Hanging By a Thread

News Flash: Cancer is Killing Us {but we can Fight back}

The question we continually ask is "Why? How could this have happened?" When I have begun to ask, "Why not? How have some escaped this catastrophic disease?"

I am talking about cancer.

Today is World Cancer Day.

The World Health Organization has issued a jaw-dropping report on cancer. This report predicts new cancer cases will increase from an estimated 14 million in 2012 to 22 million annually within the next twenty years.

Christopher Wild, director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is quoted as saying,

"We cannot treat our way out of the cancer problem. More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed in order to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in cancer burden globally."

At this point, most of the resources are spent on reacting to the staggering number of diagnoses and treating cancer, often to no avail.

However, the report indicates that half of the cancers are preventable if we take action to change our lifestyles, such as addressing smoking, alcohol consumption, diet and exercise, if we promote cancer screenings better, use vaccines more aggressively in order to prevent infectious types of cancer and consider the environmental impacts.

How often do you hear from a friend or family member that cancer is now affecting someone close to you? How often do you hear from a friend or family member that someone near to him or her is being affected by cancer?

For me, the answers to both of those questions is this: FAR TOO OFTEN.

It's not difficult for me to name at least 10 people who have recently been affected by cancer. I could easily go higher than 10. That is FAR TOO MANY.

It has not always been this way. It does not have to continue in this ever-upward moving line.

WE CAN CHANGE these numbers. WE CAN ALTER these predictions.

How?

Start making changes today.

1. Get regular exams, including any relevant cancer screenings. I also think there is a limit as to how much trust we should put in our medical system. I often find that doctors just try to throw medications at the problem, rather than treat the body as a whole and find the real issues that are often treated by a change of diet and/or lifestyle rather than with medications. So, think holistic approach when getting exams, etc. Check out the American Cancer Society's Cancer Screening Guidelines.

    

2. Take a good hard look at your diet. Eat more vegetables and fruits. Cut out meats and fats and processed foods and sugary drinks. In the last 60 years our diets have been increasingly bombarded with processed and refined "foods." This is not a good thing. Eat more fresh and real food. You will feel a huge difference, just by making a few changes. You or your kids don't like vegetables; try again. Change the way you prepare it and try more kinds of veggies; there are lots of veggies out there. I am willing to bet you haven't tried them all. Try growing a garden. Participate in a crop share program. Visit a Farmers' Market. Do these things as a family and try new food together. And, No, French Fries don't count as a veggie. Here are some helpful tips for healthy eating and food pyramids to help you on your way.

    

3. STOP smoking or if you are not the one smoking in your home, help that person find the support and best method for quitting. Stopping smoking can be done. I have never smoked and therefore never had to quit, but if you really want to change your health and that of your family, STOP. Need somewhere to start? Check out SmokeFree.gov.

    

4. Limit alcohol or completely eliminate it. We, as a society, drink a lot these days. It's what we do we when gather together at home or at a restaurant in celebration of a birthday, anniversary, a Friday, a rough week, a date out without the kiddos, etc. There are reports that tell us that wine can be a health benefit, but overall, there are a lot of reason to limit or eliminate alcohol from your life. Click to see what the American Cancer Society has to say about alcohol and risk of cancer.

    

5. Stop being a couch potato. If you sit in your car on the way to work, sit at your desk all day, sit on your way home again, sit in front of the TV and then get into bed to sleep it's time to make a change. You don't have to train to run a marathon {although you could}, but it's important to be active for you and for the example of your kids. Stand to work; clean your house; do laundry; go for a walk; play in the backyard with your kids or pets or both; scoop the snow from your drive rather than use your snow blower; sign up for a class or a team sport; or play Just Dance on the Wii with your kids; whatever it is, Just Move. Here are some really great tips on getting moving; you don't have to go to the gym to get some exercise into your daily routine!

