Children are banned from eating Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches at school

Well our Government/Schools can try that all they want, but my kids always took that to school. The liked it and I don't give them meat sandwhiches or anything that can spoil. Now I just give snacks and juice and they get soup at lunch.

But you don't allow nazi's to pass food laws. You don't allow them to usurp the rights of citizens.

When they tried to make announcements against peanut butter and jam, it was about those with allergies, but those with allergies need to be somewhere else. I'm allergic to something that many students have in their lunch and my kids love, banana's, so what would you do, go down the list!

It was stopped by the parents and kids who actually liked peanut and jam over other sandwiches.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Okay, i see what your saying.

That is a seperate decision though and i believe the US prides itself on offering equality to all students regardless of race, religion or physical handicaps, including allergies.

I know its one thing to say equality, but its another to actually impliment it and in a lot of cases it is never equal.

Installing ramps, and having handicap bathroom stalls and elevators are definitely good things to include for handicapped students. But, that doesn't take anything away from the others, because steps/stairs and regular bathroom stalls are still there for everyone else. Taking away food options from children who aren't allergic is not offering equality. That's favoring the allergic kids. To be perfectly equal, every kid needs to be allowed to eat the lunch they want/need.

reply to post by Unity_99


Another straw man. Laws are passed by our duly elected officials. We vote either on the laws or for the people who pass them.

Of course they're always "Nazi's" when they pass something we don't personally agree with.

FTR the Constitution doesn't actually say anything about peanuts. By that argument you should also have a God given right to plutonium and heroin.

~Heff

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Okay, i see what your saying.

That is a seperate decision though and i believe the US prides itself on offering equality to all students regardless of race, religion or physical handicaps, including allergies.

I know its one thing to say equality, but its another to actually impliment it and in a lot of cases it is never equal.

Installing ramps, and having handicap bathroom stalls and elevators are definitely good things to include for handicapped students. But, that doesn't take anything away from the others, because steps/stairs and regular bathroom stalls are still there for everyone else. Taking away food options from children who aren't allergic is not offering equality. That's favoring the allergic kids. To be perfectly equal, every kid needs to be allowed to eat the lunch they want/need.

So what your saying is as long as nothing is taking away from the majority your okay with it.

What about welfare? Would you see that taken away since it doesnt benefit you directly, yet it comes from your taxes. How about other public services that you dont necessarily use but pay for in directly via taxes.

Under your paradigm you are calling for the removal of every service that your kid or the majority of people use because you dont benefit from it. Thats not the America i know....i think you are being a bit narrow sighted.

To be perfectly equal, every kid needs to be allowed to eat the lunch they want/need.

What about the kid with allergies, how can he be equal? Is your answer be. he cant?

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by butcherguy

 

They are part of nature, but were not prevalent in food products until George Washington Carver went on a one man crusade to make them a staple in our diets.

And that is a totally different track down a side road of post reconstruction socio-economic history.

~Heff

Okay, since GWC made them a profitable cash crop, they are in schools more. They are still a food. They overwhelming majority of people can eat them without 'giving up the ghost'.
Let's ban them from schools.
Since kids, even ones that are allergic to peanuts, deserve to be in public.... let's ban peanuts completely. (don't forget they will still grow in the wild)

Now let's ban WATER. Before you call me an ass for saying this, I read about a lady that is allergic to water. Yes, w-a-t-e-r. link
It isn't right that she be subjected to something so dangerous in public, so we must ban it!

In todays day and age of political correctness I do not understand why it isn't even further than disallowing peanut butter. There should be nothing but turkey allowed in schools, cafeterias, jails and prisons, or any other public restaurant. With all the allergies out there from peanut butter and other nuts to fish none of this should be allowed not to mention the Muslim and Jewish children should not have to look at or smell any form or pork, so get rid of those ham and or bacon sandwiches. Who knows if that beef is kosher either. Personal choice is a thing of the past because the needs of the few outweigh the desires of the majority today. Turkey can be made in so many different ways, it is versatile, nutritious, contains chemicals to keep those unruly children complacent, and is accepted by all Faiths as acceptable sustenance. There is no reason for anyone to eat anything else. [/sarcasm]

Originally posted by MDDoxs

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Okay, i see what your saying.

That is a seperate decision though and i believe the US prides itself on offering equality to all students regardless of race, religion or physical handicaps, including allergies.

I know its one thing to say equality, but its another to actually impliment it and in a lot of cases it is never equal.

Installing ramps, and having handicap bathroom stalls and elevators are definitely good things to include for handicapped students. But, that doesn't take anything away from the others, because steps/stairs and regular bathroom stalls are still there for everyone else. Taking away food options from children who aren't allergic is not offering equality. That's favoring the allergic kids. To be perfectly equal, every kid needs to be allowed to eat the lunch they want/need.

So what your saying is as long as nothing is taking away from the majority your okay with it.

What about welfare? Would you see that taken away since it doesnt benefit you directly, yet it comes from your taxes. How about other public services that you dont necessarily use but pay for in directly via taxes.

Under your paradigm you are calling for the removal of every service that your kid or the majority of people use because you dont benefit from it. Thats not the America i know....i think you are being a bit narrow sighted.

To be perfectly equal, every kid needs to be allowed to eat the lunch they want/need.

What about the kid with allergies, how can he be equal? Is your answer be. he cant?

