• as much Vitamin C as cup of blueberries
• as much iron as a cup of spinach
• as much calcium and Vitamin D as a glass of milk
• as much Vitamin A as an 8 ounce glass of tomato juice
• as much fiber as a bowl of oatmeal
• as much Vitamin E as two glasses of carrot juice
• as much Vitamin B-12 as a cup of cottage cheese and fruit

I got a ton of comments. I still get a ton of comments. They go from calling me a stupid hippie to saying that the cookies are evil and I’m awesome for pointing out how much they suck. I never like to respond to people who call me, and I quote, “annoying” and “crazy” and “a food Nazi.” (While I will approve 99 percent of comments, I don’t feel the need to post every nasty comment that comes in, especially those laced with epithets.) However, the fact that I seem to get at least one of these comments a day, I will explain in a little more detail why I don’t like these cookies. I will use an example out of our food history.

Remember when low fat food came out? And people gobbled up low fat or no fat snacks and drinks? Remember when those people started gaining weight? Well, that’s sort of how I see these cookies. Parents tell their kids that they are eating “healthy” cookies and then kids think that cookies are somehow good for them. They get the wrong message.

My kids absolutely, 100 percent eat cookies. We especially love Whole Foods 365 Organic animal crackers. We like these caramel cookies we buy at Trader Joe’s. They love homemade oatmeal raisin cookies that my mother makes. They like cookies. That said, they know, as Elmo once said, that cookies are “sometimes” foods. That there is nothing inherently “bad” about cookies, but that they are not providing that many of good things that their bodies needs. They taste good, though. And that’s what they should think. Cookies taste good and are okay to eat in moderation. They know they get their Vitamin C from blueberries and oranges, iron from spinach, and calcium from cheese and yogurt and milk. The way nature intended it. So no, I am not a fan of WhoNu cookies. Understand? Good.

From the University’s press release: “Adults who consumed chocolate more frequently had a lower BMI than those who consumed chocolate less often.” This finding was especially interesting because the chocolate-eaters did not exercise more and actually took in more calories. Chocoholics like me (meaning people who ate at least five servings of chocolate weekly) weighed between five to seven pounds less than those who ate none, according to the study author, Beatrice A. Golomb, M.D., Ph.D.

The fact that chocolate is healthy isn’t surprising to me — or to researchers. Last year different researchers found that “high levels of chocolate consumption might be associated with a one third reduction in the risk of developing heart disease,” according to a study published on bmj.com. A March 2010 study in the European Heart Journal found that “just one small square of chocolate a day can lower your blood pressure and reduce your risk of heart disease.”

Researchers point to the multitude of antioxidants, polyphenols, and flavanols in the cocoa plant, which is a fruit in case you were wondering! So for anyone out there who is reading this and dreaming about chocolate: Go ahead, in moderation. Good news for all of us.

This week, The Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine Mainely Moms and Dads confirmed the chemical is still out there, and it can be found in many of the foods we’re giving our babies and toddlers. From the organization’s news release:

“The Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine sent fifteen containers of food to Anresco Laboratories for analysis in January and released the results today. BPA was found in 11 of the 12 sampled containers of baby food manufactured by Beech-Nut, Gerber, Earth’s Best Organic and Shaw’s Wild Harvest brand. It was also found in all three of the canned foods sampled including Campbell’s Disney Princess SpaghettiOs, Dora the Explorer soup, and Chef Boyardee macaroni and cheese.”

This is pretty scary. In case you haven’t seen the data: Teams of independent researchers have found that BPA isn’t as safe as once though. The reason: It acts as an endocrine disruptor, mimicking human hormones like estrogen. People have linked it to increased risk of breast cancer, thyroid issues, lowered male fertility rates, decreased birth weight, and wheezing, among other ailments and issues. Another October 2011 Harvard School of Public Health study found BPA exposure in the womb is linked to behavioral and emotional difficulties in girls. Of course the folks who bring us this plastic and resin say it’s perfectly fine. Me? I’m thinking that all those researchers can’t be wrong, which is why I limit my family’s BPA exposure as much as possible.

