I am severely allergic to cats. It only takes a small bit of fur or dander to set me off. So am I going to demand that when I take my dog to the Vet that they have made no appointments for people who have cats? Of course not
Ps I love Peanuts and Peanut Butter so I will be looking for that cereal. I wonder if the author has a vendetta against Cheerios, because there are lots of other peanut and tree nut cereals available.
Schools aren't allowed to have extra epi-pens on hand because most schools no longer have school nurses. Technically, there is no properly trained medical personnel on hand during the school day. Most of the time, administrative/clerical staff are not even supposed to administer regularly prescribed every day medication. Some schools require parents to come to school at lunch time to give children who receive medication at lunch time because they don't want the responsibility in the event that something does go wrong.
I'm allergic to shellfish...let's ban them....I'm sorry, that is just a wee bit too extreme for my tastes. BTW if I eat shellfish, my throat swells shut...but I just always ask what is in products to be sure...my responsibility not everyone elses.
My sister told me of an incident that happened to a co-worker
She (the co-worker) has two children. A boy who is so allergic to peanuts and all true nuts that he has a reaction if he even touches one or gets any of the oil on him and a girl is is not allergic to them in anyway and in fact loves them. One day they gave the girl a baggy with some shelled walnuts to munch on. She took it and went over to play. Half a minute later they heard both children crying and turning to see what was going on saw that the boys hand was in a fist and it was starting to swell. They rushed him to the emergency room and by the time they got there his whole arm was red and swollen. The doctors said a few minutes longer and he would have been dead.
Oh course what happened was that he was teasing his sister as brothers do and had grabbed a walnut from her. But did they ban all nuts from their house? No, of course not. Why deny one child her favorite food because another is allergic to it? Instead they kept them where the children couldn't get to them and only gave them to their daughter when mommy or daddy could be around to keep their sons hands off of them.
I agree banning a food because a few people are allergic to it is pure stupidity.
While we're at it why don't we ban
Fish and sea food - Catholics would have a hard time if they couldn't get these on Fridays Bee's - Say goodbye to honey oh and expect the fruit crop to be reduced drastically All pollen bearing plants - No more flowers and half the trees are gone as well All plants that spread seeds by casting them to wind - lets get rid of the rest of the trees shall we? All fruits and vegetables - the health of everyone who isn't allergic to them is irrelevant. All grains - see above
Shall we go on until water is banned because someone might drown?
I want me some peanut butter cherrios for a treat. I'm not allergic to it so let us who are not enjoy. I am allergic to codeiene and they still use that for others as an antibiotic medication. Really, the mentioning of a ban for that purpose is dumb. Then they might as well just rid panut farming altogether, because many things use peanuts, peanut oil etc. YES to better labeling for those who are allergic, but NO to bans.
As the parent of a peanut-allergic child, I can honestly say no, they shouldn't ban production of pb cheerios. Personally, I didn't even know they made them. Companies nowadays are very careful about protecting themselves from lawsuits and I am sure that if there was the slightest bit of a chance of cross contamination to other cereals, the boxes would say so.
I have a lot of issues with parents at school who are very insensitive to the whole peanut allergy, but it is my job to teach my child how to handle her allergy so that she can protect herself. Indeed when a toddler is allergic, there is always the fear that they will eat something off the floor or something given to them by an unknowing person, but you learn to watch your kid like a hawk and teach them from a very young age not to eat anything unless mommy/daddy gives it to them.
On the other hand, I do agree with banning peanuts in airplane meals/snacks, and I wouldn't get upset if my (hypothetical) child's school banned or restricted peanuts at the elementary level. It's kind of like smoking-- you can restrict it in places where it can hurt others, but what people do at home is their own business.
Edited by: ANARIE at: 1/13/2012 (13:58)
Fitness Minutes: (247)
43 1/13/12 1:53 P
i am allergic to pollen...should I lobby to make my neighbors and local stores get rid of or be banned from selling any outdoor plants? But seriously, the concept of banning products because a few may be allergic is ridiculous. The madness needs to stop.
I agree, totally ridiculous. I do feel it should be distinctive from regular Cheerios but to ask all production to cease is nonsense. You cannot train the world to cater to your needs, you have to train yourself and your children to recognize your own needs and adapt to the world.
