©iStockphoto.com/imagepointphoto

If the words “health care reform” make your eyes glaze over, check out the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) one-page fact sheets intended to explain the Health Care Reform Law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and how they align with the academy’s core principles:

1. Every child must have quality health insurance.

2. Quality health insurance should be a right, regardless of income, for every child, pregnant women, their families, and ultimately all individuals.

3. All health insurance plans should have a comprehensive age-appropriate benefits package directed to the special needs of the pediatric population as recommended by the AAP.

4. Every child should receive care in a medical home with a primary care pediatrician, and have access to pediatric medical subspecialists, pediatric surgical specialists, pediatric mental and dental professionals, and hospitals with appropriate pediatric expertise.

5. All health plans should have payment rates that assure that children receive all recommended and needed services.

Did you know that the reform act will expand health insurance to cover almost 32 million more children and parents? Did you know it will ban pre-existing condition exclusions for kids, and allow young adults to stay covered by their parents’ insurance until age 26?

Families of children who are uninsured (10 percent of all American children) or on Medicaid (30 percent of American children) will find the fact sheets particularly helpful.  Thanks to the AAP, staying up-to-date on health care reform has never been easier. Click here to access the fact sheets and related news and editorials.

©iStockphoto.com/jfmdesign

Ignorance is bliss. Or so they say. Remember the good old days, when you didn’t worry about what your baby’s bottle was made from? Glass, plastic…it didn’t seem to make a difference other than the look, feel, and style. That all changed in 2008, when the National Toxicology Program released its report on bisphenol A (commonly known as BPA), a chemical found in plastics. At that time, the government agency stated a series of concerns about the chemical used in many plastic food containers, including baby bottles. Among those concerns was that human exposure to BPA could cause brain, behavior, and prostate gland problems in fetuses, infants, and children. (See our previous post that addresses many of these concerns here.)

The resulting firestorm included a wave of alarming media reports about BPA…and a rush to dispose of baby bottles and other food containers made with BPA in favor of new BPA-free alternatives. Soon, “BPA-free” was a major advertising catchphrase as companies sought to profit from the controversy. Despite the media frenzy, the risks of BPA appear to be very real. And parents should remain vigilant in this time when BPA remains unregulated.

Two years later, researchers are able to tell us more about the risks of BPA. including a “growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.” And though it’s been known for some time, it is just starting to resonate with consumers that the resin lining the inside of many cans also contains BPA. Even canned foods can lead to exposure to the potentially harmful chemical for you and your children. In fact, recent tests in Europe found trace amounts of BPA lining beverage containers made by the likes of Becks, Fanta, Sprite, and Red Bull, though the levels found are currently considered safe.

BPA legislation update
Despite our increased knowledge of the risks of BPA, the government has done surprisingly little to protect us from these inherent risks. As the President’s report indicates, the use of BPA in food packaging, beverage containers, can liners, or any other use is unregulated by the government. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration is maintaining its position that exposure to low levels of BPA is safe.

Change seems to be coming, though, at least on the international front, as Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA) recently advised manufacturers, importers, and users of BPA to choose alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment.

Parents who are worried about BPA may get some protection from U.S. Congress in the form of a pending food safety reform bill, but exactly what effect that will have on BPA in food packaging is unclear. The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California recently proposed an amendment to the bill that would ban BPA from all food and beverage containers.

However, several powerful food industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, have bristled at this proposed amendment. Some have suggested that the five powerful manufacturers of BPA, who sell $6 billion worth of the chemical each year, might be behind this pushback.

How parents can protect their families
While waiting for the government to make up its mind about BPA, the best thing you can do is protect yourself is to follow the National Institutes of Health recommendations:

• Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from overuse at high temperatures.

• Avoid plastic containers that have a “#7” on the bottom. These are the ones that often contain BPA.

• Reduce your use of canned foods.

• When possible, opt for glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot foods or liquids.

• Use baby bottles that are BPA-free.

