Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm at a parochial school and we got a list of what we can bring to the Christmas party and it basically consists of gummy snacks, Capri Sun and chips, all individually packaged of course. Everything else is an allergen.

Unpopular opinion: schools need to stop asking parents to bring food for the entire class.

We don't need to have a gazillion parties where kids are stuffing themselves with chips and gummy candies. It's doing more harm than good.

Everyone packs their own kid's food so each kid is safe.

A school Christmas party can literally just be everyone eats their own lunch while they watch a Christmas movie together. Not everything needs to involve shared food.

I agree with this one. At our preschool, the list of banned foods for group events was so long that only the very, very worst crap was okay. But there were so many parties and events and birthdays (they loved a celebration), which was sweet, but the parties were then just the kids consuming pure, unadulterated junk, with no real food at all, all afternoon. However, there was only a peanut ban for individual lunches because there were no actual documented allergies. I am completely sympathetic to allergies and absolutely would never want to put even one kid in a bad position so think we shouldn't have done any group food thing at that age.

The banned peanuts despite no
One being allergic? Now I’ve heard it all!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm at a parochial school and we got a list of what we can bring to the Christmas party and it basically consists of gummy snacks, Capri Sun and chips, all individually packaged of course. Everything else is an allergen.

Unpopular opinion: schools need to stop asking parents to bring food for the entire class.

We don't need to have a gazillion parties where kids are stuffing themselves with chips and gummy candies. It's doing more harm than good.

Everyone packs their own kid's food so each kid is safe.

A school Christmas party can literally just be everyone eats their own lunch while they watch a Christmas movie together. Not everything needs to involve shared food.

I agree with this one. At our preschool, the list of banned foods for group events was so long that only the very, very worst crap was okay. But there were so many parties and events and birthdays (they loved a celebration), which was sweet, but the parties were then just the kids consuming pure, unadulterated junk, with no real food at all, all afternoon. However, there was only a peanut ban for individual lunches because there were no actual documented allergies. I am completely sympathetic to allergies and absolutely would never want to put even one kid in a bad position so think we shouldn't have done any group food thing at that age.

Oh no, the conversation in the thread had turned to the needs of other children for a moment.

Time to swoop in and put up a bunch of straw men on behalf of kids with allergies, who are obviously the only children who matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew was visiting and a neighborhood kid gave him some chocolate with nuts. He has a severe allergy, six years old, and parents didnt have EpiPen with them. He went to hospital and had to be sent to a children’s hospital.

Just a little caused a major reaction, it was scary.

Guess that’s his own problem to deal with. He should have stayed home if he was so allergic.

Wait, are we time travelers to Sparta?

Right? I'm pretty shocked by the lack of empathy on this thread. Hopefully it's only a few (or maybe one) loud people, but geez, to react that way to a child who had to go to the hospital? That's horrible.

The callous comment ("Guess that's his own problem to deal with. He should have stayed home if he was so allergic.") was CLEARLY the sarcastic response of someone parodying what they perceive to be inadequately empathetic attitudes towards kids with allergies.

But not one person on this thread actually reacted that way to a child having to go to the hospital. Everyone responded with concern toward the child, but with varying attitudes on how this event could have been prevented (i.e. whether it would best be prevented by banning foods, educating others about the risks of food allergies, or supervising a child with allergies more closely).

The fact that at least two of you have responded to what was obviously a sarcastic, not genuine, comment as representing how people feel about kids with allergies says a lot about how far off the reservation some of you are. No one wants to endanger kids with allergies. We just want common sense solutions, that are actually feasible, that protect kids with allergies without overburdening other kids or their families unnecessarily.

Anonymous wrote:So much ignorance on display here. All of you people giving judgmental “advice” without personally having a child with allergies should probably listen more than you preach.

1) food allergies are unpredictable and a kid that is believed to have a “mild” reaction could have a severe reaction the very next time even with similar exposure so not everyone is prepared for a severe reaction even if their child has allergies

2) the epi pen can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and they expire every year. You need at least 4 every year. Not everyone has the luxury of affording such an expense and they sometimes stretch beyond the expiration date etc to get by

3) shit happens and people can forget an epi pen or drop it or a million other situations that are not neglectful so spare us your judgement since you have no idea

+1. Also, in that particular story, we were talking about a SIX YEAR OLD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew was visiting and a neighborhood kid gave him some chocolate with nuts. He has a severe allergy, six years old, and parents didnt have EpiPen with them. He went to hospital and had to be sent to a children’s hospital.

Just a little caused a major reaction, it was scary.

