zann jo

I am still needing a bit more understanding, I am wanting to send this
to only Sandra because I am looking for understanding for what I am
attempting to do, but what if another unschooler is still struggling,
as well. Thank you for your patience with me:

I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance
guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old
toddler have access to a busy street). My son (2nd child)
loved*loved*loved tofu, edememe, etc. that was what he mostly ate.
At three years old he was also having a lot of difficulty with extreme
agitation (think tasmanian devil cartoon), sleep difficulties
(difficulty to sleep, night waking multiple times every night,
frequent night terrors (2-5 nights every week)). I was letting him
freely choose his food, bedtime, sleeping location, etc. I was
confident that he would sort it all out in his own time.
Then he had two Grand mal/tonic-clonic seizures that both lasted
almost ten minutes, within 2 months, Yet "normal" EEG's (no epilepsy).
That is when I started looking to the pediatrician for other testing,
then pressing for more testing after all of the tests turned up
"normal" and negative. The pediatrician finally suggested allergy
testing (only because I kept calling her). At that time I was sure we
did not have any allergies, my mommy instinct had not failed me yet!
And had saved us so many times before! After the allergy tests, we
eliminated soy, peanuts, tree nuts. Within two weeks he was sleeping
through the night for the first time in his life. In the last two
years he has had only 3 isolated night-terrors that were around the
same time as a difficult flu. His personality/demeanor/... is
completely different, he is generally settled (no more extreme
agitation), happy, peaceful guy. I think I was selective in listening
to my instinct, I believed that sleep and food could always be self
regulated if given freedom.

Now, I want to assume that if our children are having difficulty
(sleeping, focus, un-happiness) it is our responsibility to take note
and limit the access until they are a bit older to make the connection
that, for example, "If I eat this food, then I will feel bad ". How
his allergies manifested were not as obvious as anaphylactic, it could
take hours or days for his body to produce a noticeable reaction to
one particular ingestion. And that often we even *crave* the allergic
foods… definitely the situation with my son. For me it was extremely
difficult to make this change, it was so against how we had been
parenting for the previous 6 years. So where I am needing clearer
understanding is how to maintain a balance of the extremes: we need to
maintain a sense of responsibility to accurately *see* our children.
If we are genuinely feeling concerned, it does not automatically mean
we are harboring suspicion. And sometimes we shouldn't wait 30 years
to see how it all turns out. Our guy now has the bandwidth to do so
many more things, since he is no longer pre occupied with the allergy
symptoms. I still feel guilty that his food choices were having such
a negative affect on his life and I didn't do anything about it for
years.

- Suzanne

Sandra Dodd

-=-I am wanting to send this
to only Sandra because I am looking for understanding for what I am
attempting to do-=-

The purpose of the list and the method, though, is NOT just to address one person, but to address the group. It's better for everyone.

-=-I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance
guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old
toddler have access to a busy street). -=-

http://sandradodd.com/balance

-=- And sometimes we shouldn't wait 30 years
to see how it all turns out. -=-

It's all anyone can do, no matter what their beliefs and fears are in this moment. Not a single person can see 30 years into the future.

-=- His personality/demeanor/... is
completely different, he is generally settled (no more extreme
agitation), happy, peaceful guy. I think I was selective in listening
to my instinct, I believed that sleep and food could always be self
regulated if given freedom.-=-

"Self regulation" isn't a term used in this discussion. People pick up "rules" and ideas from all over the place, and come here and complain about them, or hold them up as what someone used to do and now they do something different.

If you limited nuts and now he's happy and peaceful, are you recommending that other people limit nuts?
Would he not have had that allergy even if you had had bedtimes?
Would he not have had that allergy even if you had been making him clean his plate?

-=-Now, I want to assume that if our children are having difficulty
(sleeping, focus, un-happiness) it is our responsibility to take note
and limit the access until they are a bit older to make the connection
that, for example, "If I eat this food, then I will feel bad ". -=-

And limit the access to *food*?
Are you pretty sure that a difficulty focussing has to do with diet?
That unhappiness has to do with diet?
That sleeping difficulties have to do with diet?

-=-How
his allergies manifested were not as obvious as anaphylactic, it could
take hours or days for his body to produce a noticeable reaction to
one particular ingestion. And that often we even *crave* the allergic
foods… definitely the situation with my son. For me it was extremely
difficult to make this change, it was so against how we had been
parenting for the previous 6 years. -=-

If you like the idea that people crave what they're allergic too, and that it can take days for a reaction to show, and that your elmination of nuts made your child happy, then that's what you're going to believe.

I think the world has a huge history of blaming and crediting all kinds of things with effects that occurred in natural and unrelated ways. People look for signs and make sacrifices all the time, not just in churches.

Sandra

Colleen

****I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old toddler have access to a busy street). ****

Absolutely - you don't let him have access *on his own* to a busy street!

But you also don't keep him away from streets. You don't avoid streets and figure "he'll learn about those when he's older - when he's a teen or an adult, he can figure out how to cross on his own." You don't want the street to become so tempting, so interesting, such a draw that even as a young person he's just waiting for you to be looking away so he can go out there and check out the road and try to get across on his own.

Because busy streets are there - they are out there in the world - they are part of his life, even though his life might be safer and he might live longer if there were no busy streets - no fast drivers, inattentive drivers - no fast cars, motorcycles, bicycles all zipping by and potentially harming him when he wants to get from one side of the street to the other.

When he's young, you go with him when he needs to get across the street. You show him (even as a little guy, you still show him because he's watching you all the time!) how to cross safely. You make sure as he grows older that he knows about crosswalks, crossing signals, crossing guards, who has the right of way, etc. You give him lots of opportunities to cross the street *with* you because one day you won't be there, and you'll want him to have had lots of practice before he tries to get across the first time on his own.

You can do the same with food. You can acknowledge that factory foods, processed foods, dyed foods, chemical-filled foods, and other such things are out there. You can bring some into your house. You can keep them from being so very, very attractive (restricting something makes it more attractive) that your children sneak those foods, gorge on those foods, crave those foods so much that they hoard them in their closet and under their bed. You can demystify the foods by making them just one of a zillion different options your children have to eat - no more or less powerful than any other food in terms of your reaction to them or your presentation of them.

You can also share the kind of food you like - be that organic food, farm-fresh-food, raw food, vegan food, etc. etc. You can talk in a non-judgmental way about where food comes from, how some is made and some is grown, what you like to eat, which foods make your body feel good. You can Google things like Propylene Glycol and see when and how people decided to start eating it :-) You can take trips to farms and farmers' markets, ethnic grocery stores, food festivals - I think there was a post with lots of ideas like that earlier.

