[Sca-cooks] OOP More schools ban Peanut Butter

[Nick Sasso]

-----Original Message-----
From: sca-cooks-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org
[mailto:sca-cooks-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org]On Behalf Of Solveig
Throndardottir
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 8:20 AM
To: Cooks within the SCA
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] OOP More schools ban Peanut Butter


>>
Noble Cousins!

Greetings from Solveig!

>>    In a nut free school, teacher has a Hershey bar, (Check the
>> label it is there), touches kid with allergy that doesn't have smart
>> parents that said anything.... KID DIES....  Do you want to stand in
those
>> shoes when it comes time to make that phone call?>>

This is almost certainly a problem created by lawyers. Those peanut
warnings are now on just about anything including lots of stuff which is
effectively peanut free. I suspect that lawyers will stick those warnings on
the label
if a single workman eats a PB&J sandwich in the employee cafeteria!
Incidentally,
I have a severe peanut allergy.

Peanut allergy is supposed to be the most common food allergy in
North America.  It is unreasonable for a school system to base its lunch
program on
peanuts.  However, totally banning peanuts from an entire school is probably
not feasible.  > > > > > > > > >


Tort Attorneys generally only involve themselves in situations wherein a
plaintiff or defendant has PAID them money to be involved.  Basically, if
someone didn't sue someone else, the attorneys would not get involved.  The
problem you mention is more likely caused by consent orders in massive
liability suits wherein the food company agrees to be the poster child for a
new labelling policy for a product.  It is protection from the enraged legal
rantings/vengence of people like parents whose kids have peanut allergies
and/or people looking for the qucik american payday.  What I just said may
not be polite, but it is darned hard to argue with.  Labelling of such
things tend to have little to do with actual food content and more to do
with legal protection in damage liability trials.

Most common allergy amounts to a reported 1.3% (13 in 1000) of all children
. . . Nearly 1000 of 1000 complain about spending more money on taxes to
generate $$$ for schools.  Cheap source of protein for 9,987 out of 1,000
(lest we forget that also Peanuts and peanut butter are DARNED POPULAR food
items in USA) versus more money spent on food programs to provide better
nutrition for students.  It will be an argument that will rear again in the
coming years as food prices continue to climb.  From a strictly rational
policy decision stance, the elimination of peanut butter makes little
financial sense except to avoid lawsuits from parents with allergic children
who will sue for reckless endagerment or similar grounds.  Peanut allergy
people appear to have better lobbyists than the dairy intolerant people or
the wheat allergy people, or we'd be in a world of nutritional hurt.

niccolo
(we loved our peanut butter brownies . . .  and the PB sandwiches with chili
at school)