Pro/Con

Pro"yes to ban":
Those who support the ban include parents of children with allergies and others who understand the parents' concern for their children's well-being. Supporters of the ban argue that a ban will omit unnecessary exposure to the allergen and with the number of those afflicted increasing and with some reactions reaching fatal outcomes, decreasing exposure is key. Furthermore, they say students with allergies will be able to more social if a ban is placed because they will be able to interact with other classmates more, seeing as they will no longer need to sit at a peanut-free table all alone or isolated in other situations. A student with allergies is afflicted without choice, while a student free of allergies has plenty of other choices of food and should be the one to give in.


Con"no to ban":
Those who are against the implementation of a ban include parents of children without allergies and those who feel a ban would do more harm than good. First, medical experts believe a ban does not prepare an afflicted child for the adult world because a ban cocoons them from exposure and inhibits the child from learning how to avoid reactions and be aware of their surroundings. They should be learning to avoid ingestion and physical contact with peanuts and what to do at the onset of a reaction. It seems incongruous to create a peanut-free zone for just school hours, when afflicted children roam malls and other public places freely.Second, a ban creates a false sense of security that can lead to a grocery list of problems for both the students and school. The ban depends on parents of non-allergic children and officials who check for the peanuts to be strict, but fallouts can happen. For example, unknown traces of peanuts can exist in allowed food. Children may stop taking precautions or clientele may be slow to get medical attention to children who feel a reaction coming. An implied warranty of a peanut-safe environment could increase the liability for schools who encounter a reaction after a ban is placed because the school is responsible for checking for peanuts. The accommodations mandated by the Rehabilitation Act must be made by the school, through things like peanut-free zones, not by parents and students through a ban.  Thirdy, there are better, more effective ways, to keep afflicted children safe. Learning to use epipens and how to get medical treatment, along with the adoption of peanut free zones are sufficient in many schools. Fourth, bans cause schools and families money. Schools must hire nurses and monitering staff to keep the ban going and cafeteria food with peanuts in it are replaced with food without peanuts, which are oftentimes more expensive. This leads to an increase in the price of school lunches. Fifth, a ban is unfair. A ban would place an unfair burden on the parents of students without allergies for peanuts are an inexpensive staples that could feed their children. Peanuts are a good source of protein and help low-income families. a ban can put an afflicted child in an awkward social position. Being the reason for the ban, an afflicted child may feel guilty for inconveniencing their classmates or the ban could make them the target of bullying and harassment.

The Controversy

Schools are challenged to promote the physical health and academic well-being of their students. Severe food allergies pose life-threatening risks to 8% of school children. Schools ban weapons; should schools ban peanuts because they are an allergen? Parents of students with peanut allergies want to protect their children from unnecessary exposure and some pressure school leaders to make appropriate accomodations. A ban on peanuts would affect parents of students with allergies, their classmates, teachers and school personnel, and has the potential to affect society as a whole if the ban of peanuts and other food allergens move to other public places like mall, airports, and so on. Schools have pressure coming from parents of allergy afflicted students, parents of their classmates, and the government's law made to protect the disabled. Parents want to keep their children safe and healthy, schools are afraid of liability and lawsuits, and other parents want to maintain their previous lifestyles and diets. The country must deal with the increase of the allergic population and make accomodations for them that are both reasonable and effective.