Monthly Archives: April 2014

Conversations In Real Life: Stuffed Crust

June: How come we never get stuffed crust on our pizza?

Me: Stuffed crust?

June: Yeah, I want to get stuffed crust.

Me: Do you know what stuffed crust is?

June: Yes. It’s crust that’s stuffed.

Me: What’s it stuffed with?

June: The inside of crust. You know, like a stuffed animal is stuffed with the inside of the animal. Fluffy stuff.

Me: Sure, next time we get pizza I will ask that the crust is stuffed with the inside of the crust.

June: Ok! Hey, July, we can get stuffed crust!

July: Cool!

*I just made regular pizza cooler.

Please like & share:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Conversations in Real Life

How Dirty is the Dirty Dozen?

EWG protest photo-1I have a confession to make: I have, on a few very limited occasions and against my better judgment, bought organic produce because I thought it was better for my family. Shocking, I know. I just wrote a story about what a good job I think the EPA and the USDA do to help ensure our produce has safe, minuscule levels of pesticide residue. How could I be so hypocritical? The answer is fear in parenting. Like so many other parents, I was (marginally and with doubts in my mind) temporarily frightened by media reports that perhaps some produce contained dangerous levels of pesticides and we would be better off with organic. Where would I get that idea? From a list called the Dirty Dozen. Rest assured, though, I have regained my composure and I am back on the conventional produce horse. Worry not, it won’t happen again, because now I know more about how wrong the Dirty Dozen list is than I used to.


The Dirty Dozen is a list put together every year by a group called the Environmental Working Group. The EWG is a US-based environmental advocacy organization that takes on issues ranging from sunscreen to genetic engineering to cell phone towers and cosmetics. The EWG is well known for the Dirty Dozen list which uses publicly available data to rank produce according to levels of pesticide residue.  The list has been expanded to include the top 15 “dirtiest” produce; those the EWG has determined have the most pesticide residue. The EWG recommends consumers buy organic options of these “most contaminated fruits and vegetables.” The group also puts together the Clean Fifteen, which is a list of fruits and vegetables that fall at the bottom of the EWG’s ranking system for pesticides, ones you can buy conventional without feeling badly about it.

As you might expect, this concept is popular among parents. We’re always trying to balance doing the very best thing for our kids with the impact to our bank accounts. Not everyone can afford organic, so it’s inviting to hear someone say: “hey, don’t sweat it, you don’t always have to buy organic! Just focus on these specific items.” That helps parents feel good. They can check the “doing the right thing” box and move on.

It’s not surprising many parents use this list – the media regurgitates the Dirty Dozen like a mother bird feeding hungry chicks. The EWG packages its message in tidy little soundbites that basically write the stories themselves. Everyone covers it: CBS NewsCNNHuffington PostGood HousekeepingForbesFox NewsShapeWebMDPBS, even Oprah. I could go on and on, all you need to do is a simple Google search.

Seems legit, right? While I have heard the Dirty Dozen talked about in mom circles for years, even enough to convince me to throw a few extra dollars at the idea once or twice, I never actually looked at the EWG’s website to see where the data came  from. I recently did a casual Facebook survey to see how much my mom-friends know. Of the 24 who responded from across the US, 83 percent had heard of the Dirty Dozen and 75 percent could name two items on the list. Conversely, only 21 percent knew who was behind the Dirty Dozen, and only 8 percent had an idea about how the list was put together.

So how is the list created? Turns out, not very scientifically. The EWG states on its website that it uses data available from the USDA and FDA to create six evenly-weighted metrics to rank produce. Not a single one takes the tolerance level (what the EPA deems a safe exposure level) of the pesticide into account; the metrics and methodology don’t consider whether the amount present is actually a problem or not. The EWG’s metrics are instead weighted to basically vilify the mere existence of pesticide residue without consideration of whether the amount present is within the safety limits set by the EPA.


Not only are these metrics pretty questionable, but the EWG doesn’t make the subset of data it uses available for the public to view.  Without access to the specific data from the USDA and FDA that the EWG claims to be using, it is nearly impossible for anyone to verify or reproduce the EWG’s results.  Not surprisingly, this also makes it difficult to refute or differently interpret the EWGs findings. Nowhere on its site does the EWG even link to the USDA or FDA’s websites. I think I figured out where the EWG gets the numbers, but how would you know for sure if it isn’t said? After looking over the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program reports, I’m still not certain how all six of those metrics are determined or how the ranking system is created. Now, I’m not a scientist, so maybe it’s easier for someone familiar with that data to figure it out. But when you ask scientists, the consensus is disagreement with the EWG’s Dirty Dozen list.

