Parents have accused a primary school of over reacting after it took all fish off its menu because one pupil is allergic.
Robert Le Kyng Primary School sent a letter to parents explaining the new pupil suffers severe reactions to haddock and tuna, and a blanket ban was needed to avoid any risks.
Traditional fish and chips is now off the school meals menu as well as fish fingers or tuna sandwiches.
Headteacher Susan Smith said the menu change was necessary to protect the unnamed girl at the school in Swindon, Wilts, but parents slammed the school for overreacting.
In a letter sent to the school's 415 pupils, she said: "In this case, the child in question will be joining us full-time in September, but is coming in part-time until then as part of an extended induction.
"She has had severe reactions, not just to the smell of cooking fish, but also when her mother touched her after eating a tuna sandwich.
"This is about the life-threatening nature of the reaction. The school nurse has said it is a balance between a dietary change and a life threatening issue, and we have to protect the children under our care.
"We appreciate this is quite a large response but at the moment it is necessary. The reactions so far have been to haddock, tuna and one other fish. It is very unusual."
The ban means that all children can't have fish in their lunchboxes and it will be off the menu for hot school dinners for the foreseeable future.
Mrs Smith said she hoped after more tests by the girl's doctors, the school may be able to alter the ban to make it more specific.
Parent Lee East has a 10-year-old daughter at the school with a peanut allergy, and thought the measures were harsh.
He said: "My daughter has her medication with her at school and with her friends they know she has an allergy and they are very careful around her.
"She doesn't want her friends to suffer because of her allergy. I don't see how this is grounds for banning it. It just seems that this is going over the top."
What do you think? Exactly what the school should do to protect the health of one child or too extreme?