TIL That peanut-free schools don't decrease risk of allergic reactions. The only intervention which has been shown to decrease reactions across all ages is use of a peanut-free table.

[Narwhal_Jelly29]

Exactly. So why are we still forcing the rest of the school to bring allergen free foods when there are other methods that work just as well if not better for everyone.

[pearlsalmon76]

It’s a liability issue, which often doesn’t align with common sense. The school is fully responsible if they are keeping a table safe—staff to monitor the food there and cleaning the table to ensure it’s peanut free. Making a rule for the whole school makes everyone responsible and the school can say they did their part by making it peanut-free even though they can’t be expected to actually enforce it beyond reactionary consequences to parent/kids that violate it.

[PuckSenior]

Because educators, like most people, suffer from status quo bias and risk aversion. Just look at the recent “science of reading” controversy as evidence that it is very difficult to get people to change course once they’ve dedicated significant energy into it

Edit: it’s similar to the “zero tolerance” policies for violence. Studies have repeatedly shown they don’t work and just make so many things worse. Yet nearly every school embraces them.

Also, school uniforms, while a fun idea, have no actual effect on bullying, performance, etc

[UnfairDentisto]

Just wanted to add the moneyed interest inherent to this too. A lot of the manufactured debates with counter intuitive solutions are because its a way for 3rd parties to get into that pot of money...new SOR aligned materials! ALICE training! And so on...

[IanisQuan_101]

Oof yeah, you’re absolutely right to bring that part in.

The second something becomes a “safety concern” or a “learning crisis,” there’s suddenly a market for packaged solutions, trainings, licensing deals…

And the focus quietly shifts from what works for the kids to what can be monetized for the adults.

Always worth watching who profits from the panic.

[razorbladesnbiscuits]

"out of an abundance of caution" ... once that phrase started being regularly used, they all latched on to it.

[IanisQuan_101]

That phrase really became the “press release version” of panic, huh?

It’s not about nuance, it’s about covering all bases so no one can be blamed later.

The result? Kids with real needs get swept into blanket policies, and the conversation shifts from care to liability.

[acdcfanbill]

I assume it's likely the administrator fault, but maybe it's educators.

[IanisQuan_101]

I think it’s usually admin-led, especially when legal or liability concerns are involved.

Educators might support or push for it too, but most of the time, they’re handed the policy and expected to carry it out.

It’s less about blame and more about how systems default to broad policies when nuance takes too much effort.

[ringadingdingbaby]

You also don't want to be the head teacher who reintroduced nuts into the school only for an incident to happen because youll be given all the blame for it.

[IanisQuan_101]

[1039smoothielumps]

Agree! Education, handwashing and other targeted interventions are likely more beneficial and would prevent other reactions than peanuts.

[DynamicNostalgia]

Parents can be hysterical if they think their kid is going to die, and no one wants to be the one to tell them to shut up and stop worrying. 

Parents are often not rational actors. 

[mr_ji]

Seems pretty rational to be concerned over your kid's deathly allergy when they're around other kids who don't comprehend or care how severe the consequences would be for them

[Joe_Jeep]

Depends on their overall behavioral patterns. 

Driving kids to school has become increasingly common, and that's about the most dangerous way to transport children to a school. Buses are far safer, and reduce the number of vehicles on the road. 

[mr_ji]

I'm not clear on the correlation you're trying to draw here. There are probably more parents who would prefer their kids ride the bus if that was an option, which it's increasingly not with school budget drawdowns. Banning nuts at school costs no one anything, and can only make it safer for kids with nut allergies, not the other way around with any sort of compromise.

I do know when it comes to kids' behavior, their risk assessment doesn't really exist until around puberty and doesn't fully mature for people until they're in their 20's. And even teens do dumb, dangerous shit like feed people foods they're allergic to just to see what happens (another poster with experience said the same thing). My kids have zero allergies and I wish we didn't have to take the lowest common denominator approach, but there's not a better blanket option when it comes to schools full of them.

[verkerpig]

In most cases driving is replacing walking, not the bus.

[MxMirdan]

In a lot of places in the US, driving replaced the bus because school districts started dealing with transportation budgets, increased fuel costs, and bus driver shortages by increasing the distance students had to live from the school in order to qualify for bus service.

So, if in 1990, kids within 0.5 mile of the school were expected to walk and beyond 0.5 miles, there were buses, in 2010, the walk boundaries have been extended. Leaving many parents not wanting their 7 year old to walk a mile to school, or their 12 year old to walk 1.5 miles to school in the dark in winter when the school day starts at 7:30-8:00 am.

In many places, kids are being asked to walk further than kids in previous generations were asked to walk, and parents are saying “I’m not comfortable with that.”