In 2011, the Journal of Toxicology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, published a study that concluded the EWG’s methodology does not follow any scientific procedures and does not back up their claim that you can avoid pesticides by eating organic varieties of the “most contaminated fruits and vegetables.” Steve Savage, a plant pathologist who has spent his career in agricultural technology, did an independent analysis of the data and concluded the EWG is misleading consumers. The Alliance for Food and Farming, a non-profit group made up of farmers and farm organizations, commissioned an expert panel of five scientists (one of whom has 22 years of experience at the EPA) to evaluate the EWG’s Dirty Dozen and those scientists concluded it is unscientific. Forbes contributor Henry I. Miller did an opinion piece on the EWG’s unscientific-ness, which I thought was great, but sadly it was an opinion piece, not a news article.

Does anyone else find it ironic that we, as consumers, demand that scientists back up their claims with data and peer-review before we even reluctantly (read the comments) consider them, yet moms seem convinced by what appears to be an unscientific, intentionally opaque analysis that isn’t peer-reviewed? Clearly, this gets me fired up.

So I reached out to Teresa Thorne at the Alliance for Food and Farming to talk to her about what the science really says. Her bottom line was that moms should not be afraid to feed their kids fruits and vegetables. “We don’t advocate for organic or conventional, whatever choice you make is the right one for your family when you’re choosing to eat fruits and vegetables,” she said. Thorne said the Alliance is concerned that the EWG is using fear and language that is making people hesitate to buy produce. “Moms deserve truthful, credible information. There are decades of research showing it’s safe; farmers are doing a very good job.”


Thorne also had questions about the EWG’s methodology and lack of information on its website. “In today’s world, when you are putting out a new report or study, why wouldn’t you reference the USDA data you use?” Thorne said.  “Why don’t they link to the data? The answer is the EWG doesn’t want people to know what the USDA and EPA say. Because they say it’s safe.” The USDA just recently released the newest Pesticide Data Program results, again confirming that pesticide residues do not pose a safety threat. Thorne encourages consumers to read that report, but if they don’t want to read the whole report (and it’s long, trust me) at least look at the press release and look at the USDA’s “What Consumers Should Know” sheet about the report. “The EWG manipulate that data and turn it into something very negative, when the government report is very positive,” said Thorne.

Interestingly, let’s take a listen to what the mainstream media has reported on the recent USDA report saying our fruits and veggies are safe: … [insert sound of crickets chirping] … nada.

The EWG often argues that the EPA’s safety limits are too lax and if consumers want to be sure they’re safe they should eat organic. But Thorne brought up a good point that organic consumers might not think about. “The fact of the matter is that the laws and regulations are stringent and protective,” Thorne said.  “Those laws and regulations aren’t just protecting consumers for conventional produce; they’re also for organic produce. Organic pesticides go through the same scientific process as conventional ones. It’s dangerous to damage that credibility unjustifiably. Doesn’t that undermine both?” That’s an interesting point. Especially since, as far as I know, the USDA doesn’t test organic produce for residues of approved organic pesticides.

I also reached out to the EWG for clarification on some of these issues: namely why it doesn’t link to the data, present the data on its website, or submit to peer-review? Also why doesn’t the methodology take tolerance into account, and what’s the EWG’s stance on organic pesticides? After some back and forth, I was told they won’t answer my questions until after they release the 2014 list later this week. (I get it; I used to work in PR.) So I’ll get back to you on that. I’m planning a follow-up article on the media coverage of this year’s Dirty Dozen and I will include the EWG’s answers to those questions.

We can anticipate that the EWG is going to, yet again, misconstrue the USDA’s positive report this week when it releases the 2014 Dirty Dozen list. The EWG will take that data and twist it around and try to convince you to buy organic options to help protect your family from “harmful pesticide residue”. Don’t fall for it. Don’t let the media feed you information and don’t let an activist group make decisions for you about what’s safe and what’s not. Use your Mom Sense, look into the science, and reach your own conclusions.



Please like & share:


Filed under Using my MomSense

West side confession: I lied about where I live.

