Intro note: While most of my articles for FYI were based upon scientific and medical studies, I occasionally received assignments for summary and editorial pieces such as this. Links have been removed.

The holidays are the season of giving, but giving gifts can often needlessly “take” from the environment. Consider these ideas for making the season’s gift-giving more eco-friendly:

Buy Domestic - While it may be more difficult to find goods Made in the USA, it is worth the time, if you have it. Doing so supports a U.S. business and its workers in our struggling economy and eliminates the harmful effects of shipping. According to Earth Justice, “Ships transport 90 percent of the world’s consumer goods,” and in doing so generate 15-30 percent of the world’s emissions. Some “Made in the USA” companies for holiday shopping include Vermont Teddy Bear, Breyer Horses and Crocs shoes. You can even search within categories on Amazon using the search term “Made in USA” to get a listing of all products manufactured domestically.

Better Yet, Buy Local - You can take “Buy Domestic” a step further by shopping with local, independent merchants. Doing so both boosts your local economy and eliminates shipping and the use of additional packing materials. Visit Sustainable Connections for ten great reasons to buy local. Our down economy has also spurred many into joining home-based businesses such as Scentsy (home fragrance), Silpada (jewelry), Wine Shop at Home and Pampered Chef. Visit these websites to find a local rep in your area, and attend or host a party — you can combine shopping and holiday get-togethers into a single event.

Reduce, Regift, Recycle - There is no shame in regifting, especially when you consider that in addition to saving manufacturing and shipping resources, doing so also saves you money! School kids can do this for class gift exchanges, and the regift is a perfect option for a low-cost “gesture” gift such as a hostess gift or a club or team gift exchange. Visit Money Central for “12 Rules for Regifting Without Fear.”

Give Green Gifts - Encouraging friends and family to reduce, reuse and recycle is a great way to green the holidays: consider giving cute reusable shopping bags and totes from Envirosax (they even have reusable gift wrap) or ChicoBag, reusable BPA-free Made in the USA water bottles from Crocodile Creek and EarthLust, or plastic-free stainless steel water bottles from Klean Kanteen (though currently all stainless steel water bottles are made in China, Klean Kanteen employs sustainable business practices).

Give of the Earth - Gifts from the earth are beautiful, natural, reusable, compostable and can bring lasting enjoyment and appreciation for the environment — and the gift-giver. Giving a tree, for instance, can give a beloved family decreased energy costs, increased air quality and property values, a fun outdoor activity to do together ... and simply make them feel good (see “Clean Air Gardening” for more surprising benefits to the simple act of planting a tree). A natural wreath from Williams & Sonoma or Holiday Amaryllis from White Flower Farm can bring the outdoors in and soothe frazzled holiday senses with their natural, calming effects.

The holiday gift-giving season is a perfect opportunity to show friends and family that you care about them — and that you care about sustainability and your impact on the environment, too. Green gift-giving practices can enrich the holiday season with deeper gratitude and meaning — all the while adding to the joy that makes us all look forward to the season.

Intro note: Links have been removed.

Did you know that a typical box of graham crackers tastes better to a kid if SpongeBob Squarepants’ smiling face is on the label? A recent study published in Pediatrics offers insight into how much the smiling faces of famous cartoon characters on food packages really do entice your children. The results may shock you: turns out those famous faces have a huge influence on kids’ taste buds.

A group of forty children aged 3 to 6 years decided that of the identical graham crackers, fruit snacks and carrots they were served, those with images of Shrek, Dora the Explorer and Scooby Doo on the packaging actually tasted better than those in plain packaging. According to all three taste comparisons, the majority of children chose snacks featuring licensed cartoon characters, and approximately 53% of them indicated that the food with the characters actually tasted better.

While the study showed that the children clearly preferred graham crackers and fruit snacks with licensed characters, this did not hold true for carrots. Carrots packaged with cartoon characters compared to plain carrots did not as strongly impact the children’s desire to eat a carrot in the same way those famous mugs made the children want to reach for more sweet snacks. Researchers believe that because children are not typically used to seeing characters on vegetable labels, their taste preference may not have been as influenced as it was with snack food, or that their choices could have been based on levels of familiarity. This could explain why eleven of the forty children chose plain packaging for the carrots, simply due to their preference for something ordinary rather than their liking of a character.

With children spending more time in front of the television rather than outside playing with friends, the familiar faces from cartoons may be having a stronger impact than years ago. A previous study in 2007 revealed that just two years after Nickelodeon characters SpongeBob and Dora began to appear on fruits and vegetables, 60% of grocery store products featured similar characters on junk food. In the same year, Shrek became a spokesperson for various US Department of Health and Human Services campaigns while his image also appeared on products from McDonald’s, Cheetos, and Keebler, to name only a few. The incongruous nature of using the same character to advertise both healthy and unhealthy products may be subconsciously confusing children.

