately the food Nazis at my son’s school insist that anything with the worrding ’ may contain traces of nuts’ or ‘is made in a factory which uses nuts’ is banned. As such my son cannot take in museli bars etc and I have a situation where he is worried that his food could make his friends very ill, when the reality is not the case.

It is hardly the same as taking in a jar of peanut butter or a pack of dry roasted.

Helen says:

10:59am | 09/03/10

She’s saying it’s not as simple as “don’t pack a peanut butter sandwich” Anything with traces of nuts etc, creates an issue; where do you draw the line? Why do Australian kids have one of the highest rates of food allergies and asthma? Is it that kids today don’t play in the dirt enough? They need to swallow gob-fuls to build up natural immunities. Another problem is: with most parents working - there’s not enough hands on involvement at schools any more by parents which breeds paranoia.

Geoff says:

12:13pm | 09/03/10

this far beyond just a peanut allergy at my childs kindy there is an A4 sheet of paper listing all the deifferent food allergies of different children. Why should my child be deprived of watermelon or mango because some parent cant teach there child to not steal food. we are
going to get to a stage where kids wont be able to eat anything at school because parents cannot take responsibilty for there own childrens actions.

WK says:

12:26pm | 09/03/10

BTS, ” If you have a child with an allergy, you do something about it. “
Most parents who have a child with an allergy do actually do something about it.  We kept an EpiPen (adrenaline shot) at the school in the event something happend. Believe me, they’re not cheap either.  Do you know a child with a severe nut allergy can go into anaphylactic shock from eating something that “may contain traces of nuts”

Ask yourself what would you do to try and ensure your child stays alive when they’re out of your direct care for 6 or so hours of the day.

Tracey says:

01:07pm | 09/03/10

I agree with you 100%... 2 of my newphews are Anaphylaxis to peanuts and yes if it only takes someone who hasconsumed anything containing peanuts to touch them and their airways swell cutting off their oxygen supply.

People like you Max need see first hand just what this allergy can do to a child and what these parents live with everyday of their lives. Wondering if some irresponsible parent that thinks of no one but themselves has put these products in the lunchboxes, I am all for checking lunch boxes, I have nothin to hide.

No one is saying that your kids cant eat peanut products at home, but for god sakes think of others for a change especially the ones who didn’t ask to have these allergies.

Ren says:

01:35pm | 09/03/10

I count myself lucky that my child has no allergies.  I can’t imagine how stressful it would be to have a small child with serious allergy in an environment you can’t control. I’m with you is killing or making a child really ill more important than having to come with another sandwich idea. There are plenty of things we do in this life that inconvenient for the sake of safety.

JJ says:

01:38pm | 09/03/10

Think of it as evolution in action

BTS says:

02:55pm | 09/03/10

WK,

Teach them not to take other kids food in the first place.

Hev says:

02:55pm | 09/03/10

OK, just for the record, I don’t have a kid with an allergy. What I do have is a degree in nutrition and dietetics. I don’t see it as people having to ‘completely change their lives’ to accomodate kids with allergies. We’re talking about one meal a day here, not the entire menu you feed your kids. If parents don’t pay attention to the labels of foods they pack for tehir kids, someone else’s kid might die. It’s not a case of parents not teaching kids not to share food or kids with allergies and their parents not taking reponsibility for their own actions—the kids and parents can be as vigilant as all get out, but it only takes contact with one snack with traces of peanuts, owever inadvertent, and a kid with a peanut allergy to go into anaphylactic shock. Yes, it really is that serious.

I’m sure avoiding libel is part of the policy in schools, but it’s not the primary concern. There are real and serious health consequences to be considered. And for all of you whining about having to read a few labels on foods you send to school with your kids, think for a second about what the parents of kids with allergies have to contend with—this is a 24/7 condition. they dont’ have the luxury of being able to forget about it before and after school.

BTS says:

03:14pm | 09/03/10

Hev,

Kids can also be killed getting off the school bus.  Do we halt all traffic in the entire street when a bus pulls up?  No.  We teach them how to get off the bus and the road safety rules.  Should we ban everyone from driving cars because a child has been run over by a bus before?  Let’s ban peanuts and cars from schools, both have killed our children in the past.

Is is everyone’s elses responsiblity to teach your kids the road safety rules and how to get off a bus or is it yours?

AJ says:

03:16pm | 09/03/10

Ok, so if an allergy to peanuts is that critical, then I think we should make all peanuts and peanut containing products illegal. Yes, do not produce it at all because heaven forbid my kid ate peanut butter and makes contact with a kid that is allergic to it in our neighbourhood playpark because the allergic kid isn’t wearing a warning sign. But don’t stop at peanuts, do that to everything anyone is allergic to, and by that I mean everything and everyone. There ... a universal, all encompassing solution although ridiculous and impractical, but hey!, that didn’t stop us before, because this is exactly what we are doing and what is happening and why the world is becoming what it is becoming ... because we are trying to manage the exceptions by applying more and more rules to the majority instead of just managing the exceptions.

Murray says:

03:50pm | 09/03/10

Ban on peanuts going back 10 years? I was about to refute that when I did some calculations, sat bad and thought, “crap I’m getting old.”

Back when I was in school - which I am adamant wasn’t that long ago - peanut allergies didn’t even rate as an issue for the self important mothers that made up the P&F. My classmates and I happily munched away on sandwiches that were ‘never oily and never dry’ until our little hearts were content/clogged. If we wern’t hungry they also made perfectly good pernut flavoured projectiles.

The point is, until may parents had and ‘afterthought’ and I got another sister I’d never heard of peanut allergies being a problem in schools. Then suddenly, a whole generation of sickly kids who we are told might go toes up if they even think of peanuts!  Where did all these children come from?!

I know there are all kinds of ideas, pestacides, preservatives, the MMR vaccine, but personally, I think it’s the result of us dicking around with the natural order of things. I mean, ever hear of natural selection? Our biology has this really neat built in fail safe that helps prevent situations like this. For the layman, individuals who are less suited for life in general (for example, those that couldn’t quite grasp the whole fire thing or people with peanut allergies), for whatever reason usually don’t get to reproduce. Their genetic make up - the blueprint that is the essential reason they are less suited for survival in general is thus removed from the collective filing cabnet of potential blueprints. Whatever made them “suck at life” as was said in reference to me once, isn’t passed on to the next generation and humanity as a whole is ‘fitter’. (This is of course a very simplified explantion of Darwins Theaory of Natural Selection so please don’t reply and try and pick it a part….)

Mess around with the atmosphere and you get climate change. In this case our meddling with nature has resulted in our society losing it’s right to eat/pack lunches devoid of nutrition but packed full of flavour.

Of course I’m not suggesting that all kids with peanut allegies should be steralised or should be left to die. (Although back in the 40’s, the Eugenics movment probably would have been on the bandwagon. The movment was quite in vogue in the US with a number of sterilisation campagins actually carried on various ‘undesirables’. That is of course before the Germans decided to join the party. Suddenly, Eugenics wasn’t wasn’t quite as cool anymore…) It’s just intersting to note that our actions in the past are most likely the reason behind the current situation and our actions now will have an impact on future generations.

I mean, what if, in 20 or 30 years time a batch of Mars Bars gets mixed up with a batch of Snickers? We could all be doomed before the rising sea levels even had a chance?

R says:

04:43pm | 09/03/10

Persephone - my brother suffers from an acute peanut allergy. Eg, eating food that has been touched by someone who has had peanuts on their hands will cause a reaction. Even the smell of peanuts will cause his throat to start swelling.

HOWEVER, he made it thru 12yrs of schooling without any ridiculous ban on peanut butter sandwiches.
Why? Because he knew the reaction he had to peanuts and steered clear of them at all costs. He didnt even need to be told because guess what, he wasnt stupid. He knew that peanuts made him feel bad so common sense prevailed and if someone had a peanut butter sandwich at lunch, he didnt go near.

Jesus, give kids some credit and parents some flipping freedom to feed their kids what they want to feed them.

KK says:

05:19pm | 09/03/10

Sorry I disagree…my son went through a stage and the only thing he would eat was peanut butter sandwiches….why should he not be allowed to eat them…no matter what else you put in his lunchbox he didn’t want it and didn’t eat it.  Are you telling me that he should not have been able to eat it if he wanted it.  I am tired of living in a society that tells me what my child can and can’t eat.

Nutjob says:

10:06pm | 09/03/10

And in news just in….a suburban primary school has gone into lock down when a child with an open jar of peanut butter wandered into the grounds. The local police have been notified and they have called in the SAS to assist in this emergency. We now cross live to the Prime Minister’s debreif to allied nations’ defence chiefs…

Becca says:

06:22am | 10/03/10

My child, my choice. My kids love peanut butter, and I will continue to send them to school. My children know who in their class has a food allergy, and that they need to not share food and wash their hands well after eating nut products. If the other child pinches theri lunch and has an allergic reaction-too bad, so sad, thats life.
And when I send birthday cake, I make it allergy-free so everyone can have some. I just want my childs diet to be MY choice, not some random strangers who has their own agenda.

Your name: 2tone says:

07:37am | 10/03/10

Your comment:Max, I was in the same boat as you, never having met anyone who had severe allergies. If I remember correctly and to be honest I thought it was a case of ‘fussy eater’ syndrome but that changed when I found out my youngest suffered anaphylaxis to nut products.
The severity of her condition, is such that touched with a hand that has nut residue on it and she will begin to have a reaction. Should that get anywhere in her mouth that reaction will be life threatening.
Whilst I am conflicted over the rights of parents being able to pack whatever lunch they feel appropriate… I would rather some control be put in to place to mitigate the risks of a child being hospitalised. Does anyone really think a control well within our capabilities to implement is not worth avoiding such potentially dire consequences?
Educating those afected by these allergies from a very early age is a must but that will only get us so far, so other measures need to be considered.
I do find it a little worrying that any parent would adopt a ‘stuff you’ attitude to a real danger to my child and send their child along to school with a product that could do just that. I would like to think that every parent would weigh up those personal freedom issues against a survival one and come out in favour of the latter.
I suppose there will always be those who are not in the firing line and say ‘suck it up’ and to those I say may you never see your child or loved one fighting for their life as a result of something so preventable (with a little sacrifice).

Quentyn says:

07:44am | 10/03/10

My son has a severe nut allergy causing anaphylaxsis.  Basically his body reacts as if he is being poisoned and he can stop breathing or have a heart attack.  We found out when he was 2 and he had to be hospitalised after eating a peanut butter sandwich from another child at care.  He’s been hospitalised again since then and we deal with it as best we can, by not having any contaminated food in our house, constantly checking all food ingredients and being careful with what he eats when we go out.,  He knows he is allergic to nuts.  His classmates know.  His teachers know. The parents o fhis friends know. None of them seem to have a problem with not bringing food contaminated with nuts that will kill my son if he touches it.  My son lives in constant fear that he will get sick and die if this happens, as we do and all those who love him.  We teach him how to deal with it and to live as normal a life as is possible, albeit a nut-free one. My son is responsible enough to know not to eat contaminated food.  The question is are you responsible enough not to send contaminated food to school if your child shares the same space as mine?

