Poll: Do you think School should ban certain food due the Allergies

[Pheasy]

Do you think schools should?

[minks]

ThePheasant;697033 wrote: Do you think school should?


yes

[RedGlitter]

No.

We cant ban everything just because some people can't have it. It may be more convenient than bagging your own safe lunch, but I don't think it's right.

Next up they'll have to ban meat for Hindus and fish for Catholics and eggs and milk for ovo and lacto vegetarians, carbohydrates and sugar for diabetics, etc etc. I think it's up to the parents and the child involved to monitor their own food intake. In fact I think thats the better way- to start early and take on the responsibility oneself so you don't have to rely on someone else not making a serious and possibly fatal mistake.

[Pheasy]

RedGlitter;697045 wrote: No.

We cant ban everything just because some people can't have it. It may be more convenient than bagging your own safe lunch, but I don't think it's right.

Next up they'll have to ban meat for Hindus and fish for Catholics and eggs and milk for ovo and lacto vegetarians, carbohydrates and sugar for diabetics, etc etc. I think it's up to the parents and the child involved to monitor their own food intake. In fact I think thats the better way- to start early and take on the responsibility oneself so you don't have to rely on someone else not making a serious and possibly fatal mistake.


What if the parents do bag lunch for their allergic child, but school has peanut butter and jelly sandwichs on the menu? The amount of peanuts in the room could cause a reaction if the child was that badly allergic.

[spot]

ThePheasant;697054 wrote: What if the parents do bag lunch for their allergic child, but school has peanut butter and jelly sandwichs on the menu? The amount of peanuts in the room could cause a reaction if the child was that badly allergic.


No child who's that susceptible and incapable of treatment should be at school in the first place.

There's no food a child can't develop an allergy to, there's no such thing as a generally non-allergic meal. If there were, diagnosing and treating kids with allergies would be a damn sight more simple than it is. Each child is different and there is no easy fix, especially in the school canteen.

[RedGlitter]

ThePheasant;697054 wrote: What if the parents do bag lunch for their allergic child, but school has peanut butter and jelly sandwichs on the menu? The amount of peanuts in the room could cause a reaction if the child was that badly allergic.


Are you saying that simply smelling peanuts will cause a reaction? Not just eating them?

I guess they'd have to make an outdoor lunch area for anyone who wanted to use it. Not just the peanut allergic kids, as that segregates them and you know how kids can be.

I'm not sure I understand though, why all of a sudden this is coming about...kids have been allergic to peanuts for ages; how did schools and parents/kids handle it then?

[Pheasy]

spot;697057 wrote: No child who's that susceptible and incapable of treatment should be at school in the first place.



There's no food a child can't develop an allergy to, there's no such thing as a generally non-allergic meal. If there were, diagnosing and treating kids with allergies would be a damn sight more simple than it is. Each child is different and there is no easy fix, especially in the school canteen.


So are you saying that children with severe food allergies should not be allowed to go to school? What sort of school do you think they should attend?

[spot]

ThePheasant;697060 wrote: So are you saying that children with severe food allergies should not be allowed to go to school? What sort of school do you think they should attend?


What I said was "No child who's that susceptible and incapable of treatment should be at school in the first place". Plenty of children with severe food allergies are less susceptible than you describe, and plenty of those who aren't are reliably capable of treatment on the spot.

[Pheasy]

RedGlitter;697059 wrote: Are you saying that simply smelling peanuts will cause a reaction? Not just eating them?

I guess they'd have to make an outdoor lunch area for anyone who wanted to use it. Not just the peanut allergic kids, as that segregates them and you know how kids can be.

I'm not sure I understand though, why all of a sudden this is coming about...kids have been allergic to peanuts for ages; how did schools and parents/kids handle it then?


:wah: A bit chilly in the winter

And yes the number of children and severity is rising......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2487769.stm

[minks]

RedGlitter;697045 wrote: No.

We cant ban everything just because some people can't have it. It may be more convenient than bagging your own safe lunch, but I don't think it's right.

