''I'm confused, and I work in the industry,'' said Sydney-based paediatric allergist Elizabeth Pickford. ''I think the 'lunchbox friendly' labelling is really deceptive. Mums are going to think this is a safe product when they see it.'' Last month Nestle and A&AA wrote to student welfare officers at thousands of schools and kindergartens nationwide. The letter has the logos of both A&AA and Nestle and is co-signed by A&AA president Maria Said and Nestle nutrition manager Susan Kevork. ''To reduce the risk to children with life-threatening nut allergies, it is common for schools to put a restriction on nuts as part of their allergy management policy,'' the letter states. ''While allergen restrictions do reduce risk, this strategy must be part of an overall management plan as risk can never be totally removed. To think so would increase risk to those with a food allergy.'' Ms Said admitted the charity had received funding from Nestle over a number of years, most recently a $5000 grant for its Food Allergy Awareness week.

''This is not a money-making exercise for our organisation, this is about getting clarity of information out to consumers when there is so much misinformation out there,'' she said. The letter then directs schools to the A&AA website, where the charity opposes banning nuts from schools. ''It is impossible to think we can remove all traces of allergens from within a school environment,'' Ms Said told Fairfax Media. ''That would mean we ask kids to bring water bottles to schools, and not much more.'' Mums are going to think this is a safe product when they see it. Many doctors disagree.

''It's a very simple request for parents not to bring nuts to school,'' said Dr Pickford. ''Honestly, little kids need to be protected, often from themselves. To a little kid, someone else's lunchbox can seem irresistible. Often kids with an allergy will eat something from someone else's lunchbox and then not tell anyone, in case they get in trouble.'' Victorian-based allergy specialist Brett Knight said severe reactions to products with even the slightest trace of nuts were possible. ''If you don't have a nut-free policy at schools, then you need greater management and oversight,'' said Dr Knight. ''That is very hard. That's why the simplest solution, especially for many younger children, is for schools to have a no-nut policy.'' In recent years Nestle has lost market share to a number of health companies that make completely nut-free products, as schools adopt strict no-nut policies. The A&AA letter to schools does not disclose that the charity receives funding from Nestle.

Just two days before Christmas, A&AA informed its members of the tie-up with Uncle Tobys. A number of parents have since posted complaints on its website. ''Why would A&AA encourage kids to take nut products into school at all when there are plenty of nut-free snacks available?'' wrote Geelong mum Nicole Krasic. ''I'm all for education about allergies, but the [announcement] is simply Uncle Tobys marketing a product that 'appears nut free' and a way to ensure they can still sell products to kids. I'm disappointed that A&AA would support such an idea.'' Leanne San wrote: ''I don't get it … it can't be eaten if you have a nut allergy, so what's the benefit? Apart from a new marketing tactic?'' Nestle defended the new Uncle Tobys product.

''We've been very clear that this product range will not be suitable for nut allergy sufferers,'' said spokeswoman Margaret Stuart. Ms Stuart said Nestle was a ''silver supporter'' of A&AA, and the charity had also been engaged to provide ''additional consulting support''. The company would not put a dollar value on that support.