Santa is a Bully October 20, 2014

On October 18^th, I decided it would be fun to get the house decorated for Halloween. We had a few things, but the family really wanted a spooky spider, you know one of those giant ones with the pipe cleaner legs. So, we ventured out and I have to say, I was absolutely dismayed at the limited offerings. Christmas has already moved in.

We started at Pier1 where Halloween (and fall really) had been relegated to a small rack. Fortunately, there was one giant spider left. Whew! Next we went to Lowes figuring there would be lots of fun stuff, but Halloween had left the building. Santa kicked it out. Finally, we ventured to Target. At Target we did find costumes for the kids although it was clear the selection was low and sizes were limited. And, there was little in the way of decorations for the home. Again, Christmas was clearly the priority.

All of this left me perplexed and honestly a little angry. Here we were, 13 days before Halloween on a chamber of commerce day with blue skies, falling leaves and crisp chilly air. Yet retailers were calling it over. ‘Make way for Christmas!’ they said! Since when did Americans become so proactive and such planners I wondered. Heck, just today I got a reminder to RSVP for my kid’s 1^st Grade parent party that is next Friday so I know we aren’t on top of things. Yet, we are apparently shopping for Christmas in mid October?

Christmas Creep it is coined. We’ve already received Christmas catalogs from Williams Sonoma, J. Peterman, Crate and Barrel, Magic Cabin and Lego to name a few. My 5 year-old influenced by those catalogs has already begun making his Christmas list. That’s right, before tricks and treats.

This retail madness is leading the whole season with the wrong message. Thanksgiving, which is really one of the most special holidays in its simplicity of enjoying family, friends and food, has been completely skipped. And Christmas rather than being about the religious holiday it is based on or even loving, sharing and giving becomes simply about getting because the selling happens before anyone (church, teachers, parents) begins to talk about Christmas. I can’t imagine that is the sort of message any of us want our kids to embrace.

And here is what I can’t quite figure out: why is this happening? What is driving this phenomenon?

Obviously retailers have a dog in the fight. They hope to get Christmas revenue in early because it reduces risk. Though I think it is gross, I get it. Retailers have to pay their bills. Shareholders demand profit or they will invest elsewhere. We all know about that. I’ve even read that beginning to sell Christmas in October allows retailers to place additional orders before December 25^th if necessary making it easier to respond to unexpected demand.

The more curious question is why are consumers participating. The first and most obvious answer is what I learned. If you wait until a mere 2 weeks before Halloween there won’t be anything left so you better get out early. People are sort of like lemmings following each other over the cliff? Some sort of social psychologist might support that idea I suppose.

However, I wonder if it relates more to the Marshmallow Test. The Marshmallow Test is study that was conducted at Stanford by Walter Mischel in the late 60’s /early 70’s in hopes of understanding control of delayed gratification. Basically children (like 5 year-olds) were placed in a room with a marshmallow. They were told the adult would leave the room (leaving them alone with the marshmallow) and that if they didn’t eat the marshmallow they would get another one when the adult returned to the room. There are some hilarious videos of this experiment that are worth a watch.

Real interest in the study came when Mischel decided to check back with the study participants 40 years later. What they found is children who were able to resist the marshmallow longer had higher SAT scores, higher GPAs and better paying jobs after college. There are lots of criticisms about the study, however it has remained famous, influential and inspired other researchers to continue the study of delayed gratification control.

My point is that humans struggle with controlling gratification and retailers know it. One study found that there is a $6.50 boost per person in holiday spending for every day earlier that Thanksgiving falls each year (i.e. every day the shopping season is extended).

The question is are you okay with this Christmas Creep. Is it okay that from a retail perspective on October 18^th Halloween and fall are over and it is now Christmas? Is it fine that Thanksgiving just ignored? Acceptable that Christmas becomes merely an opportunity for our kids to browse toy catalogs rather than some other kind of less material celebration? One would presume it is okay since each year the public gets sucked into shopping earlier and earlier.

I think Christmas Creep is creepy. I think the American shopper is getting suckered (again). You think you’re getting pre-holiday deals by shopping early, but the evidence is that you are spending more. And more importantly you are losing sight of what really matters and it isn’t the stuff.

Retailers will stop putting out Christmas in October if shoppers don’t buy the merchandise.  Resist the marshmallow shoppers!  Take back Halloween and Thanksgivng America!  Stop Christmas Creep!

