I agree. Kids need to build their immunities through exposure, especially for the common cold. Those who are protected from colds as kids are likely to have many colds as adults.

So you lost a choice of a meal so someone else doesn't have to risk dying? How selfish of your company!

Wow it must be nice that your children are healthy with no allergy concerns... That may not always be the case my daughter developed a peanut allergy at age ten....you truly are a very selfish person

When i went to elementary school way back when, I was friends with a girl with very severe nut allergy. However, she was taught at a young age, as were all her friends, that she was allergic to nuts and thus avoided them. Im with Cole, the pu$$ification of the USA has gone to far. What if my neighbors are allergic to tree pollen, should I cut down all my trees?

I am not any kind of expert here, and I don't have any numbers to back any of this up, but are you sure these didn't exist i the 50's and earlier? As we learn more about the body and how it reacts we start to term more illnesses and allergic reactions that would have otherwise been misdiagnosed. Perhaps the climb in reported cases also has something to do with the fact that we know what we are dealing with when a child goes into anaphylactic shock.

That being said, I also wouldn't be surprised at all if additives played a very large roll in developing these problems.

We we were growing up we didn't drink from water in plastic bottles, nor was there GMO foods and now it's everywhere...high fructose corn syrup also started to be added to all of our foods

Simple HM, The American's With Disabilities Act. Because our society has become so selfish, they've had to legislate what should be common courtesy and "golden rule" behaviour.

Gluten has become the newest "epidemic".

Yes, you really can be allergic to those. Top 8 allergens - Milk, Eggs, Peanuts, Tree nuts (almonds, cashews, walnuts), Fish, Shellfish, Soy and wheat (usually "gluten" is the offending compound in wheat that causes allergic reactions - I tried to have a Guinness two St. Patrick's Days past - it does not contain wheat but it does use barley, which also contains gluten. Two sips and my lips swelled up like I got socked in the mouth.)

There are a lot of parents out there that wont let their kids eat these things without even testing them for allergies.

To add to your comment: A lot of Pediatricians add to the "Parents not trying out foods"....our pediatrician recommended no nuts til over 1, no honey until over 3, and a few others that I can't remember. I think that when pediatricians do this, they also scare parents into not letting their kids try different things....

The issue here isn't what you or I would do David. We are both adults and, presumably, rational people who aren't dicks for the sake of being dicks.

What we're talking about are children. Children are not rational. There's a reason we don't let 10 years olds vote or drive. Children do stupid things. Children would, and do, blow peanut dust at other students. Children, who rightly know better, do things they shouldn't. How many times have any of us asked a child "why did you do that," only to be answered with a shrug or a "I don't know?"

We can talk about and make up all the "absurd" arguments all you want, but I have yet to hear of a life-threatening cotton allergy. You seemed to have missed that part of the USDA guidelines. We're not talking about "making them sick." We're talking about explicitly life-threatening allergies.

David, I feel really bad for you and your enviromental allergies. When you Sneeze I will be sure to say God Bless you. Food allergies are not the same, they can kill someone who is allergic. I have 3 kids with food allergies and when it comes to schools I ask to make sure they come home. On top of all the other worries we have as parents when are kids are at school, at least most parents do not have to worry about their kid dying in school. Now is it to much to ask to make a classroom nut free or to have a table in the cafateria nut free? I am not asking for banning nuts, just not eating them near my kid. Is that to much to ask. And the biggest issue is almost almost all of the kids have no problem with this, it is parents like you. One kid in my sons class made his mom go home and pack a different lunch becuase he wanted to sit near my son. If the parents would just listen to their kids, this world may be a better place.

@B: I did not miss the point about "making them sick", and things being "life threatening", rather I used the examples as a discussion point. How far is too far to accommodate someone?

@Rob: I have kids, I want them to come home from school too. The whole problem with not eating nuts near your kids is that it infringes on the rights of other kids to eat foods they want to eat. And yes, it is too much to ask that we have a nut-free classroom or table or whatever because there's no way to guarantee that someone who has a nut allergy isn't going to have a reaction from someone who choose to enjoy a nut at some point during the day and then who's liable? The school? Some kid who chose to eat a nut - perhaps outside of school? The kid's parents who may not have even known he ate a nut? It's ridiculous.

