Many parents still hear the advice that it’s better to wait to introduce fish to babies until their first birthdays, or even their second. I disagree! And a growing body of evidence suggests that starting fish between 6 and 12 months results in fewer allergies – both in the short run and by the time they become teens.

Giving babies and toddlers fish a couple of times a week, or even a couple of times a month, may be one of the best tips for preventing allergies.

And perhaps today’s babies and toddlers eating less fish is even one of the reasons allergies have been going up in kids overall, potentially from a decrease of omega-3 fats in the diet. This includes food allergies, pet allergies, and pollen allergies.

Babies’ regularly eating fish before the first birthday could also result in less eczema at age 4. Who doesn’t want better skin?

Another study last year found a window from 6-12 months (earlier or later wasn’t as good), where if babies were introduced to eating fish, they were less likely to have asthma or wheezing symptoms later in preschool. Who doesn’t want to breathe easier?

The longest study I’ve seen yet followed thousands of children from their first birthdays all the way until they were 12 years old. It will appear in the June 2013 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Those kids who were already enjoying fish at least twice a month by the first birthday were less likely to have allergies every year thereafter.

My favorite fish for kids is wild (or sockeye, or Alaska, or Pacific) salmon, fresh or even canned, twice a week. You can prepare the pouched or canned salmon as if it were tuna. But check out the NRDC pocket seafood guide for lots of great suggestions. And here are some some DrGreene.com recipes.

• Scrumptious Coconut-Crusted Salmon Recipe
• Quick and Easy Roasted Salmon with Pesto Recipe
• Quick and Easy Chipotle Lime Salmon Recipe
• Broiled Wild Salmon Recipe
• Orange Glazed Salmon Kabobs with Yogurt Garlic Dip

Bon appetit!

Bonus tip: Reduced tobacco exposure and increased eating of oily fish during pregnancy and early childhood are all linked to fewer allergies.

Jarvinen KM and Sicherer SH. Prediction, Prevention, and the “Hygiene Hypothesis”: Fish Consumption during the First Year of Life and Development of Allergic Diseases during Childhood. Pediatrics. Nov 2007; 120:S109.

Kiefte-de Jong JC, de Vries JH, Franco OH, Jaddoe VW, Hofman A, Raat H, de Jongste JC and Moll HA. Fish Consumption in Infancy and Asthma-like Symptoms at Preschool Age. Pediatrics. Dec 2012; 130(6):1060-8.

Magnusson J, Kull I, Rosenlund H, Hakansson N, Wolk A, Melen E, Wickman M, and Bergstrom A. Fish Cosumption in Infancy and Development of Allergic Disease up to Age 12Y. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Jun 2013. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.045377

Oien T, Storro O, and Johnsen R. Do Early Intake of Fish and Fish Oil Protect Against Eczema and Doctor-Diagnosed Asthma at 2 Years of Age? A Doctor Cohort Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Feb 2010; 64(2):124-9.

How much does your family spend on groceries? Could you live on $3 a person each day?

For many Americans, that’s what you might spend on a coffee. But, for the nearly 50 million Americans on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, $3 a day is all they have for food. Yes, in the wealthiest country in the world, this is the reality.

According to the Participant Media’s compelling new documentary, “A Place at the Table,” the picture in America is grim:

One in five families with children is food insecure (which means they expect to run out of food before they get more money or food stamps). One out of every two children will be on food assistance at some point in their life.

The U.S. ranks worst on food security among advanced economy countries. And, it’s not that there’s insufficient food. It’s poverty and politics. A combination leading to outrageous injustice and health effects in our most precious resource: our children. And, it’s not just that our children are needlessly hungry, it’s a driving cause of our obesity epidemic.

How does hunger lead to obesity? I agree it appears a paradox. But, due to our twisted Farm Bill, more tax subsidies are going to agribusiness for basic ingredients for processed foods (wheat, soy, corn) than to farmers who grow whole, healthy foods like apples and carrots. Less than one percent of our Farm Bill investment goes to vegetables and fruits combined. This irrational corporate welfare has lead to fruit and vegetable prices increasing 40% since 1980 and processed foods decreasing 40%. Chips are cheaper than fruit.

