<p>I tend to believe that banning peanut products from being provided by the dining hall does lend a false sense of security. What about my kid, who walks into the dining hall with a PBJ sandwich (made in his dorm room) in his backpack? Is someone going to police the tables so he can’t grab the rest of his meal there to eat with the sandwich he walked in with? How about the candy bar or power bar he has with him? He might very well pull it out to eat while he sits in the dining hall. </p>
<p>Or will the college need to ban all peanut products from being carried into the dining hall? </p>
<p>Who gets to police that? </p>
<p>I promise you, those of us with no history of nut allergies really don’t pay much attention to nut labels in the foods we eat on a daily basis. It isn’t that your child’s health isn’t important, its just that we don’t have to think about it. Do you really trust my kid to read every label, to not carry anything with him into the dining hall that your child might be allergic to?</p>
Not really, although possibly, since he’s a college student, he might be capable of learning something.</p>
<p>I don’t think a complete peanut ban is likely to work, except maybe in a single special dining hall in a school with multiple dining locations. I think the severely allergic are just going to have to be super-careful. But I do think it’s reasonable for all dining halls to take reasonable precautions, and to me that means steps to prevent accidental ingestion, as we’ve discussed above.</p>
<p>I do trust your kid to read and understand a large sign that says something like this: </p>
<p>"Some students who use this dining hall have severe, life-threatening food allergies. We need your help to protect these members of our community. </p>
<ul>
<li>Don’t eat anything here except for the food that’s served here. </li>
<li>Don’t bring any opened packages of food – such as a half-eaten candy bar – into the dining hall.<br></li>
<li>If you have an unopened package of food in your backpack – such as a candy bar that’s still completely wrapped – that’s OK, but don’t open it or eat it while you’re here.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Following these rules could save someone’s life."</p>
<p>I haven’t been back for a few years but we didn’t tour the quads when I was last there. I think improving access is great. But I don’t think it is at all the same as the peanut issue. Adding wheelchair ramps a) does not take away from anyone else’s experience and b) does not impose individual, legal obligation on other students. </p>
<p>To eastcoascrazy’s point, which I have also tried to articulate in this discussion, it’s about accountability and trust. So let’s say U of C sets up a peanut-free dorm. What does that mean in terms of compliance, enforcement, liability? Apart from the students who <em>need</em> to live in that dorm to reduce their risk of nut exposure, what about the kids who are assigned to it just because that was the only available place to house them? What about a year in which there are no new PA sufferers, but there is a fragrance-allergic student and a couple of people with celiac disease? How is all of this going to be managed and monitored and enforced? How will guests of the dorm residents–friends, significant others, family members–be screened before they enter the building?</p>
<p>Marian, I think your sign would work. I don’t know that anybody on this thread is arguing that such a policy should apply at all dining halls, or even at the sole dining hall at a college. But it sure would be a nice thing to do at one dining hall where there are multiple options.</p>
<p>
There’s no question that accommodating the needs of others can be inconvenient, and even costly. But I think the dispute in this thread is really about where to draw the line, not whether to accommodate at all.</p>
<p>Marian, I would be fine with a warning like that in a dining hall on a campus with more than one place for students to eat. But if there were any chance of legal liability attaching to students who disobey the policy, I would want that to be spelled out as well.</p>
<p>And you don’t need a peanut-free building or a fragrance-free building. You most likely need only one suite, with its own bathroom, where students observe certain restrictions. How you get this to happen is simple. You make all the rooms singles. You charge the double rate for these singles, with the understanding that students who live there will have to follow certain restrictions and impose them on any guests that they bring into the dorm (and specify what those restrictions are). You’ll be beating off applicants with a stick.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with having a peanut free dorm or dining hall. The ONLY downside to that is that if a university designates a dining hall as such, they are now acknowledging liability for any adverse event which occurs there, even one that might not be in their control. I could see how a university counsel might not be comfortable with that.</p>
<p>A university might be liable anyway if it doesn’t exercise reasonable care for the minors under its care. Taking greater precautions will reduce, not increase, potential liability.</p>
<p>While preventing the death of a PA student due to unintentional peanut ingestion is of course the primary goal, I cannot imagine how life-altering it would be for the student or employee who triggered the reaction by accidentally and unknowingly exposing the PA student to that danger. </p>
<p>To sally’s point, where do we reasonably place the responsibility for this happening? If it were to occur (which to apprenticeprof’s point, no one has documented), what are the legal ramifications when the dining hall is officially designated “peanut free?”</p>
<p>Hunt, your story about Yale’s “Peanut Day” is interesting to me. Was your S able to safely resume dining in all dining halls the next day? How does one take precautions against dangerous cross-contamination after such an event?</p>
If I recall correctly, he waited a couple of days, but still had a mild reaction at least once during that period after he returned. We were really annoyed that they would do such a stupid thing–and they haven’t done it again, so maybe we weren’t the only ones who complained about it.</p>
<p>“Some 3.3 million Americans are allergic to nuts, and even more - 6.9 million - are allergic to seafood. But of 30 million hospitalizations each year, just 2,000 are due to food allergies, and about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. Thats the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year, and about 1,300 die in gun accidents.”</p>
<p>Should we ban all outdoor activites due to the double threat of bees and lightning?</p>
<p>I don’t perceive that my daughter, for example, now has a “legal obligation” of any sort, just because she lives in a dorm where the cafeteria has been designated peanut-free. No one has said that a peanut-free cafeteria will be 110% guaranteed from contamination if a lone student eats a Clif Bar on their way to class and doesn’t brush her teeth, but it’s a major, significant start for those students who have peanut allergies. </p>
<p>You know, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because these places can’t be hermetically sealed doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t make a good faith effort.</p>
<p>Could we please stop talking about other allergies which are dependent on actually INGESTING the substance in question? As someone with a shellfish allergy, it matters NOT ONE WHIT if there are people eating shellfish all around me the livelong day.</p>
<p>Who is a minor? Every orientation I have been to, they STRESS to the parents that these students are ADULTS. The school is not a babysitter, they expect the students to be adults.</p>
Many are minors when they arrive. Almost all are under 21.</p>
<p>So I take it you are no longer claiming that a 5% incidence of peanut allergies is uncommon, and that’s why you now add the term “severe?” And since so few people are killed by lightning, do you object to requiring everybody to get out of the pool during a thunderstorm?</p>
<p>^PG read back a few pages it has been discussed extensivelly that being in the same room with peanuts does not cause a reaction other than a conditioned reaction caused by fear. </p>
<p>The smell of peanuts does not cause a reaction because one has to inhale the protein. So, yea if they were in the same room as me and I threw peanut flour in their face or showed peanut butter down their throat it would cause a reaction, but short of that they will be fine. Please do some research and stop contributing to the fear mongering with such misinformed statements.</p>
<p>Oh sorry, I timed out and had to re post. I left it out the second time. I stand behind that 5 % of anything is not common by any definition of common. I’m sorry that you don’t understand so I will leave it at that.</p>
<p>FinanceGrad, you cited an unsigned article on an online blog to support your opinion. I’m glad you think “they will be fine,” but perhaps people who really have allergies like this might seek a more dependable source of medical information.</p>
<p>And most of us are talking about ingestion, anyway. Clearly, those who would prefer to have no interference with their right to have a peanut butter sandwich would prefer to talk about those with severe allergies, because they are rarer and harder to accommodate.</p>
<p>
You’re right, I don’t understand that. So you think, for example, that red hair is uncommon. Interesting.</p>