363 posts / 0 new
Last post
Posted on: Sun, 05/11/2003 - 1:21pm
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Hi all,
Gail, you haven't lost me. Thurs. afternoon and evening I was running around getting ready for Fridays field trip, Friday we went to the field trip but since I drove my own vehicle we stayed later than the school and by the time we got done we didn't get home until 8:30pm, Saturday I had to go pick up my step daughter from where she is at which round trip is 7 hrs, so I wasn't home until 8pm that night and besides visiting with her before I take her back tommorow, DH has been out of town since Tues and didn't return until Saturday....Today I did catch up on the reading here, but thats all the time I really had to do. Since I'll be taking her back tommorow, I won't be able to do much more than read. I can return and catch up my posts bright and early Tues. a.m. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] Unless of course you still want to send me that laptop! [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
Did want you guys to think I had abandoned my own question... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] I guess though, by some posts, I'm still gonna have to claim to be [i]American[/i]-Canadian....Thanks to Erik who has deemed me an honorary member... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I'm still hanging tough! [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]`

Posted on: Sun, 05/11/2003 - 3:20pm
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
[b]
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I'm still hanging tough! [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]`[/b]
On the contrary, I'm glad you are still hanging tough. Looking forward to hearing your response to posts made the past couple days...
Hope you had a great Mother's Day, Lana.
Gail

Posted on: Sun, 05/11/2003 - 11:40pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
A peanut-ban by any other name would still protect young children.
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]

Posted on: Sun, 05/11/2003 - 11:57pm
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Hi Gail and Momma Bear,
You guys in the USA seem to not like using the term peanut-free as there are no laws / regulations to back it up.
Here in Canada we call Nestle Kit Kat chocolate bars "peanut-free". This is because we call Nestle Canada on the phone, and the customer service reps tell us they make Kit Kat in a peanut-free facility so it is safe for us to eat since it is peanut-free.
I know you said you call it a drug-free school since there are laws about drugs and the police enforce these laws. But we don't have any laws or regulations in Canada that these chocolate bars must be peanut-free. The police don't enforce this.
So would you call these chocolate bars "peanut-free"? Or in the USA, would they be considered "reduce the risk candy bars".
I know in Canada, no one calls them "reduce the risk chocolate bars" - we call them "peanut-free chocolate bars". What is your opinion about this use of the term "peanut-free"? In your opinion, is "peanut-free" acceptable to use in some contexts but not others? In what cases can we use this term? Or would you never use it (unless you were referring to your own house being peanut-free).
(note: Kit Kat bars are NOT safe in the USA)

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 12:27am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

erik,
This is scary... I was just thinking about this same exact concept in the car this morning! With a slightly different twist...
I was thinking about the current consumer protection legislation here in the US~ the allergen labeling act (I believe it is called something to this effect). I thought I'd go take a look at it and see if my thoughts would change any if such laws were passed that made label reading easier and more accurate (since this was the main concern of my school).
I haven't looked at it yet, but on [i]first [/i]thinking: Yes, if labeling were more accurate, standardized and regulated by government (similar to alcohol, tobacco and firearms), I'd definitely rethink the whole "peanut free" concept. If this legislation would more clearly define what constituted the definition of "peanut free", then I [b]might [/b]change my mind.
It would still put the school in a "policing" role, so it's still not exactly the same since there is no higher authority for them to report to (since peanuts are not a controlled substance). So a school would still take on more liability (to which they would be resistent). But if the labeling would take away some of the major "guess work" ... hmmmmmm...
We are thinking similarly today erik. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/cool.gif[/img]

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 1:02am
synthia's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2002 - 09:00

Hello everyone
About the liability.
If no PN free, or food free classroom.
Are the schools still liabily if in fact they put plans in place for that child and that child still has reactions due to peanuts and peanut butter in the classroom?
Is this were the IEP holds the district liable.
And the 504 holds the school liable.
Love this site
Synthia

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 1:34am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by synthia:
[b] If no PN free, or food free classroom.
Are the schools still liabily if in fact they put plans in place for that child and that child still has reactions due to peanuts and peanut butter in the classroom?
Is this were the IEP holds the district liable.
And the 504 holds the school liable.
[/b]
I believe (if I understand all this correctly which I can't promise... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) that this is a qualified yes. These are plans that detail the precautions (the "resonable accommodations") that the school agrees to make to protect your child. Each works a little differently and the 504 has a clearer path addressing violations (through the Office of Civil Rights) by which you can report violations to be investigated. (Our IHP, for example, is "weaker" because we do not have this "enforcement" because a child needs 504 designation/status in order for OCR to investigate a violation. )
If your child has a reaction which is the result of the school violating your accommodation plan, then yes, I would definitely think they could be big-time liable.
Hope others chime in here with their opinions...
Gail

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 3:49am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

synthia ... having a licensed full-time school nurse would also seem to raise the school's level of care (= accommodations) to which the school is accountable. Ohhhh MamaBear??? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
Gail

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 9:32am
California Mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2000 - 09:00

I think this is my first foray into this topic. Just wanted to mention that [b]this[/b] American (me [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]) would LOVE to have a "peanut free" school or anything else for that matter. Nothing would make me happier. To me it would mean that the people in charge "get it" and the chances for peanut products being around would be much less than a school without any designation at all.
I don't think I'm going to get drawn in any further to this discussion, but I did want to throw my "American" hat into the ring to make it clear that this is not strictly a Canadian vs. American issue.
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] Miriam