Keeping your child away from busy streets and never showing them how to get across safely is dangerous. You give your kids the tools and practice they need to get across safely, while at the same time accepting that one day you won't be there and your child (maybe by then an adult) might choose to cross without looking both ways - might get hit by a car despite having the best preparation for street-crossing that you could provide. But you *hope* that your child will remember his days with you - will remember that he should look for a crosswalk, wait for the light, be safe. You make street crossing part of his world when he is little so he'll have a greater chance of crossing safely as he grows up.

You can also make all sorts of foods, and eating without guilt and judgment, part of his life when he's little, so when he grows up he won't be facing the food-world without practice (or with a load of guilt and shame). He doesn't need to grow into adulthood afraid of streets *or* afraid of factory food, even if inside you do hope he'll always look both ways and you hope he'll always choose the organic option :-)

Sandra Dodd

-=- You can acknowledge that factory foods, processed foods, dyed foods, chemical-filled foods, and other such things are out there. You can bring some into your house.-=-

Foods have been colored for hundreds of years. Heat, drying and salt-water "process" foods. Chopping food up is a process. Mixing it is a process. Salt is a chemical.

Using terms and phrases used for political purposes and to scare people serves the same purpose--to make it seem distant and scary and new and horrible.

Sandra



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zann jo

Thank you. I clarified my writing a little bit, and tried to rewrite
my question, below.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-I am wanting to send this
> to only Sandra because I am looking for understanding for what I am
> attempting to do-=-
>
> The purpose of the list and the method, though, is NOT just to address one person, but to address the group. It's better for everyone.

Thank you (I don't want to "sound" argumentative or contrary, I am
genuinely searching for understanding)

>
> -=-I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance
> guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old
> toddler have access to a busy street). -=-
>
> http://sandradodd.com/balance
>
> -=- And sometimes we shouldn't wait 30 years
> to see how it all turns out. -=-
>
> It's all anyone can do, no matter what their beliefs and fears are in this moment.  Not a single person can see 30 years into the future.
>

I had waited over 2 years to consider that his diet might need
evaluating - in retrospect, 2 years was was too long, for our son and
our family.


> -=- His personality/demeanor/... is
> completely different, he is generally settled (no more extreme
> agitation), happy, peaceful guy.  I think I was selective in listening
> to my instinct, I believed that sleep and food could always be self
> regulated if given freedom.-=-
>
> "Self regulation" isn't a term used in this discussion.  People pick up "rules" and ideas from all over the place, and come here and complain about them, or hold them up as what someone used to do and now they do something different.
>

sorry I used that phrase, what I meant was letting him come to / make
his own choices.

> If you limited nuts and now he's happy and peaceful, are you recommending that other people limit nuts?
> Would he not have had that allergy even if you had had bedtimes?
> Would he not have had that allergy even if you had been making him clean his plate?
>

I am sharing that limiting an allergen is very beneficial for *our*
son. When he wants soy or nuts, I interrupt and ask him about the
consequences that he has experienced before - that feels like
limiting/controlling - to me, therefore I am writing to understand if
what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
limiting and controlling.

I don't understand your question about bedtimes (he always chose to go
to bed around the same time the rest of the family went to bed, but
then would become very restless and agitated that he couldn't fall
asleep (one example, of many, me: "would you like to go play a little
longer, but quietly because mommy and daddy are sleeping?" him: "no,
(yelling) Me Tired!" on relatively good days, on bad days he would
just cry like when another kid took his toy our of his hands., etc.


> -=-Now, I want to assume that if our children are having difficulty
> (sleeping, focus, un-happiness) it is our responsibility to take note
> and limit the access until they are a bit older to make the connection
> that, for example, "If I eat this food, then I will feel bad ". -=-
>
> And limit the access to *food*?
> Are you pretty sure that a difficulty focussing has to do with diet?
> That unhappiness has to do with diet?
> That sleeping difficulties have to do with diet?
>

For our son, I *am* "pretty sure" that his difficulties had to with
some ingredients in his diet. They (focus, unhappiness, sleeping) all
dramatically changed after eliminating the allergens (focus and
unhappiness because of lack of sleep; lack of sleep because of food
allergens). My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a
food is necessary? this is what I understood, and again took away
from the balance article. - we can't have the extreme of never
limiting food, especially if a child is miserable. Our son was only 3
when we figured it out, and I am still feeling guilty - I would be
devastated (feel that I horribly failed him) if I had ignored his
symptoms for another 16ish years. It is important to look at the
whole picture, including food.

> -=-How
> his allergies manifested were not as obvious as anaphylactic, it could
> take hours or days for his body to produce a noticeable reaction to
> one particular ingestion.  And that often we even *crave* the allergic
> foods… definitely the situation with my son.  For me it was extremely
> difficult to make this change, it was so against how we had been
> parenting for the previous 6 years.  -=-
>
> If you like the idea that people crave what they're allergic too, and that it can take days for a reaction to show, and that your elmination of nuts made your child happy, then that's what you're going to believe.
>
> I think the world has a huge history of blaming and crediting all kinds of things with effects that occurred in natural and unrelated ways.  People look for signs and make sacrifices all the time, not just in churches.
>

I don't understand this bit (I am a little slow, not a linear thinker)
but if he only has these symptoms when he ingests the allergens, and
all other factors are the same, and if his food was never before
limited, and I never harbored any suspicion, or concern over healthy
nutrition, where does "belief" come into it? I mean if his peanut
allergy produced an anaphylactic response, would you say that is only
a belief? Or am I not understanding you comment at all?


> Sandra
>
> ------------------------------------
>

zann jo

yes, yes, yes, I agree with all of this, that is what I meant by that
sentence. and this is what we were doing - and if our child were
visually impaired, we would take additional steps to "show" them how
to safely cross the street. That is why I am asking in relation to
food, that shouldn't, sometimes "limiting" some foods should be
considered? (more detail in my response to Sandra)

