Peanut Butter Allergies AGAIN [Split from Mentally Challenged Thread]

[GGG]

Does a ban on peanuts really make a school safer or does in create a false sense of security? Does the child with the alergy believe that it is acceptable to trade food and eat food that they do not know the contents of. The child with the nut allergy needs to learn how to manage thier allergy so that they can protect themselves and not be coddled by schools afraid of litigation.

I think that a child is safer who is educated then one who is an artificial bubble which could be breached by a non-complient parent or even a non-diligent one.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

We should start the ban on cars, electricity, water, heavy objects of any kind, pillows, things that are sharp or pointy, fire, rope, plastic bags etc...

Every one of these things could kill me let alone a kid! Why shouldn"t we eliminate all these things from society if we could save just one child from potential harm? Why risk it?

So you think, kids should drive cars at 5?... Oh wait, no.. thats right... kids are baned from driving cars...

Lets just let live wires hang out of the ceiling and tell the kids to be careful... Oh wait.. there it is again.. we have building codes for that..

Lets give the kids sissors.. wait.... lets give them safety sissors so they don't hurt themsleves...

You like leaving lighters around the house.... just get the kid proof ones..

To hell with slinkeys....Plastic bags, plastic bags... it's a wonderful toy...

Seems to me pretty much EVERYTHING you said has already been banned from kids, alterted or has access limited in a way to protect them from themselves when you're not "hovering"...

Why aren't you arguing how inconvient it is for you that your kid has to use safety sissors at school. You don't want him to grow up a wuss do you?. Oh wait, something bad might happen to your kid if someone uses sharp pointy ones, so that rule is ok cause it benifits you... seems kinda self centerd to me...

Smarten up... and if you're gonna argue something using sarcasam at least try to use something that makes your point, not the one you're arguing...

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does a ban on peanuts really make a school safer or does in create a false sense of security? Does the child with the alergy believe that it is acceptable to trade food and eat food that they do not know the contents of. The child with the nut allergy needs to learn how to manage thier allergy so that they can protect themselves and not be coddled by schools afraid of litigation.

I think that a child is safer who is educated then one who is an artificial bubble which could be breached by a non-complient parent or even a non-diligent one.

this

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does a ban on peanuts really make a school safer or does in create a false sense of security? Does the child with the alergy believe that it is acceptable to trade food and eat food that they do not know the contents of. The child with the nut allergy needs to learn how to manage thier allergy so that they can protect themselves and not be coddled by schools afraid of litigation.

I think that a child is safer who is educated then one who is an artificial bubble which could be breached by a non-complient parent or even a non-diligent one.

Trust me... every kid who has a dealthly peanut allergy knows it. They know not to trade lunch, they know what the can and can't eat, they know if they don't know if it's safe, it's not.

All banning nuts from school does, is prevent cross contamination and accidental ingestion while the kid gets older and understands how to live with it.

Prevents things like picking up the wrong "granola bar" of the table, or teacher handing the kid the wrong sandwich. Prevents a heap of peanutbutter on the doorknob, or a peanuty high five... It just lowers the chance of the "death part" of leaning at school..

[Locke]

Ahh...peanut allergies, good times, good times.

Anyone else here remember playing the game where you feed the allergic kid some peanut butter and see who stabs him with an epi-pen first? It was like a grade-school version of chicken.

Those were the days...a more innocent time...

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does a ban on peanuts really make a school safer or does in create a false sense of security? Does the child with the alergy believe that it is acceptable to trade food and eat food that they do not know the contents of. The child with the nut allergy needs to learn how to manage thier allergy so that they can protect themselves and not be coddled by schools afraid of litigation.

I think that a child is safer who is educated then one who is an artificial bubble which could be breached by a non-complient parent or even a non-diligent one.

Your right the kid with the allergy does need to be educated. Still younger children need to be watched a lot closer than older children who have a better understanding of the situation and the concequences.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

Trust me... every kid who has a dealthly peanut allergy knows it. They know not to trade lunch, they know what the can and can't eat, they know if they don't know if it's safe, it's not.

All banning nuts from school does, is prevent cross contamination and accidental ingestion while the kid gets older and understands how to live with it.

Prevents things like picking up the wrong "granola bar" of the table, or teacher handing the kid the wrong sandwich. Prevents a heap of peanutbutter on the doorknob, or a peanuty high five... It just lowers the chance of the "death part" of leaning at school..

I agree it can reduce the cross-contamination issue but I would ask what a teacher is doing handing out the sandwichs or the kid picking up the random granola bar off the table. As well as you will get the jerk parent who refuese compliance. I just don't see the benefits in artificial security.

On a curious note (I am not trying to make light of the situation) Is there anywhere with information on how many peanut related deaths/near deaths there are each year and if that has changed over the course of implementing the peanut free movement. If it can be shown to be reducing deaths I would be in favour of it but it seems like a knee-jerk attempt to avoid litagation likely based on a very large US settlement somewhere.

