A month or so ago, I received a call asking my thoughts on buying toys. (My first thought was, of course – “no please, we have too many!”) Calming down I was able to briefly discuss the “not-quite-crunchy,” work in progress, philosophy of toys.

Since I’ve written about toys often, I find myself becoming more and more discerning. (The downside of blogging- too much research means too much information.) I wouldn’t say I purchase fewer toys; I just adhere to my “three things philosophy” a little more closely and search farther a field to satiate my toy buying habit.

Like many first time parents, my initial toy purchases including many plastic items requiring batteries and featuring lights and sound. Later, introduced to Waldorf education, RIE Parenting and “crunchy toys” I began seeking out open ended toys made of natural materials.

Now I, of course, meander all over the toy buying spectrum. Our playroom features a few battery operated toys, some plastic toys and many made of natural materials. In general, though, they have only one thing in common. They are well made and can be played with in many different ways. The downside of course is that, unlike many trendy or poorly made toys, they hang around our playroom longer. Sigh.

In a nutshell, The Rule of Three, which governs our toy buying, is as follows:

Prior to purchasing a toy, one must determine how it can be played with in 3 different ways. In other words, the fewer pre-programmed features, structured choices and pre-associated personalities, the better.

Action figures and dolls associated with popular TV and movies characters are out. Playmobil, generic dolls and play figures are in. Character based toys set the personality for the child – Batman ALWAYS fights the bad guys; Cinderella ALWAYS goes to the ball. Generic dolls and action figures take a bath, walk the dog, climb a tree and stop by the ball on the way to fight the bad guys.

Blocks, pipe cleaners, Legos, rocks and miniatures are in – preferably heaped in a basket rather than in kits. Though I do buy “make-your-own” type kits from time to time, once made, the play is done, so I try to buy “open stock” materials as well to encourage repeat building.

Electronic choices are limeted to those that can be played with without batteries as easily as with. Our plastic BBQ grill, at one time made great “grilling noises” – now, sans batteries, grilling sounds are supplied by the cook. Electronic learning, toys, of which we have a few, do double duty as space ship control panels.

As a work in progress, we review and refine these rules on a regular basis. We find however, that, in general, they work pretty well. We shop at independent retailers and our favorite online vendors, cruise the Internet for new ideas and make exceptions…being “not-quite crunchy” has its advantages.

My friend Best made an interesting comment yesterday. She said her 6-year-old son had decided to make a ladder. So, he went to the garage, selected some pieces of wood, nails and a hammer and…did so.

Her son attends a Waldorf School where they take woodworking class and so is comfortable with tools and such. My 6-year-old son attends a somewhat less crunchy school that emphasizes art and language.

She commented: “My son made a ladder while yours makes up songs in Spanish; they do what they see.”

She went on to lament that neither of us plays a musical instrument (or at least not really) or spend our time painting. Wouldn’t it be nice if they would see their parents busily working creatively instead of pounding away on a computer?

But, where would we find the time? Her insights make me question my choice of hobbies. O.K. sure I’ve added knitting and sewing to my list of hobbies. I play sports with my son and read avidly…so, he certainly sees those things.

But, I yearn to expose him to everything. What if I have a budding Mozart in my home…but will never know it? Maybe he could be a Picasso? Maybe he could be a star baseball player…or tennis player….or even polo player. You have to start young to achieve those things right?

So, in truth the time tested method of exposure to many things is perhaps the way to go…especially those things I to which I wish I had been exposed…piano anyone?

There are a number of articles I’ve read recently that addresse a rising dilemma. Well, perhaps not quite a dilemma yet, maybe it’s just the start of a trend.

It is now socially acceptable to chide someone for their lack of “green-ness”.

Now, I admit I have been guilty of this. Perhaps not as much as some, but that could be because I’m not quite as green as some. And, while I have been considered opinionated in the past, I’ve mellowed.

Realistically, going green means giving up some parts of an established lifestyle. Sometimes that is easy and requires no forethought. Sometimes, it’s a sacrifice of time or convenience, but sometimes it requires sacrificing another important part of a lifestyle.

It’s where this conflict of priorities comes in that it gets difficult.

Do you give up sending your child to a good school because it requires a long drive? How about a job you love that’s far away? Maybe buying everything organic means you can’t afford to make a bigger contribution to your church. Maybe eating local requires trips to 5 stores to actually acquire all of the groceries a household needs for the week. Maybe living in an area with public transportation means moving to a neighborhood that’s less safe for your child or more expensive than you can afford.

The list goes on.

I believe that the deep green movement plays a very important role. They highlight our wastefulness. They ring alarm bells about our environment, they affect government change at all levels. And, they promote a change in attitude. All of this is good.

Though this trend reminds me a bit of the change in appropriate behavior around smokers – from casual acceptance to verbal outrage, it’s not exactly the same thing. (And, by the way, I’m not a big fan of confronting a smoker rudely about their habit.)

Will it become socially acceptable to confront someone who is not being green? In some ways, I hope yes; in some ways no.

Littering is often laziness, not changing an important part of a lifestyle.

Not recycling when curbside isn’t available and it requires packing up sometimes dripping refuse and driving to a recycling center may be.

Not bringing your own grocery bag…at least most of the time is a habit easy to change.