Poo Transfusions October 5, 2014

Okay, you can stop laughing now. I’m serious and this is super fascinating.

The first I heard of Poo Transfusions was on NPR’s Radiolab back in January 2013. The story was about a team in the Netherlands that found fecal transplants (i.e. poo transfusions) are a great way to cure intestinal infections. The Radiolab piece goes in to detail about how the whole process works, but basically they found that transplanting a well person’s gut bacteria into a sick person will cure them. In typical Radiolab fashion this piece was a bit dramatic with lots of fun details and well worth a listen.

Since then I’ve heard and read piece after piece about gut bacteria. This science has a lot of potential assuming we can figure out the nuts and bolts of how it all works. For example there is speculation that the gut bacteria of obese people is different than that of folks who aren’t overweight. It has been suggested that artificial sweetener may alter gut microbes and raise the risk of diabetes. One study found a difference in the gut bacteria of professional rugby players vs. regular ole’ healthy men suggesting exercise has a positive effect. There is speculation that a family’s microbes are similar. Links have been found between gut bacteria and autism. Scientists are exploring the relationship between gut bacteria and allergies, autoimmune diseases and cancer to name a few.

This is all really great and interesting. However, the science is still young and there is a lot more work to do. Scientists don’t yet really understand just how lifestyle and genetics affect one’s flora. The great news is that there is a large-scale study going on now and we can all participate. I heard about the American Gut Project via Chris Kresser’s podcast. Until now, studies about gut flora were pretty small. Some that I read only had 9 participants making it hard to generalize from such a small group. The American Gut Project (part of the Human Food Project) seeks to do a large study not only about what flora is in our gut, but also how lifestyle might affect that make-up.

The project is simple. You submit a sample, some lifestyle information and a $99 donation to cover supplies. In return you’ll receive a full work-up of your gut flora. All of the data from this study (minus personal identifying information) will be available as soon as it is processed and anyone is invited to participate in analyzing the results. Lots of detailed information is available on the Human Food Project website via the link I’ve posted below.

I’ve enrolled my husband and kids too. I hope you will consider participating. You get to be a part of a study that could really have lasting impact on our health. It will be fun, informative and hopefully result in some really useful science.

http://humanfoodproject.com/americangut/

http://www.radiolab.org/story/263526-poop-magic-gut-cure/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/17/349270927/diet-soda-may-alter-our-gut-microbes-and-the-risk-of-diabetes

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/12/10/250007042/chowing-down-on-meat-and-dairy-alters-gut-bacteria-a-lot-and-quickly

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/autism-study-more-evidence-linking-altered-gut-bacteria-asd

Turning Libertarian. I Really Think So. September 28, 2014

It started with my disgust regarding the amount of money Americans are spending on politics. There has always been money in politics mind you. Our forefathers were wealthy. But I felt the opportunity to be a philosopher and construct our Constitution resulted mainly from the ability to spend most of one’s time thinking about grand ideas. Wealth sort of affords that behavior.

Anyway, the last presidential election was really a tipping point for me. Not because of who was elected, but because of how much money we spent doing it: Seven Billion Dollars. I remember feeling so embarrassed for America and wondering what my international friends must think of this excess. That seven billion wasn’t used for developing new technology that might support future jobs. It wasn’t used to educate our population, feed our poor or help our elderly. That money was taken from us (perhaps willingly) and used for giant conventions, fancy dinners, TV commercials and advertisements on radio, print. It was used to employee campaign staff, but what could those talented individuals have done if they weren’t trying to get someone elected? Maybe save the world.

Around this time I also listened to a podcast from This American Life all about congressional fundraising. It is horrifying and both parties are guilty.  Here are just some of the highlights of that piece. Pelosi says she goes to more than 1 fundraiser every day and that is common. Congressman spend two to three hours a day fundraising in a call center across the street from the congressional offices. It is no wonder that no legislating actually gets done!   The level of money requires that politicians use lobbyists to organize fundraisers. There are unwritten ‘rules for engagement’ that are really just a polite way of saying bribery.

Next came a podcast from Planet Money and about farm insurance. We taxpayers spent a record $14 billion on crop insurance and payouts in 2012. This podcast explored among other things how politics play out in the farm insurance program. What really disturbed me was an interview with the guy who helped craft the peanut bill. This man, Norfleet Sugg, explained that the bill is intentionally complicated. Sugg said that this complexity was beneficial because it was hard to criticize the complicated bill.

