Suri Cruise is nearly two and a half years old. Heaven knows you couldn't forget that if you tried. And while she has more fashion sense than pretty much any other tot on the planet, there is one thing that seems to still give us all pause. No, it's not how her celebrity parents could have actually spawned her, nor is it how much is spent keeping her best-dressed and -tressed. Nah--it's that thing where she's still carrying around a baby bottle.

Yes, still. It seems like this first made the news when Suri was more than a year old and still using a bottle. Like sippy cups are so great. Now she's making headlines again for still sporting the baby bottle--when she's not even really a baby. My question is this: what is the big deal? My kid is nearly seventeen months old and he still occasionally uses a bottle. We've tried really hard to break him of the habit, but, for a while, he simply eschewed the sippy cup. He could use one, sure, but he couldn't get the same amount of milk from the sippy as from the bottle. So, we let him roll with it. Eventually, he switched over to predominantly using the sippy.

I know there are standards and practices for how we're supposed to raise our children. I know that guidelines have been set to help us make our way through this crazy maze called parenthood. But with issues as large as world hunger, violence, abuse and immunizations out there for us to tackle, why does anyone give a rat's butt about whether or not Suri Cruise still uses her baby bottle? I feel sorry for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes--they're busy people who are trying to raise a kid and have full-time jobs too. it ain't easy. And not every kid fits the model she's supposed to. Is it really the end of the world if Suri still uses a bottle?

Being overweight is tough for a kid. There are many options toward weight loss, but some are more (or less) appealing than others. For many, over the years, the weight-loss camp has been a dream. But, while "fat camp" is almost as American as apple pie, it's now going the way of many other American dreams--it's too darned expensive to attend. Like any other camp, weight-loss camp costs money to run and maintain. With more than nine million children who are considered obese in this country, such camp can seem like a knight in shining armor for families struggling to get their kids' weight under control. The weight-loss camps, while they can be affective, are far from free. Few to none accept insurance.

The government generally offers no more assistance than insurance companies. Instead the children rely on their essay writing skills and other means to win scholarships to attend. Yes, even weight loss camp is something only possible for the rich. Corporate sponsorship is one way to help get kids who can't afford the often more than $1,000-a-week pricetag what they need. Advocacy groups are being formed, such as the Childhood Obesity Treatment in Action. Some tax deductions are coming into play, and some insurance is starting to cover a portion of the cost--mostly in the cognitive behavior area.

But is it enough? Rarely. And financial cost is to say nothing of the emotional cost to the children, who are often left with either feeling exploited by their situation--their essays and their experiences become the property of the camp, who share that information freely with the media in hopes of growing the industry--and/or have to deal with life after camp, which can be even harder than before they found their salvation. While most children lose some portion of their body weight at the camps, few manage to keep it off after returning to the real world.

Pic by skampy.

In a draft report recently issued, the Federal Drug Administration has concluded that Bisphenol A is safe --at least when used in food containers. Commonly known as BPA to consumers, the chemical can be found in all sorts of children's products as well as cars, plastic food containers and lining aluminum cans.

This most recent study was one of two funded by the industry itself. Gee, of course any study funded by the industry that stands to make money off it is going to come out with data supporting a chemical's safety. There rationale is that people are exposed to so little of it that it won't do them harm. In other studies BPA has been found in 93% of testees' urine and has been known to cause cancer and behavioral disorders in lab animals. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) supports the findings as well.

Opponents of the decision say the study agencies don't have enough data to support their findings that BPA is safe. The country of Canada has banned the use of BPA and products containing the chemical, and national retail chain giants Wal-Mart and Toys R Us are set to remove all children's merchandise containing the chemical from their shelves as of January 2009.

Several studies in a recent New York Times article entitled "Honey, I Plumped the Kids" seem to be pointing in that direction. As we all know by now, human beings are getting bigger--and by bigger, I really mean fatter. In 2005 it was estimated there were 400 million obese people on the planet. Yes, 400 MILLION. And, in what is a recent phenomenon, some of those obese people happened to be women who then became pregnant and gave birth. The result? Well, if the studies are to be believed, a pregnancy for an obese woman can lead to her children being obese as well.

Similar news to this has been circulating for some time now. It's also no news that being obese, whether or not you're pregnant, can have dramatically harmful results. Cancer, diabetes and heart disease are just a few of the pleasantries headed your way if you happen to be obese. But, what does being obese mean for your unborn child? In one of the studies cited in the Times article, women who gave birth to children before they had surgery to correct their obesity were more likely have an obese child; once the women had the surgery, the children they later bore tended to not be obese. Hence, the obesity doesn't on the surface seem to be due to genetic predisposition, but rather to the mother being , well, fat.

One theory as to why this is concerns the fact that people have access to an overabundance of sugar and fat. As a direct result, so do their fetuses. In another study pregnant female rats were allowed to have as much as they wanted of either human junk food or regular old rat food. Those who had access to the junk food ate 40% more food than their rat-chow eating buddies. The baby rats born to the junk food rats were more inclined to eat such food and were more likely to be overweight as a result of consuming too many calories.