©iStockphoto.com/andy_lim

In May, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) approved a new federal safety standard for infant bath seats. This is the first mandatory standard for infant and toddler products issued by the CPSC as required under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

Intended for use in sinks and tubs, infant bath seats provide front and back support for babies 5 to 10 months of age. Since 1983, infant bath seats have been implicated in 174 deaths and 300 serious injuries, many due to babies being left unattended.

In a warning to parents, the CPSC cautioned, “Young children can drown quickly, even in small amounts of water. Never leave a child alone, even for a moment, near any water. Always keep a young child within arm’s reach in a bathtub. And never leave a baby or toddler in a bathtub under the care of another young child.”

Under the new federal standard, infant bath seats must now provide greater stability to prevent seats from tipping over, smaller leg openings to prevent babies from slipping out of the seat, and larger warning labels alerting parents that bath seats are not safety devices and that infants should never be left unattended in a bath seat.

According to the CPSC, no baby bath seats on the market meet the new standards—the kitchen sink and bathroom tub are looking better all the time.

©iStockphoto.com/kate_sept2004

If you are among those who think hunger is a condition that exists only in poor countries—remote parts of the world with limited resources—think again. Although the United States is one of the world’s wealthiest nations, one in four U.S. children goes to bed hungry one or more nights each year—a condition defined as food insecurity. Nearly 20 percent of children in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia live in households without adequate food supplies. And with summer just around the corner and school lunch programs coming to an end, the situation is about to get worse.

Administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) the National School Lunch Program provides low-cost or free lunches to more than 30 million children a day nationwide—children from families with incomes at or below 130 to 185 percent of the poverty level. But what happens to those children when the school year ends?

In 2009, among families with children seeking services at emergency feeding sites, 62 percent participated in the National School Lunch Program and 53 percent participated in the School Breakfast Program, but only 14 percent participated in the Summer Food Service Program. Research shows that children who go hungry during the summer months are less likely to perform well once school begins. Hunger affects not only their ability to learn but their overall health and development. It increases the risk for slower growth and brain development, fatigue and concentration issues, psychosocial and behavioral issues, and much more.

The Summer Food Service Program—designed to fill that nutritional gap—provides over two million students with breakfasts, lunches, or snacks during the summer months. It currently serves just over six percent of students in need of summer meals. It’s a start. But what happens to the rest of the children in need of food?

Enter companies like Revolution Foods which serves 50,000 meals a day to participating schools during the school year and which plans to serve 7,000 families a day this summer at two feeding sites. “Our students are the neediest out there. Eighty percent are free-lunch students, precisely the students who are unable to access federally-subsidized lunches, breakfasts, and snacks during the summer,” says co-founder Kristin Richmond.

Unfortunately, there aren’t enough organizations and companies like Revolution Foods with the means to provide healthy meals for children year round. According to the USDA, low participation in the Summer Food Service Program is due mainly to a lack of feeding sites. The lack of sponsors (usually non-profit organizations) is due in part to organizations feeling the pinch of the recession. The end result is that many more children are at risk of going hungry this summer.

The right stuff
To compound the issue, it’s not just about getting enough to eat but about getting the right stuff to eat. According to Revolution Foods, U.S. children currently get 50 percent of their calories from added fats and sugars. It’s no wonder today’s generation are predicated to be the first to die at a younger age than their parents due to obesity-related health issues.

Revolution Foods, in partnership with Whole Foods and other natural food providers, serves students in participating schools only all-natural foods. Their meal plans offer affordable breakfasts, snacks, and lunches to kids who need it most—communities with the highest obesity rates and the lowest income levels. The results speak for themselves—participating schools report higher attention levels in the classroom, less disciplinary problems, and sustained weight loss among its students.

Now more than ever, parents need to introduce healthy meals at home and support healthy food plans in their schools. As a nation, we need to invest in federally-funded health education and food service plans to make the right foods more affordable and accessible—to all children—year round. Congress is scheduled to reauthorize child nutrition programs this September. Meanwhile, the senate is sitting on the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act 2010, which would offer an additional $4.5 billion to child-nutrition programs over the next 10 years and require new nutrition standards for all food served in schools. The time to act is now. Kids shouldn’t have to wait.

