I think allergies are a different matter... with food allergies it may even be the exposure to something early on that triggers the problem later. An allergen and a virus/bacteria/microbe are two different things.

What I think you're talking about has more to do with developing a resistance to common 'germs' that one used to be exposed to more often back when everything under the sun wasn't antibacterial, antimicrobial, etc. I think what's happening in that respect is that 1) people's systems don't develop the resistance to common everyday stuff that they used to, and 1) the 'germs' (which, unlike most allergens, are living beings) eventually evolve into some form that can withstand whatever 'anti' ammo we throw at it.

This has been a known issue with antibiotic drugs for a while now, due to the over-prescribing of them in situations where the illness involved is either more of an inconvenience to the patient than a real health threat, and/or one that is not caused by the kind of organism that an antibiotic works against anyway. But in many cases it was easier (or considered less risky) to prescribe an antibiotic because it satisfied the patient and made them "feel better" if only through the placebo effect. Trust me, no patient who thinks they need an antibiotic wants to be told that what they have doesn't warrant the prescription for one.

Washing out the mouth? Sorry, it's a little over the top. Also, forcing little kids to wash hands is a fine idea, til you try to get them to do it. KNowing how long it takes my 1st grader to do what she's told sometimes, they could end up wasting a lot of instructional time with 15 kids washing (in a public school probably more like 25 in a class).

Since the actual incidence is 0.4-0.6%, I think that some of it is nonsense or hysteria. We see many more allergies, even if not strictly peanuts at school, though than <1%. Some have tree nut allergies, for example, and there are loads of kids with gluten issues at school. The latter probably was simply not detected before since it just causes gas, and other problems that are not really a big deal.

I think in general, like most childhood medical issues "on the rise" it's simply increased detection, and lowered thresholds for what is considered pathological.

maybe in some cases, but nut allergies are not the sort of thing that used to be ignored. they are very dangerous.

Their rise has been charted everywhere. In asia for example nut allergies used to very rare, but more cases are now appearing because of the global processed food industry, which add trace amounts of peanuts to almost everything.

Exposure to trace amounts of peanuts in infancy substantially increases the chance of allergy.

Yeah, but the death rate to such allergies has not increased, and is not much higher that lightning deaths.

Also, in countries where kids eat nuts earlier, they have fewer allergies. I think it has more to do with the parents than the kids, frankly. The CDC says ~4% of kids have some kind of food allergy. They also say that the cases have increased 18% over the last 10 years to reach the current ~4% figure. That said, they also suggest that the increase could entirely be better reporting.

My Daughter's 1st grade class has 15 kids. At least 3 have allergies (as reported to teacher by parents). There are similar numbers in the other 3 1st grade classes. 20%. That's 5X the actual value for the population at large that actually has food allergies. My son's preschool class has at least 2, possibly more food allergies in a class of 14, too. It's hysteria.

I wonder what the rate of such allergies is at schools (as reported to schools by parents) is vs the rate that epidemiologists come up with...

Not being able consume peanuts and peanut products would really, really suck IMHO.

Of course, I can eat and enjoy same, so if I had never had any, I guess I wouldn't know what I was missing!!

Ah ha... looks like the reporting is definitely a problem at some level. A common test to decide if a kid has an allergy tests for antibodies (IgE). Turns out that having antibodies is poorly related to actually having allergic reactions. A study in the UK took 79 kids with peanut allergies (as determined by antibody tests), and fed them peanuts in a challenge test (a controlled, medical setting so they would be instantly treated for any adverse reaction. 66 of the 79 had no reaction to eating peanuts (83.5%). Another test is a skin prick, but it's also not ideal since a wheal below a certain diameter, while indicative of a vastly lower chance of having an allergic reaction, is also sometimes wrong (<5mm is OK 80% of the time).

Another study of mixed food allergy types reported in the American Association of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology found that more than half given food challenges of the food their parents thought they were allergic to... showed no allergic reaction.

They said that what happens is a kid has some allergic reaction, then the peds doc has an antibody test drawn, and then they are given a laundry list of things the kid is allergic to. Of course most of the things they are "allergic" to they will never have a reaction if they eat.

If a child can not attend regular classes, with reasonable precautions and accommodations, without risking their health (allergy), then they need to be moved to a non-regular class/school.

The school has the responsibility to provide reasonable precautions and accommodations.

