Organic: Choosing What Counts for Kids

I'm one of those people you could call "sporadically organic." I want to avoid feeding my kids pesticides and chemical fertilizers, of course, but I'm also baffled as to what really matters -- and how much of a premium I should really pay for that "organic" label.

The health blog in the New York Times has a nice little piece on "Five Easy Ways to Go Organic" that helps anxious parents hone in on the places where organic counts. Their five picks? Milk, potatoes, peanut butter, ketchup (!) and apples.

I was most surprised by this tidbit about the unassuming potato: "[C]ommercially-farmed potatoes are some of the most pesticide-contaminated vegetables. A 2006 U.S.D.A. test found 81 percent of potatoes tested still contained pesticides after being washed and peeled, and the potato has one of the the highest pesticide contents of 43 fruits and vegetables tested, according to the Environmental Working Group." Mmmm, blight-killer with those fries?

Antibacterial Soaps Don't Wash

Moms know that the fight against germs is futile, but, valiantly, we try…. As it turns out, one weapon in the arsenal may be a dud. The LA Times’ “Healthy Skeptic” reports that consumer antibacterial soaps don’t contain enough Triclosan to be any more effective than regular soap:

[Researchers at the University of Michigan School of Public Health] recently surveyed 27 separate studies that investigated the effectiveness of soaps containing triclosan. Some studies looked at rates of infectious diseases; others measured levels of bacteria that lingered on hands after washing. [They] found no evidence that antibacterial soaps prevent more illnesses or remove more germs than regular soap.

Though the jury is still out on whether antibacterials contribute to creating drug-resistant "Super Bugs," that's a pretty unsettling prospect that is another mark against antibacterial soaps in my book...

Here’s the full article.

No Mouth!

Once upon a time, way back in June, Moms only had to worry about choking hazards and drug-resistant germ strains when Baby gnawed on a toy. Ah, the quaint olden days…

Now every week seems to bring news of another recall of Chinese-manufactured toys slathered in lead paint or dotted with dangerous mini-magnets that can become intestinal perforation hazards. (Even as I was writing this, FOUR more lead paint toy recalls were announced!) And, if that’s not enough, New Zealand announced this week that it’s investigating Chinese clothing imports, after extremely high levels of formaldehyde (not only generally gross, but also a carcinogen) were found in some randomly tested items.

As I survey our toy-strewn family room, I wonder which lead-laced toys still lurk -- especially among those not produced by major manufacturers with their in-house test labs and valuable brand names to uphold.

“No mouth, no mouth,” I bark at my 22-month-old, with increasing urgency, “No mouth!”

Some moms I know are gathering up any painted plastic toys made in China and rationing their children’s access to them. My mother-in-law recently chose a plastic tub toy made in Denmark for our toddler, reasoning that it would be safe.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution points out that some parents are turning to organic toys as a safe alternative, and old fashioned toys like rag dolls and wooden cars. Treehugger.com has a guide to greening your child’s toy box.

On NPR last week, Dr. Jerome Paulson, a pediatrician at the National Children's Medical Center in Washington, D.C., said acute lead poisoning probably isn’t a risk for most kids. But he theorized that for a generation of American children, IQ, attention span and behavior could be affected in subtle ways: “The risk for any one child from any one toy is pretty low, but from a public health standpoint, tens of thousands of kids individually exposed means that for society as a whole, there may be a lot of kids who sustain a little bit of damage.”

(Of course, how would we distinguish this from the effect of cell phones and video games, I wonder?)

Maybe it’s time to let kids go back to eating dirt… all of a sudden, that doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.

Just for the record, here's the daunting list of toy recalls so far this summer based on lead or magnet concerns:

Martin Designs Inc. Recalls SpongeBob SquarePants Character Address Books and Journals Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard– Aug 22

Thomas and Friends, Curious George and Other Spinning Tops and Tin Pails Recalled By Schylling Associates Due To Violation of Lead Paint Standard – Aug 22

Children’s Charm Bracelets Sold by Buy-Rite Recalled Due to Risk of Lead Exposure – Aug 22

Children’s Metal Jewelry Recalled by TOBY N.Y.C. Due to Risk of Lead Exposure – Aug 22

Hampton Direct Recalls Magnetic Toy Train Sets Due to Lead Exposure Risk – Aug 22