So, if you have $3 a day for meals, you’re likely buying fast food, soda, chips, and other (subsidized) empty calories. Empty calories that lead to malnutrition and obesity. These kids are overfed, undernourished, and hungry. And today 2/3 of of middle school and high school students in the US already have middle age health problems — related to what they eat.

We can do so much better.

We almost eliminated hunger in the 1970’s. We can do it again.

I’m proud to be the pediatric advisor for Plum Organics. Together we created a Super Smoothie specifically designed to be donated to food insecure babies and toddlers in the U.S. The Super Smoothie tastes great and is packed with accessible super foods including spinach, carrots, apples, white beans, and whole grain oats, providing a nutritionally dense, produce-based alternative to the white flour, sugar, sodium, and fat filled foods most commonly found in a food insecure diet. Plum has committed to donate at least 500,000 of these smoothies in 2013.

We’re asking all of you to get involved by using your personal social platforms to raise awareness about the food insecurity issue in an effort to galvanize industry leaders, policy makers, and society into action. Starting April 10th, you can get involved by visiting PlumOrganics.com/TheFullEffect to receive locally-specific messages for use on Twitter and Facebook powered by Participant’s social action platform, Take Your Place. And watch or read A Place at the Table. You’ll be glad you did. And Plum will donate a smoothie for every movie download or book purchased.

Please help us make a place at the table for every American.

Sometimes in the hubbub of today, we miss simple things that can have a lasting impact. This is true for parents and for doctors. As part of my ongoing board certification as a pediatrician, I was thrilled recently to see an important nutrition question:

“A 5-year-old boy is brought to the physician for a health care supervision visit. The parents have no particular concerns. Which of the following interventions would be most likely to lead to a predicted decrease in mortality in a population of healthy 5-year-old children?”

1. Decreased potassium intake
2. Decreased sodium intake
3. Increased caffeine intake
4. Increased fluoride intake
5. Increased magnesium intake

Decreasing sodium in healthy kids’ diets is a tangible way to set them on a course for a longer, healthier life.

Most American kids get far too much sodium in what they eat every day. It’s not from the saltshaker: it’s an ingredient used to make processed foods and restaurant foods more compelling.

The Top Sources

Potato chips? French fries? Fritos? Sodium lurks in unseen places. McDonald’s shakes can have more sodium than their fries! Surprisingly, the top sources of sodium in the American diet are, in order:

1. Bread
2. Chicken and chicken dishes (Think nuggets)
3. Pizza
4. Pasta and pasta dishes (Mac and sodium)
5. Cold cuts

The amount of sodium in bread is low, but kids eat a whole lot of it. But a single small box of Mac and Cheese, prepared, can have 2130 mg of sodium on its own.

How to Do It 

So what’s a busy parent with a finicky child to do?

1. Know your numbers. The USDA says the most sodium anyone should get for a healthy life is 2300 mg per day. The American Heart Association says 1500 mg. For kids, I’d aim for only 1200 mg on average (1000 mg for kids under 4). The average American age 2 and above currently gets about 3400 mg per day!
2. Do it together. Lowering sodium is good for the whole family (1200 mg would be healthier for all of us) – and far easier to do for kids if you do it together.
3. Choose fresh. Fresh fruits and vegetables and lean meats and poultry are naturally low in sodium. Frozen, canned and processed foods and condiments tend to be the biggest culprits.
4. Pay attention to poultry. Poultry is naturally low in sodium, but some providers like to plump your poultry with saltwater, increasing the sodium by as much as 700%, usually without parents knowing. You are paying for saltwater weight. Learn about plumping and choose alternatives. Maddeningly, plumped poultry can still carry the “All-Natural” or “100% Natural” label.
5. Choose “one-to-one.” Check every label for sodium. Aim for the sodium number per serving to be the same as the calorie number, or less. For extra credit, half the calorie number is even better – but I’d be happy if we just got to one-to-one.
6. Spice it up. Learn to make good food tastier with other herbs and spices, sauces and marinades. Squeeze a lemon. Food without the added salt can taste far better than just relying on salt for flavor.
7. Be patient. Tastes change – dramatically. As you become used to less added sodium, that food will taste better – and when you taste the old, super high sodium Mac and Cheese, it will taste just too salty. It’s worth the wait, to help your family live longer and happier.

