During the summer we got sunburned and bug-bitten and drank out of the hose when we were thirsty. In the winter we played outside until our noses were pink and our mittens were covered in mini snowballs. In short, we had a lot of fun without spending a dime. My mother, I’m sure, didn’t realize she was following the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to encourage children to play outside as much as possible. She didn’t know she was helping to battle childhood obesity. She just thought that kids should run and play.

A new study from the Seattle Children’s Research Institute found that — if I was a child today — my mother would be in the minority. According to the study, “nearly half of preschoolers in a sample representing four million U.S. children did not have even one parent-supervised outdoor play opportunity per day.” The study, “The frequency of parent-supervised outdoor play of U.S. preschool age children,” was published last week in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

There were a few interesting stats in the study. For instance, girls were less likely to spend time outdoors playing. Also, when kids do go outside it’s mostly mothers that are taking them. According to researchers, 44 percent of mothers report taking kids outside daily compared to only about a quarter (24 percent) of dads. Really scary: 15 percent of moms and 30 percent of dads didn’t take their kids outside even a few times per week. Kids of gym rats are luckier than the rest since their parents make outdoor play a priority. Mothers who exercised regularly (more than four times a week) were 50 percent more likely to take their child outside daily than those who never hit the gym.

One of the authors of the study, Pooja S. Tandon, M.D., wrote an excellent blog post about the research and about her own children. In the post, Resurrecting Outdoor Play Time, she explains that kids in many European countries spend three or four hours outside daily, which sounds a lot like my childhood. She also provides a few ideas to get kids outside more often. Here’s one thing she didn’t include: Don’t worry about having an activity or “something to do.” Kids, when given the chance, will find something to do.

Yesterday, while I worked my babysitter took the kids outside. The kids decided to go on a rock hunt, finding 20 different rocks in the backyard. Then they played a spy game, lurking behind trees while talking into pretend walkie talkies. Finally, they had running races, which my Big Girl won every time. I heard about it all when we were eating dinner together. (Another old fashioned habit that needs a revival!) Even though I wasn’t with them today, I know they made some memories that they will always remember. And that’s a good thing — body, mind, and soul.

What's in that gulp of ocean water you just swallowed? This, unfortunately.

One of the things I am most proud of is our household ban on plastic. We don’t use plastic if we can help it. I take reusable bags on shopping trips to the supermarket and the mall, and we recycle any plastic that does come into our home. Every bread bag, every piece of packaging, every toilet paper or paper towel wrapping, every piece of bubblewrap, every dry cleaning bag, shrink wrap — it all goes into a big bag that is then recycled at our local Lowe’s. (You can read more about it here.) It really adds up. I started this family campaign after reading about The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. (Again, you can read more about that here.) To date, I’ve probably kept thousands of pieces of plastic out of landfills.

People think I am crazy. As they point out, this way of life does take some work and commitment. Still, it’s worth it to me. It really hurts when I think about how — by using plastic — we are polluting our oceans and inadvertently polluting our food supply.

I started this family ban a few years ago, but haven’t really heard a lot about the topic lately. Am I making a difference, I always wonder? Are we, as a society, making a dent in the problem? This week, I got answers to these questions when I garnered some time with an executive from Surfrider Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of oceans, beaches, and the surf. Below, Bill Hickman, Surfrider Foundation’s Rise Above Plastics Coordinator, explains how why our oceans are still at risk, and why one person’s efforts really do matter.

KB: Have we seen a decline in the amount of plastic being found in our waterways?

Hickman: Some places yes and some places no. Cities that have passed plastic reduction ordinances such as plastic bag or expanded polystyrene foam bans are starting to see litter reductions. Some cities have done a good job with increased street sweeping, [adding] catch basins for storm drains, and other efforts but overall we are not seeing a decline in plastic pollution reaching the ocean.

KB: What’s are some of the biggest risks of plastic waterway pollution?