Click here to learn more about the Summer Food Service Program and how you—or an organization you know—can become a sponsor or feeding site for children this summer.

©iStockphoto.com/Floortje

Natural. Pure. Wholesome. Good. Those are the words that come to mind when I see the “USDA organic” seal. At a time when we are all more mindful of the dangers of pesticides and chemicals in the foods we eat, it’s reassuring to see the small green-and-white emblem that means you don’t need to worry–this product is natural and good for you.

However, a recent ban of synthetic fats commonly found in some organic products raises serious questions about such thinking. A statement on the ban was recently issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and will impact infant formula and other foods that contain the synthetic additives widely known as DHA and ARA. As reported by the Washington Post last year and last month, these synthetic oils were added to a list of non-organic ingredients allowed into organic products through a decision by a Bush administration official after discussion with a formula industry lobbyist and over the objections of several USDA employees who had determined such action a violation of federal standards. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and organics expert Kathleen Merrigan acknowledges that the synthetic oils should not be allowed in organic foods. New guidelines will be developed by the USDA. The process will include a 60-day period for public comment, and could take a year or longer.

What does this mean for parents?
The changes that result from the USDA’s decision may be noticed first by parents who feed their children formula, since the synthetic oils currently are added to nearly all infant formulas. In fact, except for some prescription formulas, the Cornucopia Institute notes that “only one over-the-counter formula is available without synthetic DHA/ARA.” Every other formula on the market includes them. The USDA’s decision ensures that more infant formulas will be available without DHA and ARA.

While the USDA does not, in its statement, challenge the safety of the additives, others do. For years, the Cornucopia Institute and the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy (NABA) have questioned the appropriateness and safety of adding these substances to infant formula and other foods.

Its report, “Replacing Mother – Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory,” is an examination of the synthetic oils from production to inclusion in formula, a caution about reports of side effects experienced by infants who consume them, and a look at relevant federal policies.

Why include DHA/ARA in formula?
DHA and ARA are polyunsaturated fats naturally found in human milk. In recent years, these fatty acids have received heightened attention in both the laboratory and the media as a result of ongoing controversy about healthy levels of fish intake for pregnant and breastfeeding women. Authorities have agreed that the fatty acids are important for brain, neural, and eye development; as discussion turned to how much DHA and ARA pregnant and breastfeeding women should consume for their infants’ health, formula companies saw a marketing opportunity. If they included synthetic versions of these oils (manufactured under the names DHASCO and ARASCO) in infant formula, the companies could assuage parents’ concerns about their baby’s development while suggesting that formula is “as close as ever to breast milk.” As noted in a Martek investment promotion from 1996 (and quoted in the Cornucopia Institute’s report), “Even if [the DHA/ARA blend] has no benefit, we think it would be widely incorporated into formulas, as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as ‘closest to human milk.’”

In fact, leading formula manufacturer Mead Johnson admits on its Enfamil website that numerous scientific studies have shown little or no benefit to infant development, lending support to the theory that inclusion of these oils is just a marketing gimmick—much like the inclusion of prebiotics.

Unfortunately, it seems to be an effective gimmick. The percentage of people who agreed that “infant formula and breastfeeding are equally good ways of feeding an infant” doubled from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2003 and 2004, when the formula companies began advertising their supplemented formulas.

What is the cause for concern?
There are several causes for concern about the synthetic DHA and ARA added to formula and other foods and beverages.

First, parents should be aware that even though their infant formula may be labeled “USDA organic,” the process by which these additives are made is about as far from natural as possible. Martek Biosciences Corporation, extracts the oils from fermented algae and fungus with the use of a synthetic solvent hexane, a neurotoxic chemical. It’s possible that hexane residues evaporate before the oils are consumed, but according to the Cornucopia Institute’s report, tests have shown that hexane residues do appear in some edible oils. We don’t know the effects of hexane on health, but organics experts feel that the process would cause the National Organics Standards Board to deny the inclusion of these synthetic fats on the list of allowable additives to organic foods. Fats produced in this way hardly sound like the sorts of things parents who are shopping organic want to feed their children.

