School bans Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches

[DallasApple]

You don't need the gene for 100% lactase retention in order to tolerate lactose. Only a fraction of people without this gene are lactose intolerant. The rest of the people without the gene can still tolerate lactose.

In most people, lactase decreases as they age, but doesn't disappear completely. And even in people with moderate decreases in lactase are not always lactose intolerant.

This is why it is incorrect to label people without the gene for 100% retention of lactase as "lactose intolerant". Tolerance is indeed the norm (in some areas of the world, like ours), despite a high instance of lactase deficiency.

And actually, upon rereading the passage I provided, it indicates that 80% of American Caucasians don't have lactase deficiency.

75 % of people on earth are lactose intolerant.Whether they produce some lactase or none at all it doesn't matter.

 

[Falvlun]

75 % of people on earth are lactose intolerant.Whether they produce some lactase or none at all it doesn't matter.

You are still misusing the term, and not understanding the condition. Lactose intolerance is not the same as lactase deficiency.

 

[DallasApple]

Also in America ? We eat up drink up and suck down calcium (including we are big milk drinkers) and we have a high rate of bone disease as we age..Too much calcium is as bad for you as not enough.

But again...if any food on the food "pyramid" a recommended part of your DAILY diet if at BEST 20 % (unless you go to small pockets of the world) cant "tolerate" it ???That doesn't sound right to me..especially if its "mainly" to get one specific vitamin or mineral that you can surely get that nutritional need met with other foods..

 

[DallasApple]

Lactose intolerance is not the same as lactase deficiency.

Lactose intolerance is caused by the lowered presence or absence of lactase.Which most healthy INFANTS have plenty of to digest mothers milk.Then we grow teeth and start eating big people food..and gradually we stop producing it..or it slows down to a point its nothing but gastric upset to drink milk..

 

[Falvlun]

Lactose intolerance is caused by the lowered presence or absence of lactase.Which most healthy INFANTS have plenty of to digest mothers milk.Then we grow teeth and start eating big people food..and gradually we stop producing it..or it slows down to a point its nothing but gastric upset to drink milk..

Yes, lactose intolerance is caused by the lowered presence of lactase.

But not everyone with lower levels of lactase are considered lactose intolerant.

In addition to my initial source, here are some more:

Not all people with lactase deficiency have digestive symptoms, but those who do may have lactose intolerance. Most people with lactose intolerance can tolerate some amount of lactose in their diet.

US Dept of Health and Human Services

A deficiency of lactase — an enzyme produced by the lining of your small intestine — is usually responsible for lactose intolerance. Many people have low levels of lactase, but only those who also have associated signs and symptoms have, by definition, lactose intolerance.

\Mayo Clinic

A lack of lactase can cause uncomfortable symptoms for some people. Those who exhibit symptoms are said to be lactose intolerant.

Ohio State University Medical Center

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEBut not everyone with lower levels of lactase are considered lactose intolerant. ][/QUOTE]

I agree...ONLY 75 % of the world population..

 

[DallasApple]

And also calling it "lactase deficient" is like calling a woman who is not producing milk because she has NO INFANT and has not been pregnant or nursed in 4 years "lactose deficient"..

The HORMONES that I once had in abundance to nurse an infant have long since served their purpose and I'm sure are "deficient" now..

Even how they keep cows producing milk is completely artificial...they give birth once..then they feed them hormones to keep it flowing to feed people..Milk an "essential " nutrient for adults".(((ROLL EYES)))

Im not "lactase deficient" Im an adult human that moved on to adult human food..

 

[Draka]

Also in America ? We eat up drink up and suck down calcium (including we are big milk drinkers) and we have a high rate of bone disease as we age..Too much calcium is as bad for you as not enough.

But again...if any food on the food "pyramid" a recommended part of your DAILY diet if at BEST 20 % (unless you go to small pockets of the world) cant "tolerate" it ???That doesn't sound right to me..especially if its "mainly" to get one specific vitamin or mineral that you can surely get that nutritional need met with other foods..

