Kids Dish

According to a BBC article, feeding your baby pureed foods might be unnatural. Gill Rapley, the director of Unicef’s Baby Friendly Initiative says that feeding your baby pureed foods can cause health problems later in life. Giving your child breast milk or formula for the first six months then weaning onto solids could prevent your child from becoming a picky eater.

Her approach, baby led weaning, is described more fully in an article about implementing a baby-led approach to incorporating solid foods. The basic idea is that babies who are ready to begin eating solids are capable of taking food into their own mouths and chewing it. Allowing your baby to feed himself soft foods at first puts him at a smaller risk of choking because he’s in control. Larger pieces, like whole fruits are easier for a baby to handle. Giving your baby whole, separate foods allows him to experience flavors, textures, colors and shapes and make decisions about what he eats. Those early decisions will make him open to new foods and flavors as his abilities to self feed develop.

If you’ve had trouble getting your baby to eat foods with chunkier textures, if you’re pregnant or if you’re the mother of a newborn take a few minutes to read about baby-led weaning. This article is a great place to start.

I wrote about this a few weeks ago and yesterday the New York Times reports that 11 food companies including McDonald’s, Campbell’s Soup and PepsiCo have agreed to stop advertising products that don’t meet nutritional standards to children under 12.

While I sort of applaud the idea behind this announcement, it really means nothing. For example, General Mills can’t show a commercial for Trix during Sponge Bob because of the sugar content but they can show a commercial for Cocoa Puffs (are you cuckoo for cocoa puffs?) because it has one gram less of sugar per serving. Don’t worry about Trix though- General Mills is free to advertise the cereal on American Idol because it’s considered a family show, not a show that caters specifically to the under 12 set.

My biggest problem with this non-announcement is that there’s no uniform set of standards for nutritional guidelines and because the advertising “ban” is voluntary no one’s holding the company liable. Rather than withdraw advertising, many companies plan on reformulating the products so they meet the arbitrary guidelines. Think “whole grain” Chips Ahoy. They may have whole grains, but they’re still not good for you.

I don’t know. I guess it’s a start. It’s just that when I was kid, sugar cereals didn’t try to be what they weren’t- they were junk food. I ate Sugar Smacks and Sugar Pops. They just changed the names to make them sound healthier.

junk food, advertising to children,

I’m so annoyed. I just wrote a lengthy post about this, but stupidly lost it before I saved it so I’ll leave you with the article and try to rewrite the commentary tomorrow.

McDonald’s CEO says can’t stop ads for kids

LOS ANGELES, July 16 (Reuters) - McDonald’s Corp.’s (MCD.N: Quote, Profile, Research)chief executive rejected cutting back on advertising to children, saying on Monday that a new program of promoting physical activity was the right thing to do.

The world’s largest restaurant company, which has been criticized for contributing to an increase in childhood obesity by selling food high in fat and calories, has in recent years focused less of its children’s marketing dollars on hawking Big Macs and french fries and more on advocating for kids to be physically active.

Many food and restaurant companies have been pressured to cut back on marketing to children.

“The idea that some people would have us go dark on communications to kids is a mistake because the communication needs to be positive,” McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner said in a telephone interview, adding that he was “very happy” with where his company’s marketing is today.

Skinner also took issue with critics of the company’s mascot, Ronald McDonald. Some have compared McDonald’s clown to Joe Camel, the Camel cigarette mascot pulled from ads after drawing the ire of regulators for appealing to children.

“Ronald McDonald has never sold food to kids in the history of his existence,” Skinner said.

In recent months, McDonald’s has revamped its http://www.happymeal.com and http://www.ronald.com kids’ Web sites to include games not tied to McDonald’s food or brand. Some even teach children to juggle, double dutch jump rope, or engage in other physical activities.

As recently as last year, visitors to http://www.ronald.com could see McDonald’s characters proclaim their love of milkshakes or play a game in which they squirt barbecue and mustard sauces onto Chicken McNuggets. Those games are now gone.