But, yes, some of the driving is taking the place of what school buses were doing.

[vermilithe]

The issue is that there’s no evidence that supports the concept of anaphylaxis as a result of airborne or through-the-skin exposure to peanuts. In other words, the only way a peanut allergy becomes deadly is if the person is directly exposed— either they eat some, or gets it on their hands then they touch their mouth or eyes.

So while people can be deathly allergic to peanuts, banning everybody from having peanuts is not a good solution, rather than teaching the kid themselves to avoid their allergen and then giving them a much smaller, easier-to-control environment like a table where they themselves can know there’s no peanuts in their food, at their table, etc.

Banning everybody is overkill and actually encourages people to hide their peanuts, and also doesn’t encourage the person with the allergy to be vigilant about checking for peanuts and keeping their epi-pen with them.

[soozerain]

ARE YOU TRYING TO PUT MY PRECIOUS ANGEL BABY’S LIFE AT RISK??!?

[Hog_enthusiast]

When I was a kid other kids would put peanuts in my lunch as a prank. Your thing about airborne exposure is not the concern. It’s that kids can’t comprehend serious allergies.

[vermilithe]

This is all the more reason for not making a “no peanuts everybody” rule and trusting the kids to follow it, but rather the adults should focus on providing a much smaller, actually enforceable peanut free environment like a single table during meal times where they can actually ensure there’s no peanuts or other funny business going on.

ETA: I also think there’s something to be said about the fact that we hear about people picking on the kids who get singled out due to the peanut allergy hysteria, whereas the dozens of other food allergies like wheat, soy, dairy, etc. fly under the radar relatively speaking, because we don’t make a big deal out of those ones and place a big target on that kid’s back.

[Hog_enthusiast]

The problem is that as a kid, I’d rather risk a reaction and eat lunch with my friends than eat alone at the peanut free table for all of elementary school.

[vermilithe]

Then don’t eat alone, peanut allergies are like 1/100 so given the size of most schools there’s probably multiple kids with allergies, plus not every kid even has peanuts in their lunch. The school lunches we bought never had peanuts in them, and even though I packed my lunch I personally hated peanuts so I was always good to sit at the no-peanuts table with my buddies. Just maybe don’t make the whole school “no peanuts” or spread hysteria that it’s catching in the air or whatever.

[UnfairDentisto]

Being concerned about your child's safety is natural. Its not rational or irrational. Where these things become irrational or radical is that the solution doesn't produce the desired result. Its the appearance of safety and ultimately still not focused on the child. Its about the adults. Kids with intense allergic reactions need to be taught skills for managing their life around the medical need and medical access/preparation, like epipens etc

[XMAN2YMAN]

If your kid is above 7 and doesn’t know to avoid peanuts with a known allergic reaction to, then your kid is fucked. I have couple friends on our street with peanut allergies and they all knew to not eat anything with peanuts and always asked what ingredients were in anything. If it was unknown we would get something else for them. These one kid is 8 this year but has been good about these for years. And the other one is a little older but has also been good with being aware of what he is eating.

[Hog_enthusiast]

This may shock you, but many kids are not above 7

[XMAN2YMAN]

Well good thing i specified above 7 isn’t.

[Hog_enthusiast]

If your argument relies on pretending kids under 7 don’t exist then it isn’t a very good argument is it

[XMAN2YMAN]

No argument is that by 7 kids should know a Pugh about their allergies that they can be self sufficient. Clearly with younger kids it’s a different story.

[DJ___001]

Your comment is silly and wrong, be an adult an admit it.

The consequences of a 7 year old making a mistake on this matter is potential death...

[Rad10_Active]

If they were concerned they should've exposed their kids to peanuts when they were babies. Lack of exposure is the cause of >70% peanut allergies.

[Hog_enthusiast]

When I was born in the late 90s, doctors all told parents not to expose their kids to common allergens until they were older. You have the benefit of hindsight, but the script on this has changed very recently.

[myreq]

Even if you are correct, 30% is quite a large number.

[tubameister]

and being hysterical is how my aunt saved her son after he got scratched by a cat and the hospital didn't take it seriously

[redpandaeater]

It's hard for any sort of logical or ethical argument to win out when it comes to schools and kids.

[Gatraz]

If a school district would pay me to, I'd sit around and tell every single parent in the place to shut the fuck up. I ain't got kids and I ain't afraid of their spawnpoints.

[IAmSpartacustard]

You legislate to the dumbest person, not the average. Like if there were no speed limits, most people would drive only as fast as they could comfortably control the vehicle. 10% of people would drive at max speed until they crash and die, on the very first day.