    

6. Change what you are using to clean your home. You don't have to use cleansers filled with chemicals. It's making you sick and exposing you to really awful (MANY CANCER-CAUSING) chemicals. You could use just water and microfiber! Two years ago, we completely changed how our home is cleaned, how our laundry is cleaned and what we put on our skin. It has made a world of difference for us and our allergies, headaches, etc. I am a Norwex Independent Sales Consultant, just one of the hats I wear, and you can find out more about this easy change here: annaberend.norwex.biz or contact me directly.

    

We need to start responding to the cancer epidemic, instead of reacting. There is a difference. If we respond to these reports, we can take a firm stand and start making changes before it's too late. When it's too late, meaning there is already a cancer diagnosis or these predictions have come true, we are merely reacting by then treating the ill and often untreatable.

So, read the WHO cancer report, make a list of changes you and your family need to make, talk to friends and family about making these changes too. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We don't have to live based on these predictions, ensuring that these prophecies will be true.

Do it for yourself. Do it for your family. Do it for all of those people who you know and love that have been affected by cancer already. And if you are looking to get educated on cancer prevention or looking for support for you or a loved one fighting cancer now this site is really great with lots of information: F*@% Cancer.

The report indicates that in the next two decades, cancer deaths are predicted to go from 8.2 million a year to 13 million annually. These numbers are not acceptable. Over and out…

Anna

Child Obesity: What’s in the Child’s Best Interest?

Truly a Growing Problem?

I came across an interesting article earlier this week, and I'm not even sure what my opinion is regarding this matter. It has to do with weight. Weight is a touchy issue; very few of us, have never struggled with a weight issue, whether the issue was to lose weight or gain weight. At various times of my life I have been on both sides of this issue.

Let me also preface this subject by saying that I have tall, muscular, broad kids (both built like their daddy) who both tip the scales at the top of their age ranges; they also rank in the top of height percentiles, as well. In fact, at the last well-check of each Darling Boy the pediatrician explained that based on their weights alone, he was forced to check them off as "obese" for insurance purposes. This reporting is done anonymously in a large pool of all kids who have well-checks, based on specific ages.

My children are not obese for any other purpose (check out those sweet, skinny boys above & don't let the 3 year-old's pudgy cheeks fool you; he's the skinniest). I, of course, spoke up and argued this point. While my sons' pediatrician agreed with me, he told me that his hands were tied because this "mandatory" reporting is linked to insurance companies paying the doctors for their services to patients. He went on to tell me that every big, strong high school athlete he had recently seen for school physicals were also labeled as "obese" for the insurance reports.

Now, this makes me think twice when I see the reports of the high percentages of obese kids; and all of the reports, studies, groups and grants concerning this issue. At the same time, I know there are kids who are obese and who need to learn how to eat a nutritional, balanced diet and exercise on a daily basis. There are also kids who have a genetic predisposition to weight gain. And now for the story I read. Then, you can decide where you stand on this topic.

200 Pound Third Grader

This subtitle reads like a tabloid article, and you can just picture the photo running with the headline in the newsprint placed next to the bubble gum at the checkout counter, but this is sadly true. A boy in third grade weighing 200 pounds was removed from his mother's custody and placed with a foster family due to his weight related health issues. The mother had taken her son to a hospital last year when he started to have breathing problems; clearly, a concerned parent. It was determined that he has sleep apnea. At that time, the hospital enrolled him in program aimed at reducing his weight. Through that program, he was being monitored by social workers and had been losing some weight, but had recently begun to gain weight again.

When he started putting pounds on, the social workers asked a juvenile court to remove the boy from his mother's custody based on his obesity as a medical neglect issue. The boy's mother claimed that she was following the dietary guidelines provided by the hospital program and was doing her best to help her child.

Obesity as Neglect

This may seem extreme, but remember the court's duty is to do what is in a child's best interest. So, is this in the child's best interest? What if the child was severely underweight instead of grossly overweight? How would you feel about this issue then? If the child appeared to be starving, the court would remove the child in this instance too. The court must do its best to ensure that any child that comes to its attention has a clean, safe and healthy environment with adequate nutrition and direction in which to live and grow.