Second, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not affirmed the safety of the synthetic oils, noting that “[s]ome studies have reported unexpected deaths among infants who consumed formula supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids … attributed to SIDS, sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. Also, some studies have reported adverse events and other morbidities including diarrhea, flatulence, jaundice, and apnea in infants fed long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids.”

Unlike the natural DHA and ARA in breast milk, many infants are unable to digest the synthetic oils. The FDA has received what NABA Executive Director Marsha Walker calls “scores of reports on the adverse effects of these ingredients,” in which infants experience gastrointestinal symptoms ranging in severity from vomiting and diarrhea that cleared up when the baby switched to a non-DHA/ARA formula to severe dehydration and seizures that required hospitalization. Still, infant formula manufacturers have resisted calls for the addition of “warning labels” to product packages. As a result, parents cannot make informed decisions about the risks of DHA/ARA formula relative to other feeding options, and they often don’t know that their children’s health problems can be solved by switching to a formula without these additives.

Recommendations
What can parents do?

• Be aware of the risks. If you are feeding your child a formula that contains DHA and ARA, keep an eye out for possible gastrointestinal problems such as vomiting or diarrhea. If the symptoms persist, talk with your baby’s doctor about switching to another formula, but know that there are few DHA/ARA-free formulas available.

• Report adverse effects. Be sure to tell your child’s pediatrician about any problems. Also, enter your experience into the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System.

• Share information with other parents. Across the board, parents whose children experience adverse effects of the formula say they had no idea that could be the cause. Until the FDA decides to require warning labels we can spread the word to other parents, so they can be aware too.

• Contact policymakers. The USDA will have a 60-day public comment period before it issues its final guidelines about the inclusion of additives in organic infant formula. Let the USDA’s decision makers know what you think on this topic. In addition, leading DHA/ARA manufacturer Martek Biosciences has already indicated that it will petition the National Organic Standards Board to allow the fatty acids into organic food.

• Contact formula and food manufacturers. Tell them you purchase only products that do not include these synthetic fats. If your family members have suffered side effects from the ingestion, talk about that; if you object to the manufacturing process, explain that. Since companies want to manufacture products that will sell, they should listen to consumer feedback.

• Breastfeed! If you want to provide your baby with DHA and ARA, there is no safer way than from human milk.

©iStockphoto.com/THEPALMER

Let’s Move! is the rallying cry of the new nationwide campaign to address childhood obesity. Launched in February 2010 and spearheaded by first lady Michelle Obama, this campaign aims to “eliminate the problem of childhood obesity in a single generation.” It’s an ambitious goal, considering that over just the last few decades, childhood obesity rates have more than tripled, increasing from 5 percent in 1980 to 17 percent in 2008. Currently, almost one in three children is overweight or obese.

Although its name emphasizes activity, Mrs. Obama notes that the campaign relies on a multi-faceted approach where attention to food may even exceed that given to activity. The campaign is centered around four core goals:

• Offer parents the tools and information they need to make healthy choices for their kids.
• Get healthier food into schools.
• Ensure that all families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities.
• Increase opportunities for kids to be physically active, both in and out of school.

Accomplishing these goals will require a great deal of help from federal government agencies, state and local leaders, private companies, and the public sector. Help shouldn’t be hard to find; a wide variety of entities—ranging from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to the No Child Left Inside coalition to the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) recognize the problem. One group has even called it “a threat to national security.”

What’s more, Let’s Move! has a ready-made collaborator in the Partnership for a Healthier America, a foundation launched for the purpose of “support[ing] the First Lady’s cause [of fighting childhood obesity] by encouraging, tracking, and communicating commitments to healthier lifestyles from partner organizations.”

Let’s Move! in action
In February, President Obama signed a memorandum creating a Task Force on Childhood Obesity to include representatives from the Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education, Office of the First Lady, and other agencies. The Task Force conducted a review of all programs and policies related to child nutrition and physical activity to “develop a national action plan that maximizes federal resources and sets concrete benchmarks towards the First Lady’s national goal.”