Next up they'll have to ban meat for Hindus and fish for Catholics and eggs and milk for ovo and lacto vegetarians, carbohydrates and sugar for diabetics, etc etc. I think it's up to the parents and the child involved to monitor their own food intake. In fact I think thats the better way- to start early and take on the responsibility oneself so you don't have to rely on someone else not making a serious and possibly fatal mistake.


oh shiney girl, some kids just have to smell peanut butter and it could be fatal, not their faults.

[spot]

minks;697067 wrote: oh shiney girl, some kids just have to smell peanut butter and it could be fatal, not their faults.


"It's not just about peanut butter," Kaiser said. "We are educators and parents and I think our biggest job would be to help this child become confident and secure with their allergy. This is an extreme measure that doesn't do anything to help the child in the long run. It's setting up an unrealistic environment."

[Bryn Mawr]

No, it is the responsibility of those who have the allergy to ensure that they avoid the problem foods - the responsibility of the school ends with ensuring that the food they provide is fully labeled as to its content.

[Pheasy]

spot;697062 wrote: What I said was "No child who's that susceptible and incapable of treatment should be at school in the first place". Plenty of children with severe food allergies are less susceptible than you describe, and plenty of those who aren't are reliably capable of treatment on the spot.


Administering epinephrine is no guarantee, it has been known to fail. Epi-pen and Twinject both state this on their own products too.

So, let say we are talking about children with a severity that is so great it could result in death within seconds of exposure. Where do these children go to school?

[minks]

spot;697069 wrote: "It's not just about peanut butter," Kaiser said. "We are educators and parents and I think our biggest job would be to help this child become confident and secure with their allergy. This is an extreme measure that doesn't do anything to help the child in the long run. It's setting up an unrealistic environment."


oh spot..... confident with your allergy? that is the most idiotic line I have ever seen quoted... lets tell that to a preschooler ahahaha

This Kaiser is a bit of a jack arse if you aske me.

[Pheasy]

Bryn Mawr;697075 wrote: No, it is the responsibility of those who have the allergy to ensure that they avoid the problem foods - the responsibility of the school ends with ensuring that the food they provide is fully labeled as to its content.


What if the child is young, say in kindergarten/first grade? And the parent/s have done everything in there power to stop exposure - bagged and checked all food?

[AussiePam]

We have an interesting related situation. The kindergarten kids are all fine (as far as I know), but one of the three teachers involved with the classes has severe allergies - and parents and carers were told early on that three foods were not ever to be included in kindergarten lunches, party food etc - peanut butter, eggs and honey. Big signs on the door to remind us. Egg free cake recipes provided for special occasions.

[spot]

ThePheasant;697077 wrote: Administering epinephrine is no guarantee, it has been known to fail. Epi-pen and Twinject both state this on their own products too.

So, let say we are talking about children with a severity that is so great it could result in death within seconds of exposure. Where do these children go to school?


Anywhere but a school, of course - you'll risk that child's life on the whim of just one other parent not ever packing peanut butter in a lunchbox?

A child that prone to death should be in a protective bubble, not a school.

[minks]

Bryn Mawr;697075 wrote: No, it is the responsibility of those who have the allergy to ensure that they avoid the problem foods - the responsibility of the school ends with ensuring that the food they provide is fully labeled as to its content.


how do children avoid the smell of peanut butter? Believe me just the smell will send the extreme cases into severe asthma attacks.

[minks]

spot;697084 wrote: Anywhere but a school, of course - you'll risk that child's life on the whim of just one other parent not ever packing peanut butter in a lunchbox?

A child that prone to death should be in a protective bubble, not a school.


no no they are quite able to function in the world spot. Peanut butter is one of the most common foods among children, as well it is one of the top allergens and one of the most deadliest and one that triggers attacks with just a smell. Peanut butter et al are not essential to any kids life, so why put those with the allergies at risk, why not disallow them in school.