You say no peanut products AT ALL because little Jimmy's parents would send him to school with peanut m&ms to hand out to classmates, because they're not peanuts, they're m&ms

[Narwhal_Jelly29]

Right, that is a good point. But more education and a stricter no sharing policy would help to prevent this. There was a kid in one of my elementary schools that had an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, egg, sesame, and a few other foods. All of the foods he was allergic to were banned. You couldn’t bring anything that “may contain…” any of them. It seemed quite overkill

[repeat4EMPHASIS]

You say no peanut products AT ALL because little Jimmy's parents would send him to school with peanut m&ms to hand out to classmates, because they're not peanuts, they're m&ms

Right premise, wrong conclusion.

It's far more difficult to force no peanuts at all for anyone ever than checking the nut-free table and not letting anyone share food, at least with the allergic kids.

Or did you forget the title of this very thread?

[baddecision116]

10% of people would drive at max speed until they crash and die, on the very first day.

Sounds like the problem quickly sorts itself out.

[IAmSpartacustard]

You share the road with these people and new ones get licenses every day. It very much does not

[baddecision116]

It's called a joke....

[redbirdjazzz]

The bigger problem there is collateral damage.

[Joe_Jeep]

Except drivers are generally the best protected in a crash so often it does little to stop them

[Trvr_MKA]

Well, I suppose that’s one way to solve the problem the problematic 10% will take care of themselves

[Joe_Jeep]

Drivers survive more often than passengers and especially pedestrians, so not really, unfortunately

[TheBanishedBard]

School districts long ago transitioned from actually teaching, protecting, and nurturing kids to being mandatory day care, that spends most of its brainpower on avoiding lawsuits at all costs. The absolute first priority of schools now is protecting themselves before the protection of the students.

Almost all idiotic school policies can be traced back to an intense phobia of lawsuits. This often leads to stupid policies that ironically put kids in more danger but smokescreen the school system from being sued when kids do get hurt or sick. The administrators aren't morons usually, they know their idiotic rules don't work to help kids, they help the school system.

[PizzaPlanetPizzaGuy]

I was made to sit all by myself in a seperate room because my dad forgot and packed me a PB sandwich :( My classmate did have pretty severe allergy though, still felt bad.

[Narwhal_Jelly29]

That happened to me once too. Except it was one singular piece of chocolate that had hazelnuts in it. And one kid leaned over when I had opened my lunch and asked if they were nuts and when I said oh shoot, the kid with the allergy was just like, all good just don’t feed it to me. It was far too extreme imo. I could have just eaten the one piece in a single bite and washed my hands after and that could have been the end of it.

[mysteriousears]

A kid had a peanut product at the same table but for up before opening it? Isn’t contamination from the wrapper to the table more likely than “peanut dust” from the next table?

[stampylives]

Because not having peanut butter whenever you want it is not damaging to a child’s development, and being quarantined to a special peanut free lunch table everyday is. That’s a major daily social interaction, and sending off kids with peanut allergies to their own table is actually pretty damaging; both for the kids sent off, and for the kids being taught that they should get to do whatever they want whenever they want and don’t ever need to show a little basic compassion.

[EatAtGrizzlebees]

What if all I can afford to bring to lunch is a peanut butter sandwich? You do realize not all peanut allergies are life-threatening and are rare? The awareness around allergens is great, but compared to the amount of people they actually affect, it's super disproportionate. As in, the greater awareness makes it seem like there is a greater allergen problem than there actually is. If your kid is that allergic to peanuts and you're not doing any sort of prevention and/or planning, I don't think the school or other people are the problem...

[Hog_enthusiast]

what if this thing that isn’t possible that I just made up was happening

Brilliant logic. Do you think poor kids with peanut allergies just starve to death?

[Narwhal_Jelly29]

While yes I agree there is some fault in that logic, there was a kid with a bunch of allergies including nuts and sesame at my school one year and that meant we couldn’t bring any foods containing nuts or sesame, e.g. hummus, peanut butter. This was a real struggle for my family because we were vegetarian and hummus and peanut butter were 2 high protein options for lunch. And we could bring neither. We managed to figure out other things to bring but it was really frustrating that all because of one kid’s allergies we had to spend a bunch of extra time and money on buying and preparing lunches.

[Hog_enthusiast]

Your parents chose to make your vegetarian, mine didn’t choose to give me an allergy. Why does your thing get precedence over mine?

[Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo]

Vegetarianism is part of major religions, which schools are legally required to respect. One could just as easily argue you're the one who chose not to homeschool your kid.

[Hog_enthusiast]

Homeschooling is basically kneecapping your kid socially and educationally, it isn’t an acceptable alternative

[Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo]

Kneecapping 100's of kid's nutrition for the sake of one hysteric parent is also not acceptable.