Clearly, this is an extreme case, but it has happened before. The article I read from ABC News cited a 90 pound 3 year old girl who was removed from her parents' home for two months due to her large size and inability to lose weight in her parent's care. She was returned to her parents when it was determined that she had a genetic predisposition and she did not lose any weight while in foster care despite following strict guidelines.

The Scoop

Are we going overboard on the subject of obese kids? Is obesity a legitimate cause for concern and reason to lose custody of your child, even temporarily? For me, this is hard question. How do you feel about this issue? No matter which way you view this story and others like it, it's very sad for the child and the parents involved. Over and out...

Anna

Supersized Everything: A Big Fat Lawsuit {On a Soapbox}

Disclaimer

I should probably start with a disclaimer of sorts. This post may step on a few folk's toes; rub some the wrong way; and ruffle a feather or two.

So, here's my disclaimer: I have been many sizes in my life, ranging from so tiny that the smallest sizes I found were too big and my mom had to take them in to well, let's just say, not small. I understand how difficult it is to lose weight having tackled that task many times, and I realize that it's sometimes out of the control of a person due to side effects from medications, illness, etc.

 

Frivolous Feud

I found this lawsuit to be ridiculous and overly litigious. This lawsuit is not really about overweight people. Look closely and you'll find it's really about a cantankerous, sour, unhealthy man.

Back in 2009, a portly gentleman, Martin Kessman, went to his favorite White Castle burger joint in Nanuet, New York, ordered his sack of aforementioned burgers and went to choose his seat. Upon noticing that there were only booths with affixed seats and no tables and chairs, he attempted to wedge himself into a booth to enjoy his meal.

Apparently, his protruding belly made this a difficult task. He left angry and embarrassed. This gentleman wrote a letter to the corporate office, demanding that White Castle do something about this issue. He said they sent back a letter saying they intended to remedy the problem and sent coupons for free burgers. They say they sent him a letter with the locations of other White Castles in the area that are equipped with tables and chairs.

Meanwhile, this poor gentleman robbed of his "right" to enjoy his White Castle along with other diners, did not stop eating the beloved steamed burgers, he simply sends his wife to get them for him.

Seeking Damages

Fast forward to September 2011, the disgruntled gentleman has filed a lawsuit against White Castle for failing to provide seating that will accommodate his rotund body. He claims it's not just about him, but also for pregnant women and disabled citizens. He has lodged his legal argument based on his alleged right to have a place to sit and enjoy his meal. Kessman contends that White Castle's seating arrangements infringe on The Americans with Disabilities Act.

So, how big is Mr. Kessman? He states that he's not humongous, weighing in at 290 pounds. The Plaintiff is asking for larger seats and an undisclosed amount of damages for his troubles. Kessman says that he can comfortably fit in other fast food restaurant seating and simply wants "to sit down like a normal person."

Drawing the Line

Sorry. I still say it's overly litigious. What if White Castle granted Mr. Kessman's request for larger seats and then a tiny person... um, I mean a height challenged person comes in and finds that the giant seats are far too large and there is much too much distance between the fixed seat and the table and this person also makes a stink about it? What then? Will White Castle and other restaurants have to have designated seating? "This area for those over 200 pounds." "These tables for those under 5 feet, 2 inches tall." "This section for persons over 6 ft tall." And so on...

And in my opinion being fat is not a disability. I think that to call it a disability is demeaning to those who truly are disabled in some way. Now, I can see where it could be a handicap. Being overweight does make it more difficult to move around, in general, and can make someone feel and look awkward and clumsy. Regardless, this scenario does not make it reasonable to sue a business.

If this lawsuit is allowed to move forward and if Kessman receives damages because he wasn't able to comfortably fit in a fast food restaurant dining booth, then what is the limit? Where do we draw the line? If we each think about it, I bet we could each come up with a way in which we were wronged that comes as close as this case does to being legit.

