Prev
Next

When did it become nuts to want to protect children?

Keeva Stratton

by Keeva Stratton

11 Mar 05:35am

Must Reads

New speaker’s slack clobber, old speaker clobbers slackers - this is a caption

New speaker’s slack clobber, old speaker clobbers slackers

46

Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper - this is a caption

Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper

52

There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend - this is a caption

There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend

99

Filed under: Allergies, Children, Health

76 comments

When my daughter was almost two she did something lots of people do every morning. She ate some peanut butter on toast. Two hours later, when breakfast was long forgotten and the time for lunch was nearly upon us, her face began to swell – and in moments, she was scarcely able to breathe.

School food bans are a matter of life and death for some kids. Picture: Ross Schultz

I will never forget the terror of holding her while feeling completely helpless as her body turned against her. The gasping sounds she made as she struggled to take her next breath, rapidly turning pale, and as her body went floppy.

It was the most terrifying moment of my life, and a memory that will stay imprinted with my husband and I forever. If it wasn’t for the fast response from a clued-in GP, she wouldn’t have seen her second birthday.

Jacqueline Pascarl’s Punch article has depicted today’s school lunch rules as extreme. I want to tell the other side of the story. For me, these ‘extreme’ policies are all that gives me the strength to send my child off every day. You see, while it may seem inconvenient for some parents to be aware of what goes in their child’s lunchbox, it is no exaggeration to say that it is literally a matter of life or death for many others – the number of children who suffer from allergies is on the rise.

The main hurdle my husband and I have faced is to let others around us know of the very real seriousness of our daughter’s allergy. We are still told by well-meaning friends that “she’ll grow out of it”, or “they need to be exposed to toughen up”, or my personal favourite – “are you sure it’s life threatening?”. To which we answer – specialists tell us that there is little chance she’ll grow out of it, exposure will not toughen her up but kill her, and yes, the severity of her allergy was plainly illustrated to us that scary morning.

It’s a situation we deal with as best we can – something that we try not to let consume us, but that obviously needs to be kept in mind at all times. When people say, “take some responsibility” – believe me, we do. We carry the prescribed EpiPen everywhere we go, we have been trained in its proper use for emergencies, and the same basic training is provided to our family members and friends. We regularly see an allergist and take precautions whenever we travel, and we are truly thankful to the airlines that give this allergy the attention it deserves. We spend a great deal of time in South East Asia where peanut allergy is rare and public awareness is low – it is a minefield for us, and we have every meal she eats cooked in front of us while there.

Our older daughter doesn’t have the allergy, but throughout her schooling we have been respectful with our lunch box choices. I had no idea how severe peanut allergy could be – many of us won’t unless we experience it personally – but I accepted the school lunchbox policies in terms of making allowances that would help other children. (Given the growth in childhood obesity, I also frankly welcomed any attention that was given to childhood nutrition.) It was only with the diagnosis of my younger daughter’s peanut allergy that my husband and I gained a fuller appreciation for the school lunchbox policies.

If your child is fortunate enough to not have an allergy, consider yourself blessed, but for the many parents like myself, all we ask is that you help reduce a very real risk for our children during school hours. We’re not expecting to get through these years without another attack, the risk is just too prevalent, but we would like to believe that during school hours that she will be in an educated environment and that her health and safety needs are taken into account. I think that any well-meaning person, once apprised of the situation, would allow that it’s not too much to want to look after our children.

There are many manufacturers that make muesli bars and healthy snack foods that do not contain traces of nuts – by supporting these brands it may force others to do the same. Another pressing issue is to make sure that accurate labeling of ingredients takes place across the board. This is not necessarily about self responsibility. Our daughter knows to tell people about her allergy and ask questions about the contents of food. This is about community responsibility. Australia has a very high rate of allergies and asthma, and as a community it is our joint responsibility to make our schools as safe as possible for all our children.

Most commented

342Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
301It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
209Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
200The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
177Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?
168The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
163Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

76 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • BTS says:

      06:16am | 11/03/10

      I am allergic to dust, from now on, my Unit Manager better have cleaned the hand railing and the walkway before I leave my front door, they will have dusted off the elevator button and sterilised inside the elevator from top to bottom.  As I make my way to my car, nobody else is allowed to drive their car out of the garage in case they stir up the dust (which should have been removed by my Unit Manager anyway, he should do it daily).  The council should clean the footpath and the roadway daily and undertake the necessary steps to ensure that no dust is blown into the air via any council owned land.  Homeowners are also required to sterilise their house, car and driveway on a daily basis prior to my leaving my home, in case they have any dust at their home…(I could go on about the petrol station, the supermarket, the school (they should be used to these kind of demands I see), the airport, the train etc. and every private and public space I visit having to clean the world ahead of my arrival,  but I think you seem to get just how ludicrous a concept this is to everyone else). 

      You will all be involved, it will be on a daily basis, in case I ever come near you or your property.  I expect that this will happen because I might die from an asthmatic related occurence.  It’s only reasonable that you all undertake these steps.  Otherwise, I will ask the question, when did it become nuts to want to protect me?

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      08:54am | 11/03/10

      I love it that we look after our children and most of us are willing to do that little bit extra to keep them safe. I don’t love it so much that some adults haven’t grown up fully.
      For heaven’s sake, avoiding the peanut butter around little children: it is not a harsh, grinding chore as some of these whining babies are making out.

    • BTS says:

      09:33am | 11/03/10

      Oh so my wishes are too much for you Helen.  Save the kids, but don’t save me.  Why are they any more important than I am?  It’s just not peanut butter.  The ‘growing up’ should be done by people who have medical issues that they should take responsibility for and not shirk it to everyone else.  That’s what’s wrong with society, we whinge about everything and everyone and everyone else is responsible for my well being and everyone else has to make adjustments to accomodate me. Me, me, me!

      There’s another article today about eroding artists rights and it being an erosion of peoples rights to earn a living and get along in society.  So we protect other people’s rights to take photographs of naked children, but heaven’s to betsy, if you put a sandwich in a kids lunchbox, there’s hell to pay.

      Protect your own kid as necessary, other people aren’t responsible for changing their world becaue you’re too lazy to do it yourself.

    • iansand says:

      10:35am | 11/03/10

      BTS - Go out and sniff the asbestos.  Or do you expect a workplace devoid of those hazards?

    • BTS says:

      10:45am | 11/03/10

      iansand,

      If my workplace was filled with asbestos, I would take responsiblity for ensuring my own safety.  Me.  I would take action to protect myself or perhaps I could expect you to enter the worksite and remove it all for me as it would be your responsiblity to save me, wouldn’t it?