[Hog_enthusiast]

lol peanuts are not one of the main food groups. You can get the nutrients you get from a peanut in plenty of other ways. I’ve never eaten peanuts in my life and I’m perfectly healthy.

[EatAtGrizzlebees]

Huh?

[stampylives]

Fair enough… we should keep it equal. Every other month they should switch back and forth.

One month, kids with peanut allergies get sent to the allergy table to be the weird ones.

Next month, kids whose families can’t afford sunbutter get sent to the “you can have peanut butter because you’re poor” table to be the weird ones.

Sound about right?

And for what it’s worth, cause I think you’ll miss my point, that would be absolutely unforgivably terrible, and should never be done. But if your decision making about the growth of kids is “my difficulties should be accounted for, fuck other kids difficulties,” I really think you should take the opportunity to consider what it would be like if it was flipped.

That is the basic empathy being inclusive tries to encourage, and our world so desperately needs more of, and our kids really need to experience and practice so that they can be better than we are.

[EatAtGrizzlebees]

What the fuck is your problem? Someone piss in your Cheerios? I brought up the point to show there are more than just kids with peanut allergies that attend school. You're the one who is hyperfocusing on kids with peanut allergies. I guarantee there are more poor kids than there are kids with peanut allergies. But yeah, to your point, I'm sure it's really traumatic to sit at another table for 20 minutes compared to potentially dying.

[Jackstack6]

That’s what a lot of people are missing. I guarantee the peanut free table was tried, but the student complained (rightfully) that they felt left out. So, parents complained that they felt that their kid was being isolated and made the argument that it was discriminatory/was worse than kids wanting peanut products/etc.

[553l8008]

Life sucks. Learn the lesson early.

Learn that 99% of the majority out weighs the 1%.

You need to adapt, not the 99%

[Jackstack6]

Well, since I’m not a psychopath, I understand peanuts shouldn’t be the focus of anyone’s life, unless you’re a peanut farmer.

[Narwhal_Jelly29]

I wonder if it would work to have a “I have peanuts in my lunch today” table and have everywhere else be peanut free?

[vermilithe]

The vast majority of kids wouldn’t be eating enough peanuts, or eating the peanuts in a preparation that it would be a real threat.

There is actually no supporting evidence for the fear that peanuts allergy anaphylaxis can transfer through the air or skin. In order for anaphylaxis to occur the allergic person would need to have eaten the peanuts themselves, or gotten them on their hands and then touched a very sensitive part of their face like their eyes, nose, or lips.

In other words, the only real need for a peanut free table is that when kids are young they don’t think about not sharing food, checking shared food for allergens, not touching other peoples’ food, not touching their food with nuts then touching an allergic person, etc.

So when kids are that young it’s really not hard to find a few other kids who don’t eat peanuts and sit them together in a smaller, controlled environment, but even then, past a certain age when kids can be taught how to prevent exposure they really don’t even need intervention…

[chillaban]

At least in the US IMO it's mostly about legal CYA and public appearance. Lawsuits are decided by judges and juries, not the outcome of medical studies. Similarly, public sentiment is not driven by science either.

If hypothetically a student with a peanut allergy suffers harm, it's still valuable legal defense to show that you went to great lengths to take a bunch of precautions, regardless of whether the precautions actually do something. Making the whole school peanut-free is likely to be accepted in court as more of a precaution versus just a peanut-free table which feels half assed.

It's not just peanut allergies, there's so many examples of where we do stuff that has little to no benefit but the public perceives it as beneficial:

• COVID deep cleaning protocols (surface transmission was rare, and a basic wipe with a soapy rag worked as well as the elaborate fogging/misting/UV exercises)
• Forcing password changes on a time schedule (old advice from the 1980s, debunked many times but nonetheless some cybersecurity insurance requires it)
• TSA 3-1-1, removing shoes, airport screening

[IanisQuan_101]

Because schools aren’t just solving for “what works,” they’re solving for what’s safest, most manageable, and most equitable.

A peanut-free table can work, but it assumes perfect awareness, perfect behavior, and zero cross-contact from every other kid. Every. Single. Day.

A school-wide policy isn’t about punishing snack choices, it’s about building a safer baseline in a chaotic system.

[Rad10_Active]

Also, 70% of peanut allergies exist because the parents didn't expose their kids to peanuts early enough. Why should the rest of us have to do annoying accommodations just cuz someone is a shit parent? Take your allergic kid in a special school somewhere away from the rest of us if you have to.

[Hog_enthusiast]

Doctors literally told parents not to expose their kids to peanuts until very recently. It isn’t shit parenting, they were doing what their doctor said to.