I’ve included another article from Bloomberg that says even though there is bipartisan (via President Obama and Republican Paul Ryan) support for cutting the farm insurance bill, lobbyists spent at least $52 million bribing (yea lets just call a spade a spade) lawmakers during the 2012 election cycle. The result is that congress plans to funnel billions more into the program. Our tax money will go to farmers who are wealthier than the average American. And you know whom the lobbyists included? Insurance companies.   Because the government pays 18 insurance companies to run the program. And here is another little tidbit: the names of those receiving payouts from the program are secret!

The whole situation screams corruption. No longer is the best interest of the public or the country of any importance. The whole system has become bastardized and motivated singularly by money because if you don’t have money, you can’t get elected. And you can’t get money unless you commit to support legislation that is in the best interest of the contributor.

All of this lead me to believe that we need campaign fundraising reform; a big shift for this free market girl. But, it is clear to me that we must get the money out of politics if we ever hope to have a system that isn’t corrupt. Legislators can’t possibly do what they need to (even if they really want to) if they are restricted by the burden of raising millions of dollars.

However, the more I thought about this the more I became convinced that nobody involved in the political process will voluntarily vote themselves a huge pay cut. Lets face it there are billions and billions of dollars at stake. If politicians could say no to money, they would decline all those bribes that they continue to accept. It is just not going to happen.

According to the New York Times reporter Eduardo Porter, “Bigger markets allow bigger frauds. Bigger companies, with more complex balance sheets have more places to hide them.” We need smaller government budgets. Since we can’t get politicians to limit their budgets, the only option is to reduce the number of politicians and indirectly limit the budget. If we could reduce the size of government, we could make the budget smaller with less opportunity for corruption. Hence, my libertarian jump.

This is new thinking for me, but so far libertarian sounds like a reasonable alternative to the mainstream parties. According to their website libertarians advocate for ‘smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.’ I’ve been saying for years that I was looking for a political party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Libertarian sounds like just the ticket.

And, who doesn’t love Ron Paul? He looks and sounds just like a chicken!

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/14/158787593/episode-394-why-taxpayers-pay-for-farmers-insurance

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/farmers-boost-revenue-sowing-subsidies-for-crop-insurance.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/business/economy/the-spreading-scourge-of-corporate-corruption.html

Food Insecurity: a Moral Responsibility September 21, 2014

I recently read two articles (links below) that have me thinking. Both of them are about this relatively new term, ‘food insecure’. Food insecure is the new term for hungry. One of the articles in National Geographic (NatG) describes many food insecure families as living outside of cities, middle class, white (over half), obese, working, driving cars that are often SUVs, owning cell phones and having multiple televisions. The NatG Article is quite interesting and I’d encourage all of you to read it.  I’ve also included an article from Market Watch that explores what is a reasonable food budget and how the SNAP program might be modified to help make good food choices. Also a good read.

I read about several families courtesy of NatG who are considered food insecure. One family’s refrigerator was described as holding ‘takeout boxes and beverages but little fresh food’. Another family relies on, ‘premade food from grocery stores’ because ‘you can’t go all the way home and cook’. And this same mother feeds her children some hot fried chicken gizzards even though, ‘she knows she can’t afford to eat out and that fast food isn’t a healthy meal.’ But she had felt, ‘too stressed’ by her son’s nagging and by ‘how little money she has – not to give in.’

With each article I read about food and health it becomes more and more obvious exactly how culpable the government is in all of these problems. In this case it should be no surprise that a low-income family has sweetened drinks on hand because they are cheap. In fact, the #1 source of calories for low-income individuals is sodas, energy drinks and sports drinks. Why are these sugary drinks so cheap compared with say milk? It is no coincidence that corn, the main ingredient in sodas in the form of high fructose corn syrup is also awarded the highest government subsidy. Think about this for a moment. Our tax dollars are being used to make sodas less expensive than milk via government subsidies for corn. This encourages the poor to buy sodas instead of milk and our tax dollars subsidize that purchase. Then those unhealthy drinks contribute to obesity, diabetes and a slew of other health problems requiring health care that we subsidize.

One of the few things government should actually be doing for its citizens is protecting them from ‘evil corporations’ and yet  corn subsidies continue as a result of government being in bed with corporate farming interests. It is making our poor sick and spending resources we don’t have. Big fail.