Intro note: Links have been removed.

It may be good news for the makers of Kleenex and Claritin, but it’s bad news for us: a recent study concluded that climate change may lead to higher levels of outdoor allergens and increased allergy susceptibility for infants and babies in utero.

Most common outdoor allergens like tree pollen, grass pollen and mold increase in production when temperatures and humidity are high. Ragweed levels in particular go up with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 — the “greenhouse gas” causing all the trouble with global climate change.

Higher temperatures have already resulted in earlier pollen seasons in different parts of the world: remember the El Nino of 1997-1998, with its relentless rain, worldwide death toll and massive property damage? The year after this infamous weather event, the mold high point occurred earlier than normal due to the previous season’s wet and warm conditions.

The study also examined research on the timing of allergy development before and during infancy. While exposure to allergens between zero and three months was the strongest indicator of future allergies, exposure prior to birth was connected as well.

So as the consequences of climate change — higher temperatures, humidity, and CO2 levels — extend the pollen season, more babies may grow up with the spring-time curse, or worse: asthma. High pollen and mold counts lead to worsening of symptoms for asthma sufferers, and studies have shown more asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations during these peak times.

For now, try some natural remedies for allergy symptoms such as a neti pot and an indoor air purifier. To help curb your kids’ asthma attacks, try these surprising at-home tricks, or even an asthma “diet” (and definitely keep them off acetaminophen).

For later, learn what you can do about climate change.

Intro note: Links have been removed.

Skipping breakfast may not seem like a bad option during the daily before-school rush, but doing so could put your kids at risk for higher lead absorption. A recent study found that a full stomach in the morning could provide a strong defense against absorption of harmful lead. How harmful? The EPA has stated that lead is the “number-one environmental health threat to our children."

Recent studies link lead levels in children to ADHD symptoms, but lead has always been a concern for young children, as it can cause learning disabilities, hearing loss and even violent behavior. Children absorb lead at a higher rate than adults, and the study concluded that lead absorption in kids could be as much as 10 times higher on an empty stomach.

The study sowed that children who did not eat a regular breakfast had more than a full microgram of lead per 100 ml of blood than the children who ate breakfast regularly. Though the CDC has defined an elevated blood level as 10 or more micrograms per 100 ml, they report that “evidence exists for subtle effects at lower levels.”

Where does lead come from? Even with the drastic reduction in the use of leaded gasoline and lead-based paints since the bans of the 1970s, traces of lead are currently found in most foods due to lead-containing industrial emissions and erosion of lead-containing rocks. This dangerous heavy metal is also found in the water supply as a result of these same factors, combined with the use of lead pipes and lead solder.

Frequent hand- and toy-washing, planting to avoid yard erosion, and filtering water can all reduce the amount of lead your child absorbs into their body. Who knew that eating breakfast could help, too?

Intro note: Links have been removed.

Crime doesn’t pay. Quite the opposite, in fact. While the immediate benefit to a criminal may seem to contradict this common phrase, the truth is that crime costs us all real dollars. So it’s no surprise that a recent study of intervention programs for low-income students — which in part help keep kids out of the criminal justice system — showed a return that would make an investment banker weep: a whopping 18 percent.

Participating kids were arrested less, had better health insurance coverage and projected lifetime earnings, plus lower rates of depressive illness, drug abuse and smoking. High school graduation rates were higher, and even those who didn’t graduate still stayed in school longer than the kids outside the program. With the cost of health care being such a hot topic and the budgetary burden of uninsured patients being one of the culprits, the simple fact of an individual’s ability to have health insurance (or not) is something that affects all of us, low-income or otherwise.

The Chicago intervention program analyzed in the study offered aid and services to children aged three through 26. The children studied were born in 1979 and 1980. The services given to preschool participants cost about $8,500 per child, and the financial return to society was calculated to be more than $92,000. Less than $4,000 per child was invested in the school-age kids in the study, and this investment returned more than $15,000.

The documentary film Waiting for Superman reports that the cost of housing one prison inmate for one year (approximately $132,000) is more than the cost of sending that individual to 13 years of private school.

The conclusion seems clear: anything that successfully pushes kids toward education and away from crime is an investment that we can’t afford not to make.

Intro note: Links have been removed.

Work-life balance and recognition make for happier employees, but can a company’s record of environmental responsibility boost worker happiness as well? That’s a green light.

