To: Maria Geryk, Superintendent

Support for a nut restriction at the Amherst Regional Public Schools

I support the District's decision to restrict peanuts and tree nuts in the Amherst Regional Public Schools. I believe that adjusting to this change is worthwhile in order to protect the safety and social/emotional wellbeing of students with life-threatening food allergies.

Why is this important?

Since October, when the District announced that the Amherst Regional Public Schools would restrict peanuts and tree nuts, there has been a public debate about the decision. The arguments against this approach have ranged from the shortsighted and insensitive to the inaccurate and outright dangerous.

The new practice does not deny anyone of their right to consume nuts in their daily life. It is a restriction on having them in the public schools. We are talking about a six and a half hour day without nut products, not an entire diet. There are plenty of protein sources and nut alternatives available to families. The district has expressed a willingness to work with people who have a significant medical issue that requires an alternate plan. Though there are other medical issues that may require accommodations, there are not other medical issues that could kill a child within minutes and for which there is a simple solution to greatly minimize that risk. While this new practice may require some getting used to, the inconvenience to families and children is minor when weighed alongside the positive impact of this practice on the safety and well-being of children with life-threatening nut allergies.

A lot has been said about the economic hardship of purchasing nut butter substitutes to make up for the loss of the "healthy protein source" of peanut butter. While peanut butter alternatives such as Sunbutter and WowButter are more expensive than the cheapest peanut butter brands that include an unhealthy combination of oils and sugars, the truly healthy peanut butter varieties are just as expensive as peanut butter alternatives. There are also countless protein sources aside from nut substitutes. For families experiencing a significant financial challenge there is subsidized lunch, where the cafeterias have been serving nut butter alternatives for years. Attempting to make this a conversation about class is manipulative and diversionary.

Some people feel that the whole focus of this issue should be keeping allergic children away from allergens by separating them from peers who consume nuts at school. In fact, a food allergy is a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the recommendation is to manage the disability without exclusion or segregation. There is a significant social and emotional component to living with food allergies and it impacts a child's safety as they grow into an age where they manage their own allergy. This new practice nurtures and protects the whole child. It teaches all of our children an important lesson about taking care of one another and inclusion. There are challenges in this, but there are also gains.

Some people argue that children with food allergies should not have the benefit of this accommodation because they should learn to live in the "Real World." In the "Real World" we protect children, and some children need more protection than others. Crossing guards and booster seats and movie ratings are all part of the "Real World." The world is a much scarier place for children with life-threatening allergies. They will spend their whole lives negotiating the challenges associated with their disability. Affording them the chance to learn in an environment where they are not quite as fearful seems like a reasonable accommodation.

Perhaps the most outrageous suggestion is the one that parents will be lulled into a state of complacency and our children will become less safe as a result. The allergen is the threat. Greatly reducing it will greatly reduce the threat. Parents of allergic children are painfully aware that nothing will ever eliminate the threat. To suggest that we could ever stop worrying about that is enormously insensitive. To use a fabricated concern for the safety of food allergic children in an effort to diminish a practice that would help them is disingenuous.

I am the mother of a child with a life threatening nut allergy. I know why this issue feels so important to me. What I cannot understand is why anyone whose child's life is not in danger would take the time to fight against a practice that represents great progress toward safety and inclusion for a hundred children in our district. Each of those children is a human being and a life. I started this petition because in the process of public debate some of us seem to have forgotten that.