Another thing in common with many of the articles I read is condoning and/or excusing bad choices. Many of the families in the NatG article are consciously making bad nutrition and financial decisions. These people know better and admit it when interviewed. The NatG article points out that $10 of fast food (i.e. a mea)l can buy several days worth of fresh food. And yet because it is easy and convenient, these food insecure families choose fast food and premade food. The article points out that many middle class folks also opt for convenience over nutrition as if to justify this choice. Fair enough we all want convenience, but the difference is the middle class can afford it. Convenience is not a right. It is a luxury afforded by wealth.

Why are we allowing the poor who possibly don’t have the ability to make good choices and definitely don’t have the ability to care for themselves when they get sick to continue to fill themselves with sodas and fast food? Society should be ashamed that it is feeding our poor food that will kill them. We should only be allowing the poor to buy nutritious food with government assistance. Anything else is a betrayal. We are supposed to be helping these folks. We may be keeping them alive short term, but we are ensuring their lives will be brief and miserable as they succumb to debilitating health care problems resulting from poor nutrition.

People will immediately argue a few things. One is poor people should be able to make any choice they want. It is a free country! Yes, I agree as long as they aren’t using government assistance to do so. Hey, if you want to buy a candy bar or soda fine. Just don’t use your food stamps to do it because society wants you to live a long and healthy life.

Second, how could you possibly determine and enforce some sort of nutritional guideline? I agree this is very difficult and I don’t the government is up to the task as evidenced by the nutritional guidelines that have resulted in 1/3 of our population being obese. So simply don’t allow people on government assistance to buy anything with added sugar or high fructose corn syrup. Boom! It is simple, clear and easy to understand. If the food has added those sweeteners buy it with your own money. This won’t solve all the problems, but it will be a huge first step.

We owe it to low-income folks to help them make good choices. It is our responsibility to pass on what we know and help them avoid disaster. We need to help them learn to cook, break their sugar addiction and realize that eating healthy food is important.   As a first step, simply not allowing them to make bad choices will have a wonderful positive impact on their lives. It is something we can be proud of.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-america-is-losing-its-hunger-gamesand-how-it-can-win-2014-09-12

Focus on Sports, Not Snacks September 16, 2014

Well, it is soccer season again and time for me to get irritated by this weird system of snacks after sports.  Today at 7 pm after my son’s soccer game they handed out Gatorade and I was less than thrilled especially since he would be going to bed soon.  I told him he couldn’t have it which lead to a meltdown.  Tricky parenting for sure.  Anyway, I wrote these.  One to the manager of the soccer program and the second to the parents on our team.  I may end up the leper.  I’ll let you know. Thought I’d share with you.

Hi Manager of the soccer program,

As you know we really love the BLANK Center.  My boys have been in the summer camps, swimming lessons and of course soccer.  Every experience has been good.

Today however, my son BLANKY left soccer in tears.  Partly he was tired.  But he was so upset because I wouldn’t let him have the Gatorade they were handing out for snack after the game.  I recognize there are all sorts of opinions about what and what not to eat, but I think everyone agrees that Americans eat way too much sugar.  And especially in BLANK where we have the BLANK childhood obesity rate in the country I think we should be setting better examples for our kids.

That said, I certainly understand that other parents don’t feel the same way I do.  And I would never want to seem ungrateful to someone who procured a snack for the team.  I know they are trying to be kind to the children and provide them with a nice experience.  I’m thankful for that intent.

When BLANKER participated in the spring soccer season it was so nice because we just didn’t do snacks.  I’m not sure if it was intentional or just because we parents were disorganized:)  Regardless, I loved it!  Not only did I not have to exclude my child from an experience all the other kids were having, but it brought the focus to soccer rather than snack.  And, not once did I hear any of the children asking about snacks after the game.  The snacks truly weren’t missed.

You could try to limit snacks to ‘healthy’ ones.  But I’d like to suggest that you don’t go down that road.  One person’s definition of healthy is another’s definition of toxic.  I’m being dramatic, but you get the idea.  It will be very difficult to set guidelines and further put more burden on parents who are most likely already stretched too far.  It also could be a real financial imposition for some families.

