Schools Banning Peanut Products
http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/ed...44/detail.html
If this happens in my Son's school. I'm in court fighting this. If the mere touch of a peanut product could be potentially fatal then that student doesn't need to be in school and probably needs Home Schooling.
If I'm a Lawyer I'm lickin' chops over this one.
There comes a point in which the needs of the Majority should hold sway. This is one of those situations.
Quote:
As the school year begins, a food long associated with the cafeteria is no longer welcome in some Greenville County schools.
Sara Collins Elementary has six students who are allergic to peanuts, two of them severely allergic. As a result, no peanut products are allowed at Sara Collins and nine other schools.
Jackson Poole, 6, is in kindergarten at Sara Collins. He's been allergic to peanuts since he was a toddler.
"I gave him a bite of peanut butter pie and 15 minutes later he was broken out in welts, throwing up, swollen neck, mouth, tongue, everything," Robin Poole, Jackson's mother, said.
PEANUT ALLERGY
Peanut Allergy
Breast Milk Link
FDA: Allergy Warnings
School officials said they prepared for the allergic students by training the faculty to treat allergic reactions and taking peanut butter off the cafeteria menu.
"We don't want to lose a life over a peanut butter sandwich," cafeteria manager Patricia McFadden said.
But after peanut butter and jelly sandwiches showed up in students' lunches on the first day of school, officials banned all peanut products.
"If a child is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and wipes their finger, then a child with peanut allergies sits down and touches it, he puts it in his mouth, he could go into shock," Poole said.
School officials acknowledge they've received complaints from some parents concerned about replacing the easy and inexpensive peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
"I feel like every parent in the school is going to hate me. I love peanut butter and jelly, I grew up on them, but there is that fine line, my child's life is at risk versus making people happy," Poole said.
Principals now patrol the cafeteria looking for peanut products. If they're found, the janitor is called to disinfect the area.
As the school year begins, a food long associated with the cafeteria is no longer welcome in some Greenville County schools.
Sara Collins Elementary has six students who are allergic to peanuts, two of them severely allergic. As a result, no peanut products are allowed at Sara Collins and nine other schools.
Jackson Poole, 6, is in kindergarten at Sara Collins. He's been allergic to peanuts since he was a toddler.
"I gave him a bite of peanut butter pie and 15 minutes later he was broken out in welts, throwing up, swollen neck, mouth, tongue, everything," Robin Poole, Jackson's mother, said.
PEANUT ALLERGY
Peanut Allergy
Breast Milk Link
FDA: Allergy Warnings
School officials said they prepared for the allergic students by training the faculty to treat allergic reactions and taking peanut butter off the cafeteria menu.
"We don't want to lose a life over a peanut butter sandwich," cafeteria manager Patricia McFadden said.
But after peanut butter and jelly sandwiches showed up in students' lunches on the first day of school, officials banned all peanut products.
"If a child is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and wipes their finger, then a child with peanut allergies sits down and touches it, he puts it in his mouth, he could go into shock," Poole said.
School officials acknowledge they've received complaints from some parents concerned about replacing the easy and inexpensive peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
"I feel like every parent in the school is going to hate me. I love peanut butter and jelly, I grew up on them, but there is that fine line, my child's life is at risk versus making people happy," Poole said.
Principals now patrol the cafeteria looking for peanut products. If they're found, the janitor is called to disinfect the area.
If this happens in my Son's school. I'm in court fighting this. If the mere touch of a peanut product could be potentially fatal then that student doesn't need to be in school and probably needs Home Schooling.
If I'm a Lawyer I'm lickin' chops over this one.
There comes a point in which the needs of the Majority should hold sway. This is one of those situations.
Comments
I'm allergic to pollen. Lets ban pollen from schools.
My nephew is allergic to all shellfish. Lets ban shellfish from schools.
Soon we will hear:
Oh, my kid has a milk allergy. We need to ban milk from schools.
or
My kids a diabetic. We need to ban all sugar from schools.
Where does it stop?
When you think about it, parents pack PBJ sandwiches for their kids because they are cheap and relatively healthy.
If the school is concerned about the health of students and what they eat, then there should be nutritious items available to ALL students. Children are our future, we should not provide second-rate lunches.
Originally posted by podmate
Where does it stop?
it wont. if you look around you, dont you notice all the things that are being restricted because the minor amount cannot do something..(I am speaking more than allergies,ect). but it is happening. all your freedoms are going away too(as if we really had any in our lifetime)
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Next thing you know they'll be banning smoking in bars.
Hummm....I've got no problem with that one.
Originally posted by The General
it wont. if you look around you, dont you notice all the things that are being restricted because the minor amount cannot do something..(I am speaking more than allergies,ect). but it is happening. all your freedoms are going away too(as if we really had any in our lifetime)
Oh yeah, I know that I am losing more and more of my rights every day. Thanks to GW Bush and Ashcroft.
Without them where would we be?
Not trying to hijack this thread, but..
Any Babylon 5 fans here? Doesn't the Department of Homeland Security kind of remind you of Nightwatch?
Originally posted by podmate
Hummm....I've got no problem with that one.
Good thing you're not making decisions for the rest of us then.
Originally posted by gordy
My nephew is alergic to peanuts. The crazy part of the ban is that many other products are touched by peanut production. Other nuts, candy bars, some candies, some fried foods (peanut oil), etc. I think a better option would be to alert students & teachers on which products may contain peanut products or by products.