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 10:04am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by California Mom:
[b]Just wanted to mention that this American (me [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]) would LOVE to have a "peanut free" school or anything else for that matter. [/b]
Hi Miriam,
That's great. It seemed like only Canadians and Canadian Americans in Florida (Cam's Mom) would want to send their children to a school/classroom that was designated as being peanut-free.
So Miriam - you would welcome the "peanut-free" term such as a "peanut-free classroom". I guess you would consider the Nestle Kit Kat chocolate bar as a "peanut-free" product? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
Just like the goal of Nestle Canada is to have "peanut-free" chocolate bars. And the goal of Dempsters is to have "peanut-free" waffles. And the goal of Chapmans is to have "peanut-free" ice cream (only [b]some [/b]flavours). And the goal of Bransons is to have "peanut-free" cookies. And the goal of Touche Bakery is to have "peanut-free" cakes. And the goal of Les Chocolats Vandocoeur is to have "peanut-free" chocolates. And I could go on... maybe it's a Canadian thing. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
And I have never heard of anyone ever having a reaction to any of these peanut-free products even though there are no laws or police enforcement.

Posted on: Mon, 05/12/2003 - 10:49pm
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b]so.
HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING:
If the term "Peanut free" was stated below the ingredient label on a package of cookies, and your pa child ate some and had anaphylactic reaction resulting in near death, what would would you do as a parent if it was determined the reaction came from peanut in the cookie?
Disclaimer: this post not intended as advice in any manner or form.[/b]
erik,
Let's say that the cookies (those MommaBear refers to above) are the "peanut free" Bransons that you referenced. 1.) What action would you take upon having an allergic reaction? 2.) What do you think is Bransons responsibility/liability for your reaction?
Gail
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 2:00am
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Okay guys I'm back, I'm gonna try to catch up! But bear with me [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
Quote:Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
[b]
MB - I've already answered the question Gail asked, twice, so I'm not clear if you guys are looking for a different type of answer or what?
[/b]
Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b]Where?
I must have missed it. I looked several times and am having a hard time finding it. Could you "quote" it for me?[/b]
MB - Re: Gail's question as to how I would have the school implement the PF policy. The first response is on the its on the 1st page...long so I won't quote it, but its there.
AnnaMarie - The snowballs...I can definately see the comparasion, but since I live in Florida, [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] , I have no experience how the school handles it. But from what Cindy has posted, they take it pretty serious. But one could say that peanuts do = other foods, such as gum...its just doing harm a different way. It destroys the [b]school[/b] property, but they still have no problem enforcing it. BTW, I love the post about the code of conduct, that was a good point.
Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b]Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
Where is his liability if he decides not to pose a PF area for my son and then he has a reaction, he has been made aware of the danger that the pnut poses, but yet did not have preventable measures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I responded:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I am not sure of what you are trying to say? Should I take "preventable measures" to mean "realistically achievable"?
MommaBear"[/b]
I must've missed this one in your earlier post...I'm trying to say that I informed the school of the life threatening allergy and made them aware that peanut residue/products could ultimately kill my son, the best way to reduce the risks while he is in your (the school's) care would be to have a PF table and class. YES, I used the words "reduced the risks", and have many many times to the school...even told them that I KNEW it would not quarantee that he would never have a reaction at school. But if they make no attempt to keep him as safe as they possibly can, then they could be negligent in not making preventable measures, whether or not its realistically acheivable. I still say its not realistically achievable to have a gun/drug free school, and I know you guys are going to say they have federal and state laws that police it, but they don't. The state and federal govt. does not walk in the schools and search the schools for these things, the school is the one who does the enforcing of the policies.
Let me try it at another angle: The school has a no weapon allowed on campus...A kid gets cut with a knife (there are no laws, state or federal, against knives. Is the school liable for what happened? I would venture to say no unless they were aware that the other kid had a knife and there was no action taken.
Erik, "peanuts not permitted", I like that one too!
Quote:Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
[b]If I felt the need to have a particular food banned I would not use the blank-free term. [/b]
AnnaMarie, how would you handle it if you had to have a food banned?
Quote:Originally posted by Gail W.
[b]...request 504 designation and obtain a written prevention plan?
Personally, as my prevention plan is a "food free" classroom, it seems to be [b] more "peanut free" [/b]without taking on the title. [/b]
Gail, 1st let me say, I like the food free idea, and if neccessary that is what I'll ask for if it makes my school more comfortable. BUT, what makes your schools food free policy less liable? AND what makes that more achievable?
Quote:Originally posted by Gail W.
[b]Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
...in a school that the principal has implemented a PF area, the peanuts are "illegal" in a peanut free area due to school and/or district guidelines.
Posted by Gail W.:
Yes. Which is why when a child has an allergic reaction in a school that claims PF status, it the principal's legal butt that is on the line...because it was his "protection" (enforcement) that failed.
Gail[/b]
Again I ask, what is his liability if he makes no protection for this child?
Quote:Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
[b]A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
A peanut-ban by any other name would still protect young children. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img][/b]
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] true.....
Quote:Originally posted by GailW.
[b]If your child has a reaction which is the result of the school violating your accommodation plan, then yes, I would definitely think they could be big-time liable.[/b]
They would only be liable if they violated the plan. If another child brings in Reese PB cups and no one saw them, how could they have violated the plan UNLESS they saw the act???
whewwwww....that was alot of catching up, not sure it all makes sense, but I DID try!

