Whole Kids Project

Study: Children In An Intact And Religious Family Do Better

Of course they do.

From the Mapping America project:

A new study from the Mapping America project, co-released by more than 30 state family policy councils, finds that children have fewer problems at school and home when they live with both biological parents and frequently attend religious services.  Dr. Nicholas Zill, the founding president of Child Trends, and Dr. Philip Fletcher, a research psychologist at Westat, co-authored the new study, which analyzes data from the National Survey of Children's Health.

Among their remarkable findings: children in this group are five times less likely to repeat a grade, less likely to have behavior problems at home and school, and are more likely to be cooperative and understanding of others' feelings. Parents of these children report less stress, healthier parent-child relationships, and fewer concerns about their children's achievement. These differences hold up even after controlling for family income and poverty, low parent education levels, and race and ethnicity.

You can download the full report here.

Consumer Guide to Toxic Toys

HealthyToys.org is a great site for tracking toxic chemicals in your child's toys.

From their website:

HealthyToys.org 2008 includes test results for over 1,500 toys and children's products. In cases where toys had many different components (building blocks of different colors, for example, or dolls with fabric and plastic), researchers attempted to collect a useful number of samples from each toy. For this reason, the data reflects over 4,500 individual samples of different product components. The testing methodology used is an X-ray technology that identifies elements on or near the surface of a product, called an XRF machine (see methodologyfor more details) and lab testing for lead. Based on these results, each product tested was given an overall rating, as well as an individual chemical rating. A detailed description of the rating system is provided in the product rating section.

A summary of the rating system is below:

• Each toy is given a rating for six elements that represent the presence of chemicals of concern. Those elements are lead, bromine, mercury, cadmium, chlorine and arsenic. Products were assigned a low, medium or high level to indicate the relative level of a chemical in a product. The presence of chlorine above 10,000 ppm was determined to indicate that a product is made of PVC plastic. In this case, it is the material rather than the element that is of concern. These levels are not meant to correspond to levels known to cause health effects. In 2008, Congress passed the first law regulating lead and phthalates in children's toys. However, the law doesn't go into effect until next year, and does not regulate all of the chemicals of concern in children's products. In order to develop our rating system, HealthyToys.org consulted existing standards and voluntary guidelines for toys, packaging, or other products either in the United States or Europe.
• The overall toy rating of "low", "medium" or "high" was determined using the findings for each of the chemicals measured. A toy with one or more medium ratings and no high ratings was assigned a medium. A toy with just one high rating would get a high rating. For a low rating, the toy must have only low ratings. A low rating means chemicals were either not detected or were detected at very low levels.
• We also noted the presence of "other chemicals," which include tin, antimony, chromium and bromine, if we found those elements above 100 ppm. The presence of these chemicals was not calculated as part of the overall score because the form of the chemical in the product could not be determined and the toxicity can vary widely depending on the compound. The presence of these chemicals in children's products deserves more attention and research. In the overall score, we simply noted their presence with an asterisk next to the overall rating.
• Note: In addition to toxic chemicals, consumers should consider other issues, including other toy safety hazards when considering a toy or children's product purchase. Visit the Toy Safety page, as well as: http://www.uspirg.org/issues/toy-safety.

Other features of the HealthyToys.org site:

• You can search for your children's product using the search function, by the toy name, or generate a list of toys tested by brand or by toy type.
• You can keep and share a shopping list of toys using the website's list function.
• You can post our HealthyToys.org Search Widget on your blog or website.
• If your toy isn't on the database, and you'd like us to test it for you, just view our list and cast your vote or nominate your toy. We will regularly test the most requested toys.
• In other areas of the HealthyToys.org site you can Take Action, learn more about the details of our testing, or get additional information about chemicals. Explore the site and let us know what you think - we'd love to hear from you!

HealthyToys.org ratings do not provide a measure of health risk or chemical exposure associated with any individual toy or children's product, or any individual element or related chemical. HealthyToys.org ratings provide only a relative measure of high, medium, and low concentrations of several hazardous chemicals or chemical elements in a toy or children's product in comparison to criteria established in the site methodology.

11 Injury-Prone High School Sports

ABC News looks at 11 injury-prone high school sports.

Not surprisingly, football is #1 with 12 injuries per 1000 players and the most catastrophic injuries of any high school sport.