Hickman: Plastic does not biodegrade in our lifetimes, it typically photodegrades [meaning it breaks up into tiny pieces but never decomposes into organic matter] into smaller pieces that can easily be confused for food by marine life. Those plastic pieces are good at adsorbing persistent organic pollutants that may be in the water such as PCBs [which act as hormone disruptors and carcinogens] and DDT [a dangerous pesticide], which over time could travel up the food chain and possibly pose a threat to people who eat fish.

KB: Where is the plastic originating from?

Hickman: Not all plastic is bad, but disposable plastics can be devastating. After World War II the United States changed from a society that reused everything possible to one that promoted the convenience of throwaway living and benefits of “no more dishes” without realizing the consequences of these decisions as population soared. Now plastic encases everything from electronics to razors to fruit and veggies that already have nature’s packaging — its skin! Plastic is typically derived from petroleum or natural gas and starts out as pellets or ‘nurdles’ at production facilities that are shipped to plastics manufactures via rail and truck. Those pellets are typically heated then expanded or extruded into products such as plastic bags, bottles, toys, foam foodware, and more.

KB: What can we do to reduce the amount of plastic going into the water?

Hickman: The best way to help prevent plastic pollution is through source reductions such as plastic bag and expanded foam bans along with more states adopting ‘bottle bills’ [requiring a bottle deposit] which help to increase recycling rates.

KB: Can one person really make a difference?

Hickman: Absolutely. Every action helps to make a difference, and on a personal level it’s great to follow the four R’s: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle plastic! Get involved with your local Surfrider Chapter and participate in their beach cleanups and their Rise Above Plastics efforts.

Natural As Possible Mom is on Facebook. Stop by (click here) and like it to find links to natural-, environmental-, and healthy living-related news and reports, discussions, and more! Also, follow me on Twitter. 

My husband's cast iron skillet: The grosser it looks, the better it is to cook on!

First, a little background. You and I call it Teflon, but what we’re really talking about is perfluorooctanoic acid (or PFOA), which is what manufacturers use to make all your brownie pans, frying pans, and turkey roasters non-stick. You can also find the chemical, which is sometimes referred to as C8, inside of packaged foods containers such as microwave popcorn bags and in many other consumer products. (The Environmental Protection Agency has a page dedicated to PFOA that’s got a lot more information. It’s certainly worth a read. You can find it here.)

Here are the problems that the EPA had with PFOA, taken directly from its site:

• PFOA is very persistent in the environment; it doesn’t break down and go away.
• It is found everywhere. You can see very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population
• It sticks around inside of us for very long time, too. Once you ingest it or breathe it in, it’s in there.
• It has been found to cause “developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.” (And in humans, too!)

If you’re like me, the last item in the list might be the one that’s giving you pause. What kind of adverse effects, you might want to know. Well, according to research studies PFOA can be linked to:

• Lower birth rate and size: Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that babies with higher concentrations of the chemical had smaller heads and lower body weights. Read the study here.
• Infertility: Women with higher levels of PFOA took longer to get pregnant, according to a study out of the UCLA School of Public Health.
• Elevated cholesterol: Kids with higher levels of PFOA have higher cholesterol levels, according to a study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
• Thyroid disease: A “study revealed that people with higher concentrations of PFOA in their blood have higher rates of thyroid disease. The researchers analyzed samples from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES),” according to researchers.
• ADHD: In this study, Boston University School of Public Health researchers found “increased odds of ADHD in children with higher serum PFC levels.” (PFOA is one of the PFCs they tracked.)

There have also been studies linking PFOA to cancer, although most of the research has been on the effects of PFOA released into the environment as a byproduct of manufacturing. No matter, the research is so compelling that, way back in 2006, the EPA asked manufacturers to phase out the chemical. Eight large non-stick manufacturers complied. The voluntary ban will be achieved by 2015, but that doesn’t do anything for all the folks who have non-stick cookware in their homes already unless they proactively get rid of everything non-stick they own.

