Allergy control remains the responsibility of everyone
Quebec’s largest school board has quietly reversed more than a decade of common wisdom on protecting kids with food allergies in a policy decision that holds both promise and peril.
Concerned that it can no longer guarantee its facilities are free of an ever-expanding list of potential triggers, the Commission scolaire de Montréal issued a directive in December instructing schools to lift any bans in place on what students can bring to eat. Instead of each school deciding whether to outlaw certain foods and policing everyone’s lunch boxes, the new plan is instead to focus monitoring efforts on children with allergies themselves.
The shift from a collective to an individualized approach to the safety of kids at risk of sometimes life-threatening reactions has left many torn.
On the one hand, the number of children diagnosed with allergies or an intolerance and the range of foods provoking problems seems to constantly grow. Add to that people who restrict their diets and those of their kids for philosophical or health reasons, claiming it’s a medical sensitivity, and it’s not just tree nuts that are verboten anymore, but cow’s milk, kiwi and gluten. Forbidding every potentially harmful food is becoming next to impossible unless we expect the next generation to subsist on rice cakes alone.
Besides, some kids’ lunches already contain contraband, wittingly or unwittingly, posing a danger to the allergic. The era of lunch-pail prohibition may be contributing to a false sense of security, the CSDM believes.
The thinking behind the new strategy may not be entirely unreasonable, but there are many concerns and caveats surrounding its execution.
For starters, the policy relies heavily on the training, awareness and diligence of staff. Whether it’s teachers, or lunch monitors, volunteers or parents, everyone in a position of authority has to exercise extreme vigilance. They have to know which child is allergic to what foods and which could face a life-threatening reaction versus a rash or vomiting.
Not all allergies are created equal. Children can have a lethal anaphylactic response to even trace amounts of peanuts, for example. The CSDM has said its new approach will include decontamination procedures, like cleaning surfaces or handwashing. But will students be able to carry their EpiPens with them at all times? Some schools require the shot of epinephrine to be left with a teacher, the school secretary or a nurse. Finding it in a distant locale in a hurry could risk precious seconds when a child is having a bad reaction. Maybe we should put EpiPens in cafeterias and school hallways at regular intervals, like we now do with defibrillators.
It is essential that emergency response protocols be adequate and clear.
A bigger concern. however, is the message the end of lunch box embargoes sends to the public at large. Already the comments sections of news stories on the change are filled with rejoicing from parents of non-allergic children, that finally their kids can take peanut butter sandwiches to school — as if this is some kind of long-oppressed right. Some seem to have interpreted the move as an open invitation to pack as many nuts, boiled eggs and seafood sandwiches in their kids’ lunch boxes as they can stuff.
The freedom to do something doesn’t make it the right, fair or responsible, though. My daughter loves peanut butter as much as the next kid, but I won’t be sending her to school with a PB&J. One of her best friends has a peanut allergy. So allowing her to indulge could result in the ostracism of her classmate, not to mention a threat to her life. The CSDM says it will work on smart seating arrangements rather than isolating allergic kids. But feeling included and not being singled out is another struggle those with allergies face on top of the hazard to their health.
Just because my child is fortunate enough not to have to worry about what she puts in her mouth doesn’t absolve me of responsibility toward the safety of other children.
Families who have to deal with the challenge and fear surrounding potentially fatal allergies need our understanding, sensitivity and awareness to help keep their kids safe. What they don’t need is other parents gleefully washing their hands of any sense of duty or shared concern.
Let’s not forget why peanuts and other nuts were prohibited in the first place. Children died. In classrooms. In front of their friends. I know two people of my generation who witnessed a classmate’s death as small children. I went to school with a girl who lost an older brother after he accidentally consumed peanuts that weren’t listed on a label. Her mother became an activist and an advocate for the kinds of policies now in place to prevent future tragedies.
But we’ve come full circle, it seems.
As the science evolves on understanding, preventing, and treating allergies, as more people choose to restrict their diets on top of those who must do so or risk death, heightened consciousness has resulted in confusion and complacency. But those who are truly allergic, be it to peanuts or gluten, can ill afford for society to lower the defences.
We can’t stop viewing protecting kids with allergies as a collective obligation. If the CSDM’s new policy is going to succeed in keeping students safe, we all need to do our part.
With children’s lives at stake, failure is not an option.
Families who have to deal with the challenge and fear surrounding potentially fatal allergies need our understanding, sensitivity...