A recent tie-in with the animated film “Shrek the Third” focused on McDonald’s healthier menu options such as apple slices and low-fat milk.

“Most of our Web sites and the communications we have with kids is all about activity,” Skinner said. “They know they can count on us to help them as opposed to simply hawking food to them.”

McDonald’s, advertising, kids

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Health is releasing a food and beverage classification system that the Green Party endorses. The classification system, described more fully here in its initial release, is in place to help schools make better nutritional choices for students. Yet fizzy drinks are somehow considered “sometimes” rather than “occasional” foods. Perhaps New Zealand has looser guidelines than I do? Of course ketchup was (is?!! I suppose it’s better for my morale if I don’t look that up) considered a vegetable in school cafeterias here in the States.

According to researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, many otherwise healthy children have low vitamin D levels. Most children’s primary source of vitamin D comes from fortified milk, but exposure to sunshine is the best way to increase vitamin D. Low levels of vitamin D can lead to muscle weakness, defective bone mineralization and rickets. Obesity has also been linked to low levels of vitamin D, which makes perfect sense to me. Kids who don’t get outside much have a tendency to put on weight. Exposure to sunshine increases vitamin D. Hmmm. Sounds like a relatively easy problem to fix.

An Associated Press review of 57 nutrition education programs found that they’re mostly failing. Having worked in inner city, poverty-stricken schools where 99% of the students were eligible for free or reduced prices lunches I can understand why. Children eat what they learn, and if mom and dad find it easier and cheaper to feed their kids deep fried, fast foods and sugary soft drinks that’s what kids prefer. No amount of nutrition classes can change a child’s preference unless they have a desire to change their own eating habits. Most children, even the morbidly obese, don’t have those desires. Health and nutrition classes can educate, but in a country where the childhood obesity rate for kids aged 6-11 has quintupled since the seventies, classes just aren’t enough. The article lists several obstacles.

PARENTS. Experts agree that although most funding targets schools, parents have the greatest influence, even a biological influence, over what their children will eat. Zeitler says when children slim down, it’s because “their families get religion about this and figure out what needs to happen.”

But often, they don’t.

“If the mother is eating Cheetos and white bread, the fetus will be born with those taste buds. If the mother is eating carrots and oatmeal the child will be born with those taste buds,” said Dr. Robert Trevino of the Social and Health Research Center in San Antonio.

Most kids learn what tastes good and what tastes nasty by their 10th birthdays.

“If we don’t reach a child before they get to puberty, it’s going to be very tough, very difficult, to change their eating behavior,” said Trevino.

POVERTY. Poorer kids are especially at risk, because unhealthy food is cheaper and more easily available than healthy food. Parents are often working, leaving children unsupervised to get their own snacks. Low-income neighborhoods have fewer good supermarkets with fresh produce.

“If Mom can’t find tomatoes in her local grocery store, nothing is going to change,” said Zeitler.

Meanwhile, it’s harder for children to exercise on their own. Parks often aren’t safe and sports teams cost money.

“Calorie burning has become the province of the wealthy,” said Zeitler. “I fear that what we’re going to see is a divergence of healthy people and unhealthy people. Basically, like everything else, it costs money to be healthy.”

ADVERTISING. Children ages 8 to 12 see an average of 21 television ads each day for candy, snacks, cereal and fast food - more than 7,600 a year, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study. Not one of the 8,854 ads reviewed promoted fruits or vegetables.

There was one ad for healthy foods for every 50 for other foods.

Children may be the best sources to explain why lessons about nutrition don’t sink in.

“I think it’s because they like it so much, because like, I don’t know if you’ve seen the new hot Cheetos that are like puffs? Oh my God, they’re so good. Like everyone at the school has them and they’re so good,” said Ani Avanessian, 14, of Panorama City.