The Scoop

I've said before, I'll say it again. Our court systems are clogged; our state and federal budgets are stretched to the limits; there are legitimate cases where real civil wrongs have been committed that should go to court, but lawsuits such as this one, waste time and energy and already strained resources {tax dollars}. Mr. Kessman, I have a few solutions to suggest: Take your business elsewhere, go on a No-Fast-Food diet or both. I bet you'd be happier and healthier if you'd drop this whole matter.

He says he was mortified that he couldn't fit into the booth properly. Well, I wonder how he feels now with all of the media attention that he brought upon himself? Over and out...

Anna

Coffee with Anna Vlog #2: Banning Kids from Restaurants and Targeting the Happy Meal

 

This vlog business is much harder than you would imagine. Sorry for the delay. I had loud kids and a barking dog to contend with this morning. Perhaps, I should ban them from my "recording studio."

These first few weeks are certainly based on trial and error. So, please stick with me as I work out the kinks and format. My biggest problem is brevity. I want it to be conversational and not strictly here are the points: bam, bam, bam, done. This is long, but I stay on point and cover only the two news items. I think I will have to choose just one news item to discuss in the future.

I will continue to work on the length of the video and other fine details, but today it was this or nothing. I've got work I've got to get to now. I hope you enjoy it, and if you don't that's fine too. Please let me know your thoughts, but again, please be nice either way. Over and out...

Anna

Feeding the Minds of Students: Federally Funded School Lunch Programs & Kids’ Nutrition

Haunting Stories

When I set my brain free and allow it to roam around in the dark spaces of my thoughts there are a few bits of news articles I've read that come back to haunt me. One such piece was about the unseen who suffered during the blizzards of 2009 in the D.C. area: the poorest students in the school districts.

The article outlined the administrators' concerns regarding these poverty stricken kids and the severe weather that cancelled school for multiple days over several weeks. The problem was that with schools closed many of these kids would probably go without breakfast and lunch on these days. Additionally, a number of these kids typically took home a bag of groceries at the end of each week to supplement weekend meals thanks to an area food pantry of some kind. The administrator interviewed in the article was worried these kids were going hungry by not being able to attend school and receive their free or reduced cost meals.

This floored me and gave me an ache in the pit of my stomach. How is it possible that in the land of plenty, the heavy weight of the world, the home of 8.4 million millionaires there are {literally} millions of kids who would go hungry without subsidized meals at school each day? This has stuck with me and continues to bother me.

Students Living in Poverty

Clearly, it's necessary for our federal government to aid these children living in poverty and provide a nutritious meal or two while they're in the school's care. But just how many meals does the government pay for each year? Well, I did a little more digging into the school lunch issue.

It turns out that for the Fiscal Year 2009 more than 31.3 million children received lunch each day through the National School Lunch Program. The National School Lunch Act was enacted in 1946 and has since served over 219 billion lunches. This program cost $9.8 billion in the Fiscal Year of 2009.

To qualify for a free meal, a child's family's income must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty level. Families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced cost meals and can be charged no more than 40 cents per meal. For July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, 130 percent of the poverty level translates to $28,665 for a family of 4; and 185 percent is $40,793.

This means that most, if not all, of the Little Village Academy students, on the West Side of Chicago qualify for free or reduced cost school lunches considering Little Village Community residents have a median income of a little over $32,000. And while yesterday's post got a lot of moms riled up over the thought of losing the right to pack their kids' lunches {for good reason}, in the instance of Little Village it might have been a moot point with so many qualifying for the National School Lunch Program anyway.