Joanna says:

12:42pm | 09/06/10

Well said! My son has a peanut allergies and it is life threating.  He is informed about is condition and even knows how to administer his epipen injection should he come in contact with peanuts (which happens at least once a year and usually at school when someones child has bought a peanut sandwich to school).

DocBud says:

07:46am | 09/03/10

“I’m a long term collapsed Catholic”

Can someone who knows Matt please go around to his place and help him up.

George says:

08:14am | 09/03/10

@Matt the collapsed Catholics (sic) - in medical parlance you just had an anaphylactic shock.  You should stay away from this forum.

TinWhistle says:

08:35am | 09/03/10

Matt I can see you never had a sever reaction to anything. I am allergic to sulpher drugs, I had taken them before and all was well. But my mother had just died and I developed a chest infection and took one tablet and ended up in intensive care wishing I could die, the symptoms were that bad. The Doctor told me an allergy can develop at anytime and why even risk children suffering for something as silly as a peanut.

maybe says:

01:04pm | 09/03/10

TinWhistle, if i was allergic to something I couldn’t spell, I’d be worried too.

persephone says:

08:45am | 09/03/10

A business - which a kindergarten is - can impose any condition it wants to governing entrance to their business premises.

Thus our local cinema searches bags for food before you’re allowed in. If you object, you’re simply not allowed to enter the theatre.

And any supermarket can search your bags without a warrant as well.

In this case, it’s to protect other children’s lives. Not that big an imposition, I would have thought.

Albie says:

09:12am | 09/03/10

persephone - the article was not about kindergarten, it was about schools.

Sherlock says:

09:56am | 09/03/10

persephone says: A business - which a kindergarten is - can impose any condition it wants to governing entrance to their business premises.

One totally false statement.

persephone also says: And any supermarket can search your bags without a warrant as well.

beep wrong again. In fact both statements are so obviously wrong that it’s superfluous to explain why

BTS says:

10:19am | 09/03/10

Exactly Albie,

Public Schools - not private premises.

Supermarkets do not have the right to search your personal belongings, it’s a voluntary exercise.  You don’t have to do it and they have no legal authority to force you to do so.

So one’s presume’s that if the child is so sensitive to peanut butter, your child can’t have peanut butter on toast for breakfast, in case they have traces on their clothes, fingers, breath…simply ridiculous.

Smokers don’t have these impositions, no concern for saving lives there?

Take responsibllity for your actions, your children and stop expecting/demanding everyone else raise your kids for you.

persephone says:

10:38am | 09/03/10

Er…I actually researched this one, when the local cinema confiscated my bag as a condition of entrance.

Any private business can restrict entrance to you unless you abide by certain conditions -which is why politicians have to get permission to enter shopping malls for electioneering purposes.

And as for the supermarket thing - firstly, stores like Kmart will ask to look into your bags before you bring them in. Shops like Coles will ask to look in your bag on the way out. Store security can ask you to leave the building.

As I said, I researched this thing. I suggest you do too, before accusing people of lying.

BTS says:

10:45am | 09/03/10

Er…just because that’s what you are told, doesn’t mean it’s legal.

James1 says:

10:48am | 09/03/10

Sherlock, 
I thought that supermarket signs saying that it is a condition of entry that you may have bags larger than a certain size searched on leaving covered that.  Are you saying that they can not make that a condition of entry?  And that supermarkets in fact have no right to search your bags?

Tim says:

10:53am | 09/03/10

Sorry Persephone,
they can stop you from entering the store but they have no legal right to search your bag.

persephone says:

11:05am | 09/03/10

I’ve consistently said ‘condition of entrance’ not ‘law’.

My source was Consumer Affairs.

Michael D. Robinson says:

11:43am | 09/03/10

The Right?  Who is saying they have the right to search a child’s lunch box.  Frankly I’d be surprised if anyone has the legal right to do so, but a lot of things happen at schools because teachers and staff “say so”.  Sure a business can search your bags and impose conditions of entry, likewise probably daycare or a kindy can under the same laws, but schools are on very difficult ground as they legally have problems traditionally when it comes to searching a bag, person or wallet of a minor such as looking for drugs or weapons.  Generally they are only able to do so by polite request and given permission by the person concerned so I imagine that extended to the search of lunches would apply if a child voluntarily allows them to.

On second read I enjoyed the article, am likewise frustrated with the over zealous food Nazis.  I wouldn’t mind shouting my children some hot chips or a pie on a cold winter’s day, and if they eat a healthy variety of food through the week don’t mind them having chips from time to time so who are “they” to tell me otherwise.

That said we all need to work together for the families of kids with allergies so they can live through school as best as all our children try to survive the experience as I’ve already posted.

We ask complete strangers to slow their cars when our children might be crossing the road, we impose our child’s safety on their freedom to drive their car.  The least we can do is take a bit of care for our children’s school friends and help them to survive the school experience without food related death threats.

For those parents who don’t want to comply consider another parent decided to feed their child garlic and egg and beans the week everyone was locked inside.  Yes, its everyone’s responsibility, step up!

Sherlock says:

12:24pm | 09/03/10

persephone says: I’ve consistently said ‘condition of entrance’ not ‘law’.

Um no you didn’t. Here’s what you did say

“A business - which a kindergarten is - can impose any condition it wants to governing entrance to their business premises”

Really? How far do you think a business might last if it put up a sign saying no gay people allowed? Or disabled? Or Jewish etc etc? How about people wearing brown shoes? Like everybody else there are certain laws and governance that businesses must comply with so they certainly cannot “impose any condition it wants to governing entrance to their business premises”

You also said

“And any supermarket can search your bags without a warrant as well”

Perhaps you may like to share with us when supermarkets received these superpowers not held by mere mortal businesses. They can put up all the signs they like but all they can do if you refuse to let them look into your bag is ask you to leave the premises. They can call their security guards who have no more rights to search and detain people than you and I. If they forcibly retain you it’s a crime and if they forcibly take your bag then it’s assault. In either case you have grounds to sue

persephone says:

12:44pm | 09/03/10

‘Bag checking and searching
There is currently no specific legislation dealing with business owners rights to check customer’s bags or search a person. However, you can set conditions of entry. These conditions can include presenting bags, parcels, cartons, or containers for checking by staff.

One method of displaying conditions of entry is using prominently displayed notices that clearly set out conditions of entry. The notices must be as large as practicable and displayed at a point where they can be seen clearly prior to entry to the business.

Customers entering a business that has prominently displayed the conditions of entry imply they have accepted or consented to the conditions of entry.’

source: Australian Federal Police

Sherlock, I’m not sure what you’re after here.

I haven’t lied. I have stated that businesses can impose conditions of entry upon their customers. If the potential customer doesn’t agree to it, then they don’t enter.

Exactly the choice I had at the cinema. I didn’t have to give my bag to the theatre to keep, but they wouldn’t have let me in to watch the film if I hadn’t.

The point, which you seem to be missing in trying to score some kind of pedantic victory, is that schools and other places do have the right to ask to search your possessions.

You have the right to refuse, but then they have the right to have you removed from the premises.

If you want me to conceed that I over generalised, I’m willing to do that. I was going on memory; very few of us check that every single nuance of what we’re saying is correct before we post.

You seem to be demanding that every post contain multiple references, preferably citing the relevant law and case studies.

Sherlock says:

02:04pm | 09/03/10

persephone says: You seem to be demanding that every post contain multiple references, preferably citing the relevant law and case studies.

No I’m not. I pointed out what you posted was obviously wrong. So obvious that I actually pointed out that it didn’t need a long and boring explanation why and accordingly I was more than prepared to simply leave it at that.

You decided to dispute my assertion to which I replied where I quoted exactly what you wrote with a brief explanation what was wrong with it.

Yet here you are once again still arguing the point. Your original comment was wrong. To say it was over-generalised is the understatement of the day. I simply pointed out just hope wrong it was and you didn’t like me doing that. However it obvious to all that

a)  A business can’t impose any condition it wants to governing entrance to their business premises.

and

b) supermarkets can’t search your bags without a warrant .(whether a supermarket could actually get a warrant to search a bag is yet another argument)

You made these bold and reckless statements it’s now too late to come back and say I meant this and that. Just own up to your insignificant and trivial mistake and let’s all move on.

iansand says:

02:30pm | 09/03/10

ETS - I are a lawyer.  I can even spel it.

In relation to bag searches Persephone is 100% correct.

BTS says:

03:07pm | 09/03/10

Persephone neglected to provide the entirety of the AFP advice (who incidentally have no authority over bag inspection/theft at a State level).  The reference also provides:

‘What to do if a customer refuses to have their bag checked?
In a situation where a customer refuses to have their bag checked as specified in the conditions of entry:

(1) request that the customer speak to the manager about the conditions of entry.
(2) explain the conditions and point out the signs outlining the condition of entry.
(3) once you have explained the conditions, ask again to check the bag.
do not enter into arguments over checking any bags or suspected theft.

You cannot detain someone just because they have refused to let you check their bags. You must have reasonable grounds for detaining them.’

This would be an acknowledgement that shops don’t have the right to search someone’s bag. 

Further as provided by the Australian Retailers Association, which in part says:

‘OBLIGATIONS
(1) Having entered a store knowing that bag checks are conducted, you have accepted the store’s right to ask you to open your bags for checking.

Important Notes:
(1) If you refuse a check of your bags you can be asked to leave the store and not return…

(2) If a shopkeeper or employee forcibly detains you or forcibly searches your goods, and you have not committed an offence, you are entitled to make a complaint to the police, the store management or Privacy NSW.’

It too acknowledges that shops don’t have the right to search your property.

It is a voluntary exercise from the customer.

Getting back to this issue, neither do schools or kindergartens have the right to search personal property.

Kat says:

05:28pm | 09/03/10

For persephone….a shop has the right to ask you if they can search your bag, but you have the right to say no, they may then ask you to wait while they call the police to do the search, or let you go and ban you from their shop, but you do have the right to say no.  I do not believe that schools has the right to determine what a child can eat if the parents are happy with it, nor do I think that a child without an allergy should be singled out and made to sit in a special chair to eat certain types of food (yes, my child’s school has this).

Athena says:

10:21pm | 09/03/10

Persephone got owned!