[RedGlitter]

minks;697067 wrote: oh shiney girl, some kids just have to smell peanut butter and it could be fatal, not their faults.


Oh I agree an allergy is certainly not their fault. I hope it didn't sound like I was saying otherwise. I know kids will be kids and it may be asking a lot of them to look after themselves before a certain age. I can see where say, a 6 or 7 year old may be too immature to make safe choices but I think that's where Mom and Dad come in. An older child, I think, should be given control over their allergy and taught what to do; to be responsible for himself, even if it means eating lunch in the nurse's office. Not to make him feel bad or different from other kids but to let him take responsibility over his "illness" (for lack of better term) so he doesn't feel that it controls him.

I know this can be done because there are 7 and 8 year old diabetic kids who have been taught to be responsible with their disease and they put some adults to shame with the ways they handle it. I may be rambling at this point. Probably. Pheas, I hope you don't take my opinion as being unconcerned or uncompassionate because I sure don't mean to come across as such.

[RedGlitter]

ThePheasant;697082 wrote: What if the child is young, say in kindergarten/first grade? And the parent/s have done everything in there power to stop exposure - bagged and checked all food?


Homeschool.

[spot]

minks;697089 wrote: no no they are quite able to function in the world spot. Peanut butter is one of the most common foods among children, as well it is one of the top allergens and one of the most deadliest and one that triggers attacks with just a smell. Peanut butter et al are not essential to any kids life, so why put those with the allergies at risk, why not disallow them in school.


Because, like I said, you're trusting another thousand parents to be invariably perfect in what they pack. It's an unjustifiable risk, I'd not trust them, I'd have no reasonable cause to trust them. I'd not even let a child in that state go on a bus, the chance of a smear of lethal peanut butter on a handrail is too high.

[Bryn Mawr]

minks;697067 wrote: oh shiney girl, some kids just have to smell peanut butter and it could be fatal, not their faults.


If the child is that allergic then what would you propose is done to prevent other pupils from bringing the allergen onto the schools premises? Remember, this is not just peanut butter but can be anything from foodstuff to plastics to animal hair.

I would respectfully suggest that any child with such severe allergy should be educated at home as any excursion outside could be fatal - even the journey from home to school could well involve exposure to the allergen of choice.

[minks]

RedGlitter;697092 wrote: Oh I agree an allergy is certainly not their fault. I hope it didn't sound like I was saying otherwise. I know kids will be kids and it may be asking a lot of them to look after themselves before a certain age. I can see where say, a 6 or 7 year old may be too immature to make safe choices but I think that's where Mom and Dad come in. An older child, I think, should be given control over their allergy and taught what to do; to be responsible for himself, even if it means eating lunch in the nurse's office. Not to make him feel bad or different from other kids but to let him take responsibility over his "illness" (for lack of better term) so he doesn't feel that it controls him.

I know this can be done because there are 7 and 8 year old diabetic kids who have been taught to be responsible with their disease and they put some adults to shame with the ways they handle it. I may be rambling at this point. Probably. Pheas, I hope you don't take my opinion as being unconcerned or uncompassionate because I sure don't mean to come across as such.


glitter you have asthma??? Ever had an attack where you feared for your life, they are not always easy to control when it gets to that point no amount of preaching can train somebody how to come out of an asthma attack every time without panic.

not all asthma is equal, some times asthma is not controlable without hits from an oxygen tank or an ambulance ride to a hospital.

peanut butter is not essential to anyone, free breathing is. These children should be given an equal opportunity to be schooled just like everybody else. They pose no threat to anyone.

Naw I don't think you are uncompasionate at all hun.

[Bryn Mawr]

ThePheasant;697082 wrote: What if the child is young, say in kindergarten/first grade? And the parent/s have done everything in there power to stop exposure - bagged and checked all food?


They cannot possibly bag and check all of the food in the lunchboxes of all of the pupils at the school. If the allergy is that bad then the child could not possibly be safe in a school environment.