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act

With the enactment of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, additional federal funding is authorized for school meal and nutrition programs and access to healthy food for low-income children is increased, but the law is aimed at educating all students about eating nutritional balanced meals, exercising and living a healthy lifestyle. Some of the highlights of this law include:

1. Giving USDA more authority to regulate food sold in vending machines, school stores, etc. to ensure better food choices for kids at school;
2. Providing access to more locally grown and produced foods;
3. Promoting nutrition and wellness through healthy foods, exercise and information;
4. Increasing the number of children who qualify for school meal programs and making it easier to identify and enroll children in these programs; and
5. Better program monitoring through audits, training and technical assistance of school lunch programs, etc.

Go to www.WhiteHouse.gov for specific details concerning the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

This 4.5 billion dollar plan will be slowly implemented over the next 10 years. I know there's been a lot of partisan divisions and battles over the federal budget lately, but surely we can all agree that we mustn't let our children go hungry or have little or no access to fresh, nutritious meals.

The Scoop

Our government pays for a large number of school lunches each year, and for good reason. The issue lately has been about the nutritional value of the meals served at schools. The quality of school lunches appears to be quite improved since my school girl days, but I think it's an issue that's more complex than the benefits of serving steamed broccoli rather than tater tots.

This issue is about changing the way we, as a country, eat; not just what students eat one meal a day at school, but everyday at home and at school. This can be achieved by education through the schools for both parents and students.

But the more profound question is how do we ensure the those 31.3 million students living at or under the poverty level in the U.S. today don't end up as the parents of kids who qualify for federally-funded school lunch programs? It's about breaking the cycle of poverty, and that's a tough one that I don't have an answer for ...yet.

What are your thoughts about the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act or the National School Lunch Program? On Saturday, I'll be posting tips for sending nutritious meals to school that your kids will eat and how to get your finicky eaters to broaden their horizons. Tomorrow in Motherly Advice I'll be writing about one of our family's Easter traditions and posting a recipe that's not necessarily nutritious, but is light, fun and definitely food for thought. I hope you'll come back for those. Over and out...

Anna

You might also like:

Alphabet Soup: Food Safety Standards; USDA, FDA, HHS & Now FSMA

Trying to Stay Focused: Making Time to Save Money on Organic Products

The Perils of Feeding a Child: Food-Related Choking Hazard Warnings

Principal Knows Best: A Ban on Home Packed School Lunches

Home Baked Treats

I vividly remember my mother baking cakes, cookies and other treats to take to school for birthdays and holiday parties. They were never store-bought. They were lovingly made from scratch baked goods and often topped with luscious homemade, bright white icing that was whipped into stiff shiny peaks {my mom's favorite}. But gone are the days that sugary, home baked confections are welcome in a classroom.

I suppose I can understand and go along with the reasoning for doing away with homemade Valentines' Day cupcakes, for instance, but only begrudgingly and with much muttering under my breath about the {lack of any} nutritional value of grocery store made cookies and mini cupcakes with greasy icing and store bought alternatives-to-sweet-treats rainbow "cheese" crackers and so-called "fruit" snacks that have taken the place of home baked treats.

Memories of Bygone Days

When it came to school lunches, I rarely ate in the cafeteria in grade school and junior high, but when I did it was tacos or pizza. Generally, I brown-bagged it {OK, not literally a brown bag; it was a lunch box, something cute like Hello Kitty®, Barbie® or Strawberry Shortcake®} with pb&j, turkey or tuna, chips and fruit. I'm happy to say that I made it through all of high school and college without ever eating a meal in the respective cafeterias.

I was highly selective about what I ate then and now, but the why and what of my selectiveness have changed. Then, I was not eating meat; now I am. Then and now, I won't eat food that is not aesthetically pleasing; much of the cafeteria food I have come in contact with did not look fresh or tasty, and much of the time the food was not identifiable. If I had been told I had no other choice than to eat the cafeteria food, I would have revolted.