Tim says:

08:50am | 09/03/10

How about you take responsibility for your own child then?
If you think the risk of your child suffering an allergic reaction at school is too great, then remove the child from school.
Why should the vast majority be forced to curtail their own freedoms for an extreme minority?

persephone says:

09:10am | 09/03/10

Why should children be discriminated against and deprived of an education because of a medical condition that they can’t help?

And - as I’ve said before - the vast majority of students are quite happy to sacrifice peanuts for their classmate.

My son’s class has an autistic student in it. Yes, he can cause problems to other children in the class. But ask them if they would prefer he wasn’t there, and they make it very clear that they understand he has problems and are happy to adapt to these.

They also recognise, even with kids they don’t like, that it’s better for these kids to be a school than not.

Disgusted says:

09:54am | 09/03/10

Tim, I have a food allergy and find it highly offensive that you would suggest that I (or any child) should simply remove themselves from society like some leper. It’s not a contgious disease. No one chooses to have an allergy. Boo hoo for you if you can’t eat peanut butter sandwhich’s *sometimes*, imagine what life is like for the person who has to monitor everything they eat, every day. It’s not fun and especially made worse when you get ignorant comments like yours.  Have some tolerance and respect for people.

BTS says:

10:24am | 09/03/10

Disgusted,

Tim doesn’t have the food allergy, you do.  If I am allergic to dust, will you clean my world ahead of me as I go along?  I am outraged.  Come and clean my house, my car, my street any premises I enter for me.  No?  So I must take care of my allergies myself without imposing myself on others?

Julia says:

10:30am | 09/03/10

Mick: don’t get us wrong here. If you’ve said to your child ‘don’t swap food, don’t eat anything we haven’t given to you’ then we are not against you.

It’s parents who don’t help their child manage this allergy from dot who are causing problems. I have never seen an analphalactic (however you spell it) reaction, but I do know they’re frightening, Max!

But it is up to you and your family to educate your child about the dangers he/she faces.

Nidz says:

10:36am | 09/03/10

Tim, people don’t choose to be alergic to foods. Just because you don’t have it then you should respect others who share the same space. If a child ingests peanuts that maybe your child would have and die, would that mean the blood is on your hands or the teacher for allowing this to enter the premesis? Maybe you should re-consider your harsh comments?

Tim says:

10:46am | 09/03/10

Disgusted,
i didn’t say you had to remove yourself from society.
What I said was that if you have a child with an allergy it is your own personal responsibility to deal with it.
Its all about the risk.
If you think that the risk of your child having an allergic reaction to something is too great, then it is your responsibility to look after your child, not everyone else’s.

HS says:

08:19am | 09/03/10

100% agree with you. If parents can’t instill some sense of personal responsibility into their own offspring, that is THEIR problem, and NOT MINE. Ridiculous litigous nanny state.

persephone says:

08:49am | 09/03/10

Er…we’re talking 3 and 4 year olds here.

And, as I said before, some children are so allergic that they don’t have to actually eat a peanut to have a seizure.

Glad to know you guys are so careless about the lives of other people’s children.

Interesting to know if posters such as yourselves are comfortable with the idea of kids bringing knives and alcohol to school. After all, it’s their own business if they do.

And, of course, in the name of consistency, you’d be shocked and horrified if schools went to the unthinkable lengths of telling children what they should wear every day!

PaulW says:

09:34am | 09/03/10

persephone says:

09:49am | 09/03/10

Er…we’re talking 3 and 4 year olds here.

Er..  no we not.  The only age mentioned in the article is 10 year olds.  If they are not smart enough to stay away from food they are allergic to then it is THEIR parents problem not ours

persephone says:

09:46am | 09/03/10

Sorry, my bad.

If you’re reading my articles with such close attention, you will note I’ve referred to the severity of some of these allergies and that a reaction can happen without actually eating the food involved.

It can also be very difficult to work out what foods do have peanuts in them, even for adults.

If you look at food labels in supermarkets, it can be surprising which foods - meat products, for example - will bear the label ‘may have traces of peanut’.

(and why do they have these labels? Because the problem is severe enough for this to be required to protect them from being sued if someone who is allergic to peanuts ingests it).

A school tuckshop can be even more challenging, as few of the foods are labelled.

Zeta says:

08:51am | 09/03/10

Well they should have explained to kids what happens to Halal meat slaughtered under the Dhabihah. Normally, the happy cows are lead to the slaughterhouse, stunned, and have a bolt slammed into their brain.

The Dhabihah requires that an adult muslim, of sound mind and body, face the animal to the Qibah, and in one swift motion cut the cartoid and jugular arteries while saying ‘basmallah’ and acknowledinging that God technically owns the animal, so you’re kind of borrowing it by killing it.

While from memory, I think the Koran requires the killing be done in one cut, those must have been some serious Islamic supermen because contemporary Muslims agree you really need three blows to do it right, drain the blood effectively (blood touching your halal meat is a no no) and also not damage the nervous system, because if the animal thrashes around then the meat is inedible.

I think if you’re going to teach kids about the ethics of eating meat, maybe exposing them to the Dhabihah is a good idea. I personally eat a lot more Halal meat than Haraam meat, because although I accept it might be a little more painful for the animal, I feel it’s more respectful and maybe that’s a discussion we should be having with our kids.

I_Exist says:

10:15am | 09/03/10

@ Zeta I agree that people should know where their food comes from.

“I accept it might be a little more painful for the animal, I feel it’s more respectful and maybe that’s a discussion we should be having with our kids.”

Who is it more respectful towards? Muslims? Skygod?  You can not be referring to the animal because you have already said it might be more painful.  I think a quicker slaughter is more respectful towards the animal.

acker says:

10:15am | 09/03/10

@Zeta…...plenty of truama being shocked by a prod on a road train, processed at a feedlot, castrated, branded, tagged, drenched, etc before it gets to that stage.

Zeta says:

10:39am | 09/03/10

@ I_Exist - It’s more respectful to the animal, and ancient ritual slaughtering traditions all emphasis respect of the animal, wether it’s the Muslim Dhabihah, the Jewish Shehita, or the Sikh’s Jahtka - they’re acknowledging that the animal is one of God’s creatures, and that killing, even killing an animal for food is upsetting the careful balance of nature. So they respect the animal by killing it personally, not farming out responsibility for the animal’s death to a machine.

Contrast the two methods: In the West, we farm animals in cramped, hideous conditions, shuffle them into an abatoir on a conveyor belt and ‘humanely’ execute them as though they were, little more than meat.

In the East, a ritual is performed that acknowledges the animal does not belong to you, it belongs to God, you thank God for letting you eat the animal, you pray for the animal, you give it a final drink of water, and personally kill it by cutting its throat. In the Dhabihah, you’re not even allowed to let the animal see you sharpening the knife.

persephone says:

10:52am | 09/03/10

Yep, Zeta: because when someone comes to kill me, I’d rather them do it respectfully than make it quick and spare me pain.

Actually, if someone decides to kill me (and don’t shove, please, just form an orderly line….) I’d rather it came out of the blue rather than have the killer go through an elaborate ritual in front of me first.

Zeta says:

11:05am | 09/03/10

@ Persephone - That’s pretty much the attitude that’s slowly killing the primal soul of humanity and reducing us to pathetic drones who ponder the political ramifications of letting their children eat peanut butter.

So when you’re being ushered to your death, you’d rather hear ‘don’t worry it’s only a shower’ instead of ‘We Who Are About To Die Salute You?’

persephone says:

11:09am | 09/03/10

Absolutely.

Happily wandering in a field of daisies one second, dead the next.

(And, unfortunately, the shower option was not quick and painless and q & p is what I’m after).

I_Exist says:

11:26am | 09/03/10

@ Zeta.  I don’t believe in gods- so irrespective of what tradition it is,  having some one rant in front of an animal and then kill it in a method that is not as quick as possible does not come across as respectful.

Come to think of it isn’t it a bit hard to find “adult muslim, of sound mind and body” that still talks to gods/believes they are being watched by them?

Reality: I eat meat and I know the animal has not had a pleasant existence.

Zeta says:

12:26pm | 09/03/10

@ I_Exist It doesn’t matter which God you acknowledge when you kill animals, so long as you’re acknowledging that you’re taking something that isn’t yours.

I know the animals I eat have had a better than average existance because I don’t eat processed meat, chicken, lamb, veal or suckling pig. And I don’t eat animals that I personally haven’t killed before, which is why no matter how many gastropubs I go to I won’t eat Crocodile… I just haven’t had the opportunity to kill one yet.

I_Exist says:

01:50pm | 09/03/10

@ Zeta- I think it is great you have taken the “know where your food comes from ” that one bit further.  Hmm maybe you could let your self off one animal and have some croc next time (you have already done more to know your food then most people.

Unfortunately if I could only eat what I have killed I would be limited to fish, mosquitoes and flies.

Brando says:

08:37am | 09/03/10

Ah yes, food allergies. The 21st century way of saying “look at me”. However in reality nine in ten people who believe they have a food allergy or intolerance are actually perfectly healthy, researchers say. Remember that when the next patho craps on about their lactose intolerance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244987/Millions-putting-health-risk-wrongly-diagnosing-food-allergies.html#

Here’s a few quotes that may confirm the current fad of declaring you, or your children, suffer food allergies.

A study of almost 1,000 babies born on the Isle of Wight revealed that more than half had at least one food cut out of their diet by the age of one.Yet, tests showed that the true rate of problems was barely one in 25.

Studies show that 20 per cent of men and women -  some 10 million British adults - claim to be unable to eat foods from milk to mustard - but fewer than two per cent actually have a problem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1249475/The-great-food-allergy-myth-Many-just-fantasies-wreck-way-eat-end-giving-REAL-illness.html#

She highlights the example of one woman who, 25 years ago, suffered a severe tightening of her throat after eating a lemon, orange, melon and lettuce salad. ‘She cut them all out of her diet without seeking proper medical advice. ‘Yet when we tested her, we found she had no adverse reaction to any of those foods. We gave her a glass of orange juice, the first she’d had in more than a quarter of a century, and she was absolutely delighted she could safely have oranges. ‘But as a result of her self-diagnosis she’d spent years avoiding certain meals and even going hungry to make sure she didn’t encounter that same reaction again, which is at best a waste and at worst a health issue from missing out on all the fantastic nutrients in those foods.’ It is likely that this patient had actually suffered an ‘idiopathic anaphylaxis’, a random reaction to an allergen or stimulus that causes blood pressure to drop and the airways to close suddenly. These one-off reactions are far from rare.