Recently, I caught myself lying to some moms about where I live. I was at a photo job on the east side, and I was having this great conversation with some east-side moms about kids doing process-based art.

A city divided by the Willamette River.

A city divided by the Willamette River.

If you don’t know, Portland seems pretty divided between the die-hard hipsters on the east side of the Willamette River and the sellouts and drones on the west side. If you believe the stereotypes, east-side moms are all about taking public transit, co-parenting, local and organic, processed-free food, and extended breast-feeding. West-side moms are all about driving SUVs, Kraft mac-and-cheese, letting your baby cry it out, ignoring your kid while you drink wine and talk on the phone, and formula feeding. Not everyone is like that, of course, but still, that’s the perception.

So anyway, I was having this nice chat. Then one of the moms said, “Where do you live?” I had this closed-in feeling like, oh crap. I can’t tell them where I live! They’re going to make conclusions about me that aren’t true! So I hemmed and hawed for a while, which probably looked pretty moronic. Then I admitted I live on the west side, but I picked what I thought might be perceived as a less offensive suburb than the one I actually live in. It was like when you’re trying to swing a racket at a tennis ball and you wait until it’s too late to swing properly but you still want to try to hit the ball, so you make this awkward half swing and hit yourself in the face. And the dumb part is, they didn’t even seem to care. Turns out, they don’t live on the east side (I made that close-minded assumption based on what they looked like and where we were) they live in an exurb of Portland. Waaay out there! So stupid, why did I lie?

This is how the west side rolls. Note: this is not my car.

This is how the west side rolls. Note: this is not my car.

I’ve been feeling really badly about it ever since. But the experience got me thinking about why I felt compelled to lie. Back when my husband and I were in college, I remember having conversations with him about how we were never going to be those people who drive an SUV and live in the suburbs. It never occurred to me I would be a stay-at-home mom. After all, I was at one of the best journalism schools in the country; I was going to be somebody.  I was going to change the world and make everyone see how wasteful it is to live in big houses lit up with incandescent light bulbs while you drive your gas guzzler home from a big box store with your groceries in plastic bags.

But then a funny thing happened. We made practical choices as life paraded by. We did live in the city when my husband was in graduate school, I rode my bike to work, and he took the bus to school. We lived in a small apartment in a walkable neighborhood.  Then we decided to have a baby. And this is really where it all goes awry because your perspective changes. My husband took a job in a new city, and it just seemed practical for me to stay home. We were going to buy a small house close to downtown. It turns out that when you get past the feel-good idea, that usually means marginal school districts and old (charming) houses with asbestos and lead paint and no backyard to play in.  So we made a practical choice – we moved to the suburbs. But we still drove a small, efficient car, and there was still no way I was going to get a jogging stroller. Hell, I can run with the umbrella stroller (and I did!). We don’t need to be those people who have three strollers. Then we had our second baby. My husband is tall and we couldn’t find a small, efficient car that would accommodate his long legs and a rear-facing infant seat. We bought a (small) SUV. Sigh. I even got a double jogging stroller. Turns out, they’re awesome. And now, ten years later, I’m exactly what I said I would never be.


This is how the east side rolls.

We second guess our choices all the time. Did we give up on our values? Should we have tried harder to stomach the idea of paying $500,000 for a small house on a teeny tiny lot with no yard that was built in 1930 and needs all new everything? It’s these (relatively) small individual practical choices that pile up to turn you into everything you never thought you were. And then here you are, going, “Man. Am I that guy?”

But I don’t think we’ve really changed. I think we’re still the same people, we just didn’t really know what we were talking about back in college, because we didn’t have kids to raise. We didn’t have to be adults, making real adult choices that will actually impact our long-term future. We weren’t thinking about 401k plans and health insurance benefits. We hadn’t really considered the quality of the school district. I admit, some people seem to do it all, we just made different choices.  But, dammit, I still use canvas bags, and we still use compact fluorescent bulbs (and now LEDs).  We drive our smaller car whenever possible, and my husband often takes the bus to work. We’re teaching our kids to conserve and reduce consumption.  I nursed both kids, made my own baby food, and we tried (albeit only for a year) cloth diapers.

So, I guess I should have just been proud of where I live and the decisions we’ve made and straight-up told those moms the truth. Because I am proud of how we live our lives and I think we’re doing the right thing. We west siders aren’t all that different from the east siders, we’re all just trying to do the best we can.