- Suzanne



On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Colleen <3potatoes@...> wrote:
>
>
> ****I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old toddler have access to a busy street). ****
>
> Absolutely - you don't let him have access *on his own* to a busy street!
>
> But you also don't keep him away from streets.  You don't avoid streets and figure "he'll learn about those when he's older - when he's a teen or an adult, he can figure out how to cross on his own."  You don't want the street to become so tempting, so interesting, such a draw that even as a young person he's just waiting for you to be looking away so he can go out there and check out the road and try to get across on his own.
>
> Because busy streets are there - they are out there in the world - they are part of his life, even though his life might be safer and he might live longer if there were no busy streets - no fast drivers, inattentive drivers - no fast cars, motorcycles, bicycles all zipping by and potentially harming him when he wants to get from one side of the street to the other.
>
> When he's young, you go with him when he needs to get across the street.  You show him (even as a little guy, you still show him because he's watching you all the time!) how to cross safely.  You make sure as he grows older that he knows about crosswalks, crossing signals, crossing guards, who has the right of way, etc.  You give him lots of opportunities to cross the street *with* you because one day you won't be there, and you'll want him to have had lots of practice before he tries to get across the first time on his own.
>
> You can do the same with food.  You can acknowledge that factory foods, processed foods, dyed foods, chemical-filled foods, and other such things are out there.  You can bring some into your house.  You can keep them from being so very, very attractive (restricting something makes it more attractive) that your children sneak those foods, gorge on those foods, crave those foods so much that they hoard them in their closet and under their bed.  You can demystify the foods by making them just one of a zillion different options your children have to eat - no more or less powerful than any other food in terms of your reaction to them or your presentation of them.
>
> You can also share the kind of food you like - be that organic food, farm-fresh-food, raw food, vegan food, etc. etc.  You can talk in a non-judgmental way about where food comes from, how some is made and some is grown, what you like to eat, which foods make your body feel good.  You can Google things like Propylene Glycol and see when and how people decided to start eating it :-)  You can take trips to farms and farmers' markets, ethnic grocery stores, food festivals - I think there was a post with lots of ideas like that earlier.
>
> Keeping your child away from busy streets and never showing them how to get across safely is dangerous.  You give your kids the tools and practice they need to get across safely, while at the same time accepting that one day you won't be there and your child (maybe by then an adult) might choose to cross without looking both ways - might get hit by a car despite having the best preparation for street-crossing that you could provide.  But you *hope* that your child will remember his days with you - will remember that he should look for a crosswalk, wait for the light, be safe.  You make street crossing part of his world when he is little so he'll have a greater chance of crossing safely as he grows up.
>
> You can also make all sorts of foods, and eating without guilt and judgment, part of his life when he's little, so when he grows up he won't be facing the food-world without practice (or with a load of guilt and shame).  He doesn't need to grow into adulthood afraid of streets *or* afraid of factory food, even if inside you do hope he'll always look both ways and you hope he'll always choose the organic option :-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Deanna Buck Floyd

And, this is the response!!!!!!!! This seems so out of touch to me.
Seriously.


-----Original Message-----
From: AlwaysLearning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AlwaysLearning@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Sandra Dodd
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:42 PM
To: AlwaysLearning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] food choice & my parental responsibility

-=-I am wanting to send this
to only Sandra because I am looking for understanding for what I am
attempting to do-=-

The purpose of the list and the method, though, is NOT just to address one
person, but to address the group. It's better for everyone.

-=-I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance
guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old
toddler have access to a busy street). -=-

http://sandradodd.com/balance

-=- And sometimes we shouldn't wait 30 years
to see how it all turns out. -=-

It's all anyone can do, no matter what their beliefs and fears are in this
moment. Not a single person can see 30 years into the future.

-=- His personality/demeanor/... is
completely different, he is generally settled (no more extreme
agitation), happy, peaceful guy. I think I was selective in listening
to my instinct, I believed that sleep and food could always be self
regulated if given freedom.-=-

"Self regulation" isn't a term used in this discussion. People pick up
"rules" and ideas from all over the place, and come here and complain about
them, or hold them up as what someone used to do and now they do something
different.

If you limited nuts and now he's happy and peaceful, are you recommending
that other people limit nuts?
Would he not have had that allergy even if you had had bedtimes?
Would he not have had that allergy even if you had been making him clean his
plate?

-=-Now, I want to assume that if our children are having difficulty
(sleeping, focus, un-happiness) it is our responsibility to take note
and limit the access until they are a bit older to make the connection
that, for example, "If I eat this food, then I will feel bad ". -=-

And limit the access to *food*?
Are you pretty sure that a difficulty focussing has to do with diet?
That unhappiness has to do with diet?
That sleeping difficulties have to do with diet?

-=-How
his allergies manifested were not as obvious as anaphylactic, it could
take hours or days for his body to produce a noticeable reaction to
one particular ingestion. And that often we even *crave* the allergic
foods. definitely the situation with my son. For me it was extremely
difficult to make this change, it was so against how we had been
parenting for the previous 6 years. -=-

If you like the idea that people crave what they're allergic too, and that
it can take days for a reaction to show, and that your elmination of nuts
made your child happy, then that's what you're going to believe.

I think the world has a huge history of blaming and crediting all kinds of
things with effects that occurred in natural and unrelated ways. People
look for signs and make sacrifices all the time, not just in churches.

Sandra

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

<<<"I am sharing that limiting an allergen is very beneficial for *our*

son.  When he wants soy or nuts, I interrupt and ask him about the
consequences that he has experienced before - that feels like
limiting/controlling - to me, therefore I am writing to understand if
what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
limiting and controlling.">>>>

If he knows those things make him feel bad why is he asking for them? Or is he asking for something he does not know it has those ingredients?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


<<<<"For our son, I *am* "pretty sure" that his difficulties had to with
some ingredients in his diet.  They (focus, unhappiness, sleeping) all
dramatically changed after eliminating the allergens (focus and
unhappiness because of lack of sleep; lack of sleep because of food
allergens).  My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a
food is necessary? ">>>>>

I would say if my child was deadly allergic of something I would not give it to him.
But I find it hard to believe that a child  would rather die  than avoid something.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=- I am writing to understand if
what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
limiting and controlling.-=-

In a very real way, it doesn't matter.

-=- My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a
food is necessary? this is what I understood, and again took away
from the balance article. - we can't have the extreme of never
limiting food, especially if a child is miserable.-=-

If you're always limiting food, that's the other extreme.

-=- I mean if his peanut
allergy produced an anaphylactic response, would you say that is only
a belief? Or am I not understanding you comment at all?-=-

If he never has the food you suspect, how will you ever know if he's grown out of his allergy or if indeed it was an allergy? Perhaps he was very run down and limiting it helped right then, but that wasn't necessarily "the cure."

Will he learn to decide on his own when and whether to risk the effects?

I think #1 should be learning.