Life is the Issue

From NY's Cardinal Egan:

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

* * *

But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a “human being” is, what a “person” is, what it means to be “living,” and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us “Roe v. Wade” address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining “human being,” “person,” “living,” and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who “chooses” to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.

* * *

But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a “human being” is and what the implications of someone’s wishing to kill it are. The word “incarceration” comes to mind.

* * *

However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled “In the Womb” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled “In the Womb—Multiples” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what “living” means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than innocent and living human beings (perhaps “mere clusters of tissues,” as one national newsmagazine suggests), you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.

* * *

Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that their subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that “killing” and “choosing to kill” are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of “human being,” “person,” “living,” and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is “part” of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her “because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body.”

* * *

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the “Dred Scott Decision” in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of “legalized” abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

Vitamin D Recommendation: Read the Entire Story

Here is a great example of how biased physicians with obvious conflicts of interest and the media confuse parents and, ultimately, mistreat our kids:

I've highlighted the troubling sentences- you'll need to look near the bottom of the article and well beyond the misleading headline to get to the truth:

Pediatricians double vitamin D recommendations

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

The nation's leading pediatricians group says children from newborns to teens should get double the usually recommended amount of vitamin D because of evidence that it may help prevent serious diseases.

To meet the new recommendation of 400 units daily, millions of children will need to take daily vitamin D supplements, the American Academy of Pediatrics said. That includes breast-fed infants — even those who get some formula, too, and many teens who drink little or no milk.

Baby formula contains vitamin D, so infants on formula only generally don't need supplements. However, the academy recommends breast-feeding for at least the first year of life and breast milk is sometimes deficient.

Most commercially available milk is fortified with vitamin D, but most children and teens don't drink enough of it — four cups daily would be needed — to meet the new requirement, said Dr. Frank Greer, the report's co-author.

The new advice is based on mounting research about potential benefits from vitamin D besides keeping bones strong, including suggestions that it might reduce risks for cancer, diabetes and heart disease. But the evidence isn't conclusive and there's no consensus on how much of the vitamin would be needed for disease prevention.

The new advice replaces a 2003 academy recommendation for 200 units daily.

That's the amount the government recommends for children and adults up to age 50; 400 units is recommended for adults aged 51 to 70 and 600 units for those aged 71 and up. Vitamin D is sold in drops for young children, capsules and tablets.

The Institute of Medicine, a government advisory group that sets dietary standards, is discussing with federal agencies whether those recommendations should be changed based on emerging research, said spokeswoman Christine Stencel.

The recommendations were prepared for release Monday at an academy conference in Boston. They are to be published in the November issue of the academy's journal, Pediatrics.

Besides milk and some other fortified foods like cereal, vitamin D is found in oily fish including tuna, mackerel and sardines.

But it's hard to get enough through diet; the best source is sunlight because the body makes vitamin D when sunshine hits the skin.

While it is believed that 10 to 15 minutes in the sun without sunscreen a few times weekly is sufficient for many, people with dark skin and those in northern, less sunny climates need more. Because of sunlight's link with skin cancer, "vitamin D supplements during infancy, childhood and adolescence are necessary," the academy's report says.

Recent studies have shown that many children don't get enough vitamin D, and cases of rickets, a bone disorder often associated with malnourishment in the 1800s, continue to occur.

Greer, a University of Wisconsin pediatrician, acknowledged that most studies suggesting vitamin D may play a much broader role in disease prevention have been observational, not the most rigorous kind of medical evidence.

Nonetheless, many doctors consider the research compelling and many have begun to offer patients routine vitamin D testing.

Adrian Gombart, a vitamin D researcher at Oregon State University, said the new recommendations are safe and conservative but that 400 units "is probably not enough."

Gombart's lab work in human tissue has shown that vitamin D helps increase levels of a protein that kills bacteria. He said many experts believe that between 800 and 1,000 units daily would be more effective at helping fight disease.

Several members of an academy committee that helped write the guidelines have current or former ties to makers of infant formula or vitamin supplements.

Sadly, this is just one more example of how the AAP is willing to,  at the very least, appear to be a pawn for the companies that profit from our children.

So, is there a conflict of interest here?