Additional Reports of Magnets Detaching from Polly Pocket Play Sets Prompts Expanded Recall by Mattel – Aug 14

Mattel Recalls Doggie Day Care Magnetic Toys Due to Magnets Coming Loose – Aug 14

Mattel Recalls Barbie and Tanner™ Magnetic Toys Due to Magnets Coming Loose – Aug 14

Mattel Recalls Batman and One Piece Magnetic Action Figure Sets Due To Magnets Coming Loose – Aug 14

Mattel Recalls “Sarge” Die Cast Toy Cars Due To Violation of Lead Safety Standard – Aug 14

Fisher-Price Recalls Licensed Character Toys Due To Lead Poisoning Hazard – Aug 2

Children's Earrings Sold at Wal-Mart Stores in Florida Recalled by Uncas Manufacturing Co. Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard – July 17

Serious Intestinal Injury Prompts Kipp Brothers Recall of Mag Stix Magnetic Building Sets – July 5

Children's Metal Jewelry Recalled by Future Industries Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard – July 5

Children's Necklaces Recalled by GeoCentral Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard – June 19

RC2 Corp. Recalls Various Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard – June 13

Golly g!

Image from Body + Soul

All of a sudden, gDiapers seem to be everywhere. Just a few days after I read about the eco-friendly, flushable diapers in Body + Soul Magazine, a friend saw them on a green living program and sent me the site.

The little wrap pants that go over the disposable liners are so darned tootin’ CUTE** that I almost wished Zoe wasn’t close to potty training. (** Oh, yeah, and the cause so worthy. I forgot that part. But did I mention the pants are capital-C cute?)

Then I pulled out the calculator: For the size diaper Zoe is wearing now, we pay $30 for 200 Huggies (15 cents each). The gDiapers are 128 for $52 (40 cents each), but there's also the cost of the wrap-pants and special fabric liners... Seventh Generation disposable diapers, which are chlorine-free and made of wood pulp, are $42 for 160 in Zoe's current size (30 cents each).

Over a child’s diaper lifetime (about 5,000 diapers, I hear – though it seems like a heck of a lot more to me), that’s $750 for regular disposables, $1,500 for Seventh Generation, and more than $2,000 for gDiapers.

So saving the world doesn't come cheap... Time for potty training, Zoe!

(Speaking of the worthy cause part: Watch Dr. Heidi Cullen from The Weather Channel on ABC talking about the environmental impact of disposable diapers.)

Additional note: The Green Guide has a helpful, sane report on diaper options, including the benefits and drawbacks of disposables, eco-disposables and flushables.

Do you know what’s in your child's sunscreen?

Have you ever paused to consider what’s in the sunscreen you are dutifully slathering all over your kids all summer?

A report came out this week showing that most sunscreens don’t provide adequate protection from the sun because they lack UVA protection or contain chemicals that break down in sunlight.

What’s more alarming to me is that there are known carcinogens and toxic ingredients in major brands of sunscreen – even those made specifically for babies and children. I had actually been researching and preparing a post on the chemical hazards in sunscreen before this new report on sunscreen effectiveness came out.

With the release of the new report, the Environmental Working Group (a non-profit environmental research group that has been pushing for greater oversight of the cosmetics industry) has revised its sunscreen ratings to balance potential health hazards with overall effectiveness, which has had the net effect of making many potentially toxic brands look much better because they do a good job as sunscreens.

But I encourage you to dig deeper and see if the products you are using on your kids are truly safe, not just effective. The sunscreen we have been using (Banana Boat Baby Sunblock Tear Free Spray Lotion - SPF 50) rates an 8 out of 10 (10 being most dangerous) on the health hazards scale, containing chemicals that have been linked with neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and developmental/reproductive toxicity, among other hazards.