Sandra

zann jo

At 3 years old, he was not yet making that connection - he only knew
he wanted it. At 3 years old I would ask him and he would say "I
don't care", so I would say "we want you to be here with us, we would
miss you too much." Then he would say ok. On the a peanut allergy,
since it can be life threatening, and he tested very high, I didn't
want to make that chance with his life. Now at almost 6, he doesn't
ask anymore (even when he is with someone unfamiliar, that might not
know about his allergy, *he* will tell them he can't eat nuts or soy.)
Now he is making that connection, but at 3 years old, I needed to not
have it the house. So like I keep the bleach bottle locked up from
the 10 month old, but we have disabled the cabinet locks as the
children are older.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM, BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
<polykowholsteins@...> wrote:
>
>
> <<<"I am sharing that limiting an allergen is very beneficial for *our*
>
> son.  When he wants soy or nuts, I interrupt and ask him about the
> consequences that he has experienced before - that feels like
> limiting/controlling - to me, therefore I am writing to understand if
> what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
> limiting and controlling.">>>>
>
> If he knows those things make him feel bad why is he asking for them? Or is he asking for something he does not know it has those ingredients?
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
> <<<<"For our son, I *am* "pretty sure" that his difficulties had to with
> some ingredients in his diet.  They (focus, unhappiness, sleeping) all
> dramatically changed after eliminating the allergens (focus and
> unhappiness because of lack of sleep; lack of sleep because of food
> allergens).  My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a
> food is necessary? ">>>>>
>
> I would say if my child was deadly allergic of something I would not give it to him.
> But I find it hard to believe that a child  would rather die  than avoid something.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Sandra Dodd

-=-And, this is the response!!!!!!!! This seems so out of touch to me.
Seriously.-=-

Out of touch with what?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

I used to volunteer at a co-op where I would stay in the nursery with my daughter Gigi and there was this little boy her age, about 2 years old, that had a deadly allergy to peanuts. One that had landed him in the hospital a couple times where he could have died.
He came in with a little back pack and his own food and an epic pen, instructions if something happened.
He was very aware of his allergy and did not seem fearful but just aware. He never tried to sneak food and he always asked if a snack was OK for him. 
He was so little but he did not want to end up in the hospital because he could not breath.
His mom was not an alarmist. She just had everything ready in case something went wrong but she did not seem to make him fearful and tell him he could die. She was very matter of fact.

 
Alex Polikowsky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

***And, this is the response!!!!!!!! This seems so out of touch to me.

Seriously.***

How do you figure?  Out of touch of what?  This list?  Food?  What exactly?  Your response doesn't make sense at all and doesn't contribute to the discussion of food.  If you think someone's idea on food is out of touch, explain why you think so and then the conversation can continue.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Glenda

===My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a food is necessary?===

There is a range of anaphylaxis reactions, and they're not all of the throat-closing, can't-breathe variety.


For a younger child, I would not provide a food allergen that caused their throat to close up or impacted their breathing. If their reaction has not yet been that intense, before I made that food available I'd be sure to have a couple Epi-Pens handy and know how to use them because the next exposure *could* (but not necessarily) be a much more serious one, and being prepared would lessen the worry on my part enough that I would feel some level of comfort providing the food if requested.

As a child gets older, they can begin to understand anaphylaxis reactions and have a better idea of when they might need an adult's assistance or medical assistance -- especially if they've experienced an anaphylaxis reaction and remember it. One friend's daughter had this down pat when she started kindergarten (age 5) -- she'd already been to the E.R. more than once because of airborne exposure to peanuts -- so it *is* information that fairly young kids can grasp.


With allergy testing, some things show up as a quite strong allergic reaction, others much less so (this would be eggs in my husband's case). Food allergies can be impacted by environmental allergens, so that at a certain time of year your child might show a stronger reaction to something than at other times of the year -- that's good information to keep in the back of your mind, so that you're aware his body might tolerate something easier in, say, January than in September.


Try different brands of soy and nuts -- maybe you can find a source his body tolerates better that also makes his taste buds happy. Whole milk used in cereal causes my kiddo's gut to cramp and hurt, but 1% milk doesn't -- rather than taking milk completely away I buy 1% milk.

My body does not tolerate citric acid that's derived from corn+mold. My reactions to it are painfully physical, but also intensely emotional/behavorial -- but, thus far, I've not had the "typical" anaphylaxis reaction of throat-closing, trouble breathing, or hives. Some days, if you set a bag of citric acid-containing chips in front of me, I would eat them knowing that in an hour or less I'd have an intense migraine, my gut would hurt, and I'd be either crying or quick-tempered (or both), and I'd wake up the next day with other equally as painful side effects. We have citric-acid containing chips in our house all the time, because my husband and son like them. I know that I can eat them if I want them, but I've come to want them less and less because in my mind they equate to pain. But they are there if / when I want them.


There is a huge difference between not having those chips because it's my choice vs. because of someone else's decision that I shouldn't have them. I mean, my husband *could* ask that chips never be brought into the house because he feels sad when he sees me going through a reaction to citric acid, and me lashing out at him is not so fun for him either, I imagine. But he leaves the choice to me.


That said, I *do* have a throat-closing, can't-breathe reaction to shellfish . . . shellfish does not enter our house and that's been a mutual decision we've made -- when someone wants to eat it, we or they eat it at a restaurant. I didn't need someone to make that decision for me, because it was a scary enough reaction that I didn't want to have it repeated. Same with my son and the reaction he had to strawberries -- if, at some point, he wants to try strawberries again (because kids do sometimes outgrow food allergies), I'll be sure we have some Epi-Pens on-hand. I could tell him, "no strawberries as long as you live at home," but that takes the choice away from him, and when you take choice away kids are going to look for ways to get what they're not able to get at home. I don't want my son to feel that he can't be honest with me about something he's eaten. There are so many more important choices than food that he will be faced with making as he
grows up.

Think about the choices you make that impact the others in your household, and think about how you would feel if those choices were taken away. Do you ever stay up too late reading or watching tv or being on the computer? Are you then cranky the next day because of not enough sleep? Wouldn't you say that impacts your family? Are you ever late for an appointment because you didn't leave the house early enough? Does that make you irritable? Does that impact your family? Do you ever eat something because eating it makes you happy right that moment, even if later you wish you'd chosen to not eat it? Imagine not having the choice to eat something that made you happy, even if that happiness was only in the moment?


Look for ways to ease your food fears, so you can offer those foods to your son happily and joyfully.


Glenda

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zann jo

Ok, I am really slow because this feels like you are just nit-picking
my post and entirely avoiding my question. Would you be willing to
take a moment to rephrase your answer? (to my question, not my
vocabulary mistakes).
His allergies to soy and nuts are fact, not just a hunch or "belief" -
I don't understand why you assumed otherwise - especially since peanut
allergy *is* so very dire to those that have it. Until these last 80
or so posts on food choice/control, I was confident in his learning,
because we were approaching the allergies much like the way Colleen
described showing very young children how to navigate the street. Yet
after these last few days of discussion I was wondering, wanting more
understanding on what you meant by limiting/controlling.

