<p>Colleges can no longer simply exempt students with food allergies from student meal plans, they now must develop individualized meal plans (and provide these meals) to students, as well as special allergen-free spaces in dining halls.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a student with food allergies needed special accommodation in the dining halls in the past, Lissner said, colleges would sometimes opt to just excuse the student from the required meal plan (when it was required) rather than taking extra steps to ensure the student had a dining experience comparable to that of his or her peers. But judging by the agreement, thats not going to fly anymore.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Under the settlement terms, Lesley and presumably, other institutions that want to stay in line with ADA must do more than simply provide gluten- and allergen-free options in its food lines (though it has to do that to). It must also develop individualized meal plans for students with food allergies and allow them to preorder meals; provide a dedicated space in its main dining hall to store and prepare foods to avoid cross-contamination; display notices concerning food allergies and identify foods that contain specific allergens; train food service and staff about food allergies; and try to retain vendors that offer food without allergens.
<p>Surprised more people don’t find this interesting, given the frequent threads about food allergies and as well as the recent post questioning the need for college dining nutritionists on the “Administrative Bloat” thread…</p>
<p>I find it interesting but wonder how much difference it will actually make… if you only do the bare minimum to comply probably not that much. At my school, for example, they were willing to make dairy free meals for me but they were not anything the average person would find remotely palatable-- and because they offered these alternatives I had no ground to stand on in wanting out of the meal plan. So I had to pay for a meal plan I didn’t use.</p>
<p>I do think this is a good thing, though, and that more needs to be done to help students with allergies. Cross contamination in these buffet style cafeterias is a big issue.</p>
<p>Two cents-- I never questioned the need for nutritionists on that thread. I believe you are mis-quoting me. I pointed out that “back in the day” students with disabilities or food issues could not safely attend a residential college-- and I challenged the posters who claim it’s so easy to cut non-teaching personnel by pointing out that nutritionists would fall into that category of “easy to cut”. Along with police, other health and safety non teaching headcount…</p>
<p>@Proudpatriot: Tell me when you have a kid that can die a horrible, gasping, choking death in minutes after eating an allergen that it isn’t a disability. It is a disability above and beyond so many other disabilities, I can’t even describe. I have homeschooled 11 years trying to keep my daughter alive. Please, just google “food allergy deaths” and see if you can make the same comment after seeing all.those.faces.</p>
<p>Sorry but allergies are not disabilities. They just aren’t.</p>
<p>Could you share your definition of a disability?</p>
<p>I thought a disability was a condition that prevented you from doing something, that you could do, with accommodations. ( or actually something that you need help with to live,eat,work, etc)</p>
<p>Like read a book if it is in large print, or shop in a dept store if it has an elevator. Or breathe if allergens are restricted.</p>
<p>Proudpatriot, would you consider severe asthma a disability? How about other breathing related disorders? How is not being able to breathe normally (whether in the long term, chronic or sudden onset and life threathening example) different in terms of disability from someone who has difficulty with say, walking? I think we can all agree that the ability to walk is less impactful on life expectancy than the ability to breathe. </p>
<p>Food allergies can negatively impact an allergic person whether or not they’ve actually eaten the food - there have been allergy related deaths due to the inhalation of cooking fumes from sizzling seafood.</p>
<p>Cutting the fat from a budget is better done with surgical precision than a slash and burn mentality - if it were easy we wouldn’t have so many financial challenges to keep us busy.</p>
<p>Proudpatriot, since this is an education forum, this is wonderful chance for you to educate yourself on what disabilities can mean and how we can accommodate them to be more inclusive.</p>
<p>Its a good idea for citizens of a country to familiarize themselves with the laws of a country, even if they don’t think that those laws have any relevance to their lives.
[Disability</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability]Disability”>Disability - Wikipedia)
:)</p>
<p>As nice as this sounds in theory, I have to echo ema. I moved out of the dorms because the alternative dishes they gave me were just not that good. I would have LOVED to opt out as I rarely ate in the caf anyway. I never even thought of that as an option.</p>
<p>I am not uneducated. I simply disagree with the majority on this thread.</p>
<p>Food allergies do not meet the definition stated in the link (not that Wikipedia is the be all and end all of sources).</p>
<p>Someone who is allergic to food is not impaired. Not being able to eat peanuts (or whatever) is not an impairment.</p>
<p>Not being able to eat certain foods does not limit anyone’s activities.</p>
<p>Not being able to eat certain foods does not stop someone from participating in society.</p>
<p>Food allergies are serious. It is appropriate for any communal dining service to provide a wide range of food options, to list all ingredients, and to prevent cross contamination. It is not appropriate for the federal government to create new rights for people who have allergies. Not being able to eat certain foods not the same as being blind, or deaf. Those people are disabled and putting food allergies in the same category as truly disabled people is a testament to how dysfunctional our government is.</p>
<p>"The ADAAA and the final regulations define a disability using a three-pronged approach:</p>
<pre><code>a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (sometimes referred to in the regulations as an “actual disability”), or
a record of a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity (“record of”), or
when a covered entity takes an action prohibited by the ADA because of an actual or perceived impairment that is not both transitory and minor (“regarded as”). [Section 1630.2(g)]"
</code></pre>
<p>Eating and breathing are major life activities. So a person who cannot breathe has a disability. </p>
<p>As far as saying that a person who is allergic just shouldn’t eat the food… yes, of course they shouldn’t and that’s why labeling is so important. However some people who are very seriously allergic cannot be around that food. That’s why they may need an area of the dining room that is peanut-free or whatever.</p>
<p>That is a far cry from a personalized meal plan. I agree that food allergies are serious. I just think that making them a disability is a problem. A person who cannot eat ANYTHING has a disability. A person who can’t eat one food is not disabled and does not need to have a personalized meal plan.</p>