Please like & share:


Filed under Just Being a Mommy Stories

Peeling Potatoes: Worth It or Not?

potato parade-1Recently I was at a friend’s house for dinner with my family. I was chatting with my friend while she was putting dinner together, and while she was peeling the potatoes I remarked offhand that I never peel potatoes because I’m just lazy and it’s too much work. She said, “You’re going to think this is silly, but I’ve read lots of stuff about pesticides concentrating in the peel. Potatoes are on the dirty dozen list and I’m not sure how true that information is, but I feel like it’s a pretty easy way to avoid that. I even read that conventional potato farmers don’t eat their own potatoes, they grown a small organic plot for their families.” I said while I had never heard of pesticide residues concentrating in the peel, I seriously doubted potato farmers don’t eat their own crop. Based on the farmers I’ve met, my impression is that they’re extremely proud of what they do and likely they eat what they grow. But, I said I’d look in to it because I thought it was interesting. After slogging through lots of data and talking to some folks in the field, I’ve concluded you’re not really avoiding pesticides by peeling the potato, but you are reducing the nutritional value you gain from eating potatoes when you take the peel off.

Let me start by saying that this friend of mine is very smart. She used to be a science teacher and has a bachelor’s in microbiology and a master’s in immunology.  I respect her quite a lot, which is why I decided to look into it. If a rational scientifically educated person accepts this, then average consumers with less science reasoning background likely will also.  I did a google search, and I can see where she got that idea.  The media loves to cover the Environmental Working Group’s “dirty dozen” list, and potatoes are tenth on the list. Just google, “do potato farmers eat their own potatoes” and you’ll see what I mean. The Dr. Oz show recently had Dr. Alan Greene on his show claiming he won’t eat conventional potatoes because of their high levels of pesticide residue.  This NBC News article even says that farmers “pour on the chemicals” to ensure a harvest and that you can avoid pesticides by peeling. So how true is that?

potatoes at the store-1I talked to a third-generation Washington potato farmer to find out about this idea that farmers don’t eat their own potatoes. This farmer certainly does. Not only do he and his family eat them, but they save them over the winter and eat them all year round. All of his employees also eat them, and he has family in other cities and states that beg him to bring potatoes when he visits.  He even went so far as to say he doesn’t know any potato grower or any farmer that doesn’t eat his or her own produce.  Does his family peel them? Sometimes, but that’s dictated by what dish his wife is making, not by concern over pesticide residues. (Clearly she’s not as lazy as me.) His farming operation applies pesticides to control pests (like fungus, insects, nematodes, soil borne disease, and weeds) that otherwise would damage his crop. If he didn’t use those pesticides, there would be fewer potatoes, the price would be higher, the quality would be lower, and the potatoes wouldn’t look very appealing.

He also told me that one misconception that really bothers him is that people who are unfamiliar with farming often think farmers spray pesticides just to be spraying pesticides. (Maybe because certain NBC articles say stuff like “farmers pour on the chemicals.”) “Spraying pesticide is expensive,” he told me. “The cost of an extra pesticide spray can make the difference between profit and loss on some fields.”  Farmers aren’t just spraying crops willy-nilly. They’re spraying only when they have to because it costs money and time. That’s time those farmers could be spending with their families, so they’re surely not out there spraying for kicks.

While it seems to be true that some pesticides concentrate slightly more in the peel, that’s not the whole story. The dose makes the poison, right? When discussing pesticide residues, it is very important to distinguish between the mere existence of residue and how much residue is present. What people should really be interested in is: does the amount of pesticide residue on the potato pose a risk to my health? If there is 0.01 parts per million (ppm) of residue in the potato itself, but 0.02 ppm in the peel, that’s a higher concentration in the peel. But at such a low concentration, it’s unlikely to be a health risk (of course, the toxicity of the pesticide is important, too). The risk of injury present while driving to the store to buy potatoes is likely higher than ingesting that teeny tiny amount of pesticide residue.


I also dug a little deeper into the idea that the pesticides concentrate in the peel. I talked to a chemistry expert who told me that when tolerances are set for certain pesticides, the EPA also looks at what’s called a processed fraction, or a part of the commodity that might be different than the whole commodity (like the peel.) If a pesticide concentrates higher in a processed fraction than the commodity itself, there will be a different tolerance set for that fraction. (For a refresher on what tolerance means please see my primer article on how pesticides get approved.) So, I looked up on the EPA’s website how many of the pesticides that are approved for use on potatoes have a higher tolerance for the peel. Fourteen of the 121 pesticides listed had higher tolerances for the peel. That’s about 12 percent. It’s important to note here that those 121 pesticides have tolerances set for the commodity itself, which means that there are residues throughout the potato, so you’re not avoiding them altogether by peeling.