One recent U.S. study of girls aged between ten and 13 found more than half who claimed to have milk intolerance had no problem whatsoever digesting it - yet those who cut it from their diet were then getting a quarter less of For their recommended daily calcium intake. Worryingly, the girls who thought they had a milk intolerance had significantly lower spinal bone mineral content, a measure of bone strength

Do food allergies exist? Of course they do and they can result in extreme and dangerous reactions but is now seems that everybody’s kid is special because he’s allergic to something.

When somebody tells me that their little Johnny is allergic to something I ask them to show me their EpiPen. If they don’t have one then it can’t be that serious. I have yet to meet anybody that has one.

Max says:

09:23am | 09/03/10

@Brando:  Thankyou.

It’s nice (and relatively rare) to see someone actually take the time to research a post and provide supporting studies.

Rover says:

01:11pm | 09/03/10

Ah the Daily Mail.
A newspaper famous for running stories under the banner “Has the world gone mad?” whenever something offends its middle-class white Tory sensibilities.

maybe says:

01:33pm | 09/03/10

Even them having an epipen isn’t a good indicator.  The combination of an increase in food allergies (recent article in Nature) and the general tendancy for parents wanting to do everything they can to protect their shildren has led epipens to be handed with a more ‘better safe than sorry’ sort of attitude.  Which I don’t really have a problem with, but does this lull parents and allergy affected children themsleves into a false sense of protection?  If you outright ban nuts or whatever from a school, it doesn’t stop a child having peanut butter on toast for breakfast then going to school all covered in deadly peanut residue.  Adults and children alike affected with lethal allergies *should* have to check what they eat/interact with all the time, be they at school or at uni or at work or at a firends house for their own good.  It might not be fun or easy, but that’s just how it is.

Sure most reasonable people are happy to forego the occasional Snickers bar for the greater good, after all it’s a small measure to mitigate a risk.  But if a person (and I consider a child of school age capable enough) takes their own measures to keep themselves safe, banning peanut butter shouldn’t really affect their saftey one way or another.

Jacqueline Pascarl says:

03:47pm | 09/03/10

Dear Angela,
Nasty, nasty, perhaps you should read my article again.  i did not complain about peanut butter sandwiches - I don’t ever send them in the lunchboxes. I was talking about almonds which when last I checked, were not peanuts and are not a threat - but schools often decided to blanket ban any form or nut.  My column never once mentions kindergartens as I don’t believe that little children of that age (3 & 4 in Victoria where kindergarten ‘pre-school’ not the first year of primary school as in NSW) have enough self-control or nous to police their own dietary requirements, I am discussing much older children at school.  I have several friends and relatives with children who have severe allergies, not just of the rash variety, but epipens and the lot, with whom I have discussed this very issue and they believe that schools do go over the top on these issues from a fear of litigation, not the allergic reaction of an individual child. So next time you wish to go all nasty and cite my motherhood and my career experience, I suggest you read an article properly first and then count to ten.  I have empathy for the kids in my circle who have food allergies, I bake special cakes without eggs for those egg intolerant, I keep special party food for kids who visit my home and have allergies. I object to children being, in a way, bullied, and made to feel guilty for a peanut free museli bar or, as was the main focus of my article, food that is not judged as super wholesome by education employees worried about being sued. But all that said, I guess I just have an allergy myself to women who attack other females on grounds of their supposed feminity or lack thereof.

Angela says:

10:13am | 11/03/10

Dear Jacqueline,
Just re-read your article and confirmed that it promotes a flippant attitude to the issues surrounding nut allergies in children. My children don’t have allergies but I feel great sympathy for parents who have to send their children to school knowing that they could be exposed to nuts. My point is that I think all parents should have the decency to take the issue seriously.

amanda says:

01:03pm | 09/03/10

I find it strange that nuts are banned from all schools now. What is going to happen to the kids with nut allergies as they enter the work force? Are we all going to have to give up the consumption of nuts because of the allergies of a few. The kids with serious allergies have to take responsibility because they won’t always be in the cloistered environment of school.

I am very glad indeed that my children are now at the end of the school years. They haven’t had lunches since grade 5/6 because of the ban on peanut butter which is our staple. I refused to send them with meat or cheese as a protein substitute as they can go off so quickly.

remo says:

01:37pm | 09/03/10

exactly.  If someone begged me not to eat a peanut because it will kill them, I would oblige.  If someone asked me not to eat a peanut ever again because it had a remote chance of killing them if I ate it then touched them, I’d say fine, I’ll eat my peanut over here and not touch you. Or If i wanted to touch them without killing them I guess I wouldn’t eat the peanut.

A round about sort of way of saying if people aren’t going out of their way to hurt you using your allergy, it’s not that hard to manage what you come into contact with yourself.

2tone says:

05:14pm | 10/03/10

Mate,  I agree with you re: not checking childrens lunch boxes. That raises a whole other issue of privacy.
Having said that I still believe in a school (primary or secondary) implementing ‘a policy’ after beiing made aware of a students (or a number thereof) severe allergy (to nuts for example).
Ultimate control of this should be up to each parent. If a child (but since they most often don’t pack their own lunch - THE PARENTS) are found to have breached an existing policy (especially if it has lead to another child being harmed) this should become a serious matter with the most serious consequences attached.
We are after all not talking about just a simple inconvenience but a callous disregard for the health safety and welfare of others. That is against the law and more simply against the best interests of society.

Markus says:

09:18am | 09/03/10

Rich people diseases. I doubt you’d find many of those below the poverty line that are lactose/gluten intolerant.
Just like you would struggle to find anyone in a 3rd world country suffering from ‘mental disorders’ like anorexia nervosa.

omegaman says:

09:28am | 09/03/10

In the early 90s I worked in a restaurant, we served a meal with nuts in the sauce.
A customer asked the waiter if there was any peanuts in the meal and the waiter said no. The person ate the sauce, went home and died from the nuts. It was prettty bad.
If someone doesn’t eat peanuts, they aren’t mucking around. Leeton is probably statistically insignificant, or if there were any deaths from nuts it probably happened to a young person and the cause of death was attributed to something else.
Just because you never heard of it growing up doesn’t mean it is a new invention of modern living.

HS says:

09:34am | 09/03/10

Yes Markus, good point. A prominent medical specialist in South Africa once got into huge trouble because he said that Black women didn’t get so-called syndromes such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome because they were too busy surviving to have time for such nonsense.

Zeta says:

09:38am | 09/03/10

@ Markus - Actually, Indigenous Australians have an 85 per cent rate of lactose intolerance. It’s even higher for Africans and Chinese.

It’s not a rich people disease.

Sick of ignorance says:

10:04am | 09/03/10

Just so you know, I am gluten intolerant, it is called Celiac Disease. It is genetic condition. 30% of the population carry the gene, but only 1/10 will develop the condition. I developed mine due to my immune system being shot after a particulary bad virus. I can assure you it is a real condition, but I know you probably won’t believe it unless it happened to you. Then you will have to deal with all the ignorant people saying that its all in your head, that “a little bit won’t hurt”. Without a gluten-free diet I have 100X the risk of colon cancer over non-celiacs, in addition to other auto-immune conditions. To Markus, the genes for celiac disease is carried through European ancestry, so I guess by socio-economic coicidence, it correlates with higher income than other countries.

AFR says:

10:17am | 09/03/10

By the way, I should note that, I’m not suggesting people are making up allergies/intollerences, just that more and more people seem to be suffering these days, and i’m curious as to why.

James1 says:

11:01am | 09/03/10

http://thingsboganslike.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/93-spurious-allergies/

auserix says:

02:46pm | 09/03/10

By ripping out the wall to wall carpets, I’m sure the incidents of asthma would be halved at least.

Bunny says:

10:31am | 09/03/10

peresphone, you o seem rto be more than a little fanatical on this subject following all your ill informed comments in this discussion.

Lews talk about recent studies shal we? Instead of you claiming that you are backed up by studies, let us know where to find them. I have many links proving the exact opposite. You see, the most recent studies all show that there has been a hysteria among researchers looking for a problem with allergies. Just recently (March 1st 2010) TIME has published a story called “Can Peanut Allergies Be Cured by ... Eating Peanuts?” where a study of 10000 children showed that early exposure to peanuts reduced the allergy rate. Britain’s national Health Service is conducting their own seven year study to confirm the findings. The Wall Street Journal reported on January 26 2010 “Is Your Kid Truly Allergic? Tests Add To Food Confusion”. That report discusses how helicopter parents over react when told that there may be a slight reaction to some foods. The allergy tests are not accurate at all, and often show up very slight reactions to foods. Doctors do not have th time to educate semi literate parents about what the test results truly mean, so they let these parents go off on their own to come to their own conclusions. For your information, blood tests are not accurate, skin tests are only slightly more accurate. The only accurate allergy test is a “Food Challenge Test”. Unless your child has been admitted into hospital and given foods to eat until he/she goes into anaphylactic shock, your child has not been tested with any accurate medical test.

Finally, I suspect that the only way you would have an epi pen is if you harassed your GP until he gave in and prescribed your child one.

persephone says:

10:47am | 09/03/10

Bunny

???

The article you refer to demonstrates what I’m saying - there’s a lot of research into this. The article, btw, is looking at effect, not cause.

And I’m talking about children who have gone through exactly the tests you describe.

None of the articles you are referring to seem to support your contention that researchers are looking for something that isn’t there, or indeed to contradict anything I said.

A bit of a slur on doctors, there; they don’t give out EpiPens lightly.

rose says:

10:57am | 09/03/10

“Both of these have an evolutionary base. Hunters and gatherers don’t drink milk or eat much wheat. In fact, most adult animals across all species are lactose intolerant.

Europeans had to drink milk, eat cheese and yoghurt to get through long cold seasons. Thus they adapted to a lactose diet, but obviously the adaption was incomplete, so there are still lactose intolerant people of European descent.

The vast majority of Asians are lactose intolerant because they never had to adapt to drinking milk.”

Please explain how this can occur when babies are fed milk from birth world wide. More so in developing countries as replacements for breast milk are hard to come by.

persephone says:

11:09am | 09/03/10

As I said, most adult animals are lactose intolerant - it’s something which develops after they’re weaned.

So your vet will recommend you not giving your dog or cat milk because it will cause digestive problems (and if you look at the special ‘cat milks’ in the supermarket, you will see that the labels state they have been lactose modified).

So babies are fine with milk products, and so are more adults of European descent.

BTS says:

11:13am | 09/03/10

‘A bit of a slur on doctors, there; they don’t give out EpiPens lightly.’

Would that be because they aren’t necessary because the ‘nut allergy’ isn’t as common as one has been led to believe or that parents imagine/diagnose their child as suffering from?

Seriously, if it was such a threat to so many children why wouldn’t Doctors be handing them out hand over fist?

