The environmental action group today filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for, “failing to issue a final rule regulating the chemicals triclosan and triclocarban, which are commonly found in antibacterial soaps.”

I’ve written about the topic many times before, but I’ll catch you up again. Triclosan or triclocarbon is the active ingredient in many antibacterial soaps. (You can also find it in a ton of other consumer products such as toothpaste, clothing, toys and furniture, among other items.) Scientists have linked the stuff to a number of different problems. Animal studies show triclosan is a hormone disruptor, changing the way our bodies work. From the NRDC’s press release: “…hormonal interference has the potential to cause long-term health problems including poor sperm quality and infertility, and damage to the developing brain leading to poor learning and memory. Several studies suggest that triclosan and triclocarban also may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.” There’s more in a wonderful NRDC fact sheet. Take a look.

Earlier this year the FDA agreed, saying triclosan studies to date raise “valid concern” about the chemical. At the time, the FDA promised a ruling on the chemical “this spring.” Ummm…the spring has sprung, folks. It’s summer, with fall fast approaching. Which is why the NRDC has filed this lawsuit. It wants the FDA to act now to protect us and our kids. In fact, the NRDC wants to ban the use of triclosan completely.

The sad thing is, triclosan is no more effective at preventing illness and killing germs than plain old soap and water. (Yup, the FDA agrees on that point, too. Check out the What Consumers Should Know section.) So what’s the take-away? Don’t buy anything with triclosan. If you’re worried about your handwashing skills, buy Purell or another alcohol-based hand sanitizer. And keep your fingers crossed that a lawsuit gets the FDA to make the ruling it should have made several months ago.

Do you look out for triclosan when shopping? Are you worried about its effects? (And hey, did you know BPA can be found at high levels on cash register receipts??? So says the Environmental Working Group…)

Kellogg’s said the packages were recalled because it identified a substance in the package liner that can “produce an uncharacteristic waxy-like off-taste and smell.” They were caused, the company said, because of elevated levels of a common substance that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in packaging. The Environmental Working Group identified the substance as methylnaphthalene, a petroleum-based product.

From an EWG press release: “This compound, methylnaphthalene (methyl-NAP-tha-lene), has been the subject of major, on-going government and oil industry testing and information-gathering initiatives to identify potential safety issues and fill basic data gaps, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of the scientific literature. Kellogg’s has not publicly identified the chemical but provided the information to EWG in response to our inquiries.”

The EWG did a little research on methylnaphthalene and didn’t find much info, but what it did find is troublesome. For example, four years ago the FDA asked for “toxicology information” about the substance. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry said it wasn’t easy to get exposure to it unless you lived near a hazardous waste site. Wow.

So we don’t really know very much about a substance that is commonly detected, according to the EWG’s press release, “cigarette smoke, diesel and gasoline engine exhaust, wood smoke, tar and asphalt.” We do know, however — according to the same EWG research — that “methylnaphthalene causes lung damage when exposure occurs via inhalation, ingestion and skin contact. Mice given feed containing 0.075 percent or 0.15 percent of 1- or 2-methylnaphthalene for 81 weeks had lung damage known as ‘pulmonary alveolar proteinosis,’ marked by abnormal lipids, proteins and fluid in the lung.” And to date no one — no agency or organization — has set safe limits for the chemical. And yet there it is in cereal marketing to and made for children.

I don’t know about you, but that completely and totally ticks me off. Completely and totally. The EWG is calling for the FDA to do its job and actually “investigate and regulate all chemicals that make their way from cardboard boxes, plastic bags, metal cans and coated papers into our breakfasts and our bodies.” I say that’s a good place to start.

Does this recall affect what you’ve been buying for breakfast? Do you worry that the FDA isn’t taking our best interests to heart? What can we do to make our food safer? How can we best work with companies like Kellogg’s and other food manufacturers to ensure they are thinking about our safety? I’d like some answers.

This post is my participation in Real Food Wednesdays and Fight Back Fridays — two awesome campaigns to get people eating real food again. Would love to hear any tips you might have to help keep kids focused on eating. What super-yummy, high calorie foods can you suggest? I’d like to know.