I also looked up the USDA’s data on potatoes from their Pesticide Data Program. The last time potatoes were sampled was in 2009. Of the pesticides analyzed, only three have higher tolerances in the peel. Importantly, of those three, none were found to be over the tolerance level for the commodity (which has a lower threshold), let alone the tolerance level for the peel. For example, Chlorpropham, also known as Bud Nip, was the most commonly found pesticide in samples, and it does concentrate higher in the peel. The residues found ranged from 0.010 ppm to 23 ppm, and the mean level found was 2.5 ppm. The tolerance for Chlorpropham is 30 ppm in the commodity and 40 ppm in the peel. Not one sample was over the tolerance level for the commodity, and the vast majority was far from it!

Side note: Chlorpropham is an important tool used to prolong the shelf life of potatoes. Those little sprouts that you sometimes find on potatoes when they’ve been in the pantry too long can be toxic when eaten in high doses. The use of Chlorpropham not only helps protect you from that, but it also significantly reduces food waste.

You’d have to eat a lot of potatoes to ingest enough pesticide residues to cause a problem. In fact, there’s a website called that will actually do that calculation for you. I asked it to calculate how many servings of potatoes a child could eat in one day without any effect even if the potatoes have the highest pesticide residue recorded for potatoes. The answer:  6,494 servings of potatoes.

A cup and a half of potatoes represents about the recommended daily amount of vegetables for a child.

A cup and a half of potatoes represents about the recommended daily amount of vegetables for a child.

A serving of vegetables for a child is about half a cup. So that’s 3,247 cups of potatoes you’d have to feed your child in one day before you got close to a problem. And that’s assuming every single one of those potatoes were at the highest residue level ever recorded, which we know, from PDP data, that they aren’t.  It is recommended that children have about one-and-a-half cups of vegetables per day, and the USDA tells us that children are not even getting those amounts. It would take a seriously concerted effort to get my kids to eat one and half cups of potatoes in one day, let alone 3,247 cups.

Can you really reduce your risk by peeling the potato? In short, I think the answer is that whatever miniscule benefits might be gained through peeling are likely offset by the loss in fiber and nutrients found in the peel. Twenty percent of the nutrients, and almost all the fiber, in a potato are in the peel. The residue in the peel is very small and far below tolerance; even so, most of the approved pesticides do not have a processed fraction tolerance, indicating they don’t accumulate more in the peel than in other parts of the potato. Most importantly to me, peeling the potato can’t substantially reduce a risk that isn’t there. Why is there virtually no risk? Because the amount of pesticide residue on potatoes (and produce in general) is so small that we can hardly measure it at all. That’s really more a testament to the sensitivity of the tests. The EPA and the USDA set rigorous guidelines for pesticide residues that are conservative and err on the side of being overly cautious for our safety. In practice, the residues aren’t even reaching these conservative limits.

I’m going to leave the peel on, which is good, because I’m lazy when it comes to cooking potatoes. Now I have a good excuse, though. I’m just trying to benefit from all those nutrients and fiber, I’m not lazy. That’s momsense.


Please like & share:


Filed under Using my MomSense

Conversations in Real Life: What’s a Soul?

(Note: this is a new category where I’ll post funny things my kids say.)

As is customary whenever we have deep conversations, we’re driving in the car when this conversation goes down.

June: What does the word ‘soul’ mean?

Me: Um… Well. Geez. Ok, a soul is like … kind of the idea that there is a part of everyone that you don’t really see that sticks around after you’re gone. A little bit like a ghost, but also it embodies some intrinsic part of you and the things that you’ve done during your life. Some people think that some things you do during your life have an impact on your soul and…

June: No, like the sole of your shoe. What does that mean?

Me: oh. That’s the bottom of your foot or the bottom of your shoe.

June: oh, ok.

*Note to self: always clarify what your kid is asking before you answer. Tomorrow she’s going to be asking me about souls.