Her classmate George Rico, a 13-year-old whose mother is a manager at a McDonald’s, said he loves his nutrition class. But does it affect what he puts in his mouth?

“Well, no, but it makes me think about what I eat,” he said. “I think kids don’t change because they’ve been eating it for so long they’re just accustomed to eating that way.”

Parents have so much power over what their children choose to eat. Though preferences for sweet and salty foods are instinctual, constant exposure to a variety of different foods prepared in a variety of ways is the best way to ensure your child will eat a healthy, varied diet. Serving grilled cheese and chicken nuggets just because you know your kid will eat them just creates a child who will will choose to eat grilled cheese and chicken nuggets. The easiest way to teach your child to eat fruits and vegetables is to eat them yourself and enjoy them.

nutrition, nutrition education, childhood obesity, poverty

Oh yeah, you’re reading that right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta did a cutesy little piece on CNN which draws the conclusion that it’s likely that our kids are fatter because of working mothers.

Surely this conclusion is based on hard facts, right? I mean, it would be irresponsible to place the blame for what’s being called a “health epidemic” squarely at the feet of working mothers without extensive research on the subject, right?

I’m not sure what research Dr. Gupta actually relied upon when dreaming up this sensational story for CNN but the statistics he presented in the report are as follows:

16% of children under the age of 6 are considered overweight. This is three times more than reported in 1980, when more mothers (according to Dr. Gupta) started working - and of course, the movie “9 to 5” came out (which was a convenient intro to the piece).

Terry Mason (Chicago’s Commissioner of Public Health) is quoted in the piece as saying that there is a “direct correlation” between women going to work and children getting fatter. Oh really? I’d love to see the actual statistics because if you look at the Census Data or run some numbers with the Department of Labor, there is nothing to suggest that the number of women in the workplace has tripled since 1980. Or that the entry of women in the workplace “exploded” in the 1980s as Dr. Gupta says. In fact, the number of women in the workplace grew on pace less than 40% from 1970 to 2004 (from 43% to 59%, according to the Department of Labor’s “Women in the Workforce”). Despite how great I think Dolly Parton is, she did not represent the mass entry of women into the workplace (in fact, women had worked in high numbers during both World Wars). But then, that wouldn’t make such a dramatic story, would it?

Here’s some history that Dr. Gupta left out of his story…

I could add to the list, but you get my point.

I’m no doctor (in fact, I’m a lawyer) but I think Dr. Gupta owes working mothers everywhere an apology for even planting the seed in anyone’s mind that working mothers are responsible for the levels of obesity in our children today. It’s unfair. It’s not substantiated. It’s clearly meant to make mothers feel badly about working.

Here’s some food for thought, Dr. Gupta… I have three children. I work. My children are statistically nowhere near obesity. Me? I’ve been chubby my whole life. And my mother? She stayed at home when I was growing up. Hmm, how could I make that a story…? I could claim that “stay at home moms make their kids fat!” and back it up with my own data and find a few other mothers that could corroborate my findings. But then, that would be irresponsible because it’s not true.

Mothers, whether they choose to work or not, are not solely responsible for the obesity epidemic in America. There are a lot of things going on. And in the CNN piece, Kathryn Thomas seemed to offer the most measured view of why our children are getting fatter: they are taking in more calories than they are burning off. Why is that? Do we blame TV? Or computers? Or video games? Or fast food? Or schools?

There’s a lot of blame to go around. And sure, some parents are guilty of not providing the most healthy of environments for their children. But let’s not fan the flames of the mommy wars.

This issue is not so simplistic as to be boiled down to the question of working or not, even if it does make for quick (and cheap) ratings headlines. And it shouldn’t be about making women, no matter what their choices, feel badly about working or staying home. It should really about taking the time to provide healthy meals and snacks for your children - and that doesn’t have to mean fancy, elaborate or time-consuming - and allowing them opportunities to exercise - walking, running, being kids. Let’s talk solutions, not blame.

child obesity, working women, Sanjay Gupta, CNN, children, nutrition

As a mom, I’ve always been a little concerned about the number of additives that are in my children’s food. I know that too many artificial ingredients can’t be good for you but I am hesitant to embrace the idea that everything manufactured is poison. I simply don’t think that’s true.