You know, I track my food. Absolutely everything I eat. Everything. Nothing passes these lips without getting entered in my tracker. And my tracker keeps track of not only calories, fat, carbs, and protein, but other things like potassium, certain vitamins, fiber and...calcium. I'll tell you what, if I don't eat some kind of dairy foods during the day I would not get anywhere close to my daily recommended allowance of calcium for a day. Other foods just don't cut it well enough for me and if I just relied on other foods for my calcium I would overeat. It's either partake in dairy or take a calcium supplement. I'm very conscious of what I'm getting and how much. Even with taking a multivitamin everyday I still need more calcium. So, you may "surely get that nutritional need met with other foods", but I've been watching my intake and diet for a few years now, tracking everything, and I simply can't get the needed calcium with those other foods you seem to have such luck with.

 

[DallasApple]

It's either partake in dairy or take a calcium supplement. I'm very conscious of what I'm getting and how much.

Then you aren't eating right.Also excercise is just as crucial to bone health as what you eat.

Are you saying that people in non diary eating categories have crumbling bones from lack of calcium? U.S.A has one of the highest rates of osteoporosis..In fact I think besides starving nations the highest rates of crumbling bones.

Of course we always need calcium..my understanding its "most important" for bone strength though while your bones are forming.(growing)...

 

[Falvlun]

I agree...ONLY 75 % of the world population..

Dallas, that's the number of people who have reduced lactase levels. Since not everyone with reduced lactase levels are appropriately labeled as "lactose intolerant", how can the number be the same?

Also note that in the U.S., due to our large Western European ancestry, the percentage of reduced lactase levels are much lower. Only about 25% of American adults are estimated to be lactase deficient. It is estimated that approximately 30-50 million Americans have lactose intolerance. At the high end, that corresponds to about 16% that have lactose intolerance (with the American population at 312 million.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I love how people read different things into what I say. Like I said we need calcium in our diets and milk is a great source and Dallas read that I said we need milk. I do believe what I intoned there was "zero" risk of was inhaling peanut butter. That is, having an allergic reaction to inhaling peanut butter or from the smell itself (on that I am completely right). I have numerous times said, when it comes to residue that there may be a mild skin reaction, the doctors agree with this, but that it does not cause a severe reaction and can be usually handled with anything from plain old washing up to a quick dose of Benadryl and/or some Cortisone 10 type cream. What it is not going to do is cause a child to go into distress and anaphylactic shock. Any of which can be prevented by good hygiene practices in general. So, unless your allergic child has a habit of scraping thick peanut butter remains from someone else's plate or sandwich baggie and purposely licking their finger, you aren't going to have an actual serious risk from someone else's peanut butter sandwich. Which is probably why the school in question went ahead and got somewhat reasonable and let them back in the school.

Draka, when you "intone" a measure to be "ridiculous" or stupid and go into how over the top a place is, I was addressing your attitude toward establishments that choose to ban a peanut product off its premises. Regardless of what you think, there is a liability risk that institutions choose to address in different ways.

Again, I disagree with your contention that the way a child with a severe peanut allergy is going to have an allergic reaction is from scraping peanut butter and licking their fingers. If it really was that less of a risk, we would not be seeing various institutions upholding a "peanut-free" facility. Allergists have noted that over the years, peanut allergies have been on the rise. They don't know why, much like docs don't know why autism rates have risen over the last 20 years.

As long as there is a measurable risk to someone walking onto my premises, I have a responsibility to at the very least address that risk, assess it, and then decide how to respond with any changes to policy or infrastructure. I don't care if you think I'm overreacting with how I respond to the risk of a reaction with one of our students. I'm erring on the side of caution. Again, I saw one with my own eyes. Before, I was rather skeptical. Now I'm more supportive.

You know, there are people who think I'm overboard with maintaining an "open classroom" policy to ensure that no adult teacher is ever alone in a room with a minor student. There is a liability risk that background checks might not even catch (a local town had a recent incident concerning a teacher and a young student, clean background check too with no records).

I'd say a gluten-ban is excessive. Celiac sufferers do not react with surface to skin exposure. I'd say a sugar ban is less excessive, but I wouldn't complain. A peanut ban, though not popular, is understandable given the unique nature of the allergy and its impact on those who have it.

 

[DallasApple]

Dallas, that's the number of people who have reduced lactase levels. Since not everyone with reduced lactase levels are appropriately labeled as "lactose intolerant", how can the number be the same?

Also note that in the U.S., due to our large Western European ancestry, the percentage of reduced lactase levels are much lower. Only about 25% of American adults are estimated to be lactase deficient. It is estimated that approximately 30-50 million Americans have lactose intolerance. At the high end, that corresponds to about 16% that have lactose intolerance (with the American population at 312 million.)

