Packing Your Kids' School Lunch Will Kill Them

School lunches are vile and dangerous things that are leading our children down the path of obesity and certain death from cancer before they reach the tender age of 100. That much is a given. So what's a responsible parent to do? Pack your own kid's lunch of course.

Please, though, no peanut butter or any nut products. No violent characters on the lunch box. Actually, the lunch box itself is probably infested with lead and the plastic containers are dripping with BPA.

According to new research by people in white coats, well-meaning parents are unintentionally (perhaps) sending their little ones off to an early grave, or at least the nurse's office, because the lunches are not kept at the proper temperature.

Researchers at the University of Texas (official motto: "Meat Is A Vegetable") report that

More than 90 percent of sack lunches prepared at home and sent with kids to preschool were kept at unsafe temperatures, a new study by nutritional scientists at The University of Texas at Austin found.

The study will be published in the September 2011 issue of Pediatrics and was published online Aug. 8.

"Parents need to be aware of how important the storage temperature is for foods they pack for their young children," said Fawaz Almansour, a graduate student in the Department of Nutritional Sciences and lead author of the research.

The best storage temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit for cold foods and above 140 degrees for hot foods. Between 40 and 140 degrees is the "danger zone."

Study authors suggest that parents and the public need to be educated on safe food packing practices in order to prevent bacteria from growing and potentially causing illness.

Almansour and his colleagues, including Professor Margaret Briley and postdoctoral researcher Sara Sweitzer, collected data on sack lunches from more than 700 preschoolers at nine Texas child care centers. The lunches were measured with noncontact temperature guns [Worried Dad note: They sure do love their guns in Texas] one and one-half hours before the food was served.

They found that while 45 percent of the lunches studied had at least one ice pack, 39 percent had no supplemental ice packs. Even including lunches with ice packs, 88 percent were at room temperature. Less than 2 percent of lunches with perishable items were found to be in a safe temperature zone, while more than 90 percent (even with multiple ice packs) were kept at unsafe temperatures. [Worried Dad note: basically, we're screwed.]

Perishable items studied included meats, cheeses and vegetables. Prepackaged foods produced by manufacturers were not included in the study.

"The simple addition of one extra icepack could have prevented many of the perishable items in lunches from reaching the danger zone," wrote the researchers in their study.

They go on to say that the addition of two or more icepacks in lunches could help prevent food-borne illness in children.

In an aside, inadvertently picked up because they didn't realize their mikes were still plugged in, one of the researchers was overheard muttering "I never realized how much parents hate their kids. I mean, just one ice pack could save all those kids in there. What a loss."

Your kid's car seat is giving her cancer

According to people in White Coats, a chemical used to make all sorts of baby-related things flame resistant, from car seats to high chairs, is suspected of causing cancer.

From the New York Times:

The new research found that foam samples from more than a third of the 101 baby products that were tested contained chlorinated Tris. Over all, 80 of the products contained chemical flame retardants of some kind, some of which are considered toxic, though legal to use. In one instance, flame retardants represented 12 percent of the weight of the foam in a changing pad; most products were closer to 3 to 5 percent.

Among the products examined were changing table pads, sleep positioners, portable mattresses, baby carriers, rocking chairs and highchairs.

Fourteen of the products contained the flame retardant TCEP, which the State of California describes as a cancer-causing agent. Four of them contained Penta-BDE, a flame retardant that builds up in human tissue and that manufacturers voluntarily phased out in 2004; it is banned in many countries, but not the United States, and in some states, including New York.

"Why do you need fire retardant in a nursing pillow?" said Dr. Blum, who is the executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute, a nonprofit organization that brings scientific data about toxic chemicals to policy makers.

"The whole issue is, they are toxic chemicals that are in our homes at high levels; and right now, people don’t know much about it," she said.

But what if a mother accidentally sets her cigarette on her nursing pillow while she reaches for her margarita? What about that????

Last year, California exempted strollers, nursing pillows and baby carriers from the flammability standard. Dr. Blum characterized the exemption as a positive step, though she noted that many other baby products were not exempted and it was not yet clear if manufacturers had stopped using flame retardants in those products.

Dr. Blum is among a group of academics and environmentalists who argue that the California standard exposes people and their pets to toxic chemicals. The flame retardants can migrate from furniture to household dust, and can be ingested by people and pets.

Some of the chemicals used in flame retardants are suspected carcinogens, and studies have linked the chemicals to variety of health issues, including problems with fertility and neurological development, the authors of Wednesday's journal article said.

Heather M. Stapleton, an assistant professor of environmental chemistry at Duke University and the lead author, complained that current federal oversight of chemicals is so weak that manufacturers are not required to label products with flame retardants nor are they required to list what chemicals are used.

Under current law, it is difficult for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to ban or restrict chemicals. Even now, the agency has yet to ban asbestos, widely known to cause cancer and other lung diseases.

"We can buy things that are BPA free, or phthalate free or lead free. We don’t have the choice to buy things that are flame-retardant free," Dr. Stapleton said. "The laws protect the chemical industry, not the general public."

When can we start buying baby products that will spontaneously combust in a cloud of cancer?

Million Dollar Apps

Remember the old bumper sticker that says "I'm spending my kids' inheritance"? Turns out that the little rugrats are turning the tables and spending our retirement money. But instead of spending it all at the local head shop like I did my friends did, kids these days are blowing them all on Apps for their smart phones.

According to the Washington Post,

Over the winter break from school, 8-year-old Madison worked to dress up her simple mushroom home on the iPhone game Smurfs' Village. In doing so, she also amassed a $1,400 bill from Apple.

Consumeraffairs.com was raising alarms about this about two months before The Post got on the case. Of course, you could read all about it on The Post's own iPad App for just $3.99 a month.

Playboy Mansion Hit With Really Boring Illness

What's the world coming to? People who have visited the Playboy Mansion are reporting that they have been struck by a disease, and it's just a respiratory illness. And they got it at a conference. Don't they understand that "social disease" is supposed to be a euphemism?

Plus, why do all these women have a great-grandpa fetish? Eww.