Please like & share:

1 Comment

Filed under Conversations in Real Life

Saturday Scenery: Mount St. Helens

Mt St Helens-1

Please like & share:

1 Comment

April 5, 2014 · 7:11 am

What’s Your Flavor of Crazy?

drinks-1The other day I saw a story posted on Facebook by a number of friends about the “Scary New Evidence on BPA-free Plastics.”  There was also recently this story about banning hand-held devices for kids. And this story about how another celebrity is anti-vaccine. And this story that makes you afraid that if you’re too strict, your kids will be obese. There’s also this one that says our efforts to make kids safer on the playground isn’t actually making them safer, it might actually be making them worse off.  Next thing you know they’ll be saying you should be worried about how much you’re worrying. Oh, wait, there’s a study that says that, too.

Maybe some of this stuff is real and actually scary. Probably a lot of it is less real. How do you know for sure?

The number one thing that drives up my blood pressure when I read sensational articles about parenting is when the author makes bold, authoritative statements that scare parents. I call this fear parenting, and it’s a serious problem. Three out of five parents make decisions about their child-raising techniques based on avoiding techniques, approaches, or food that they are afraid will hurt their kids’ health or well-being. (I just made that up, but maybe Fox News or the Huffington Post will publish it.) That’s totally anecdotal, but it’s probably close to true.


Who is that benefiting, really? We should be keeping parent morale up, not down. At the very least we need to be demonstrating to our kids that we’re not scared into or away from something by the media. I think it’s an evolutionary advantage to pat parents on the back for whatever kind of job they’re doing, because we sort of need people to keep doing it.  Making decisions for someone else (our kids) is one of the hardest things we have to do as parents, but we should be making sound, conscious decisions about how we raise our children based on reality, not fear. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to sort out the real information from the misinformation.

But that’s my point, really. There is just no way parents can be completely educated on all aspects of parenting.  Trying to get a handle on all the issues that we “should” be thinking about is like trying to drink from a fire hose, and it’s exhausting. How much screen time should they have, making sure they don’t wear winter coats in their carseats, how close you should live to a freeway for exhaust exposure, how much pesticide residue is on their food, what kind of milk should they drink, how much sugar should they have, is sunscreen good for them, is there BPA in their plastic sippy cup, should you even be using plastic at all, how long should you breastfeed, does your car meet recent crash safety ratings, how long can you safely keep a car seat, how close is the nearest cell phone tower, what about co-sleeping, are we using love and logic, are we yelling too much, should you give your kids multivitamins, is your water fluoridated and if not what should you do about it, should they eat gluten or meat or cows who eat corn, when do you introduce peanuts, is there too much estrogen in tofu… seriously, enough already. And then you have the environment to think about. Can you balance your desire to keep the kids safe and lower their exposure to chemicals while also doing the right thing for the environment? Can you “do the right thing” and save enough money to take a vacation, pay for their college, and retire so you can spend time with your grandkids? Man.

I read this quote the other day that said we’re drowning in information but starved for knowledge. I feel that way so much with parenting, and if there is any one group of people that doesn’t have time to do research, it’s parents. Everyone always says, “do your research and be informed.” Sometimes I feel pretty good on any given day that I took a run and also showered (often it’s just one or the other), cooked all three meals and did the dishes, supervised some finger-painting, didn’t yell all that much, started (but didn’t finish) a load of laundry, and kept the kids alive until bedtime. That’s it. No research, no reading of studies. No “getting informed.” And then there are the days that I decide to do some research and for-the-love-of-all-that-is-holy the onslaught of information about any one topic is overwhelming. I just want to shut the computer and have a drink. You’re inundated with information on facebook, twitter, email forwards, blog posts, the media, your parents, and your friends. Every time I turn around I find another thing I should be concerned with and researching.

This is why I think so many parents have their flavor of crazy. You just cannot know it all, so you focus on one thing. My thing has always been fighting misinformation in the media. I have a friend who rallies against processed food.  I know a stay-at-home dad whose cause is buying local. My husband refuses to live within a mile of the interstate or a busy road with lots of exhaust. Whatever it is, you just have to pick one or two. That’s all you can really commit to doing.

I’m hoping that I can help you streamline some of that information. Or at least feel less guilty. But I’m going to be honest; I don’t even pretend to know all the answers. But let me know what you’re concerned with, and I’ll try to include it on my long list of things to look into. In the meantime, keep using your Mom Sense, because just getting through the day is pretty darn good.

Please like & share:


Filed under Just Being a Mommy Stories