The smart folks in Maine are asking manufacturers of food intentionally marketed or sold to children under three to replace BPA or disclose how much BPA is in their packaging. They say a second phase will ask for a complete ban of the substance. It’s a start, I guess, but I’d rather see our governments come out and ban BPA in all food containers as well as anything that might be ingested by kids or adults. What do you think?

• About 10 percent of the juices that CR sampled (from five brands) showed arsenic levels that “exceeded federal drinking-water standards. Most of that arsenic was inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen.”
• 25 percent of samples had lead levels “higher than the FDA’s bottled-water limit of 5 ppb. As with arsenic, no federal limit exists for lead in juice.”
• We’re getting a large portion of our arsenic exposure from apple and grape juice. CR called the juices, “a significant source of dietary exposure to arsenic,” according to its analysis of federal health data from 2003 through 2008.
• Kids are drinking a heck of a lot of juice. According to a CR parents poll, 25 percent of kids under five drink more juice than their pediatricians recommend.

Consumer Reports says the source of the arsenic and lead is contaminated apple orchards. Soil is contaminated due to a number of reasons, For example, arsenic-based pesticides that were used in the past are still hanging around. Plus, there’s plenty of arsenic and lead in the environment from things like the production of pressure-treated wood.  Even more significant, I think, (and something the CR article points out, too) is the fact that much of our apple juice is made from concentrate that comes from China, a country that still uses arsenic-based pesticides.

I have always had a few rules about juice. First, anything my kids drank had to be 100 percent juice — no high fructose, sugar-added junk for us. Second, it had to be organic. Finally, juice was an occasional thing. We drink it sparingly at playdates, at mommy-and-me classes, and always watered it down in a 2-to-1 ratio of water to juice.

These rules, I assumed, would keep my girls healthier. We would avoid pesticides and reduce our risk of obesity. After all, juice is way better than the other options out there — aside from water, of course. Two separate 2010 studies out of Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and Baylor College of Medicine seemed to support my theory.

One study found that children between the ages of two and five who drank 100 percent fruit juice had “significantly” higher daily intakes of vitamin C, potassium, and magnesium and “significantly lower intakes of added sugars compared to non-fruit juice consumers.” Juice drinkers, for some reason, also ate more whole fruits and whole grains. The other study — of children ages six to 12 — had similar results. Kids who drank juice took in more key nutrients and ate more dietary fiber, according to the study. In addition, “overall diet quality, as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index — a measure that evaluates conformance to federal dietary guidance — was higher in all fruit juice consumers assessed.”

Great. Juice is good for adults, too, as studies have found that it can reduce the risk of some cancers and is beneficial to cardiovascular health. Except, of course, when the juice contains carcinogens. So what’s a parent to do? I plan on sticking to water or orange juice for a while, or limiting my purchases to apple and grape juices that are organic and clearly marked, “Made in the U.S.A.” How about you?

Thanks to the Candy Professor for letting me use this photo, which shows the with-artificial-colors, without-artificial-colors difference.

A fellow Twitter pal clued me in that the New England Confectionery Company, the company behind NECCO Wafers, decided to go back to its old recipe — and all the artificial colors that used to be in it. I confirmed the news by reading this piece, Customer Outrage Forces Necco To Put Artificial Ingredients Back Into Wafers on NPR’s blog, although this was announced back in May at the Sweets and Snacks Expo in Chicago, according to Samira Kawash, (AKA the Candy Professor). She wrote a blog about it in the spring.

In a nutshell: The company in 2009 made the switch from using artificial colors and flavors to natural ones. From the NPR blog:

“Instead of artificial dyes and colorings, the revamped Necco wafer used natural colorings made from turmeric , red beets, purple cabbage, and cocoa powder. The company also replaced the artificial flavors in some of the wafers with natural flavors.”

People hated it, according to company officials, and complained. Meanwhile, sales dropped by 35 percent, according to reports, so the company switched back to the artificial stuff.