    • eeldraw says:

      10:52am | 11/03/10

      I love the hyperbole BTS.

      It’s so much easier to overstate than to make reasoned and rational arguments.

      There is responsibility for yourself, then there is an entirely reasonable expectation that as a society, we should do what we can to avoid putting others in harms way through our own actions, however innocent. Society… accept the fact that you are part of one, however much you dislike it.

    • BTS says:

      11:09am | 11/03/10

      So sell you car eeldraw and walk everywhere ‘we should do what we can to avoid putting others in harms way through our own actions, however innocent’.

      Cars kill more kids than peanuts.  So sell your car, it’s the socially responsible thing to do.

      ‘Society… accept the fact that you are part of one, however much you dislike it.’

      Who says I dislike being in society?  You?  You know nothing about me or what I like.

      The Punch, where people with weak arguments come to bully and attack people personally to bolster their position.  Let’s hope you feel better and more superior. There, there run along now.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:36am | 11/03/10

      Wow BTS your on your on there. I completely agree with you. At best the teachers should know first aid and be able to adminster the epipen. Beyond that as long as kids are not smearing each other in peanut butter I think the fact your daughter knows to ask questions and be careful is more than enough.

      I love the schools should be safer for my kid so I can fell safe and then you admit to frequenting south-east asia where standards are far worse.

    • eeldraw says:

      11:37am | 11/03/10

      Oh the irony…

    • BTS says:

      06:21am | 11/03/10

      Keeva,

      Did you drive your kids to school or do they ever travel in a car?  How could you place them at such risk?  Shouldn’t we all stop driving cars in case one of us runs over and kills your child?

      You and the rest of us should stop using cars as a method of transport, they are just too dangerous and a risk to our children.

      ‘I think that any well-meaning person, once apprised of the situation, would allow that it’s not too much to want to look after our children.’

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      10:26am | 11/03/10

      We’ve actually got those restructions on cars.

      They’re called road rules.

      If you speed outside a school, you get fined and (hopefully) lose your licence.

      We’ve also got other things which help protect children - and yes, infringe on your rights. But in any society you have to accept a certain infringement on your rights for the greater good.

      Under BTS’ view, we shouldn’t have gun laws. Or road laws. Or restrictions on what chemicals can and can’t be dumped. He would ssay “well it’s your responsibility to keep your kids away from the drains”, or, “you should teach your kids to respect guns”.

      However I note that on the Henson forum BTS is saying there need to be MORE restrictions on what art we show our kids.

      Way to be libertarian, fella…

    • BTS says:

      10:40am | 11/03/10

      Matt,

      Do these ‘road rules’ stop kids being killed?  Clearly, they are not working then.  More kids are killed by cars than nut products.  We call for kids to not be place in danger from peanuts, but not cars.  How do you justify one and not the other?

      ‘Under BTS’ view, we shouldn’t have gun laws. Or road laws. Or restrictions on what chemicals can and can’t be dumped. He would ssay “well it’s your responsibility to keep your kids away from the drains”, or, “you should teach your kids to respect guns”.’

      Don’t speak on my behalf, I don’t want to be associated in any way with your line of thinking.

      ‘However I note that on the Henson forum BTS is saying there need to be MORE restrictions on what art we show our kids.’

      You really should practice (a) reading what is said (b) itnerpreting what is said, as no where did I say that there ‘needs to be MORE restrictions on what art we show our kids’.

      Way to be libertarian, fella…

    • BTS says:

      11:16am | 11/03/10

      Matt,

      So it’s not acceptable to have nut products in school, but it’s acceptable for a man to photograph your kids nude and then put them on public display?

    • BJ says:

      08:21am | 11/03/10

      Everyone else in Australia is NOT responsible for managing your childs allergy you & she are. Stop infringing on other peoples rights in order to protect your own child. Stop expecting everyone else to look after your child in your absence. You will create a child who takes absolutely no responsibility for her own well being.

      And for the record I suffer from umpteem different allergies & asthma & have never expected everyone else to alter their lifestyle to accommodate me.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:38am | 11/03/10

      Also I like peanut butter and so do my kids.

    • Megan Crowe says:

      06:26pm | 07/04/10

      Do you ignorant people understand that it is not only if these people eat peanuts that they can die from it?  A lot of the people who suffer with this allergy (my daughter is one of them) only have to smell the peanut or product containing it to have an anaphylactic reaction so anyone who thinks we don’t have the right to ask you not to send Peanut Butter to school - think again!

    • EN says:

      08:43am | 11/03/10

      What is wrong with you BJ & BTS? Keeva’s daughter suffers from a LIFE THREATENING allergy and all you can do is make snide and sarcastic comments about you not taking responsibility. Well grow up. How would you feel if a child was to die or be hosptalized through your thoughtless & inconsiderate descision to pack a peanut butter sandwich for your child to take to school that somehow made it into the hands of a severe allergy suffering CHILD. Of course Keeva and her family have to take ultimate responsibilty for the safety of her child and it seems to me that she is doing just that by trying to educate ill informed people like you.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      08:51am | 11/03/10

      EN,

      What is wrong with you?  When did it become my responsiblity to take care of everyone else?

      If my child died as a result of contact with peanut butter, then I would accept that was the way life was meant to be.  I wouldn’t demand everyone else change their world for my child.

      I tell you what, my Uncle has Cancer.  I will send you the medicals bills, if you could pay for his treatment I am sure that will assist in saving his life.  I am gain strength in your compassion to contribute your life savings to help someone else.

    • Tim says:

      09:06am | 11/03/10

      How would I feel if my decision to pack a lunch (BTW nice use of emotive language) resulted in another child having an allergic attack.
      I’d probably feel bad for the child and parents but unless my child deliberately stuffed peanut butter down Keeva’s child’s throat or rubbed it on their skin, then it would be Keeva’s fault for not educating her child enough or removing them from such a risky environment.

    • Joe says:

      11:35am | 11/03/10

      EN, I agree with BJ, Tim and BTS, people are taking the peanut allergy and inflicting it on everyone, if they expect an entire school or everyone they come into contact with, to not use nut products altogether. 

      For instance I’m also allergic to dust, which can cause asthma, along with many other things such as strong chemicals, such as petrol, paint or various cleaning products, yet to demand no one uses petrol, paint or cleaning products in their car, home or a school, would be considered ridiculous and overkill, or even impossible and impractical.