A recent study of more than 100 companies revealed that employee satisfaction and environmental performance go hand in hand. The study also attempted to find a link between employee satisfaction and the companies’ financial performance but found none: workers would rather work for a green company than a financially successful one.

While topics such as recycling and conservation might not seem to relate to compensation and diversity, when such green factors were high within a company, so was employee satisfaction with their pay and workplace. With costly employee turnover continuing to rise from 7-10% of the workforce in 1995 to 37% in 2004 — costing companies anywhere from 50% to 200% of an exiting employee’s annual salary — worker satisfaction is closely tied to the bottom line.

There are many reasons and ways for companies to go green, and more and more are adopting sustainability practices every day. Honda, Continental Airlines, S.C. Johnson and Goldman Sachs are just a few of CNNMoney’s “Ten Green Giants” – companies choosing environmentally responsible practices (whether they are required to by law or not) to reduce their carbon footprint, develop green technology, use renewable resources, and alleviate the effects of environmental damage.

Working for a green company? Lucky you. Trying to get your company to go green? Now you have a great way to sell the CEO on sustainability: tell them it’ll boost productivity, raise employee satisfaction and reduce turnover — that’ll improve the environment and their bottom line.

Intro note: Links have been removed.

Can learning a second language as a toddler give your child a cognitive edge over those who wait until high school French class? The authors of a recent study believe the answer is “Oui.”

Among toddlers as young as two, bilingual youngsters outscored their monolingual counterparts in the area known as “executive functioning.” To toddlers, this comes down to sorting shapes, but for older kids and adults, executive functioning includes important mental tasks such as planning, strategizing, organizing and goal-setting.

These skills are highly relevant to the ever-hot topic of ADHD and autism, as children (and adults) diagnosed with these disorders typically have impaired executive function.

The bilingual and monolingual children in the study demonstrated no difference in basic cognitive skills, however, and their vocabulary size (whether from one language or two combined) was the same.

Parents who want to help their child develop early executive functioning skills through bilingualism might consider a bilingual caregiver, an immersion preschool or a child-appropriate foreign language program such as Little Pim or MUZZY. Or better yet, dust off that old college Spanish textbook and have the whole family learn a second language together — it’s good for parents’ old brains, too.

Intro note: Some outdated links have been removed. Originally published in 2011.

If you’re wanting kids because you think they’ll make you happier, the results of a recent study might convince you not to toss your pills just yet — unless you’ve passed your 30th birthday. The study tracked the happiness levels of parents in 86 countries and found that for younger parents, the little bundles of joy often bring the opposite.

In contrast to the prevailing cultural belief that children bring happiness, researchers found that within a scale of 1 to 4, one or two children decreases happiness in adults under 30 by 0.03 units, and four or more children by 0.06 units. For parents who postponed childbearing until after 30, the trend is non-existent. Parents aged 40 years and up actually reported greater happiness from having children.

The study points out that parenting brings such downers as higher stress levels, financial hardship and lack of sleep, which contribute to the few hundredths of a point decreases on their happiness scale.

Studies such as this join others in a current trend that one recently published self-help book calls “The Happiness Trap.” Is happiness — defined as avoidance of stress and hardship — really the goal? If so, then who would want to struggle through college, train to run a marathon or volunteer in a third world country? This book argues that perhaps what people really want is a full and meaningful life, with downers and uppers, too.

The results of another recent study found that, paradoxically, the more people value happiness, the more likely they are to feel disappointed.

If all this obsessing about happiness is making you unhappy, here’s a tip that this and other studies agree on: wait a few years, and regardless of whether you’re rich, poor, childless or Duggar, you’ll be happier with age.

Intro note: Outdated links have been removed. Originally published in 2011.

Helmets: fashion accessory, true safety device, or useless accessory to calm overprotective parents? The answer: two of the above. A recent study, while not addressing the fashion aspect, did report a significant difference in the incidence of skull fractures between skiers and snowboarders who wore helmets vs. those who did not. The difference? A headache-inducing 30 percent.

In the study, only 5.3 percent of trauma patients who wore a helmet sustained skull fractures, vs. 37 percent in those not wearing a helmet. Of the 57 patient records from 2003-2009 included in the study, there was one death. That patient was not wearing a helmet.

Though the results of this New England study are specific to skiers and snowboarders, the difference between helmeted and unhelmeted patients is certainly enough to show the wisdom of wearing a helmet no matter the sport: what holds true on the slopes holds true on the streets as well. Nationally, the use of bike helmets is currently at only 15%, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that universal bike helmet usage among children would prevent 40,000 head injuries per year.