Now I wonder what that word "reasonable" means. :hmmm:

well personally, if that child's allergy is so severe that simply breathing peanut on her (hence the washing of mouths) is a possibility for a reaction, her attending a normal school has to be questioned. I am under the opinion that when you, or your child has an illness like that, you first need to take precautions before making everyone else keep you safe. Do blind people make random people on the street lead them to their destination? No, they use a cane.I think in this situation its become an issue because everyone else has become expected to keep this kid healthy it seems.

"Special needs" kids use up decent chunks of edu budgets, actually. Hard to tell, but it looks like over 1/5th of spending is on special needs, and they are no where near 20% of the student population.

How is this extreme take on what other people have to do going to teach the kid to get along in the real world? The kids we know with food allergies (preschool and 1st grade) already know to ask a grown up about what to eat, and they know not to take food from a friend without checking.

This is actually pretty interesting. There was a Danish study that showed that 16% of adult volunteers reported having an allergy, but only 3% actually did. Part of it might also be that there is food intolerance as well as allergy, and the former is not at all the same. The kids with gluten intolerance can eat gluten, but depending on the quantity they might just feel under the weather, have gas, etc. It's not an allergic reaction, they won't keel over and die from eating a cupcake. Also, many kids that have real allergies as little guys grow out of it. Parents change their lifestyle to avoid, and then the kid never eats that food again so they have no idea they've grown out of it.

Looks like the only true test is a double-blind food challenge, any other claim of diagnosis is suspect.

Parents who are aware of allergies, do not move their children for several reasons, there may be social, psychological, because there will be a situation, so that the child loses his self-esteem, which ultimately could lead to a worse upbringing

Nothing wrong with helping a child with special needs.

However, when their "needs" begin to infringe on the rights of others, then it becomes an issue.

"Peanut free" schools for example. One child has the allergy - so now 250 or 500 other kids can't enjoy a PB&J sandwich at lunch? Rights end when they infringe on another person's rights. Its important to realize that in cases like this - either answer infringes on the rights of SOMEBODY - either the kid with the allergy or the kids without. Thus, you have to weigh the "greater good" - and I'd say that the one child having to adjust is less a burden than 500.....

I have to say that I think that "self esteem" is so much nonsense. Every kid in school grows up thinking the sun shines out their bunghole. :)

This is interesting to me because we comment on this at b-day parties, etc all the time because there is always at least one kid, usually a few who have a parent bringing a treat for an allergy kid instead of whatever the cake is, etc. Every single party. Between my sister, wife, brother in law and I we didn't know one kid with a food allergy growing up. Not one. One kid I knew had asthma, and we all thought it was weird (he was my friend, but lots of other kids made fun of him for it).

I have to wonder how many have had challenge testing.

I know how you feel. I grew up on the country.. We never herd of allergies.. Never existed. When I would visit family in the city and seeing there friends that's when I heard of these ailments. I found it strange.

My daughters school has a no peanut policy.. I also hate it. becuase we all eat varieties of nuts. There healthy, I don't understand why my daughter can't enjoy them? I can only have them at home for her. Washing hands should be implemented anyhow.

That is simply untrue. Every district that I have worked in has spent less than 3% of it's yearly budget on special ed earmarks.

Before you ask:

M. Ed awarded May 2001
Temple University
Philadelphia Pa

Diploma and Pa State Teaching Certification available via email on request.

Yeesh, dude. You ever gonna let that drop, I apologized?

I simply googled and the federal funding seems higher (they said ~20%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special..._United_States
Course States pay the bulk of edu costs, so that likely explains the disparity. Looks like for most states fed spending is under 10% of total budget (with a few states in the high teens).

This link:
http://www.specialed.us/Parents/ASMT...SEF/BRIEF8.PDF
(seems to be over 10 years out of date, however)

seems to suggest that ~12.5% of kids are eligible for "special education," and nearly twice that for "compensatory education" (I'm completely unfamiliar with that term).

This link shows special ed and total school budgets (a column on left side),a and they all work out to high teens pushing 20% of total budget by school district.
http://www.boston.com/news/education...ool_districts/

California spends ~17% of total edu spending on special ed and has a low special ed enrollment %:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf...ecialEdJTF.pdf

Seems really hard to find a "average" number, or even a current study. The average special ed kid has a cost multiplier around 2 according to everything I see on the web (~1.9X, some show just over 2). Dunno how many have "real" special ed needs (downs, real autism (vs Asperger's or mild ASD), etc) vs kids that might be placed in special ed, but we might not consider truly disabled. I read one article just now that said that districts with a "bounty" system to identify special ed kids proactively had much higher growth rates of spending.