- Suzanne



On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=- I am writing to understand if
> what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
> limiting and controlling.-=-
>
> In a very real way, it doesn't matter.
>
> -=- My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a
> food is necessary?  this is what I understood, and again took away
> from the balance article. - we can't have the extreme of never
> limiting food, especially if a child is miserable.-=-
>
> If you're always limiting food, that's the other extreme.
>
> -=- I mean if his peanut
> allergy produced an anaphylactic response, would you say that is only
> a belief?  Or am I not understanding you comment at all?-=-
>
> If he never has the food you suspect, how will you ever know if he's grown out of his allergy or if indeed it was an allergy?  Perhaps he was very run down and limiting it helped right then, but that wasn't necessarily "the cure."
>
> Will he learn to decide on his own when and whether to risk the effects?
>
> I think #1 should be learning.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Pam Sorooshian

-=- I am writing to understand if
> what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
> limiting and controlling.-=
>

Unschooling is not about limiting and controlling or not limiting and not
controlling.

It is about learning - it is about setting the stage for our kids to learn
a little about a lot of things and a lot about a few things. Learning about
how bodies work and how they react to different foods and activities is
PART of learning.

Kids can learn about foods and their own needs and safety and health the
same way they learn to be safe in the out-of-doors or in a kitchen or near
a lake. Maybe try to consider it that way. Give them opportunities to
learn. Too much restriction, control, and limiting is counterproductive to
helping them learn. Conventional parenting does a LOT of controlling and
limiting - often so much that it results in serious shut-downs of learning
processes and creates resistance or apathy in the developing child. Some
people take "freedom" as their slogan and go the opposite extreme and don't
step in to control or limit enough. I have had some of those people come to
my house and think their kid should have "freedom' to tease my dog or play
in my bed or throw food around the living room. They weren't invited back,
and focusing on "freedom" is not helping their kids learn valuable things
about how to function in the world.

Unschooling isn't about control or freedom; it is about creating a
lifestyle in our families that is conducive to learning. In general,
though, controlling, limiting, and restricting isn't conducive to learning.
That is a general principle. In general, try to avoid those if you can.

Unschoolers try to find ways to keep kids safe enough (not perfectly 100
percent safe at all times) that, at the same time, support learning. What
that looks like in YOUR family is going to depend on too many factors for
us to have a clue.

-pam


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zann jo

Oh, where did I say I have "food fears"? Am I "afraid" of cars
because they are fast? or am I just aware that they can kill? I am so
so so so disappointed to have posted looking for help and
understanding, but what I have received is attacks and blame? If I
NEGLECT my son's very real NUTRITIONAL needs then I am not fit to be a
parent, so I was searching for understanding - why not explain
directly rather than read so much in-between the lines?



On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Glenda <wtexans@...> wrote:
> ===My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a food is necessary?===
>
> There is a range of anaphylaxis reactions, and they're not all of the throat-closing, can't-breathe variety.
>
>
> For a younger child, I would not provide a food allergen that caused their throat to close up or impacted their breathing. If their reaction has not yet been that intense, before I made that food available I'd be sure to have a couple Epi-Pens handy and know how to use them because the next exposure *could* (but not necessarily) be a much more serious one, and being prepared would lessen the worry on my part enough that I would feel some level of comfort providing the food if requested.
>
> As a child gets older, they can begin to understand anaphylaxis reactions and have a better idea of when they might need an adult's assistance or medical assistance -- especially if they've experienced an anaphylaxis reaction and remember it. One friend's daughter had this down pat when she started kindergarten (age 5) -- she'd already been to the E.R. more than once because of airborne exposure to peanuts -- so it *is* information that fairly young kids can grasp.
>
>
> With allergy testing, some things show up as a quite strong allergic reaction, others much less so (this would be eggs in my husband's case). Food allergies can be impacted by environmental allergens, so that at a certain time of year your child might show a stronger reaction to something than at other times of the year -- that's good information to keep in the back of your mind, so that you're aware his body might tolerate something easier in, say, January than in September.
>
>
> Try different brands of soy and nuts -- maybe you can find a source his body tolerates better that also makes his taste buds happy. Whole milk used in cereal causes my kiddo's gut to cramp and hurt, but 1% milk doesn't -- rather than taking milk completely away I buy 1% milk.
>
> My body does not tolerate citric acid that's derived from corn+mold. My reactions to it are painfully physical, but also intensely emotional/behavorial -- but, thus far, I've not had the "typical" anaphylaxis reaction of throat-closing, trouble breathing, or hives. Some days, if you set a bag of citric acid-containing chips in front of me, I would eat them knowing that in an hour or less I'd have an intense migraine, my gut would hurt, and I'd be either crying or quick-tempered (or both), and I'd wake up the next day with other equally as painful side effects. We have citric-acid containing chips in our house all the time, because my husband and son like them. I know that I can eat them if I want them, but I've come to want them less and less because in my mind they equate to pain. But they are there if / when I want them.
>
>
> There is a huge difference between not having those chips because it's my choice vs. because of someone else's decision that I shouldn't have them. I mean, my husband *could* ask that chips never be brought into the house because he feels sad when he sees me going through a reaction to citric acid, and me lashing out at him is not so fun for him either, I imagine. But he leaves the choice to me.
>
>
> That said, I *do* have a throat-closing, can't-breathe reaction to shellfish . . . shellfish does not enter our house and that's been a mutual decision we've made -- when someone wants to eat it, we or they eat it at a restaurant. I didn't need someone to make that decision for me, because it was a scary enough reaction that I didn't want to have it repeated. Same with my son and the reaction he had to strawberries -- if, at some point, he wants to try strawberries again (because kids do sometimes outgrow food allergies), I'll be sure we have some Epi-Pens on-hand. I could tell him, "no strawberries as long as you live at home," but that takes the choice away from him, and when you take choice away kids are going to look for ways to get what they're not able to get at home. I don't want my son to feel that he can't be honest with me about something he's eaten. There are so many more important choices than food that he will be faced with making as he
>  grows up.
>
> Think about the choices you make that impact the others in your household, and think about how you would feel if those choices were taken away. Do you ever stay up too late reading or watching tv or being on the computer? Are you then cranky the next day because of not enough sleep? Wouldn't you say that impacts your family? Are you ever late for an appointment because you didn't leave the house early enough? Does that make you irritable? Does that impact your family? Do you ever eat something because eating it makes you happy right that moment, even if later you wish you'd chosen to not eat it? Imagine not having the choice to eat something that made you happy, even if that happiness was only in the moment?
>
>
> Look for ways to ease your food fears, so you can offer those foods to your son happily and joyfully.
>
>
> Glenda
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Sandra Dodd

-=- Until these last 80
or so posts on food choice/control, I was confident in his learning,
because we were approaching the allergies much like the way Colleen
described showing very young children how to navigate the street. Yet
after these last few days of discussion I was wondering, wanting more
understanding on what you meant by limiting/controlling.-=-

Your confidence in your son's learning should be based on your relationship with your son, and on his learning. Not based on anything anyone else thinks or writes.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zann jo

ok! thank you, If that is always true, then I guess I don't need this
list for support.



