Pears from Concentrate, Sugar, Dried Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Modified Corn Starch, Fructose, Grape Juice from Concentrate. Contains 2% or less of Partially Hydrogenated Cottonseed Oil, Malodextrin, Cottonseed Oil, Citric Acid, Carrageenan, Glycerin, Monoglycerides, Sodium Citrate, Malic Acide, Potassium Citrate, Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), Agar-Agar, Natural and Artificial Flavor, Xanthan Gum, Color (red 40, blue 1, yellow 5).

Uggg. We usually buy Fruitabu. The ingredients:

Apple puree concentrate, natural lemon juice concentrate, natural apple flavor.

And you know what? My kid likes — no, loves — the Fruitabu. So what’s the need for all that other garbage? I’ll tell you: it’s cheaper, so you can turn a better profit. It’s also sweeter so you can hook the kid in and get them wanting more.

That’s why I was not only happy but surprised when — while browsing at Target — I saw a “natural-ized” version of the traditional Fruit Rollups: Simply Fruit Rollups. Could it be because the company is being sued in a class action lawsuit that alleges General Mills made “misleading health claims?” Who knows. But I am so impressed with the new version of the product that I actually bought it! I want to do a side-by-side taste test between Fruitabus and the new General Mills Simply Fruit Roll-Ups. Here’s the ingredients, taken directly from the packaging:

Apple Juice Concentrate, Dried Apples, Blackberry Puree, Strawberry Puree, Canola Oil. Contains 2% or less of: Fruit Pectin, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), Black Carrot Juice Concentrate and Blueberry Juice Concentrate Added for Color, Natural Flavor, Citric Acid, and Sodium Sulfite Added to Protect Color.

Yes, I could do without the preservatives and the oil, but not bad compared to the original version. Definitely a big improvement!

This post is how I am participating this week in Food Renegade’s Fight Back Fridays — an awesome campaign to get people eating real food again. What do you think of the packaged snacks that are out there? What do you give your kids?

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.

I finished the story and just feel terrible. Every day it seems like there is another report and another study linking our environment to negative health problems. And every day companies and organizations such as the Vinyl Institute and the American Chemistry Council — even pro-health organizations such as The American Cancer Society — come out and tell us not to worry. It will all be okay. The researchers don’t know what they are talking about. The studies are all wrong. It’s just really depressing and disheartening.

So today, a day late, I am ending my post with a haiku. (The WordCount Blogathon asked participants to write haikus yesterday. I forgot.)

It is the money
That trumps our health and wellness
We should be ashamed

And…

Chemical exec
A place is waiting for you
In hell and it’s free

And…

I cry for our kids
What are we doing to them
We need to stanch it

And…

Money can’t buy health
It can buy lawmakers though
A very sad state

Please let me know if I messed up the moras or anything. I haven’t written haiku since fourth grade. And since I love participation: How about adding a haiku of your own? Oh, yeah. And see that little brown square to the right? The one that says Top Mommy Blogs? Click on it and vote for me? You can vote every day to help me move up on the list.

The organization assessed 17 different perfumes, which listed “fragrance” on their labels. On average, there were 14 different unlisted ingredients in each of the perfumes. The reason: manufacturers are not required to list the chemicals they use to make perfumes fragrant. And some of the perfumes had many more than average. For example, American Eagle Seventy Seven had 24 unnamed ingredients, Coco Mademoiselle Chanel had 18, and Britney Spears Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio both had 17 unnamed ingredients. Almost 2/3rds — 66 percent of the ingredients — have not been tested for human safety. “According to EWG analysis, the fragrance industry has published safety assessments for
only 34% of the unlabeled ingredients,” says the report.

From the report: “The fragrances tested contained, on average, 10 chemical sensitizers, which can trigger reactions such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis when they are breathed in absorbed into the skin.” (Check out page 9 of the report to see the full list of chemicals.)

It’s not like this all over the world, though. In fact, it seems like the folks in Europe are better protected than those in the States. In Europe, there are 26 ingredients that must go on the label if they are in perfume. According to this week’s report, those 17 perfumes tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics had 22 of those ingredients. And 12 of the 17 perfumes tested also contained phthalates: diethyl phthalate, known as DEP, specifically. Phthalates are hormone disruptors that mainly affect the reproductive organs and the brain. Nasty little chemicals. Not something you’d want to be rubbing on your skin or inhaling into your lungs.

An April 2010 study out of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University has linked prenatal exposure to phthalates found in personal care products and perfume to childhood ADHA. Another Mount Sinai study linked phthalates to early puberty in girls. This is a big deal, according to researchers, because it may cause a higher incidence of breast cancer later in life: “”Exposure to these chemicals is extremely common,” Dr. Mary Wolff, Professor of Preventive Medicine and Oncological Sciences at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. “As such, while the association between chemicals and pubertal development seems small, the impact on the overall population is significant.”

So what’s the take-away? We, as consumers, should be able to avoid phthalates and chemicals that have the potential to hurt us. We can’t do that unless we can see everything that goes into the products we buy. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics wants Congress to rewrite the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973, forcing the perfume manufacturers to list every chemicals that’s in a perfume or cologne. It’s tough, though, since the FDA lacks the authority to make this happen. I agree something has to change. What do you think?

Do you wear perfume every day? I don’t — only on special occasions — but this still scares me. My girls have been lying on my mom’s chest since they were born. My mother-in-law’s, too. They “smell like Grandma” when both grandmas leave.

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.

New York State vaccine requirements for school admission.

Full disclosure: I did not see PBS’s The Vaccine War. I was asleep by the time it came on, a rarity for me. But I did read many of the blog posts about its production and editing.