It was something I would hear several times from several people throughout the day. It was cool and windy; the sun wasn’t shining. Everyone figured they were protected from a burn. And everyone found out they were wrong. It’s a common misconception, actually.

The truth: Skin-damaging UVA and skin burning UVB light penetrates clouds and will start damaging your skin pretty quickly. According to the World Health Organization’s Global Solar UV Index Guide, up to 80 percent of the sun’s ultraviolet rays can pass through the clouds. Add sand, which reflects 25 percent of the sun’s rays or snow, which reflects 80 percent of the sun’s rays, and you understand why you need to wear sunscreen on exposed areas every day — winter, spring, summer and fall. And also why some of the worst burns I’ve ever seen happened on ski slopes.

As someone who has type 1 skin — the American Academy of Dermatology has come up with six skin categories; click here to see which one you fall into — I am super, hyper vigilant when it comes to skin protection. I keep the blinds drawn (UVA rays can penetrate glass), I wear hats, I don’t step outside without sunscreen and I reapply often. Unfortunately, I got more than my fair share of burns as a child — many, many blistering burns. (Am I the only one who had my mom drape wet washcloths across my back and shoulders?) So I am at greater risk of getting skin cancer. And yes, as usual, this is why I treat my kids like the sun will make them disintegrate on contact.

To date, my big girl is nearly freckle-free. (She’s got a tiny dusting on her nose.) The baby is still completely freckle-free. Neither has ever been burned — thank goodness. I can report this because of the hyper-vigilance. They wear sun shirts rather than suits whenever possible. I make them wear terry cover-ups, hats when they’re not in the water. They get lots of sunscreen. Lots. I reapply every few hours, and try and get them to play in the shade even though they’re ‘blocked. I hope I am creating good habits that will follow them into adulthood. I think it will. They have been watching me put daily sunscreen on my face since they were born. The baby actually asks for her own sunscreen. The big girl gets slathered every morning before she gets on the bus. She gets why we’re doing it. She’s been hearing about the dangers of sun for a while, and the benefits of sunblock, too: better-looking skin well into old age.

What’s your sun ritual like? What’s your favorite sunscreen? I’m partial to Blue Lizard, which scores the best on the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep website. How about you?

Second, my big girl inherited my “love” of the water. I did not do this to her. My husband, a water loving guy who spends his life on boats and in pools, encouraged her to swim as a baby. But she never liked it until last year when she joined a local swim team. Third: My big girl attended swim lessons for four years. The combination of intense fear and a rudimentary knowledge of what to do if she fell in meant my big girl was relatively safe around water. She would never go in alone, and if she fell in she knew, after hours and hours of lessons, what to do to save herself.

My little girl is the complete opposite of her sister. She has absolutely no fear of the water. My big girl would scream if she got even a sprinkle of water on her face. The little one screams to go into the shower and, once there, looks up into the falling water laughing and smiling. In the bathtub the big one always asked to have a washcloth close by to dry her eyes should they get wet. The little one ages me every time she throws herself under the water trying to swim. It’s so bad I have to sit on the edge of the tub with my feet in the water while I am bathing her. With my feet in I can move more swiftly to pull her out. She wants to swim and doesn’t care if, when she submerges her entire head, she drinks a little water. (Which she does several times during every bath.) This is why I was especially interested in the updated guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) related to swimming. (It’s also why she takes a lot of showers.)

The AAP’s stance used to be that toddlers — kids between the ages of 1 and 3 — shouldn’t take organized swim lessons, a fact that haunted me every time my big girl stepped into the swim class. Today, however, it reversed its stance saying that everyone over a year should take a swim class. From the press release: “New evidence shows that children ages 1 to 4 may be less likely to drown if they have had formal swimming instruction. The studies are small, and they don’t define what type of lessons work best, so the AAP is not recommending mandatory swim lessons for all children ages 1 to 4 at this time. Instead, the new guidance recommends that parents should decide whether to enroll an individual child in swim lessons based on the child’s frequency of exposure to water, emotional development, physical abilities, and certain health concerns related to pool water infections and pool chemicals.”