      I doubt you would you be willing to put up with my allergies, along with those with peanut allergies, as well as those who have every other type of known allergy, such as milk, wheat, dog or cat hair and so on.  As the list would simply be endless and we would all end up having to live in a bubble or even rid the plant of water, as yes, there are even people who are allergic to water (its called Aquagenic Pruritus).  You simply have to keep things in perspective. 

      The solution to my allergies is to carry my medication and be aware of what can trigger them in order to try to avoid them as best i can, not to call for a ban on them and inflict my allergy on everyone i come into contact with and the same is true for any other type of allergy.

    • Grumpy says:

      08:45am | 11/03/10

      The two Bs seem to have lost perspective.

      Will Keeva’s daughter probably survie a single slip in attention while Keeva is driving? yes
      Can Keeva, an adult with wisdom and judgement built up over years manage that risk? yes.
      Can BTS and other adults with allergies be relied upon to understand that he/she is allergic to dust and take reasonable precautions to avoid it? yes

      The difference with toddlers and food is that the answers to these questions are ‘no”. One slip will be fatal noone can guarantee that a two year old won’t make even a single slip or can fully underastand the nature of their allergy and thus be relied upon to manage it. Why not? Because they are TWO.

      Daycare, no peanuts - simple, not too much to ask.

      What would be good, though, is if the food manufacturers got a bit more helpful and didn’t write ‘may contain nuts’ on absolutely everything. The choise for nut allergic people is limited enough without all of this.

      BTW my children aren’t allergic to nuts, but my friends have kids who are so, preferring to be slightly inconvenienced than to kill a toddler, I learned what needed to be avoided and took responsibility for both my actions and those of the kids around me, you know, because two year olds aren’t adult yet

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      09:25am | 11/03/10

      Grumpy,
      we are not talking about daycare we are talking about primary schools and high schools.
      Although if my child had a nut allergy i would be extremely hesitant about sending them to day-care in the first place.
      I would most likely keep them at home until I thought they were able to look after themselves.
      I would certainly not be asking everyone else to change their behaviours to suit my problem.

    • BTS says:

      09:40am | 11/03/10

      Grumpy,

      Will Keeva’s daughter probably survie a single slip in attention while Keeva is driving? yes

      What if this little inattention involves driving in front of a truck or involves her daughter using a pedestrian crossing where she is run over?  Those are the same risks as being infected by nut products.  I bet more kids are killed by cars than by nuts, yet no one views the banning of cars as anything but nonsensical.  Where’s the greater danger, cars or nuts?

      Tim has addressed that no one was talking about two year olds, if there that allergic, don’t put them in daycare.

      Why would it stop an adulthood, some people here would obviously demand if they could, that you not eat nut related products ever again, if they had the chance.

    • Grumpy says:

      10:13am | 11/03/10

      I am the first to say that it shouldn’t reach beyond the point when the person is able to protect themselves, whenever that is. Certainly it should be there by high school, so I agree that they are different, I have no problem with relying on the child to look after themself there.

      Sooner or later kids are ‘big enough and ugly enough to look after ourselves’. When, I don’t know, probably some time after they start primary I suspect, so I would probably extend the no nut foods policy some way into primary school, not necessarily right through.

      As for ‘if they are that allergic don’t put them in daycare’ that sounds nice, quite frankly I’d prefer not to put my kids in daycare, but it more or less adds up to ‘if they are that allergic don’t have a job’. How am I going to feed them in that case?

    • BTS says:

      10:40am | 11/03/10

      Is daycare the only option for caring for children?

      If you can’t afford to feed them, why did you bring them into the world? Surely the danger of malnutrition is greater than nut allergies.

    • Jolanda says:

      08:45am | 11/03/10

      I honestly believe that if a child has a true allergy like the one stated above where there has been obvious serious reaction then the school, class and year that the child is in should be put on notice and the other childrens class parents notified and asked to discuss the seriousness of the matter with their kids and precautions should be taken to ensure that the child isn’t put at risk of harm.  If that means that those who have a nut type product have to eat their lunch away from this child and then they all have to wash their hands then so be it. 

      To make a whole school not bring any product with any traces of nuts is ridiculous.  Can they not just separate the kids during the times that they eat and supervise them to wash their hands?  When out in the real world this is what the child is going to have to deal with.

      My children wouldn’t eat anything at school because the only things that that they liked had nuts or traces of nuts and one of my children was regarded as being in the bottom percentile in weight and not growing well.  It is very hard for us mothers who have children who are fussy eaters and who struggle to eat if we have to take away from them the only thing that they will eat during the time they are at school.  Not eating is also very detrimental to their health and development too.

      There are different issues facing different parents but certainly if a child has a serious reaction then those around them need to know and they need to work together to take care.  Banning the product completely isn’t’ the solution.

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      04:11pm | 11/03/10

      When it comes to severe peanut allergies, just washing your hands with soap isn’t enough. It can be an extreme allergy, more than most people’s allergies to dust, wheat, etc. My boyfriend (in his 30’s) is allergic to peanuts and i tell you from first hand experience that a wash with soap and water doesn’t stop someone with a severe allergy from reacting. There is also the problem of airborne allergens and residual matter left over on skin and surfaces after washing that still causes reactions. This is hard to control when you’re dealing with kids who don’t understand the seriousness of the situation. The only option is to totally remove the allergen from the environment. I’m in my 30’s and have a severe allergy to oranges. People can’t eat them near me at work as the tiniest bit of orange oil on my skins burns me and the airborne allergen swells up my throat.

      Severe allergies is an unfortunate part of life. But it’s made easier with just two basic human traits that you should have within yourselves and be instilling in your children:
      1) Respecting others, regardless of what it is, i.e. allergy, disability religion, race,etc.
      2) Showing empathy for others, i.e. you wouldn’t tell the parents of a child with epilepsy/diabetes to take some responsibility for their kid and take them out of school because of their medical problem. A child with severe allergy should be treated with the same empathy/respect.

      This is a serious medical condition.

    • Jolanda says:

      08:48am | 11/03/10

      I honestly believe that if a child has a true allergy like the one stated above where there has been obvious serious reaction then the school, class and year that the child is in should be put on notice and the other childrens class parents notified and asked to discuss the seriousness of the matter with their kids and precautions should be taken to ensure that the child isn’t put at risk of harm.  If that means that those who have a nut type product have to eat their lunch away from this child and then they all have to wash their hands then so be it. 

      To make a whole school not bring any product with any traces of nuts is ridiculous.  Can they not just separate the kids during the times that they eat and supervise them to wash their hands?  When out in the real world this is what the child is going to have to deal with.

