There is a case study, but I can't link it...
Severe Systemic Allergic Reaction induced by accidental skin contact with cow milk in a 16 yr old boy... Case Study
J Invest Allergol Clin Immunol 2004; Vol. 14 (2): 168-171

My son has been sitting at the "peanut free" table since he started at his school in 1st grade. It is his own preference to do so. It's not so much that I'm concerned with him "smelling" it. I'm more concerned with him accidently picking up the wrong napkin or the wrong fork that actually belonged to the kid next to him. He is now in 4th grade and this has worked well for him so far. He has never felt isolated, only safer. Anyone can sit there as long as they didn't bring PB or peanut products so there are always kids there. The school lunches do not contain nuts (aside from a few packaged items that have "traces").
He knows that when he goes to middle school, there will not be a peanut free table but he has two more years to learn to accept that and know how to protect himself. Also, by the time they're in middle school, I think that kids tend to have more of a variety of food interests other than just peanut butter and jelly so I believe that there is less of it around.

I know there is two sides to everything but DD has had many different seating assignments and many are not right. Our current setup is there is one table is the lunch room that is "Nut Free". This has been the best year ever because her friends can sit with her. You are right thou it can be handled wrong. We have had that too. Where she was placed in a desk that was normally used for punishment. The school's usual argument is the kids sit by class and the one table does not work. We also had a period where she sat at the end of a very long table and sometimes she sat alone. The single most important word to keep in mind is inclusion. We have always wanted her to understand that everywhere she goes in life there is always a possibility so be aware of your surroundings and do your best.

I am curious why you say there will be no nut free table in middle school? My DD will be in 7th grade next year and we have already had our first meeting with that staff and there will be a nut free table in the middle school as well as the high school when she gets there. We are in a small school dist and untill this year I did not she one of 19 kids in her grade alone with the same allergy. It was a real eye opener. The size of the school does not matter.

My son started kindergarten this year. There is no policy in our school as to peanut allergies. It will change next year, but currently there is not. My son sits at a smaller table with 7 of his friends. One lunch-aide is assigned to his table and he is watched. I'm at school alot since the mom's serve lunch. I am fortunate in this way. If a child is eating peanut butter at his table, he can stay. As soon as the child is done, the table is wiped and his hands are washed before outdoor play. I did not want to go the section 504 route.
He is 5 and allergic to peanuts, all nuts and egg

I respect you have your view. I just want to say please reconsider because without one at any time the school can deceied they don't want to make any accomodations such as the table you refer to and you will not beable to do anything about it. All a 504 does is put a plan in writing that helps you and the school agree and understand the needs of your child. Then if suddenly they do not want to provide that table or that aid you have a something that gives you the right to fight. If you have an issue the ORC can do nothing if there is no 504 to inforce. I am sure are doing what you feel is best and I am not there but all to often schools do not want to do a 504. Their reasons I fear are all to often not wanting to be held accountable or not wanting to do any extra. I wish you the best in wnatever path you choose.

[b]All a 504 does is put a plan in writing that helps you and the school agree and understand the needs of your child.[/b]
Not speaking to anyone in particular here-
It's not just a written plan for understanding. It's about deeming a child as disabled due to a health condition. It's about a child becoming an individual who in the school context, must be afforded a level playing field. The child with LTFA must be afforded the same [i]opportunities[/i] as others, the same [i]access[/i] to education. The child with LTFA ought to expect the [i]same level of safety [/i]as others enjoy at school. To [i]participate[/i] in the education fully, not miss out because the teacher planned an activity including peanut butter. To not be [b]forced[/b] to sit at a table just because of his or her health status. (a school would never force a blind person to sit somewhere specific, or a diabetic. ).
What happens to a great 'plan' when a willing principal or teacher is replaced with a no so allergy-friendly one? What then? With a 504 plan, it's not about someones attitude, friendliness, or willingness to accomodate. A 504 is strictly business. Ponder for a moment, if the school is already providing accomodations for a child, why wouldn't they put those accomodations within a 504 plan? It's pretty rotten when you think about what the motivation for all of the resistance comes from: being legally responsible and being held accountable.