The Candy Professor was nice enough to provide an ingredients list for both the old and new version:

All natural: Sugar, corn syrup, gelatin, coco power, natural flavors, vegetable gums, natural colors (red beet, purple cabbage, turmeric, caramel color, paprika)

Original (aka chemically one): Same as above with citric acid and artificial flavors, Yellows 5 & 6, Blue 1, Red 3, Red 40

I can remember eating NECCO wafers as a child, but I really wonder if they contained artificial colors. I mean, they’ve been around since 1847. You’re not going to tell me that artificial colors were around back then. I would personally like to do my own taste test. I wonder if there are any of the “natural” version left on store shelves?

In the meantime, I’m really sad that the company made the switch, especially since I suspect that the drop in sales had very little to do with the new colors. (As you can see from the above photo: the color difference is negligible, in my opinion.) I’d say it has to do more with choice, since even the “natural” version of the wafers is little more than formed sugar. With so many other yummy candy varieties on the market, maybe NECCO Wafers, a throwback to the nineteenth century after all, just doesn’t appeal to today’s consumers. I guess we’ll just have to see how the market shakes out.

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 was watching The Soup on E! and Joel McHale had a clip about genital age. Seems Dr. Oz has a quiz, which can be found on his website that provides the RealAge of your genitals. The woman in the clip was 43 and her vagina’s RealAge was 73. The clip made The Soup because of the woman’s face. (I felt really bad for her, actually.) Anyway, my husband and I got a big kick out of watching the clip, so I wanted to see the actual show. Thank goodness for reruns. We found it, watched it, and since then have been watching the shows instead of watching Daily Show reruns. (WHY is Jon Stewart on vacation so much?!?)

Dr. Oz spends a lot of time talking about aging. Specifically, how you can avoid aging. We saw another show this week — it aired last week; gotta love time shifting — about skin and what you can learn by looking at it. During the taping, Dr. Oz asked everyone to take off their makeup. The show really hit home because it made me aware of the fact that I am probably the only woman in America who does not wear makeup. I don’t own concealer. I don’t own liquid makeup. I don’t wear eye shadow. My beauty routine consists of moisturizer with a high SPF, a little lipstick, and some blush if I am planning on being out in public. Most days I go with the moisturizer and nothing else. This is something I’d like to change. It’s not the first time that I’ve said this. Every six or 12 months I get on a “I could be prettier” kick and try to wear makeup. The thing that keeps this from happening is my sensitive skin and desire to avoid parabens and other toxic chemicals. (And, let’s be honest here: I’m lazy.)

This weekend in between going to game night, making up birthday party favors, and throwing an eight-year-old’s birthday party, I started investigating cosmetics. Again, I’ve done this in the past, but as the Campaign for Safer Cosmetics has found: It’s pretty hard to steer clear of bad stuff in the products that make us pretty. According to the organization, “The average American uses about 10 personal care products a day resulting in exposure to more than 100 unique chemicals. The vast majority of the roughly 12,500 chemicals used by the $50 billion beauty industry have never been assessed for safety.”

I’m hoping that the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R.2359), introduced on June 24, will help to change that, but until then what’s a girl to do? One option: Check the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database. Checking the database actually made me feel a little better about the mascara I use, which scored a 3 out of 10 (with 10 being the most dangerous) on the guide. Still, I am going to try the Coastal Creations mascara, which scored a 1 out of 10 because yes, it’s important to feel pretty, but it’s important to be healthy, too.

But wait, I have totally digressed! I started off talking about Dr. Oz and skin and what you can learn from looking at it without makeup. Want to know what I learned? My skin is in pretty good shape. I’m thinking all that sunscreen and my giant “spinster hats” (as my friends have dubbed them) is the reason. That didn’t stop me from ordering $100 worth of cosmetics this evening, though. I’m looking forward to messing around with it.

The miscarriage was so horrific that I had my husband rush me to the ER. I sat there in the middle of the night stanching the blood with a big, fluffy towel, trying to remain calm in front of my kids, who were sleepy yet questioning sitting in the backseat.