      My children wouldn’t eat anything at school because the only things that that they liked had nuts or traces of nuts and one of my children was regarded as being in the bottom percentile in weight and not growing well.  It is very hard for us mothers who have children who are fussy eaters and who struggle to eat if we have to take away from them the only thing that they will eat during the time they are at school.  Not eating is also very detrimental to their health and development too.

      There are different issues facing different parents but certainly if a child has a serious reaction then those around them need to know and they need to work together to take care.  Banning the product completely isn’t’ the solution.

      Reply

    • pheelion says:

      03:58pm | 11/03/10

      My sympathy is with Keeva on this one.  Her child has a serious life threatening allergy whilst your children simply were not taught how to eat properly.  I have never met a fussy eater whose parents weren’t major contributors to the problem.  It is very easy to get a child to eat what you want them to.  You sit them at the table and give them their meal.  If they eat it they can, if they wish, have a treat.  If they don’t eat, the food is removed and nothing is offered until the next meal.  Repeat until successful (the earlier this is started the quicker it works).  Pandering to a child’s wants only exacerbates the problem.  Fussiness is learned NOT biological.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:55pm | 11/03/10

      Okay so I have 4 children and only one who is so fussy that we struggle with him food wise and we brought them all up the same.  How do you account for that?  He would rather starve than eat foods that he cannot even get near his mouth as the smell and/or texture makes him feel physically ill.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:57pm | 11/03/10

      Okay so I have 4 children and only one who is so fussy that we struggle with him food wise and we brought them all up the same.  How do you account for that?  He would rather starve than eat foods that he cannot even get near his mouth as the smell and/or texture makes him feel physically ill.

    • Jane says:

      08:59am | 11/03/10

      I suffer from severe asthma, which is also life threatening, and have been hospitalised a number of times over the years. There are many triggers for it, some which can’t be controlled or even predicted. I alone have to be responsible for my health and making sure I try and stay safe.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      09:01am | 11/03/10

      Right, so Keeva should spend 24/7 at her child’s side even when she is at school in order to take personal responsibility. Then you’d criticise her for being a helicopter parent, I suppose. I blame the neoliberal (and growing libertarian) ethos of the last 30 years for this outbreak of arrant selfishness. We live in a society, not a collection of atomised individuals. Yanno, one day you people may be old and you might have challenges like, for instance, difficulty swallowing so you need help not to choke on your food three times a day. What goes around comes around, people.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      10:33am | 11/03/10

      Helen,

      The selfishness is yours.  Your the one expecting other people to take responsiblity for your child.

      If she needs to be watched 24/7 she shouldn’t be at school.  If if was such a danger what parent would legitmately place their child in peril.  Would you place the child in an abestos ridden classroom or a sharkl tank?  If the answer to this is no, then what makes a school any different?

      I appreciate your pro-life for the kids situation and your ‘hope you choke and die when your old’.  It demonstrates your balanced perspective.

    • Tim says:

      09:01am | 11/03/10

      If the risk of attack is as great as you say, then its probably time for your child to be home schooled until they are old enough to be responsible for their own allergies.
      I mean you want them to be safe don’t you?
      Oh and I like that not only do you want to stop other people eating peanuts you also want to put out of business companies who do not ascribe to your nut free needs.
      You say you do take responsibility for your own problems but all signs point to no.

      Reply

    • Grumpy says:

      09:18am | 11/03/10

      Tim you cannot be serious.

      You are suggesting kids with life threatening allergies should be locked away at home and that their parents should withdraw from the workforce in order to teach them on a one-on-one basis.

      All of this to protect your basic right to send your kid to school with a PB sandwich.

      This is what taking responsibility for actions looks like, its saying “My child, who has the same right as everyone else to be a member of society and go to school in an environment that won’t kill her, has a medical condition that you all need to be aware of in case you do something that might seem trivial to you but will have tragic consequences”

      Jolanda’s ‘separate the kids approach’ is akin to a leper colony

      Haven’t we moved on since then? Some people need to get a grip.

    • Tim says:

      10:08am | 11/03/10

      Grumpy,
      thats not what i’m saying at all.
      What i am saying is that the parent’s have a decision. If they think the risk of an allergic reaction is too great then they can keep the child at home. If however they think that the allergy can be managed then the child can go to school. Its all about the risk.
      And this is not just about PB. Its about all allergies, all medical problems.
      What happens when every person who has a medical problem or allergy makes the same demands? What happens when these kids grow up?
      Blanket bans are never the solution.
      Demanding that society change to suit your own personal problems is a complete cop out. Take some personal responsibility and manage your own problems.

    • BTS says:

      10:50am | 11/03/10

      Grumpy,

      I have seen schools which are exclusively for Aboriginals, I have seen schools which are exclusively for Muslims, I have seen schools which are exclusively for the rich.

      These people seem to have taken responsiblity upon themselves to educate kids in an environment which suits there needs.  They haven’t asked that we remove all white people from the school, they haven’t asked that we all convert to the Muslim faith, they haven’t asked that we all become rich.  Have they become lepers?

      They have taken responsiblity for their own kids and changed their environment to suit their requirements.  They haven’t expected the rest of us, the majority, to change for them.

    • Molehill - mountain says:

      10:09am | 11/03/10

      It’s all about sensible and reasonable risk assessment. I love nuts, I eat nuts, I am a bit nuts myself, but I respect the fact that many children/people have an allergy to nuts and that most schools are nut-free zones. It’s really not that big of a deal to not pack nuts in the lunch-box. Most people are allergic to guns and knives, we don’t bring them to school either. Do you violently object to that?!

      Schools are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, but they ARE trying to create a safe place for young people to learn. Sheesh.

      Reply

    • Mrs.P says:

      11:04am | 11/03/10

      I find some of these comments a bit lacking in compassion and quite rude. It is possible to present an alternative point of view without being an ass about it.

      From the reasoning I’m seeing here in some of the comments, everyone needs to take responsiblility for themselves and there should be no restrictions in place to protect people, including children.

      Ok then, as an example, lets get rid of no-smoking restrictions. If non-smokers don’t want to be exposed to second-hand smoke then it’s their responsibility to not go to places where people smoke. Until you have no choice in avoiding it, because people smoke anywhere and everywhere. But hey, that’s your problem, you can’t expect other people to care about your own health and wellbeing can you. Heaven forbid someone change their lifestyle in any way to show consideration to their fellow human beings. You’ll just have to walk around with a face mask if you don’t want to be exposed to any second-hand smoke because no-one else shoud care about the wellbeing of anyone else but themself.