Huh? I have the option to be on welfare or not be on welfare. That option is not taken away from me. I have the option to use public services. Those options are not taken from me.

The kid with the allergies is equal because he can bring a lunch that does not contain any foods that he is allergic to.

reply to post by kaylaluv


You have the option now under these policies to not be worried about a certain food affecting you. Once again you being way to narrow.

You are just restating what you have said over and over again. You are not addressing what i have said.

Your argument is starting to flounder here.

Crazy thing is these anti PB&J people are probably anti Darwin theory too

reply to post by James1982


They take their cues from the government, so they want to be the police of the educational system rather than focus on the real issues at hand.

Take the kids with allergies and place them in a separate area, if they find that to be singling special students out, well they are singling out the normals as well.

ELVIS would be shocked! Nothing says home like a Peanut butter and banana grilled sandwich.

reply to post by butcherguy


Absolutism doesn't lend well to debate. It's, again, a straw man.

Let me illustrate...

The boy in the bubble was allergic to everything. Now, to appease him, we should all be murdered because human contact would be fatal to the boy in the bubble.

Or the other side of the coin... We should kill the boy in the bubble because his allergies impose upon our right to do whatever we wish in a free country.

Both extremes are disingenuous and misleading.

Schools are places where people are forced into small spaces for elongated periods of times. Like airplanes. And, oh, BTW, airlines voluntarily do not use peanut products. Why? Because they don't want to be sued over an avoidable medical situation. Why should a public school have less of a right to protect itself and it's "customers" than a corporation?

It's common sense. And there's no common sense in absolutist argument.

~Heff

reply to post by mikellmikell


are you hinting at eugenics?

WHat about poor eye sight. According to Darwinism, those with poor eye sight should have not been selected to continue because of the physical defficency.

reply to post by Hefficide


You left an option out.

Dont pass wide sweeping changes for the sake of a minority and dont go out of your way to intentionally kill off that minority.

Just let be.

Of course that never occurs to most folks. Everyone wants to social engineer until they organize a massive eugenic slaughter then repeat rather than simply letting people just be.

reply to post by MDDoxs

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Your argument is starting to flounder here.

No, it isn't. You're not addressing the fact that MANY public places where people eat have peanuts there. Restaurants, malls, movie theaters, etc. Do you support a peanut ban in all public places? The parents are responsible for making sure their kids don't have contact with peanuts.

You're also not addressing the fact that there are many other ways to solve this problem short of instituting a ban.

I think YOUR argument is falling apart.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by mikellmikell

 

are you hinting at eugenics?

WHat about poor eye sight. According to Darwinism, those with poor eye sight should have not been selected to continue because of the physical defficency.

You too are missing the simple option of just letting them be.

Why is it always coddle or kill? There is an option in between.

You cant stop the childrens from doing what they want and eat what they like
now we will have a black market of Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches at school
1 $ for each sandwich

This new law is a joke
of course the school wants the kids to eat what they have at the cafeteria
we all know what they serve in those big kitchen .. crap !

My child was asked to stop bringing peanuts as a snack because "peanut dust" might reach the nose of a kid that is allergic. If your child is really that allergic to peanuts, home school!!!

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the rest of the kids should not be restricted and have to change their lives, even if it is just lunch, because of a few children that might be affected. If I went to restaurant and a menu item was not allowed to be served because someone with an allergy was also in said restaurant, I'd tell them to go screw themselves and find someplace else to eat. It's all kinds of BS.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I did not leave an option out. I directly addressed the crux of the issue. In confined places, where people are forced to spend protracted periods of time - involuntarily - environmental controls are necessary. Again, airlines choose to do this - in a free market without regulation, they choose the option. Why? Because it's the best solution.

Discussing the concept in an absolutist or universal context is out of context as it is not applicable to the situation we're discussing.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

where people are forced to spend protracted periods of time - involuntarily - environmental controls are necessary.

Since when has shipping your kid off to be locked in building not been voluntary?

I see this as the real issue:

High grain prices create problems for biofuels companies which produce ethanol from wheat and barley. Other biofuels companies make biodiesel from oil-bearing crops such as soya, peanuts, palm oil and rapeseed. The prices for most of these commodities have also risen sharply, reflecting the competittion between demand for these crops as food and demand for them to produce fuel. The price rises have raised questions in the industry about its viability in the absence of government subsidies.

Now this is an older article however the situation has not eased but gotten much worse.

www.theecologist.org...

Government Subsidies and the 2008 Farm Act The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Act) provides peanut producers with access to marketing loan benefits, direct payments (DPs), counter-cyclical payments (CCPs) and average crop revenue election (ACRE) payments. In addition, many producers may benefit from subsidized crop and revenue insurance available under previous legislation, as well as from new permanent disaster assistance. Moreover, producers are affected by conservation and trade programs. Under the 2008 Farm Act, all current peanut production is eligible for nonrecourse commodity loans with marketing loan provisions for crop years 2008 through 2012. The loan program provides short-term financing and assists producers when market prices are low. Because the loans are nonrecourse, producers may forfeit the crop rather than pay back the loan if prices fall below the loan rate plus interest. National loan rates for peanuts are $3.55 per ton until 2012. Direct payments and CCPs are available to eligible peanut landowners and producers who enter into an annual agreement with USDA's Farm Services Agency (FSA).

www.agmrc.org...

It is BIOFUEL folks, the regulators would rather use this as trade commodities than food for Americans.