There was so much blood, so many clots. I was terrified. During the seven hours I was at the ER, my hemoglobin dropped from 14 to 10. I was given three bags of fluids and had two open IVs in case they needed to give me blood. That’s how bad it was. Still, when I went home I was able to relax a bit since the clots had stopped and it looked like the “products of conception,” as the doctors so nicely put it, had been evacuated. The horrible, painful sonogram done by the evil (IMHO) sono tech found just clots left inside. I would continue passing them, said the doctor, who told me to follow up with my office and see a doctor — not my midwife.

Okay, so I called my office, telling them what the practice’s covering ER doctor told me. I showed up for my 2 p.m. appointment yesterday and — what’s this? — I’m told I am seeing the midwife, who I love, but is obviously not a medical doctor. I balk, but stick around. What else can I do? They send me into the sono room. I can see there are still dark patches inside, which are clots, the sono tech says. Is that bad, I ask. The tech tells me I have to talk to my midwife, but that clots can sometimes be passed on their own or reabsorbed by the body. Okay. So I go and talk to my midwife who tells me that she wants me to take Cytotec. (I find out later that this is simply one drug company’s brand name for misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1.) She wants me to take 200 mg every six hours for five days. It will cause contractions — “heavy contractions” — that will expel the last of the debris from my uterus. Oh, and it might make me bleed “a lot.”

I’m already feeling woozy from my lack of hemoglobin. I really don’t want to bleed heavy again, so I go home and start doing research. First thing I find is that what my midwife has prescribed is an off-label use for Cytotec, which is only approved by the FDA for the treatment of ulcers. I also find a treatment guideline that suggests, for an incomplete abortion (another way to say incomplete miscarriage), the dosage should be one 600 mg dose. The closest thing I see on that treatment guidelines related to my dose is for a “missed abortion,” which is basically when the baby stops growing but bleeding has not occurred. In that case, the dosage is 200 mg every six hours for two days. Hmmm. The whole heavy bleeding thing is freaking me out so much that I call over to the office asking for clarification. I explain what I’ve read, and how I know this is an off-label use of the drug, meaning it isn’t approved by the FDA. The girl who answers the phone puts me on hold and comes back with the following message from my midwife: “Diane says that she gave you the dosage she gave you, and if you aren’t comfortable with that then maybe this isn’t the practice for you.”

I am crushed. I am blown away. How could my midwife dismiss me this way? This is someone who gave me her cell number when we were waiting for a heartbeat. She was going away, but wanted me to text her when I got the results. Someone who hugged me when I was scared because my husband was less-than-thrilled about the pregnancy. I love her as much for the way she’s taken care of me this pregnancy as I did for her championing for me back when I was giving birth to Little Girl. I am hurt and scared and feel like I am being dismissed because I dared question her medical authority. Not one to slink away and just do what someone says without getting an answer to my questions, I called over to the main office. (This is a big practice with offices all over Long Island.) I speak to the patient care woman, who used to work with my husband at his old job. I tell her the whole story, even emailing her the links I read and she promises me that the doctor I saw in the hospital will call me back that night. She never did. I went to bed heartbroken and feeling very alone.

This morning I called back to the practice again. Kathy, the woman I originally spoke with, avoids my calls. I get Regina, one of the desk people on the phone. Regina, who has been there every step of the way with this pregnancy so she knows the deal. She tells me that the medical director wants me to come in. Is he going to do another sono or an exam, I ask her, because if he’s just having me come to chat I’d rather pay my $20 co-pay and just talk to him on the phone. I am still lightheaded, and don’t have someone to drive me to Garden City during rush hour. (And sit around the two hours I know it’s going to take to actually see this guy. The practice is notorious for making people wait and wait and WAIT.) She tells me to try and find a ride.

In between calls I reach out to another practice and spoke to a nurse. She is puzzled as to why I am getting Cytotec because I am still bleeding. “Your body is trying to expel what’s left. Why are they giving you anything yet?” We agree I am going to come in tomorrow to see the doctor there — the doctor, which is what I was told to see in the first place.

