If indeed the child has this alergy it would be a simple thing to do a skin prick analysis as is done with many potential alergy suspicitions.
No drought the mother has had this done in the past and should not object.
The data shows that Acorns do and can cause reactions form serious to minor .. But the product must be ingested. There is no definitive evidence that the problem exists unless ingested.
Surely the child can be instructed not to eat the tree nut.

Won't someone please think of the children!!!!!!!!

Cut down all the trees so we have no nuts, kill all the bees and the flowers (but don't use any pesticides). Only through the eradication of all natural threats may our chikldren finally live in complete safety.

thank heavens people like this shreik the loudest so we can establish thresholds for stupidity.

The mother must be removed from her children's home as she is the biggest NUT and therefore a health threat to these children. Why hasn't Vaughan's Children's Aid Society acted yet?

First, medical authorities have been quoted as saying there is no known allergy to acorns.

More importantly, this mother is quoted as saying, "Many of the students unfortunately mistake the acorns for hazelnuts as they look similar." That is all well and good, but if her children made this mistake, are they not aware that they have such a severe allergy?!? If so, they will avoid anything that even remotely appears to look like something they are supposed to stay away from.

This highlights the stupidity of banning things (peanuts, tree nuts, bananas, etc) from schools: it is human nature to be more careless when one is under the belief that one is in a so-called 'safe' environment. It is the responsibility of the person with the allergy to be aware that dangers are around them and that they take appropriate actions to avoid those dangers, and be on their toes at all times.

Banning substances (or cutting down trees) gives the false sense of security that everything is perfectly fine. Banning something has the effect of instilling the belief that nobody will break that ban, but we all know that is not the case. Even if the ban is observed, we are talking about children. Little Johnny that loves peanut butter knows he can't bring it to school, and follows that rule faithfully. But little Johnny has it on toast with breakfast before going to school. Little Johnny washes up after breakfast as well as most other children (i.e.: not very well) and goes to school with traces of peanut butter on his hands and face. Little Johnny touches all sorts of things at school and all those children with severe peanut allergies behave in school the way anyone would with a peanut allergy would when in a place they believe is "peanut free" - they let their guard down because there is nothing to worry about at school.

Are they really at risk?

'we comfortably recommend that people with a nut allergy should be able to have contact with acorns or pine cones without risk of an allergic reaction'

http://www.schoolhealthservicesny.com/uploads/Acorns%20Pinecones.pdf

Aw, come on. Put a "muzzle" on a kids (just kidding), But seriously, with all the medication today, special devices and so on, there should be something that would work?!
I am allergic to stupid coffe. Coffe is everywhere!!! Should I start to demand that all Tim Horton's be closed? Should I start walking with a sign and demand a total ban on coffe in Canada?
It's absurd! Can't we all get along. Grrrr,....

I think this woman needs to stop and think. Is this approach setting a good and reasonable example for her children, in solving their problems in the future? She may have a track record of doing good work in the past, but she has gone too far here. There are other solutions to allergies, that do not involve moving trees. Perhaps she should be campaigning against toxic material usage in home building, or overuse of antibiotics and antibacterials, or toxic waste dumps. Misspent energy.