The producers went out and interviewed two doctors — M.D.s — who aren’t necessarily for or against vaccines. Dr. Robert Sears and Dr. Jay Gordon. Both doctors are pro-vaccines but against the current vaccination schedule. Their take on it: Children are given too many vaccines given in too short of a time frame and too many vaccines at once. Both doctors have publicly questioned if the constant assault of vaccines is contributing to the rise of allergies, autoimmune diseases, ADHD, ADD, and autism. They spoke about those concerns during the interviews they graciously granted the PBS folks. These are not rebel physicians calling for the abolishment of vaccines. They simply want more spacing and fewer unnecessary shots. Oh, and maybe waiting until a child is more than five minutes old to give them that first shot.

People who watched the show, though, didn’t get to hear any of that thoughtful, research-based opinion or knowledge because PBS left both doctors on the editing room floor. Dr. Gordon wrote and posted a letter to the show’s producer expressing his distaste for their decision. Instead of a balanced, smart piece the “documentary” pits parents against parents. “Smart” caring parents who vaccinate versus “evil” parents who delay, space or choose not to vaccinate at all. Just what we need. More reasons to hate each other. More reasons to fight among ourselves. More reasons to distrust one another.

I don’t know why they did that. I also don’t know why none of the traditional media companies — aside from The Huffington Post — have even addressed the unbalanced coverage of the topic. You’d think someone somewhere, whether they are pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, or completely objective, would take PBS to task over this lapse of judgement. I will say that I agree with Dr. Sears and Dr. Gordon. Vaccines, at least some of them, are all about money. A vaccine visit is a quick visit. A quick ka-ching for a doctor. And a big ka-ching for drug companies. And before you stop reading, take note. First, look at the image above. Click on it if you can’t read it. It’s the vaccine schedule for New York State. Those are the vaccines you need — unless you have a medical or religious exemption — to get into school. The total: 17 vaccines. Now look at this schedule:

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) suggests a lot of vaccines. A lot.

That’s more than 30 vaccines for kids under the age of six. The AAP’s vaccine schedule for kids over six is tough, too. Okay, so if the AAP thinks all those vaccines are so important, why aren’t they mandated for school? Do I really need a vaccine for rotavirus? Or an ear infection? I don’t think so. What ever happened to letting kids get sick once in a while? When we don’t get sick, our immune system doesn’t do its job. And, some researchers think that’s why it turns on itself and we end up with all these autoimmune diseases. Not to mention the fact that we’re hammering our babies with chemicals like aluminum, formaldehyde, antibiotics, hydrochloric acid and preservatives, among other things. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the ingredients list that the Centers for Disease Control puts out there.

I could go on and on, but I won’t. What I will say is that vaccines have saved lives. Vaccines do work. But that doesn’t mean we need to add more and more of them into the mix. Sometimes too much of a good thing can hurt us.

Where do you stand on the vaccine question? Have you ever thought about it? Did you know you, as a parent, can determine and control your child’s vaccine schedule? Did you know you can say no to multiple shots at once or vaccines that aren’t on the school admission list. Or no to any shots?

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.

Okay, PepsiCo. I like the idea of pulling soda out of schools. And you can’t get much healthier than water and milk. (Although the bottle is troubling, but I digress as always.) But diet soda? REALLY? With what we already know about artificial sweeteners, Wouldn’t a better policy be to stick with milk, juice, and soda? Do little kids really need to get hooked on artificial junk so early? Not to mention the effect on our environment. For example, did you know that last summer researchers in Germany found that sewage treatment plants can’t extract all of the aspartame that gets flushed –cough, cough, you know what I mean — down the toilet? And unfortunately we know nothing about what those chemicals can do to an ecosystem. And if you’re actually trying to curb obesity, why would you offer drinks that have ingredients that have been directly linked to causing obesity, according to several different studies. Here’s an excerpt from one: “Researchers have laboratory evidence that the widespread use of no-calorie sweeteners may actually make it harder for people to control their intake and body weight. The findings appear in the February issue of Behavioral Neuroscience, which is published by the American Psychological Association (APA).”

Oh, and did you know just having those drinks in schools may hurt kids and their ability to learn and make decisions? A January study out of the University of South Dakota was able to link drinking diet soda with a propensity to want immediate gratification. Those people who drank full sugar soda were more likely to make choices to delay reward. I’ll let the researchers explain: “The finding that a diet soda drink increased the degree of future discounting suggests that artificial sweeteners may alarm the body of imminent caloric crisis, leading to increased impulsivity.” Impulsivity? In school? Not a great thing.

So, PepsiCo: I like your thinking. You’re almost there. I’m really happy that you’re considering the welfare of our kids. I like that they don’t have access to the high fructose-filled soda that you put out. But I can’t give you an A. Not just yet. You’re still at a C+. And my kids? They’ll still be taking their water-filled stainless steel thermos to school. Way cheaper, and way better for their bodies.

p.s. PepsiCo: My husband loves Pepsi Throwback. Why don’t you just do away completely with the HFCS in your sodas? Is it that much cheaper to produce your products using something that’s been proven to cause high blood pressure, affect memory, contribute to obesity, and may increase the risk of kidney disease? Seriously. I’m asking. I’d love to hear your answer. I know you read my blog.

What’s your take on soda in schools? Are you for it? Against it? I’ve seen people on my Facebook page say that they had entire football fields paid for by soda machine sales –shudder, think of all those calories! Who should decide?

Finally, see that little brown button next to this? The one that says TopMommyBlogs.com? Well, you can click it daily and help me move up from my dismal spot in the 200s. Also, are you following me on Twitter yet? I tweet a lot (usually) throughout the day about all things green, crunchy, natural, and kid-related. Pregnancy, technology, and marketing, too. If you’re following me, you already know this. If you’re not, just click through to start listening to my daily banter.

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.