That said, dyes and coloring in food and children’s medicine have always bothered me. It seems so… unnecessary. I remember scrubbing away at the floors and tables at my high school (NCSSM was a residential high school and as such, demanded a semester of either grounds or cafeteria) and being struck, for the first time, that no matter how hard I scrubbed, that red kool-aid was not coming up. And considering that my roommate, Roxanne, and I drank at least a pitcher of it per day… Well, I wasn’t entirely convinced at that time that it was good for me. Years later, the lingering effects of those dyes and coloring have still not been confirmed - and they’re making news again.

Researchers in the UK have tested the effects of a range of artificial color (or colours for my friends in the UK) on the behavior of children. The results, which are being published in later months, are rumored to support prior research that linked certain additives, including a number of dyes, to hyperactivity, temper tantrums and poor concentration.

The research was conducted at Southampton University, one of the top ten research universities in the UK. Researchers at the university estimated the average daily intake of certain additives by children aged three years old and another group aged eight and nine year olds, and noted the consequences of each. The specific additives that were tested were the colors tartrazine (E102), ponceau 4R (E124), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), quinoline yellow (E104) and allura red AC (E129), and the preservative sodium benzoate (E211). Each of the additives are approved for use by the EU - some of the colors are banned in other countries.

In the US, only the following seven artificial colorings are permitted in food:

* FD&C Blue No.1 - Brilliant Blue FCF (Blue shade)
* FD&C Blue No.2 - Indigotine (Dark Blue shade)
* FD&C Green No.3 - Fast Green FCF (Bluish green shade)
* FD&C Red No.40 - Allura Red AC (Red shade)
* FD&C Red No.3 - Erythrosine (Pink shade)
* FD&C Yellow No.5 - Tartrazine (Yellow shade)
* FD&C Yellow No.6 - Sunset Yellow FCF (Orange shade)

Ponceau, found in such foods as berry preserves and pie fillings, is prohibited in the US. Carmoisine, found in brown sauce, yogurts and marzipan, is banned in the US, Japan, Norway and Sweden. Quinoline yellow is not allowed in Australia, Japan, Norway and the US.

The most popular of the controversial substances is sodium benzoate, a preservative which is found in many soft drinks, including Sprite, Fanta, Sunkist, Dr. Pepper and Coke Zero. It is also found in many sauces, including fruit sauces and Chinese sauces like duck and mustard sauce.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK has said it would not issue formal recommendations until the findings were published. However, last month in a closed meeting, the FSA’s Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food (CoT) noted the “public health importance of the findingsâ€?. The FSA’s Committee of Toxicity on Chemicals had previously determined that research linking additives and behavioral problems in children was “inconclusive” based on a 2002 study.

preservatives

I think that one of the best things that you can do for your children is to instill in them a sense of a bigger world. You know, this idea that our own little corner of the world isn’t the most important, that there are people in the greater community that need our help, that we can each change make a difference in our own way.

So, with that in mind, I would encourage you to ask your children to help you participate in a national food drive. Saturday, May 12, 2007 is Stamp Out Hunger Day sponsored by the National Association of Letter Carriers. On that day, letter carriers will collect non-perishable donations as they deliver mail along their postal routes. To participate, leave non-perishable food donations such as canned meat, fish and soup, and cereals, pasta and rice in a bag near your mailbox (or if you’re in a city, like me, on your porch) before your mail carrier arrives. The donations will be taken to your local post office and then delivered to a local food bank, pantry or shelter.

Since its inception in 1993, the drive has collected and delivered 765.5 million pounds of food to help hungry families in our communities. So, this Saturday, do your part (and have your children help) to push that number higher.