So what does this mean for all us preggies out there? Perhaps that we should listen to our doctors and cut back on the sugar and fats. Pregnancy cravings aside, the article and the studies make a good case for being even more healthy when you're pregnant--for you and your baby.

Pic by armchairgeek.

Where I live, the first of the leaves have begun to turn red on a handful of maples, and the crickets are singing their ruckus end of summer song. In a matter of days, school will start.

In a matter of days, if you have a kindergartner or first grader, your child will be embarking on a completely new academic adventure. Back pack in tow, your kid will climb onto a yellow school bus at the curb, or perhaps you'll drive her there and watch as she runs towards her classroom door with a lump the size of a mango pit in your throat.

The first day of school is a nervy, butterflies-in-your-stomach kind of morning for everyone--and to make sure it goes as smoothly as possible, here are a list of a few things to expect and remember on that all important day.

Start the morning with a good breakfast. Much research has been done about the link between breakfast and academic success. And while the first few days (or weeks even) of kindergarten and first grade are less about plunging into academics and more about building a strong classroom community, a good breakfast will give your child an added boost of confidence. Hungry kids are often anxious and moody, and sugar-packed pop tarts and other breakfast items often leave kids crashing mid morning. Opt for oatmeal with brown sugar and raisins, french toast, scrabbled eggs, or even, my son's favorite (our family's version of a toad in the hole): a grilled bagel with a fried egg in the hole.

Pack a healthy snack. After your child arrives in her new classroom, she'll likely spend the morning doing fun activities such as drawing, writing her name and decorating a name tag, and participating in a morning meeting where all the children will get to meet each other and be introduced. Before she starts to delve into the academic part of the morning your child will probably have a chance to eat snack. Remember, many--if not most--classrooms have children with peanut and nut allergies, so instead of packing these stand-bys opt for other protein rich options like a mini bagel & cream cheese, string cheese, yogurt, or veggies & hummus. Your child probably won't eat a lot--so instead of packing a huge amount of one thing, pack small amounts of foods your child likes in reusable containers (think GREEN!)

Include a note. New kindergartners and first graders love getting notes--and their teachers will always be willing to read them--so don't worry if your child can't read yet. Something as simple as "We are so proud of you!" on a post-it, or as fancy as a little letter on specialized princess stationary will make the rest of your child's morning just that much more positive.

After snack your child will probably spend some time exploring books, even if she is not yet a reader, and some time investigating basic math concepts. Your child might also have the chance to meet a few more new teachers if her class has a "special" like music, art, P.E. or technology scheduled for the morning.

Make sure your child will be having a healthy lunch. If your child will be eating a hot lunch from the cafeteria--go over the lunch options in advance, so that there are no tears when she gets something she doesn't want to eat. On days that the menu doesn't work, or if you send a cold lunch every day, remember to think in terms of something from every food group. There are so many great blogs and websites out there right now to provide inspiration for school lunches. I'm kind of into the idea of bento boxes--except, does anyone really have as much time as this super mom to make your kid's lunch look this cool?

In the afternoon your child will probably spend some time listening to a read aloud, doing an art or craft activity, writing, and sharing. A good lunch will give her the necessary foundation for afternoon success and happiness. One thing I can't help but rant about here--because I see it every year--are those ridiculous pre-packaged lunches. The portion sizes are too small--for any of the foods that contain actual nutritional content--and they are packed with sugar and sodium which invariably result in grumpy tired kids. Skip them except for an occasional treat (if at all.)

Be on time to pick your child up. Whether you're meeting your child at the bus stop, or picking her up at school--nothing is worse for your kiddo than expecting to see you...and then not. If you're running really late or are stuck in traffic, call the school secretary and she'll pass the message on to your child's teacher.

Ask specific questions. Without a doubt your child will have an amazing first day--but when you ask her "How was your day?" Odds are she'll say "Fine." And that will be that. The trick to finding out more about your kid's day is to ask her specific questions--like: "Did you find someone to play with at recess?" "What was your favorite thing about lunch time?" or "Did your teacher read a book to the class today?" These kinds of questions will get your child started talking--and soon you'll know all about how their first day went.

As a teacher, the first day of school is one of my favorite days. I love watching the kids come in and get started--bustling and eager, or shy and reserved. I love their new school clothes and their brand new back packs and their ready grins. Happy back-to-school!

(Click the photo to see which celebs might be "pregorexic")

It seems like it should be common sense. Don't diet while pregnant. Yet for many moms these days that seems to be the trend. Many of them are successful at it--but at what cost to their unborn children? In the United States as well as in the UK, pregnant women are succumbing to what is being termed "pregorexia," wherein the consume as little as possible during pregnancy to avoid weight gain. Experts agree this is harmful to both mother and unborn child. Fetuses get their nutrients straight from mommy; when she doesn't supply enough, like with calcium, they get it from her bones. If they can't get the nutrient from the mother, they suffer--kids are born prematurely, with a low birth weight and an increased risk of spina bifida all from mothers being underweight during pregnancy.