      So lets gid rid of all restrictions and laws that are put in place to protect people from themselves and others, coz we should all be smart enough to see every danger and be smart enough and quick enough to take action to make sure we don’t get put in harm’s way. Because we live in a perfect world where everyone has common sense and knows whats best for them.

      I agree that we all need to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions, but what happened to compassion for our fellow man and children? Is it really that hard to make a vegemite or ham sandwhich instead of peanut butter? If a kid loves peanuts and peanut butter so much then they can eat it in their own home. It’s such a non-issue and really not worth getting our knickers in a knot.

      If taking one more minute and an ounce of extra brain power to figure out a kids lunchbox saves even one life? Then its a restriction worth having.

      Reply

    • Jolanda says:

      11:17am | 11/03/10

      Mrs P the problem is that you cannot control what parents put in thier children’s lunch box anyway so it gives a false sense of security if parents think that other parents are going to check every single thing that they give to their child every single day.  It isn’t as easy as you think for many kids to just ‘put something else in their lunch box”. 

      As far as I am concerned if it were my child I would request that my child sit away from the other students who families are unable to provide a nut free lunch etc (or I would pick my child up and take them home for lunch) so as to minimise the risk . Of course children should be encouraged and expected to wash thier hands after they eat.  Eating away from the masses in order to protect your own life is a small price to pay as eating lunch only takes about 10 minutes and recess even less.  The kids can then still go and play.

      My son is allergic to bees.  So far he has had to have 4 adrenelin shots.  Doctors say that his reaction will only get worse and could lead to death. Bees seem to be attracted to him.  We cannot go on vactation anywhere that isn’t near a hospital.  Do I stop him from playing soccer, going to the park or the beach or should we maybe request that the Govenrment kill all the bees?

    • Mrs.P says:

      11:58am | 11/03/10

      I totally understand that Jolanda, it’s not easy to come up with things that kids are going to eat, some are notoriously fussy (I was one of those children) and I know my mum struggled every day to put something in my lunch box that I would eat and there weren’t any restrictions when I was in school.

      Great idea to seperate kids at lunch and keep those with allergies safe, I don’t have a problem with that. But in the same way that controlling what is in the lunch boxes gives a false sense of security, so too does this, as the problem arises if a child has an allergy that is so severe that even the scent of peanut makes them have a reaction, what do we do then? Make all kids brush their teeth after lunch? Make the child stay away from all the other kids all day? It’s obvisouly impossible to ensure that nothing taken to a school has any traces of nuts as practically all foods have ‘may contain traces of nuts’ written on the packet, and you would think that if a child did have such a severe allergy to peanuts then the parents would of course talk to the closest friends parents that the child will eat lunch with, to ensure that nothing they have has nuts in it.

      For eveyone else, you don’t send your kid to school with a PB sandwhich or a packet of peanuts (although I don’t know many kids who would jump at having peanuts in their lunch box anyway!). Those 2 things are not hard to not bring.

      My problem is with the reasoning of some of the commentors, the everyone for themselves mentality. By some of their reasoning, you should not be letting your child out of the house to ensure he doesn’t get stung by a bee. But you can’t do that, so you take every precaution you can, much the same way that the parents of kids with allergies take all precautions to keep their kids safe, all the while knowing that you can’t protect them from everything.

      I just think people need to be a little more compassionate towards others. It may be an inconvenience to some to have to try and find foods that their child can take for their short lunch and recess, but imagine how hard it is for the parent of the allergy-child to find food for them to eat for every meal of their life? Did they ask for their child to have this allergy? Did they bring this allergy on themselves? No, but they have had to change everything about their eating habits and to an extent way of life (not being able to go to restaurants or order take-away) through no fault of their own. Yes, it’s hard to come up with things to put in a fussy kids lunchbox, but imagine how hard it is for the parent who could potentially kill their child simply because of the food they give them.

      No, you are never going to have all peanut-free lunchboxes, but Im sure knowing things are being done to at least minimise the risk to allergic children is a huge weight off a parents mind.

    • Jolanda says:

      01:00pm | 11/03/10

      Mrs P the problem is that it isn’t just peanuts that they ban.  They ban anything and everything with traces of peanuts and that includes Nutella.  The restrictions are too wide.  If it was just Peanut Butter and nuts that they banned you could deal with that but to ban anything with nuts or traces of nuts is extreme.

      I remember one childrens birthday party that my daughter went to.  A mother advised the lady hosting the party that her daughter was allergic to nuts.  The poor mother hosting the party was worried sick and tried to do everything that she could but unfortunately on the birthday cake that the mother bought were pieces of toblerone.  Before the woman realised it the child with the supposedly nut allergy grabbed the toblerone and ate it.  The mother came running out to the mother who was having coffee with us and advised her that her daughter had just ate toblerone and wanting to know whether an ambulance needed to be called or what.  The mother of the child very calmly told her that her daughter had been told she was allergic to nuts after an allergy test and that she had eaten nuts before that without a problem and not to worry unless her daughter reacts.  It seems like what she had wasn’t really an allergy as nothing happened yet this poor mother holding the party was really concerned and scared.

      There is a diference between a life threatening just an allergy.  On allergy test I test positive to different degrees to just about everything but it is not so severe that it leads to death.

      Honestly if a child has such a severe allergy that even a sniff will kill then then really they shouldn’t be at school.

    • Melly White says:

      05:27pm | 11/03/10

      “For eveyone else, you don’t send your kid to school with a PB sandwhich or a packet of peanuts (although I don’t know many kids who would jump at having peanuts in their lunch box anyway!). Those 2 things are not hard to not bring.”

      The problem is that nuts are not the only thing people can be allergic to. People can also be allergic to dust, shellfish, wheat, orange juice, milk… the list goes on and on.  If we start listening to parents like this one soon everything will be banned - we’ll have only plain water allowed (and then in glass bottles! no plastic!).

      Quite seriously though, kids are allergic to hundreds of things.  Mum A wants nuts banned, Dad B wants orange juice banned, Mum C wants milk banned… where does it end?

      Keeva thinks she is special and everyone should avoid nuts just because of her and her kid… but is she refusing all orange juice, shellfish and milk because other people are allergic?  Somehow I don’t think so.

    • Sam says:

      11:10am | 11/03/10

      Darwin said “survival of the fittest”. If the kids are threatened by peanuts they aren’t fit, may be the humble peanut could clean the gene pool.

      They could be home schooled. That way others kids don’t have to give up their right to eat what they want. Take responsibility for your own kids don’t expect others to do so.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      03:57pm | 11/03/10

      Not only that, look at the science behind allergies. It’s a reaction by the immune system.

      How many mothers look at what they themselves eat when they breastfeed?