Food Trends

I realize that my home-packed lunches may have contained some items that were not of optimal nutritional value, but for the most part, my parents did pretty well when it came serving us nutritional foods. Of course, it was also a different era. No one used the terms "organic" or "locally sourced" or "free range" in terms of food; at least no one in my neck of the woods. Baked potato chips didn't even exist yet!  {not that they're organic, local or free range}

These days many people are more conscious of nutritional choices; checking labels, opting for in-season, locally grown, less processed options. And yet, the hard truth is that processed, canned, junky foods are cheaper; and scores of people are forced to live on tight budgets and buy these cheaper, less nutritional foods for their families.

No Choices

This is unfortunate for many reasons, but it doesn't give the city, state or federal government license to ban home-packed lunches or legislate what can and cannot be brought from home in a lunch box. I'm generally not conservative in my views, but I was taken aback when I read an article about a school in Chicago that has done just that.

At the Little Village Academy, a public school on the West Side of Chicago, lunches must be bought from the cafeteria and no one is allowed to bring lunch from home with exception to those with food allergies.

I can appreciate that the school Principal is trying to ensure that the children in her charge are fed nutritional food with fewer calories, but I don't think it's the schools place to choose what a child is fed. I believe it's the parents' responsibility and right to pick what goes into the child's lunch. Alternatively, the parent has the right to choose to pay for school lunches every day, a few days a week or once a month; regardless, it's the parents' prerogative. With that said, I have a few thoughts on this subject.

Better Nutrition?

According to the Chicago Tribune article Chicago Public Schools allow the principals to decide such policies concerning meals and nutrition. After observing lunches sent from home filled with sodas and unhealthy snacks, Little Village Academy Principal, Elsa Carmona, decided that such a policy was needed to provide her students with nutritional lunches served in the cafeteria. Carmona instituted this lunch policy six years ago, but it's just recently received media attention.

The food in the cafeteria is provided by Chartwells Dining Services. Chartwells serves a large number of school districts in many states including the District of Colombia, St. Louis, MO and Chicago, IL schools. There was no discussion of the meals being offered at Little Village, and I could not find any lunch menus listed for the Chicago Public Schools, but I did find Chartwells menus for DC and St Louis schools.

The DC menus looked to be very nutritious, but not necessarily appealing to younger students; while the St. Louis menu I found was more traditional school lunch fare complete with pepperoni pizzas, nuggets and cheeseburgers, but with sides of veggies and fruit.

A Question of Money

The Chicago Tribune makes a good point that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider." Additionally, schools received federal money for the free and reduced-cost meals it serves each day.

The school is located in the Little Village community on the West Side of Chicago. The median household income of residents in that area is $32,320. A lunch at Little Village Academy costs $2.25 per day. That may not sound like much, but it adds up if you have several kids and a tight budget.

I would guess that many of the school lunches are paid by the federal government, at least in part. And it could be that many of the parents with kids enrolled at Little Village qualified for and chose the free or reduced meal option anyway; even before the home-packed lunch ban was put into place. Regardless, I think it should be left up to the parents to decide what their child eats.

The Scoop

A few schools in the Chicago area and other parts of the country don't allow for certain sugary snacks, fatty, salty and processed foods, etc. in lunches and will take them from lunch boxes if they are spotted. Will this policing of school lunches continue to spread to other schools? How do you feel about this issue?

I should add that the articles on this subject stated that it was observed that much of the food was thrown out because the kids did not like the food they were given. This begs the question: Is it better for a child to have eaten a meal, regardless of the nutritional value, rather than go hungry at school because he or she doesn't like the food offered?

On Thursday, I'll be taking an in-depth look at the recently enacted Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 {school lunch nutrition bill} and offering parents some tips on packing nutritionally balanced, interesting lunches that receive rave reviews from the kiddos and the school administration. Over and out...

Anna

You might also like:

Licking the Bowl: Tips for Safe Food Preparation and Storage

The Organic, Sustainable, Grass-Fed, All-Natural, Free-Range, Fair Trade Grocery List: What Do All These Adjectives Mean??

Family Day: The Family that Eats Together Stays off Drugs