I really appreciate you apologizing so profusely when, out of the blue, your 20-month-old went postal on my 2-year-old and smacked her as we passed by. I really do. I wasn’t that fazed by it, actually. Kids are kids. They do nutty things. And I didn’t think a second thought about the fact that the kid was bouncing off the walls and screaming at the top of his lungs so early in the morning. (Wow, he can really shriek, can’t he!) Or that he wasn’t listening to a word you said when you were asking him ever so nicely to apologize. Until, that is, I saw what you were feeding him. A huge cup of Froot Loops, a cup of some otherworld-colored red juice, and a bag of cookies. Hmmm.

Hey, lady, don’t take this the wrong way but how can you expect your kid NOT to be hyped up and wacky when you are feeding him crap for breakfast? Yes, I said it. Crap. A quick read of Fooducate’s excellent blog post — Froot Loops is NOT a “Smart Choice” — about the topic explains why. See, that large cup of cereal you’re giving your kid? Well, it’s probably bigger than the actual serving size that has — get this — 12.5 grams of sugar and 150 calories. In fact, the first ingredient, according to the good folks at Kellogg’s, is SUGAR! Here’s the ingredients list taken from the Google cache of the Kellogg’s website. (I couldn’t get the actual Kellogg’s ingredients page to load live.)

SUGAR; WHOLE GRAIN CORN FLOUR; WHEAT FLOUR; WHOLE GRAIN OAT FLOUR; OAT FIBER; SOLUBLE CORN FIBER; PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL (ONE OR MORE OF: COCONUT, SOYBEAN AND/OR COTTONSEED OILS)†; SALT; SODIUM ASCORBATE AND ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C); NIACINAMIDE; REDUCED IRON; NATURAL ORANGE, LEMON, CHERRY, RASPBERRY, BLUEBERRY, LIME AND OTHER NATURAL FLAVORS; RED #40; BLUE #2; TURMERIC COLOR; YELLOW #6; ZINC OXIDE; ANNATTO COLOR; BLUE #1; PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B6); RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2); THIAMIN HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B1); VITAMIN A PALMITATE; BHT (PRESERVATIVE); FOLIC ACID; VITAMIN D; VITAMIN B12. † LESS THAN 0.5g TRANS FAT PER SERVING.

I love Fooducate’s take on this, so I will just provide it below.

“In fact, Froot Loops is 41% sugar by weight. And Whoa(!) partially hydrogenated vegetable oil too. Doesn’t sound like a smart choice to us. A 1 oz serving (which by the way is too small for regular people) contains 12 grams of sugar – that’s 3 teaspoons. 48 of the 110 calories per serving are from sugar.”

I will give Kellogg’s props for going for the real sugar over the high fructose junk, but still…that’s a lot of sugar! What, you don’t think sugar riles kids up? Okay, well you can’t dispute the fact that the artificial colors do. About two years ago The Center for Science in the Public Interest formally petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban eight artificial colors that had been conclusively linked to hyperactivity in children: Yellow 5, Red 40, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Orange 8, Red 3, and Yellow 6.

The FDA in March will finally get around to determining whether or not the ban should happen. Meanwhile, in Europe, there’s already a warning label on foods that contain these chemicals: “Consumption may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” But I digress as always…

By my count, there are four of the six offending colors in Froot Loops. Wow. So maybe, just maybe that’s the reason your kid is acting a little wacky? Kid eats food dyes and LOTS of sugar. Kid goes bonkers and starts smacking anything that walks by it. Sort of like a rabid dog. But instead of rabid we’ll call it hopped up on sugar and food dyes kid. And we haven’t even touched the colored water masquerading as juice or the bag of cookies!

Okay, so getting back to the point of this letter. Again, I am so fine with the fact that your kid smacked my kid in an unprovoked manner. Kids that young are just learning. I can even overlook the frenetic behavior. Big resort. Micky and Minnie hanging out close by. However, I am not fine with the fact that you’re giving him food that’s possibly making him nuts. Maybe you could try a more healthy alternative next time? If not for your kid’s health but the health of the innocent bystanders?

Getting off my soap box now, and thanks in advance! Love, –KB

This post is how I am participating this week in Real Food Wednesdays and Fight Back Fridays — two awesome campaigns to get people eating real food again.

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, in “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.

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.

I think the timing of this announcement-that-isn’t-an-announcement is interesting. It came in the form of a conference call on a Friday before a three-day weekend. A conference call so bloggers and other smaller media outlets couldn’t participate, I guess. I can almost hear their reasoning: “Hey, we put it out there. We did our job. It’s not our fault that we did it during earthquake coverage late on a Friday when many people are going away for the weekend.”

But for those people who do care, I like this reminder of what BPA does from a Washington Post article:

BPA, used to harden plastics, is so prevalent that more than 90 percent of the U.S. population has traces of it in its urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers have found that BPA leaches from containers into food and beverages, even at cold temperatures.

THIS is the part EVERYONE should really love:

One administration official privy to the talks said the FDA is in a quandary. “They have new evidence that makes them worried, but they don’t have enough proof to justify pulling the stuff, so what do you do?” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “You want to warn people, but you don’t want to create panic.”

What, you mean like you didn’t want to panic people when you realized that cigarettes kill? Or that asbestos causes all sorts of cancers? Or that saccharine, which is still on the market, causes cancer?

I’m really disgusted right now. Again, in my opinion the government is taking the side of big business — in this case the plastic manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council, which produces the stuff. You know it may be dangerous. (Heck, may is being nice.) You know that it’s a danger that can be avoided. And yet you take a half-stance. Don’t want to get sued by the plastic industry, I guess.

Want to learn more about avoiding the chemical? I’ve written several posts about what BPA does, and where it can be found. Take a look at them. You also might want to check out this fact sheet from the Department of Health and Human Services. Still not convinced? When the FDA says that they are “concerned” even in the face of big business, you should be very, very worried. It won’t be long, I don’t think, until the rest of the truth comes out. In the meantime, protect yourself, protect your kids, protect your family.

Check your lot numbers to make sure your bottle isn't affected by the recall.

Do you know why sick people get fevers? Basically, a fever is our body’s way of making itself less hospitable to viruses and bacteria. The warmer it gets in there, the harder it is for those bugs to stick around. This is why my pediatrician has always told me not to give fever reducers unless my child was too uncomfortable to sleep or her fever went over 102 degrees. Let the body do its thing, she always counseled. I take her advice when I am sick, too. I deal with the body aches and pains because I know if I am uncomfortable, so are my germs.

That said I have given my kids Tylenol (well, kid — my little one hasn’t needed it yet) when teething pain gets bad. That’s why I was very upset to hear that there is a recall on Tylenol products. McNeil Consumer Healthcare has recalled a slew of children’s Tylenol products manufactured between April, 2008 and June, 2008, saying they may be contaminated by Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia) bacteria, which can cause pneumonia. Lovely.