      Too early an exposure to nuts, chocolate, some fruits, etc can lead to allergies.

      Someone earlier mentioned childhood obesity. Maybe instead of leaving the kids inside, take them outside…it’ll help develop the immune system AND when they’re older, they might not be so against leaving the computer/Xbox/whatever to do some exercise.

    • BTS says:

      11:25am | 11/03/10

      The pro-nut banners won’t address the issue of selling their cars and walking everywhere. Cars are far more likely to kill their child than nuts.

      Why won’t they sell their cars?  Well that would be inconvenient.  It would require effort on their part to walk everywhere.

      When they ask that everyone else change their lives to protect their child from contact with nuts, it take minimal effort on their part.  Everyone else has to make the effort to change.  Everyone else is inconvenienced.  It’s easier to have everyone else make the effort and not them.

      Until you sell your car, the greater danger to kids around schools, you are not really serious about the risks to your children.

      Reply

    • Mrs.P says:

      12:14pm | 11/03/10

      “Everyone else is inconvenienced.  It’s easier to have everyone else make the effort and not them.”

      So you’re saying that these parents are making no effort? I’m pretty sure that these parents have had to change everything about their lives and eating habits to ensure the safety of their child that was born with an allergy, through no fault of their own, and yet it’s too much to ask someone not to bring a peanut butter sandwhich to school so that their efforts at every other time of the child’s life aren’t in vain?

    • JJJ says:

      12:38pm | 11/03/10

      Baby-steps, eh BTS. First the (more) achievable goal of reducing risk to many students by not having nuts at school, THEN we get rid of cars. Can’t eradicate all risks at once, now, can we?

    • BTS says:

      12:56pm | 11/03/10

      Mrs P,

      If you are going to quote me please use the whole quote, not selectively take bits out of context for your own advantage.

      ‘When they ask that everyone else change their lives to protect their child from contact with nuts, it take minimal effort on their part.  Everyone else has to make the effort to change.  Everyone else is inconvenienced.  It’s easier to have everyone else make the effort and not them.’

      See the part about ‘minimal effort’ that would be the part where I acknowledge that there is effort on behalf of the parent.  Minimal being a referral to the ability to change your world in comparison to the mammoth task of the entire world changing, being a much greater task and effort.

      Again, join me in banning all cars Mrs P, they are a greater danger to our kids than peanut butter.

    • Rover says:

      01:12pm | 11/03/10

      BTS, do you have a job? If so, how do you find the time to sit here and troll inanely all day?

      If not, how do you afford the bandwidth?

      Your car analogy makes no sense. Nor does your Henson analogy.

      You are saying that it’s not alright to expect society as a whole to make changes to protect some children with allergies from the risk of a severe reaction or even death, but it is alright to expect society to ban all images of naked children in case some of them are pornographic.

    • BTS says:

      02:19pm | 11/03/10

      Rover,

      Since when did you achieve such importance that I have to explain to you what I do for a living, how much my bandwith is and where I spend my time?  Is that the best you could come up with? Did asking those questions fulfil you with a sense of self-achievement?

      Cars kill more kids than peanuts, around schools.  We want to ban peanuts, but not cars.  You are right, that’s been my whole point.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

      You and Henson find it acceptable to photograph naked underage kids.

      What I am saying is that you take responsiblity for your own kids.  You don’t make everyone else change to suit your needs.  You don’t ban nut related products for one child and make 500 other families have to examine every single ingredient for their entire shopping list just because one child has issues with them. 

      You don’t allow your child to have photographs taken of them when they are naked.  This is taking responsiblity.  The majority of the country find taking pictures of children naked to be offensive, that’s why we have laws declaring it to be illegal.  Do I ask 500 other kids parents to throw out their cameras in case one takes a photo of my child naked.  No, I take responsiblity for mine and ensure that it doesn’t happen.

    • Mrs.P says:

      02:20pm | 11/03/10

      I’m sorry BTS, I didn’t realize that simply not putting PB on a sandwhich was such a mammoth task. My bad.

      My apologies for not using the entire quote. I should have taken into account your qualifications of minimal effort compared to the world. I forgot that these parents were asking everyone to make huge changes in their lives, not simply asking for a little more care to be taken. Again, my bad.

      I will join you in the banning of cars when you join me in the banning of alcohol and cigarettes, which also cause their fair share of deaths and cause problems for children.

      As I’ve said further down and as someone pointed out…everything has ‘may contain traces of nuts’ written on the package, for legal reasons. Schools have to ‘ban’ anything which ‘may contain traces of nuts’ for legal reasons, to protect themselves. But are they checking every lunch box, no. Are kids taking twisties and tiny teddies and other things to school that say ‘may contain traces of nuts’? Yes. Are kids having allergic reactions and being rushed to hospitals? No. By being reasonable and accepting the ban for what it really is, which is pretty much no peanut butter sandwhiches or nutella sandwhiches, but which is worded so as to cover a school legally, then it’s really not that big of a deal. Everything within reason and common sense, that’s all I’m saying.

    • eeldraw says:

      04:17pm | 11/03/10

      Personally, I’m not an advocate of banning peanuts altogether. I don’t have a child that suffers from a peanut allergy or any other allergy for that matter, although I do have a Coeliac partner for which the short term implications aren’t so serious.

      I’m just an advocate of a greater awareness of the potential this danger can be in schools and for all parents to play an active role in helping avoid any situation. I agree, it is an allergy sufferer’s parent’s responsibility to make sure their children are educated about the dangers and ramifications and yes, there are plenty of allergies out there that could have similar effects, but peanut allergy seems to be a little more common and I don’t know that we should hold the parents of those sufferers responsible for educating the rest of the student body on the inherent dangers (although I’m sure in many instances they do play an active role).

      I’d place money on the fact that those schools that have much stricter allergen controls in place have been subject more than one or two incidents of anaphylactic shock due to nuts in the past.  Consider the fact that it is not just traumatic for the victim or their parents… all of their classmates would also go home dealing with the impacts of witnessing one of their friends go into anaphylactic shock. I’m not going to comment on motives for a school to implement such strategies, but I am sure one of the most positive outcomes is protecting the rest of the student body from an extremely traumatic event such as their classmate dying.

      As for the car analogy:
      An adult behind the wheel of a car will be held accountable for there actions and (hopefully) we do as much as we can to educate our children about road safety, whereas a non-allergic child with a peanut butter sandwich in their hands cannot strictly be held accountable for their actions. We can educate children about the potential dangers, but if you compare the two, it’s easy for a child to rationalise that a car looks dangerous and has a reason to be feared, while a peanut butter sandwich looks pretty damned innocent.