Alan If-I-Had-a-Magic-Wand-Sodium-Would-be-on-Restaurant-Menus Greene

A 2012 analysis estimates that today’s children age 0-5 in the US have lost more than 16 million IQ points from exposure to organophosphate pesticides. They’re exposed to these pesticides almost entirely from our food.

Organic foods are grown without the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, artificial hormones, or genetic engineering. They depend on cultivating healthy soil to grow healthy plants to produce healthy animals.

But not long ago, headlines blared that a new study had found that organic food isn’t any healthier. Let’s look behind the headlines, causing many parents to wonder whether organic was really worth it.

The study in question wasn’t new science, but a compilation and analysis of some of the existing studies comparing organic to conventional food. What did this paper find?

1) Pesticides

Conventional produce is more than five times more likely than organic to come with any pesticide residues. (38% of samples versus 7%).  The study didn’t go a step further and consider that when pesticides are found on conventional produce, the pesticides are often more toxic, present at higher levels, and come as mixtures of different chemicals.

The study also didn’t include the large body of literature about the toxic effects of some of these pesticides.

The authors concluded that this five-fold difference in pesticides couldn’t matter because the total amounts are so small. I strongly disagree. Pharmaceutical drugs are powerful, refined chemicals designed to improve health. They can have desired health effects on our brain function, sexual function, and fertility at concentrations in our bodies of only parts per billion. Synthetic pesticides are also powerful, refined chemicals, but designed to destroy or inhibit life. Why couldn’t they have undesirable health effects on our brain function, sexual function, and fertility when present in our bodies at similar concentrations?

If everyone in the country smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, it would be very difficult to tell that cigarettes caused lung cancer in a small, but significant, percentage of those who smoke. Today, almost all of us carry synthetic pesticides in our blood – pesticides that get there from our food. This is true even in babies at the moment of birth. I participated in a study with the Environmental Working Group where we analyzed umbilical cord blood and found pesticides in every baby tested. We found 21 different synthetic pesticides in babies’ blood.

One group of pesticides, the organophosphates, were originally produced as nerve agents during World War II. We still have much to learn about their health effects, but higher levels of exposure (in real world conditions) have been linked to lower IQ, memory problems, developmental problems, and ADHD.

The 16 million IQ points lost in young children from organophosphates carries a price tag of more than $169 billion in lost productivity when they grow up. And we take out a new debt of $28-30 billion every year – about the same amount as the total amount of money spent on organic food each year in the US.

Choosing organic food can drop a child’s organophosphate pesticide exposure almost overnight. In another study, suburban Seattle children had their urine tested multiple times for evidence of organophosphate pesticides and it was present in all samples, suggesting exposure above what the EPA set as a safe level. Then the children were switched to mostly organic food. The pesticides disappeared. They were virtually undetectable in morning and evening urine samples for five days. Then the children were switched back to their typical suburban diet and the levels found in their urine shot back up.

We can decrease pesticide exposure on the very next shopping trip.

The EPA says, “Protecting children from the potential effects of pesticides is one of EPA’s most important responsibilities. Pesticides have widespread uses and may affect children’s health in a variety of settings. We recognize that children are at greater risk from pesticide exposure.”

Choosing organic is a choice for decreasing toxic pesticides in our air, water, and farmers – as well as on our plates and in our children.

2) Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

When you buy conventional food you are three times more likely to bring multidrug resistant bacteria into your home than when buying organic. (48.4% of samples versus 15.9%).

The authors found this difference, but concluded it was unimportant because they thought bacterial resistance is fueled primarily by human antibiotic use.

Resistant bacteria are emerging as a major health threat.

According to the FDA, “Today, almost all important bacterial infections in the United States and throughout the world are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance has been called one of the world’s most pressing public health problems. The smart use of antibiotics is the key to controlling the spread of resistance.”

We know what causes resistance. When bacteria are exposed to antibiotics they develop ways to survive, making them more resistant to antibiotics.

We also know that the routine use of antibiotics in our conventional livestock to fatten them up dwarfs the amount of antibiotics used to treat all human diseases. The FDA recognizes the problem and has asked for drug companies to voluntarily remove agricultural production from their antibiotic product labels, but widespread antibiotic use continues in conventional agriculture. Four fifths of all antibiotics used in the US are used in our agricultural animals.

