SquareParents.com - Cool Stuff For Cool Parents

Just Like Sugar

Written by The Square Parent Monday, 01 December 2008 00:00

One of the best, if not the best, advocacy ads running on TV is the one attempting to debunk the pernicious myth that high fructose corn syrup is bad for you.  The ad, created by the Corn Refiner's Association, goes on to explain that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has the same nutritional properties as sugar, but is simply made from wholesome corn, and everyone knows that there's nothing bad about corn.  In fact there isn't anything inherently bad about corn.  You call it corn, we call it maize.   

But what exactly are those apparently wonderful "nutritional" properties, anyway?  Let's see, per teaspoon of table sugar, there are 15 calories, no fiber, no protein, no folic acid, and no vitamins A or C.  The term "nutritional properties" in reference to sugar is, although technically correct, effectively meaningless.  Everything has properties, even light and air, and especially carbon dioxide.  Whether table sugar or HFCS, there is no nutritional value or benefit.  At this point, the Corn Refiner's Association may wish to parse words and delve into definitions and nuances of language, and perhaps even pull out some cool technical terminology.  This would be entertaining to no end.

It could be the truest of truths that HFCS has exactly the same nutritional properties as table sugar, and there's no reason to doubt this.  But besides the zero nutritional benefit noted above, the issue is that when added to food, much more HFCS is used than table sugar.  Portions have been getting bigger, and the bigger the portion, the more HFCS can fit into it.  Ah-ha!  It's the fault of the manufacturers!   To wit:  a 20 oz (does anyone remember the 10 oz bottles from the 1970s?) bottle of Coca Cola contains the HFCS equivalent of 18 teaspoons of table sugar.  Who actually eats 18 teaspoons of sugar at a sitting?   Getting 18 teaspoons of HFCS, however, is no problem, and anyone could easily do this without thinking about it.

So, on one hand, the Corn Refiner's Association is absolutely right.  What they neglect to mention, incredibly, is that the amount of the product produced by their members is added in such large quantities to so much of the food supply that there's no way that much sugar could be healthy for anyone, whether table sugar or HFCS.  There's little chance that those quantities that are so common to store shelves can be good for anyone, and, having some fun with words, if it's not good, it's bad; another word for bad in reference to human health is "toxic."   

And toxic is really the only way to describe what's out there for kids to eat, or anyone else for that matter: ice cream, cookies, breads, soups, salad dressing, sauces, marinades, fried chicken coating, candies of all sorts, soups, jellies, yogurt, and on and on.  All of this could easily be regarded as a triumph of modern science, which has discovered methods of producing extremely inexpensive calories, and the kinds of foods that people want and are willing to spend money for without even thinking about it.  On the other side of the equation are the (suspected?  alleged?) health problems caused by much of this, from obesity to diabetes, heart disease, and eventually joint problems.  In short, scores of health problems are directly traceable to industrial food, and specifically corn-based calories.  And this goes without mentioning corn fed beef.

"But the people want their corn and corn-based products!" the corn industry advocates will cry, "Look at the sales figures!"  If people really wanted that much of it, then sales shouldn't suffer when the subsidies are removed.  In fact, if anything, if people want these products so badly, prices will naturally increase, to the benefit of the industry. 

But wait... what's wrong with that statement?

What It Would Be Like

Written by The Square Parent Friday, 28 November 2008 00:00

What would it be like in real life if the United States suffered an economic depression?  Not a severe recession, but a real depression with an unemployment rate of greater than 20%?  The question was raised in this article in The Boston Globe. 

What would it mean for the kids?  The last depression that occurred in the 1930s obviously isn't something that any of today's parents with young children remember, but there are those of us who have or had grandparents who remembered quite clearly what it was like, and who weren't shy about imparting this chapter of American history to future generations, by word and deed.

The words were the first-hand accounts of the times, stories of people out of work, of real poverty, and of the ensuing mass migrations.  The deeds were also first-hand accounts, the hoarding of everything from corn flakes boxes to empty mayonnaise jars, the ritual sugar packet collection from the tables of diners and cheap restaurants, growing and canning their own vegetables, and general austerity that even by 1970s standards seemed extreme.  Most of this behavior was learned in their formative years. 

But what would it be like for kids today, especially in the 1-5 year old age range?  In reality, probably not much, because as is the case with so many other things, they simply don't know anything different.  What they'd most likely be most affected by would be their parents' behavior.  The stuff wouldn't matter much, because there would be a lot of kids without the stuff, or, looking at it another way, with the cheap Chinese stuff.  So, they might have more or less nice cheap Chinese stuff, kind of like today.

But that's just stuff.  One of the most concrete and dramatic shifts would be the likely depopulation of the suburbs and repopulation of the cities.  And everything accompanying the suburbs would either then move to the city, or cease to exist because of the lack of a viable market.  This could all work in some very unexpected ways, especially when mixing and matching with a lot of unknown variables.

The kids would be raised, as were previous generations, in an urban environment with many of the advantages that this can offer, along with plenty of ironies.  There would also be a significant amount of TV involved, but then again, they might play outdoors more, being in closer proximity to other kids and absent the former landscape that wasn't exactly conducive to a great amount of interaction with one's neighbors.