Driving an SUV, when one’s family is large may not be an acceptable option.

So, I hope those on the activist edge of green continue to set examples, work hard to change government policy (so we can get curbside recycling and reusable packaging and organic foods) and be patient with the rest of us who, through a combination of greater awareness and greater options will follow them along the path to green.

Are you as confused as I am by the various different terms sprinkled on packaging these days? It turns out, with a little research I was able to compile a list defining the various different words, logos and certifications that appear on the things we buy, in the stories we read and on the news we watch and hear…so we can now all sprinkle these words into our daily conversation and sound real smart.

Here’s a  list of words found on food labeling. Most of the definitions below and further information can be found here or here.

1. Natural– unfortunately there are not real clear regulations on the use of this term so if you see it on grocery or household products you can probably assume it’s better than products that don’t carry any “healthy” terminology but, read the label to see exactly what the manufacturer means.

2. Organic – This term usually refers to products made from materials grown using natural fertilizers and no synthetic growth hormones. Again this is a little shaky though Organic food production is legally regulated. Currently, the United States, the European Union, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain organic certification in order to market food as organic.

3. K or Kosher – means the food complies with Jewish dietary laws and was processed under the supervision of a rabbi. A “U” inside a circle means it complies with Jewish dietary laws and is authorized by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, known as the Orthodox Union. The word “Parev” next to these symbols means the food contains neither meat nor dairy ingredients.

4. Free -This term means that a product contains no amount of, or only trivial“physiologically inconsequential ”amounts of one or more of these components:fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugars, and calories. For example, “calorie-free” means fewer than calories per serving, and “sugar-free” and “fat-free” both mean less than 0.5 g per serving. Synonyms for “free” include “without,” “no” and “zero.” A synonym for fat-free milk is “skim.”

5. Low Fat – A food meets the definition for “low” if a person can eat a large amount of the food without exceeding the Daily Value for the nutrient.The synonyms allowed for “low” are: “little”, ”few”, ”contains a small amount” and ”low source of”. “Low” claims can be made in reference to total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and calories.

6. Lean – less than 10 g fat, 4.5 g or less saturated fat, and less than 95 mg cholesterol per serving and per 100 g.

7. Extra Lean – On seafood and game meat that contains less than 10g total fat, 4.5g or less saturated fat,and less than 95mg cholesterol per reference amount.

8. Percent Fat Free – FDA and FSIS believe that this claim implies, and consumers expect, that products bearing “percent fat free” claims contain relatively small amounts of fat and are useful in maintaining a low-fat diet. Therefore, products with these claims must meet the definitions for low fat. In addition, the claim must accurately reflect the amount of fat present in 100 g of the food. For example, if a food contains 2.5 g of fat per 50 g, the claim must be “95 percent fat free.”

9. High, Rich In, or Excellent Source of – Contains 20% or more of the Daily Value (DV) to describe protein, vitamins, minerals, dietary fiber, or potassium per reference amount. May be used on meals or main dishes to indicate that product contains a food that meets definition. This claim may not be used for total carbohydrate.

10. Good source, Contains, or Provides - These foods contain 10-19% of the Daily Value per reference serving of a certain component.

11. Reduced - This term means that a nutritionally altered product contains at least 25 percent less of a nutrient or of calories than the regular, or reference, product. However, a reduced claim can not be made on a product if its reference food already meets the requirement for a “low” claim.

12. Less - This term means that a food, whether altered or not, contains 25 percent less of a nutrient or of calories than the reference food. For example, pretzels that have 25 percent less fat than potato chips could carry a “less” claim. “Fewer” is an acceptable synonym.

13. Lite or Light can mean one of two things: First, that a nutritionally altered product contains one-third fewer calories or half the fat of the reference food. If the food derives 50 percent or more of its calories from fat, the reduction must be 50 percent of the fat.

Recently, after a prolonged period of “promote the sugar high” my child’s school laid down some rules. Up to that point, to my frustration parents and teachers seem to, on a daily basis, ply the children with candy, cupcakes, cookies, marshmallows and other sweets.

• Birthday? Bring in cupcakes with mile high frosting.
• Holiday? Bring in the candy and cookies.
• Math class? Let’s count M&Ms.
• Tuesday? How about marshmallows?

To say I was getting a little peeved is an understatement. Fortunately I wasn’t the only one and a new rule was put in place. No candy, no frosting, no high sugar treats allowed.

This has met with some success though; it seems there is still a bit of “bending the rules.” Not by me.

While cookies (sans candy in or on top), brownies and other baked goods are still allowed as long as they don’t violate the “no candy, no frosting rule”, we are encouraged to bring healthier snacks. And so I’ve accepted and yes, embraced the challenge.

Here are some of my favorite alternatives. What you can bring of course depends on whether you are dropping off or attending the event.

• Fruit skewers
• Cupcakes with homemade whipped cream frosting
• Large juicy strawberries
• Popcorn in festive bags
• Organic, low sugar cookies or brownies
• Pineapple Boats
• Apples and your apple peeler/corer for a fun activity
• Big, soft pretzels
• Smoothies
• Small wooden toys/rocks/shells

I’m excited about our new rule and need more ideas…what are yours?