The most highly resistant bacteria discovered so far were found not in hospitals or clinics, but in the soil.

Organic food, which doesn’t allow the use of antibiotics, is part of the solution to resistant bacteria – in our environment and in our own homes.

Behind the Headlines

The headlines trumpeted that organic isn’t worth extra money. The study in question found a five-fold difference in pesticides and a three-fold difference in multidrug resistant bacteria (plus significantly higher healthy omega-3 fats in organic). It didn’t even look at differences related to the use of artificial hormones or genetic engineering – or of artificial colorings, preservatives, and sweeteners in processed foods.

Every bite of food is an investment in our bodies or a debt of some kind we are taking out that we will have to pay back. Good food, organic food, is a delicious investment.

The last chapter of this story starts with one 15-year-old girl named Sarah Kavanagh, a vegetarian who had gotten into the habit of reading foods labels to be sure there weren’t any hidden animal products.  In Gatorade, one of her favorite drinks, she came across an ingredient she didn’t recognize – brominated vegetable oil, or B.V.O.

She was curious enough to do a Google search and learn this is a registered flame retardant. It had already been banned in many nations where Gatorade is sold, including Japan and the European Union. Sarah reasoned that means, #1 B.V.O’s not necessary to make Gatorade, and #2 there is enough information out there that entire countries have banned this chemical product. She’s right. There are reasons to be concerned and viable alternatives available.

But brominated vegetable oil was still present in about 10 percent of drinks sold in the United States., even though advocates had been working on getting it banned in the US for years.

Sarah took action. She started a simple petition at change.org/gatorade. Word spread. Many people — over 200,000 — signed the petition. This caught the attention of the New York Times, which ran a story, and of Dr. Oz, who invited Sarah to appear on his show.

I met Sarah on the Dr. Oz set, just before her 16th birthday. We were filming a show about unwanted chemicals in our food.  Two of my heroes were also on the show – Heather White, executive director at the Environmental Working Group, and Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who had been working on this issue for decades.

Sarah said that when she tried to contact Gatorade, she had gotten no response other than a form letter. When Dr. Oz contacted them, though, their parent company PepsiCo sent an official statement. Sarah’s concern “has been heard.”

Heard indeed! In the week between when the show was taped and when it aired last Wednesday, PepsiCo announced that it would remove B.V.O from all Gatorade within the next few months.

What’s the budget recipe for changing a multi-billion dollar brand?

1. Start with one passionate person, curious enough to question the current state of affairs, and bold enough to call for specific change.
2. Be sure there’s no good reason to continue the current practice and a viable alternative is available. If enough people care, “being cheaper” or “a pleasing neon color” isn’t a good reason to continue the practice.
3. Build on the years of work by others.
4. Choose a story people will want to tell others about.
5. Give people for a simple way to get involved.
6. Capitalize on grassroots movement — large numbers of people catch the attention of highly influential advocates.
7. Combine above ingredients and it becomes “in companies’ best interest” to change.

PepsiCo is pulling B.V.O from Gatorade – but leaving it in Mountain Dew and Diet Mountain Dew, both of which are billion-dollar products.

Next step? Sarah told us it’s time to move beyond just going product by product and take the B.V.O issue to the F.D.A. Public opinion, public conversation, and buying choices can turn up the heat both on beverage companies and on the F.D.A.

Baby massage may seem superfluous or silly to some people, but it’s popularity is growing in the U.S. and it has actually been practiced for centuries in many cultures around the world. But, does it have any significant health benefits? You might be surprised at how much it does. In fact, touch plays a much more important role in human development than scientists first imagined.

Consider these facts:

• Skin is by far the largest of all of our sense organs.
• It develops early in utero – at less than 8 weeks, when the fetus is less than an inch long, the sense of touch is already highly developed – before there are eyes or ears.
• Between the pulsing of the amniotic fluid and the contracting and expansion of the walls of the womb, the uterine environment is a space of constant massage.
• When a baby is born, his vision is still fuzzy, but touch is a primary way he can interact with the world for the first few months.

Just from these basic biological facts, it becomes clearer that touch must be important for infant development. But, to what extent? Here’s a snapshot of the myriad medical benefits researchers have discovered over the years.