So someone like my little girl, who lives in a beach community, rides on a boat every weekend and is so strong that she can do a basket hang on the uneven bars BY HERSELF should absolutely be learning to swim. And she will be. I had enrolled her a while back, but work got in the way. I had a credit that I needed to use so I recently signed her up for classes. One-on-one once a week for six weeks. I’m sure we’ll have to continue them, too, since she’s intent on spending the entire summer splashing around in a pool.

Of course, even with the lessons I intend on following the AAP’s other guidance: never leaving her alone for a second and keeping her in a life preserver while we’re on the boat — stuff that’s even more important for my little fearless swimming wanna be.

Do you swim? Do your kids? How am I going to spend the summer in the pool when I hate it…sigh…

Yes, she is day potty-trained, but I still put a diaper on her for naps and at night. Seems she doesn’t like wearing a diaper ever, so she’s been taking off her sleep sack and tossing the diaper onto the floor. No big deal when it’s naptime. She stays dry most days. BIG problem at night, though. There have been a couple of evenings where she’s done this and I’ve had to deal with wet sheets in the morning. Weird thing: the sheet has only been wet in one spot, so I am thinking maybe she does hold it all night and she goes when she wakes up? Anyway…

Today or maybe last night — who knows — she pulled a really fast one. She took off her sleep sack, took off her pajama pants, took off the diaper, and then put her pants and sleep sack back on. Even zipped up the sleep sack. I heard Chris when he went in this morning. “Where is your diaper? How did you get everything back on? Are you kidding me?” Her clothing was dry. The diaper, tossed on the floor, was a little wet. I guess we won’t know when she did it, but it begs the question: What do I do about my little quick change artist? How do I keep the diaper on her at night?

She turns two at the end of next month. I suppose we could try going diaper-less, but Keira is still in a crib and will be for the foreseeable future so how would it work if she had to go to the bathroom? I can’t have that crazy baby walking around the house in the middle of the night. And I don’t think she’s going to be like Katelyn. “Katelyn, if you need to get out of your bed you have to call Mommy and Daddy.” “Okay, Mommy.” And she did until she turned FIVE! With Keira it would be something like, “(Waking up in the middle of the night) Chris, Chris, I think someone is in the house!” We’d both go investigate and find Keira in the kitchen playing Play-doh or babies or eating a banana at 2 a.m. Yes, she’s a good sleeper, but with a little freedom I don’t know if that would remain the case.

So I’m asking: What would you do? How do I keep my kid safe and dry and all of us happy and sleeping?

Hope you enjoyed yesterday’s guest post! I did. How’s your week going? Mine is flying by too quickly as usual.

The report explains that, in 2009, more than 1.5 American men, women and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died. The experts on the panel seem to think that environmental risk factors are “grossly underestimated.” Here’s an excerpt from the study:

“With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread.” The report then went on to mention bisphenol A (BPA) specifically.

Babies and kids, according to the report, are extremely sensitive to environmental toxins. One of the biggest sources: agriculture. “The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.” Many of the pesticides have fillers and inert ingredients, too none of which are required to be tested as to how they might contribute to people getting chronic diseases or long-term illnesses such as cancer. HOW can that be true? How can it be allowed? But it is true, and it is allowed. The report makes that very clear.

The report’s main message is that we need a nation-wide plan to eliminate or reduce the environmental risks out there. In the meantime parents MUST take care of their kids, especially. One of the subheads in the report was pretty clear on this point: “Children Are at Special Risk for Cancer Due to Environmental Contaminants and Should Be Protected.”

It even calls for pregnant women to be more careful, saying babies today are born “pre-polluted” since so many contaminants can cross the placenta. It suggests we find green alternatives to many of the chemicals in use. Until that happens we can take steps to protect ourselves by buying organic — eliminating many of those pesticides criticized in the report. We can also avoid household chemicals by buying green, non-toxic cleaning supplies, and stop buying air fresheners. Clothing and furniture can be toxic, too if it is treated with flame retardant chemicals, so read your labels. Another huge, necessary change: saying no to plastic food storage and packaging. When the government repeatedly says something, in this case BPA, is bad, it’s probably a good idea to avoid it at all costs. Finally, try to keep kids away from chemically-treated lawns and gardens to reduce the number of fertilizers and herbicides they are exposed to. (And yes, it’s absolutely worth going up and talking to your school district about what they use on their laws, in the schools and on the playground.)

