Skip to main content

Are Food Allergy Bans Even Protective?

I just love this picture.
What was this guy thinking about?
There's been wailing and gnashing of teeth this week because the National Association of School Nurses came out with a new position paper regarding food allergies. (It actually came out in June, but it seems to have just hit most of the chat boards this month.) Many food allergy advocates were disappointed because of the statement about food bans:

Maintaining a healthy environment is essential.  All environments in the school setting require special attention to protect students by limiting allergens or providing areas that are allergen safe (National School Boards Association [NBSA], 2011).   Completely banning nuts or other foods is not recommended as it is 1) not possible to control what other people bring onto the school grounds, and 2) does not provide the allergic student with an environment where he/she can safely learn to navigate a world containing nuts.  When a ban is instituted, parents feel their child will not be exposed to allergens.  A ban can create a false sense of security (“Banning allergies from school”, 2012).

There's one phrase in there that's designed to ruffle the feathers of moms of older kids: "false sense of security." That particular wording goes back to the early days of FAAN when Anne Munoz-Furlong was still running the show. There was such strong feeling about this issue that many people stopped contributing to FAAN as a result of that one statement.

Personally, I have always felt a special kindred for AMF because she also has a child with a severe milk allergy, and milk allergy definitely gives you a different perspective on the world. I don't disagree with the "false sense of security" statement.

But that's not what this blog entry is about! We could argue endlessly about peanut bans, and I have addressed them in another blog post. What I'm more interested in talking about today is whether they even do anything to protect most kids.

If you get into debating the need for peanut bans on any of the chat boards, you'll quickly learn that many people believe that  reducing the amount of peanut surrounding their child is, in and of itself, protective. You see a lot of statements like "yes, a ban is not perfect, but it reduces the amount of peanut in the school, even if some people cheat." 

If you stick around longer, you'll probably also notice that people often speak about the peanut in a phobic way. It supposedly "floats in the air" and "sticks to every surface." It's like a tiger, just waiting to jump out and attack our children. The less peanut, the safer the child. 

But does that even make sense? 

Let's go back to last month's post about thresholds. In that post, I cited research that showed that, in the research group studied, 1% of food allergic individuals reacted to 2 mg or less of peanut. Another 16-18% had a threshold that's between 2 and 65 mg. (65 mg is equivalent to 1/5 of a peanut.) 

There's another important concept to threshold: gradual vs. cliff trigger response. What does this mean? 

With a gradual trigger reaction, symptoms would build as the amount of allergen in the system builds. If a child received a micro dose of an allergen, they would have a micro response, and responses would build and remain proportional to the dose.

With a cliff trigger response, a child would go from fine (no symptoms) to reaction. 

My understanding is that the vast majority of reactions out there are the cliff trigger variety. The threshold may change based on different environmental factors (hormones, illness, exercise, etc.), but it takes a certain amount of protein to tip a child into a reaction. Up until that point, there are usually no symptoms. 

The clinical trial we're currently in depends on this being the case. We will return to the hospital in October and my son will go back through the same set of challenges he experienced in April. The success or failure of the medication (assuming he does not have placebo) is predicated on him failing at a particular dose level. Below half a peanut - nothing. Above half a peanut - start of a reaction. (More peanut would certainly escalate things, but it takes a cumulative dose of at least a half peanut to get the ball rolling for him.)  

So, if we put those two concepts together: most children require at least 1/5 of a peanut to get a reaction started, and amounts below 1/5 of a peanut generally causes no trouble.

Is all that a guarantee? Of course not. But I think you can see how thinking about reactions as a cliff response rather than a gradual trigger response can be reassuring for most families. If your child is in the category of hyper reactors, you already know it. They have had reactions (not just hives - reactions) from being at the grocery store, the park, the movie theater. If your child is in this category, they very well may require a ban to be safer at school. 