VS says:

11:41am | 09/03/10

tentative results?  sounds a bit like ‘my best guess’.
a far more likely culprit for the rise in allergies is the unquestioned practice of injecting very small babies with ever increasing numbers of vaccines.  does anyone wonder what’s in the concoction getting injected directly into baby’s bloodstream?
the immunization schedule for kids under 4 has never been busier than it is now - and anyone who thinks there isn’t a pharmaceuticals company out there pushing for blanket adoption of their vaccines ‘for the greater good’ isn’t motivated by profits is kidding themselves. 
in the 80s you’d find the odd kid or two with allergies.  now it’s big business.  brush it off as ‘we’re better at diagnosis of allergies now’ if you want.  but the fact is we’re introducing far more foreign matter into baby’s system when it’s still developing.  THAT is what has changed over the years.  and more recently than this ‘hunter gatherers blahdy blah’.  so as far as i’m concerned the rise in allergies can be blamed directly on the rise of immunization-for-convenience (that’s the only thing i can call giving babies - who are unable to decline - shots against STDs!).

Zeta says:

12:12pm | 09/03/10

Persephone is only half right on the latest research front, which suggests that it’s not an overdose of inuterine peanuts that causes the allergy, but the transferrence of chemicals used in the peanut processing industry.

If you’re going to talk about hunting and gathering in European cultures, the legume as we know it today was all but non existant in their diets. The average Anglo-Saxon’s genetic heritage would have had little contact with nuts until they were traded following contact with Southern European cultures in… I know this because I was talking about Roman history with another Puncher yesterday… 280 BC? Something like that.

So nut eating is a new thing for our bodies. You’re probably going to find much lower instances of nut allergies amongst Southern American peoples, who have cultivated nuts since pre history.

Now you’re wrong on Europeans and milk. The first people to drink milk were Africans. Yet African exhibit the highest rates of lactose intolerance. This is because Africans let their milk curdle before drinking it, thus burning off most of the lactose. You’re right in that milk is not associated with Hunter / Gatherer behaviour, it’s the opposite. You drink milk when you domesticate animals. You’re not just going to march up to prehistoric bison and start grabbing at it’s teets. You’re going to spear it and take it home to your tribe for lunch.

But Anglo Saxon phenotypes, (white people), or more specifically, ancient Angles and Saxons, Iberians, Gauls, Chirungi, Thirungi, later Alemanni etc from Northern Europe didn’t just drink milk the way we do. They ate cheese, and cheese has a much lower lactose content. Cheese eating peoples are in the median range of lactose intolerance. Actual milk drinking wasn’t that popular until wide scale animal domestication which only came about in the last 1000 years or so. And again, those methods of making cheese and ancient milk products lose a lot of lactose in the manufacture.

The only exception to this rule of low lactose milk based diets is very, very recent: Mongolians during the migration period drank copious amounts of horse milk. Now remember this is only 2000 - 1500 years ago, but there were millions of them, sweeping into the Baltic on horseback. They didn’t have time to stop and gather a lot of food, so their diets revolved around their horses. Sick horses were killed and eaten, and girl horsies were used for milk. You know the Vandals and Goths, who also mounted up in vast numbers after being invaded by the Mongols and later Huns actual drank male horse milk as well in honour of the war god Tyr. Nutrient rich apparently, but I for one don’t regret that trend passing, even though I’m a pretty big fan of Tyr and lament the Goth’s conversion to Arian Christianity which put a stop to it.

The Mongol horse milk drinking resulted in a permanent change to their diets and the way their children and children’s children processed lactose. Which is why Han Chinese are almost universally lactose intolerant, but Mongolians are not.

So really, these allergies haven’t been around forever. They’re a product of our processed food lifestyles. If, like a lot of us, you’re from Anglo-Saxon stock you’re healthiest resorting to their diet, which emphasised grains, cheese, fruit, tuber vegetables fish and small ammounts of red meat. No milk or nuts, and it helps if you run to and fro with a heavy axe to keep fit.

persephone says:

12:22pm | 09/03/10

VS

noone gives babies vaccinations against STDs.

Vaccination programs are worked out on an age appropriate basis - if there is little or no risk of the condition being vaccinated against being encountered at that age, then the vaccination isn’t given.

Childhood survival rates rise dramatically with the introduction of vaccination regimes. Certainly, some vaccines have side effects, but most people would prefer to be alive with a side effect than dead without one.

Jenny says:

02:20pm | 09/03/10

Bunny..
TIME and the Wall Street Journal while quality papers, are hardly reputable sources for Dietary advice and trials..
You might want to check out sites that actually cover the topic like:
http://www.ajnd.org.au/ (Aust Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics) or the
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

martinX says:

03:11pm | 09/03/10

Zeta, I have it on good authority that actual milk drinking wasn’t that popular until Milo was invented.

Bunny says:

03:20pm | 09/03/10

Jenny

I would not trust those “organizations” as far as I could throw them. One of them actually sounds like it is a group of scared mothers trying to use big words to look like a real medical organization.

When you compare your sources with the sources in those articles, like the English National Health System, they look like rank amateurs.

Let me guess. you are also against immunization? You know there are plenty of non medical groups also claiming that immunizations cause epilepsy. Pity that real medical researchers have proven otherwise, and have discredited completely the one doctor who claimed there was a link to the MMR injection and epilepsy,,, his accreditation as a doctor is now under review in England, and it has been uncovered that all of his funding research money came from parents who wanted to find a link between MMR and epilepsy.

There is medical science, and then there is uneducated opinion. Guess which side of tghe argument you are on Jenny?

Bunny says:

03:28pm | 09/03/10

persephone

You and your followers continue to argue opinion without actually giving any sources.

If you wish, I can fill three pages of sources proving that if anything, you are a helecopter parent who most probably caused your own childs allergy by over cleaning and restricting foods… IF your child has any reaction at all.

And before you keep carrying on as if you are some form of expert, I myself have allergies… and yes, I get an epipen, but I let my children play in dirt, get filthy with the family dog, consume milk, eggs, peanuts, cheese, and everything else before 12 months old… and not one of them developed allergies. I did this deliberately because the research has been around for more than a decade that proves that childrens immune systems attack ANY perceived threat if their immune systems are not given anything real to fight.

Yes, I do look down on parents like yourself that have abused their children by trying to make them clean little dolls to show off in public for your own social status.

Jacqueline Pascarl says:

04:04pm | 09/03/10

Dear ‘Julain’ or is it Julian, my name is Jacqueline, not Jackie first off, and my main thrust in the article is about the intrusion into lunchboxes in the older primary school age child.  Smarter? I keep a specific shelf in my pantry for allergy stricken kids, I have developed a special birthday cake recipe using apple sauce instead of eggs to bind the mix together, my children do understand about severe allergies in others and in me - my 8 y.o. daughter recently confiscated a yoghurt from my tray in hospital as is contained mango and marched herself up to the nurses station to complain. But, we shold be responsible for ourselves and kids should not be made to feel like criminals because they simply have no salad in their boxes!

DG says:

10:30am | 09/03/10

Great call.

I was listening to a discussion on this topic on ABC Radio just the other day. The speaker was adamant that “blanket bans” were not the solution, they were just a lazy way of passing on responsibility (OK, the speaker didn’t go quite that far, but I imagine that’s the reason for such a policy. Avoiding legal responsibility).

The speaker suggested that a “Hand washing” policy that was monitored would be a much better idea and infinitely more manageable. i.e if every one washes their hands after eating, the problem is solved. That way everyone can eat whatever they want and everyone is safe.

Hev says:

03:22pm | 09/03/10

That’s not actually true. You’d have to institute a policy of hand, face, hair and clothes washing to make sure that there were no traces of food allergen left. Kids are messy eaters.

DG says:

04:36pm | 09/03/10

Hev, we are talking about 10 year olds. I agree for the under 5’s you may have a point, but after that kids have “in the mouth” pretty much under control.

reply says:

10:48am | 09/03/10

That’s a pretty narrow minded comment there. It’s got nothing to do with allergies and pretty un-funny..

Jenny says:

11:38am | 09/03/10

I am a photosensitive epileptic.
I often had to get the maintanence dept to change fluros just like I do at work.

Go back under your rock. You clearly have nothing of any merit to add.

persephone says:

10:06am | 09/03/10

Renee—so you would agree with this, too?

“What I put in my veins has nothing to do with anyone else - the police included. Other people’s hangups are not my problem. All addicts should be taught not to share needles with others….Otherwise, if I cut out every behaviour that another person might object to, I will end up being able to do nothing at all.’

We have multiple laws which are designed to stop us doing things we might like to do, which might not hurt ourselves but may be detrimental to others.

Of course, Renee, if you don’t want to abide by them because you don’t think they apply to you, feel free not to be a part of society.

Sick of ignorance says:

10:07am | 09/03/10

I think its really just peanuts that can cause a life threatening problem. As previously mentioned many times, its not just what the child eats, but a child can touch/play with another child who just ate peanuts and get a reaction. E.g. if your child ate peanuts then kissed an allergic child on the cheek (this happens), that would be enough to send them into anaphylactic shock, which is life-threatening. It’s not lunacy - it’s biology (and a little bit of tolerance, respect and understanding - its not hard).

AFR says:

10:09am | 09/03/10

Actually persephone, I support legalisation of drugs, so I personally would agree with your comment. As long as the addict of course doesn’t steal my TV.

BTS says:

10:33am | 09/03/10

At this stage, eating peanuts is not illegal (though I won’t be surprised in the whackjobs in society successfully campaign for it), so it’s hardly a valid argument to compare it to what is illegal behaviour.

‘Of course, Renee, if you don’t want to abide by them because you don’t think they apply to you, feel free not to be a part of society.’

Similarly then, if you have a peanut allergy, feel free not to be part of a society that does not.  Why is it all about you?

Nidz says:

10:33am | 09/03/10

you obviously forget about when you were at school.. kids back in the day would share food around. I teach my kid who has an allergy tro peanuts not to go near it but how do you know that kids don’t touch things with there peanut nutter hands.. how do you know that my kid won’t also touch the samd door handles for instance and then put her fingers in her mouth.. You guys got no idea..

Ignorance is bliss says:

10:55am | 09/03/10

Renee, Typical attitude of a selfish, ignorant and uneducated. I bet you would not be making that comment if you or your child suffered from a life threatening alergy.

persephone says:

10:56am | 09/03/10

AFR, I do too - but I bet Renee doesn’t!!

And, of course, legalisation of drugs would have to make them by prescription, which would hopefully mean that the user doesn’t have to steal your TV for a fix.

But that’s another (very very interesting) discussion.