Dallas, that's the number of people who have reduced lactase levels. Si

No that 75% is WORLDWIDE intolerance..

And 25% lactose deficient (even if we take your stats) 16% INTOLERANT thats a hell of a lot for MILK to be on the food group pyramid (whole category) as part of a "balanced daily diet"..

That is a HUGE portion of just the American population that can not tolerate milk .But yet its on the major food pyramid?one of the 4 "food groups" and pushed as good for you ?

 

[DallasApple]

Draka, when you "intone" a measure to be "ridiculous" or stupid and go into how over the top a place is, I was addressing your attitude toward establishments that choose to ban a peanut product off its premises. Regardless of what you think, there is a liability risk that institutions choose to address in different ways.

Again, I disagree with your contention that the way a child with a severe peanut allergy is going to have an allergic reaction is from scraping peanut butter and licking their fingers. If it really was that less of a risk, we would not be seeing various institutions upholding a "peanut-free" facility. Allergists have noted that over the years, peanut allergies have been on the rise. They don't know why, much like docs don't know why autism rates have risen over the last 20 years.

As long as there is a measurable risk to someone walking onto my premises, I have a responsibility to at the very least address that risk, assess it, and then decide how to respond with any changes to policy or infrastructure. I don't care if you think I'm overreacting with how I respond to the risk of a reaction with one of our students. I'm erring on the side of caution. Again, I saw one with my own eyes. Before, I was rather skeptical. Now I'm more supportive.

You know, there are people who think I'm overboard with maintaining an "open classroom" policy to ensure that no adult teacher is ever alone in a room with a minor student. There is a liability risk that background checks might not even catch (a local town had a recent incident concerning a teacher and a young student, clean background check too with no records).

I'd say a gluten-ban is excessive. Celiac sufferers do not react with surface to skin exposure. I'd say a sugar ban is less excessive, but I wouldn't complain. A peanut ban, though not popular, is understandable given the unique nature of the allergy and its impact on those who have it.

I agree ..I see back peddling..Draka you are backpeddling..Or just admit it..You think its no big deal that one in 100 children can have a potential lethal reaction to exposure to peanuts..and call it a "non risk" and ridiculous to take measures to protect that one child..

Would you change your mind if it were YOUR child going into a building every day with 500 other children and 10% of them were carrying a peanut butter sandwich?

 

[Draka]

I agree ..I see back peddling..Draka you are backpeddling..Or just admit it..You think its no big deal that one in 100 children can have a potential lethal reaction to exposure to peanuts..and call it a "non risk" and ridiculous to take measures to protect that one child..

Would you change your mind if it were YOUR child going into a building every day with 500 other children and 10% of them were carrying a peanut butter sandwich?

I have not back-peddled at all. I've been saying the same darn things over and over and over and over again to the point I feel like slamming my head on the darn desk. It's like you all want me to be saying something else so very badly, you're twisting what I've said and shoving words in my throat the way you think other kids are going to shove peanut butter down allergic kids' throats.

And no, I would not change my mind. I'd have no issue sending my kid to school if they were allergic to nuts and a whopping 10% of the other kids there were scarfing down peanut butter sandwiches. I'd teach my kid what not to eat, to wash their hands, keep the proper people apprised of their condition, and take the appropriate steps necessary. Banning someone else's kid from eating their own lunch is not necessary in my opinion.

 

[Draka]

Then you aren't eating right.Also excercise is just as crucial to bone health as what you eat.

Are you saying that people in non diary eating categories have crumbling bones from lack of calcium? U.S.A has one of the highest rates of osteoporosis..In fact I think besides starving nations the highest rates of crumbling bones.

Of course we always need calcium..my understanding its "most important" for bone strength though while your bones are forming.(growing)...

I'm not eating right? How would you know? Do you have access to my tracker diary? I don't think so. Sorry I don't pile down sardines and kale and broccoli and the like like mad, they just aren't my cup of tea. I do eat veggies and fish, just not those particular ones that happen to be higher in calcium and even then, they aren't as high as dairy products. So I choose to go the dairy route.

Certain ethnicities may have a higher chance of osteoporosis (like Caucasians and Asians), this is true. Did you ever think then, that it is perhaps even more important that those in those ethnicity groups try to get as much calcium and vitamin D in their diets as possible? If they can handle milk products, then why not use them to their benefit? Or do you just begrudge the whole concept?

