I was shocked to read the response from Ms. Johnston regarding Clear Lake Elementary School’s ‘peanut free? policy. The lack of a thorough review of the literature available regarding peanut allergies is appalling.
Ms. Johnston’s reference to peanut allergies as ‘probably the most common cause of death by food anaphylaxis in the United States? is misleading and alarmist.
According to the Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Journal (2006), ‘Pediatric asthma is the number one chronic disease in childhood and is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality,? the other most common causes of death from anaphylaxis are reaction to medication, insect stings, and food allergies. Further review of the literature would reveal that the primary culprit of death from anaphylaxis is a delay in administering epinephrine (Fogg & Sperger, 2003). As a person who carries an EpiPen for asthma and bee sting allergies, I can testify to this, however I don’t have to because the research does justice by itself.
Studies regarding the fatality rates from food anaphylactic shock report various findings. One article published in the Journal of School Nursing (2004) studied 32 fatal food-induced anaphylactic reactions, 15 of the individuals were between the ages of 6-18. According to the study, four of the fatal reactions occurred in school or child care settings with reactions caused by milk, peanuts, tree nuts, and fish, the location of exposure and type of reaction was not reported for the remaining 11. Noteworthy of mentioning, is that in the four cases of fatality the children had a history of asthma (the number one chronic disease in childhood). Of further concern, while the initial onset of symptoms was evident in 10 to 30 minutes, epinephrine was not given to the four students until an average of two hours after onset.
With that being said there are many plans of action supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN), beside a school wide ‘peanut ban.?
In the interest of ensuring the safety and well being of the many children with asthma, bee sting allergies, and food allergies, administration may wish to consider alternatives.
For instance, instituting a ‘classroom peanut ban,? however installing air conditioning and proper ventilation would not only be of benefit to students with asthma but those with food allergies. Unfortunately, I am at a loss as to how we can address the concerns of students with a deathly allergic reaction to bee stings.
While Ms. Cates, in her reaction to my comments, failed to recognize the context of the potential risks all children face by attending school, I would not recommend that Clear Lake ban outdoor recess during the months that bees are most active. This is suggested by Ms. Cates as a proper and reasonable course of action for dealing with potentially life threatening allergies.
However, if the threat is so eminent and lethal, I would not be comfortable with less than a full-time nurse being employed at the school to ensure proper medical care of the children with asthma and allergies.
Make no mistake, my comments are not intended to present any ill will toward a young child or their family, as presumed by the rebuttals published in previous issues.
In fact, my reaction and investigation into the policy evolved from my concern of inadvertently violating the policy and placing the child at risk.
While it may be surprising, according to the previous mentioned study in the Journal of School Nursing, 87.5 percent of food induced anaphylaxis incidents resulting in death did not occur in a school setting.
This means that even the most diligent parent of a child with a peanut allergy cannot guarantee that the home is ‘peanut free.?
According to a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics (2001) examining 124 food reactions to peanuts or tree nuts in a school setting, 60 percent of reactions were reported from ingestion, 24 percent from isolated skin contact, and 16 percent were possible inhalation.
There were three reactions that occurred in schools with peanut bans in place, and these reactions primarily occurred in classrooms (79 percent) and in 61 percent of the episodes the food had been supplied by the school (that was supposed to be peanut free).
One of the most difficult things to do in a public forum is to voice an opinion that may be perceived as unpopular, especially if that opinion can be construed as uncaring and insensitive.
However, it is a willingness to do such that allows for a full and in depth understanding of the issue at hand.
To respond to Unitarian demands without question or discussion usurps the democratic process that is so important to the freedoms we enjoy.
Voicing these opinions is a basic lesson we hope to teach our child, hoping that they will some day stand up to a group of their peers in protest of what they think is a bad decision.
To prepare our children for this significant life lesson we work to prepare them by educating them, teaching them formal reasoning and critical thinking.
It is our hope that they will use the information available to them to construct a reasonable course of action and to adjust their direction as information is made available to them.
