No more peanut products in the college dining hall??

[sally305]

<p>Really–5% is “common” now? Wow…just think what that will mean to all the “Chance me for Ivies!” posters on this site. Getting into HYP now “commonly” happens. :)</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

Many are minors when they arrive. Almost all are under 21.

</p>

<p>Being under 21 does not a “minor” make. In most states a minor is considered to be someone under the age of 18, not 21. There are a couple of states where the age of majority is 19.</p>

<p>I think the numbers of minors attending college are very small. Not sure that it’s very relevant to a discussion about peanut allergies, but there you are.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Fewer than 5% of students on a typical college campus have a wheelchair. Should we just not bother with wheelchair ramps or other access? Let them choose another college.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Is anybody seriously arguing that a characteristic that appears in 5% of all people is uncommon? That’s millions of people, multiple people in every school, college, and organization in the nation.</p>

[Bay]

<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>We would need more information to determine whether your D, or the college and dining hall employees would be free from liability in OP’s case. If there are signs at the entrances (such as Marian suggested, I believe), stating that the dining hall is “peanut free,” and that students are prohibited from bringing any peanut products into that space, then it may be reasonable for PA students to rely on the safety of the premises, putting the burden for liability on those who violate the rules.</p>

<p>Again, if the dining hall simply makes the effort to leave peanuts out of its recipes, without making any sort of affirmative representation, I don’t see a problem.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

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>I trust university counsel to know which is a worse risk: knowing that PA students exist and not making some good-faith effort to provide SOME peanut-free facilities, or designating peanut-free facilities but having legal liability for any “breech” committed even inadvertently by a student or employee. </p>

<p>People like to be welcoming, you know? If you had someone coming over your house who was allergic to peanuts, you’d want to know that before you cooked dinner, right? Well, if I were a university, I’d want to know that, and figure out some reasonable accommodation. Just like they do for people who want to eat kosher food or whatever.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

We would need more information to determine whether your D, or the college and dining hall employees would be free from liability in OP’s case. If there are signs at the entrances (such as Marian suggested, I believe), stating that the dining hall is “peanut free,” and that students are prohibited from bringing any peanut products into that space, then it may be reasonable for PA students to rely on the safety of the premises, putting the burden for liability on those who violate the rules.</p>

<p>Again, if the dining hall simply makes the effort to leave peanuts out of its recipes, without making any sort of affirmative representation, I don’t see a problem.

</p>

<p>I don’t believe there are any such signs. It’s simply that this dining hall has been designated as being peanut-free as well as offering gluten-free options. Some other dining hall on campus was designated as offering kosher / halal options. No great grand statement needed to be made, and I don’t perceive it as “they are guaranteeing 110% that no peanut product will ever cross the doorways.” It’s very possible that students have brought in peanut-containing products in granola bars and so forth without realizing it, for all I know. We don’t need to turn things into grander deals than they need to be.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>^^^^I have no problem with a peanut free dining hall. Whatsoever. Just discussing the concept of legal liability once an implied promise has been made.</p>

<p>

I don’t perceive it as “they are guaranteeing 110% that no peanut product will ever cross the doorways.” It’s very possible that students have brought in peanut-containing products in granola bars and so forth without realizing it, for all I know. We don’t need to turn things into grander deals than they need to be.

</p>

<p>You may not perceive it that way, but a plaintiff’s lawyer certainly might.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>There would probably be fine print on Marian’s sign.</p>

[FinanceGrad]

<p>Well, here you go with a study from the CDC website. If you scroll down the page its the first study in the citation. And It supports the 3 million number and it says almost 10k were hospitalized which is still a tiny decimal. It also dubs the rate as 3.9% among children and that most grow out of it.</p>

<p>And I never said “They will be fine” I am not trying to express any opinion on the status of those with severe food allergies. I kept seeing the same notion repeated in this thread that these allergies are common and that severe reactions to them are common so I wanted to present something other than a personal anecdote.</p>

<p>[CDC</a> - Food Allergies - Adolescent and School Health](<a href=“Food Allergies | Healthy Schools | CDC”>Food Allergies | Healthy Schools | CDC)</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

It also dubs the rate as 3.9% among children and that most grow out of it.

</p>

<p>Well, I do know that if my kid was one of those who didn’t grow out of it, I’d probably have to be on meds to control my anxiety about it. I frankly admire those who are able to take precautions and somehow put it in perspective.</p>

[FinanceGrad]

<p>Pizzagirl the wheelchair argument is not applicable here because its just a facility modification. Nobody is banned from anything especially not a common food staple.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

You may not perceive it that way, but a plaintiff’s lawyer certainly might.

</p>

<p>Indeed. </p>

<p>How about those of you on this thread with PA or children with PA? How do you interpret the meaning of “peanut-free” dining halls?</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

*One can easily substitute those who face possible violent attacks from violent segregationists for allergies here to make comparisons with similar arguments made by both segregationists/conformists of the '50s.
Even for you this post was beyond the pale of offensive.