(and btw, just for the record, I’ve never inhaled or injected or whatever anything stronger than panadol forte…ahhh codeine…..)

reply to thread says:

10:43am | 09/03/10

I agree.. It’s easy to sit high and mighty and say yeah it’s not our fault but when your talking about kids when you yourself can’t be in that environment to monitor your childs activities, you would hope that those in charge would take the high ground and play it save.

Kim says:

11:57am | 09/03/10

I agree NiceGuy,  How hard is it really to pack a lunch without nut products or products that may have traces of nuts?  Half a cut apple, half a cut orange, ham and tomatoe sandwhich? bottle of water.  Takes about 8 minues max to do 3 lunches.  What the big deal?

Rover says:

12:35pm | 09/03/10

Completely agree, NiceGuy. At a family party many years ago, I unthinkingly gave two squares of chocolate to a boy with a severe egg allergy. (He was the nephew of my brother’s new girlfriend, in case you’re wondering how come I didn’t know about his allergy if it was a family party.)

The poor little thing broke out in hives, swelled up, began gasping for breath and ended up in hospital for two days. He could have died.

His parents were great about it, very understanding, and blamed themselves for not telling every single person at the party about his allergies. They had explained to all the children there and asked them not to share food with him, but not all the adults.

What were they meant to do? Gather everyone at the party in a room on arrival and make an announcement?

To all the people on this blog who are so affronted at the thought of not being able to send their kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches, imagine being a parent who has to go through their child’s medical history every day with complete strangers, just to keep them alive.

Jacqueline Pascarl says:

04:09pm | 09/03/10

Thank you I_Exist, I am thinking of begining a home delivery service due to influx of interest in my cooking habits!

Thank goodness you noted my usually nut free menus!

reply to thread says:

10:46am | 09/03/10

I agree with you there. Even if I didn’t hqve a kid with an allergy I would respect the request of other parents. You don’t have to go to all out extremes but at least if there is a known kid with a known allergy in the same class, People will be notified and they will be aware of it and hopefully respect that.

Jacqueline Pascarl says:

04:23pm | 09/03/10

Dear Jenni,

I am not unsympathetic to parents or children with allergies.  I was focussing on intrusion into lunchboxes and what are our rights as parents. I don’t send peanut butter sandwiches to school ever, and the only nuts I send are almonds. If you read some of my other replies to comments above, I would point out again that I deal with allergies, my own and my very close circle of friends’ on a daily basis and I didn’t advocate sending peanut butter sandwiches to schools - rather, I objected the hierachialistion of lunchboxes and the noseyness of other parents in terms of making blanket judgements on others - not unlike you yourself have done in attacking me and citing the abduction of my children.  At our school, it is mandatory that I pack a separate ‘brain food’ box for each child containing ‘healthy food’ not processed,  sticky, greasy or crumbly - this box must sit on the desk to be grazed upon at will by the child in question. A separate box must contain ‘play lunch’ and yet another one, packed for lunch. One of my children has a heart condition and must eat salty food in the ‘brain food’ box to keep up blood pressure - if a relieving teacher comes into the class, this is often inspected and removed as ‘unhealthy’. My child has repeatedly tried to explain that she can’t always have just fresh carrots or apple and needs salt, but to no avail. So I get a call from the school later in the day to pick up my child because her blood pressure has dropped and her heart is in SVT. What is healthy for some, is unhealthy for others, and vice versa. Ultimately though, my children are being taught to do their best to be responsible for their own health and safety to the best of their abiltiy.

bella starkey says:

11:26am | 09/03/10

One theory, which i think is pretty likely, is that immune systems are bored, essentially. Kids these days are constantly being wiped down with antibacterial gel and kept away from nasty, grubby, germs so thier immune systems don’t know what to do with itself. It starts going after things that aren’t at all dangerous (like a peanut) just to save itself from irrelevance.

Notice that in places where hygeine is low and infections like intestinal worms or similar are high, there are practically no allergies.

My theory is if we let all kids pick their noses, eat slugs and lick dogs on the tongue we will one day live in a world where children will be judge by the content of their character, not of their sammiches.

Nik says:

03:53pm | 09/03/10

@bella- that is actually the theory going around- depriving people of something can induce intolerence.

My issue is that reducing the amount of peanuts that non-allergic kids are exposed to can induce intolerence. And also its been shown that up to 50% of kids deemed to be ‘allergic’ to peanuts were false positives. not ‘allergic’ (causing anaphylaxis etc) but intolerent (makes them feel unwell). So what about the classes where no children have allergies? Why can’t those kids eat what they please? If there is no risk, why the inconvenience?

We had one peanut allergy kid in primary school (for me that was ~20 yrs ago) and he carried an epi pen, ate his own lunch and didn’t share in other kids’ food. And only once in the 7 yrs did he have an allergic reaction, epi pen administered and ambo called and he was fine. I know it CAN turn out bad but you would think now, when it seems to be more common, these situations could be dealt with?

BTS says:

11:07am | 09/03/10

Please provide us with the specifics of when this occurred.  Not some urban myth passed along, but actual details of where and when.

eeldraw says:

11:54am | 09/03/10

I’m sorry BTS, I didn’t take notes that day a couple of years ago when the event was all over the news headlines. I recall it may have been in Queensland, but as I said, it was a couple of years ago. Maybe even more, but a lot has happened since then and I couldn’t be bothered trawling news sites in the hope of finding the specifics of the event to debunk your urban myth theory.

Regardless, I recall the event from the news because it was a major headline at the time and a shock to me that it could happen so easily.

The point I was trying to get across is that it CAN happen that easily, and it in this case had nothing to do with the child or their parents trying to avoid peanuts. It was out of their control.

In that particular situation, it was as bad as carrying a weapon into school and I certainly hope you wouldn’t condone that.

BTS says:

12:14pm | 09/03/10

A peanut butter sandwich is the same as carrying a weapon.

In the words of Charlie Brown…‘Good Grief’.

Let’s ban all food in case some child has an allergy to it.

Jacqueline Pascarl says:

04:32pm | 09/03/10

Nasty, nasty Anna, I simply fail to understand why women make it such a personal thing and feel the need to attack me. Fascinating really, particularly when one thinks of how judgemental you are being about my career.  Perhaps it would help you to note that I breast fed all four of my kids for a total of ten and a half years and that I keep an allergy free nut shelf of snacks for visiting kids.  i also bake and cook and freeze in bulk, but I detest doing lunchboxes as I find them so limiting as you will note from my kids’ lunches today!  I am not unsympathetic to parents or children with allergies.  I was focussing on intrusion into lunchboxes and what are our rights as parents. I don’t send peanut butter sandwiches to school ever, and the only nuts I send are almonds. If you read some of my other replies to comments above, I would point out again that I deal with allergies, my own and my very close circle of friends’ on a daily basis and I didn’t advocate sending peanut butter sandwiches to schools - rather, I objected the hierachialistion of lunchboxes and the noseyness of other parents in terms of making blanket judgements on others - not unlike you yourself have done in attacking me and citing my CV.  At our school, it is mandatory that I pack a separate ‘brain food’ box for each child containing ‘healthy food’ not processed,  sticky, greasy or crumbly - this box must sit on the desk to be grazed upon at will by the child in question. A separate box must contain ‘play lunch’ and yet another one, packed for lunch. One of my children has a heart condition and must eat salty food in the ‘brain food’ box to keep up blood pressure - if a relieving teacher comes into the class, this is often inspected and removed as ‘unhealthy’. My child has repeatedly tried to explain that she can’t always have just fresh carrots or apple and needs salt, but to no avail. So I get a call from the school later in the day to pick up my child because her blood pressure has dropped and her heart is in SVT. What is healthy for some, is unhealthy for others, and vice versa. Ultimately though, my children are being taught to do their best to be responsible for their own health and safety to the best of their abiltiy.  I have now packed thousands of lunchboxes, for my four children, my two stepchildren, my niece and nephew who lived with me and my foster children.  I am exhausted and want some slack! And no, that doesn’t mean killing a kid with an allergy to get it, but gee, give me a break - I’ve had 25 years of lunchboxes and my youngest is only 6, so many years to come! But enough of the personal attacks on the basis of my kid’s abduction, or what sort of work I do - at least I’m not selling crack out of my car - so leave my kids and their welfare to me. And if you are a Food Nazi and feel attacked by my column, then, tough luck!

DocBud says:

04:54pm | 09/03/10

Bottom line is that schools, governments and other parents should mind their own bloody business and let the parents of children decide for themselves what is an appropriate lunch or maybe they should send breakfast and dinner menus home and insist parents prepare these. I do not concede the right of any of these people to interfere in the bringing up of our children, even Granny only tried it once. If we want advice we’ll ask, but unsolicited advice is not welcome.

If the school notified us that a child in one of our children’s classes had a serious allergy we would co-operate in trying to ensure that the child was not exposed to the allergen, but what we consider is an appropriate lunch is absolutely nobody else’s business.

BTS says:

11:16am | 09/03/10

Well take your child out of that school and home school them or start a school which is designated nut free.  Why does the rest of society have to cater specifically to your needs?

NiceGuy says:

03:26pm | 09/03/10

Do you use the same line with wheelchair access in public places BTS?

Why should the rest of society have to cater for your arrogance?

BTS says:

04:27pm | 09/03/10

Niceguy (there’s an irony),

When you want to engage in debate without personal attack, I am happy to discuss the issues.  Until you demonstrate some level of maturity, I won’t be engaging in a discussion with you.

David B says:

12:13pm | 09/03/10

Coop.  Whilst I a sympathetic towards your childs multiple allergies, one could argue that it is you that is being selfish here.  My own daughter is allergic to cows milk but it would be totally ridiculous for me to suggest that no other children should consume cows milk in the vicinity of my child.  My point is - where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to this?

Coop says:

01:38pm | 09/03/10

David, I agree. I am not so unreasonable to expect schools to exclude everything my son is allergic to. Just the most serious ones, like nuts that are more commonly associated with anaphylactic reactions. And I recognise that yes, it is an inconvenience to parents who don’t have children with allergies, but I do think there needs to be increased awareness (and understanding) amongst parents of the seriousness of some allergies. We are not whinging for the sake of it ... we do it to protect our children - what parent wouldn’t want that?