 

[dawny0826]

I have not back-peddled at all. I've been saying the same darn things over and over and over and over again to the point I feel like slamming my head on the darn desk. It's like you all want me to be saying something else so very badly, you're twisting what I've said and shoving words in my throat the way you think other kids are going to shove peanut butter down allergic kids' throats.

And no, I would not change my mind. I'd have no issue sending my kid to school if they were allergic to nuts and a whopping 10% of the other kids there were scarfing down peanut butter sandwiches. I'd teach my kid what not to eat, to wash their hands, keep the proper people apprised of their condition, and take the appropriate steps necessary. Banning someone else's kid from eating their own lunch is not necessary in my opinion.

Personally, I think the best solution is for the school to send literature home to parents, as they do have the responsbility to harbor a safe environment for all students.

Children can be asked not to share foods containing peanuts with other children in the lunchroom. And I do think it reasonable for parents to have access to food labels and ingredients for anything that the school is selling and serving, anyway.

For the classroom where the child with the allergy may be learning, I do think it reasonable to ban nuts in that classroom as a precautionary. Literature should be sent home to parents and that should be sufficient.

The school and school system has to be mindful of risk and liability. They have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their staff and students.

I think that greater precaution needs to be taken with elementary age students as they are younger and may not have the confidence to react as quickly on their own if they have a known allergy.

I wouldn't throw darts at the school necessarily, if they made a decision to ban peanuts in an elementary school, when you're working with younger children who may not have the maturity level to act as quickly to their own medical emergency (epipen, for example). I can only imagine the type of pressure that a parent might place on the school system if they were overtly worried about the safety of their child.

But, I think that with education and preparation - ensuring that teachers, parents and students are aware of the importance of refraining from sharing items that contan peanuts, you could avoid a ban.

A student's health information is confidential. So, the school not only has an obligation to keep the student safe, but, also keep the student's health concerns private.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have not back-peddled at all. I've been saying the same darn things over and over and over and over again to the point I feel like slamming my head on the darn desk. It's like you all want me to be saying something else so very badly, you're twisting what I've said and shoving words in my throat the way you think other kids are going to shove peanut butter down allergic kids' throats.

Twisting words? Pot, meet kettle.

I've gone over the risks from peanut products on the premises, as opposed to only loose peanuts. I have argued against your contention that there is zero risk from peanut butter. When I brought up the possibility of bullying, and others have brought up the possibility of swapping lunches, I saw your argument change toward conflating the bully issue into something it wasn't.

I haven't seen you backpedaling so much, but I've seen your ire jump around from sub-topic to sub-topic. You've also taken a whole heck of a lot personally, when nothing has been directed personally toward you.

And no, I would not change my mind. I'd have no issue sending my kid to school if they were allergic to nuts and a whopping 10% of the other kids there were scarfing down peanut butter sandwiches. I'd teach my kid what not to eat, to wash their hands, keep the proper people apprised of their condition, and take the appropriate steps necessary. Banning someone else's kid from eating their own lunch is not necessary in my opinion.

That's your right to send your child to school with a severe peanut allergy. If you would be confident in the staff, the students, the teachers, and the administrators to be able to ensure a safe atmosphere. And if you would be completely confident in your childs ability to discern what exactly to put into his or her mouth as young as 5, then good for you.

I don't think it's unnecessary. I can see the reasoning behind it. In the long run, it's a minor inconvenience. I don't see it as a ridiculous overreaction and infringement on other peoples rights to have peanut butter. The impression I got from your posts is that you do see it as an infringement on the majority perople, that the ban supporters are over-zealous and reactionary, and that there is zero risk of a reaction from peanut butter.

If those were not your arguments, I apologize for misrepresenting you. But it was the impression I was getting from your posts. There's no need to slam your head down on your desk, D. I support a ban if an establishment decides it's best for their facilities. I also support an establishment that chooses NOT to ban, but takes other measures.

The point is to minimize the risk. Where it seems you and I disagree is the presence of risk from peanut butter. I stand by my position of supporting the peanut ban. YMMV.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Personally, I think the best solution is for the school to send literature home to parents, as they do have the responsbility to harbor a safe environment for all students.