Plans are already in place for each of the four goals, as detailed on the White House and Let’s Move! websites:

• Offering parents the tools and information they need to make healthy choices for their kids involves empowering consumers, having parents receive guidance from pediatric health care providers, launching a major new public health campaign, revamping the current food pyramid site, using the USDA’s new database to create change, and maintaining the LetsMove.gov website.

• Getting healthier food into schools means reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act with an $10 billion budget increase, doubling the number of schools participating in the Healthier U.S. School Challenge, encouraging school food suppliers, the School Nutrition Association (SNA), and other national school organizations to meet Challenge standards.

• Ensuring that all families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities means eliminating so-called “food deserts” (areas without grocery stores or access to healthy foods in convenience markets) and increasing farmers’ markets.

• Increasing opportunities for kids to be physically active, both in and out of school involves updating the Presidents’ Physical Fitness Challenge and Active Lifestyle Awards, creating a Safe and Healthy Schools fund, and involving professional athletes from twelve leagues (e.g., NFL, WNBA) in the Let’s Move! public awareness campaign.

To think, this is just a start! Imagine what we’ll see when the campaign really gets moving.

Concerns about Let’s Move!
Although everyone supports good health, some have voiced concerns about the program.

Most notably, the campaign has been criticized for its emphasis on obesity. Some critics say the campaign essentially places a target on fat kids. As Deb Burgard, one of the founders of the “Health at Every Size (HAES)” model for treating weight and eating concerns, writes on her blog, these critics feel that “the initiative is framed as a way to eliminate the fat kids.” Writing candidly in Newsweek about her lifelong struggles with weight, food, and physical activity, Lesley Kinzel agrees that the emphasis of the campaign ought to be on healthy eating and regular exercise which, together, “work to make a body—any body—feel good, even if they don’t result in weight loss.”  Similarly, CNN reporter Claudia Garza revealed obesity-related bullying she suffered from her own parents, and experts agree such incidents are not uncommon. These concerns seem to be supported by a recent article in the NY Times in which Gretchen Reynolds notes that the connection between exercise and weight loss is a complicated one, particularly for women. Furthermore, Dr. Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General of the United States, chooses to emphasize a positive approach to the topic. Her first paper in her role as U.S. Surgeon General is entitled not “The Surgeon General’s Vision for an America with No Childhood Obesity,” but rather “The Surgeon General’s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation.” Referring to childhood obesity at a recent health conference, she noted that she focuses on the “positives” of “health and fitness” rather than the “negatives” of “illness and obesity.”

Finally, Megan McConville, urban planner and blogger on TheCityFix.com, notes that the campaign seems to lack urban planning and design considerations. Targeted active community design strategies can make big differences in children’s ability to walk or bike to school safely, community members’ ability to engage in urban farming, residents’ ability to access grocery stores selling healthy foods via public transportation, and children’s access to available open play space.

Tips for parents
As parents, we don’t need to wait for the Task Force to decide on a national plan before we take action in our own homes to ensure our own children’s health. Here’s what we can do today:

• Select healthy foods and beverages for our children. Avoid sugar-sweetened drinks in favor of water and milk. Read labels on food packages, paying attention to ingredients and serving sizes. Cook with fresh foods, rather than pre-packaged goods as often we can.

• Encourage physical activity. Limit passive time spent watching television or playing video games, and encourage kids to play outside. Unstructured play is great; school-age children may also enjoy after-school activities or community athletics.

• Keep an eye on what schools are serving. Mrs. Obama notes that between school lunch and breakfast programs, many U.S. schoolchildren are getting more than half of their daily calories at school. Pay attention to the school menus, and talk with other parents and school administrators to address anything that concerns you, such as high sugar or salt content, lack of fresh fruits or vegetables.

• Talk to your children’s health care providers. See how your child measures on child growth charts. (For breastfed children, refer to the World Health Organization’s child growth standards.) Discuss the body mass index; similar to athletic adults, children who are athletic and muscular may have deceptively higher BMIs.