• In 1986. Dr. Tiffany Fieldand her colleagues gave preterm infants a 15-minute massage, three times per day, for ten days resulting in 21-47% greater weight gain than standard care alone. Those infants were also discharged six days earlier on average than control infants, saving approximately $10,000 in hospital costs per infant. Since then, they’ve also found:
  • Infants who experienced massage therapy cried less and had lower cortisol levels, suggesting lower stress.
  • Touch stimulation can positively affect physiological, behavioral, and social development among infants.
  • Young children with eczema who received daily massage from their parents saw symptoms decrease.

• Dr. Kathryn Barnard at the University of Washington found that infants who were held more showed superior cognitive development as long as eight years later.

• Research by Theodore Wacks, a psychologist at Purdue, showed that infants who experienced more skin-to-skin contact had an advantage in mental development in the first six months of life.

 
It turns out infant touch benefits pretty much all systems of the body – nervous, circulatory, digestive, respiratory, endocrine – the impacts are profound.

And, the benefits aren’t just for babies. You can probably guess that parents sleep better when babies sleep better (which they do with infant touch). And, it reduces parental stress levels, too! Field found that mothers who do infant massage report lower levels of depression, they seem to be more sensitive to their baby’s cues and the babies are more responsive to the mother through the whole first three months.

Still question whether touch is as important as eating and sleeping? Consider one more landmark study.

In the 1960s, Dr. Harry Harlow separated infant monkeys from their mothers at six to twelve hours after birth and substituted “surrogate” mothers made either of heavy wire mesh or of wood covered with cloth. Both mothers were the same size, but the wire mother had no soft surfaces and was equipped with a bottle from which the baby could “nurse”while the other mother was cuddly, covered with foam rubber and soft terry cloth, but had no food. Despite the fact that only one surrogate mother could feed them, the infants still spent more time cuddling with the cloth mother. (They also found that the monkeys“raised” by wire mesh moms were very aggressive as adults.) These results led researchers to believe closeness and affection are as imperative to healthy development as food.

In today’s busy world, it’s all-too-common for parents to give a child a pacifier or put them in front of a video screen to keep them calm and quiet. But, those convenient moments of calm may be having subtle impacts on your child’s development. Take time to slow down. Take time to touch. Take time to cuddle. They aren’t babies for long and your investment of time and touch is a priceless investment in their health and well-being.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in this horrific tragedy. There are no words that can heal your pain. There is no action that can undo what has been wrongly done to you.

But it’s time to tackle this issue boldly. The tragic deaths of these 20 innocent children and of the 6 brave adults who stood up to the gunman are the tip of an iceberg. Thousands go through this every year. More American kids are killed by gunfire every year than all US soldiers killed in Afghanistan from 9/11 through 2012.  Combined.

The war is at home.

And it’s not inevitable. Almost 12 times more US kids are killed by guns than in any of 25 other industrialized nation. And when it comes to homicide, it’s 16 times more killed by gun than in the other industrialized nations combined.

This demands the question, what’s the difference?

Consider Seattle versus Vancouver. These similar neighbor cities have very different gun death stats. What’s the difference? It’s not a difference in video games or movies. It’s not a difference in security measures or in mental illness. One glaring difference between those cities – and between us and other countries – is the ease of obtaining guns.

And in 2011 a law was passed in Florida forbidding pediatricians from even talking with their patients about gun safety and keeping guns safely away from kids. We protect our gun owners more than our kids. Kids deserve freedom too.

Pediatricians come in all political stripes, but more than 90% of pediatricians favor some form of reducing easy access to guns.

We pediatricians understand that when it comes to kids health, the elephant in the room is guns. Guns are killing our kids. Through homicide, suicide, and accident they are a leading cause of death throughout childhood. And overall, the death rates of kids from guns are the same in urban centers and in farm country. It’s an issue for all of us, not just for people leaving someplace else.

I know there are many other aspects to this story – helping families cope, school safety strategies, teaching kids non-violent problem solving, etc. – but we need to wake up to the scope of the problem. Another Newton is not inevitable.

Continuing this is our choice.

Last week I was honored to be one of the speakers at TEDxBrussels along with Steve Wozniak, Mitch Altman, Xavier Damman, Eri Gentry, Tito Jankowski, Peter Jansen, Jeroen Raes, Aaron Rowe, Monte Stettin, and many other personal heroes.