Okay, so I make a half-hearted attempt to get a ride. Anyone I would have asked has their own issues today. Work, sick children, etc. So I call back and tell Regina that I can’t get a ride, and that I will be getting a second opinion tomorrow at another practice. But I still want the results of my blood tests. Has my hemoglobin gone down more? She tells me she will try and get the results, and she will report in to the medical director about what I said. And that’s that. I am waiting for my results.

This has been a horrific summer. The pregnancy was a shock, but one that I was very, very happy about once my husband got on board. (He was initially scared and upset.) Still, as happy as I was, I never let myself get too excited about the pregnancy. I never expressed happiness at midwife appointments. First, there was no fetal pole. Then the heartbeat was slow when we did see one. I went through this once before, and I was heartbroken when I miscarried. This time, the emotional pain was worse. I haven’t cried so hard or so long as the night they told me the heartbeat stopped. I wanted that baby with all my heart and soul, but I think I knew from the start it was not meant to be.

Right now, the fact that my once-loving, caring, fabulous midwife has dismissed me for asking simple questions — and the fact that she couldn’t even be bothered to get on the phone with me to do it herself — is also breaking my heart. As someone who has issues with the whole area down below it takes a lot for me to trust someone. It’s pretty easy to dash that trust into little pieces, and that’s exactly what’s happened here.

Anyway, I didn’t write about my pregnancy earlier in the summer because I figured I’d never write about a miscarriage if it did happen, and I’m of the wait until the second trimester to share camp anyway. I probably would have stuck to my initial inclination if my midwife and medical practice had treated me with the respect and care I deserve as a woman, a customer, and a human being. The lesson, of course, is that we still have a LONG way to go before medical personnel get that patients are CUSTOMERS and PEOPLE. We are not a number on a chart or “a case,” as I was called this afternoon while talking to Regina. It sucks I have to find another doctor, but there are plenty of gynecologists and midwives out there. There has to be someone who will see me as more than just a co-pay. I just have to find her.

Note to anyone who knows me and is reading this missive: Some of you know what’s going on. I told my close friends when I got the bad news that the baby died. Those who didn’t know: Don’t talk to me about it and don’t talk to anyone else about it. If I didn’t tell you personally, I don’t want to talk to you about it. I don’t know how to say that more nicely, so I will just leave it at that.

Grapes make an excellent snack -- as long as you make the choice.

It costs more to eat well, according to a research study out of the University of Washington.

Hoping to see what effect the new U.S. dietary guidelines would have on a family’s pocketbook, researchers –  including Pablo Monsivais, acting assistant professor at the University of Washington and part of the Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network — evaluated hot much extra it would take to meet the new guidelines. (A quick aside: Prof. Monsaivais had already concluded back in 2009 that a better diet, which means a diet that’s richer in nutrients than calories, is more costly, and mostly consumed by those who are better educated.)

Research, according to newspaper and online reports, found that “eating more potassium, the most expensive of the four nutrients, can add $380 to the average person’s yearly food costs.” It also costs more to meet the fiber and Vitamin D guidelines. In addition, researchers confirmed that you can lower food cost by getting more of your calories from saturated fats and sugar.

Researchers want the U.S. government to back up the new guidelines with advice, and tell people how they can get the biggest bang for their buck. Me? I’m not so sure this would do very much. People know, for example, that bananas provide a good helping of the blood pressure-lowering, heart-helping nutrient potassium. I just don’t think it matters. Sure, they could eat a banana for a snack — bananas that cost about $.19 each or $.29 each if they are organic — but most choose not to. It’s sad, but I truly believe we as a society have been conditioned by marketers and advertisements and huge, honking supermarket end caps that a snack of say, potato chips is a much better alternative. I mean, who really thinks about potassium aside from pregnant women and mothers of small children?