I would like the BLANK Center to strongly consider banning snacks at the soccer games (all sporting events would be great).  At first glance it may seem like I’m trying to deprive everyone of the snack experience or push my beliefs on everyone.  But, when you think about it carefully you realize that isn’t the case at all.  Not offering a snack allows everyone to be free to do what they want. Anyone who wants to give their kid a snack can do so.  Go for ice cream or pizza if you like.  Bring a snack for your child if you want.  It also doesn’t put me in a position where I’m forced to let my kid have a sugary drink (right before bed mind you) or exclude him from the group experience of snacking and ending his evening in tears.

Thank you so much for reading this email and considering my position.  I’ve added some links at the bottom of the page to articles that you will find informative.  Pay special attention to the last link which is a Yale study that finds high calorie snacking to be a major factor in childhood obesity.

Finally, if you aren’t the person who sets such policy I’d greatly appreciate you forwarding my mail to the appropriate decision maker.

Best,

‘Focus on sports not snacks’

http://www.wate.com/story/23066016/tennessees-childhood-obesity-rate-increases

http://www.statisticbrain.com/americas-most-obese-cities/

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/20/sugar-deadly-obesity-epidemic

http://yalemedicalgroup.org/news/article.aspx?id=6584

Soccer Team Parents and Coaches,

I am BLANK’s Mom and enjoyed meeting a few of you today.

First let me thank our coaches for the excellent work they are doing with the kids.  Things seem organized and well thought out.

I’d like to bring up the subject of snacks and I also don’t want to offend anyone.  So, please know that I really do appreciate all the parents who provide snacks for the children.  I know that you are tying hard to make soccer a nice and fun experience and I truly appreciate that intent.

That said, I really struggle with what I consider junk food being handed out after the games; especially at seven pm so close to bedtime.  I recognize that not everyone feels the same way I do and I am not trying to change your mind or actions.  What I have been trying to figure out is what to bring for my snack.  I want to contribute something and I have an idea that want to run by you all.

In thinking about this, I considered just bringing what I consider a ‘healthy’ snack.  However, when I really think about it I realize that playing soccer at all is a privilege.  There are lots of kids out there who either don’t have the financial means or the parental support to participate in the wonderful programs at the BLANK Center.  I realize that we are offering a treat for the privilege of playing soccer.  So, I’d like to offer not to bring a snack, but instead have a short talk after one of the games.  This could be given by one of the coaches or I’m happy to.  I’m thinking the point of the talk would just be to remind the kids how fortunate they are to get to play soccer, have friendships with all the other great kids on the team, learn new skills and generally have a fun experience that many other folks don’t get.

I’m just wondering if that would be okay with all of you.  If not, just tell me to hush up and I’ll bring some apples and cheese or something:)

Thanks for considering my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Organic for the Masses August 21, 2014

IBM introduced the first mass produced computer in 1953. 18 of these machines were built in the first year. Typically IBM rented these for about $12,000 a month. The average cost of a PC today is between $275 and $1600. And as you surely know the computing power of these machines was a fraction of today’s PC.

 

Moore’s law is important in understanding the evolution of technology. Moore’s law simply states that the number of transistors in a circuit board doubles about every two years. Why is this important? Well, Moore’s law isn’t a physical or natural law. Rather it is an observation about the rate at which humanity improves technology; in this case specifically computing power.

 

As technology has improved not only has computing power increased, but also the price has decreased. Hence, computers that were only available to the super wealthy are now available to a much larger segment of the population. As an extreme example, the organization One Laptop Per Child has developed a low cost computer and is providing them to impoverished children globally.

 

This phenomenon is true of all sorts of technology; cars, music, microwaves, televisions, and washing machines to name a few. What was initially cost prohibitive has through the evolution of technology become accessible to a much wider portion of the population.

 

My brother got me thinking about organic food this way awhile back. He is against organic food for a number of reasons, but one of them is that he feels organic food is elitist. In his logic, if organic food is so good it should be available to everyone and not just the wealthy who are able to afford the more expensive products.

 

I agree with him. Organic food is expensive and I wish it wasn’t. I wish it were more available to the general population. However, I believe that these wealthy consumers are using their purchasing power to spur an evolution in food technology that will benefit everyone.

 

I recently saw evidence of this in National Geographic. In their August issue, NG has a graphic showing the increase in use of biopesticides. Have you heard of this? Neither has my spell check. Biopesticide is a term meaning managing agricultural pests using a variety of natural materials. These can include biochemical products, bacteria, fungi, ladybugs and wasps. According to NG, biopesticides are still a small portion of the total market (4.1%), but it is a fast growing segment expected to grow from 1.8 billion in 2011 to 3 billion in 2014.