      If the analogy was to put children behind the wheel of a vehicle, it may have been a little closer to the mark, but we all know that putting a child behind the wheel of a car is just ludicrous.

      And BTS, please don’t use fragments of my argument taken out of context to further your own argument, because it then completely misses the point and does nothing to strengthen your position. Take my argument as a whole, intended without malice or any hint of belittlement.

    • Rover says:

      04:20pm | 11/03/10

      BTS - there’s certainly one person on this thread with an overwhelming sense of self-achievement.

    • BTS says:

      06:41pm | 11/03/10

      Oh Rover,

      Such a cutting remark, I am so hurt.  You are too good with your comebacks.

    • Ian says:

      11:27am | 11/03/10

      How hard is it. I prepare 4 lunches each morning.  Miss 5 doesn’t eat the same foods as everyone else (standard fare is a meat and salad wrap) but would be happy with a peanut butter or hazelnut spread sandwich.
      Instead she ends up with a compilation of chickpeas tomatoes and olives or any other combination that doesn’t involve the dreaded green leafy vegetables.  She can have her beloved peanut butter or hazelnut spread on toast for breakfast.

      Am I imposed upon by the school restrictions - possibly but not very much.  I am simply thankful for having a child without allergies.  I’m with you Mrs P.

      I also believe in pool fencing even though my children are pool safe and it’s a pain letting little miss in and out of the pool gate.  I also believe in speed zones around schools.  There is individual responsibility - most adults aren’t good at it so it’s a bit much to expect of children.  There are also collective responsibilities and social obligations that underly social cohesiveness.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:45am | 11/03/10

      When did it become nuts to want to protect children?

      Answer: When you expect everyone else to do it as well.

      Reply

    • Albie says:

      12:12pm | 11/03/10

      As someone who has a life-threatening allergy (which I have had since I was a child), I don’t expect the world to bend around me.

      In fact, i was taken out of pre-school because my parents preferred to be certain that I wouldn’t be exposed to the allergen. They were not about to insist that the pre-school change the rules for everyone else - my allergy is/was a medical condition and it was up to me/them to manage it.

      I went to primary and high school, as by the age of 5 I was able to take care of myself and educate those around me of what was or was not ok.

      The risks were/are high if not properly managed, and in this risk-averse society I accept that the way we’re going there will be blanket bans everywhere, growing out from pre-schools and schools to wider society. That’s just the way we’re moving.

      In a risk-averse litigious society, if someone’s child goes into anaphylactic shock at a school then I can only imagine that the child’s parents would seek compensation from the school afterwards.

      No nut policies etc are a way for the schools to protect themselves as much as it is a way to protect the children.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if nuts are eventually put in the same category as class-A drugs.

      All because people can’t take responsibility for their actions.

      Bravo society.

      Reply

    • Infense says:

      12:20pm | 11/03/10

      A small inconvenience to save a person’s life sounds reasonable to me.

      Reply

    • Allergy Mum says:

      12:26pm | 11/03/10

      I have children with allergies. Yes I am an allergy mum, and we live in a household without eggs or nuts, as I want my home to be a safe haven as once they leave the house we have to be alert. I am sorry but I disagree with food bans at school as it splits people into for and against the issue (as you can all read above) The issue that needs to be addressed is education, as like most of you before I saw one of my children stop breathing before me I thought allergies were overdramatised. I have educated my children who are now of school age and I am completely confident sending them to school where the lunchbox next to theirs may contain egg or nuts. I have had to work with the school to provide an education to all students and parents to understand why my child can not swap lunches or share his drink bottle, but I feel that we have done the best we can to keep our children safe as one day they will move out of home and I will not be standing at their workplace every morning asking if they have their medication.

      Reply

    • Mrs.P says:

      12:30pm | 11/03/10

      Let’s be realistic here…pretty much everything these days has ‘may contain traces of nuts’ on the packet simply for companies to protect themselves legally. But we all know that a packet of twisties, etc is not going to cause a peanut-related reaction, and most people know this. Teachers aren’t going around checking every lunch box everyday (except for maybe the teachers and friends of an allergy kid) and realistically there is a very low risk from most foods, so you don’t have to change everything to accomodate someone with allergies which is waht a lot of people seem to think they have to do. Just don’t take things that are made completely with or of nuts, such as PB and Nutella, and lets face it, I can’t see that there would be a lot of other things kids are taking to school apart from those, that are made totally of peanuts or containing large amounts of peanut traces. It doesn’t have to be such a hard rule to follow if you apply common sense, and the majority of parents seem quite happy to make a small consideration for the benefit of another child.

      Reply

    • Steph says:

      01:07pm | 11/03/10

      To all those individuals screaming to the author about looking after your own child, I can assure you that if a child you may not know, was lying in your arms fighting for life due to a preventable action, you may change your tune.

      Reply

    • D says:

      01:09pm | 11/03/10

      All those who say “I shouldn’t have to change my life to save yours”, if you had an life threatening allergy to perfume and a co-worker who sat next to you every day wore the scent that would trigger an attack what would you do?  Would you ask that the co-worker refrain from using a substance that has a high risk of killing you?  Or do you accept that you’re going to die because they have a right act without regard for the wellbeing and safety of others.

      Drink driving is a criminal offense, negligent driving is a criminal offense.

      Society is made up of risk reducing policies - seat belts, lower speed limits around schools, warning signs telling you not to dive into shallow water, public awareness campaigns that smoking is bad for you etc Risk minimisation is not a hanging offense, it’s the response of a society that cares about its members.

      It seems that there is no empathy for others - that people posting here are perfectly happy to knowingly act in a way that will kill another person.  They dont’ care that a life will be lost, they care that they are not inconvenienced.  A life matters less than their personal convenience. 

      If someone killed a loved one in a way that was completely avoidable - and then said “well it was their fault, they shoudl have known better” - is that a fair and reasonable response?  Woudl you accept that the killer had no responsibility for their actions?

      Sure, people should be responsible for managing their own illnesses, but you need to be responsible for your actions as well.  if you know your actions will harm another person and you do it anyway, then you are culpable for that harm.