Co-sponsors of the drive are the U.S. Postal Service, Campbell Soup Company, Cox Target Media-Valpak, United Way, the AFL-CIO, and America’s Second Harvest food bank network.

We had another good old Aussie barbecue yesterday, to introduce some new people to the Pendlerook Designs family. It also served as a rehearsal for Aurelia Day, the big Australia Day party we hold for our girl’s birthday each year.

Sausages were dutifully charred, my perfect vegie burgers did the rounds again, and my health-conscious mother proved that she knows her way around a mayonnaise bottle by making a perfect potato salad.

We also had pesto, camembert, Red Lancaster, three kinds of cracker and piles of grapes and strawberries. And beer. Gotta have beer at a barbecue. Also, white bread and tomato sauce.

We ate up at the picnic table which is at the back of the garden, under a wooden roof beside the shed. I haven’t spent much time out there this summer, and was quite guilty to see Raeli running around making a complete hooligan of herself and having a ball, so excited to be out on the grass!

(I don’t hate outside, but I hate hot weather and sunshine, so until we get some trees in our garden, I’m going to avoid it like the plague.)

It occurred to me that maybe we should plant some trees. A bit of greenery and shade out there (the shade roof is over a dirt floor - fine for sitting at the table, but not exactly good for lying on a picnic cloth) would make the world of difference.

The Man of the House started musing about building a vegetable garden - I don’t know how serious he is, but I would love that. Well, I would love it if it was his project. I long for fresh homegrown vegies and herbs, but I don’t want to do it myself. I loathe gardening with a fiery vengeance. But I like the results… sigh.

All of these garden musings are happening because my mother’s moving house again - to Cygnet this time, a lovely little arty village 20 minutes or so south of us, rather than being clear across the city and then some. She’s positioning herself for retirement, but also for our business, which is deeply rooted in the region south of Hobart - many of our artists and woodturners live in the Cygnet region, and it’s close to the tourist trail.

The good news is that this isn’t another renovation project - the cottage is beautifully renovated already in a style she loves. The garden is already full with established trees and plants of the kind she loves. On the one hand, she’s a little melancholy about not having a big patch to start from scratch, but on the other… well, she can add her usual little touches to the place and then get on with her other projects, particularly her art, which has taken a back seat to hard yards gardening and house renovation for years now. And, you know, it’s a cottage in Cygnet. That’s kind of a Tassie artist’s dream.

She’ll be looking out for a spare paddock or bush block to exercise her green thumb upon - part of me is hoping she’ll eye off our bare backyard and go, hmm.

In any case, it will be great for Little Miss to have her Glammer closer by. What I need is for Glammer’s taste in mud, roses and trees to rub off on her granddaughter, so I can have an inhouse gardener in a few years, and finally have my own fresh ingredients close to hand (and a few comfy nooks of lawn to read a book upon). The girl does seem to like digging in dirt…

We’ve just reached the pointy end (pun intended, moans the breastfeeding mama) of a long period of middle/back teeth teething with Raeli. She’s been good as gold for weeks despite the development of serious fangs in the gum region, and to be fair, even now she’s sleeping through the night, but the last few days have brought a spate of extreme crankiness.

She’s normally the brightest, most cheerful little thing, but at the moment even the slightest hint of something going against her leads to bouts of wailing. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear she had PMT.

Anyway, the point is that this morning, the only thing that would make her happy was Vegemite on toast. And I don’t blame her.

I’m something of a late convert to the magic black spread. We didn’t have it in the house growing up because, well, my mother was English, and it probably didn’t occur to her. But as an adult, I’ve learned to appreciate a thin layer of that salty sharpness over thickly buttered toast. It’s a very satisfying comfort food, and given that it’s full on vitaminy goodness, I’m happy to see that Little Miss thinks so too.