Jacqueline Pascarl says:

04:41pm | 09/03/10

Dear Coop, Perhaps it would help you to note that I breast fed all four of my kids for a total of ten and ahlf years to try to alleviate the risk of allergy in their future years as we have severe excema and asthma in our family and food allergies, and that I keep an allergy free nut shelf of snacks for visiting kids.  i also bake and cook and freeze in bulk, but I detest doing lunchboxes as I find them so limiting as you will note from my kids’ lunches today!  I am not unsympathetic to parents or children with allergies.  I was focussing on intrusion into lunchboxes and what are our rights as parents. I don’t send peanut butter sandwiches to school ever, and the only nuts I send are almonds. If you read some of my other replies to comments above, I would point out again that I deal with allergies, my own and my very close circle of friends’ on a daily basis and I didn’t advocate sending peanut butter sandwiches to schools - rather, I objected the hierachialistion of lunchboxes and the noseyness of other parents in terms of making blanket judgements on others - At our school, it is mandatory that I pack a separate ‘brain food’ box for each child containing ‘healthy food’ not processed,  sticky, greasy or crumbly - this box must sit on the desk to be grazed upon at will by the child in question. A separate box must contain ‘play lunch’ and yet another one, packed for lunch. One of my children has a heart condition and must eat salty food in the ‘brain food’ box to keep up blood pressure - if a relieving teacher comes into the class, this is often inspected and removed as ‘unhealthy’. She also must drink at least two litres of water daily to keep her hydrated and blood pressure up, but is frequently told not to drink by treachers who dislike the condensation on the desks - even though her medical condition has been explained at length to the school, My child has repeatedly tried to explain that she can’t always have just fresh carrots or apple and needs salt, but to no avail. So I get a call from the school later in the day to pick up my child because her blood pressure has dropped and her heart is in SVT. What is healthy for some, is unhealthy for others, and vice versa. Ultimately though, my children are being taught to do their best to be responsible for their own health and safety to the best of their abiltiy. They wash their hands frequently.  I have now packed thousands of lunchboxes, for my four children, my two stepchildren, my niece and nephew who lived with me and my foster children.  I am exhausted and want some slack! And no, that doesn’t mean killing a kid with an allergy to get it, but gee, give me a break - I’ve had 25 years of lunchboxes and my youngest is only 6, so many years to come! But enough of the personal attacks on the basis of my kid’s abduction, or what sort of work I do - at least I’m not selling crack out of my car - so leave my kids and their welfare to me.

Brando says:

02:18pm | 09/03/10

Jenny, your argument isn’t with me. In fact you may remember I said

“Do food allergies exist? Of course they do and they can result in extreme and dangerous reactions”

Your argument is with people who simply decide that their allergic to something with no medical backing at all and spend the rest of their lives making sure everybody knows about their self-diagnosed allergy.

It’s become so trendy to have a food allergy that some people are beginning to feel left out and of course everyone’s imagined food allergy has to be bigger and better than the next persons imagined food allergy.

If you go to a restaurant in a group it takes an hour to order because half the group has some pretend allergy so they spend massive amounts of time discussing the menu with each other before they grill the waiter about every single dish on the menu.

Meanwhile the rest of us who manage to get along quite fine without an invented medical condition just want to berate the next person who proclaims to be allergic to nuts, milk, wheat, white plates, water, perfume, air, sunburn, waiters named Nicole or whatever.

So who gets the short shrift? People that do have genuine and serious allergies. So Jenny save your rage for the people who deserve it.

Jenny says:

07:09am | 10/03/10

Sorry Brando, my argument is with anyone who has previously come into contact with one of these people and who decides we all must be that way until they know how we got our diagnosis.

We all know the type of person you are talking about (eg claim to be a coeliac and then order a beer), however, if you take the time and effort to choose restaurants that can cater to your issues, speak to the chef / waiter beforehand or email through the offending list, this doesn’t happen. Consideration is a 2 way street. Bear in mind many people find this quite embarrassing and would rather just eat at home.

It sounds more like your friends are the problem. Do they follow this strict regime at home too? If not, you have every right to be p*ssed off. If they do, chances are their own experience has brought them to where they are. If you get sick every time that you eat something, wouldn’t you just stop eating it?? Surely you don’t need a doctor to tell you that?
BUT you’d have to be a complete idiot to make this big a lifestyle adjustment without good reason.

It certainly isn’t trendy to have to call ahead, speak to every waiter etc. It is a hassle! It is embarrassing and frustrating and trying to guess if offending foods are in the meals is almost certain to end in disaster or at least discomfort. I’d love to be able to just go into a supermarket or restaurant and just get what ever I felt like..

The other problem is that you don’t seem to realise that there are threshold levels to take into account, particularly with intolerances. Some people might get away with residues, others won’t before symptoms kick in. You don’t know which is which. It is extremely presumptuous and dangerous to pretend to.

Kim says:

12:05pm | 09/03/10

Nuts, mints and kiwi-fruit?  How hard is it really not to include those items in a childs lunchbox when there are little lives at stake?

It’s not too much to ask really is it?  a few items avoided to keep your childrens friends alive.

Ann says:

09:02pm | 09/03/10

Obviously it’s not hard, a hassle & limiting, yes, hard.. no.  One of my points is that would you trust your child’s life to the couple of hundred families that attend the school?  Personally, I would not.  My children’s lives are too precious to risk on that & on the amount of children who have to even fend for themselves & find something to pack from their cupboards when their parents don’t really care what they are eating…
I would just love to be able to have the choice to feed my kids food that I would like them to be able to eat.  I used to be able to pack them a peanut butter sandwich, I used to make potato salad with mint, I used to be able to give them kiwi fruit for recess.  I seems we always have to keep changing for a few people, why can’t they put something in place to protect their kids, instead of expecting hundreds of others to do that for them.  I don’t send the food, as I said, I don’t want to harm anyone, I don’t want any kids to suffer, but it’s just a matter of time until I have to stop giving the kids yet another regular in the lunchbox, again…
Maybe the parents of these kids should stop expecting so much of the schools & all the families & start taking some more responsibility in making arrangements for their children to be safe without making hundreds of others take care of it for them.

Tracey says:

01:18pm | 09/03/10

jhm…. your an idiot. I’ll have you know that the school has every right to discard your childs lunch if it contains peanut butter and that school has a no peanut rule. I tell you now, if my child came into contact with yours after eating peanut butter because of your selfishness my lawyers would soon be paying your a visit…...........Grow a brain idiot and open your eyes to the real world.

Tim says:

02:06pm | 09/03/10

Tracey you are a fool.
What are your lawyers going to do?
Try and sue for possession of a peanut with intent?
Why can’t anyone take personal responsibility for themselves these days?
If you think the risk to your child is too great, then take some personal responsibility and home school them.

Tracey says:

01:12pm | 09/03/10

These children have a right to attend school just like any other child. If you choose to keep your kids wrapped in cotton wool from the world so be it but dont suggest people shut their children away because of an allergy. You need to step outside your front door into the REAL WORLD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tim says:

02:11pm | 09/03/10

Tracey,
where is this “real world” in which you think you can dictate what other people eat just because your child has a problem?

dick harry says:

02:21pm | 09/03/10

Tracey, instead you want others to provide the cotton wool.  what happens to these kids when they grow up and they go to work not school?

BTS says:

03:27pm | 09/03/10

Tracey:

‘These children have a right to attend school just like any other child.’

My kid has the right to eat peanut butter sandwiches, wherever they like, it’s the same principle.

‘If you choose to keep your kids wrapped in cotton wool from the world so be it but dont suggest people shut their children away because of an allergy.’

If your child can’t cope with the rest of society eating peanut butter, then why does the rest of the world have to change and not you?

dw says:

04:15pm | 09/03/10

Sorry Tracey,
I didn’t mean to offend. It’s just that the real world has fatal peanut dust in it. In your own home you can control that more effectively…which can ease the stress on both the parent and the child - especially while the child (and other children) is young and not fully understanding of the situation.

martinX says:

03:16pm | 09/03/10

Nicely spoken.

Ryan says:

11:27pm | 10/03/10

“But to say “it’s YOUR responsibility” or “I have a right to pack whatever I want in my child’s lunchbox” is pretty offensive.” yet you feel that it is not offensive that you feel that it is society that has the responsibility to tip toe around your child, added to that you feel that you have the right to dictate to others what they may or may not feed their children.
It is obvious from your last statement that you demand common decency and respect from others yet feel there is no need to return it. Quite profound.

Lucy says:

01:37pm | 09/03/10

Chris - it’s not a matter of simply teaching kids not to share lunches - some kids have allergies so severe that simply being in the same room as a child with a PB sandwich can be enough to set of an allergic reaction. Or playing on the same playground equipment as a child who has peanut butter on their fingers from their lunchtime sandwich. We are talking about seven or so hours, on weekdays, during which kids are not able to eat peanut butter - is that really so much to ask for?

SLF says:

02:21pm | 09/03/10

Sorry Lucy, but if the danger is as prevalent as you suggest, peanut butter should simply be outlawed.

Whilst eating peanut butter at school is more high risk, what about kids who eat it at home? They then come to school and have some on their hands or on their shirt? Seems to me to be very high risk?

I don’t think it is a question of the dangers being ignored it is about what is acceptable risk. My son is not allowed products that may contain nuts which seems harsh as I assumed this was a protectionist measure by the food industry to prevent litigation. I am in agreement about peanut butter not being allowed, but ‘may contain traces of nuts’ seems to be less about child safety and more about schools protecting themselves from possible litigation.

Can parents of kids with allergies confirm where the level of risk should stop? Do you not drive to the supermarket during delivery hours in case the statisticaly high chance of a car accident involves your vehicle and a peanut butter delivery truck? Do you not push your trolley down the peanut butter aisle incase the wonky wheel drags you towards the wall of jar laden doom?

We run a real danger in our society of becoming so obsessed with protection that we have a generation of cotton wool kids who seek thrills because we have made their lives totally wrapped in cotton wool…..

Bunny says:

02:51pm | 09/03/10

Actually Lucy, you are absolutely incorrect. Allergy specialists and professional allergy advocates all agree that skin contact is of no concern at all. Anaphylactic shock only happens when the substance is consumed.

Unfortunately these half truths spread by people who hear wives tales are the reasons we have this overreaction to start with.

Maggie says:

12:03am | 10/03/10

Bunny, you are so wrong, anaphylactic shock is not entirely a result of when the substance is consumed, it happens when the swelling blocks the airway. It is absolutely a risk to either ingest peanuts or have it on the skin. As with most things, it depends on the severity of the persons allergy, so it is best that you do not spread your uneducated drivel.

SLF, how you must love living your blissfully ignorant lifestyle, not caring about anything else, but only doing what you want to. I guess it just comes down to manners and common courtesy too. I would rather have a child wrapped in cotton wool than have a dead child.

papachango says:

04:23pm | 09/03/10

You want all children with nut allergies to be segregated into special schools. Pardon the pun, but are you nuts? You do realise that ‘speical schools’ are for those with intellectual disabilities who cannot cope with mainstream education

Whether to eat peanuts or not is just not a big deal except if you happen to have a life-threatening allergy to them.

By the way I am no nanny statist, rather a very strident libertarian who opposes a lot of ‘loony left’ ideas. Though I have no idea what a ‘fauxmanista’ is? But the freedom to give your kid peanuts during school hours is just not that big of a deal.