• Eat well and play, too! Remember that parents are natural role models for their children. Favoring healthy foods and engaging in regular physical activity (whether taking nightly walks after dinner, kicking the soccer ball around with your child, or heading out to the gym) send an important message for lifelong wellness—and that’s something we all want our children to learn.

©iStockphoto.com/Solphoto

U.S. children, on average, get 10 percent of their daily calories from sugar-sweetened drinks. (Gulp!) Sugar consumption has long been linked with childhood obesity. In 2006, researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health released two reports. The first, Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Children’s Health, reviewed trends in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among U.S. children and the scientific evidence about the effect of such consumption on their health. And the second, Policies Affecting Access to Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Schools: A Legal and Regulatory Review investigated policies in all 50 states. As part of a nationwide effort to reduce consumption and combat childhood obesity, several states have levied taxes on soda, and others may soon follow suit. Pay more. Drink (eat, smoke) less. That’s the theory behind sin taxes. But do they work? Do they affect children as well as adults? Two studies found conflicting results.

The first, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, examined the use of taxes as a means for promoting healthier eating. More than 5,000 people participated in the study conducted over a 20 year period. Researchers recorded food intake, height, weight, and blood sugar levels, and compared the data with food costs during the same time period. As the cost of unhealthy foods increased, consumption of those foods decreased. In other words, when junk food was more costly, people ate less of it. A $1 increase in the cost of a soda was associated with a lower daily intake of calories, lower body weight, and better blood sugar levels. Similar results were seen with a $1 increase in the cost of a pizza. But before you cast your ballot for higher taxes on the “Pause that refreshes,” consider the results of the following study.

Published in the journal Health Affairs, researchers concluded that the current sales tax on soda (around 4 percent) did not reduce consumption or childhood obesity.

Research
With funding from The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a group of researchers led by Roland Sturm, an economist at the RAND Corporation, examined whether a small tax changed the consumption of soda and/or weight gain of children. The study authors used individual data on more than 7,000 children from a 2004 national study. They analyzed body mass index (BMI) and total weekly consumption of sodas, sports drinks, and other sugary drinks (like non-100% juice drinks) and considered soda purchases at school. They compared this with state soda taxes from the same time period.

The researchers also took into account race and ethnicity, family income, mothers’ education levels, hours of kids’ physical activity compared with hours in front of the television, and the amount of parent-child interaction.

Results
The authors found that existing taxes on soda, generally around 4 percent in grocery stores, did not substantially affect the overall levels of soda consumption and therefore did not affect childhood obesity rates.

A look at the breakdown of soda consumption:

• The children consumed on average 6-plus sodas per week
• 15 percent of the children logged zero consumption of soda
• 25 percent consumed soda daily
• 10 percent consumed two or more drinks per day
• And 20 percent of all soda drinkers purchased an average of three sodas per week at school

The researchers did find that subgroups of at-risk children—those who are already overweight (at or above the 85^th percentile for BMI) or at risk for obesity (at or above the 95^th percentile for BMI) or who come from low-income families may be more sensitive to soda taxes, especially when soda is available at school. One reason? When tax rates increase, the price of soda in school cafeterias and vending machines round up to higher price points.

Overall, the study results suggest that small soda taxes are unlikely to have any significant effect on soda consumption or obesity among U.S. children. The study concludes that while many states will attempt to control obesity by reducing the consumption of sugary drinks and other junk food with even a small sales tax, the proposed taxes need to be much higher than the existing sales tax—closer to 18 percent, a figure that was considered in New York City just last year—to have any substantial effect.

Recommendations
It is not surprising that the study finds soda consumption to be a small part of a bigger problem. Unhealthy behaviors—poor nutrition, too much television, too little physical activity—are all contributors to childhood obesity.

Healthy behaviors start at home. A study, published in Pediatrics, shows that preschool-aged children have a 40 percent lower risk of obesity when they eat dinner as a family, view less television, and get adequate sleep. So don’t wait for a state-regulated sales tax on sodas to encourage healthy habits in your children. Instead, regulate the hours your children spend in front of the television and computer, encourage physical activity, and nix the sugary snacks, which can become a lifelong habit.