"But what about contact reactions?" you ask. Yes, kids can get localized hives from contact reactions, but anaphylactic reactions to contact or inhaled peanut are very rare. (Here's a summary from Michael C. Young writing for FARE in Canada about inhalation/contact reactions.)  That's not to say that constant contact reactions aren't a pain in the rear! Again, kids who experience constant contact reactions would probably benefit from a ban. 

For the rest of our children...not so much. Having peanut around them doesn't affect them. Very few children are able to accidentally ingest a fifth of a peanut, unless they're licking their desk surfaces. (Preschools - totally different approach. I strongly believe they should be food-free. Kids at that age clearly do lick their desks, toys and likely each other.)

The sad part of all of this is that, probably at least in part due to the phobia and overreaction of parents who did not need this level of protection, we now have a strong policy statement from the NASN. It's going to make it a LOT harder for the kids who really could benefit from a ban to get one. 

At the end of every ban debate, there's always someone who just comes right out and says it: "why shouldn't I ask for a ban if it could make my child even the tiniest bit safer?" The answer is because invasive actions like food bans have backlash. People do cheat, kids do bully, parents are crappy, organizations do come out with policy statements. Asking for more than we really need always results in backlash. If a ban doesn't even make your child safer, why in the world would you sign up for all that? 


Popular posts from this blog

Turn Trash to Treasure: An Easy Way to Help SAGE and the Corvallis Environmental Center!

Clear clutter and unwanted items from your home and you can help raise funds for the Corvallis Environmental Center--all year long!  Just take your unwanted items to an ARC Thrift Store where they sell them and donate the proceeds to the CEC.  It easy!  Here's how:

1. Collect Items in Good Condition

Not all donate-able items are eligible, so check out the list of items that will raise money for the CEC:
www.corvallisenvironmentalcenter.org/turn-trash-to-treasure
2. Put a sticker on each eligible item Stickers are located in a big envelope on the window outside of the CEC office at 214 SW Monroe Ave., Corvallis

3. Drop-off Items at The ARC! Items can be dropped off anytime during store hours at either location.

The ARC Thrift Stores:
928 NW Beca Street, Corvallis (541) 754-9011
936 Main Street, Philomath (541) 929-3946

Hours:
Monday-Saturday: 10am-5:30pm
Sunday: 12pm-5:30pm
Thanks so much for helping support SAGE and the other programs of the Corvallis Environmental Center!!!

Beans, Beans and More (or Less) Allergenic Beans!

We have a little good news this week: my son passed a home bean challenge for both pinto and cannellini (white) beans last night. Hooray!

At our last allergist visit, they ran the numbers on a number of varieties of beans and many were Class 0, with values like 0.68. My son's doctor thought it was reasonable to try these at home.

Going to stop for a moment and interject: DON'T DO THIS WITHOUT YOUR DOCTOR'S DIRECTION. A lot of things go into whether home challenges are a good idea for your child: how serious the allergen typically is, how far the hospital, how experienced the parents are with recognizing reactions. Many doctors are not comfortable with this at all. But, in our case, it makes sense to do some challenges at home because my son tests slightly allergic to dozens of foods.

He has avoided all beans since around age five, when he started developing new allergies. First it was tuna. Then cashews. Then (to our great surprise), he suddenly became allergic to garbonzo be…

Best Food Allergy Tweets/Posts From 2013 ACAAI Meeting

Sorry, guys...I've been very busy the last couple of weeks, but just over a week ago one of the largest allergy and asthma conferences, the annual American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, was tweeting its brains out.

Here were the tweets and (virtual) presentations I thought were most interesting:

ACE inhibitors are often used to treat high blood pressure. I believe Lisinopril was the one specifically mentioned. This goes hand in hand with the idea that older patients, especially men, can see changes in the severity of their allergic reactions as they age.

Here's an answer on the question many of us asked about component testing. Just as with RAST, the number itself doesn't matter; just the positive result.

Gross! But yes, give your kids the bobber after the dog/ brother/ mailman licked it.

Conversely, tree-nut-allergic individuals have a 30% incidence of concurrent peanut allergy. 
So stop blaming yourselves, FA mommies! I've said this consistently - Mother Natur…