On a side note, I didn't even know that Peanut Butter Cheerios existed and will definitely have to see them out. So this story has actually encouraged me to purchase the product!!
I'm pretty sure that Cafe Mom "writers" get paid per click, so they deliberately toss out inflammatory titles on hastily-written junk off the top of their heads. They have to get a story signed, sealed, and delivered within about 10 minutes to make anything more than minimum wage on it. They just want you to click on it; they don't care if you read it and go, "OMG, are you really THAT dumb?" In fact, they probably prefer it, because then you can't help asking yourself, "Are they ALWAYS this dumb?" and you go click on a bunch of other articles to see if they're equally bad.
Of course a better question would be how much responsibility schools, child care workers, and the general public should have for responding to an allergic reaction. A little girl died from a peanut reaction in school very recently; the school claimed the parents hadn't provided an epi pen for her and the parents claimed they had taken one but the school wouldn't accept it. Shouldn't schools just have some on hand? Should we require every school (or even every business) to have someone trained in dealing with anaphylaxis just like they're required to have someone who knows CPR? Should we encourage the general public to get that training like we encourage them to learn CPR?
Those are better questions, but we wouldn't all run and click on that topic and the author wouldn't get her nickel. The REAL title of the article is "Ban Peanut Butter Cheerios!!! (Ha, ha, made ya look!)"
Many childcare centers are already nut free (at least the several that I have worked in). It's true that toddlers would probably be at the highest risk for this. They do, in fact, eat food off the floor even when parents do their best to teach them not to eat from the floor. But children who are old enough should be taught about their allergies. If they don't know what's in a food item they shouldn't eat it. Period. I know 3 and 4 year olds that take responsibility for their allergy and ask "does this have eggs/milk/cheese/pork?" etc. I could see requesting a ban on nuts from a school or childcare center. But Honey Nut Cheerios have been around forever and look the same as regular Cheerios too. It seems awfully short sighted for a parent to want to take zero responsibility for their child's health needs.
Ok there are peanuts in a lot of pre-packaged foods and it's usually on the label or package somewhere. Although I feel bad for the child with the allergy it's not really fair to punish the rest of general public who are not allergic. I actually have tried the new Cheerios...they are good, at least I got to try them. I recall being aware of classmates in grade school of their allergies to certain foods, we all kind of looked out for them, just common sense I guess.
In the past, people with disabilities were responsible for taking care of themselves. It seems to me that since frivolous lawsuits (like the hot coffee incident), where plaintiffs were successful in winning ridiculous amounts of money started the ball rolling. It has come to the point now where many feel that entitlement to just about anything is their right, and so they fight to fix any number of issues which affect them. Some even go as far as fighting for issues that don't even affect them personally.
There are some issues, such as smoking in public places, which I feel, as a society, we should be responsible for because it affects many people, however I don't feel that an adult who chooses to smoke in his or her own backyard should be punished, nor do I feel that if an adult chooses to smoke and gets cancer, he or she should be able to sue the cigarette company, per se.
So, with some of the issues we have seen taken to court, where do we draw the line, and how do we decide which issues are more important? Our Supreme Court is pretty busy these days with many of these types of issues.
As with most of the comments made in the article on Peanut Cheerios, I agree that once we ban peanuts, why not ban strawberries, walnuts, avocados, milk products, wheat products, and on and on. This is obviously a silly statement. The amount of persons suffering with peanut allergies is very small compared to our society as a whole, so it doesn't seem probable that we will be banning peanuts, peanut butter, peanut butter cookies, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Reese's Pieces, peanut brittle, mixed nuts, peanuts on planes, etc. You can see that a Cheerios ban would be just a small chip at the block.
The arguments the author offers regard children picking food up off the ground and eating their pals snacks at school. My own children were taught NEVER to eat any food from the ground and they were taught why. As far as sharing at school, what's to say that peanut butter crackers or cookies wouldn't be mistaken for a non-peanut snack?
All this being said, parents and people in general are capable and should ultimately be responsible for their own disabilities with the help of their care givers. When issues become large enough that an overwhelming amount of people are affected, then it becomes a societal responsibility to address that issue. Obviously, peanut allergies have become more rampant for a variety of reasons, and some steps are being taken in schools already to decrease allergic incidents. But banning everything peanut? Naaahh!