</p>

<p>It may be offensive, but similar type arguments were made by segregationists/conformists of the 1950’s. This was both present in the historical narratives from the era I’ve come across in K-12 as well as from conversations with older African-American neighbors and friends who grew up in parts of the South/Midwest before/during the Civil Rights movement era where there was strong segregationist sentiment or genteel well-meaning conformists who told them to “go along to get along” and “don’t rock the boat”. </p>

<p>Those older neighbors basically told me to be aware of such rhetorical statements as they are often used to discourage those who need some accommodation denied for discriminatory reasons based on race/creed/etc, disabilities, etc from advocating for substantive helpful changes…or any changes for that matter to facilitate access denied them for those factors. </p>

<p>

Many are minors when they arrive. Almost all are under 21.

</p>

<p>This minor/adult differentiation here may not matter much in the greater scheme of things as some workplaces I’ve worked in have banned use of perfumes/colognes because some people are allergic and in the confined office spaces where mostly adults work 8+ hours a day, those odors/chemical compounds causing the allergic reactions tend to accumulate. </p>

<p>One workplace’s policies* were such the first time offense meant being sent home for the day and the second offense meant immediate termination. And this was for an allergic reaction which isn’t very life-threatening in comparison to PA, but can cause those afflicted with the allergy to become seriously sick to necessitate taking long periods off or even going to the hospital. </p>

<ul>
<li>Clearly spelled out in one of the employee policy acknowledgement agreements we had to sign before starting work there.</li>
</ul>

[eastcoascrazy]

<p>Adding ramps, elevators, handrails, accessible bathrooms, braille signs, curb cuts at corners, beeps on crossing signals, and as far as I know every other accommodation made under the ADA doesn’t take anything away from anyone, and in fact enhances the lives of most of us from time to time. (Cobrat pointed out that making offices purfume free also removes products from non allergic people, but I would add that most everyone is thankful not to have to work in a swamp of competing perfumes, and that perfumed products don’t serve any purpose now that most of us bathe daily.)</p>

<p>Removing a healthy food product as a protein choice (which is essentially the case in a small college with only one dining facility) does the opposite. </p>

<p>Any campus with more than one dining area could easily make one area or one dining room peanut free. I’d think that any dining room large enough to serve the needs of even the smallest LAC could find a way of providing a nut free area.</p>

<p>Oh, and I dearly hope my real sons would have the ability and sense not to bring a PBJ sandwich into a nut free dining room. However, neither of them would have chosen to attend a LAC so small that it had only one dining area. They certainly wouldn’t have chosen to attend a school that banned nut products because they eat a lot of them, but I also can’t imagine any of us would have ever thought to check out the availability of peanut butter when looking at colleges.</p>

[sally305]

<p>

Is anybody seriously arguing that a characteristic that appears in 5% of all people is uncommon? That’s millions of people, multiple people in every school, college, and organization in the nation.

</p>

<p>Yes, I am arguing that 5% is “uncommon.” From the OED:</p>

<p>

adjective
occurring, found, or done often; prevalent:
salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings
common misspellings
it’s common for a woman to be depressed after giving birth
denoting the most widespread or typical species of an animal or plant
the common gull
ordinary; of ordinary qualities;
of the most familiar type

</p>

<p>College students on residential campuses are a small fraction of whatever the number is–whether .5% or 5%. And within that group the number with a life-threatening level of the allergy is smaller still.</p>

[BunsenBurner]

<p>“Is anybody seriously arguing that a characteristic that appears in 5% of all people is uncommon? That’s millions of people, multiple people in every school, college, and organization in the nation.”</p>

<p>It is a common mistake when people translate percentage points into actual numbers and argue that since the numbers are huge the “uncommon” does not apply. 5% is still 5%, 1 whether it is 1 out of 20 or 50 million out of a billion.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@cromette

I don’t know of many who are 17 when they enter college. Most turn 18 between in their senior year, or the summer after.

</p>

<p>A decent fraction of gifted students – the people for whom college education is best suited – will enter college at age 17 or younger. I did, and two of my three children are on track to do so.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>^^^Please define “decent fraction.” That’s even more vague than “common” and “uncommon.”</p>

[cobrat]

<p><a href=“Cobrat%20pointed%20out%20that%20making%20offices%20purfume%20free%20also%20removes%20products%20from%20non%20allergic%20people,%20but%20I%20would%20add%20that%20most%20everyone%20is%20thankful%20not%20to%20have%20to%20work%20in%20a%20swamp%20of%20competing%20perfumes,%20and%20that%20perfumed%20products%20don’t%20serve%20any%20purpose%20now%20that%20most%20of%20us%20bathe%20daily.”>quote=eastcoascrazy</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You may be surprised how many folks bristled at that workplace bristled at that perfume/cologne ban. Sometimes to the point of trying to test that ban only to find the rules were firmly enforced and themselves docked a day’s equivalent of pay and/or terminated.</p>

<p>

@Beliavsky

A decent fraction of gifted students – the people for whom college education is best suited – will enter college at age 17 or younger. I did, and two of my three children are on track to do so.

</p>

<p>Here’s probably one of the few areas where Bel and I would agree. I started college at 17 and knew college classmates who started much younger…including a classmate who GRADUATED with honors at 17 and younger students who were on track to graduate around the same/slightly older ages.</p>

<p>Oh…and it’s not necessarily only for gifted kids. I certainly wasn’t one. Just happens NYC at the time allowed students to start first grade earlier if the parents/child wanted. </p>

<p>On the flipside, a West Coast cousin who’s a month older than me ended up being two years behind me in college because California mandated students born sometime in the summer months to go to the latter grade…and then he took a gap year when he found his SATs/college results weren’t what he wanted.</p>