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 2:27am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Hi Lana,
How are you? Thanks for returning as I really do enjoy our discussion. I think we have a connection and look at things very similarly, which is why I am interested in exploring our differences in this particular subject.
I'm short on time today, but will try to answer the questions directed specifically to me~
[b] "Gail- what makes your school's food free policy less liable? AND what makes that more achievable?" [/b]
The "food free" policy is absolutely [i]not less liable [/i]. They are accountable to enforce and regulate it, and are liable for any consequence from failure to do so. "Food free" is absolutely clearer and easier to implement with very little "grey area". It is much easier to implement, regulate, enforce and police... and therefore very much more "achieveable". But I don't think it makes them less liable at all.
[b] "Again, I ask, what is his (principal's) liability if he make no protection for this child?" [/b]
I think you are right and I completely agree. He is liable if he doesn't create and enforce safeguards. I would, like you, insist on a written accommodation plan that you are rightully entitled to under Secion 504. And if he creates a "peanut free" zone I would want that term defined and written into the plan, wouldn't you?
[i]Lana, if Cam had an allergic reaction to Bransons' cookies (see above), what would you do? [/i]
Gail
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 3:41am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Originally posted by Cams' mom:
[b] "Let me try it at another angle: The school has no weapon allowed on campus...A kid gets cut with a knife (there are no laws, state or federal) against knives. Is the school liable for what happened? I would venture to say no unless they were aware that the other kid had a knife and no action taken." [/b]
Your premise (that there are no state/federal laws regulating knives) is absolutely false. Knives are highly regulated by state/federal laws and the schools are bound to uphold these laws (just as they are gun/drug) laws.
Here is a link to Florida's knife laws:
[url="http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/fl.txt"]http://pweb.netcom.com~/brlevine/fl.txt[/url]
More information regulating knives, this link states laws governing knives stating "any elementary or secondary school facility" are "off limits":
[url="http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/florida"]http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/florida[/url]
Link to "A Guide To Understanding The Knife Laws of America" stating regulations on knives as "illegal weapons":
[url="http://www.ebladestore.com/knife_laws.shtml"]http://www.ebladestore.com/knife_laws.shtml[/url]
And lastly, this link called "School District's article "Kinves: Are the Laws Confusing?":
[url="http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/cwa/knives.htm"]http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/cwa/knives.htm[/url]
Gail
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 4:05am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:originally posted by GailW
[b]
erik,
Let's say that the cookies (those MommaBear refers to above) are the "peanut free" Bransons that you referenced. 1.) What action would you take upon having an allergic reaction? 2.) What do you think is Bransons responsibility/liability for your reaction?[/b]
Hi Gail,
1) Firstly, I would consider the chances of a reaction to a peanut-free product to be extremely unlikely. Manufacturers in Canada that use the

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 4:12am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

But Lana, if Cam [i] did [/i] have an allergic reaction from Bansons' cookies, what would you do? Would you look to Bansons to see if they were accountable? Would you look to prove negligence?

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 4:22am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]But Lana, if Cam did have an allergic reaction from Bansons' cookies, what would you do? [/b]
Is this question for me or Lana? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
I would contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and let them do the investigation as they are the experts and have the relevant experience in this.
[This message has been edited by erik (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 4:31am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Are you saying that you would want it investigated (governing, legal body) to find out what it was that caused Bransons to [b]not [/b]be "peanut free"? Right?
The same would be true for the school... at least it would for me. I would want to find out what caused Mariah's reaction... what broke down, who was negligent of the "peanut free" status. That equates to liability, doesn't it? And for the school, it is a much [i]less [/i] controlled environment than Bransons, as kids are bringing in all kinds of food into the "peanut free classroom".
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 4:49am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

HI Gail,
So I guess what you are saying is that you believe manufacturers can call themselves "peanut-free" but classrooms should call themselves "reduce the risk" as there is a lot less control in a classroom as kids can sneak in anything they want so it can never truly be peanut-free? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
But if there is a procedure in place for the teacher to inspect the student's lunches, could it then be called "peanut-free" as the students would no longer be able to sneak in all these things into the classroom?