Julia says:

02:19pm | 09/03/10

By that stage they are adults.  They are old enough and mature enough to understand that they might die if they come into contact with nuts and they can police themselves.  We are talking about protecting children who don’t have the mental capacity to understand that ingesting nut products could end their lives.

Unfortunately, it would seem that many of the adults posting today don’t have the mental capacity to understand this either.

BTS says:

03:34pm | 09/03/10

Unfortunately Christie you wouldn’t be able to have lunch at school.

Crumbed sausages are banned because they may contain traces of peanut oil when they are cooked.

Sausages are banned because of mad cow disease.

Bread is banned because of wheat allergies.

Chocolate Milk is also banned because of lactose intolerance.

No kid within a 200 kilometre square zone is allowed to have any of these products in case someone’s kid should come into contact with them because their parents haven’t take responsiblity for their upbringing.

Their answer is everyone else has to change and we will sue those who don’t.

Maggie says:

10:52pm | 09/03/10

BTS: For goodness sakes, this is a serious subject, there is no need for your ridiculous over exaggerations. I can take perfect responsibility for my child, and my child would never eat anything that was not given to them because we have taken responsibility for their safety and taught them well.  Can you guarantee that your kid washes their hands properly so that the oils on their hands don’t transfer onto door handles or play equipment?
We are talking about life and death here;  there is no need for your ignorance.

BTS says:

07:31am | 10/03/10

So Maggie,

I was’t aware that you were the editor and I had to run my thoughts past you for approval prior to submitting them to the Punch.  If you could spare me the time to provide me with the process of how you will vet my blogs from now on, I would appreciate it.

Like I have said, I presume you stand for the banning of cars, for they have killed kids before.  Do you drive a car?  How can you live with yourself?

Maggie says:

04:53pm | 10/03/10

BTS:  There is always one smart alec in the group and I guess you’re it.  Of course I drive a car, but I’m grown up enough to understand that it can be a fatal weapon if used incorrectly and that is why we have road laws. This is so that people can’t just do whatever they feel like.
Anaphylactic children know what not to eat. Chances are they will not be foraging through your child’s lunchbox to find a peanut laden treat that Mum or Dad is too mean to give them at home. They understand that it may kill them.  It is driven into them military style on a daily basis until the question “does that have peanuts in it” comes naturally to every piece of food put in front of them. Children who can eat anything don’t realise that a small amount of peanut oil on a child’s fingers is enough to kill another child. If they don’t wash their hands properly and touch the desk, chair, pencil etc and poor Billy is next to touch that item, it can kill him or make him very sick.
Contrary to some other people’s opinions on this blog, peanut oils do not have to be consumed. It can have the same effect both orally or through the skin.  Some of the uneducated ones who rant about wheat allergies, lactose allergies and even mad cow disease should note that these ingredients have to be consumed to be an issue. Peanut oil just needs to be in the air. That is why parents of allergic children act like “fascists” and “Nazi’s”. Thanks for that.  We don’t go overboard for no reason, it’s very difficult when you are dealing with life and death especially when no one else cares. I can only dream of a day where kids can have an injection and it all goes away now that he is over the age where they can occasionally grow out of it.

Peanuts will never be banned; there are too many civil libertarians in the world for that, and I would never expect them to either, however I would really, really, really like it if SOME tiny morsel of consideration for others was given.  If that can’t happen then I hope you choke on your peanut butter sandwich, but just don’t expect me to give you mouth to mouth resuscitation after you’ve eaten it, it could kill me or someone I know.

Ryan says:

12:17am | 10/03/10

Work for the Labor party?

nutjob says:

10:12pm | 09/03/10

Care for some peanuts?  *hands over a packet—ducks and runs for cover*

BTS says:

07:48pm | 09/03/10

Sure Liam,

While we are at it let’s ban cars and the school bus, they’ve killed kids before.

Davido says:

12:37am | 11/03/10

You obviosuly cant take a hint. They are telling you your kid is a little fatty!

Liam says:

05:37pm | 11/03/10

No need for an antihistamine, thankfully I’m not allergic to anything.
I do have a sense of humour, although it doesn’t quite extend to making fun of potentially deadly allergies in children. Others may think there is a goldmine of comedic nuggets just waiting to be mined in this topic, but I don’t see how.
If this article had been written about how difficult it is to prepare school lunches, or how the author hates ‘food nazis’, without poking fun at kids with allergies, it would have been fine. The choices are ‘pushed’ upon you out of a need to protect other children in the class. I don’t agree with teacher’s judging nutritional value or anything like that, but when it comes to allergies, I think it’s a great idea.

Maggie says:

11:46pm | 09/03/10

Quite simply Dianne,  you don’t . Well, you try not to anyway. Shopping centres, play centres, skating rinks, friends houses, birthday parties, in fact, anywhere where there are other people is a risk in itself. Luckily, most parents are with their children most of these times, and carry epi pens with them at all times. Schools are the one main place where parents are not with their children for a long period of time.  If you do happen to walk past a man eating a bag of peanuts, you then treat the symptoms as they occur, call an ambulance and hope to God you are quick enough. Thanks for asking.

Tracey says:

06:34am | 10/03/10

Bob, spoken like a real man. Learn some life lessons mate, like compassion and think of more than yourself. The world has enough emotional cripples in it!
It is the parent and the child’s responsibility to ensure their are safe, but hey what about helping. It won’t kill you!

Susie ? says:

07:30pm | 10/03/10

Here here Paul G Brown! I’m buying shares in anti-histamines tablets tomorrow.

Mumzilla says:

07:52am | 10/03/10

I agree sarah v! Looking at the comments, i think the point has been lost on most!
When i first sent my twins to school 6yrs ago they were taking PB sandwiches for about half a year until a note was sent home regarding peanut allergies etc. Omg the guilt I had, i had no clue and felt terrible about it. Kids in prep & yr 1 do like to swap food and why not? variety is good no?
A few months later my son was having trouble consentrating at school, so doing the right thing as a mother i decided to do what i could to help him and tried out Sue Dengates ellimination diet. Before long he was off to school with his home made pear jam sandwiches and home made anzacs & lcm’s/ rice bubble slice. Suprisingly he calmed right down and could concentrate. So it worked!  You see my husband was away in Egypt for 7 months so i didn’t work that year because i wanted to be there for the kids and it was hard dealing with the ups & downs of it all. Anyway, how stunned was I when the kids came home hungry from school explaining that someone had taken the home made lcm out their lunch box saying it was a ‘sometimes’ food and they couldn’t bring it to school. OMG what? I made that food! I i’m the boss and if I send my kids to school with marshmallow sandwiches because it restores calm in my house then I will blooody well do it! How dare they poke through the box of food i deemed good enough for my kids and tell them, it’s not okay. I was offended and hurt by it. Questioning my judgement on what is ‘good’ for my kids. My kids didn’t care so much, only that they were ripped off and hungry at the end of the day.
It’s not right, i agree, if a parent wants send their kid to school with white sandwich loaf fairy bread followed with a cordial chaser so what? WHo’s business is it but the parent? Why is it that the “food Nazi’s” feel they can cast judgement on parents and the nutritional value of a childs lunch?  This has nothing to do with peanut allergies what so ever!
Just for the record my kids have a nutrionally balanced lunch every day and I make sure of it. But who’s business is that but mine.

Tim says:

08:56am | 10/03/10

I just love it.
“One of your children’s grubby little fingers”.
Of course it would be impossible for you to understand the concept of personal responsibility wouldn’t it? It’s always someone else’s fault right?
If you think the risk to your child is too great out there in the big bad world, then keep them at home for school until you think they’re old enough to look after themselves.
All of you precious people who think that your own problem’s are someone else’s responsibility should grow up.

Brad says:

09:48am | 10/03/10

Thats fine Paul, and with that in mind, heaven help the individual that sticks their nose into what my children can eat because of their own needs. We look after all or we just look after our own. Which is it to be?

BTS says:

09:55am | 10/03/10

Oh, so the world has to protect your precious child or face the consequence of your attack on them.

Maggie says:

06:09pm | 10/03/10

Strike a blow: Your ignorance is astounding. As a member of the “peanut gallery”, we are “militant” because people do not have to EAT peanuts to have a reaction. Peanut oil just has to be in the air. I believe that eggs, milk and other foods have to be eaten. We are “militant because we have to be,  because of people like you are so ignorant and carefree.
Would you really be so happy to risk it if it were your child?

BTS says:

04:49pm | 10/03/10

That’s easy Lizzy, when the ‘non-allergens’ are the minority, they will have all the rights, be able to make all the demands on the rest of the community, be supported by Punch readers as being the only one’s in the world as being of near god like importance, demand and receive the right to make everyone else change to suit their New World order.

NiceGuy says:

03:28pm | 10/03/10

Education is a pretty important thing to keep a child away from. You seriously believe in what you are saying?

Anne says:

05:43pm | 10/03/10

NiceGuy, thanks for your input
I homeschool my children - not for allergy/health reasons, but my point is this: if you don’t like something, find a way to deal with it, adjust your own lifestyle, rather than expecting everyone else to comply to your standards. I would think that would be even more relevant once we’re talking life and death, which seems to be the case in some of these children.

Kiik says:

04:08pm | 11/03/10

I agree with you Pertharina. My kids have multiple food allergies - one of them have had many anaphylactic incidents to date, often by him eating something he shouldn’t have in error because someone didn’t read the labels carefully. If you have ever seen anyone who is having an anaphylactic reaction, I think you would not want to wish that on anybody. Thankfully my children are ok with trace amounts, but if they were NOT ok with trace amounts, I shudder to think what it would be like.

I think the ban of peanut items is a serious life-or-death matter for some children, and should be continued. Really, if your child had severe food allergy, I am sure you would be so relieved to know that there is less risk for the child that way, less chance of getting that phone call from the school telling you that your child is having the life-threatening reaction right now…

‘Policing’ of quality of food is another matter exactly as Pertharina has said.

Ann Hayes says:

04:49am | 19/04/10

Me too.  But then peanuts were genetically modified, and all of a sudden we had peanut allergies.  Not nice to fool Mother Nature I guess.

Helen says:

08:34am | 26/03/10

Well said that woman!. I’m especially disappointed in the light of the challenges the writer went through with her own children and the assistance she would have had from others. I’m sure there were also people at the time who would have refused to believe that the other parent could do such an egregious thing and who would have written her off as OTT or hysterical- as she’s doing to these parents now. Sure it’s an assumption, but I’m positive at some point she would have been up against the attitudes of people for whom experiences outside their daily norm are to be written off and mocked. I would have expected more empathy, and more protectiveness towards all children.