I found a well-written blog from a mom of a child with life-threatening allergies who doesn't think that banning foods from school is a solution.
It definitely is a hot issue. People get enraged at the thought of little Bobby not being able to have peanut butter at school. I haven't quite figured that one out. I mean, as a mom, I could never imagine putting any child at risk for something that could be fatal. Does banning food mean that parents actually have to make an effort for their kids' lunches? How hard is it for them to eat a ham sandwich?
But this mom makes the points that banning foods can lead to a false sense of security for not only the affected child, but the surrounding adults.
I can definitely agree with that. I don't want my daughter's allergies to be a burden on her or anyone else. So I will have to send her to school with lunch everyday. And provide treats. No big whup.
But I do realize that since my daughter's allergies aren't life-threatening, that I'm coming from a different place than other parents. Quite frankly, if I thought my daughter would go into anaphylatic shock, I think I would home school her.
What are your thoughts?
My best friend's son, who has food allergies that differ drastically from mine, lived with me for a while. He could NOT have dairy, so he had soy everything. Soy cheese, soy hot dogs, etc.
Now here's the problem. I can't have soy. Any of it. Ever. So our cabinets were a mess of Sharpie marker - NO JOAN. NO BRAYDEN. Written on everything.
So imagine we're two schoolkids. No dairy in the classroom, because Brayden gets sick. But no dairy substitute, either, because then that would make ME sick.
See where I'm going with this? What would either of us eat, if we banned both dairy and soy from the room?
I feel like you could create a new set of problems.