From my standpoint, that type of accommodation is something that should be taken very seriously, and persons who have that kind of requirement need to be in a totally different learning environment - one in which all the employees agree not to eat nuts or products which contain nuts. And one in which outside visitors are likewise sanitized against the allergens (perhaps it's taking an air bath, and donning a tyvek suit for the duration of the visit)...

But the vast majority of students shouldn't have to modify their food choices one bit simply because someone in the school happens to be allergic to something.

David have you seen a 6 year old eat? Not only do they not wipe their hands they talk while eating and can literally spit what they are eating at you. To add to the usually eating habits of that age they are often rushed through lunch at school, so they are even less careful while trying to eat lunch. Is it too much to ask that peanut butter not be used? A child could have peanut butter on their fingers and use one of the computers, the next child might be the one who is deathly allergic to peanuts. Pick it up that way, then it might be their lunch time. That child is rushed starts to eat his apple which transfers that peanut to their mouth...and they have a reaction. That's all it takes. It's not much to ask to keep the kids safe from food allergies.

To me this is the same as smoking. Maybe you don't agree with that law either since it inconveniences smokers to save the rest of us.

Yes Donna, I've seen 6 yr olds eat - some are slobs, some aren't - and that can vary by the day, minute, hour, etc.

That's precisely why if someone has a life-threatening allergy, they ought to have a facility dedicated to dealing with their type of needs.

Let's assume our 6 yr old food spitter ate a cookie which doesn't have peanuts in it, but was made on a processing line that processed peanuts. This cookie ended up getting a bit of peanut in it. Now our 6 yr old food spitter is eating, and a crumb, a mere particle of cookie is expelled from his mouth, across the table, and lands on the lips of Jimmy, who's highly allergic to peanuts. Jimmy has a reaction.

Do you then blame the 6 yr old food spitter? The school? The parents of the 6 yr old? The mfr of the cookie that had no peanuts but ended up having a particle of peanut in it somehow? I wouldn't blame any of those people - because it's none of their business if someone else is allergic to something that they may choose to eat. It's the business of the person who's allergic - and if they're that highly allergic, they need to be someplace where nothing can be eaten that will harm them. Nothing that was processed on a line that might have had peanuts, nothing with peanuts. No one who works at the facility who eats nuts, etc.

And it's not the same thing as smoking (no I'm not a smoker).

Amen Bob!

I'm concerned about the accidental transfer too. Some kid has a peanut butter sandwich, gets a bit on his jacket sleeve and wipes it off. The same kid wears the jacket the next day, and that jacket sleeve happens to touch some surface which is then touched by someone allergic and we have a reaction.

Are you now saying that NO ONE can eat peanuts at any time, so long as they're attending or visiting this school? What about contractors that come in to do some work?

This is why I've been asking the question as to what the point is that it becomes absurd to try and accommodate someone's sanitation needs. At what point do we say "we're sorry, but there's no way for us to guarantee what you need. You're going to have to provide it yourself, or utilize a different learning institution. Perhaps one dedicated to dealing with food/other allergies?"

I agree, there have been some unusually unkind statements.

I'm not looking for anyone, let alone a child, to die from something. But just because it's "for the children!" doesn't mean that it's right or gets implemented. The Federal Government tried that argument several times to regulate content on the Internet, and the Appeals Courts basically held that simply because a child could see something, didn't mean that adults had to change their communications habits or be censored against certain content.

Yes, that's "digital", and this is "physical" - but the concept applies. If an individual wants to enjoy a peanut butter sandwich, eat some peanuts, or even enjoy a candy bar that has some nuts in it - why should they be restricted from doing so simply because they happen to visit or attend a certain location during the day? Because someone else that attends is allergic to some substance?

This is why I've been trying to ascertain what the point is that it's simply absurd to try and accommodate someone with a sensitivity to a particular substance. At what point do we put the onus for dealing with the situation on the person with the sensitivity - regardless of their age?