While the temptation to act on emotion and impulse may govern, it is hoped that they will learn to manage their emotions and not act in haste. How can we expect to teach our children if we do not apply to ourselves what we expect of them?
In closing, I would like to apologize to the family for any inference of ill will that may have been construed by rebuttals. They don’t know me, have never met me and continue to make ill informed assumptions.
As a professor and administrator at Oakland University, along with being a member of the planning committee of the annual ‘Equity in the Classroom? conference, I am familiar with the ADA and have made accommodations for students.
However, I have never imposed a policy that would infringe upon the basic freedoms and liberties of other students within my classrooms.
I won’t pretend to imagine what an incredible struggle this has been for this family. I, like many, are concerned about the potential threats my children face at school.
I am truly concerned that the institution of a ‘peanut ban? would lend to complacency and prevent the timely administration of epinephrine when a reaction occurs (as the research clearly indicates is the case in the majority of incidents).
Many valuable minutes would be wasted as teachers and administrators tried to track down the source of the reaction, as the source of such can be hidden in many unmarked or unidentified sources.
And lastly, I contend with Ms. Cates proposal to ‘tolerate? another because of a disability as way of building community, it is the process of respect that creates community and fosters the well being of others.
However, I imagine I will have to ‘tolerate? another rebuttal.

published in previous issues. In fact, my reaction and investigation into the policy evolved from my concern of inadvertently violating the policy and placing the child at risk. While it may be surprising, according to the previous mentioned study in the Journal of School Nursing, 87.5 percent of food induced anaphylaxis incidents resulting in death did not occur in a school setting. This means that even the most diligent parent of a child with a peanut allergy cannot guarantee that the home is ‘peanut free.? According to a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics (2001) examining 124 food reactions to peanuts or tree nuts in a school setting, 60 percent of reactions were reported from ingestion, 24 percent from isolated skin contact, and 16 percent were possible inhalation. There were three reactions that occurred in schools with peanut bans in place, and these reactions primarily occurred in classrooms (79 percent) and in 61 percent of the episodes the food had been supplied by the school (that was supposed to be peanut free).
One of the most difficult things to do in a public forum is to voice an opinion that may be perceived as unpopular, especially if that opinion can be construed as uncaring and insensitive. However, it is a willingness to do such that allows for a full and in depth understanding of the issue at hand. To respond to Unitarian demands without question or discussion usurps the democratic process that is so important to the freedoms we enjoy. Voicing these opinions is a basic lesson we hope to teach our child, hoping that they will some day stand up to a group of their peers in protest of what they think is a bad decision. To prepare our children for this significant life lesson we work to prepare them by educating them, teaching them formal reasoning and critical thinking. It is our hope that they will use the information available to them to construct a reasonable course of action and to adjust their direction as information is made available to them. While the temptation to act on emotion and impulse may govern, it is hoped that they will learn to manage their emotions and not act in haste. How can we expect to teach our children if we do not apply to ourselves what we expect of them?
In closing, I would like to apologize to the family for any inference of ill will that may have been construed by rebuttals. They don’t know me, have never met me and continue to make ill informed assumptions. As a professor and administrator at Oakland University, along with being a member of the planning committee of the annual ‘Equity in the Classroom? conference, I am familiar with the ADA and have made accommodations for students. However, I have never imposed a policy that would infringe upon the basic freedoms and liberties of other students within my classrooms.
I won’t pretend to imagine what an incredible struggle this has been for this family. I, like many, are concerned about the potential threats my children face at school. I am truly concerned that the institution of a ‘peanut ban? would lend to complacency and prevent the timely administration of epinephrine when a reaction occurs (as the research clearly indicates is the case in the majority of incidents). Many valuable minutes would be wasted as teachers and administrators tried to track down the source of the reaction, as the source of such can be hidden in many unmarked or unidentified sources. And lastly, I contend with Ms. Cates proposal to ‘tolerate? another because of a disability as way of building community, it is the process of respect that creates community and fosters the well being of others. However, I imagine I will have to ‘tolerate? another rebuttal.