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."

BPA to sperm: DROP DEAD

According to the latest reports from people in White Coats, workers in Chinese factories that process BPA-laden products had two to four times lower quality sperm, including lower sperm counts, than workers in factories that don't deal with BPA. Those with the worst sperm also had the highest levels of BPA.

The report was published by the Journal of Fertility and Sterility. Oddly, the article The impact of luteal phase support on gene expression of extracellular matrix protein and adhesion molecules in the human endometrium during the window of implantation following controlled ovarian stimulation with a GnRH antagonist protocol, also in the current issue, hasn't generated any press coverage.

Asked to comment on the possibility that BPA can lower sperm counts, study author Dr. De-Kun Li simply responded "That can't be good."

BPA apologist and spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council Stephen Hentges probably had the same thought. However, he is quoted in media reports as saying "This study of Chinese workers with high exposure to BPA is of limited relevance to consumers who, by contrast, are exposed to only very low levels of BPA."

"I mean is there really an American consumer who worries about the welfare of factory workers who make their cheap consumer crap?" Hentges inferred but did not actually say.

Li, who isn't on the BPA industry payroll had this to say:

"When you see this kind of association with semen you have to wonder what else BPA has an effect on," says Li. As a precautionary principle, he adds, "Everybody should avoid BPA as much as you can."

Toxic Face Paint No Fun For Kids

Back in the day when Worried Dad was just Worried Kid, the biggest Halloween scare was the biggest thing we were afraid of was someone sticking a razor blade in an apple. Even though Snopes.com says there was some bits of truth behind these rumors, what kid in their right mind would eat an apple on Halloween?

Now the all-knowing Yahoo newsdesk has reminded us of a more modern worry: toxic face paint.

Besides the obvious warnings, like not dipping your candy in face paint, the FDA has these helpful tips:

• Read ingredient lists and don't buy any product that has non-approved colors. The FDA lists coloring agents approved for use in cosmetics. Worried Dad note: Laminate the FDA's fun 217 item chart and carry it with you every time you go shopping.



• Don't use products with fluorescent colors (D&C Orange No. 5, No. 10, and No. 11; D&C Red No. 21, No. 22, No. 27 and No. 28; and D&C Yellow No. 7) near the eyes. Worried Dad note: Turn these colors and numbers into a limerick to make them easier to remember.



• Don't use luminescent (glow-in-the-dark) colors (zinc sulfide) near your eyes. Worried Dad note: This may lead your child to permanently glow in the dark.



• Before using older products, check it against these two May 2009 recall notices for Fun Express children's face paints. Worried Dad note: How can a product called Fun Express be bad?
  

What's a worried parent to do? Two suggestions:

• Use a mask (free of BPA, of course). Except the stupid rubber bands that hold them up always break 20 minutes into the night.



• Just cover their faces in chocolate. Everybody wins!

Bisphenol A Now In Cans!

I've previously reported on that nasty stuff Bisphenol A (also known as BPA) that poison-mongers like to slip into plastic stuff like baby bottles.

Since I can never remember which number on the bottom of my cereal bowl is supposed to be okay, and which is supposed to consign me and my offspring to a slow, torturous death, I have switched the family to eating everything out of tin cans (well, aluminum).

Bad move.

According to a new study by people in White Coats at Consumer Reports, the

latest tests of canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans, have found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods we tested contain some BPA. The canned organic foods we tested did not always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed. We even found the chemical in some products in cans that were labeled "BPA-free."

Now if you can't trust a label on a can, what can you trust???

According to the Civil Eats blog,

Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on a handful of experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA. Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, a dose that could be reached by a child eating one or a few servings daily or an adult daily diet that includes multiple servings of canned foods containing BPA levels comparable to some of the foods Consumer Reports tested.

And then

Given the new findings, Consumers Union sent a letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg reiterating its request that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food- and beverage-contact materials. FDA is expected to announce the findings of its most recent reassessment of the safety of BPA by the end of this month. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers. Industry has been waging a fight against new regulations, and California Assembly members recently voted not to ban BPA from feeding products for children under three.

Consumer Reports is advising those who are concerned that they might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:

Choose fresh food whenever possible.
Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.
Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to lock regulators and lawmakers in a room with nothing to eat nothing but bisphenol-laden food until they ban this stuff?

Chicago Says Goodbye To BPA Plastics

As I reported last September, plastics are scary. Specifically, Bisphenol A, also known as BPA. Independent researchers in white coats, the stuff found in everything from baby bottles to, well, water bottles, and can leach out with repeated uses, cleanings, etc. Researchers claim it is linked to birth defects, early onset of puberty, miscarriages, and other scary things.

For its part, the plastics industry has tried to get everyone to worry about other stuff, like swine flu, and exploding toy helicopters (okay, that was me, but I'm sure they didn't object).

So back in September I said it was time for the government to do something. Well, they have. At least Chicago's government has. Last week they became the first city in the country to outlaw BPA. Here's hoping others follow suit.

Just one really scary word: Plastics

Plastics were the future, but they sucked. Okay, Bakelite was cool, but now you can only find it on stuff in yard sales and Ebay.

Now of course, thanks to the Internet, we know that plastics are truly evil and will destroy us all. Or something like that.

Honestly, I'd been trying to avoid thinking about this too hard because Cinderella uses plastic cups, eats with plastic utensils, and we wrap her up in Saran Wrap when she's naughty. I thought I'd wait until the people in white coats had figured out if this was something I really needed to worry about or not.

Turns out I do (and you should too).

As you've probably heard, the problem is with plastics that have bisphenol A, otherwise known as BPA. Some people in white coats did a really big study on humans and found that people with high levels of BPA had higher levels of heart disease, diabetes, and liver abnormalities.

Of course, like all scientific debates, there are two sides to this. On one side are researchers like the authors of the study and Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive scientist at the University of Missouri at Columbia who commented that the findings of the study were "the nail in the coffin" (hopefully he was referring to plastics and not us). Also on this side are people like Patricia Hunt, a geneticist at Washington State University who is researching possible links between BPA and birth defects, miscarriages, and other nasty stuff.

On the other side are chemical industry funded scientists who claim that there's absolutely nothing to worry about. The FDA apparently rests its claims that BPA-laden plastics pose no danger based on two chemical industry funded reports.

As worried consumers we can stop using BPA-laden plastic baby bottles, eyeglasses, DVD's, water bottles, and food containers. Or we could bug our government (or elect a new one) to force companies to get rid of this stuff.