On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=- Until these last 80
> or so posts on food choice/control, I was confident in his learning,
> because we were approaching the allergies much like the way Colleen
> described showing very young children how to navigate the street. Yet
> after these last few days of discussion I was wondering, wanting more
> understanding on what you meant by limiting/controlling.-=-
>
> Your confidence in your son's learning should be based on your relationship with your son, and on his learning.  Not based on anything anyone else thinks or writes.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Marina DeLuca-Howard

I am confused. Many kids I have met and one is a good friend of Crispin's
discovered, their allergy because the child swelled and got hives. With
William the boy was a year old and it was his dads peanut butter sandwich
that he got a taste off. His eyes swelled shut, and he was in rough shape.
He was rushed to hospital. Because this was his first reaction, after
exposure since infancy they assumed constant contact had made his reactions
worse. They assumed it was serious after the allergy test. He reacts to
honey nut cheerios by getting a rash on his cheeks. Will has since age two
and a half been very careful about coming in contact with nuts as well as
peanuts. He carries an epi pen with him.

We have young friends with other allergies-they tend to be very careful. My
middle son says he is lactose intolerant, and he does not like milk or
cheese. I buy coconut yoghurt for Marty. He only eats melted cheese by
choice. He also thinks he is allergic to potatoes and began rejecting them
early on. He says they taste like dirt and they make him feel yucky. For me
its enough he does not want to eat them and he never has to.

But I have never quite understood that theory that people will eat what
makes them ill. I found as a La Leche Leader many babies who were rejecting
foods, later were identified as being allergic.

Marina

On 15 March 2012 21:05, zann jo <zannjo@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ok, I am really slow because this feels like you are just nit-picking
> my post and entirely avoiding my question. Would you be willing to
> take a moment to rephrase your answer? (to my question, not my
> vocabulary mistakes).
> His allergies to soy and nuts are fact, not just a hunch or "belief" -
> I don't understand why you assumed otherwise - especially since peanut
> allergy *is* so very dire to those that have it. Until these last 80
> or so posts on food choice/control, I was confident in his learning,
> because we were approaching the allergies much like the way Colleen
> described showing very young children how to navigate the street. Yet
> after these last few days of discussion I was wondering, wanting more
> understanding on what you meant by limiting/controlling.
>
> - Suzanne
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
> wrote:
> > -=- I am writing to understand if
> > what I am thinking is limiting&controlling is also what *you* mean is
> > limiting and controlling.-=-
> >
> > In a very real way, it doesn't matter.
> >
> > -=- My question is: isn't there some times when limiting a
> > food is necessary? this is what I understood, and again took away
> > from the balance article. - we can't have the extreme of never
> > limiting food, especially if a child is miserable.-=-
> >
> > If you're always limiting food, that's the other extreme.
> >
> > -=- I mean if his peanut
> > allergy produced an anaphylactic response, would you say that is only
> > a belief? Or am I not understanding you comment at all?-=-
> >
> > If he never has the food you suspect, how will you ever know if he's
> grown out of his allergy or if indeed it was an allergy? Perhaps he was
> very run down and limiting it helped right then, but that wasn't
> necessarily "the cure."
> >
> > Will he learn to decide on his own when and whether to risk the effects?
> >
> > I think #1 should be learning.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Bread and Roses
http://breadandrosescentennial.org/

Trust, Equality and Goodwill

It's not just that the ends do not justify the means (though they don't),
you will never achieve the ends at all unless the means are themselves a
model for the world you wish to create. .*David Graeber*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-ok! thank you, If that is always true, then I guess I don't need this
list for support.-=-

This list isn't "for support."
And you're looking, still, for "always" and "true," rather than what makes sense, and doing better.

If the discussions in this forum are helpful, that's great. If it's not, there are hundreds of resources for homeschoolers and millions for other focuses and angles of life.

The list is clearly marked. "This is a list for the examination of the philosophy of unschooling and attentive parenting and a place for sharing examined lives based on the principles underlying unschooling." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/

Support tends to look and sound like this: http://sandradodd.com/support

The moderators are all volunteers who spend extra time reading every post and trying to keep it focussed and peaceful. No one is trying to hurt anyone or make anyone unhappy. We're trying to discuss unschooling and attentive parenting with people who really care about the underlying principles.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

wtexans

===ok! thank you, If that is always true, then I guess I don't need this list for support.===

You've only been a member since March 4th. New members are encouraged to read a while and get a feel for how the list operates.

I was a list member for a good long while when my son was younger, then left all Yahoo Groups for a period of time, then rejoined this list in Aug. 2010. In all the time I've read here, I've had my share of moments when someone has replied to a post of mine and my first reaction to their reply was irritation. What I've discovered is that that irritation is a signal to me to step back and think about what I found irritating. Every single time I've done that, taking my irritation completely out of the equation, I've had an "ah-ha" moment -- I had one as a part of this discussion, in fact!

There are so many wonderful discussions on this list. It always seems a shame to me when someone, especially someone new to the list, gets offended during a discussion and announces they're leaving because of that discussion.

Sandra recommends to read a little, try a little, wait a while, and watch. Reread the thread and let it roll around in your mind for several days, taking irritation out of the picture. Maybe there will be an "ah-ha" moment for you. Or maybe not. But I bet there WILL be for *someone* who's been reading this thread.

Glenda

Joyce Fetteroll

On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:54 PM, zann jo wrote:

> I am thinking that as parents it is our responsibility to balance
> guidance to provide a safe environment (We don't let our 10 month old
> toddler have access to a busy street).

I think what might be confusing you about the replies is that the result is the same -- kids end up in a safe environment for learning -- but radical unschoolers are taking a different thought path to get there.

You're looking for people to agree that sometimes Mama Bear mode needs to kick in to protect her young. But people are saying Be your child's partner which sounds like missing the point.

It's a lot like people's initial reaction to unschooling. They're searching for words that sound like teaching so it's hard to get what people are saying instead about how unschooled kids learn.