Guess that’s his own problem to deal with. He should have stayed home if he was so allergic.

Wait, are we time travelers to Sparta?

Right? I'm pretty shocked by the lack of empathy on this thread. Hopefully it's only a few (or maybe one) loud people, but geez, to react that way to a child who had to go to the hospital? That's horrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A tip I recently heard with respect to kids struggling to gain weight: consider sometimes making sandwiches on Costco croissants instead of bread. It’s admittedly not the most nutritious, but each croissant is a calorie bomb.

I’m one of the moms with an underweight kid and my kid doesn’t like bread or baked goods. Not joking!!! He eats his peanut butter out of a single serving PB cup, and spreads it on apple slices. It’s insane. I’m like dude EAT BREAD. He’d happily sit at the wheat allergy table if our school had one!

It's so hard. My kid is the opposite -- bread is one of the few foods she will eat and peanut butter or hummus or cheese are all pretty hit or miss with her.

But one reason allergy bans are hard for us is precisely because my kid is so limited with her food and will avoid any food for any reason. It takes so little to turn her off a food. Having a ton of restrictions on what you are allowed to send to school actually triggers her food anxiety generally, and I actually suspect one reason she fights eating peanut butter (at home, where I serve it) is because she knows it's a banned food at school and this makes her brain go "peanut butter = bad." Even the bread situation makes me nervous because she's getting old enough that she has started hearing weight loss nonsense from other kids and their parents, and if someone starts telling her that bread is "unhealthy" I don't know if we can get her to keep eating it.

For this reason I really resent the entire conversation around food and health in schools and parent communities. My kid goes to therapy, hopefully we find a way through these food anxieties and can untangle it. But my single biggest fear for her is that her elementary food aversions become a teenage eating disorder and this winds up being a battle she fights her whole life. So yeah, my eye gets real twitchy when I hear people talking about "the Big 8" like it's a perp list. There is nothing inherently wrong with soy, it's actually a foundational part of many people's diets! But people don't think. They are laser focused on their own kids and will demonize anything their kids can't eat to make their own lives easier even if it creates some very harmful effects for kids like mine.

Anonymous wrote:A tip I recently heard with respect to kids struggling to gain weight: consider sometimes making sandwiches on Costco croissants instead of bread. It’s admittedly not the most nutritious, but each croissant is a calorie bomb.

I’m one of the moms with an underweight kid and my kid doesn’t like bread or baked goods. Not joking!!! He eats his peanut butter out of a single serving PB cup, and spreads it on apple slices. It’s insane. I’m like dude EAT BREAD. He’d happily sit at the wheat allergy table if our school had one!

Anonymous wrote:A tip I recently heard with respect to kids struggling to gain weight: consider sometimes making sandwiches on Costco croissants instead of bread. It’s admittedly not the most nutritious, but each croissant is a calorie bomb.

Yep we do this. Well, not sandwiches because my kid won't eat most sandwiches, but I'll stick a croissant or half croissant in her lunch and she'll actually eat it. We also do muffins a lot because it's easy to load them up with calories and protein.

To be honest I'm going to object to your statement that it's "not the most nutritious" and suggest trying to change that attitude. People consider a croissant lacking in nutrition because it's heavy in fat. But kids actually need fats in their diet and kids who are struggling to gain weight REALLY need fat in their diet. That's precisely why peanut butter is such a staple of a lot of kids' diets, because it has fat in it.

Also, fun fact: a croissant has about the same amount of protein as a single serving of hummus. Fat and protein tend to go together. So actually a croissant can be a very healthy option for some kids, and the perception that it is "not nutritious" comes from somewhat disordered ideas about foods that many adults have, which deems high fat foods as "bad."

Maybe it would be easier to deal with food restrictions from allergies if these same communities didn't often have disorders and highly judgmental attitudes about what kids should be eating, or what foods are healthy. Often the same parents who want allergen bans are also the ones criticizing foods for being "processed" or "unhealthy" because of fat or sugar content. But for a kid who is underweight or who might have a problem like ARFID, processed foods may be a healthy part of the solution because they can help overcome sensory issues to enable the kid to eat more. Foods high in fat often include protein these kids desperately need. And added sugar can be the difference between a kid consuming a high-calorie, nutrient-rich food or leaving it untouched (this is why my kid periodically gets a bit of chocolate sauce in her whole milk with dinner, because I know she's been avoiding food all day and it's a surefire way to get her fat, protein, Vitamin D, and calcium with her dinner and ensure she drinks the whole glass).

