Replies

My question is this: At what point do you think it's improper for the minority to affect the rights of the majority? If one kid in ten had a risk of a severe reaction or worse, that's more than prevalent enough to ban a particular food. What if its only one kid in a thousand (about the student body of many schools) or one kid in a million?

Practically every food substance can cause an allergic reaction in somebody, if you look hard enough. Where do we draw the line?

Please don't misunderstand me, freedom to eat a PB&J is not a Constitutional right. We all gave up our rights to be protected by the fire-resistant properties of asbestos, because some people got cancer from it, and I think that it was a worthwhile trade. Clearly, the peanut is not an essential in any human diet, and if there are inherent properties about peanuts (like the volatility of the oils cited in this thread) perhaps they are like the other substances we have banned that only affected a relatively few people.

But where do you draw that line?

It's risk vs. return. The majority eating peanuts in school is not worth risking this serious of a health issue for the minority. If this allergy only caused discomfort, then no big deal. But kids are dying from this.

BTW, how do you think a child would feel if they brought a PB&J to school and it caused another child to go into shock, possibly die?

Practically every food substance can cause an allergic reaction in somebody, if you look hard enough. Where do we draw the line?

You are so right. My son's allergic to wheat. I'm training him to read lables and not eat anything he's not sure about. If we go to a party, he's learned to be very content with a bowl of icecream or (if there's nothing he can eat) to sit quietly (without attitude) while the other children eat and I buy him icecream on our way home. He's not unhappy about it.