The Man of the House, on the other hand, views Vegemite as the universal salt-source for food, and there isn’t a savoury delicacy he cooks that doesn’t either have a smidge of it in, or could be improved by said smidge. Just like soy sauce for Australians. Not that Australians don’t consume soy sauce by the litre…

So anyway it’s a good thing that the news reports about the Vegemite ban have, it seems, been severely exaggerated. I’m sorry to hear that you poor Americans can’t get the stuff in your supermarkets, though it’s still OK for Aussie tourists to smuggle it in. Yay smuggling.

In fact, I’d be almost tempted to go have some butter & Vegemite toast right now, if I wasn’t still full of prawn & chicken dumplings from lunch. And the fact that the tube is almost empty.

I hope the fact that we’re almost out of Vegemite isn’t going to be a problem when Little Miss wakes up from her extra-long nap… Gulp.

Well, it was a mostly successful weekend away - took Little Miss to visit her more distant grandparents in Devonport (North West Tasmania) and absorbed ourselves in a serious contemplation of the ferocious and terrible wonder that is the Deloraine Craft Festival.

Man, that place is scary. I really don’t think we’re ready for it yet…

But that’s probably subject matter for another blog. Relevant to this one are two tidbits from the weekend: one is that Raeli ate NO VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES AT ALL that were not a) potato and b) deep fried. Well, the chips at the aforementioned restaurant were probably shallow fried because they were a funny colour. But still…

She also threw up on the drive home, which is unfortunate because it marks the second time she has done this on a long drive in the last month. Two is coincidence, not actual evidence of a dodgy car stomach… but, oh. I forsee much trouble ahead.

That wasn’t a tidbit, just a momentary bout of paranoia.

The highlight of the weekend was a couple of hours in which the Man and I abandoned our sleeping child with a vigilant Nanna and Teddy Dog i order to wander aimlessly through Latrobe, a town that proudly sports almost as many antique shops as cafes. It’s the closest town to the in-laws’ farm, and I’m getting rather attached to Latrobe. We had a coffee without having to share any froth with the child (what luxury!), visited a slightly lopsided little market and a mildly terrifying school fair (trying not to be snobby urbanites, honest).

But then I got to play in Reliquaire, which is one of my favourite places ever - a wonderland of doll art, weird mock-Victoriana, deco & nostalgia reburbishing props, Venetian masks, luxury gift items and other ephemera (whole rooms of science stuff which I ignore but makes the Man happy, and an entire room of fairy dresses! Was so tempted to buy the girl wings for her wedding semi-floweer-girl debut…). I was simultaneously bewildered and inspired, as usual.

I bought something, at least - what looked to be a very nicely designed POD anthology of Mrs Beeton recipes. It was cheap, and I vacillated between the cakes one and the everyday cooking one, before deciding the cake one would be more practical (no, really) and toddled off happily with my purchase.

Having examined the book thoroughly, however, I have come to some conclusions.
a) While undoubtedly based mostly on actual Mrs Beeton recipes, the contents of this book has been extremely modernised and simplified.
b) This appears to have been done in a very skillful manner, and I have no problems with it - indeed, I would quite happily attempt at least 75% of the excellent-looking recipes inside. Having tried a few to gauge the excellency of the book, however.
c) I have no idea who has performed the marvel that is this book. There is no foreword, no context , no explanation as to the reasoning behind this book, no context, no discussion on the process of modernising the recipes - and no author name!

I can only guess that this is in fact a bootleg Mrs Beeton book. It still looks unconscionable brilliant, though, so I am going to use it to my heart’s content - as long as the recipes prove sound.

Oh, and d) I can just about imagine Mrs Beeton being canny and well-read enough to produce brioche and other frenchy foods, but bagels? Really? I’m tempted to now to get a more substantial Mrs B compendium out of the library to see just how authentic the recipes in this book are…

But in the mean time, hold on to your hats as I experiement with gateaux, Eccles Cakes and other exotic English delights. Vegetables? What vegetables?