So a suggestion to the allergy moms: you might be able to make allies out of the moms with underweight kids if you encouraged a more expansive and tolerant attitude towards the idea that different kids need different diets, and not to be so judgmental or critical of how other families feed their kids. Maybe I'm an ally with you on the tree nuts if you will be an ally with me on not labeling a croissant "junk food" or "unhealthy" when it might be the best way for me to ensure my kid actually eats a lunch her body desperately needs to consume.

What if we all helped each other? Think how much better all of our lives could be.

A tip I recently heard with respect to kids struggling to gain weight: consider sometimes making sandwiches on Costco croissants instead of bread. It’s admittedly not the most nutritious, but each croissant is a calorie bomb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the elephant in the room is the question as to how far does the majority bend to the needs of the minority? Who’s needs are more important and at what point do we tip too far?

Do you think avoidance of death is too far? Honestly asking you? If kids didnt have epis at their disposal would your calculus change? Is it that epis are available or do you think its some kind of Darwinism at play and these kids are just weak and they should just pull some bootstraps?

This entire thread is parents of kids with allergies saying dont ban foods. Thats not necessary. And the replies are BUT YOU TAKE AWAY MY KIDS PEANUT BUTTER YOU DEMONS. And then the replies of, but we dont want food bans, we just want common sense interventions that dont take anything away for you or your kids And then its HOW FAR MUST WE BENDDDDDD.

In hierachy of needs we are agreeing that food is priority. Have the fuc9in food!!!!!!!! Just know that after that comes safety and health.

I don't get it. You don't want to ban foods in schools but also you don't think people should be allowed to bring allergens to playgrounds? I honestly don't understand what you are arguing for. I think you are trying to seem like you are being reasonable while asking for an intensive, high level of compliance with food restrictions from the general public.

I think you can't read

I think the issue is there are likely two different posters, but it kind of reads like it's one person, hence the confusion of PP.

One poster talks about spontaneous death due to non-direcr exposure to traces of peanuts in a school cafeteria, and she wants allergens (all?, most?, many?, not entirely clear but definitely peanuts) banned from schools. That poster is truly nuts (pun intended).

The other poster doesn't want any foods banned from schools but wants everybody to be constantly washing their hands in public areas (not just schools and not just indoors) regardless of whether or not they have access to soap and water.

Did I get all this nonsense right?

You got the extremes out of every single post you summarized but I guess thats conversations and communication nowadays.

How are these the extremes? These are exactly what this poster/these posters are arguing. Look at her new response after this summary. She is still saying that her child will die because of something another kid ingests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am over other people’s allergies. Schools can separate kids that have extreme allergies to their own table/room.

Agree. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Wow, that seems pretty harsh. I’m willing to be inconvenienced so that a child doesn’t end up in the hospital.

It’s more than an inconvenience to say you can’t bring several major ingredients for your own child’s lunch. The kids with severe allergies can have their own table were they are placed with enough distance to not contaminate each other’s areas. That is reasonable. Telling the whole school they can’t peanuts, soy, almonds, sunflower seeds, sesame, wheat, dairy, etc. for their own personal consumption in a lunch room is not reasonable.

Correct but this is why it's easier for schools and it's also lazy to say oh you just can't bring this in but they're not checking lunches, parents are not paying attention and even you have suggestions of a sneak it in because who is actually checking the lunches. The actual evidence-based interventions are hand-washing after lunch and cleaning the tables.
In the classroom they shouldn't share supplies and hand washing should happen after snacks it's literally that simple the problem is hand washing actually requires time and honestly from a allergy perspective and a non allergy perspective I would rather them focus on hand washing which would probably cut down on 50% of the colds and viruses that the kids exchange all the time.
I'm in allergy groups and we have the discussion all the time with parents of kids with allergies who want the school to be nut free completely disregarding that there are seven other top allergens and the school is not going to go dairy free or egg free. So there happens to be this prioritization of allergies where people are like oh well I understand the peanut but I don't understand wheat allergies they're all top nine. So again limiting one allergy from the school quote on quote because it doesn't actually work and nobody actually pays attention to it still limits the food choices of kids who have allergies and those that don't.

My kid had allergies to six things in elementary, none of them were top 9. And she was a picky eater. The peanut bans drove me crazy because she wasn't allergic and it was protein that she would eat. They never banned any of her allergens. The last thing she needed was another restriction.

The PP doesn't care about your kid though. She only cares about her kid and insists we all prioritize her kid over our own kids at all times, even when the things we're doing for her kid have minimal benefit to her kid and are a major burden to us and our kids. So your kid can eat Doritos and and a dog biscuit for lunch, whatever, who cares.