 

This gives me hope. First of all, I believe in human ingenuity. Time and time again, humanity has figured out creative solutions to problems and improved the standard of living. We’ve seen it will all sorts of technology and I believe organic food would go the same way. Now I’m seeing evidence of it. If my theory holds, and I certainly hope it will, the price of clean food will come down and availability will improve.

 

I have another brother who likes to say, “Vote with your dollar America!” Don’t be ashamed to buy what is important to you. Thank goodness those first few folks jumped on the computer bandwagon because without them I quite possibly could never have typed and shared these words with you.

 

And Tim, don’t worry, I have confidence the electric car will go this way too.

Response to ‘At lunch, home packed may not mean healthy’ August 14, 2014

At first blush, I thought I’d agree with a lot of what is in this article. The basic premise is that parents don’t necessarily pack lunches that are healthier than what is served at school. And, certainly I’ve been unpleasantly surprised to see what some of my kid’s classmate’s lunches were comprised of. However, upon further reading, I take lots of issue with this piece.

First off, I haven’t read the study by Tufts University, but my understanding is that they were looking at packed lunches, comparing them to the five standards in the school lunch program and found only 27% of them meet the three goals of emphasizing fruits, vegetables and whole grains. This meant the lunches were unhealthy.

Lets begin with the government nutrition standards. Anyone who continues to trust that what the government says is healthy is actually healthy really needs to reconsider. There is plenty of research out there showing that America’s obesity problem and diabetes problem coincides precisely with the government recommendations to cut back on saturated fat (i.e. meat and dairy) and eat more whole grains (i.e. whole wheat bread). So the study lost me when it made the leap to healthy from government standards.

Based on what this article is saying, my son’s lunch, which is typically some sort of meat, vegetables and fruit with or without a bit of cheese, would not qualify as ‘healthy’ because heck, where are the grains? I don’t believe that grains are particularly healthy and since my son gets a lot of that junk fed to him in school, I don’t include it in his lunch. And one of the Tufts criteria for a healthy lunch was having an entrée. Would you consider shaved turkey an entrée? There, you caught me Tufts! It is silly.

Beyond the study itself, there is a lot of talk (excuses if I’m honest) in this article that doesn’t get questioned. The article uses Fiona Healy as an example. Fiona says her daughter will eat deli turkey, but that it requires ‘a frequency of grocery shopping that a working mother cannot maintain’.   What? Have you ever purchased deli meat that won’t last a 5 days in the fridge? I have a lot of friends who work outside the home and I don’t know a single one who doesn’t shop once a week. Or here is an idea, pop it in the freezer! What gives?

Then Fiona talks about how Brenna will eat the junky stuff she packs and leaves the strawberries. Of course she does, poor thing! That is what we’d all do if we didn’t understand there were consequences to eating junk food. So don’t pack the junky stuff! This is a really important point: If you gave my kids a choice between strawberries and ice cream, they would choose the ice cream every time! Even kids with good eating habits will eat that twinkie or chocolate or chips if it is offered. That is why when you pack a kid’s lunch you can’t provide them with any options other than healthy (with exceptions for the minority of kids who really do have sensory or digestive issues etc.). It isn’t fair to expect the kid to make an adult choice and it is silly to be wasting those strawberries! That, by the way, is why the only options served at school should be healthy ones. School age children are just not equipped to make long-term decisions about their health and that is exactly what choosing healthy food is: a long-term health decision.

The whole article leads me back to a couple basic questions: who is deciding what is healthy for our kids and is that recommendation correct. Or maybe the real question is who should be deciding what our kids eat in school? The government has already proven it incompetent at deciding what is ‘healthy’. So now what? I vote for Michael Pollan:)  No seriously! Do you think he’d do it?

I’m still packing my kids’ lunches. Tufts be damned.

And yes, I’m being judgmental (but not judgy). More on that later….

AAP Pesticide Exposure Statement December 13, 2012

The Recent statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has me a little freaked out.  But let me back up a first.

I first began being concerned about pesticides in my food when I got pregnant. I felt that avoiding chemicals of all kinds made sense because based on what I knew, infants and children are more sensitive to toxins than adults.  So, I began switching over to organic food.