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:03am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b]HI Gail,
So I guess what you are saying is that you believe manufacturers can call themselves "peanut-free" but classrooms should call themselves "reduce the risk" as there is a lot less control in a classroom as kids can sneak in anything they want so it can never truly be peanut-free? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] [/b]
I'm saying that both are accountable for their "peanut free" claim. Both are responsible/liable for falling short of "their goal to be peanut free" because they claimed they were. Bransons is responsible for "checking" the ingredients as teachers are accountable for checking student lunches. If they miss something, or just make a misjudgement, they are both accountable.
Plus, for food regulation in the Bransons example, I guess you would report to the CFIA for investigation. Who would you (parent of a child who had an allergic reaction in a "peanut free" classroom) call to be investigate the school?
Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b]But if there is a procedure in place for the teacher to inspect the student's lunches, could it then be called "peanut-free" as the students would no longer be able to sneak in all these things into the classroom? [/b]
Are you sure? My school tried extremely hard to regulate what was and what was not "peanut free", and found it to be "too cumbersome and interferred with the smooth operation of school". It was extremely time consuming for them to read all the labels. They deemed it "impractical" and too risky to read labels.
If the school inspects students lunches, as you suggest, then the school would be [b] accepting the responsibility (i.e. liability) [/b]for their policing and could be held accountable (liable) for any failures that resulted in an allergic reaction.
(Again, I'm no lawyer... but this is what makes sense to me and is consistent to my school experience.)
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:16am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] If the school inspects students lunches, as you suggest, then the school would be accepting the responsibility (i.e. liability) for their policing and could be held accountable (liable) for any failures that resulted in an allergic reaction.
[/b]
Wouldn't this be similar to saying "If the school inspects students entering the school for weapons, as some schools do (metal detectors, searches, etc), then the school would be accepting the responsibility (i.e. liability) for their policing and could be held accountable (liable) for any failures that resulted in a student stabbing another student with a knife that had been sneaked into the school."
I have never been called a lawyer either, but I have been known as Willy Wonka on occasion. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:25am
happygirl's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/19/2003 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b] "If the school inspects students entering the school for weapons, as some schools do (metal detectors, searches, etc), then the school would be accepting the responsibility (i.e. liability) for their policing and could be held accountable (liable) for any failures that resulted in a student stabbing another student with a knife that had been sneaked into the school."
[/b]
No, they would not be taking on [b]added libility [/b] beacuse the laws governing this "illegal" activity (sneaking a knife on to school grounds) reign supreme.
Since there are no such laws regulating peanuts, there [b] is added liability [/b] for a school (or anyone) making this claim.

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:27am
DebO's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/15/1999 - 09:00

I don't think it is exactly the same as being liable. Here, if someone has a reaction the CFIA will conduct analysis. If the product is labelled incorrectly, ie. there is peanut protein in a peanut free product, a warning is published and it is recalled by the manufacturer and consumers get a refund on the product.
Liability implies that you could sue the manufacturer (or the school) for the hardship of the reaction, medical bills, etc. We are not a very litigious society here (much less in the States). In th case of schools, the legal recommendation is that they do not "guarantee" a peanut-free environment but take all reasonable precautions to protect a student and under Canadian civil law that is all that is required so a school would not probably be held liable.
Here is an interesting case from the Ontario Supreme Court where a child drank a contaminated softdrink...(contaminated with a chemical) The girl did not suffer any significant physical and the appeal judge ruled the company not liable for psychiatric damage. The main issues are whether the damages are foreseeable by the plaintiff or not.
Ok the link obviously does not want to work, you can search for the Vanek case from 1999...
[url="http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/index.cfm"]http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/index.cfm[/url]
sorry
deb
[This message has been edited by DebO to fix my terrible typing...(edited May 13, 2003).]
[This message has been edited by DebO (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:29am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Or perhaps to say it a different way:
[b] Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]Who are the drug and gun inspectors?[/b]
Our government. The school has a higher authority who regulates guns and drugs through licensing and laws. To declare themselves "drug free" or "gun free" doesn't take on any [i]added [/i]liability because the law places that repsonsibility elsewhere.
[b]Who are the "nut inspectors"? [/b]
There are none. Since no governmental regulation exists re peanuts (as w/ guns and drugs), the school would be assuming this regulatory role (and the liability) if they self-proclaimed a "peanut free" status. [/b]
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:47am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by DebO:
[b]I don't think it is exactly the same as being liable. Here, if someone has a reaction the CFIA will conduct analysis. If the product is labelled incorrectly, ie. there is peanut protein in a peanut free product, a warning is published and it is recalled by the manufacturer and consumers get a refund on the product.
[/b]
Does anyone know who it is in the USA that would conduct such an investigation? The American equivalent to the CFIA? I honestly don't know and am open to learning. As I understand it, manufacturers are not legally bound to these types of (higher) Canadian standards. And, I believe, there is only "voluntary" labeling wrt allergens.
It's interested that while I've been at the computer my TV is on and I've heard no less and three (maybe 4) commercials for attorneys who "can take on" my case. They are asking me to call them if "I've been hurt" because "I deserve justice and the law can help." I think here negligence = liability, therefore prove negligence.

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 5:57am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
If I felt the need to have a particular food banned I would not use the blank-free term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cam's Mom said:
AnnaMarie, how would you handle it if you had to have a food banned?
------------------
That's quite a question! Honestly I'm not a strong supporter of food bans. I do however believe it CAN be done, and done properly. I feel pre-school and kindergarten should ban any food that a child is allergic to if requested (and maybe even if there is no request).
Assuming the allergy to be peanut, I would request that all students, parents and staff be requested to not bring any peanut products in to the school. I might use the term *peanut ban* but I would not use the term *peanut free*. I would not request that *may contains* be banned because I do not feel in a large school it is possible, as well as IMO may contains are a risk to the person who eats them.
I would also want some kind of disciplinary (sp?) plan set up. If someone forgets, or maybe just doesn't notice, and sends in peanuts a simple reminder is appropriate. On the other hand, when a particular student [b]always[/b] forgets, or acts threateningly, I expect an appropriate punishment.
I definitely feel that if a food is banned that is serious. It isn't just some silly game. I once saw a student sent home to change because she was wearing a t-shirt that said: "When I grow up I want to be Barbie. That bitch has everything." People may be offended, but, they won't end up in the hospital or worse. If they can send a student home for this, they can and should at least send a student home for bringing in a banned food.
Try not - do - or do not. {Yoda}

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 6:11am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