That’s exactly what we did. Despite the fact that my husband loved his non-stick griddle, we tossed it along with four frying pans, a brownie pan, cake pans, cookie sheets, and a roasting pan. We actually threw it in the recycling bin rather than donating it to make sure it wasn’t going to be around to potentially make someone else sick. Today, we use either cast iron or stainless steel when we cook, bake, or fry, and I didn’t spend a fortune to make this happen.

My husband, for instance, got a $30 cast iron griddle to replace his beloved non-stick one. (No, he did not like it in the beginning, but has grown to love it.) I bought it from my local Target, and was thrilled to discover it was actually made in the United States, which is a rarity these days. Target also carries a number of other cast iron Lodge products including loaf pans, skittles, and fryers. (Note: I have nothing to do with Target or Lodge and am not being paid to say that. I just like the products.) I picked up some really inexpensive Pyrex brownie and cake pans at the Pyrex outlet. I got my stainless stuff as hand-me-downs, and was actually pleased to find that I had a plain stainless cookie sheet already sitting in my cabinet as well as a nice stainless frying pan.

From a cooking perspective, I love the fact that the glass and stainless stuff cleans up really easily. It’s also adding some extra flavor to my baking since I am forced to grease and flour my cake pans and butter up the brownie pan. The cast iron griddle, which is fully seasoned now, gives off a warm, homey smell when things are cooking on it. Plus, I love the extra boost of iron the entire family gets with our pancakes and eggs. (The American Dietetic Association confirms that cooking foods in or on cast iron increases the amount of iron in foods.)

Of course, most people aren’t going to be able to toss all their non-stick cookware into the garbage like I did, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do something. I challenge everyone to replace one pan — the one you use the most — by the end of the year since it can make a huge difference in your PFOA exposure. Ready to give it a shot?

This post is how I am participating in this week’s Real Food Wednesdays and Fight Back Fridays, two awesome blog carnivals dedicated to promoting the use and consumption of — what else? — real food.

To say I have poor vision would be an understatement. My vision is 850/20 in one eye and 750/20 in the other. To put that into perspective: I have to hold the phone thisclose to my face to see the numbers. I’ve worn glasses and then contacts to compensate since I was a child. In fact, I can still remember being completely shocked when, at eight, I first wore glasses. I was amazed that I could actually see every blade of grass when looking out at my lawn.

While I truly believe I would have been nearsighted no matter what, researchers at the 115th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology conference seem to think that a little more time outside would have prevented my sad condition.

According to the study, which was an analysis of other studies, the more time people spend outside, the better their chances are of escaping glasses. Those who are outside more have lower rates of myopia, according to the study. Researchers theorize that it might be the exposure to natural light or possibly the effects of looking at distant objects. Either way, according to researchers, being outdoors is good for a child’s vision. Here’s an excerpt from the study, released today:

“The data…was drawn from eight carefully selected studies on outdoor time and myopia in children and adolescents, representing 10,400 participants in total. Dr. Sherwin’s team concluded that for each additional hour spent outdoors per week, the chance of myopia dropped by approximately two percent. Nearsighted children spent on average 3 to 7 fewer hours per week outdoors than those who either had normal vision or were farsighted.”

This is interesting stuff, but what really surprised me was the fact that myopia is more prevalent today than it was even 30 or 40 years ago, and that in parts of Asia more than 80 percent of people are nearsighted. (How can that be???) Although researchers don’t know why, they do know that it’s not that being outdoors takes the place of other things like playing video games or watching TV. Bottom line, says Dr. Anthony Khawaja, one of the study authors, “increasing children’s outdoor time could be a simple and cost-effective measure with important benefits for their vision and general health.” Sounds like something that’s pretty easy to implement because, while it’s too late for me, I’d love to help my little one remain glasses free. Bring on the park!

I dropped my daughter off this morning to your child singing away. What a beautiful voice she has, but holy crap, how does she know that song?!?