©iStockphoto.com/chesterf

As we recognize the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day, we need to reflect on the pollutants all around us—at home, in the environment, even in our bodies.

If there are pollutants in our environment, does that cause us to have pollutants in our bodies? What about our breast milk? Does that mean it’s not safe for our babies?

Pollutants are everywhere and everyone is affected: pregnant or not, breastfeeding or not, male or female, young or old. Even infants have tested positive for common contaminants immediately after birth.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: If a mother’s milk, produced inside her body and fed directly to her baby isn’t free from contaminants, then what is? Infant formula is manufactured out of products taken from the environment, augmented with synthetic fatty acids, packaged in containers that are lined with Bisphenol-A (BPA); so it, too, must be contaminated.

As a breastfeeding mother, you can be assured that your milk is still the best nutrition for your baby.

Research shows that when pollutants are removed from the environment (and let’s hope with the new Safe Chemicals Act this will be expedited) they will slowly diminish in breast milk. What better gift could we give our babies?

Choose toys wisely: Avoid phthalates found in soft plastics (like teethers and rubber ducks). ©iStockphoto.com/cujo19

Mom’s job is to protect baby. Feed him, clothe him, keep him warm and dry. Buy the safest toys and the healthiest foods. I thought I was doing plenty by choosing organic food and BPA-free bottles. As it turns out, that wasn’t enough. By digging deeper into the countless products that surround all of us, including our children—common household products, even—it is evident the list of harmful chemicals is exponential. Thankfully, this month, one U.S. senator introduced legislation to reform our nation’s outdated policies on the control of toxic substances and create a more comprehensive policy that truly protects our health and our environment.

How chemicals affect us
In the past 30 years, environmental health studies led researchers to conclude that chemicals in our homes are contributing to the rise of chronic diseases and are intimately connected with childhood cancers, asthma, infertility, birth defects, and learning disabilities. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million Americans are now living with such diseases and conditions, which account for 70 percent of deaths and 75 percent of U.S. healthcare costs.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families—a national diverse coalition of more than 200 organizations and 11 million individuals including the American Nurses Association, The Autism Society, Greenpeace, and Seventh Generation—cites chronic disease is on the rise and linked to chemical exposure:

• Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers have increased by 20% since 1975
• Asthma rates have doubled between 1980 and 1995
• Since 1982, the incidence of difficulty conceiving and staying pregnant has nearly doubled in women between the ages of 18 and 25

This isn’t to say that chemical exposure is entirely responsible for the increase, but the coalition argues that it is a contributing factor. And as if our health and safety weren’t enough, according to the coalition, by reducing the nation’s exposure to toxic chemicals, the U.S. will also lower its cost on healthcare significantly. They estimate even a 0.1% reduction in exposure would translate into a savings of $5 billion each year.

How chemicals affect our world
Passed in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the amount and kind of chemicals used in Americans’ everyday lives. Under the current policy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can only intervene after evidence mounts to demonstrate a chemical is dangerous. Therefore, in the last 34 years, the EPA required testing on only 200 of the over 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S. To date, just five (5!) chemicals have been restricted. Additionally, more than 60,000 chemicals that were on the marketplace prior to the TSCA being signed into law were approved without testing requirements. As the law stands now, chemical manufacturers are not required to demonstrate product safety before entering the marketplace; instead, the government has to prove actual harm before controlling, replacing, or denying a dangerous chemical.

“America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken,” says U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) in his official press release. “Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My ‘Safe Chemicals Act’ will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals.”

The Safe Chemical Act of 2010 aims to finally flip the backward way the U.S. government protects its citizens from harmful chemicals. This legislation will finally overhaul the outdated and irresponsible regulations.