I hope my last post didn't offend anyone. When I say I'm not a strong supporter of food bans, keep in mind that my son (not pa) goes to a school where peanuts are banned. I not only would [b]never[/b] send in peanut products, but I have helped other parents who had difficulty figuring out what they can/cannot send in. (May contains are not banned.)
I admit I do get upset when one allergen is taken more seriously than another. Assuming both students to be anaphylactic I think both their allergens need to be taken as seriously. Especially if both bring the same risks (i.e. odour, oily residue).
I do feel that by banning peanuts you are opening the door to have other foods banned. At some point a line needs to be drawn, and as yet, I don't know where that line should be. It seems to waver around a bit.
Don't mean to get OT here - just don't want to be flamed. We may need to *agree to disagree* on some points. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 7:13am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by DebO:
[b]Liability implies that you could sue the manufacturer (or the school) for the hardship of the reaction, medical bills, etc. We are not a very litigious society here (much less in the States). [/b]
Yes, maybe it is easier to have peanut-free classrooms in Canada since we are a less litigious society here than in the USA.
As an example:
[b]Suit seeks ban on Oreo cookies[/b]
Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Posted: 5:57 AM EDT (0957 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A lawyer who has spent much of his life enjoying Oreo cookies has sued Kraft Foods Inc. seeking to ban the much-loved cookies in California because they contain trans fat, an ingredient he calls inedible.
details at:
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/13/oreo.suit.reut/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/13/oreo.suit.reut/index.html[/url]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 7:32am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b] Yes, maybe it is easier to have peanut-free classrooms in Canada since we are a less litigious society here than in the USA.
[/b]
And also, perhaps, Canada has "stricter" labeling requirements that are enforced? (Not [i]sure [/i]about that, but it seems so based on comments made about the CFIA...)

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 7:55am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Here is the web site for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA):
[url="http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/toce.shtml"]http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/toce.shtml[/url]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 8:00am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
[b]I hope my last post didn't offend anyone......... Don't mean to get OT here - just don't want to be flamed. We may need to *agree to disagree* on some points. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img][/b]
Hi Anna Marie,
Why would anyone be offended or want to flame you? What you wrote makes perfect sense. I agree that peasnut products should be banned from the classroom if a child has a peanut allergy. And I agree that may contains do not need to be banned as they are not any risk to anyone except the person who eats them.
So what you wrote makes a lot of sense. And as you can see, no one has flamed you or been offended. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 8:48am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]
And also, perhaps, Canada has "stricter" labeling requirements that are enforced? [/b]
Hi Gail,
In Canada, there is no requirement that 'may contains' be labelled. It is up to the manufacturer to determine if the product should contain this labelling.
However, food is tested by the CFIA and if traces of peanut protien are found in a product that does not list peanuts on the label (or may contain), the product is recalled and 'may contain' labelling must be added to the packaging.
For example, a few years ago Lindt chocolates were found to occasionally contain peanut protien traces and they were recalled out of the market. Lindt added the 'may contain' labelling and they were able to put their product back on the market again.
So the CFIA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine whether the labelling is actually required, but if they find any products with peanut traces (or milk traces, or nut traces, or sesame traces, or shellfish traces, or E COLI bacteria, etc) they will take action and the product will be recalled.
As well, the CFIA has other rules. For example, a manufacturer can not state "vegetable oil" if the product contains peanut oil. It must clearly be marked on the ingredient label as "peanut oil". I believe this is one concern in the USA where manufacturers sometimes label peanut oil as vegetable oil.
I have found in general, Canadian manufacturers do label well. In fact, many American manufacturers that do not use 'may contain peanuts' on the labelling (ie: Kelloggs USA, etc) do use the warnings in their Canadian subsidiaries (ie: Kellogg's Canada). So I think Canadians are a bit more lucky as allergies tend to be taken more seriously here.
Why? I guess that is the topic for another thread (as River has stated maybe the influence of the American Peanut Board has soemthing to do with this). But that's the topic for another thread.
I have total confidence in Nestle, Chapmans, Bransons, Touche Bakery, Dempsters, and the other peanut-free manufacturers we are lucky enough to support. =)

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 8:49am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b] ... what you wrote makes a lot of sense. And as you can see, no one has flamed you or been offended. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
[/b]
Me too (agree w/ you AnnaMarie). And I very seldom take offense to things said on the boards.
That being said, I've read here that many others who do not allow "may contains" into their PF classes. So, although I, too, personally agree with you, it all depends on what the parent "requires" for their child's PF classroom.
I've also read many, many threads about the frustrations parents have trying to maintain their PF classrooms. Unfortunately, the "policing" too often falls on to the shoulders of the parent by default (because the teacher doesn't do it). And then, the "comfort zone" issue comes into play as well.
It's all very complicated, don't you think? In some ways guns/drugs are very similar in that they are dangerous to our kids. But liability, definitions, laws, rights, etc all come into play... and then it varies between Canada and US.
I don't mean to "bully" or "flame" anyone by expressing my thoughts and challenging statements (that I believe to be untrue and unsubstantiated) made by others. But I believe all these issues (including liability) to be a real issues faced by our US schools. Liability is not a "myth".