[minks]

Bryn Mawr;697097 wrote: If the child is that allergic then what would you propose is done to prevent other pupils from bringing the allergen onto the schools premises? Remember, this is not just peanut butter but can be anything from foodstuff to plastics to animal hair.

I would respectfully suggest that any child with such severe allergy should be educated at home as any excursion outside could be fatal - even the journey from home to school could well involve exposure to the allergen of choice.


i do not have quoted statistics but do know food allergies are the ones that are most life threatening. many other allergies can be controled with steroides (enhalers) and anithistamines (sorry on spelling) Food allergies can close your airway within a heartbeat. I am not an expert on this at all, I am experienced. Again I state what harm is it to ban the very few foods that are potental killers to some children.

I would rather have my child do without peanut butter at school then know it could kill another child.

[spot]

What you're asking for is peanut butter to be banned from the planet, minks. No child at the school can eat it for breakfast, because some will smear traces on their clothes in the process? And what of all the other instant-death allergies besides peanuts that children can suffer from? You'll ban all of them as a precaution?

[minks]

Bryn Mawr;697101 wrote: They cannot possibly bag and check all of the food in the lunchboxes of all of the pupils at the school. If the allergy is that bad then the child could not possibly be safe in a school environment.


very few foods are as dangerous as peanut butter, eggs and shelfish.

[RedGlitter]

What Spot and Bryn are saying reminds me of a recent incident on the news involving a teacher who was allergic to anything strawberry flavored. Anything that contained strawberry. Two girls thought it would be funny to put strawberry lip gloss on the mouth of the teacher's water bottle. They did and the teacher reacted from it and almost died.

So I do understand what Spot and Bryn are saying- it's not to sound demeaning to children, it's to protect them. If peanuts were banned in school, you have to know some kid would still bring a PB sandwich because his mother was out of bologna and thought it wouldn't hurt just once to send a PB to school.

I was not aware that smelling peanuts would do the trick. I thought it was just eating them so I have learned something new here. I suppose if it were me I would homeschool my kids to be on the safe side.

[Bryn Mawr]

minks;697085 wrote: how do children avoid the smell of peanut butter? Believe me just the smell will send the extreme cases into severe asthma attacks.


If the allergy is that extreme then the child would never be safe outside a controlled environment.

With risk assessment you generally work to a 1% rule - a bridge should be safe for anything less that a one in a hundred year storm / flood, a building should cater for anything less than a one in a hundred year earthquake etc.

With such a severe allergy you could not satisfy that criteria for random encounters whilst traveling to and from school, never mind problems at school.

[minks]

spot;697104 wrote: What you're asking for is peanut butter to be banned from the planet, minks. No child at the school can eat it for breakfast, because some will smear traces on their clothes in the process? And what of all the other instant-death allergies besides peanuts that children can suffer from? You'll ban all of them as a precaution?


impossible but if it's known in a school that a child has that kind of allergy ban that food.

for the sake of a childs life why not.

[minks]

minks;697109 wrote: impossible but if it's known in a school that a child has that kind of allergy ban that food.

for the sake of a childs life why not.


who looses if you ban peanut butter from school??

[Chookie]

I voted no.

Basically because there is no way to ensure that all severe allergies are, in fact, allergies to related substance(s)

Lets not forget that what is under discussion here are severe reactions to specific substances.

I have allergies which, thankfully, are neither serious, life-threatening or dangerous, so I am not making light of this problem.

My twin sister does not share these allergies - she has a different set (again, thankfully they are not life-threatening, but they are more serious than mine).

[Bryn Mawr]

minks;697103 wrote: i do not have quoted statistics but do know food allergies are the ones that are most life threatening. many other allergies can be controled with steroides (enhalers) and anithistamines (sorry on spelling) Food allergies can close your airway within a heartbeat. I am not an expert on this at all, I am experienced. Again I state what harm is it to ban the very few foods that are potental killers to some children.

I would rather have my child do without peanut butter at school then know it could kill another child.