I’m impressed that the government is finally telling the public the truth about the chemicals in our lives. Now that it’s in our faces and obvious it’s up to us to do something with this information. It’s up to us to take care of ourselves and our kids.

Do you have a family member with cancer? Do you think there is an environmental link between that disease and the illness? What, if anything, are you going to do with this information?

This week alone there was a new study that found links BPA exposure to a change in the blood levels of thyroid and reproductive hormones in men. The study, done at an infertility clinic, found that “men with higher urine BPA concentrations had higher blood levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lower levels of inhibin B.” Elevated FSH and lower inhibin B levels are related to lower sperm quality. Meanwhile, the Maine Public Broadcasting Network produced a report that shows there are toxic chemicals such as BPA “lurking” in men’s personal products.

There’s good news, too, of course like all the people who are trying to ban BPA for use in containers that touch our food and water. The Vermont legislature is the latest crusader in this fight, approving a measure this week that will remove BPA from reusable food and drink containers and in jars and cans that contain baby food and infant formula. An even bigger fight is going on this week as the U.S. Senate debates the The Food Safety Modernization Act, which, in a nutshell, was designed to boost food safety. The Act, which amends another act — the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act — gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to food more closely. Today, based on an amendment to the amendment (wow, confusing all these Acts, right?) from Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Food Safety Modernization Act would also ban BPA in all plastic food containers.

The chemical industry is, of course, saying this is overkill. That’s no surprise. But it has a few other detractors, too. Namely, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Wow, right? The Atlantic has an excellent article discussing why this might be, but no matter the reason it’s pretty scary to me. And worrisome. These groups have a lot of lobbying power on the hill. They could absolutely derail this effort.

That’s where we come in. It’s up to us to contact our senators and tell them that we support this ban on BPA. It’s a matter of health. It’s a matter of our future. Still not convinced? Read this Fast Company article, The Real Story Behind Bisphenol A, that explains how it’s hurting us and how big business used Big Tobacco tactics to create a smoke shield, keeping the chemical in our packaging and in our bodies. I can’t imagine anyone could get through it without getting angry enough to do something about it.

Are you sick of hearing about BPA? If not, are you willing to call your senator? Here’s a link to a list of contact information that you can use to reach out to him or her. I’m about to do it myself, actually.

She got on the bike tentatively. She was nervous. She was upset. It was like she was starting over. She kept stopping and dropping her bike. Once so hard that the reflector popped off. She often let the bike fall on her, scratching up her legs. Another time she got a huge scrape on her knee because she just stopped riding and jumped off instead of making the turn. I didn’t handle any of that very well. I was aggravated to begin with since the weekend was piled up with events and appointments. I just wanted Katelyn to get it then and there so we could ride off into the sunset together. My expectations were a little flawed. I can see that now, but at the time it was so frustrating.

So terrible mommy that I am, what did I do? I sighed. I rolled my eyes. I acted impatient. She finally let me know what she thought of my teaching and parenting skills. She stopped, dropped the bike again, and wailed. “You don’t love me because I can’t do this. You are all, ‘Sigh. Sigh.’” she said, acting out my infantile behavior. She was right. I was acting like a baby. I stopped and apologized. I told her she could do it. And that she was doing a great job. I was the one who was doing the wrong thing. I was not being a good teacher. And I was sorry. (As usual.) Once we ironed out the fact that I thought she was doing a good job and I reinforced that fact with a hug and kiss, her confidence seemed to reappear. She started doing her turns. Then doing circles. Then working on starting up without help. We still need to work on the last part, but she got the idea of making turns and circles really quickly. She was beaming from ear to ear. Another mini milestone. And for me? Another failed parenting moment.