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 9:00am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] That being said, I've read here that many others who do not allow "may contains" into their PF classes.[/b]
Yes... some people do not allow 'may contains' as they may contain peanuts. My personal opinion is that this is good for very young children who may share food even if told not to, but once the child is at an age that you can be sure he/she won't share food, it is not necessary. But that is just my persoanl opinion, and if someone did find it necessary it is fine with me. I just think it adds too much complexity to the situation as how do you define a 'may contain'. As Cindy posted at one time, she wanted to ban no-name rice krispie squares even though there was no warning on them as she did not trust them. It becomes extremely difficult to enforce the policy and to explain to other parents when it gets too complex.
Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] I don't mean to "bully" or "flame" anyone by expressing my thoughts and challenging statements (that I believe to be untrue and unsubstantiated) made by others.[/b]
I never noticed you bullying or flaming anyone... when did this happen? Maybe you imagined it when you had one too many merlots last night? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] Everyone in this discussion seems to get along fine, so maybe you are thinking of some other thread you visited as I never noticed anything in this thread.
Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] Liability is not a "myth".
[/b]
Yes.. liability is not a myth. But I guess deciding who is or isn't liable in various situations is difficult and can also vary between Canada and the USA, although it can also be the same if a manufacturer or an individual has acted in a negligent manner .. (although I would not consider the Oreo lawsuit a valid lawsuit [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] )

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 9:03am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] I've also read many, many threads about the frustrations parents have trying to maintain their PF classrooms. Unfortunately, the "policing" too often falls on to the shoulders of the parent by default (because the teacher doesn't do it)[/b]
This is so true. Peanut-free classrooms can be a failure as well.... or at least be difficult to enforce. Anyone who has read Cindy's struggles this year will agree that if you ahve a teacher who doesn't care, you will have a very difficult time in keeping the classroom peanut-free, and in fact it will become a near impossible task. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/frown.gif[/img]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 9:08am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b]I never noticed you bullying or flaming anyone... when did this happen? [/b]
Here:
Quote:Originally posted by river:
[b] Other uses of blank-free not involving illicit products...
Sorry "girls", I'm not that easily bullied. [/b]
Thanks erik. I didn't take my "anti-paranoia pill" (don't drink merlot) today and appreciate the vote of confidence. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
I honestly hope to be respectful to everyone here while engaging in this discussion. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 11:04am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] Thanks erik. I didn't take my "anti-paranoia pill" today and appreciate the vote of confidence. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img][/b]
I hope it's a peanut-free "anti-paranoia pill" (or should I say "reduce the risk?" hehe) [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]
And bully is not always a negative term, as in [i]Used to express approval: Bully for you! [/i] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by erik (edited May 13, 2003).]

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 1:37pm
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W.:
[b]Thanks for returning as I really do enjoy our discussion. I think we have a connection and look at things very similarly, which is why I am interested in exploring our differences in this particular subject.[/b]
Hi Gail, I too think we have alot of the same thinking also. I too am interested in exploring our differences which is why I am going to ask for you to clarify something. From this discussion I gather that you don't agree with the term "peanut free". So getting that past, my question is why? Is it because you believe its a waste of time trying to convince the schools to have a peanut free class/school or is it just that you agree with the schools liability outlook? I guess it could be yes to both of those questions, I just wonder why you, a PA parent, is so against the term.
And boy do I stand corrected on the knife issue. That was a major assumption on my part. I knew that certain knives were illegal, but pocket knives and such aren't, except in certain places, which in essence is our topic here. Thank you for correcting my assumption, which was absolutely false.
As for the cookies that are labeled "peanut free"...I answered previously, but its lost in the SIX pages we have here. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] So my opinion on this would be that I would hold them liable, my reason is: they depend soley on themselves, they are a for profit company who are making money targeting the peanut free buying consumers. They manufacture, package and sell this item and have no one else to rely on.
----------------------------------------
Erik: you need no help, I like your style...so I am leaving your stuff alone...(not that you need help Gail, I just mean he doesn't need help as far as "our team" goes...) [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
--------------------------------------------
Quote:Originally posted by Gail W.:
[b]No, they would not be taking on added libility beacuse the laws governing this "illegal" activity (sneaking a knife on to school grounds) reign supreme.
Since there are no such laws regulating peanuts, there is added liability for a school (or anyone) making this claim.[/b]
Gail, I have to totally disagree (who would've imagined [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] ) How can they not have added liability with metal detectors for weapons...they are making an added measure to ENSURE the gun free policy. This would go against what you are saying how the peanut free policy makes an added liability. You say: because they have a PF policy, they are making an added measure to ensure the safety of that child, when it fails, that is where the liability comes in. If they put in metal detectors as an added prevention, and one slips by the detector, kid gets shot and killed, then the parents are going to wonder why it slipped by their detector. Their own safegaurds failed, therefore it would make them more liable.
I just don't see the thinking on the law making the difference on liability. On making and implementing policies YES I do see the difference.
* Yes, they can implement a gun/drug free policy easier because the law says they have to.
* Yes, they can refuse a peanut free policy because there are no laws saying they have to.
* Yes, they are liable if they don't [b]properly[/b] enforce the policy for gun/drugs.
* Yes, they are liable if they don't [b]properly[/b] enforce a peanut free policy (if one existed)
* No, they aren't liable for accidents that happen if they are taking action and [b]properly[/b] enforcing ANY policy, whether or not a law is backing it up.
-------------------------------------------
Quote:Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
[b]I would also want some kind of disciplinary (sp?) plan set up. If someone forgets, or maybe just doesn't notice, and sends in peanuts a simple reminder is appropriate. On the other hand, when a particular student always forgets, or acts threateningly, I expect an appropriate punishment.[/b]
AnnaMarie: I agree totally with that statement and I will definately be adding that into my 504 discussions with the school. That is as much an issue to me as the accomadations that I would like. And thank you for taking the time to post what your approach would be, especially since you don't support food bans. The barbie tshirt is my pet peeve with my school and the confederate flag. It won't harm anyone, it offends certain people. I don't agree with it 100%, but I feel that my kids go to school for education and not a fashion show, they can wear their tshirts with confederate flag logo (if they even own one) outside of school. If they don't like it tough, they have to learn to respect other peoples feelings.
Your post was in no way offensive!
------------------------------------------
Gail, as to your anti-paranoia pill statement, I did not in any way mean that offensively. It was done in good humor. I hope that is how you took it. Just needed to clarify that.