When a mom is a child's partner, she takes on the parts the team needs that the child can't yet. She doesn't do it for him so much as in conjunction with him. She steers the team away from roads, pointing out the cars, mentioning the cars, puts the information into the environment so the child can pick it up when he's able. She steers the team toward better options for fun (and learning). She creates a safe atmosphere for learning.

If a child has a problem with peanuts, since she's the one bringing food into the house, she keeps peanuts out of the home. As the child's partner, she checks ingredients in snacks with him -- even before he can understand. She will carry an epi pen or pack one with him. She will mention peanuts will make him sick when it comes up. The goal isn't to teach him or get him to understand but to create the safe atmosphere where he can learn. All the little skills going into avoiding peanuts will be a natural part of the child's life and he'll pick it up as naturally has he picks up English.

While Mama Bears and partners will both have safe children, the focus of partners is in creating a safe environment for the child to learn. The focus of Mama Bears is keeping the child safe. It's not that Mama Bears don't want their kids to learn. It's that it's not built into the process of being a Mama Bear. It's an add on to being a barrier between the child and the world that's too dangerous for the child to navigate. It's an add on that many people won't add on when they grasp the concept of Mama Bear. Their focus will be on being a barrier between their child and the dangerous world that wants to harm their child.

But being the child's learning partner, learning and a rich, safe environment for learning are central.

Joyce

lalow

Ive always wondered what made that difference. Mt middle son is 9 and is allergic to peanuts and milk, when he was younger he was allergic to eggs, bananas and soy. He has never snuck food, shown any desire to eat food that would hurt him. Refused bananas and eggs for along time prior to us even knowing he was allergic to them. His milk allergy is not as severe as his peanut allergy and he seems to know that, will occasionally try things with dairy in it and usually descides he doesnt want more based on the way he feels. Has never shown any interest in peanuts though. He understands about labels and has for several years and will ask if things are ok for him. Ive always tried to have safe foods for him that were atleast as desirable as things that might be offered at activities in case. Because i try to do that he is now ok with waiting. For ex. The other day my dad took us to dinner, the kids wanted dessert but there was nothing he could eat. I just said, if you dont mind waiting we'll stop and get you an italian ice on the way home. He was happy and patiently waited for the other kids to eat theirs.
I have aquantences though whose kids have allergies and they are often found eating foods that make their lips swell up and itch. They hide the foods from them and then the kids sneak it.
If a food made Bens tongue or lips itch or if he felt anything uncomfortable about it he wouldnt eat it. That being said I know I have been respected his food preferences from the time he was a baby, honestly better than I have with my other kids.



--- In AlwaysLearning@yahoogroups.com, BRIAN POLIKOWSKY <polykowholsteins@...> wrote:
>
> I used to volunteer at a co-op where I would stay in the nursery with my daughter Gigi and there was this little boy her age, about 2 years old, that had a deadly allergy to peanuts. One that had landed him in the hospital a couple times where he could have died.
> He came in with a little back pack and his own food and an epic pen, instructions if something happened.
> He was very aware of his allergy and did not seem fearful but just aware. He never tried to sneak food and he always asked if a snack was OK for him. 
> He was so little but he did not want to end up in the hospital because he could not breath.
> His mom was not an alarmist. She just had everything ready in case something went wrong but she did not seem to make him fearful and tell him he could die. She was very matter of fact.
>
>  
> Alex Polikowsky
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Karen

*****************
> Ok, I am really slow because this feels like you are just nit-picking
> my post and entirely avoiding my question. Would you be willing to
> take a moment to rephrase your answer? (to my question, not my
> vocabulary mistakes).
> His allergies to soy and nuts are fact, not just a hunch or "belief" -
> I don't understand why you assumed otherwise - especially since peanut
> allergy *is* so very dire to those that have it. Until these last 80
> or so posts on food choice/control, I was confident in his learning,
> because we were approaching the allergies much like the way Colleen
> described showing very young children how to navigate the street. Yet
> after these last few days of discussion I was wondering, wanting more
> understanding on what you meant by limiting/controlling.
*****************

My son, Ethan, had asthma for the first five years of his life. We didn't know why, and I was getting frustrated by the fists full of prescriptions we left the doctor's office with. Finally, seeing my despair, our pediatrician ordered allergy tests. They were very revealing. Ethan tested very allergic to corn, and peanuts, moderately allergic to dairy, and mildly allergic to wheat. Can you imagine what I thought? What the heck are we going to eat?!!

Now, Ethan was not dangerously allergic to any of these foods. He had previously been eaten peanut butter and jam sandwiches several times a week. Corn was in almost everything we ate. Bread was a daily part of our diet. Chocolate milk was his favourite drink. Yet, something was causing him regular breathing problems, and finding out if it *was* one of these foods was important to me. Getting him off prescription medicine was important to me as well.

So, for a few months I stopped buying any of these foods. Ethan and I started reading labels together and began experimenting with alternatives. I tried to make it fun. I ended up learning about a lot of food related things. I had no idea corn was so prevalent before our journey began. Corn is a fascinating plant actually! Ethan learned about what was in our food too. He also learned where our food is made, what percentages mean, what vitamins are, that nuts can taste like milk, that chocolate doesn't need milk or corn to taste great...

The best part was that the asthma stopped. He hasn't needed any medication since. But our learning didn't stop there. After a bit of time, we began reintroducing some of those foods. If I noticed changes I would point them out. Ethan also noticed changes on his own. Milk every day certainly does seem to bring on congestion for him, but he still can enjoy his favourite ice cream cone any time he gets a craving for one, and he really loves chocolate almond milk. One time, just the smell of peanut butter brought on an asthma attack, although recently, he ate some peanuts at a restaurant and was fine. Similarly, he can have corn for a couple days. Much more than that, he begins coughing. We started making popcorn for movies again. Still, he often requests some other treat - like chips or a snack platter filled with food he discovered he loved because we began down this road together.

So, it isn't about control. It is about partnering through. And, if the focus is on learning and not on the food allergy itself, then the doors actually open wide into a world full of fun food possibilities just waiting to be discovered as a natural part of living in the world to one's fullest! Understanding about each our own unique relationship with that vast world of food deepens too.

Jenny Cyphers

***But I have never quite understood that theory that people will eat what
makes them ill. I found as a La Leche Leader many babies who were rejecting
foods, later were identified as being allergic.***

Aside from LLL, that has been my experience too.  Kids will reject what makes them ill.  For my own kids that's been eggs and dairy.  Both of them have incorporated both of those things into their diets in ways that they personally experience comfort and desire.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

 ***Our son was only 3
when we figured it out, and I am still feeling guilty - I would be
devastated (feel that I horribly failed him) if I had ignored his
symptoms for another 16ish years.  It is important to look at the
whole picture, including food.***

> -=-How
> his allergies manifested were not as obvious as anaphylactic, it could
> take hours or days for his body to produce a noticeable reaction to
> one particular ingestion. 