[bluntus logicimus]

So ban peanut butter at schools.
And of course, it is banned at home.
As long as the child magically transports between these two sites, they are safe and sound.

At what age do the child and the children around them understand the actions and consequences of peanut butter. Is the ban in place up to and including Grade 12?

Leading from the 1st paragraph, does the child participate in society outside of home and school or is it safer to stay in only these two locations? If the former, what precautions can be taken? And if these are available, then it leads back to . . . what age can the child fend for themselves?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by bluntus logicimus

At what age do the child and the children around them understand the actions and consequences of peanut butter. Is the ban in place up to and including Grade 12?

I could be wrong, but I believe the bans are only in effect at the elementary school level.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by bluntus logicimus

So ban peanut butter at schools.
And of course, it is banned at home.
As long as the child magically transports between these two sites, they are safe and sound.

At what age do the child and the children around them understand the actions and consequences of peanut butter. Is the ban in place up to and including Grade 12?

Leading from the 1st paragraph, does the child participate in society outside of home and school or is it safer to stay in only these two locations? If the former, what precautions can be taken? And if these are available, then it leads back to . . . what age can the child fend for themselves?

The child does excatly the same thing as any other kids do. They goto birthday parties and hockey, flames games and you name it. When they goto birthday parties, the hosts, will know before hand, and in 90% of the cases will ask about simple thinks like cake and cookes and snacks. the other 10% of the time they likely just don't invite the child cause it's too much effort for them. Even though the choice usually boils down to Betty crocker vs Dunca Hines..

There are risks in every situation you mentioned, you can talk parent to parent in most of the cases, and in the rest you are there to help out. As the kid gets older you have to help the child less and less as they make thier own decisions. When they are little you have to help them understand why they can't eat the cake, and you usually bring a cupcake with them or something.

School is a different animal, you can't "hover" in school as a parent, and there are usually 20 other children in the same class. A child spends so much time there, it's important to provide a safe enviroment for all of them.

Nut allergy kids understand the consequences of thier allergy before the goto school, unfortunatly the other kids don't know untill they are in school, and as evident by this thread alot of people don't know the concequences well into adulthood...

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree it can reduce the cross-contamination issue but I would ask what a teacher is doing handing out the sandwichs or the kid picking up the random granola bar off the table. As well as you will get the jerk parent who refuese compliance. I just don't see the benefits in artificial security.

On a curious note (I am not trying to make light of the situation) Is there anywhere with information on how many peanut related deaths/near deaths there are each year and if that has changed over the course of implementing the peanut free movement. If it can be shown to be reducing deaths I would be in favour of it but it seems like a knee-jerk attempt to avoid litagation likely based on a very large US settlement somewhere.

There are stats but they are conflicting. In that some say the deaths to allergies are small, some say its bigger, there is alot of confusion with asthma and allergies deaths..

Most of the stats are out of the US too, they have a much better reporting system then we do. Stats are stats so take them with a grain of salt, but there is some raw data around to be found....

At risk for anaphylaxis

• There are 1.3 million to 13 million people who are allergic to insect stings.3,11
  • Each year, 40 to 400 anaphylactic deaths occur from insect stings.1,11-13
  • In people who have had a reaction to an insect sting, 30% to 60% will have a repeat reaction that is as severe or more severe than the first episode.14
• Food allergies affect 5.4 million to 7 million people.2
  • The incidence of food allergy in children is increasing.6
  • More than 2 million, or 8%, of U.S. children under three years old have food allergies.16
  • There are three million, or 1.1%, Americans who are allergic to peanuts or tree nuts.2
  • Each year, 125 deaths are attributed to food-related anaphylaxis.17
• There are 2.7 million to 16 million people who are allergic to latex.9,10,18
  • In health care workers, 8% to 17% are latex sensitive.7,8,18
• Up to 27 million people, 0.7% to 10%, are allergic to penicillin.19
  • Penicillin is responsible for about 5,440 cases of fatal anaphylaxis per year, which accounts for an estimated 75% of U.S. anaphylaxis deaths.1,20
  • Most deaths occur among individuals with no history of drug allergies.1
• Asthmatics are at particular risk for experiencing anaphylaxis.1

Incidence

• Anaphylaxis occurs at a rate of 21 per 100,000 people each year in the Northern United States21
  • Nearly 82,000 episodes of anaphylaxis may occur each year in the United States22
  • More than 57,000 Americans may experience anaphylaxis each year.22

Speed of potentially fatal anaphylaxis

• It takes only 1 to 2 minutes for a mild allergic reaction to escalate to anaphylaxis.24
• The faster the onset of an anaphylactic reaction, the greater the likelihood that it will be severe.1