I'm with you. I feel for any parent who has to deal with their child's serious allergies, but limiting the entire world because of your child's needs is ridiculous. It's not just a matter of peanut butter cheerios (which I've never even heard of, actually...), but honey nut cheerios and every single other General Mills cereal with any sort of trace of nuts, plus all of the factories where each of the ingredients in the cereal was originally processed, plus the farms where those ingredients were produced... it's endless. You're going to ban all of those places from having anything to do with nuts just so your kid can eat cheerios?
It's not realistic. Watch what your kid eats, teach them not to eat things off the floor, and realize that the whole world can't realign itself around your wants and needs.
Fitness Minutes: (60,638)
3,030 1/12/12 3:45 P
That's ridiculous. People are allergic to all kinds of different things, should we ban all of those too? I'm sure it will list on the package that it "may contain nuts" as ALL products that are made in facilities with any kind of nuts have to do (even though it's pretty obvious since it's called PEANUT butter Cheerios). They're not going to get banned.
My husband has celiac disease and has to live on a gluten free diet. Should I write a blog requesting a ban for all foods that contain flour, rye, and barley? I don't think I'll waste my breath, or keystrokes. lol
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
2,277 1/12/12 3:33 P
I totally agree with you. The author's argument is essentially a straw man logical fallacy. She builds up this big bad monster (finding a cheerio on the ground) and then states her position as the only solution. Most food producers are pretty judicious when it comes to listing allergens that are in or could have come in contact with the product you're buying (and the FDC will come down on them if they aren't) so the cross-contamination argument is pretty bogus.
I paged through the comments section briefly and it looks like almost all of the commenters agree with your position.
I just read an article on CafeMom that got me thinking. Or ranting, really.
[link removed for reasons described in a later post...just google it if you want to read it]
The author is calling for the banning of Peanut Butter Cheerios on the grounds that peanut allergies can be very dangerous, and...uh, I guess that's it. She doesn't want them banned in schools, she wants them banned from *production.* I know there are a lot of parents here, and a lot of people interested in food and nutrition, so I just wanted to see what other people think.
There are a few parts of that argument that annoy me. It strikes me as shortsighted and totalitarian (and I'm not someone who is against government control and regulations for industry). I just don't think her argument makes any sense.
I feel for parents of children with these allergies, I really do. I can understand wanting the cereal to be very distinct looking so it's not as easily confused with regular Cheerios. I can even understand wanting them to be banned in schools, although I don't necessarily think that's the answer (I agree with elements on both sides of that particular debate). But banning them entirely? Ridiculous.
I'll probably try to do more reading on this topic before I really make up my mind, as CafeMom articles are hardly unbiased or heavily researched, but I have to say that this particular author has put forth a terrible argument.
First of all, and this part seems to bleed into all the others, you can't ban every food that contains peanuts just because there are people who are deathly allergic. You'd have to ban everything else that pose a danger to certain subsets of the population, too. Doing otherwise would be hypocritical. And it's not right to keep everyone *else* from enjoying something just because you can't have it.
Second, the author claims that one reason they should be banned is because a child might find one on the ground and eat it, assuming it's safe. Your child could also find a whole peanut, or a peanut M&M (which would be infinitely more appealing to a lot of children than a stray piece of cereal), or for that matter a freaking sharp stick with which they can poke out their eye. I know children can sometimes get away from us and do things that we, as parents, don't want them to do. But if your child is small enough that they don't understand their allergy and might eat found food off the ground, make sure they are as well supervised as humanly possible. It's our job as parents to protect our children, but it's not our job to protect everyone else from themselves. You can't just demand that the world be padded in foam rubber (oh no! someone might bite off a piece and choke!).
Third, she points out that she doesn't believe the company's claims that cross-contamination is impossible. Hey, that actually seems more reasonable. But *most* of the big food companies in this country produce a lot of different foods, some of which contain peanuts. If you are so worried about cross-contamination, you should stop buying foods from these companies, or push for the development of more allergen-free production facilities.
What are your thoughts? Do you think it's as bizarre as I do? Or can anyone give me an argument *for* the banning that makes more sense than this author makes?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.