You are a responsible citizen. If you were the parent of a child with such a severe allergic reaction would you risk the life of your child betting that every other parent was as responsible?

[RedGlitter]

minks;697099 wrote: glitter you have asthma??? Ever had an attack where you feared for your life, they are not always easy to control when it gets to that point no amount of preaching can train somebody how to come out of an asthma attack every time without panic.

not all asthma is equal, some times asthma is not controlable without hits from an oxygen tank or an ambulance ride to a hospital.

peanut butter is not essential to anyone, free breathing is. These children should be given an equal opportunity to be schooled just like everybody else. They pose no threat to anyone.

Naw I don't think you are uncompasionate at all hun.


No, thankfully I never have had asthma, only known people with it.

By keeping control over one's illness I mean to disallow it to control you. Rather you have it, it doesn't have you. That's what I meant, that no kid should grow up feeling like a victim of whatever disorder he has, but should feel that he is as "in charge" of it as possible.

What if say, there was a student who was susceptible to disease just from germs. He has to disinfect everything he touches and wears a mask and the whole bit. Should the school be responsible for disinfecting more than necessary, just so this child can go to public school? He's only one child out of many. Would it not make more sense to take him out of the germ ridden school and teach him at home rather than expect the school to cater to his needs? That's pretty hypothetical I admit, but it came to mind.

[Bryn Mawr]

minks;697110 wrote: who looses if you ban peanut butter from school??


It's not just from school - if the allergy is so bad that just the smell will trigger it then it is every person that the child will come into contact with between home and school.

[spot]

minks;697105 wrote: very few foods are as dangerous as peanut butter, eggs and shelfish.


Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic hypersensitivity allergic reaction. Anaphylaxis occurs when a person is exposed to a trigger substance, called an allergen, to which they have already become sensitized. Minute amounts of allergens may cause a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction. Anaphylaxis may occur after ingestion, skin contact, injection of an allergen or, in rare cases, inhalation.

90% of all food allergy reactions are cause by 8 foods: milk, soy, eggs, wheat, peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish.

So, assuming you can ban all 8 of those foods from the entire school premises - what are you going to do with the other 10% of children who go into anaphylactic shock with different environmental triggers? All you're doing is reducing the scale of the problem, you still have the same question to answer - how do you school that subset of at-risk children?

[RedGlitter]

minks;697110 wrote: who looses if you ban peanut butter from school??


All the non-allergic kids who enjoy a healthy PB sandwich. They matter just as much. It makes far more sense I think to keep the child home. If you have a toadstool growing in the middle of your lawn, should you remove the toadstool or mow away all the grass around it? Parents are expecting schools to give their child special treatment and I don't think that should be. That's why it's public school.

[minks]

Bryn Mawr;697113 wrote: You are a responsible citizen. If you were the parent of a child with such a severe allergic reaction would you risk the life of your child betting that every other parent was as responsible?


My children were schooled with one such boy for 6+ years nobody had a problem when the notice went home regarding his health issues. To date this school remains peanut free.

Maybe canadians are more sympathetic to this topic,

what I would do is yes, I would make it known my child had such an allergy and ask the school policy on peanut butter. If it were not in place I would petition for it. I would definately put my child into school where it was banned but not in a school where it was not.

It is easy to inform students and parents of the facts about allergies and amazingly here anyways people had no problems foresaking peanut butter.

I also have a neice and a nephew both with severe food allergies who have booth been taken away by ambulance due to reactions at school, that school banned the food substances as well.

for the sake of a childs life it appears here anyways we would ban said product.

[minks]

spot;697116 wrote: Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic hypersensitivity allergic reaction. Anaphylaxis occurs when a person or animal is exposed to a trigger substance, called an allergen, to which they have already become sensitized. Minute amounts of allergens may cause a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction. Anaphylaxis may occur after ingestion, skin contact, injection of an allergen or, in rare cases, inhalation.

90% of all food allergy reactions are cause by 8 foods: milk (not strong enough smelling to cause a reaction just on odor alone), soy, (see milk) eggs, wheat (ditto), peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish.