As for the fashion aspect, if your kid — or your spouse, for that matter — tells you they don’t want to wear a helmet because it’s not cool, you can explain to them how a skull fracture is not very cool either. Then point them to super-cool helmets for street and snow from Nutcase or Bell, or mark your calendar for July, when Yakkay helmets — which don’t even look like helmets —will be available in the US.

Whether your child is heading out to ride the streets or the slopes, tell them: “Put a lid on it!”

Intro note: Original study no longer available. Some outdated links have been removed.

The one clear answer about infant colic is that there are no clear answers. Definitions of colic vary, estimates of how many babies have it vary, and remedies especially vary widely. A recent study attempted to gather data from all previously published clinical trials of various alternative therapies for colic — such as herbal extracts, sugar solutions, chiropractic and probiotics — and even the results are not entirely clear.

Three out of four studies on chiropractic indicated success, three studies of fennel extract alone or with chamomile tea showed “significantly higher relief” than a placebo, and five studies confirmed that sugar solutions alleviated symptoms. Yet the authors of the overall study believe that there are too many flaws in these trials for the results to be given validity.

Some sources define colic as a condition where an otherwise healthy, well-fed baby cries more than three hours a day, for more than three days a week, between ages three weeks and three months, with the crying usually starting suddenly at about the same time each day. Others define colic as severe, fluctuating abdominal pain caused by gas or intestinal obstruction. Estimates of the percentage of babies who suffer from colic ranges from 5 - 50 percent. The condition seems real. Studies have shown, however, that Mylicon, a popular over-the-counter remedy, is ineffective, and that some prescription medications could even be dangerous.

The bottom line seems to be that nobody has all the answers. So what should weary parents of colicky babies do? Talk to your pediatrician, try everything — from acupuncture to herbs; walking to white noise — take care of yourself, get help when needed, and know that, as the old saying goes, “This too shall pass”: most sources agree that colic — however you define it — usually stops after three or four months.

Intro note: Most original links are outdated and have been removed.

As if parents needed any more reasons to keep their kids off junk food, here’s another: doing say makes them smarter. The results of a recent study showed that kids with diets rich in salad, fish and fruit had higher IQs than kids whose diets were heavy with high-fat, high-sugar processed foods.

The diets of nearly 4,000 children were tracked at ages 3, 4 and 7 years. Then at age 7 and 8, they were given psychological and IQ assessments involving math, spatial reasoning, vocabulary and comprehension. Kids with what the study called a “health-conscious” diet showed an increase slightly higher than one IQ point; kids with a diet termed “processed” showed a nearly two point decrease.

Is one to two points a big deal, when average IQ is 100? Probably not —unless you want your child to qualify for Mensa, or they’re at 159 and you want to push them to Albert Einstein’s estimated 160. But if you want further ammunition in the fight to get your kids to make healthier food choices, being able to truthfully say, “Get the veggies instead of fries — it’ll make you smarter!” could be a big deal, indeed.

A word of caution, however: while it’s OK (to a point) to brag that your child eats spinach and sushi, don’t go bragging about their high IQ. In the words of world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, “People who boast about their IQ are losers.”

Of course, the point of healthy eating is not higher IQ or bragging rights from the moms’ bench at the playground, but the fact that encouraging healthy eating in your child gives them the best advantages all around: physically, mentally, and even environmentally. You are what you eat, as they say: so eat smart!

Working moms raise the numbers in the family checkbook, but now they’re being shown to raise the numbers on the scale — for their kids. A recent study showed that children of working moms had a higher BMI (Body Mass Index, or weight-to-height ratio) and a higher likelihood of obesity than kids of non-working moms. This trend is even more pronounced in families with mothers working “non-standard” evening and weekend schedules. The most strongly affected age group within this trend were fifth and sixth graders whose moms began working during that time period.

Research included in the study suggests that this may be because working mothers rely more on unhealthy fast food and are not around to encourage their children to exercise or choose more active ways to spend their time when not in school or participating in other scheduled activities. While kids of moms with standard 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. work schedules and long-term employment fared better, the BMIs of the children of moms with frequent job changes, low education, depression and lower income unsurprisingly fared the worst.

The study did, however, fail to measure the impact of concurrent factors such as divorce or fathers’ work schedules, and certainly parents of many school-aged kids aren’t getting much help in the nutrition department from public schools.

But working moms aren’t going anywhere, least of all home, and they have overwhelming public support for going to work: of U.S. mothers with children 17 or younger, 66% currently work full or part time, and currently 75% of Americans believe that both husband and wife should contribute to the family income.