One other thought: "What do we do with these people when they grow up?" Do we restrict an entire office building or high rise because one occupant has an allergy to nuts? How would you even enforce such a restriction?

What do we expect the adults with these allergies to do?

Henry,

A) I'd hope that when my son is old enough to attend school that I've taught him well enough so that he doesn't pull a George Costanza and eat out of the garbage can. That said, when I was 6, I was raising salt- and freshwater fish, so I knew what was dangerous and what wasn't. Honestly, one of things I plan to teach my son about is Ichthyology.

B) The 50% who are deathly allergic to peanuts ought to be in a facility that can accommodate their special needs. It could be that someone ate a cookie which doesn't contain peanut butter, but which happened to be made on a line that also processes peanuts and tree nuts, encounters a crumb or cookie dust particle and has a reaction.

No one should have to modify what they choose to eat simply because someone else is allergic to it. The person with the allergy should manage their own allergies and needs.

You're right though - children can't fully defend themselves. I refuse to even consider that peanuts or other foodstuff are to be treated as or restricted as are drugs - where does it end? What if someone is allergic to twinkies? Coffee? Tea? It's truly absurd.

Precisely. If someone has allergies that are life-threatening - they need to be in a facility that can meet their needs. By your own admission above, kids are slobs - they get stuff on their sleeves. So let's assume (as I've said before) that Johnny eats some peanut butter the night before, and gets it on his jacket sleeve. He doesn't tell mom/dad so they don't know. He wipes it off. The residue remains and the next morning when he wears that jacket to school, the sleeve brushes a door handle, and Jimmy the allergic kid touches it and has a reaction.

OR, some employee of the school chooses to enjoy a few nuts the evening before while driving home from a baseball game. He gets some dust on his steering wheel. The next morning he drives to school for the work day, picks up the dust on his hands, and then touches the doorknob that Jimmy then touches. Jimmy has a reaction.

What you're saying is that no one should ever eat peanuts, anything with peanuts in it, or which has been processed on a line that handled peanuts because that residue can then cause a reaction in someone else. And I'm saying that's absurd to restrict what someone eats, especially so off-campus, just because someone has an allergy. It's the responsibility of the person with the allergy to deal with their allergy. If the facility can't 100% guarantee their freedom from allergens, then that allergic person needs to go to a facility that can.

Donna, I'm not so arrogant to believe that only my wants and needs matter. However, why isn't the converse true as well?

The question I posed wasn't about PB in particular (although that's a common one, so that's where this discussion has gone), but rather what the point is that the whole "you can't have this because so-and-so is allergic to it" becomes absurd.

What if you have someone who's allergic to a particular soap fragrance? Let's call it "Irish Spring" - do you then say "Sorry, no one can wash with Irish Spring"? So then everyone uses "Ivory" - and when someone's allergic to "Ivory" - then what?

My question is at what point is it reasonable to demand that the allergy sufferer deal with their own issue because it's too onerous on the rest of the population?

And my other question is what about when these allergy sufferers become adults? Do we restrict an entire office building or high rise from peanuts because one person has a peanut allergy?

Deborah, it was never my intent to upset anyone but rather to have a discussion about when it becomes absurd to try and accommodate an allergy sufferers needs. As for whether children with special needs should be in a separate education facility - the fact is that SOME children with special needs SHOULD be in a separate education facility because the level of care they require is so specialized, and I refuse to be shamed for this belief. I have nothing to be ashamed for. I've never said that children with special needs should be denied an education - not by any stretch of the imagination. But we do have some schools for some students that have special needs, that's appropriate and necessary - and that whole discussion is OT from this article.

We could discuss that as well, but I fear that people would become similarly upset.

My sympathies to you for the celiac disease and the impact it's had on your and your family's life.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of allergy sufferers could deal with a special wing designated as a lunchroom for them. But that still doesn't deal with the problems caused by inadvertent transfer - someone eats something with peanuts (or whatever the allergen is), has some of that residue on them, and then touches a door knob, push plate, locker, etc.