A Teacher's Plea: What Badly Behaved Boys Need

From the UK Daily Mail Online:

During the decade I've been teaching, the number of children prescribed the amphetamine Ritalin, used to 'treat' ADHD, has simply exploded. It is estimated that 400,000 children are currently prescribed the drug.

In 1991, the number of prescriptions issued was a mere 2,000. When I first started teaching I'd never heard of Ritalin or ADHD.

Now, I can honestly say I don't think there's a single class I teach without at least one and often two or three children being medicated with this very powerful class B drug.

Ritalin has unpleasant side effects - including sleeplessness and nausea - and the penalty for selling it illegally is a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment.

Recent research has linked it to depression, stunted growth, heart problems, insomnia and weight gain and, according to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, 11 British children on Ritalin have died.

 Serious concerns are finally being voiced about the way Ritalin is being doled out like sweets to thousands of young children

Yet this drug is now routinely prescribed to children as young as six or seven.

Now, finally, serious concerns are being voiced about the way it is being doled out like sweets to thousands of young children.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), which advises what drugs should be made available on the NHS, has just issued guidelines recommending that Ritalin be used only as a last resort.

Parenting classes, they urge, might be more effective in controlling the bad behaviour which has become endemic in our schools and on our streets.

Boys are three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than girls. And looking at the 'symptoms' that characterise it, it's not hard to see why.

Is the child easily distracted and quickly bored? Do they forget things such as instructions, homework and spellings? Do they fidget, doodle and lose things?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then according to the 'experts', the child might well have ADHD. Alternatively, they may simply be a typical boy.

Added to the list of symptoms are, in my experience, extreme rudeness and a dislike of being asked to wear school uniform.

If asked several times to stop talking over me, children with the 'illness' generally swear at me.

When I phone their home, their parents react with the uniform comment: 'He can't help it. He's got ADHD.'

Unsurprisingly, an increasing number of doctors and psychiatrists are expressing the fear that children are being labelled with a mental illness and given drugs for behaviour that in the past would simply have been labelled 'very naughty.'

And anecdotally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that schools are pressurising parents to put children who cause mayhem on Ritalin.

As a teacher, I'm secretly relieved when I hear that a particularly difficult child, one who won't do any work, who chats and texts through the lesson, who sneers and swears at staff without a second thought, has been prescribed Ritalin.

The drug isn't known as the 'chemical cosh' for nothing. If I'm honest, though, I don't believe that these children are ill. I think they come from insecure, unstable backgrounds where the concept of a bedtime is as fanciful as the fairy tales they've never been read.

I believe that many of the children labelled with ADHD and drugged into acquiescence are simply youngsters who have been raised without any boundaries.

They live in homes where junk food is the norm, where there is no parental control over what they watch on TV and when they watch it, and where authority, whether it be teachers, the police or the lollipop lady, is routinely sneered at and derided.

A study some years ago in America suggested that much of the behaviour labelled ADHD was in fact simply exhaustion, and that children were magically cured of their affliction when they went to bed and slept at night instead of watching gory horror movies.

Personally, I think that many children would benefit from firmer and more consistent parenting.

Of course, having an active, boisterous seven-year-old child is hard work. But it seems to me that far too many mums and dads are happy to have their children labelled with a psychiatric condition and drugged - even if the existence of the disorder is hotly disputed by the experts.

Youngsters might be turned into wide-eyed, slow-witted zombies, but at least they're not running amok in the playground and inconveniencing their parents by getting suspended.

Ritalin, like Valium, has become mother's little helper. It relieves parents of the responsibility of actually having to discipline their children. But as a society, we may pay a very high price indeed for drugging a generation of our children.

Comments? Do you have a child that has been diagnosed with ADHD? Has a school pressured you to medicate your child?

France Bans TV Shows for Babies

From USA Today:

The council's ruling aims to prevent the development of such programming on French channels. It also orders French cable operators that air foreign channels with programs for babies to broadcast warning messages to parents. The messages will read: "Watching television can slow the development of children under 3, even when it involves channels aimed specifically at them."

The ruling cites health experts as saying that interaction with other people is crucial to early child development.

"Television viewing hurts the development of children under 3 years old and poses a certain number of risks, encouraging passivity, slow language acquisition, over-excitedness, troubles with sleep and concentration as well as dependence on screens," the ruling said.