Once again let me repeat myself

You will survive if you can’t eat certain foods. My child can die if she gets exposed. The person who only cares about themselves is YOU.

You act as if it’s so easy. My child has been underweight his whole life despite my best, best efforts to get him to eat more foods. He is 10 and weighs 55lbs. One of the FEW high calorie , protein and fat rich foods he will eat is peanut butter. Thankfully his school is reasonable and just has kids not share food and has an allergy table available that doesn’t allow nuts, and a second one that doesn’t allow dairy, since those are the 2 anaphylactic allergies present at his school. Kids with severe allergy where contact or breathing in particles will harm them, can sit there with any buddies who packed a nut or dairy free lunch. Problem solved- your kid can eat safely and so can mine. Without telling my kid he isn’t allowed to eat something because SOMEONE ELSE is allergic to it.

Thank you for saying this. My kid is also underweight and struggles with food. She actually doesn't really like peanut butter so that's not even something I want to send in with her, but if another kid with the same issues would eat peanut butter, I'd definitely want the school to find a way to help accommodate that safely because I know how hard it is. Dismissing the challenges of a child in this situation when it's really not that hard to accommodate both a kid with allergies and the kid who is at the bottom of the growth curve and struggles to eat. Both have a medical issue that needs to be addressed. I think if you view both kids' issues as valid and seek a solution that helps them both, you can usually find one.

The problem is when one parent believes that only their child's issues matter and thinks any other concerns are less significant. That's how you wind up with policies like blanket food bans that greatly limit the ability of some parents to simply feed their children. It's not a reasonable solution and it's really not needed in most cases because very few kids have allergies so severe that they will have a life-threatening reaction just because someone in the same room consumed a food with that allergen. Just don't share food, problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am over other people’s allergies. Schools can separate kids that have extreme allergies to their own table/room.

Agree. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Wow, that seems pretty harsh. I’m willing to be inconvenienced so that a child doesn’t end up in the hospital.

It’s more than an inconvenience to say you can’t bring several major ingredients for your own child’s lunch. The kids with severe allergies can have their own table were they are placed with enough distance to not contaminate each other’s areas. That is reasonable. Telling the whole school they can’t peanuts, soy, almonds, sunflower seeds, sesame, wheat, dairy, etc. for their own personal consumption in a lunch room is not reasonable.

Correct but this is why it's easier for schools and it's also lazy to say oh you just can't bring this in but they're not checking lunches, parents are not paying attention and even you have suggestions of a sneak it in because who is actually checking the lunches. The actual evidence-based interventions are hand-washing after lunch and cleaning the tables.
In the classroom they shouldn't share supplies and hand washing should happen after snacks it's literally that simple the problem is hand washing actually requires time and honestly from a allergy perspective and a non allergy perspective I would rather them focus on hand washing which would probably cut down on 50% of the colds and viruses that the kids exchange all the time.
I'm in allergy groups and we have the discussion all the time with parents of kids with allergies who want the school to be nut free completely disregarding that there are seven other top allergens and the school is not going to go dairy free or egg free. So there happens to be this prioritization of allergies where people are like oh well I understand the peanut but I don't understand wheat allergies they're all top nine. So again limiting one allergy from the school quote on quote because it doesn't actually work and nobody actually pays attention to it still limits the food choices of kids who have allergies and those that don't.

My kid had allergies to six things in elementary, none of them were top 9. And she was a picky eater. The peanut bans drove me crazy because she wasn't allergic and it was protein that she would eat. They never banned any of her allergens. The last thing she needed was another restriction.

The PP doesn't care about your kid though. She only cares about her kid and insists we all prioritize her kid over our own kids at all times, even when the things we're doing for her kid have minimal benefit to her kid and are a major burden to us and our kids. So your kid can eat Doritos and and a dog biscuit for lunch, whatever, who cares.

Once again let me repeat myself

You will survive if you can’t eat certain foods. My child can die if she gets exposed. The person who only cares about themselves is YOU.

m
Which foods will you child die from if my child eats that food a few yards away? Let’s take a survey of all children in the state, and list all of those foods, and the no one will be allowed to eat any of them within the state of Maryland. Just to be safe. Because we don’t want anyone to die. And you’ll live if you can’t eat peanuts, tree nuts, dairy, eggs, wheat, soy, sesame, fish, shellfish, kiwis, bananas, mangoes, apples, chicken, peaches, beef, pork, lamb, or tomatoes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am over other people’s allergies. Schools can separate kids that have extreme allergies to their own table/room.