      Reply

    • Suzy says:

      01:42pm | 11/03/10

      A good friend of my son’s has a severe peanut allergy (his allergy demonstrates immediately and even if it touches his skin).  Even so, his parents still have peanut paste and other products in the house.  When he started preschool with my son in 2001 she didn’t ask for peanuts to be banned, only that the children were aware of what was in their lunch boxes and if they had a peanut product, they sat on the other side of the circle from him and washed their hands carefully etc.  This then made it about really educating all his friends from an early age, not just banning them and making it the parents’ responsibility.  He had a horrible incident when a curious child in grade one wiped his sandwich on his (immediate anaphylaxis and intensive care treatment even though the teachers administered adrenaline).  Even after this his parents didn’t expect a ban because he is always going to have to live in a world where peanuts exist and they cannot police the whole world.  He is now in grade 8 and still working around the world but not expecting to change it for him.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      02:29pm | 11/03/10

      Not many commenters here (Jolanda aside) have noted the obvious point that banning peanut-containing (which may not be obvious to parents) products from schools is a crap management strategy. What happens when the kids share an item that does not clearly contain peanuts?
      Ultimately, parents of children with allergies need to make sure their children avoid these risks. It doesn’t help anyone to create a dangerous, false sense of security. This banning strategy is clearly being driven by a fear of litigation, rather than a genuine concern for risk management.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      03:13pm | 11/03/10

      More people like BTS are needed in this country, to many soft options that dont involve people doing anything for themselves or taking responsibility for anything all while removing common sense.

      I dont know what I would have eaten while at school if there was this stupid “peanut ban” nonsense! I would have either had bread ... or nothing.
      More than likely mum still would have packed peanut butter sandwiches and requested that I don’t smear it on every other child at school or even better .. to be responsible for my own actions? hey there is a though!! That line of thought sadly has long since flown the coop for parents and children these days.

      As for OP, you have a “nut child” and you frequent south east asia? so you ARE willing to take risks & responsibility but only when it suits you it seems.
      The rest of the time everyone else should watch out for your child.

      Reply

    • former snag & parent. says:

      03:33pm | 11/03/10

      It becomes NUTS, when you OVER protect children, which can lead to many forms of, indirect abuse. Like banning my child from having a healthy, varied diet.

      Reply

    • pheelion says:

      03:42pm | 11/03/10

      I am blessed to have two very healthy children who are not allergic to anything.  I am also blessed with the empathy and compassion to understand that other people’s children are as important and precious to them as mine are to me.  As a result I am raising children who understand that them having what they want when they want it does not take priority over somebody else’s life.

      Reply

    • Angie says:

      06:32pm | 11/03/10

      I’m sorry Keeva but I disagree. I have great sympathy with your nut-allergic child. I have sympathy for the nasty experience you had in identifying her nut allergy (BTW don’t doctors test children in their infancy for nut allergy?  I know that my daughter and all her firends and all my younfg relatives were tested very early in their lives and throughout their infancy for this allergy. I’m surprised that you could have gone so far without any indication)


      But the solutions, and there are serveral, have been identified in various responses - they include educating your lovely daughter on the need to be careful with her food, not to swap lunch with others, to have her antidote pen/drug with her, and expecting the teacher to be aware of how to treat nut allergy.


      However there is no basis, unfiortunately, to expect the world to bercome responsible. Do you expect to deprive others of their legitimate foods? What then about people who have similar life threatening responses to prawns and shellfish, or ciliac people who have extreme allergic reactions - do we ban shellfish, and do we ban wheat preoducts, and then what else do we ban from schools? And then do we ban the products from workplaces? Do you expect the production of nut products to be terminated globally?


      I reiterate that I feel for you. But it’s not as easy as black banning every risk that your child could conceivably have from schools. There are several logical flaws in your argument.

      Sorry

      Reply

    • acker says:

      07:04pm | 11/03/10

      Sorry Keeva but where were you the other day during Jenny Pasquale’s thread and subsequent posts. Your reactionary offering here stinks of a blog author trying to get some high reply numbers on the back of the original blog authors innovative work.

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      07:14pm | 11/03/10

      I think that my daughter going without nuts/peanut butter during school hours is a small sacrifice if it means some other kid can have a risk-free existance.

      Reply

    • Sha says:

      07:31pm | 11/03/10

      I have a child in second class who will not allows peanut butter let alone a peanut in his mouth because of the bleating and hysterics of his teachers against these products. He does not have an allergy to peanut products but he is told on a weekly basis that peanuts will kill him! Rubbish.!

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      12:37am | 12/03/10

      The problem is that basic rights are often impeded purely to ‘protect the children’.

      When you have children you accept the fact that they could be harmed, or could die. That’s how life works. If they live they are stronger for it. Coddling them constantly does no good.

      Reply

    • Trevil Knieval says:

      07:01pm | 16/03/10

      You are kidding right? I think it is a HUGE over reaction to say a basic right has been impeded. What right? The right to eat peanuts at school? Seriously, just give up the penauts for 8 hours a day so some kid does not have the fear of suffocating to death with people just gawking with their faces full of peanuts….

    • Damian says:

      11:25pm | 07/02/12

      My sons primary school has just brought in a no peanut policy and i only found out first day back this year ( 2012 )
      I am disgusted that we find this out now rather than last year in term 4 when i could have changed schools if i so chose.
      I am a single father with a 10 year old who lives with me full time.
      I have had him with me since he was 4 and he has a thing for peanut butter sandwiches and always has, so 3 times a week or so i send him to school with them for lunch.
      As i work and he leads a busy life as well ( after school sports and activities ) it is a quick, easy and nutritious sandwich if we dont have a lot of time in the morning.
      Given that between 0.25-3 % of kids have a severe peanut allergy and he has spent 5 years in a classroom with at least 2 allergy sufferers without any adverse affects i find this a ridiculous policy to implement.
      Its about time you LAZY parents stopped passing the buck to others and educated your own kids about THEIR responsibilities as well as yourselves.
      Next you will want to ban peanuts altogether in the wider world instead of taking responsibility managing it yourselves.
      GROW UP !!!

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 09 Feb 12 07:40PM

RT @lillithtitania: Pictures show Adolf Hitler practising poses for his speeches - and relaxing in lederhosen http://t.co/7Idp5dWY via @news_com_au

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 09 Feb 12 06:08PM

More gay marriage legislation than you can point a straight stick at. http://t.co/k2SC4xNp

Paul Colgan

Colgo 09 Feb 12 05:48PM

@c41 yes it is.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 09 Feb 12 05:43PM

Tomorrow on The Punch: why we're being shafted at the ATM.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

by Tory Shepherd

49

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit, an irregular regular column on calumny and codswallop.…

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

by Anthony Sharwood

42

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

The yips. It’s an old golf term which refers to golfers who lose the ability to putt. They stand…

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

by Tory Shepherd

168

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

In I Spit On Your Grave, a young woman is gang raped in a remote woodland. She is beaten and tortured…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed