Why policing kids’ lunchboxes isn’t nutty

Share

As children return to school, so too does the task of sending food along with them, and there are few things more politically perilous these days than packing a lunchbox.

Let's skip over the largely esoteric concerns about whether the contents are cruelty-free, vegan, fat-free, carb-less, sugar-free, organic and Goop-endorsed, and focus on a potentially life-threatening health concern – allergens.

The prevalence of food allergies continues to grow: An estimated one in 13 children is allergic to at least one type of food. That's roughly two in every classroom.

In some cases, exposure to allergens can trigger anaphylaxis, a rapid-onset, potentially fatal systemic allergic reaction.

Who is responsible for the safety of those children?

In Canada, there is no clear answer to that question. Policies, if they exist at all, vary wildly between provinces, school boards and individual schools.

But the Conseil scolaire de Montréal (CDSM), Quebec's largest school board, has ignited public debate on the issue by announcing that it will no longer act as the lunchbox police.

The CSDM, in a directive to schools, said there will no longer be any food bans because they are difficult to enforce and create a false sense of security.

The school board is taking the position that it's up to parents, not schools, to decide what children eat and to educate their children about the risks of allergens.

Reactions to that approach range from heavy sighs of relief through to "it's nuts."

The CSDM is correct, at least in part.

Simply banning foods is ineffective. Research shows that severe allergic reactions are as common in schools that ban common allergens such as peanuts as they are in schools with no food interdictions.

There are roughly 170 foods that cause allergic reactions, so you can't ban everything. Most schools have concentrated on the relatively common ones, such as peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, milk, soy, wheat, sesame, fish, shellfish and kiwi, with bans tailored to their students.

Having to comply with those rules can exasperate parents of non-allergic children, and understandably so, especially when schools fail to distinguish between real allergies and self-diagnosed imaginary ones.

Teachers are sometimes expected to search lunchboxes and confiscate offending foods. God knows, teachers already have enough to do without that additional burden.

But they do need first-aid training, including how to respond to an allergic reaction, and that is mandated in some provinces.

There are schools that opt for isolating students with severe allergies by, for example, getting them to eat alone and away from others to avoid potential exposures.

While well-intentioned, that approach is stigmatizing and cruel. And it doesn't protect the child from exposure to allergens on desks, chairs and doorknobs.

At the same time, there are still schools that have incomprehensible policies such as banning children with severe allergies from carrying their asthma inhalers or epinephrine auto-injectors (often referred to by the brand name EpiPen), based on the fear they can be used as weapons. You can't bubble-wrap children, nor should you try.

But that doesn't mean schools or school boards should simply throw up their hands and abdicate all responsibility.

School should be a safe place: Secure, inclusive and barrier-free, whether a child has a developmental disability, a physical disability or health condition such as asthma or allergies.

That means making accommodations.

Now, the notion of accommodation often gets a bad rap; it gets people's backs up. But the reality is that more often than not accommodations made for a minority benefit everyone.

Just as there is no downside to wheelchair ramps – they're great for strollers, people with walkers, those with visual impairments and wonky knees, to name just a few – there is no downside to getting every parent to think twice about what food they're placing in their children's lunchboxes.

That's why the awareness-slash-education component is essential.

But it's not enough.

The 2006 Ontario legislation known as Sabrina's Law got it right.

That law says every school should have an anaphylaxis plan that includes identifying children with life-threatening allergies (in most schools, you will see their pictures prominently displayed in the front office), strategies to reduce exposure to allergens, procedures to communicate to parents, students and employees about allergies, and regular training for teachers and staff.

It's unfortunate that this common-sense approach had to be legislated.

Regardless, the message here is that we all have a role in being lunchbox police. It may be a quaint, old-fashioned notion – we should all look out for each other's children – but it's effective.