We are who we are. Katelyn was born, I am convinced, with my perfectionist leanings and super-high standards for herself. (I say that because I look at my two girls and they are completely different. Keira could care less about pleasing people. For Katelyn it’s one of her main goals.) And because I was born with the same I expect at all times that I will be a great teacher and my kids will get things automatically. Expectations are often wrong, though, and the pressure that those expectations put on both kids and everyone around me is wrong, too. I am sure this won’t be the last time I confess to being a sucky parent, but at least I’m trying to be a better one, right? That, like Katelyn’s efforts to start her bike on her own, should could for something.

What’s your parenting style? How do you teach your kids without getting frustrated? Was your parent like I am? If so, how many years did you spend in therapy? I’d like to know.

I had to read it twice. Since when is triclosan, an antibacterial that’s been linked to a host of environmental and health problems, turning up in toothpaste? I was even more aghast when I saw that the Academy of General Dentistry today released a press announcement saying that it supports the use of triclosan in toothpaste. That a recent study found that toothpaste with triclosan is better than regular toothpaste at killing bacteria found in the mouth. That must be a mistake, right? Give me a break. What about last week’s news out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that recent studies raise “valid concerns” about the safety of triclosan? (Scariest part of all this: triclosan is in so many products that it is found in our urine. Three out of four of us are peeing triclosan on a daily basis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

I wrote a whole missive about triclosan back in September. About how the EPA classifies it as a pesticide! About how it’s creating antibiotic resistant bacteria. About how it never breaks down — even after going through a sewage treatment plant. (And after re-reading that post I realized that yes, I did know that it was in toothpaste. I guess it just never registered.) Wow. Sigh. Wow. That really sucks. How can manufacturers do that to us? We’re putting a pesticide, a dangerous-to-the-earth chemical in our mouths. It makes me sad.

I went to CVS last night. Believe it or not I needed toothpaste. I looked around. I read the back of tubes and boxes. I didn’t see anything mainstream that didn’t have any chemicals. (The kids use Toms of Maine. I usually do, too, but I didn’t have time to go to Trader Joe’s last night.) So I bought a lesser-of-all-evils brand — Colgate actually has an option that only scores a 3 out of 10 on the EWG’s Skin Deep database. I’ll buy my usual brand the next time I get to TJs or Whole Foods. And in the meantime: Shame on you, traditional manufacturers. Isn’t it about time you started doing more for our environment? And our bodies?

What’s in your toothpaste? Do you know? How about your contact lens solution, your moisturizer? Your lipstick? Maybe it’s time you found out? And as for the Academy of General Dentistry: I’ve got an email out to the organization. I want to hear their reasoning behind their silly suggestion.

Energy drinks are big business. In 2007 Americans spent $6.6 billion on them. That number is expected to shoot up past $9 billion by the end of next year. But they’re also a little controversial. Marketed heavily to teens — last summer my own then 17-year-old nephew participated in a scavenger hunt, Red Bull Stash, which was promoted heavily on Facebook — experts have been calling for mandatory warning labels for a while. The one that the Joplin teen drank had one. According to the news report, the back of the can “warns that the drink is powerful and not recommended for children, pregnant women or people who are sensitive to caffeine.”

I think the problem here is that kids don’t understand that caffeine is a drug. (There’s a reason that people get headaches and cravings when they go cold turkey on their usual cup of coffee.) But that may change. In Louisiana lawmakers are trying to ban their sale to minors. Experts say that plenty of kids are mixing alcohol and energy drinks, which can cause confusion, according to one recent study. Researchers found that the caffeine in energy drinks actually makes it harder for someone to grasp the fact that they are drunk. It can also kill. France, Norway, and Denmark have banned Red Bull, for example, after a popular soccer player died after drinking four cans of it before a game.

Me, I don’t drink energy drinks. I wouldn’t give them to my kids, either. And I don’t support banning them. There have been studies linking a little caffeine with boosted athletic performance. However, I would support limiting their sale to minors, and I also think it’s important for parents to talk to their kids about the effects of caffeine. They need to know what it is, what it can do, and when it can be dangerous. If I were a parent of a teen I’d probably print out the article about the Joplin teen and give it to my kid. How about you?