Rather than making working moms feel guiltier than they probably already do, the results of this study could be a call to arms: to encourage employed parents to work together as a team to better plan healthy meals, provide opportunities and encouragement for physical activity, and take steps to reduce stress — and weight — for the whole family. ith the reality that moms will work, school programs such as Planet Health and CATCH can help keep families on track to avoid the wealth of negative health and socio-economic impacts of obesity.

Intro note: Outdated links have been removed.

The idea of an “empty nest” is turning into an empty promise for many Baby Boom generation parents. A recent study found that young adults in the U.S. today are delaying independent living by nearly ten years compared to those in the 1950s — meaning their parents are supporting them. Yet social scientists are on the fence about whether this is cause for concern or not.

The primary reason for the rise of the “Boomerang Generation” is financial: due to extended schooling, low-paying jobs and unemployment, young adults today are often unable to support themselves. Rising unemployment since the collapse of the 2000 stock market bubble has coincided with this generation’s graduation from high school and college — with degree in hand, but nowhere to go. These young adults are often living with their parents well into their 30s.

Not surprisingly, parental support is highest when parental income is highest: parents who can support their children, do. Parental support is less likely when children are married or co-habiting.

According to U.S. Census statistics, this is primarily a trend among women. The percentage of 18- to 24-year-old males living at home grew from 52 percent to only 53 percent from 1960 to 2005, yet among females grew from 35 to 46 percent. This may be due to the fact that young adults are also delaying marriage.

Though the number of young adults living at home has increased 50 percent since the 1970s, this type of inter-generational cohabitation is common within Asian and Hispanic cultures, where “empty nest syndrome” is rare. Some social scientists believe this is a positive trend for Western cultures, as it increases family interaction and can produce healthier adult relationships.

However, some believe we are simply enabling a generation of slackers. Only time will tell.

Intro note: Outdated links have been removed.

We often hear the phrase “less is more,” but when it comes to kids, sunscreen use, and educating teens about the dangers of sun exposure, more is definitely more. A recent study of kids and sun exposure revealed that on average, we apply only a quarter to a half of the necessary amount of sunscreen required to adequately protect us from harmful UV rays.

Research also revealed that while teens resist wearing sunscreen because it’s uncool, two weeks of education about skin cancer and premature aging produced a definite attitude adjustment.

Sun exposure is a hot topic for children, as exposure to sunlight is typically higher during childhood, when it’s also the most dangerous: childhood sun exposure increases the risk of melanoma — the most dangerous form of skin cancer — later in life.

Though the European Union simply recommends avoidance of sun exposure for children, time in the sun is reportedly the best way to prevent vitamin D deficiency. Some studies have even reported hormonal side effects to the use of sunscreen, however this study noted that those findings could not be confirmed in animal experiments.

So how can parents juggle the conflicting dangers of sun exposure, vitamin D deficiency and possible side-effects of sunscreen, for themselves and their children?

* Avoid sun exposure from two hours before peak sunlight to two hours after.

* Consider avoiding chemical sun filtering agents, and instead look for natural agents such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide — as well as protective clothing, hats and shade.

* When using sunscreen, apply it liberally and often.

* Educate teens about cancer and premature aging to help get sunscreen past their “cool” barrier.

With a bit of education and planning, we can all enjoy our time in the sun.

Intro note: Outdated links have been removed.

The last thing the world needs is more teenagers with time on their hands, right? The results of a recent study might convince you otherwise.

Though jobs teach teens responsibility and other real-world skills, this study tied a 20+ hours per week work schedule with lower grades, less time spent on homework and other school-related activities, diminished attention in class, and an increase in substance abuse.

While the study authors admitted that working during high school “is unlikely to turn law-abiding teenagers into felons or cause students to flunk out of school,” the results were significant enough to raise a red flag for parents with college admission high on their list and/or zero tolerance for drug and alcohol experimentation. The good news is that for students working less than 20 hours per week, the negative effects just weren’t there.

Keeping your teen’s working hours below 20 can also help alleviate the negative health effects of stress and sleep deprivation that can result from an intense schedule.

The bottom line for parents? College-bound or otherwise, keep the hours under 20 and avoid jobs that are unsupervised and unskilled. If college is the goal, help your teen find a job that inspires them to develop their passions and interests. If you can’t — and finances allow — encourage them to dive into an extra-curricular or volunteer activity instead. These can demonstrate the same attractive qualities — discipline, time management and commitment — as a job. Even a child who must work to support their family can still use that to their advantage on a college application.

In the end, choosing a job carefully, limiting the hours and sticking with it might help kids stay focused on school, find a passion, and stand out from their peers on their college apps.