References

1. AAAAI. Anaphylaxis in schools and other child-care settings. Position statement #34. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102:173-176.
2. Sicherer SH, Muñoz-Furlong A, Burke AW, et al. Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103:559-562.
3. Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis. 1998;101(6 pt 2):S465-S528.
4. Kagy L, Blaiss MS. Anaphylaxis in children. Pediatric Annals. 1998;27:727-734.
5. Shehadi WH. Adverse reactions to intravascularly administered contrast media: a comprehensive study based on a prospective survey. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1975;124:145-152.
6. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology. 1990;175:621-628.
7. Watts DN, Jacobs RR, Forrester B, et al. An evaluation of the prevalence of latex sensitivity among atopic and non-atopic intensive care workers. Am J Intern Med. 1998;34:359-363.
8. Liss GM, Sussman GL, Deal K, et al. Latex allergy: epidemiological study of 1351 hospital workers. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54:335.
9. Ownby DR, Ownby HE, McCullough J, Shafer AW. The prevalence of anti-latex IgE antibodies in 1000 volunteer blood donors. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;97:1188-1192.
10. Kelly KJ, Sussman G, Fink JN. Stop the sensitization. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;98:857-858.
11. Valentine MD. Anaphylaxis and stinging insect hypersensitivity. JAMA. 1992;268:2830-2833.
12. Lieberman P. Preventing fatalities from anaphylaxis: an allergist-immunologist's perspective. Allergy Proceedings. 1995;3:109-111.
13. Wyatt R. Anaphylaxis: how to recognize, treat and prevent potentially fatal attacks. Postgrad Med. 1996;100:87-99.
14. Reisman RE. Natural history of insect sting allergy: relationship of severity of symptomatic initial sting anaphylaxis to re-sting reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;30:335-339.
15. Sampson HA. Food allergy: primer on allergic and immunologic diseases. JAMA. 1997;288:1888-1894.
16. Bock SA. Prospective appraisal of complaints of adverse reactions to foods in children during the first 3 years of life. Pediatrics. 1987;79:683-688.
17. Burks AW, Sampson HA. Anaphylaxis and food allergy. In: DD Metcalf, HA Sampson, RA Simon, eds. Food Allergy: Adverse Reactions to Foods and Food Additives. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Science; 1997.
18. Arellano R, Bradley J, Sussman G. Prevalence of latex sensitization among hospital physicians occupationally exposed to latex gloves. Anaesthesiology. 1992;77:905-908.
19. Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program. Drug-induced anaphylaxis. JAMA. 1973;224:613.
20. Bochner BS, Lichtenstein LM. Anaphylaxis. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1785.
21. Yocum MW, Butterfield JH, Klein JS, et al. Epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Olmstead County: a population-based study. J Allergy Clin Immun. 1999;104:452-457.
22. Weiler JM. Anaphylaxis in the general population: a frequent and occasionally fatal disorder that is under-recognized. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;104:271-273.
23. Sampson H, Mendelson L, Rosen J. Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:380-384.
24. The Merck Manual. 16th ed. Merck Research Laboratories; 1992:331.
25. Stark BJ, Sullivan TJ. Biphasic and protracted anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1986;78:76.
26. Brazil E, MacNamara AF. "Not so immediate" hypersensitivity—the danger of biphasic anaphylactic reactions. J Accid Emerg Med. 1998;(4):252-253.
27. Korenblatt, et al. A retrospective study of the administration of epinephrine for anaphylaxis indicating need for more than one dose [abstract 234]. ACCP. 1998.
28. Neugut AI, Ghatak AT, Miller RL. Anaphylaxis in the United States: an investigation into its epidemiology. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:15-

[jammies]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

It's more along the lines of protien bases "prion" type infections, not exactly the same, but based on the argument that protiens can have an affect on genetic material. In the end though nobody really knows so I'm not gonna get into a debate about something neither of us knows about. Only thing for sure is it's a growing problem, and thats the reality of the situation.

You seem pretty sure of what I do and don't know about. Maybe you can argue my side and save me the trouble, that'd be helpful.

I'd say the "reality of the situation" is that peanut allergies aren't increasing, what's increasing is the hysteria about peanut allergies. Why do we never hear about any kids who have mild peanut allergies, it's always "OH MY GOD my baby is gonna DIE if s/he is within 200 metres of a peanut!" Yet very, very few kids (if any) DO die from the allergies, so how is that possible if they live in such mortal danger?

Originally Posted by metal_geek

You don't hear alot of people with nut allergies dying because the allergy is well managed, and the awareness is very high. Nobody is talking about aroma's, it's physical ingestion of peanut protein that's the real problem. The vast majority of people who die from Anaphylaxis get reported as asthma releated deaths because the symptoms and results are the same. Way more kids die of asthma each year but a percentage of thoes are actually Anaphylaxis.

