I agree with all the posters so far; swapping lunches was the highlight of my elementary school routine. But I like to argue, so, for argument's sake, how about this:
Allergies, some deadly, are more prevalent today then when we were kids. If the wrong kid got a hold of a peanut butter sandwich, it could kill him. So eliminating lunch swapping seems to be a small price to pay to keep kids safe. What do you think?
But for people like me who never had allergies, this would be a little unfair for the whole group to be punished for afflictions of the few. And if the child is aware of his allergies, he/she would know what to avoid.
Your point is valid, but I think lawyers are behind this...both the money hungry ambulance chasers and those who have to defend the school system against them. If not the lawyers, the insurance company. Decisions like this are always defensive.
Do you, or anyone else here, have any idea why that might be? I've been wondering about that ever since all the panic about peanut butter even being allowed into some schools, because some kid had such a terrible allergy that even smelling it would cause them serious trouble.
Seems to me that if you're that allergic (in other words, sickly), maybe you should be doing the "boy in the plastic bubble" thing, and let everyone else live normal lives, instead of imposing your problems on everyone else.