Among its provisions, the Safe Chemicals Act issues these protective requirements:

• Provides the EPA with authority to determine the safety of any chemical entering the marketplace
• Requires chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals and to make health and safety information publicly available
• Ensures chemicals meet a safety standard—one that would protect pregnant women and children alike
• Takes immediate action on restricting the most dangerous chemicals—such as formaldehyde, vinyl chloride, and flame retardants
• Establishes programs to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives

Protect your family today
The U.S. government will start making a shift toward control over our toxic chemicals, and groups like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families will continue to raise awareness on the issue at the national level. Every parent can raise awareness in their own homes. Healthy Child Healthy World offers these five steps for reducing your children’s exposure to toxic chemicals and keeping your kids safe:

1. Manage pests safely. Use only non-toxic, pesticide-free products indoors and out. Prevent pests through good sanitation and food storage. Remove shoes and wash hands after playing outside to prevent 70 percent of the dirt and chemicals that can be tracked indoors.
2. Use non-toxic products. Buy gentle, natural soaps and body care products, avoiding those that contain with toxic synthetic preservatives (parabens), petroleum-based ingredients, and other proven harmful chemicals. Furnish your home with products made of natural, organic, and reclaimed materials, without VOC, water-based adhesives, formaldehyde, or polyurethane.
3. Clean up indoor air. Make sure your furnishings are made of natural products, from fabric and carpeting to material glues to paint and wallpaper. Use non-toxic techniques to scent your home, forgoing chemical fragrances for orange or lemon slices boiled in water on the stove.
4. Eat organic. Organic food is grown without potentially harmful, long-lasting synthetic chemicals and reduces the pesticides in our bodies. If you can only be organic sometimes, avoid foods with the highest pesticide residues (or make sure to buy these foods organic): apples, cherries, imported grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, red raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, carrots, celery, green beans, hot peppers, potatoes, and spinach.
5. Reduce use of plastics. Petroleum-based plastics can leach harmful chemicals into foods and drinks. Choose smart plastics that contain polyethylene and polypropylene, and avoid putting anything plastic in the microwave or the dishwasher, which can cause them to break down and release toxins.

Join the Million Baby Crawl (over 25,000 crawlers to date!) to show your support of toxic chemical policy reform.

©iStockphoto.com/Mishella

It goes without saying that workplace bathrooms are not germ-free spaces for working mothers to express their milk and wash bottles and equipment. But many women working outside the home had few alternatives—until now. With the passage of the healthcare reform bill, working mothers have received support for expressing milk at work.

A major component of the Breastfeeding Promotion Act was rolled into the newly-passed healthcare reform bill (officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), and employers are now required to accommodate breastfeeding employees. As part of the larger bill, this amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) became law on March 23, 2010.

Leading health organizations recommend exclusive breastfeeding for a full six months, but maternity leave typically ends at (or often before) 12 weeks. This legislation recognizes that the ability to express milk at work is a necessity for breastfeeding mothers who must balance their own need to re-enter the workforce with caring for their babies.

According to Section 4207 of the bill:

• Employers must ensure that women in the workforce have access to the time and space they need to express their milk for their babies.
• This must be provided for one year after the child’s birth.
• The place employers provide must not be a bathroom. It must be shielded from view and free from intrusion by coworkers and the public.
• Employers are not required to pay their employees for the time they spend expressing their milk.
• Employers with fewer than 50 workers are exempt from these requirements if they would pose an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the business.
• These provisions do not preempt state laws from providing more protection for breastfeeding workers.

The law became effective as soon as it was signed. Although rules for enforcement are not yet in place, employees should discuss this issue with their employers and employers should act to proactively meet this need. (Details about enforcement will be available in the FLSA portion of the Department of Labor website.)

There are an ever-growing number of resources, but here are a few to help get you started:

• The Business Case for Breastfeeding
• Support for Breastfeeding in the Workplace from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Breastfeeding in the Workplace from the National Business Group on Health
• Worksite Lactation Support Directory from the International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA)
• Working It Out: Breastfeeding at Work
• Work and Pump
• Breastfeeding Employees, Employers videos
• Workplace Support in Healthcare Reform

Ensuring that breastfeeding mothers have time and space to express their milk is a major step in the right direction of supporting women in the workplace! Let’s keep putting one foot in front of the other.