Why wasnt there an outcry about any of this in the 1970s? My mother packed a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for me to take to school for lunch several days a week for my entire childhood. Most of my peers ate peanut based foods as well and I dont recall ANYONE EVER being hauled off in an ambulance because of an allergic reaction.

Now that I have my own kids I resent having to tailor what they can bring to school for lunch because of the one in a million chance that some other kid sitting at the same table as mine might have some freakish allergic reaction.

This appears to be one other example of the pussification of america

yeah, there was no AIDS when I was a kid either...

Things change dude.

My brother nearly died in 1965 eating cracker jacks at yankee stadium. It was a peanut allergy he still has today.

Incredibly bad comparison. AIDS is a viral disease, and its rise is due to the mutation/spread of a disease. There wasn't any AIDS in 1955 because the disease had yet to cross the species boundary.

In contrast, food allergies did exist back then. They just weren't over-publicized to the extent they are now.

This is really just an example of people misunderstanding risk. It's like how every parent is encouraged to panic because some child molester might be lurking around the corner - despite the fact that sheer random chance for an extraordinarily low probability event protects your child far better than a parent ever could.

However, in terms of the OP complaint, this is a very important point. At what point do the needs of a small minority trump the needs of the majority? Only a small fraction of the population has food allergies. For that population to impose demands on the larger population, the demands have to be relatively non-invasive.

Food product labeling is one such example. The company has to put a label on the product anyway. Putting an additional line of information on that label so people with obscure allergies won't die because they inadvertantly consumed the wrong food is no big deal.

The other side of this coin would be banning peanut butter from schools. When it's a healthy and tasty food for 99% of your students, it's a lot easier to just have the 1 student who can't eat peanut butter bring their own lunch.

I was born in 1976 and I remember one girl who was in my class who was incredibly allergic to peanuts, but I don't remember it being such a huge deal that none of us could eat peanut butter. My niece is in pre-school and because there's one kid with a peanut allergy no one is allowed to eat peanut butter or anything that's touched a peanut. It seems extreme, although knowing how preschoolers are, it kinda makes sense because they get into everything at that age.

Agreed. I don't think there were many peanut allergic kids back then. (Side note: there was only one fat kid in class and one hyperactive kid in class. Most classes have several of each now, apparently). Something has changed; more autoimmune diseases. Something to look into...

We eat peanut butter every day in our house. It's cheap and tasty and filling and loaded with protein.

My kids' school is nut-free. Not just peanut-free tables in the lunchroom. No nuts in anything. The bake sales, the lunches they serve, NOTHING.

If a child is THAT allergic to peanuts, he shouldn't be allowed out of the house.

This is a huge issue in epidemiology. Some diseases - hyperactivity, ADD, etc - one might think 'well, new methods of diagnosis yield increases in the number of diagnosed cases.'

However, you would think that going toes-up while not breathing would be hard to miss, particularly in an elementary school classroom.

So, are rates of 'severe' peanut allergies actually on the rise? Or were babies dying of it - classified as natural causes, perhaps - and not making it into the schools? Or did kids somehow manage to dose themselves to a level of safety?

I think we may actually be seeing a significant rise in the rate of allergies. There are many hypotheses; I won't bore you with my personal one except to say that it is a variation on the hygeine hypothesis. Other people blame environmental chemicals, processed or GM foods, a new virus/bacteria, or bad genetics. We can debate and debate about these things - we would need real data and real statistics, both of which can be hard to come by in the Fray. However, we should all be asking your original question; perhaps your conclusion is premature.

Well, we had a peanut farmer as President in the 70's. Maybe the "Big Peanut" lobby was just more successful at supressing the truth through their extensive political connections in those days.....

You stated,"At what point do the needs of a small minority trump the needs of the majority?" Do you really need peanut butter? Maybe you should rethink what the definition of need is vs. want.
FYI - 2 TBS of peanut butter has 16 grams of fat vs. one serving of turkey has 1 gram of fat. Peanut butter may be tasty, but it is certainly not healthy. With so many obese children in our schools today maybe a peanut butter ban is a blessing in disguise.

Actually, the "fat" in most peanut butter are not transfats, but are made up of the healthy essential fatty acids such as omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Recent studies have shown that peanut butter can actually help in fighting the childhood obesity epidemic because it is packed with protein, and doesn't contain transfats. Studies have also shown that peanut and nuts contain cancer fighting agents and help combat atherosclerotic heart disease. This is not information from random web sites--you can look up multiple scientific articles with supporting evidence on PubMed. Of course, if you are allergic to peanuts or nuts, don't eat them, but for the 99% of the population that doesn't have the allergy, peanuts and nuts are actually good for you. Cold cuts are okay for lunch, but they are more expensive than peanut butter, and unless you can afford the organic, low-salt, uncured brands, not something children should consume on a daily basis. And actually, there are allergies to chicken, turkey, beef, etc., and some cold cuts can be cross-contaminated with dairy in the factory, so don't assume everyone can eat cold cuts.

As for the peanut/nut bans in schools, it is medically unnecessary to do total bans since severe life-threatening reactions to any food allergen only happens with ingestion. Any food allergen problem at school can be addressed by the FAAN guidelines of no food sharing, washing hands after eating, and cleaning eating surfaces after use. Localized contact allergies to peanuts/nuts, dairy, eggs, soy, etc. should be managed with individualized plans such as restrictions in classrooms, and using "allergen-free" zones/tables in the cafeteria. More attention should be placed on education, recognition, and reaction to allergic reactions to all food and non-food allergens at school, and not on whether or not to ban any specific food.

There's also a new movement away from total environmental avoidence of food allergens because of the new studies that have found some children with peanut allergies can be slowly desensitized with eating increasing amounts of peanut over time (see PubMed for articles). Do not try this at home though since the amounts were carefully calibrated and the subjects closely monitored. But, some medical experts have postulated that maybe trace exposures to food allergens in the environment (not in food of course) can help food allergic children outgrow their allergies, and we may not be doing these kids a favor by keeping them in abnormally sterile environments.

Kids are obese not because of peanut butter- because they arent are eating turkey and other low fat foods weight concious adults eat- but because they dont get enough exercise. Lazy parents would rather park their kids in front of the tv or a videogame then force them to play sports. Growing kids need calories- but that assumes that they are active. If they arent its YOUR fault as a parent