Someone sensitive encounters the residue, and we have a problem - which varies in severity depending upon the allergic individual. It's virtually impossible to control.

And even if you ban all use of peanuts - when the next allergen rears its ugly head, then what?

I'd be willing to bet that many kids could go without peanut butter. But what if we have a child who requires a restricted diet? Let's further assume that this child is a picky eater (as many can be), and eats peanut butter exclusively? Do we then tell that child "sorry Johnny, no more peanut butter for you because Jimmy at your school is allergic to it?".

This is an EXAMPLE, a WHAT IT, a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT for discussion.

Who would win in that case?

Not sure how a wheelchair compares to a peanut allergy. It's like saying we should give up peanut butter because people wear eyeglasses. Anyone who has special needs should be accommodated but it doesn't need to be at the expense of people's individual rights. Installing wheel chair ramps, handicapped bathrooms, etc. are all brilliant ideas and they do nothing to infringe on people's rights. Asking people to give up certain foods when alternatives solutions are available (such as a separate wing of a building for lunchroom as I mentioned above) seems like a reasonable alternative that doesn't infringe on people's rights.

Sorry, @me, you are incorrect. In the post regarding the red light camera at Park Avenue West/Hwy 41 (which wasn't yet installed at the time of the comment), I remarked that the cameras weren't 100% reliable and that there was quite a bit of data available to demonstrate that they INCREASED rear end collisions. I also LINKED to a story (out of NC I believe) where some enterprising students took a picture of a teacher's license plate, printed it on photo paper, taped it to a vehicle that looked similar to the teacher's (color, style), and drove through several red lights to get the teacher a ticket. It's a fact, not conspiracy at all.

And once again, I chose to bring that information to the awareness of the Public-at-Large so they could better understand the risks of the technology.

http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/12/dont-like-speed-cameras-use-them-to-punk-your-enemies.ars

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/12/21/1751210/Using-Speed-Cameras-To-Send-Tickets-To-Your-Enemies

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2632.asp

http://www.txt2pic.com/signs/license/usa.asp?state=il&title=illinois&page=1

And the article where I made these comments:

http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/red-light-camera-exposes-dangerous-driving-at-intersection

Actually, I disagree. In fact, scroll through David's arguments above and you'll find that he's been even headed and not punching below the belt (unlike your comment). Just step back and think about other foods could be restricted over time and think of the impact to society. I think he's just saying that taking away people's rights to food choices isn't the answer in the long-term as more allergies are identified. The answer is to address the issue without infringing on what could potentially be several different types of healthy foods.

Correct Max. Thank you.

@Conrad, I'm not certain where you're located - but if it's here on the North Shore of IL - take a look here: http://www.nssed.org/about-nssed-3

Funding comes from a variety of sources.

NSSED is a special education co-op. Food allergies don't come under special education.

I understand what special education is and what it's for. But when you get right down to it, NSSED runs facilities for students with special needs that can't be accommodated elsewhere. And I'd argue that a student who has a life-threatening allergy that can be triggered by a mere speck of an allergen has special needs.

It's certainly something for thought and consideration.

Special education is meant for kids who for whatever reason cannot learn in the regular education setting, and require special classes to allow them an appropriate education. Food allergies do not cause learning problems. What you are proposing is that kids be separated from their peers all day because of what they can't eat. That sounds like discrimination.

"Special education is meant for kids who for whatever reason cannot learn in the regular education setting, and require special classes to allow them an appropriate education. Food allergies do not cause learning problems. What you are proposing is that kids be separated from their peers all day because of what they can't eat. That sounds like discrimination."

Sully, I'd never discriminate against anyone. SOME food allergies DO cause learning problems. And I'm not proposing that kids be separated from their peers because of what they can't eat, but rather because they have special environmental needs that can't be guaranteed and met by the regular environment. As we've discussed above, kids are slobs - things can happen outside the regular campus environment that can adversely affect a sensitive individual, and to meet the needs of the sensitive individuals in the regular environment approaches the absurd. So we need a special environment so they can learn and be safe. That's ALL I'm saying.