Actually, people *are* talking about aromas, as I was directly quoting Dion's post where a supposed "expert" claimed that the mere aroma was enough to provoke a reaction. And as far as anaphylaxis deaths being reported as asthma, what proof do you have for this? It may or may not be so, but "maybe" doesn't transform into "is" without proof.

Originally Posted by fotze

But I feel that this risk has totally been overstated and when people are being lied to, it pisses them off, just basic human instinct.

And that's it in a nutshell; it's a problem that is WAY overblown and takes attention, time and money away from real problems. As I pointed out, there were all of EIGHTEEN anaphylatic deaths in the USA in 2005, which is hardly pointing to a vast peanuty death machine chewing up kids.

[Hack&Lube]

Peanuts are some of the most nutritious, hardy, and compact sources of food in the world. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut

It's one of the best tools to fight malnutrition and hunger in the third world. If there is a food we should be eating...it's peanuts.

I love peanuts.

I love peanut butter.

[Chump]

nm

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Peanuts are some of the most nutritious, hardy, and compact sources of food in the world. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut

It's one of the best tools to fight malnutrition and hunger in the third world. If there is a food we should be eating...it's peanuts.

I love peanuts.

I love peanut butter.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'd say the "reality of the situation" is that peanut allergies aren't increasing, what's increasing is the hysteria about peanut allergies. Why do we never hear about any kids who have mild peanut allergies, it's always "OH MY GOD my baby is gonna DIE if s/he is within 200 metres of a peanut!" Yet very, very few kids (if any) DO die from the allergies, so how is that possible if they live in such mortal danger?

My wife and I were pretty skeptical of our daughters diagnosis over the years. She gets tested every year and every year the doctor tells us that yes she is allergic to tree nuts. Last year in particular my wife told the doctor that our daughter had eaten a pasta sauce that we discovered had walnuts in the ingredients. She had no reaction what so ever. The doctor told us that she could be exposed to nuts 99 times with no reaction, but the 100th time could be fatal.

So I guess their is a lot of hysteria when it comes to food allergies. But how do you weigh the risk? I'm not one to panic, but this is the life of your child. Could you live with yourself if you blew the risk off as just a bunch of over blown scare tactics by doctors and your child died as a result? Personally I think the risk is low, so I'm not losing any sleep over it. It is real enough that I do pay attention to what she is eating (at the age of nine, she reads the label on everything she eats anyway).

[GGG]

The interesting thing is that if you hadn't done an allergy test you wouldn't known about it. I am just becoming a parent for the first time and I question a lot of the medical establishment the Allergy testing is one of the areas. If you don't mind me asking why did you get the allergy test done the first time? The other area I am highly scepticle on is ADHD but that is a whole other discussion

[jammies]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

So I guess their is a lot of hysteria when it comes to food allergies. But how do you weigh the risk? I'm not one to panic, but this is the life of your child. Could you live with yourself if you blew the risk off as just a bunch of over blown scare tactics by doctors and your child died as a result? Personally I think the risk is low, so I'm not losing any sleep over it. It is real enough that I do pay attention to what she is eating (at the age of nine, she reads the label on everything she eats anyway).

Sounds like you are being reasonable about the risks, and are weighing them sensibly. If I had a kid with a serious allergy I'd be equally careful, but I wouldn't expect the entire world to revolve around his/her special needs, which is the main issue I have with all the hysteria.

Plus, if my kid was diagnosed with any allergy, I'd get a 2nd, informed opinion from another doctor (preferably a specialist), as there is a big difference between a mild allergy which might make you break out in hives, and one that is life-threatening. Your story of your doctor and the 1 in 100 chance of dying sounds like it is pulled out of thin air by a physician who isn't much of an allergy authority, or even more likely, one who is deadly afraid of lawsuits and figures going way overboard in stating the risks is covering his/her ass.

PS: I'm not criticizing and I have no idea whether you've consulted a specialist or not. It's just what I would do, as I've personally had experience with doctors who overdramatize test results as if your immediate death was staring out of the paper.

PPS - this guy's blog pretty well sums up how I feel, and has some good links about the subject too.

[OutOfTheCube]

You know what's weird? It's only kids who have really bad peanut allergies. Seriously. I remember when I was a kid you'd always hear that you couldn't bring peanut stuff cause Joey was really allergic. And when I worked at daycamps, same thing. But I've never met anyone around my age or older than me who's been stupidly allergic to them. What's the deal?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

You know what's weird? It's only kids who have really bad peanut allergies. Seriously. I remember when I was a kid you'd always hear that you couldn't bring peanut stuff cause Joey was really allergic. And when I worked at daycamps, same thing. But I've never met anyone around my age or older than me who's been stupidly allergic to them. What's the deal?

The Peanut King has manipulated our society's youth in unspeakable ways....unspeakable....ways.....