Take A Popular Pain Reliever Already

Written by The Square Parent Wednesday, 19 November 2008 00:00

Judging by the speed that the controversial ad for a popular pain reliever had made the rounds of the internet, the company that manufactures the product, McNeil Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) is really on to something.  They've had the name of their product virally splashed hither and yon across their most coveted segments of cyberspace.  And all for the price of a simple apology.  Either they're geniuses, or quite a few people have offended themselves into the role of unwitting marketers.  It appears to be the latter.

The issue in question had to do with a sore back as the result of a baby carrier, and the offence related to the apparent implication of the baby carrier.  Many were offended on several levels and for several reasons, not the least of which was what the company was saying about the baby carrier as a trendy item that would require the use of its product.  

As is the case with these sorts of things, a company makes an ad that arouses the ire of a segment of the public.  The ad is analyzed endlessly for subtext and meta messages, and then angrily denounced with accusations ranging from simple offense to attempted genocide.

The simple truth is, if anyone is so offended by the ad, they can stop purchasing the popular pain reliever in question, ignore the issue, and be done with it.  But apparently that's not enough, given the depth of the subtext and the offence.  Many people out there are looking for things to be offended about.

If sensibilities have been offended, well, OK.  So?  Will it particularly matter a year from now?  Two months?  How, exactly? 

If it really is that bad, use another pain reliever.

If it is really is that bad, perhaps it's time for a re-examination of one's priorities.   

Spring or Summer

Written by The Square Parent Monday, 17 November 2008 15:00

Rolls.  Spring or Summer?  Grand questions for difficult times.  Both are tasty, and reasonably nutritious and unprocessed, although the summer rolls are likely better for you, unlike their fried cousins the spring rolls.  Both kinds can be found at your local Vietnamese restaurant, a true font of never-fail dinner out with the kids.  Always inexpensive, always tasty, and usually less bad for you, Vietnamese food also offers the advantage of always having something the kids will like, and not just simply like, but things that are fun to like and try. 

Is Vietnamese the new Chinese?  Or Chinese the new Vietnamese?  In any event, there are many points to be made about how Vietnamese is far superior to the average Chinese restaurant food, not the least of which is the relative lack of salty, sugary, goopy crap.  The cuisine, by definition, is about fresh ingredients done simply and inexpensively.  There's also tends to be a very large variety of stuff on the table, even when you order a simple bowl of soup. 

Soup is at least tolerated by nearly all kids, especially when they have a lot of good stuff in them like noodles, or yes, fresh vegetables.  An order of the ever-present pho will also usually come with bean sprouts and basil, and the bean sprouts especially are a good clean finger food. 

Besides, with global integration, many are looking eastward, or westward depending upon your coast.  If anything, the basic point is this:  Vietnamese food will inexpensively provide at least 30 different ingredients on the table in front of you.  The kids are bound to like at least several of them.  Another advantage is that the stuff tends to be brightly colored, and has some unusual shapes, relative to chicken fingers, fries, and pizza, and is an excellent point of departure for getting the kids to eat something new. 

Besides, it's fresh and cheap, and relative to many many other options, minimally processed.  But the real magic of Vietnamese food lies with the simplicity and freshness.  It's really not that exotic at all, when you get down to it.  It's also not heavily seasoned or overly heavy.  In short, there are very few downsides, and quite a few upsides.

Learning to Stop

Written by The Square Parent Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:00

Put your foot on the brake.  Put the credit or debit card away.  Don't buy whatever you were going to buy for the kid.  The kid doesn't need it, and you don't need it.   It'll provide minor and temporary amusement for $50.  It'll clutter up your house, you'll trip over it, and eventually you'll need to expend the energy in getting rid of it.  In a few weeks, someone will give you one just like it, and it'll provide the same mild and temporary amusement and cost the same $50, only now you'll have two of them.   

What is this item?  The question is what this item isn't.  Specifically, it's not anything that you actually need, and most of the time it's not anything that you particularly want.  It's any item that you could get for $8.99, but spend $52.99 for because there's some superhero on it; it's simply more stuff.

There's quite a lot of doom and gloom about all things economic these days, and likely will be for some time, until the business cycle changes and repeats itself; sooner or later, there'll be a recovery, and everyone will feel like they will have money to spend.  This may not be for quite some time, as there are many factors in play with a global economic re-alignment and correction.  Then there are unforeseen events to contend with.  

But if there's a silver lining in the current circumstances, it may be that people will learn to be a little less impulsive, to be more self-reliant in more ways, and learn to appreciate and make good use of what they have.  This is easier said than done.  We're used to living a certain way, and quite accustomed to buying stuff that promises to solve this problem or that.  The problem is that in many instances, the stuff creates more problems than it solves.

Put another way, is constantly buying stuff for the kid a good thing for either the parent or the kid?  People have lived without all of the stuff for a very long time, and continue to.  Raising a kid in the first place is going to cost quite a lot of money, and the last thing anyone needs now is for cost pressures to be exacerbated.

Try going without this or that.  Is it absolutely necessary?  It is worth the X minutes in (allegedly) saved time that you've wasted waiting in line for it in the first place? 

Without it, what's the worst thing that can happen?