That i have no problems with, most products or restaraunts do that themselves.. I am wondering where this is coming from, when i was younger you never heard of all this crap.. its probably from feeding babies fake milk, fake food ect, when growing up, in my day, babyfood was used only on trips,ect. most of the time ma and grand ma just ground up what everyone else had in a blender.
crap!
Originally posted by podmate
Oh yeah, I know that I am losing more and more of my rights every day. Thanks to GW Bush and Ashcroft.
Without them where would we be?
Not trying to hijack this thread, but..
Any Babylon 5 fans here? Doesn't the Department of Homeland Security kind of remind you of Nightwatch?
not to get too politica, it has been happening for decades..(not just bush,ect) but it increases each year. usually the criminals and government get more rights, and the regular people lose them. even losing rights because somethign may be offensive is becoming more common. can I be alergic to POLITICALLY CORRECTNESS and get that banned?(nope because that is one of the main problems)
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Next thing you know they'll be banning smoking in bars.
They already have in many jurisdictions. And the bars are not impressed. Studies have shown smokers drink more and tip more. Although the media never tells us who comes up with these studies... tobacco companies?
Originally posted by The General
That i have no problems with, most products or restaraunts do that themselves.. I am wondering where this is coming from, when i was younger you never heard of all this crap.. its probably from feeding babies fake milk, fake food ect, when growing up, in my day, babyfood was used only on trips,ect. most of the time ma and grand ma just ground up what everyone else had in a blender.
i GUARANTEE when we are all old and retired, we will look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking by ingesting some of the stuff we do today, or some of our personal habits we make as part of our daily lives. have you seen some of the 50's television commercials where smoking is touted as safe and fun? my favorite was a couple WATERSKIING AND SMOKING. i laughed my ass off at that.
i ingest an enormous amount of aspartame/nutrasweet over the span of a week. i expect when i am 50, they will finally have a definitive study showing that it's only slightly less healthy that a gunshot to the right temple.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
They already have in many jurisdictions. And the bars are not impressed. Studies have shown smokers drink more and tip more. Although the media never tells us who comes up with these studies... tobacco companies?
In boston you cant smoke in Bars or restaraunts or night clubs anymore(I dont smoke, but dont care if others do).
my mother says in Ireland, the you cant smoke in pubs anymore, so the pubs are all closing up cuz no one goes in anymore.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
They already have in many jurisdictions. And the bars are not impressed. Studies have shown smokers drink more and tip more. Although the media never tells us who comes up with these studies... tobacco companies?
see, this is where a city actually got it right, in my humble opinion. toronto banned smoking in any establishment that wasn't registered as a bar, OR had set up separate facilities to handle smokers versus non (and not just "smokers on the other side of a large room" kind of separation, either -- completely separate rooms.
so you had options as a business owner to either be JUST a restaurant, or a bar, or a combination of both. yes, there was a lot of complaints at first, but as time wore on, i saw very few people having a problem with the new city by-law.
new york's zero tolerance, on the other hand, is just dumb. i have heard l.a. has a similar ordinance, which is of course pretty funny considering the air quality there. i bet your MORE at risk of carcinogenic intake by being OUTSIDE of the bar than in it (kidding, of course, but it does make you wonder).
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
They already have in many jurisdictions. And the bars are not impressed.
Oh I know. I live in New York City, I smoke, and I know three bar owners whose incomes have gone down 30-40% since the ban came in.
I have no argument with people who want to socialize in a smoke free environment - but I don't see why their preferences should be imposed on the rest of us. As long as smoking is legal, bar and club owners should be able to decide whether they want to permit it on their premises.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Good thing you're not making decisions for the rest of us then.
Well, in this case I can not see where the smoker has ANY rights to force anyone in the smokers vicinity to breath second hand smoke. And don't give me that stupid, idiotic crap about a smoker has the right to smoke and if you don't want to smell the smoke then you should go somewhere else.
Thats nothing but tired old smelly horse dookie
1 child in a school has a potentially fatal issue so we must Ban the offending item. Tail wagging the dog.
As for smoking bans. Why not give the option to allow smoking provided there is above adequate measure taken to filter the air. Let bars have smoking areas with filtered air so that those who don't wish to smoke don't come in and walk out smelling like a ton of burn cigarettes.
There are always "options" but they're never explored because it's far too easy to obliterate a choice or benefit for the sake of a few.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I have no argument with people who want to socialize in a smoke free environment - but I don't see why their preferences should be imposed on the rest of us.
I know that I am taking your reply out of context, kind of.
The reason is that cig smoke (and second hand smoke) are a proven cause of cancer. Breathing fresh air (assuming we're not in LA as another poster brought up) has not been linked to any form of cancer.
I'll pose a question (that is open to all smokers, I'm not attacking you personally):
Why should your preference to smoke be imposed on the rest of us who do not wish to smell that nasty smell or to increase our risk of cancer?
Originally posted by podmate
Well, in this case I can not see where the smoker has ANY rights to force anyone in the smokers vicinity to breath second hand smoke. And don't give me that stupid, idiotic crap about a smoker has the right to smoke and if you don't want to smell the smoke then you should go somewhere else.
Thats nothing but tired old smelly horse dookie
How could I possible provide a rebuttal to such a cogent argument?