Your little girl — what is she? Seven or eight? — was singing Rihanna’s S&M. What? You don’t remember the words? I’ll provide some of them below:

Cause I may be bad, but I’m perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, I don’t care, I love the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But chains and whips excite me

I looked at the counselors as she sang the first line. “Oh, my gosh, totally inappropriate for camp!” They just shrugged. Your child was singing at the top of her lungs. She was putting on a show! Then came the second part of the chorus. Wow, I hope she doesn’t know what that means, I thought. I didn’t even realize that was the actual lyric until your little girl sang it so articulately. (Yes, I thought, someone let her play this one over and over and over again to capture every nuance.)

By the time she got to the end of the song I decided you were a complete and total idiot. I wanted to smack you upside the head while screaming, “NOT APPROPRIATE!” See, parents like me (what, you say I am a prude?) TURN THIS SONG OFF when it comes on the radio. We do not put it on our kid’s iPod. We discuss it with other parents at parties nodding our heads and saying how it’s not proper music for the under 14-set. Heck, it’s not exactly proper music for the over 14-set, either.

As your daughter thankfully finished her song (and I made a mental note to mention something to the camp director), I shook my head and felt sorry for you. Your kid is probably going to be one of those kids who has sex early. What? I’m crazy? No, actually, I’m not. A 2009 University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that, “teenagers who preferred popular songs with degrading sexual references were more likely to engage in intercourse or in pre-coital activities.”

And:

“This study demonstrates that, among this sample of young adolescents, high exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex in popular music was independently associated with higher levels of sexual behavior. In fact, exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex was one of the strongest associations with sexual activity…These results provide further support for the need for additional research and educational intervention in this area.”

(For what it’s worth, another study found that kids who listen to music that contain references to drug use also use drugs at a higher rate.) Maybe you didn’t know how influential music is over our kids. Maybe you think it’s cute to hear your little blondie belting out Rihanna. (I’ll admit, she’s got a phenomenal voice). But unfortunately, you’re doing a huge disservice to your kid and all the kids in that camp who had to listen to that inappropriate song. Maybe next week you could suggest she sing something off of the newest Kidz Bop album?

Love, –KB

This morning, I was honored to spend time on the phone with Sarah DeFeo and Audra Moran of the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. Sarah is the organization’s director of scientific affairs; Audra is its CEO. We talked about detection, prevention and ways you and I can get involved. Here’s a transcript of our discussion:

KB: Who is most likely to get ovarian cancer?

Sarah: With many cancers, they appear at any time at any age. Cancer doesn’t discriminate for the most part. Ovarian cancer is a little different, though. The vast majority of people who get it are post menopausal women 55 years and older. We also know that women with certain risk factors get it, too.

KB: How many people get the disease?

Sarah: The current stats say that 22,000 American women will be diagnosed this year with ovarian cancer, and approximately 15,000 will die of the disease.

KB: How can you tell that you’ve got the disease? What are the warning signs?

Sarah: It’s tough, because you don’t have much in the way of symptoms. Plus, right now there’s no method of early diagnosis, which means far too many [people] are diagnosed in late stage disease. If ovarian cancer is caught early at stage 1 or 2 it can be treated effectively and the treatment is quite high.

KB: How can we change that? Why aren’t more women diagnosed earlier?

Sarah: It’s tough because there’s nothing like a pap smear or a mammogram out there for ovarian cancer detection. However, there are early warning indicators. Many women with ovarian cancer report that they did have symptoms, but they didn’t recognized them as ovarian cancer. [These] women had things like abdominal bloating — some women notice their pants seem too tight around the waist — difficulty eating or feeling full quickly. They might not have a desire to eat. Urinary problems are another symptom. Having to go frequently or having problems with urgency. The hard part is any women could read these symptoms and at any time and say, “Oh my God. I am bloated, I have ovarian cancer!” Any woman could have these symptoms at any time and they are nothing. The key is if these symptoms are new and unusual for you and they persist, you need to get them checked out. If you have these symptoms for two weeks, three weeks go to your doctor and be sure to ask about ovarian cancer.