When BabyFirstTV first aired in the United States in 2006, it escalated an already heated national debate. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said babies should be kept away from television altogether.

Our friends at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) successfully fought marketing claims made by Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby.  The FTC has yet to respond to the CCFC's letter of complaint against BabyFirstTV.

Calorie Packed Kids' Meals

From USA Today- some kids' meals pack an entire day's worth of calories into a SINGLE meal:

The first comprehensive report on kids' meals at popular fast-food and chain restaurants finds the servings are far too high in calories for a single meal.

In fact, some of meals contain more 1,000 calories, which is almost as many calories as some elementary-school children need for the entire day, according to the analysis from Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group.

The report shows, for instance, that:

• Chili's country-fried chicken crispers, cinnamon apples and chocolate milk has 1,020 calories.

• KFC's popcorn chicken, baked beans, biscuit, Teddy Grahams and fruit punch, has 940 calories.

• Sonic's Wacky Pack with grilled cheese, fries and a slushie, has 830 calories.

Overall, the findings reveal that 93% of the kids' meals at McDonald's and Wendy's contain more than 430 calories, the average number of calories that children ages 4 to 8 should get at a single meal. The comparable numbers are 92% at Burger King; 89% at Dairy Queen; 69% at Arby's; 60% at Denny's. The latter's kids' meals don't include drinks.

On the healthful side, about 67% of the kids' meals at Subway have fewer than 430 calories.

Here's the stat that caught my attention:

The average child, under 18, eats 167 restaurant meals in a year, according to the NPD Group, a market research firm.

C'mon- most menu choices for adults are hideous.  Portions are way too large- and the nutritional content (expecially fast-food) is questionable. Unless you really think about what you are ordering, and practice some self-control, it's very easy to make bad choices.

As long as parents are shoveling this junk into their bodies- does anyone think the kids will do any differently?

10 Most Dangerous Things in Your Home

HowStuffWorks has this list of common dangerous items found in most every home- including paints, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, and a few more surprising items.

Energy Drinks- Bad for Teens

Super-caffeinated energy drink consumption by teens is causing concern for health researchers and school officials.

From the NY Times:

In Colorado Springs, several high school students last year became ill after drinking Spike Shooter, a high caffeine drink, prompting the principal to ban the beverages. In March, four middle school students in Broward County, Fla., went to the emergency room with heart palpitations and sweating after drinking the energy beverage Redline. In Tigard, Ore., teachers this month sent parents e-mail alerting them that students who brought energy drinks to school were “literally drunk on a caffeine buzz or falling off a caffeine crash.”

New research suggests the drinks are associated with a health issue far more worrisome than the jittery effects of caffeine — risk taking.

In March, The Journal of American College Health published a report on the link between energy drinks, athletics and risky behavior. The study’s author, Kathleen Miller, an addiction researcher at the University of Buffalo, says it suggests that high consumption of energy drinks is associated with “toxic jock” behavior, a constellation of risky and aggressive behaviors including unprotected sex, substance abuse and violence.

The finding doesn’t mean the drinks cause bad behavior. But the data suggest that regular consumption of energy drinks may be a red flag for parents that their children are more likely to take risks with their health and safety. “It appears the kids who are heavily into drinking energy drinks are more likely to be the ones who are inclined toward taking risks,” Dr. Miller said.

The American Beverage Association says its members don’t market energy drinks to teenagers. “The intended audience is adults,” said Craig Stevens, a spokesman. He says the marketing is meant for “people who can actually afford the two or three bucks to buy the products.”

Still, according to the article, a third of 12-24 year-olds say they regularly drink these energy drinks, which ring up more than $3 billion in annual sales in the US.

Mr. Stevens points out that “mainstream” energy drinks often have less caffeine than a cup of coffee. At Starbucks, the caffeine content varies depending on the drink, from 75 milligrams in a 12-ounce cappuccino or latte to as much as 250 milligrams in a 12-ounce brewed coffee.

Overall caffeine consumption by teens and tweens is a larger concern.  There have been numerous studies showing the negative health effects brought on by a lack of sleep. You have to wonder about the role that caffeine consumption plays here.

We're seeing the Starbucks culture reaching younger and younger consumers - I think we'll be seeing more studies linking health concerns and teenage caffeine consumption.