I have to reply to this, having just come from a conference about 504's. The attorneys that held the conference are experts in the 504 and disability area, which was why our district hired them. Just to preface this with the fact that we 504 all of our food allergic children in my school.
He told us that it is not proper to use breathing as the major life activity affected. He said often it is used in the context of food allergy, but he said that since their breathing is only affected if they develop anaphylaxis, it is not affected on a daily, regular basis. He compared it to walking down the street and getting hit by a truck. He said normally, a person can walk down the street and they are fine, but if a truck comes up on the sidewalk and hits them, it could kill them. A food allergic child can walk down the hall, participate in class activities, etc., and will only be affected if they ingest/inhale (whatever their particular allergy is)the allergen.
He also said that 504's are used far too often. I did ask him about the liability issue without a 504 and he said that old fashioned torte law would apply. That even without a 504, a school is liable to protect a child with food allergies, which is where the IHP (individual health plan) comes in. This means that if a child is injured from exposure to an allergen, and negligence played a part (a teacher giving a child a snack with the allergen, for example), then the parents could sue the district and conceivably win.
I use the 504, but quite frankly, as a nurse, my goal is to never have to give an epipen. I do all I can to keep the FA children in my school safe. All of the staff is epipen trained and we provide the parents with the accomodations that make them feel comfortable. We have a peanut free table that we use for one child with a peanut/tree nut allergy. This was at his parents' request. We have another child who does NOT sit there because his parents' want him to learn how to live in the environment. It's all about personal preference and comfort level.
The other thing I learned is that if a 504 is put into place, the plan does not need to include every accomodation that the parent requests. Also, the parents don't need to sign the 504 for it to be implemented. Just something to think about.
Sometimes when I read here it just makes me plain sad. There is very much an us vs. them mentality among some posters. Shouldn't it be a collaborative effort instead of conflict? What is wrong with using an IHP instead of a 504? If the school is willing to make accomodations and the nurse makes up a plan that the parents and teacher agree on, why does it need to be under 504? I realize that there needs to be education, but to be quite frank, I don't know a single soul in education who doesn't care about the students under their care, and wouldn't do all they could to ensure their safety.

[b]He told us that it is not proper to use breathing as the major life activity affected. He said often it is used in the context of food allergy, but he said that since their breathing is only affected if they develop anaphylaxis, it is not affected on a daily, regular basis.[/b]
This is by far the most stupid assessment of the law I have ever heard. Whenever someone comes up with this, it sickens me. By that logic, an epileptic must be having a seizure at all times, a diabetic must be in the midst of insulin shock, correct? Egads. When a child requires a constant barrage of accomodations to keep them safe, they need a 504. What a disservice these people just provided.
Care to tell us who these lawyers are?
[b]What is wrong with using an IHP instead of a 504? If the school is willing to make accomodations and the nurse makes up a plan that the parents and teacher agree on, why does it need to be under 504?[/b]
There's nothing wrong with it if you don't plan on ever having a change of administration in your school from one that's helpful, to one that doesn't care about your child. Or have a school full of parents who hate the fact that your child has a food allergy and keeps messing up the fun in-school food fests combined with an administration who in the interest of not rocking the boat, refuses to stand up to said parents so that your child can safely participate.
An IHP plan says 'Johnny's class is doing a peanut butter craft today, your child will be out in the hallway while we do it. See what we're doing for him? [i]He's safe[/i].' A 504 plan says 'Johnny standing out in the hallway is not OK. He may be safe, but he's being [i]discrimated against [/i]because he has a food allergy. We don't allow diabetics to stand in the hallway, or gay people, or people of a different color. Why would we allow 'disabled person' to stand in the hall. How can we make this environment safe so that Johnny is not [i][b]discriminated against[/b][/i], so that Johnny can participate safely in his education.'
[b]This means that if a child is injured from exposure to an allergen, and negligence played a part (a teacher giving a child a snack with the allergen, for example), then the parents could sue the district and conceivably win.[/b]
I'd rather have a legal plan that makes everyone in that school sit up and say 'I'm well versed in Johnny's allergy. I've taken it to heart, [i]I'm required[/i].' A 504 plan shows the ultimate committment by the school to service the civil rights of a food allergic child, a healthy choice to not discriminate. Don't forget, Section 504 is [i]civil rights legislation[/i]. It is much bigger than accomodations.

[b]Sometimes when I read here it just makes me plain sad. There is very much an us vs. them mentality among some posters. Shouldn't it be a collaborative effort instead of conflict?[/b]
I can only assume you haven't been on the receiving end of countless condescending glances and holier than thou attitude from your principal, counselor or whomever, stall tactics, deflection of responsiblities, attitudes of people who feel it's alright that your child didn't get a treat from the teacher after getting his spelling words correct today.
You know, when it's [i]your[/i] child that gets placed in unsafe environments and constantly overlooked, you get an unfortunate glance into the hearts of some people. This has been the norm for too many and it creates conflict when food is valued over the safety and inclusion of a child.
(sarcasm alert) So sorry you're sad that I can't seem to [i]collaborate[/i] with people who value food over the safety and inclusion of a child, and that I have a certain [i]mentality[/i] that doesn't give you that warm fuzzy feeling. There's one thing you can bet on, conflict [i]will [/i]arise in a parent's life, when a caregiver/teacher places their child in harms way and seeks to conveniently sweep inclusion under the rug all throughout the schoolyear, and does it ALL IN THE NAME OF FOOD.
It doesn't have to be so hard, you're right, but I'm hanging on to the 'it's not me, it's them' arguement....and for once, I know I'm right. Period.