Posted on: Tue, 05/13/2003 - 4:50pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Cam's Mom, glad my comments could help.
I think you will agree with me that setting up something like this is difficult. Setting it up [b]properly[/b] is more difficult, but IMO even more important.
How difficult is it to change a 504? (Did I get the right number?) It may take a bit more time, but it's worth trying to cover all the bases the first time. [b]But[/b] make sure the school understands that as time goes on some alterations may be necessary.
Hmmm! Others may want to correct my last point. If you leave the door open for changes, does that mean it's open for them too????

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 1:05am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Question from Lana: [b]"Gail,... why...don't you agree with the term 'peanut free'?" [/b]
I think I am very cautious of the term because it is very subjective. As we've seen in multiple discussions here, even tho we can agree on the [i]goal [/i], what it actually means has different interpretations. (Terms are highly defined for other "controlled substances"-- alcohol, tobacco, weapons, drugs...)
And the "success" is also very subjective. For me, I measured the success in whether or not Mariah had a reaction. In her "peanut free" classroom (which was very well monitored with cooperative and caring staff in a 9:1 ratio), she had 8 "contact reactions" in 3 months. Another parent with another PA child with these same precautions/circumstances may have had no reactions and found this same "peanut free" classroom to be very successful.
So I'm leary of the term now. I think that this, in part, is because initially I asked for a "peanut free" classroom, got a letter from my allergist supporting my request, and had some success with it. Then later, didn't have success.
I think what we (parents of kids w/ PA) all want a cooperative school that tries their best to protect our kids. It's frustrating when our school doesn't cooperate.
For the most part I [b]did [/b]have a very cooperative and resourceful school, but despite that and their very sincere attempt for a "peanut free" classroom Mariah had multiple reactions during her second year. It all seemed to fall apart and get very complicated once Mariah started having difficulties~ the precautions that had worked the year before, were no longer "working". As we tried to figure out what was happening it became a "comfort zone" thing w/ the teacher and I felt I needed to "police" more. It was very tense and scary for all of us.
I hope to bring to this discussion that it is not simple for the school to manage the situation. Peanuts are similar and dissimilar to other controlled substances (the original question you posed). When blanket statements are made about contolling peanuts that I don't believe to be true, I wonder if that is not preparing some readers to the realities they might face at their own schools. I want to question/challenge these statements and show that it is more complex than what it may first apprear.
And, by the way, I take absolutely no offense to your "anti-paranoia pill" comment. Quite the contrary, I like it, need it, and appreciate it. My comments here obviously offended a much beloved member, Cindy, so much so that she left. I feel terrible and puzzled about that. The reality check about bullying, offending, flaming, etc [b] is[/b] something that I need now from those here in this discussion. I have lost my ability to judge this on my own, but am trying, and do appreciate it when you all help me with this.
Gail
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 14, 2003).]

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 2:09am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]And, by the way, I take absolutely no offense to your "anti-paranoia pill" comment. Quite the contrary, I like it, need it, and appreciate it. My comments here obviously offended a much beloved member, Cindy, so much so that she left. I feel terrible and puzzled about that.[/b]
Hi Gail,
Don't feel terrible about it. Lots of people leave this site all the time and then come back later. Nick, Cayley's Mom, Renee, Joeybeth, Peg541, Katie, I could go on and on and on...). Sometimes I think people just need a break for a time to rejunenate. Cindy has left the site several times in the past and she has always come back at a later date. In fact, today she posted twice in the "Take Action" forum.
Everyone will get along one day I am sure .. misunderstandings will occur along the way but at the end of the day we are all after the same goal... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by erik (edited May 14, 2003).]

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 4:10am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b] In fact, today she posted twice in the "Take Action" forum. [/b]
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] Glad to hear that.
Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b]...but at the end of the day we are all after the same goal... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] [/b]
I absolutely agree. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] Thanks for your words of encouragement, erik.
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 14, 2003).]

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 6:12am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Note to self: When trying to edit post - do not use reply with quote button.
[This message has been edited by AnnaMarie (edited May 14, 2003).]

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 6:13am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Quote:Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
[b][quote]Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]I hope to bring to this discussion that it is not simple for the school to manage the situation. Peanuts are similar and dissimilar to other controlled substances (the original question you posed). When blanket statements are made about contolling peanuts that I don't believe to be true, I wonder if that is not preparing some readers to the realities they might face at their own schools. I want to question/challenge these statements and show that it is more complex than what it may first apprear.[/b]
I couldn't agree more.
[b] My comments here obviously offended a much beloved member, Cindy, so much so that she left. I feel terrible and puzzled about that.[/b][/b]
I am also puzzled about the way Cindy left. But I think she just really needed a break. I'm glad to hear she's posting again.