KB: Won’t my doctor or midwife think I’m nuts if I say I think I have ovarian cancer?

Sarah: It’s worth being explicit especially when the symptoms are vague. We hear stories about women who bounce around the medical system for a few months before getting a diagnosis, and that’s what we want to avoid. For example, if symptoms are basically GI problems, a woman could end up going to a gastroenterologist. You need to say it because even though we hope a gynecologist would think to check for it, if it is a younger woman, it might not be top of mind for that doctor if the patient doesn’t appear to have warning signs.

KB: I get a sonogram of my ovaries when I go for a regular checkup. Why doesn’t every doctor or midwife do that?

Sarah: For many doctors the concern is it would lead to some unnecessary treatment. If you screen 100 people you might find something in a few of them. So the next thing you know you’re performing potentially risky surgeries on women.

KB: Why is it so important for people to get involved and donate to ovarian cancer research and organizations like the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund?

Sarah: We’re the largest non-profit in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to funding ovarian cancer research. (There are some government sponsored research programs going on, too.) We’ve been around for 15 years, making grants for 12 years. In that time we’ve made a big impact on the field. Not only in moving the science forward but also helping to grow ovarian research itself. Most people don’t know this, but scientists they will go where they can find money to do research. So if there is no money out there for ovarian research but tons of money for prostate cancer research they will go and do the prostate cancer research instead. What we’re doing is helping them get working and encouraging them to stay in the field.

KB: How can women protect themselves from ovarian cancer?

Sarah: Be proactive about looking for signs of cancer. Also, be extra vigilant if you have any of the risk signs: increasing age, if you have a family or personal history of breast cancer, if you’ve never had children. Oral contraceptive use significantly reduces risk, as does breastfeeding and multiple pregnancies.

KB: How can I get involved?

Audra: There are plenty of ways. You can donate to the fund right on our website. We’ve also got an online shop where vendors have donated beautiful items for purchase. And right now Electrolux, though Kelly Ripa’s Kelly Confidential site, will donate $1 for every banana split you make online.

Do you have someone in your family who is affected by this terrible disease? How do you protect yourself from cancer on a daily basis? Let’s hear it!

The one that makes me angriest is what’s going on with Bisphenol A (BPA). It was bad enough when, last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came out and said it had “some concerns” about the chemical that helps harden plastics. But now based on research states are not only calling for bans of the chemical in infant and toddler items, some are looking to classify BPA as a toxin. This week, for example, the California Environmental Protection Agency signaled its intent to add BPA to a list of chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. In this case, BPA, a synthetic form of estrogen, falls into the second category. A month ago BPA was considered safe, but now it’s not? How does that work?

Meanwhile, two papers have come to light that show polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are also known as flame retardants have a direct link to health. The first study links PBDE levels with lower IQ scores. Researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health found that the higher the levels of PBDEs mothers come in contact with while pregnant, the lower kids IQ scores come out to be. The second PBDE study links the chemicals to an increased risk of infertility. Considering that any couch, mattress, or carpet pad manufactured before 2005 probably contains PBDEs, these studies are significant. (You can read the Environmental Working Group’s excellent guide to reducing PBDE exposure here.) Again, it took this long to figure this all out? What happened to testing this stuff before you let us — and our kids — sleep on it, sit on it, and wear it?

Finally, at the end of last month researchers at Mount Sinai reported that prenatal exposure to phthalates affects childhood neurodevelopment. Kids who are exposed in the womb are more likely to have behavior problems, according to the study. “We found a striking pattern of associations between low molecular weight phthalates – which are commonly found in personal care products – and disruptive childhood behaviors, such as aggressiveness and other conduct issues, and problems with attention. These same behavioral problems are commonly found in children diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or Conduct Disorder,” said Stephanie Engel, PhD, lead study author and Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in the school’s press release.