Agree. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Wow, that seems pretty harsh. I’m willing to be inconvenienced so that a child doesn’t end up in the hospital.

It’s more than an inconvenience to say you can’t bring several major ingredients for your own child’s lunch. The kids with severe allergies can have their own table were they are placed with enough distance to not contaminate each other’s areas. That is reasonable. Telling the whole school they can’t peanuts, soy, almonds, sunflower seeds, sesame, wheat, dairy, etc. for their own personal consumption in a lunch room is not reasonable.

Correct but this is why it's easier for schools and it's also lazy to say oh you just can't bring this in but they're not checking lunches, parents are not paying attention and even you have suggestions of a sneak it in because who is actually checking the lunches. The actual evidence-based interventions are hand-washing after lunch and cleaning the tables.
In the classroom they shouldn't share supplies and hand washing should happen after snacks it's literally that simple the problem is hand washing actually requires time and honestly from a allergy perspective and a non allergy perspective I would rather them focus on hand washing which would probably cut down on 50% of the colds and viruses that the kids exchange all the time.
I'm in allergy groups and we have the discussion all the time with parents of kids with allergies who want the school to be nut free completely disregarding that there are seven other top allergens and the school is not going to go dairy free or egg free. So there happens to be this prioritization of allergies where people are like oh well I understand the peanut but I don't understand wheat allergies they're all top nine. So again limiting one allergy from the school quote on quote because it doesn't actually work and nobody actually pays attention to it still limits the food choices of kids who have allergies and those that don't.

My kid had allergies to six things in elementary, none of them were top 9. And she was a picky eater. The peanut bans drove me crazy because she wasn't allergic and it was protein that she would eat. They never banned any of her allergens. The last thing she needed was another restriction.

The PP doesn't care about your kid though. She only cares about her kid and insists we all prioritize her kid over our own kids at all times, even when the things we're doing for her kid have minimal benefit to her kid and are a major burden to us and our kids. So your kid can eat Doritos and and a dog biscuit for lunch, whatever, who cares.

Once again let me repeat myself

You will survive if you can’t eat certain foods. My child can die if she gets exposed. The person who only cares about themselves is YOU.

You act as if it’s so easy. My child has been underweight his whole life despite my best, best efforts to get him to eat more foods. He is 10 and weighs 55lbs. One of the FEW high calorie , protein and fat rich foods he will eat is peanut butter. Thankfully his school is reasonable and just has kids not share food and has an allergy table available that doesn’t allow nuts, and a second one that doesn’t allow dairy, since those are the 2 anaphylactic allergies present at his school. Kids with severe allergy where contact or breathing in particles will harm them, can sit there with any buddies who packed a nut or dairy free lunch. Problem solved- your kid can eat safely and so can mine. Without telling my kid he isn’t allowed to eat something because SOMEONE ELSE is allergic to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the elephant in the room is the question as to how far does the majority bend to the needs of the minority? Who’s needs are more important and at what point do we tip too far?

Do you think avoidance of death is too far? Honestly asking you? If kids didnt have epis at their disposal would your calculus change? Is it that epis are available or do you think its some kind of Darwinism at play and these kids are just weak and they should just pull some bootstraps?

This entire thread is parents of kids with allergies saying dont ban foods. Thats not necessary. And the replies are BUT YOU TAKE AWAY MY KIDS PEANUT BUTTER YOU DEMONS. And then the replies of, but we dont want food bans, we just want common sense interventions that dont take anything away for you or your kids And then its HOW FAR MUST WE BENDDDDDD.

In hierachy of needs we are agreeing that food is priority. Have the fuc9in food!!!!!!!! Just know that after that comes safety and health.

I don't get it. You don't want to ban foods in schools but also you don't think people should be allowed to bring allergens to playgrounds? I honestly don't understand what you are arguing for. I think you are trying to seem like you are being reasonable while asking for an intensive, high level of compliance with food restrictions from the general public.

I think you can't read

I think the issue is there are likely two different posters, but it kind of reads like it's one person, hence the confusion of PP.

One poster talks about spontaneous death due to non-direcr exposure to traces of peanuts in a school cafeteria, and she wants allergens (all?, most?, many?, not entirely clear but definitely peanuts) banned from schools. That poster is truly nuts (pun intended).

The other poster doesn't want any foods banned from schools but wants everybody to be constantly washing their hands in public areas (not just schools and not just indoors) regardless of whether or not they have access to soap and water.

Did I get all this nonsense right?

You got the extremes out of every single post you summarized but I guess thats conversations and communication nowadays.