I know I sound very cynical, but I have spent the better part of a week interviewing people who were morbidly obese, and I got an earful about what brought them to the brink of death. (These were really, really sick people with multiple co-morbidities like high blood pressure, diabetes, heart issues, sleep apnea.) Every one of those interviews confirmed something to me: It’s just far too easy to overeat bad food because eating bad food makes us, at least for a moment, feel good. The rush of sugar and chemicals dopes us into feeling good. The ultimate self medication. And that bad food is often the cheapest and easiest to find and get.

All of the people I interviewed are now closer to “normal” weight. (Although with two-thirds of adults and one-third of children being overweight, what’s really normal anymore?) They have made big changes in their lives. They all cut out processed carbs, chips, candy, sweets. They eat lots of lean meat, vegetables, and whole grains. They exercise. Not coincidentally, they all feel great. The co-morbidities are gone. And many of them are a little bit angry that they were duped into eating garbage to begin with.

This is not the first time I’ve written a story about weight loss. In the past, every single expert I’ve interviewed told me the same thing about weight loss: Calories in, calories out. That’s how you get slim, that’s how you stay healthy. If you eat, for instance, a Trader Joe’s chocolate biscotti (150 calories for a single small cookie) you’re probably still be hungry after you wipe the crumbs off your chin. However, if you eat a huge cup of organic red grapes (about 100 calories as well as fiber, vitamin C, iron, B-1, manganese, and calcium), you’re not as likely to be hungry. I know this firsthand. You’re also closer to your goal of eating more antioxidants like the anti-aging resveratrol.

And so we are back at the beginning. Yes, it’s cheaper and easier to eat garbage. It takes lots more time, a little more money, and a lot more effort to make good food choices. But I am convinced that the government can’t help us with this. It’s up to every person to make his or her own choices. Yes, I think it would be great if, for example, the Food Stamp program would make it more difficult to buy high calorie processed foods, and reward recipient for buying fruits and vegetables, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. How about you?

Most of us probably remember or have used moth balls. Small, smelly white things, they are used to help prevent insect and pest infestation in stored clothing. Carpet beetles, moths, and mice, among other things, hate the smell of moth balls. I do, too, actually, and for good reason. The key ingredient of mothballs is naphthalene or para-dichlorobenzene, which, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is dangerous stuff. “Inhaling para-dichlorobenzene can lead to vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory distress and other illnesses. Swallowing it can damage the nervous system and, in extreme cases, can cause coma or death.” Oh, and it effects your red blood cells. Here’s the EPA’s product fact sheet on the stuff. Babies and children are especially vulnerable as deaths of preemies and infants have been reported after exposure. Nice.

As usual, the European Union is WAY ahead of the United States when it comes to this dangerous chemical. It banned the pesticide in 2008. The reasoning, of course, is that when you open up clothing stored in moth balls, you are inhaling the pesticide. If you can smell it, you are inhaling it. That’s probably why pediatric doctors in Australia and New Zealand are also trying to get the substance banned.

I totally understand why. I opened up my Space Bags three days ago and almost fell over from the smell. I put both bags outside hoping the smell would dissipate. Today, the smell is still just as strong as it was when I first broke the airtight seal. All those beautiful clothes have been rendered unwearable. I’m not sure what I am going to do. Thankfully, I only used moth balls on the 3T stuff, and decided pretty soon after that moth balls were dangerous and stupid so my 4Ts will be as moth ball-free as the 2T, 18 month, and infant stuff was.

So what’s the take-away? Why should you care? It bears a reminder that just because something is sold at the store doesn’t mean it’s healthy or safe to use, especially around children. Here I thought I was doing something smart, and I was doing something extremely stupid by adding a chemical to clothing that would have gone on my kid’s skin. It’s also a reminder to be especially careful when taking out heirloom or stored clothing that may have been stored with the chemical. Moth balls are bad news. Protect your kids, and protect yourself.

And what about all those gorgeous clothes sitting in my backyard? Yesterday I dumped them into a mesh bag. I’ll check them again next week, however I anticipate I’ll be making a trip to the stores soon. I’m thinking it will be fall (at the earliest) before we’ll be able to use them!