I’ll make a little plug here for the Environmental Working Group (EWG).  They have a fantastic website, ewg.org, with a ton of information on unregulated substances found in all kinds of things.  It was really helpful to me as I transitioned from conventional to organic food.  This group recognizes that it is expensive to buy all organic food and with that in mind has developed two lists, the “Dirty Dozen” and the “Clean 15”.  The dirty dozen is a list of conventional foods to avoid because EWG’s testing has shown those foods have the highest levels of pesticides.  The clean 15 are fruits and vegetables on the opposite end of the spectrum with the lowest pesticide contamination.  They also have a fantastic database called “Skin Deep” which ranks all kinds of household products based on their levels of potentially toxic ingredients.  I often consult the website.

Anyway, my son was born a healthy boy, thankfully.  When he started eating solid food I became more adamant about organic.  And at some point I looked at our yard and had this realization that it was ridiculous to have our yard treated with pesticides while at the same time spending big bucks on organic food. It just made sense that if these pesticides were bad to eat, I probably didn’t want my baby crawling in them or having them tracked through our home.  So, I stopped our lawn care.  Yes, much to my husband’s dismay, we are ‘those’ people with the weedy lawn.  We also stopped pest control at the house so there is that.

Years later, my son is now a pre-school age child.  One morning after a night of heavy rain, I was leaving the school and happened to notice the lawn folks were there.  In fact, they were just getting ready to spray the wet grass in the playground where the children’s picnic tables sit.  I panicked because I realized there was no way in heck that after being applied to wet grass that stuff would dry before the children came out to play!  And, the kids would be eating right there on the picnic tables!  I ran in to get a school staff member and thankfully got them stopped.

But, you have to wonder how many times has this happened before and after that day because I wasn’t there to stop it?  And, how much pesticides have those little children, ages 2-6 ingested?  Kids that age constantly have their hands in their mouths and are constantly dropping food that then gets eaten.  I feel sure the amount of pesticides they are exposed to through our environment of treated lawns far surpasses the pesticides they are exposed to on their food.

So, let’s get back to the AAP statement.  It basically says that children encounter pesticides every day, have unique susceptibilities to them and that there is a lot of research and training that needs to be done to protect the children.

I don’t usually do this in my blog as my intent is to sift through some of this information for you, but I highly encourage you to read the AAP’s full report.  It isn’t very long and it is worth a read.  Then I would encourage you all to think carefully about what you are using around your home and how you might make changes to protect your children.  Finally, think about the institutions your children attend whether it is school, church, athletic fields, etc. and consider discussing this report with the staff of these facilities.  It is important.

EWG Shopper’s Guide

http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/

AAP’s Policy Statement, “Pesticide Exposure in Children”

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/6/e1757.full.pdf+html

Ruttable – possessing an affinity for being caught in a rut December 5, 2012

Chorizo and Chickpea One-Pot Supper

Let’s say we live to 100.  I’ll figure that until one is 18, meals are the responsibility of the parent.  That leaves 82 years of meals.  Assuming you attend college and eat at the cafeteria you’d cross 4 years of meals off (well six or more for some of us).  So that is 78 years of meals and more importantly to this post, 28,470 dinners that are your responsibility.  No wonder I sometimes feel burned out!

I have some tactics I use to help.  I’m a recipe gal.  I have a recipe box.  My SIL makes fun of me for having one, but I find it combats my ‘let’s just eat out because I’m too lazy to figure out dinner’ problem.  The only things that make it into the box are recipes that are tried and true.  These are typically easier, weeknight sort of recipes.  If I get in a jam or just don’t feel like being creative, I go to my recipe box because I know I’ll find something manageable to make.

I also try to make at least one new dish a week (who knows, this is may be low for most of you).  I find these dishes in cookbooks, from friends and on the Internet.  These dishes may or may not be a hit (my husband suggests I have about an 80% success rate with new recipes).  And often, as you know if you are a friend of mine, I end up eating a ‘failure’ for lunch all week long.  But, it is important to change up what you are eating.  Diversity typically makes for better nutrition and it is important to broaden the kid’s pallets.  I’ve found changing up meals regularly reduces the level of complaining when I introduce new foods.

With that in mind, here is a recipe I love.  It is a one pot supper from Northern Spain and very easy to make.  It is a healthy dish with lots of fiber and it is a little off the beaten path.  I love it when I stumble across a dish with all these features!  This one is in the recipe box.