Children can be asked not to share foods containing peanuts with other children in the lunchroom. And I do think it reasonable for parents to have access to food labels and ingredients for anything that the school is selling and serving, anyway.

For the classroom where the child with the allergy may be learning, I do think it reasonable to ban nuts in that classroom as a precautionary. Literature should be sent home to parents and that should be sufficient.

The school and school system has to be mindful of risk and liability. They have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their staff and students.

I think that greater precaution needs to be taken with elementary age students as they are younger and may not have the confidence to react as quickly on their own if they have a known allergy.

I wouldn't throw darts at the school necessarily, if they made a decision to ban peanuts in an elementary school, when you're working with younger children who may not have the maturity level to act as quickly to their own medical emergency (epipen, for example). I can only imagine the type of pressure that a parent might place on the school system if they were overtly worried about the safety of their child.

But, I think that with education and preparation - ensuring that teachers, parents and students are aware of the importance of refraining from sharing items that contan peanuts, you could avoid a ban.

A student's health information is confidential. So, the school not only has an obligation to keep the student safe, but, also keep the student's health concerns private.

Hey lookie here. A reasonable disagreement! :clap

I support a schools efforts to include overall the parents with including literature, and taking measures to wipe down surfaces and enforce a "clean hands" policy right before and right after lunch, along with a quick face wipe. And to legislate a policy that sharing items that contain peanuts is subject to a confiscation....or something like that.

You brought up something else that is essential, Dawny, and one I appreciate. It's the students health information remaining confidential. How best to maintain confidentiality while keeping that student safe is likely one of the supporting arguments for instituting a ban. It's not the only way to address it, but it's a reasonable way.

 

[Draka]

Personally, I think the best solution is for the school to send literature home to parents, as they do have the responsbility to harbor a safe environment for all students.

Children can be asked not to share foods containing peanuts with other children in the lunchroom. And I do think it reasonable for parents to have access to food labels and ingredients for anything that the school is selling and serving, anyway.

Makes sense. We never really know what goes into those hot lunches do we?

For the classroom where the child with the allergy may be learning, I do think it reasonable to ban nuts in that classroom as a precautionary. Literature should be sent home to parents and that should be sufficient.

Also makes sense. I have said as much as well about the banning the giving out of snacks and the like to students in general that contain peanuts.

The school and school system has to be mindful of risk and liability. They have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their staff and students.

I think that greater precaution needs to be taken with elementary age students as they are younger and may not have the confidence to react as quickly on their own if they have a known allergy.

I wouldn't throw darts at the school necessarily, if they made a decision to ban peanuts in an elementary school, when you're working with younger children who may not have the maturity level to act as quickly to their own medical emergency (epipen, for example). I can only imagine the type of pressure that a parent might place on the school system if they were overtly worried about the safety of their child.

But, I think that with education and preparation - ensuring that teachers, parents and students are aware of the importance of refraining from sharing items that contan peanuts, you could avoid a ban.

All well put. Schools can come under a lot of pressure from parents, but if level heads prevail then a well-thought out plan can usually help.

A student's health information is confidential. So, the school not only has an obligation to keep the student safe, but, also keep the student's health concerns private.

If things are managed well then most other kids probably won't even ever find out that another kid is allergic in the first place unless that kid actually tells them. Making a child a center figure for a reason need not, and should not , happen.

 

[Falvlun]

No that 75% is WORLDWIDE intolerance..

Dallas, you are incorrect. This will be the last time I will say it, since you are apparently unwilling to listen to it.

If anyone else remains unconvinced, I encourage you to investigate medical resources to get your information.

And 25% lactose deficient (even if we take your stats) 16% INTOLERANT thats a hell of a lot for MILK to be on the food group pyramid (whole category) as part of a "balanced daily diet"..

That is a HUGE portion of just the American population that can not tolerate milk .But yet its on the major food pyramid?one of the 4 "food groups" and pushed as good for you ?

There are different levels of intolerance. Lactose intolerance does not necessarily mean you are unable to tolerate any lactose whatsoever. Some lactose intolerant people can handle lactose, as long as it is in small doses. Some people merely can't handle milk, but are still fine with yogurt, cheese, and butter. Some can't handle milk or yogurt, but can ingest cheese and butter (which have much less lactose in them), and so on.

I'm not sure why you are so indignant over the fact that dairy is a healthy choice of food for many people, and that it does provide an easy source of necessary nutrients.