So, assuming you can ban all 8 of those foods from the entire school premises - what are you going to do with the other 10% of children who go into anaphylactic shock with different environmental triggers? All you're doing is reducing the scale of the problem, you still have the same question to answer - how do you school that subset of at-risk children?


the others yes may be strong enough to cause the reaction on smell alone but from all I have learned they are by ingestion.

I have not got all the answers just believe peanut butter is the worst offender. My entire family and extended family is riddled with allergies and the ones with the peanut allergies have had the most near death experiences.

[Pheasy]

RedGlitter;697092 wrote: Oh I agree an allergy is certainly not their fault. I hope it didn't sound like I was saying otherwise. I know kids will be kids and it may be asking a lot of them to look after themselves before a certain age. I can see where say, a 6 or 7 year old may be too immature to make safe choices but I think that's where Mom and Dad come in. An older child, I think, should be given control over their allergy and taught what to do; to be responsible for himself, even if it means eating lunch in the nurse's office. Not to make him feel bad or different from other kids but to let him take responsibility over his "illness" (for lack of better term) so he doesn't feel that it controls him.

I know this can be done because there are 7 and 8 year old diabetic kids who have been taught to be responsible with their disease and they put some adults to shame with the ways they handle it. I may be rambling at this point. Probably. Pheas, I hope you don't take my opinion as being unconcerned or uncompassionate because I sure don't mean to come across as such.


Not at all Red. I'm am interested on peoples different views, knowledge and ideas on the subject. :-4

[CARLA]

Peanuts of any kind, be it Peanut Butter or what ever have been banned at my Granddaughters school for several years. I don't know what other food have been banned if any. It seems the Peanuts are the biggest concern.

I went to school everyday with a "Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich" in my lunch bag. There wasn't even a peanut allergy at that time to my knowledge. Not sure why it is such a dangerous allergy now but it is.

[sunny104]

I'm not sure about banning things because like others have already said where do you draw the line?

Maybe the only fair way might be for schools to offer two eating areas?? One for kids who can eat anything and one for kids who have allergies and/or other medical reasons for needing a specialized diet.

[Pheasy]

Thanks for the great feedback on this - there are many different views/concerns. I have found that as far as parents go, specially those who ‘aware’ how bad things can get, they don’t seem to mind not sending peanut snacks (kindergarten).

Here’s a few things I learnt (my school district only - but would welcome news from other districts/countries) - might help others who are dealing with medical issues at school.

1. Bus company not prepared to add ‘bus monitor’ for high-risk buses. (In my opinion, with the amount of trouble on buses and potential problems, all school buses should have monitors).

2. School teachers are not trained in basic CPR or recognition of symptoms/treatment of common problems, such as asthma, anaphylaxtic shock etc. (in my opinion, anyone responsible for others ie. Child care or old people etc. should be trained in these things). - I feel another poll coming on.

3. Schools do not always have a nurse available full time (shocking IMO).

4. ‘Chapter 504' is available to children - in my case allowing the ‘child cannot carry meds on person’ rule to be changed and other non-standard precautions put in place.

5. School does not send nurse or other trained person on school trips.

Just a few things I learnt that maybe will help others in the future. :-6

[pinkchick]

I have a question......

Where the heck have all these food allergies come from? When I was a kid growing up, very few children had food allergies!

[Pheasy]

pinkchick;697361 wrote: I have a question......

Where the heck have all these food allergies come from? When I was a kid growing up, very few children had food allergies!


Thats what I'd like to know too. Is it something that has been added to our diet causing a rise in food allergies (as kids, adults or during pregnancy)? Peanut allergies seem to be growing and also seem to have the high rate of fatality.

I just wish it would go away or they could find out whats causing it and a cure :-4

[spot]

ThePheasant;697359 wrote: Just a few things I learnt that maybe will help others in the future. :-6


You'll want to put this into context, I expect.