And just where can you find phthalates? Shampoo, cosmetics, perfumes, and lotions, among other things. Look for the following ingredients on your bottles and tubes if you want to avoid phthalates, according to the FDA: “The principal phthalates used in cosmetic products are dibutylphthalate (DBP), dimethylphthalate (DMP), and diethylphthalate (DEP). They are used primarily at concentrations of less than 10% as plasticizers in products such as nail polishes (to reduce cracking by making them less brittle) and hair sprays (to help avoid stiffness by allowing them to form a flexible film on the hair) and as solvents and perfume fixatives in various other products.”

After reading all these studies, I have to ask: Why is it that the U.S. government allows these things to go on? The Canadian government doesn’t. The European Union doesn’t, either. They both have what I think is a pretty smart policy when it comes to chemicals and drugs. Instead of labeling everything safe unless proven dangerous, the EU assumes everything is dangerous unless proven safe. Seven years ago in 2003, the EU banned a boat load of chemicals in cosmetics. You can read all about it here. I don’t get it. Why isn’t the U.S. government protecting us? Why do I have to stop using my favorite hair conditioner because it gets a 7 (as in high hazard) on the Environmental Working Group’s Cosmetic Database. Why does it contain an ingredient that is not allowed to be used in Canada? And another that’s banned by the EU? I am pissed. You should be, too.

We have to do something. We need to make some noise. We have to ask our regulators to start taking action on our behalf. We can also vote with our wallets. Are you willing to do it? I am, although my hair is going to be really mad about it until I find a natural curly conditioner.

I tend to look a lot like the guy on the left...

The memory is burned into my brain. I was a shy, awkward 13. Pin-thin except for the fact that I was way too developed for someone my age. For someone twice my age. As a result, I walked around hunched over, my shoulders curling forward, my head down. One afternoon my seventh grade English teacher Mrs. Bergen — who was probably drunk at the time — decided she was going to get me to stand up straight. So as we walked the long hall between our English class and the library, she had one of my classmates hold on to the back of my long, curly hair, pulling it down to keep my head up. It was humiliating. It didn’t help, either. To this day I have a tendency to slouch. It’s a terrible habit, especially for someone who is as active and flexible as I am.

My terrible posture is something I’ve always wanted to change. I remind myself several times each day to stand up straight, to pull in my core and lengthen my neck. After reading a recent study out of Ohio State University, I’m going to make more of an effort, though.

It’s pretty clear that how you carry yourself affects how others think about you. I was picked on in junior high. My body language screamed how uncomfortable I was in my skin. If I had known better, I would have faked it, standing up straight so I could have projected a feeling of confidence. And maybe if I did that I would have actually felt better about myself, too. The Ohio State folks asked people to either slouch or sit up straight while writing down three positive or negative traits about themselves. (The traits related to how well they would do as a future professional employee.) The test subjects who sat up straight were more likely to believe what they wrote — positive or negative. Explained the study: “…students who assumed the slumped over, less confident posture, didn’t seem convinced by their own thoughts – their ratings didn’t differ much regardless of whether they wrote positive or negative things about themselves.” So if you’re all hunched over you’re not going to believe in yourself as much as you would if you are ramrod straight. Makes sense.

If that isn’t enough to convince me another study that links poor posture to a shorter life span should. The study out of the University of California Los Angeles found that older women with Dowager’s Hump — sort of like a humpback, which can be caused by poor posture — had an elevated risk of dying early.

Of course my biggest motivation for good posture has nothing to do with studies. It’s the cute redhead and blond who –from morning until night — hang on my every word. How can I teach them to be proud of themselves and to stand up straight if their mommy doesn’t? How can I help them avoid a similar fate unless they have a good role model? So I’m working on it. Some more. And I’ll keep working on it until I get it right.

Did you have a problem with poor posture? If so, how did you overcome it? I’d love to hear your thoughts.