In Hollywood, the recent barrage of women giving birth would have have us think they were barely pregnant at all. Most of them gain hardly and weight and sport only the tell-tale bump. Almost as soon as they've given birth, they return to their pre-pregnancy weight, which was scandalously low in the first place. Some, like Nicole Kidman, have even drawn harsh rumors that she was never even pregnant at all--after seeing her less than a month post-baby her body was scarily small, prompting the media to generate the notion that her sister, who'd basically remained under cover during the pregnancy, was the one actually carrying the baby.

%Gallery-29681%

With all these Hollywood celebrities maintaining tiny frames while they attempt to bring another human being into the world, it's hard to not feel the pressure to be thin in our own lives. Forget the fact that it's pure misogyny at work, isn't it also the worst thing in the world to deprive not only yourself but your unborn child of vital nutrients and sustenance? Experts suggest that women of normal weight (meaning not underweight nor overweight) gain between 20-25 pounds during a pregnancy. That number was recently lowered from the old notion of anywhere from 25-35 pounds (and in some cases 40). instead of worrying about gaining too much weight, shouldn't we be more focused on getting our children--and ourselves--the nutrition needed to be happy and healthy?

Is hiding vegetables in your kids' food wrong? What if that's the only way to get your child to eat something green (that isn't a booger)? One cookbook author strongly disagrees with the notion that it's ok to sneak healthy foods into unhealthy ones, and she's aiming to do something about it. On her blog and in her new cookbook, anyway. Tanya Steel is the author of the newly published "real food for healthy kids." She's also a "food professional." She and co-author Tracey Seaman instead focus on glorifying vegetables and trying to make them more appealing rather than sticking them in a brownie. According to Steel, who has a good point, why would we want to send the message to our children that brownies are GOOD for you, when in fact we have an obesity crisis on our hands in the United States?

Steel acknowledges that not all children are that easy to coax into eating anything green. She also demures that it can be difficult to work your way back up the beaten path of feeding your kids things that aren't as healthy because you've run out of options of what they'll actually eat. I can empathize with this problem. We recently ended a bout of our son refusing to eat ANYTHING other than Cheerios. Sure, they're healthier than pork rinds, but I didn't spend my entire pregnancy eating broccoli only to have my kid refuse to even look at a vegetable.

Steel offers suggestions to help steer kids in the right direction. She suggests offering kids "no thank you bites" to get them used to a new food and making sure to set a good example by eating healthy foods yourself. She also, of course, promotes her healthy eating cookbook. "real food for healthy kids" may not be The Joy of Cooking that Steel claims (whimsically) it is, but I'm sure there's something in that cookbook, as with any book designed with kids in mind, to offer nutritious alternatives for our children.

What do you think? Is deception the only way to get a vegetable-refuser to consume some legumes? Or is it best to just keep trying to offer different kinds of vegetables in the hopes that eventually you'll see change?

Pic by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com.

In the United States, we've tried to ban the word "fat" and have replaced it with the word "obese." This may or may not be having much of an impact on our nation or our youth as our waistlines continue to get bigger (while our wallets become smaller!). One person I know quite well, however, was in denial about his weight as a teenager until he saw a doctor write the word "obese" on his report during the physical he was required to get before he left for college. That person, at that exact point, took charge of his weight and his life.

%Gallery-28708%

As for the UK, Primary Care Trusts, or PCTs, are being guided to measure children's height and weight at ages five and eleven. Parents can choose not to participate, and so can their children. In the event that both do choose to participate, the measurements will be sent by letter to the parents and not the children. Naturally, a good portion of the obese children are not participating in the measurements, thereby negating the attempt to correct the situation. Children as little as seven years of age are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which was unheard of in the UK a decade ago.

What do you think? Should we go back to calling people fat? Should we call them obese? Should we only be telling their parents? Is there a good approach to any of this? I'd have to go with a quote from Aaron Neville on this one: Tell it like it is.

Pic by bethography - melting mama.

Newsflash--what you're feeding your children when you take them out to dinner is not healthy! A new report says that kids meals at top chain restaurants are full of salt, fat and calories. The restaurants in question are the likes of McDonald's, Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Well, to quote the ten-year-old me, who really enjoyed the kids meal versions of those restaurants: DUH! Items on the kids menu noted and tested were, for example, country fried chicken from the Chili's menu and the "Wacky Pack' from Sonic containing a grilled cheese, fries and a slurpie. Ok, two things. One, how is it that ANYONE serves this stuff to their kids for dinner? And, two, how could it not be apparent that things like country fried chicken are fattening and full of calories? You don't have to be FROM the country to know that anything "country fried" ain't that good for you.

Of the thirteen chains and 1,474 meal combinations possible, 93% of the meals exceeded 430 calories, one third of the daily calories suggested for children between the ages of four and eight. Sonic, KFC and Jack in the Box responded that they are striving to include healthier options for kids meals. This is coming from the people who chose to offer soda and cheetos as part of a kids meal om the first place. The report provides all the more reason to eat in. Money is tight in this economy, and, yes, even I give in to the temptation of eating or ordering out, but I do so knowing the caloric cost. Making things at home is cheaper and gives you more control of what goes into a dish and into your kids' stomachs. And, honestly, a lot of times it's tastier too.

Pic of kids meal by OctopusHat.

Pack the following day's meals the night before.