From the Cosmetics Database (here and here), these are sunscreens for children and babies that the EWG rates high on the health hazard scale:

Product / Health Hazard Score

Baby Blanket SunBlankie Sunscreen Towelette for Babies (SPF 45) / score 9

Banana Boat Baby Sunblock Tear Free Spray Lotion (SPF 50) / score 8

Banana Boat Baby Magic Sunblock Lotion SPF 50 / score 8

Banana Boat Baby Magic Sunblock Spray (SPF 48) / score 10

Banana Boat Kids UVA UVB Sunblock Lotion SPF 30 / score 7

Banana Boat Kids Sunblock Lotion (SPF 30) / score 7

Coppertone Kids Sunblock Lotion Trigger Spray / score 8

Coppertone Water Babies Sunblock Spray / score 8

Coppertone Water Babies Sunblock Lotion (SPF 30) / score 8

Coppertone Kids Sunblock Lotion (SPF 30) / score 9

Coppertone Kids Lotion (SPF 45) / score 9

Coppertone Kids Spray And Splash (Spf 30) / score 9

Rite Aid Baby Sunscreen (SPF 45) / score 8

Walgreens Kids Sunblock / score 8

Unfortunately, these health hazard scores are no longer clear once you click into the individual product profiles (because they are averaged with effectiveness scores for an overall rating), but you can read further down on each page to see what possible problems are associated with the chemicals in each of these products.

There are safer alternatives available, if you do some homework. In addition to the Cosmetics Database, the current issue of The Green Guide (it’s like Consumer Reports of the green world, recently acquired by National Geographic) has an excellent article about the risks of various ingredients common in sunscreens, as well as product recommendations.

For our part, after all the research, we couldn’t swallow the hefty price tag for the brands that the Green Guide recommends, which also rate lowest (1 or 2) for potential health hazards on the Cosmetics Database. But I found that Baby Blanket Sunblock Lotion for Babies, Titanium Dioxide Formula (SPF 50), which rates as just a 3 on the health hazard scale, is available for just $8.49 for 12 oz. (on Drugstore.com). We just made the switch a few weeks ago, so I’m happy to discover the Cosmetics Database considers it effective as well, rating it as a 2 overall.

(Choose carefully: Just because a company has a good rating on one product doesn’t mean all its products are safe. Even some organic brands rate quite poorly on the health hazard scale, so don’t assume that “organic” or “natural” means “safe.”)

The Cosmetics Database covers all sorts of products we adults use, too – almost 23,000 products in all. I focus on kids here because I find it shocking that some of the sunscreens rated as potentially most hazardous are specifically designed for babies and children. And it’s a product that stays on your child for HOURS, day after day, all summer long.

If you want to read more about safety in cosmetics, the New York Times ran an article in February about the campaign for greater oversight of the ingredients in personal care products. (Until I read this, I was only vaguely aware that the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in personal care products like lotions ,makeup and shampoo.) Though no large-scale clinical studies have connected cosmetics to major human diseases, according to the Times, you have to wonder what the long-term consequences are if every product you use contains just a little bit of a dangerous substance, and how your unique combination of products interact.

Explore the Cosmetics Database and decide for yourself. There are lots of details on the methodology, what the ratings mean, etc. I think you might be surprised what you find.

Credit Clutter

I just invested five minutes in another great way to stem the avalanche of junk mail at our house. You can opt out of receiving pre-screened credit card offers by calling 1-888-567-8688 (1-888-5OPTOUT).

Call from your home phone, as the computer matches it with your address. You will need to provide your social security number to the automated system, too. You can repeat the process to cover offers in your spouse's or kids' names. For more info, the web site is https://www.optoutprescreen.com/.

In addition to cutting down on the paper we must sort and throw away, this simple step also helps protect against identity theft. (Not that long ago, I read that criminals have been able to open lines of credit even with torn-up credit offers!)

If you haven't already, you can also stop catalogs from piling up for the small price of $1.

(Hormone) Free Milk at Publix

Publix wins big points with GreenMama for going hormone-free on ALL of their store-brand milk. As of May 1st, the full line of Publix milk is free of the synthetic hormone rbST. (You can read more about it here.) Whole Foods also produces a store brand that is free of synthetic hormones, and notably cheaper than organic. With the money we save going back to the store brands, we might actually be able to pay for college!

Catalog Clutter

My friend Lisa passes long great advice for getting OFF all those insidious catalog mailing lists:

If you're like me, you get scads of catalogs that you never shop from, that are hard to recycle, and just take up space and kill trees. So I started calling all these companies to get off their lists. One of them was kind enough to tell me I could get on a "do not mail" list and save the trouble of all the calls. So I thought I'd share.

Go to the Direct Marketing Association, http://www.the-dma.org/ and click "Remove my name from mailing lists." It's supposed to take you off lists for five years. It beats calling dozens of companies. This is how I spent my Easter Sunday.