When I was asked to speak last spring, I knew this would be the ideal opportunity to introduce Ticc Tocc — Transitioning Immediate Cord Clamping to Optimal Cord Clamping to a global audience.

I am so impressed with the amazing job Samia Lounis and the TEDxBrussles team did putting this event together and hope you enjoy the video they produced of my talk.

Tick tock. Tick tock. TICC TOCC.

At the moment of birth, only about 2/3 of the baby’s blood is in the baby. The remaining third is still in the umbilical cord and placenta. During the third stage of labor, which lasts from the delivery of the baby to the delivery of the placenta, the cord actively pumps iron-rich, oxygen-rich, stem-cell-rich blood into the baby.

Unless the cord is clamped too quickly.

Immediately clamping the umbilical cord was popularized in 1913 as one of three pillars of active management of the third stage of labor. While this intervention began in the West, we exported this technique to developing nations around the world. Today, in some low-income countries as many as 95 percent of delivery clinicians surveyed practice immediate cord clamping.

Immediate cord clamping results in up to 10x the risk of developing iron deficiency anemia.

Anemia hinders a quarter of the global population, and is disproportionately concentrated in low-income groups. Iron deficiency is the leading cause of anemia – but with iron deficiency, anemia is just the tip of the iceberg. Even when iron deficiency is not severe enough to cause anemia, it has been linked to lasting damage to the developing brain. Infancy is thus both one of the most important as well as most common life cycle windows for iron deficiency.

What can we do? It’s simple – improve the health of billions by spreading an idea.

Wait 90 seconds – until the cord stops actively pumping fetal blood into the baby, unless there is a strong reason otherwise. This has been studied all over the world and has been shown to be both safe and effective at significantly reducing the risk of iron deficiency. Other benefits may include reducing birth asphyxia (inadequate oxygen to the brain) and cerebral palsy. The health benefits from receiving the cord’s pluripotent stem cells may be the most significant impact, but has yet to be understood.

It’s time for TICC TOCC (Transitioning Immediate Cord Clamping to Optimal Cord Clamping).

Spreading an idea that makes intuitive sense, is cost effective and a simple first step to addressing a major global health problem.

Not only have people around the world traditionally waited for the cord to stop pulsing until the 20th century innovation, every other mammal studied instinctively waits for the cord to stop pulsing as well. More than a quarter million babies will be born today.

The clock is ticking.

I’m always delighted when new studies emerge finding unexpected benefits from eating healthy. As a pediatrician passionate about getting kids and families to adopt healthier eating habits, the more evidence I have as to to tempting reasons why, the better. This newest study really makes me smile because the researchers found a connection between happiness and produce consumption. The study doesn’t prove which causes which – but just knowing these two are a pair is pretty cool.

A study released recently by Dartmouth University and British researchers found that people’s reported levels of happiness increases the more fruits and veggies they eat every day.

Admittedly, the increase wasn’t terribly large – those who consumed eight or more servings of vegetables daily rated themselves 0.27 points happier, on average, than those who reported no servings. But, I’d argue that any increase in happiness helps improve overall well-being, and with all the other benefits associated with eating produce, this could simply be icing on the carrot cake. (Or, should I say hummus on the carrot stick.)

Additional insights revealed from the study were highlighted in coverage on Rodale.com:

[I]n one survey, eating seven to eight portions of vegetables was more strongly associated with happiness and overall well-being than employment status. On the whole, the paper concluded that well-being peaks at seven daily servings of fruits and vegetables, but the surveys also showed that people who ate just five servings a day (the amount that the USDA recommends) were as happy—or very nearly so—as people who ate higher amounts.

The authors call their results “only suggestive” of a link between the fruit bowl and happiness levels, because even though they tried to control for income, work status, overall health, and other factors that play a role in how you feel about your life, there are a lot of other factors that can influence happiness. And, they add, it’s not clear whether vegetables make people happy or happy people eat more vegetables.

With these findings, I challenge you to introduce more fruits and vegetables into your family’s diet and let us know if you feel happier! Find easy, kid-friendly recipes using our library.

How many servings of produce does your family eat every day?