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 6:14am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Double post - sorry

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 7:41am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by AnnaMarie:
[b]
But I think she just really needed a break.
[/b]
When I need a break, I grab a Kit Kat bar [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 10:11am
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

I just found this thread and want to say how much I appreciate everyone's comments on this subject. The questions you are all asking here are very valid and ones that I have been struggling with as well. I agree with Erik that it doesn't matter what they call it, what matters is what they do about it. At our school, they SAY all the right things but the follow-up is not very good. Our principal is very clear that asking people not to send peanuts to school is just that---a REQUEST, NOT a policy or rule. So even though signs are posted asking people to refrain from eating peanuts, there is no method in place to determine what happens when people do bring them in (for whatever reason). It leads me to wonder if the school would be liable if a child had an anaphylactic reaction since they are clearly saying they have no policy/rule therefore they do not need to have enforceable consequences. Has anyone had to deal with this type of approach?

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 12:54pm
MommaBear's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/23/2002 - 09:00

Does "zero-tolerance" mean the same thing as "[i]blank[/i]free?

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 11:05pm
MommaBear's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/23/2002 - 09:00

Link to thread listing a
Link entitled: "A School Board's View" (Edmonton)
[url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001014.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001014.html[/url]
Link to thread listing a
Link entitled: "A Principal's View" (Calgary)
[url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001013.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001013.html[/url]

Posted on: Wed, 05/14/2003 - 11:56pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b]Does "zero-tolerance" mean the same thing as "[i]blank[/i]free?[/b]
Not literally.
[i]blank[/i]free means it isn't there. (Like peanuts in a Canadian KitKat bar - it [b]is not[/b] there.
Zero-tolerance means something is not allowed to be there. It also means that appropriate measures (punishments?) will be taken against those who do not follow the rule. I guess you could say zero-tolerance is aiming to be [i]blank[/i]free.

Pages

More Community Posts

Peanut Free and Nut Free Community

create a new community post
Latest Post by Italia38 Tue, 11/12/2019 - 2:43pm
Comments: 2
Latest Post by absfabs Mon, 11/11/2019 - 1:28pm
Comments: 2
Latest Post by absfabs Mon, 11/11/2019 - 1:23pm
Comments: 3
Latest Post by Italia38 Fri, 11/08/2019 - 12:10pm
Comments: 4
Latest Post by Italia38 Fri, 11/08/2019 - 11:47am
Comments: 6
Latest Post by sunshinestate Thu, 11/07/2019 - 3:43pm
Comments: 4
Latest Post by sunshinestate Thu, 11/07/2019 - 2:48pm
Comments: 7
Latest Post by penelope Tue, 11/05/2019 - 3:44pm
Comments: 12
Latest Post by penelope Tue, 11/05/2019 - 3:35pm
Comments: 13
Latest Post by absfabs Tue, 11/05/2019 - 2:11pm
Comments: 6
Latest Post by absfabs Tue, 11/05/2019 - 2:09pm
Comments: 5
Latest Post by chicken Tue, 11/05/2019 - 12:06pm
Comments: 5
Latest Post by sunshinestate Mon, 11/04/2019 - 1:44pm
Comments: 3
Latest Post by sunshinestate Thu, 10/31/2019 - 11:20am
Comments: 2

More Articles

For people who suffer from anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction that can result from an allergy to...

Anaphylactic shock (A-nuh-fih-LAK-tik shok): A severe and sometimes life-threatening immune system reaction to an antigen that a person has been...

In 1963 the American Medical Association designed a special symbol that would alert emergency medical personnel of special medical conditions when...

Finding allergy-free foods for an office potluck may seem impossible, but more options are available than you might think. Eating foods prepared...

One of the most difficult things for a parent to do is determine whether his or her toddler has a cold or a...

More Articles

More Articles

You no doubt have your own way of teaching people about your child’s food allergy, a way that suits your temperament, and style of communication....

Reliable peanut allergy statistics are not that easy to come by. There is a lot of available research on food allergies in general but not too...

Most people know that to enjoy whatever food safety accommodations an airline offers they need to inform the airline of their allergy prior to...

A 504 plan* documents food allergy accommodations agreed to by parents and their child’s school. Plans are typically created during a 504 meeting...

If there is a child at your children's school allergic to peanuts, the school probably discourages or may not allow peanut products to be brought...

If you are on a budget, but you need to wear some sort of notification that you have a peanut...

Unless we consciously carve out time for self-care, constant food allergy management can slowly erode our sense of well-being. Signs of allergy-...

Peanuts cause more severe food allergic reactions than other foods, followed by shellfish, fish, tree nuts and eggs. Although there is only a...

If you avoid peanuts, it’s likely you know the joy of cashews. Slightly sweet and smooth in texture, cashews provide not only relief to those with...

The prevalence of food allergy has dramatically increased over the past two to three decades, and not just among children. Preliminary results...

When someone in the family is diagnosed with a food allergy, a choice must be made whether to ban the problem food or foods from the home. The...

Looking for a fun way to share what you know about your own food allergies? Or are you hoping to educate the people around you in a fun way about...

According to the results of a new study, children lacking Vitamin D may be more susceptible to food allergies. Researchers working at the Albert...

If you or your child has a peanut or nut allergy, identifying the presence of nuts in food becomes a priority, but what if the written or spoken...

Soap allergies can cause a lot of discomfort and itching. If you suddenly develop a rash or bumps on your skin, you may suspect that you have an...