The first part, in conjunction with the second part which you wrote earlier, isn't very consistent.  If you had ignored his food allergy for 16 yrs and he never had an anaphylactic reaction, would that be a bad thing?  The BIG part you are missing here, is that it is VERY possible your son would have naturally gravitated to things he didn't have any kind of reaction to.  If you weren't offering a varied diet, he wouldn't have been able to choose.  It seems from what you wrote, that you offered a lot of nuts and soy.  What would your child do now if you offered everything?

 My younger daughter reacted badly to dairy when she was younger.  It wasn't a big deal to find alternatives.  Once she knew the difference and asked for things with dairy, we gave it to her.  She went through a time where she would eat it and get sick, but eventually she found a balance of what her body can tolerate.  She can go a whole week and not eat anything with dairy and then eat pizza and ice cream in one day.  When she was really tiny, that would have made her really sick, but it doesn't anymore.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

***Oh, where did I say I have "food fears"? Am I "afraid" of cars
because they are fast? or am I just aware that they can kill? I am so
so so so disappointed to have posted looking for help and
understanding, but what I have received is attacks and blame? If I
NEGLECT my son's very real NUTRITIONAL needs then I am not fit to be a
parent, so I was searching for understanding - why not explain
directly rather than read so much in-between the lines?***

Perhaps it's just me, but it seemed clear to me, that you are very afraid that your son will have an anaphylactic reaction to the things he has been told he's allergic to.

You aren't talking about nutrition.  Other people are talking about nutrition.  You are talking about allergies and your son's reaction to certain foods.

To me, allergies and nutrition are different things.  You could be allergic to peanuts, never eat them, and not be healthy at all because you don't eat healthy.  That's not uncommon at all.  When you examine what makes people make unhealthy food choices, it seems to always be about food control.  

This seems to be what you are missing in the whole big picture that people are talking about.  You have a very little kid.  It's easy to control the food of a very little kid.  It doesn't make it healthy, but it is easy. It goes like this; you only offer the foods you think are healthy, you only buy the foods you think are good, you only serve the foods you think are right.

And now, I'm going to make assumptions based on things you've said.  I could be wrong, but the point will be the same.  I'm going to assume that your family is vegetarian and that when offering proteins you were offering things you know to be good and healthy based on a vegetarian diet and what you know for yourself to be good and healthy for you.  Given a whole world of food choices, each parent will offer what they believe is good and healthy.  There's nothing wrong with that.  If your kid isn't sleeping and having other issues and you "think" it might be food, instead of getting scared and finding food allergies, consider simply offering more variety, changing things up so that a kid can choose between a wider variety of things.

If you know FOR SURE that you child gets sick from eating a particular thing, offer alternatives to that thing.  If the child asks for that thing, give it to them in small quantities and tell them to watch for "______(insert whatever symptoms you've seen)".  For Margaux that would have been rashes and diarrhea and crankiness from feeling yucky.  The thing is, it wasn't an issue.  We had non dairy fudge-sicles.  She never knew the difference.  We did that with lots of things.  Eventually she became more aware of the wider world and what was out there.  Just like she naturally wanted to crawl and walk and touch everything, she wanted to eat things too, so she did. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Meredith

Marina DeLuca-Howard <delucahoward@...> wrote:
>> But I have never quite understood that theory that people will eat what
> makes them ill. I found as a La Leche Leader many babies who were rejecting
> foods, later were identified as being allergic.

The vegetables I tried to reject as a child, and then tried to "make" myself eat as a young adult (because I was health conscious) are foods I've later found I have trouble digesting. I'm not allergic to them, but they give me gas and other digestive complaints.

My brother tried to avoid milk as a child. At that time, lactose intolerance was a known thing, but not the wider spread of dairy issues and sensitivities known today. Turns out he has a mild difficulty with one of the fats in milk.

One of the interesting things I've seen as my friends all are getting older, is how dietary needs change with age. I know vegetarians who've gone to eating meat because it seems to meet their nutritional needs better, and others who've become vegetarian. But many times those changes come about because people are willing to listen to their bodies over and above whatever is the leading theory (or leading alternative theory) on nutrition.

People will experiment with foods which may or may not make them ill or uncomfortable - it can be difficult to tell Which foods are culprits, especially as some foods interact with hormones and hormone production isn't a constant. And even allergic reactions can be odd - my ex's tongue used to swell when she'd eat some foods, for instance, but mostly it was just a little uncomfortable, not enough to outweigh the delights of eggplant parmigiana.

---Meredith

Sandra Dodd

I was cleaning off my desktop (a neverending project) and noticed this. The original poster is gone, but still, this jumped out at me today in a still-open e-mail.

Alex Polikowsky had written: " If he knows those things make him feel bad why is he asking for them? "

----------------
The response was:
----------------

At 3 years old, he was not yet making that connection - he only knew
he wanted it. At 3 years old I would ask him and he would say "I
don't care", so I would say "we want you to be here with us, we would
miss you too much." Then he would say ok. On the a peanut allergy,
since it can be life threatening, and he tested very high, I didn't
want to make that chance with his life. Now at almost 6, he doesn't
ask anymore

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So he "tested very high" for a peanut allergy, but had not had them make him feel bad.
I think the mother was taking his request as evidence of allergy, because she had said people crave what they're allergic to.

He asked for peanuts (or something) and she told him she would miss him if he died. So it turned into "If you love me, you won't ask for this anymore."

At five, almost six, he doesn't ask anymore.

He might not be allergic to peanuts. He hadn't had a reaction. There are all kinds of allergy tests around, some quite bogus, and any of them inconclusive, I think.

I know from birthing activism years ago, and from personal experience, that one way women in labor are manipulated is by people saying, "You don't want a dead baby, do you?" or if a mom asks whether she has to go along with a procedure, sometimes the answer is "Yes, if you want the baby to live." And often those are statements made for the ease of the medical professionals. They're said early on, about things like pitocin and invasive procedures.

But anyway... the parallel is that threatening death is not a good example of kind partnership. And if the child had never had a serious reaction to peanuts, letting him eat one and feel how he felt would have been better than making him afraid of the whole world, perhaps unnecessarily, and making him feel fragile, on the one hand, and responsible for his mother's continuing happiness, on the other.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]