From Food and Wine Best of the Best

Chorizo and Chickpea One-Pot Supper

2T olive oil

2 onions

2 garlic cloves

9 ounces of chorizo

1 lb 8 oz canned chickpeas (I use dried beans.  I typically cook a big batch and then freeze in them in 2 C increments.  I use two cups of cooked dried beans for this recipe)

14 ounces canned plumb tomatoes

2 T golden raisins

1 T roasted pine nuts

juice of ½ lemon

Salt and pepper

1 T roughly chopped parsley

10 oz. frozen cooked spinach for serving.

A note on the chorizo:  It is important to use real chorizo.  This is the kind that is dried and is pretty dark red.  When you cook it, it will release reddish oil.  The other stuff doesn’t taste as good and doesn’t work well in the recipe.

Heat the oil in a large frying pan.  Add the onions and fry until they are soft then add garlic and chorizo.

Once the chorizo has released some of the smoky chorizo fat, add the chickpeas.  Then add the tomatoes, golden raisins and lemon juice.  Heat through.

To serve, top the cooked spinach with the Chroizo and Chickpea combo.  Top with the pine nuts, parsley and more lemon juice if you prefer.

Stunt preformed by professional driver. Do not attempt at home. December 2, 2012

In general I like to keep chemicals out of our home.  In that capacity, I usually end up on websites touting homemade cleaners and end up being mesmerized by the romance of DIY products.  You know those sites, the ones that have photos of the trees and happy, satisfied people with perfect skin.  In a hippy haze of happy, natural living I found a recipe that seemed pretty simple.  The comments indicate it works great and you only need 1 tablespoon to get your clothes, ‘clean and fresh smelling’.  Plus it is cheaper than all those chemical ridden detergents!  I was convinced.

 

I anxiously awaited the delivery of Borax, Washing Soda, Fels Naptha and Lavender soap I ordered from the Internet knowing that making my natural laundry soap would cement my role as super natural healthy mom and make me the envy of moms around the world.  Plus, I could revel in the superiority of not exposing my children to those horrible chemicals as I paraded through my perfectly, naturally clean home complete with butterflies flitting around.  Mind you, I ordered a lot of ingredients so I could get free shipping.

 

The process requires grating the bar soap and then processing it in the food processor so that it is ground finely.  Then the bar soap is combined with the Borax and soda and voila! I found it took me 25 or so minutes to grate 4 bars of soap, process it and mix with the other ingredients.  I did cut myself on the grater several times, but I figured a little blood would not diminish the effectiveness of the detergent.

 

Finally, the time had come!  I washed my first load of laundry with just 1 tablespoon of my natural super soap!   The laundry results indicated that the people who commented on the soap’s effectiveness either do not have filthy children or they are actual hippies and too stoned to notice a few grease marks on the front of their ‘clean’ shirts.  Probably the patchouli covers up the not so fresh smell.

 

I tinkered with the amount of natural super soap I was using and found about ¼ cup of powder worked fine.  Of course, that meant my tub of detergent that was supposed to last ‘forever’ now only lasts a couple of months.

 

By about the third batch of laundry soap making I was coming down from my Internet DIY home cleaning product buzz.  Grating the bar soap was a big pain and I always ended up with cut knuckles or split fingernails.  Plus, cleaning up the powdered bar soap was a hassle.  It gets in all the little cracks and crevices of the food processor and typically ends up on the floor too.  Both outcomes are bad for someone who can be anal retentive about cleaning.  The process was becoming too cumbersome and with clean up was taking more like an hour instead of 25 minutes.

 

By the fourth batch, my husband was gently suggesting that my time might be better spent elsewhere.  He did this when I was in my ‘homemade bread’ kick too.  This time my husband pointed out that there are actual companies that make laundry detergent and you can BUY it AND it takes less than 10 seconds to put the container in your cart.  Yes, it is true.  The next time you are at the grocery store, look in the aisle marked ‘household cleaners’; you’ll be amazed!

 

My point is that there are some things that you can make at home and are truly worth the effort and there are some things that are simply a time suck.  Now, if it gives you gratification to make a laundry detergent at home then fine, it isn’t a waste.  But if like me, you view grating bar soap as a chore then by all means, don’t be afraid to cut the cord!  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.  Spend your time doing things that make a true difference or that you enjoy.

 

Life is too short to spend it getting knuckle injuries.  However, since I can’t bring myself to toss the 32 bars of soap and 6 lbs. of soda and Borax I’ll just be making a little more super natural laundry soap.