There's a report on risks:Anaphylaxis in the United States: An Investigation Into Its Epidemiology, Alfred I. Neugut, MD, PhD; Anita T. Ghatak, MPH; Rachel L. Miller, MD: Archives of Internal Medicine. 2001;161:15-21.

Known rates or cases of anaphylaxis were 0.0004% for food, 0.7% to 10% for penicillin, 0.22% to 1% for radiocontrast media, and 0.5% to 5% after insect stings. There were 220 cases after latex exposure. Considering the 1999 US population of 272 million, the population at risk for anaphylaxis from food is 1099, from penicillin is 1.9 million to 27.2 million, from radiocontrast media is 22 000 to 100 000, from latex is 220, and from insect stings is 1.36 million to 13.6 million. These calculations yield a total of 3.29 million to 40.9 million individuals at risk of anaphylaxis.

Foods are fairly common agents in anaphylactic reactions. Approximately 1% to 2% of the general population, or 2.7 million to 5.4 million Americans, suffer from food allergies. Nearly all published literature on food-related anaphylaxis use this statistic. However, a few small studies have been conducted and have attempted to show incidence rates in selected populations and extrapolated their results to the entire US population. One such study showed that approximately 0.0004%, or 1080 Americans, have a severe allergic or anaphylactic reaction each year. Approximately 100 food-related anaphylactic deaths occur each year.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/1/15



So, approximately 100 food-related anaphylactic deaths occur each year, and that's across all age-ranges and all at-risk food types. You're more likely to date an A-list Hollywood celebrity than know someone involved in this. Meanwhile, child mortality for all causes in the USA runs at around 40 per 100,000 annually - that's of the order of 20,000 deaths a year of which perhaps 20 are food-related anaphylactic deaths. Might not some spotlighting of the other 19,980 have more practical benefit?

[Pheasy]

spot;697387 wrote: You'll want to put this into context, I expect.

There's a report on risks:Anaphylaxis in the United States: An Investigation Into Its Epidemiology, Alfred I. Neugut, MD, PhD; Anita T. Ghatak, MPH; Rachel L. Miller, MD: Archives of Internal Medicine. 2001;161:15-21.

Known rates or cases of anaphylaxis were 0.0004% for food, 0.7% to 10% for penicillin, 0.22% to 1% for radiocontrast media, and 0.5% to 5% after insect stings. There were 220 cases after latex exposure. Considering the 1999 US population of 272 million, the population at risk for anaphylaxis from food is 1099, from penicillin is 1.9 million to 27.2 million, from radiocontrast media is 22 000 to 100 000, from latex is 220, and from insect stings is 1.36 million to 13.6 million. These calculations yield a total of 3.29 million to 40.9 million individuals at risk of anaphylaxis.

Foods are fairly common agents in anaphylactic reactions. Approximately 1% to 2% of the general population, or 2.7 million to 5.4 million Americans, suffer from food allergies. Nearly all published literature on food-related anaphylaxis use this statistic. However, a few small studies have been conducted and have attempted to show incidence rates in selected populations and extrapolated their results to the entire US population. One such study showed that approximately 0.0004%, or 1080 Americans, have a severe allergic or anaphylactic reaction each year. Approximately 100 food-related anaphylactic deaths occur each year.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/1/15



So, approximately 100 food-related anaphylactic deaths occur each year, and that's across all age-ranges and all at-risk food types. You're more likely to date an A-list Hollywood celebrity than know someone involved in this. Meanwhile, child mortality for all causes in the USA runs at around 40 per 100,000 annually - that's of the order of 20,000 deaths a year of which perhaps 20 are food-related anaphylactic deaths. Might not some spotlighting of the other 19,980 have more practical benefit?


Good point Spot. But one is too high, specially if its MY one. :-6

[spot]

ThePheasant;697393 wrote: Good point Spot. But one is too high, specially if its MY one. :-6


Here's what to watch out for then. Food-related anaphylactic deaths are so few they wouldn't show on this scale:

Hint: the key-word here is road traffic.