Instructor Laura Navarro leads a Zumba class at Silvia Nutricion center. (Photo: Anabell Romero)

“Good morning!” says Silvia Cruz as she greets women who enter her nutrition center.

“It’s five dollars for a shake and the zumba class, or three dollars for the zumba class only,” she says as she’s collecting the money and putting it into a metal box.

Five years ago when Cruz and her husband Roberto Garcia came to the United States, they never imagined they would have their own business. The couple has been married for 25 years. After living a comfortable and stable life in Mexico, Roberto abruptly lost his job.

“My husband was an engineer for 15 years,” said Cruz. “Then his company went under new management, and my husband was laid off along with other employees.”

After nine months of desperately looking for work Garcia was successful in getting a visa to work in the U.S.  The family promptly packed their bags and left their home in Mexico to start a new life in the U.S.

“We came on the bus and we ended up in Wilmington,” said Cruz. “We lived in a hotel for six months with my three children. It was five of us in a hotel room.”

Five years later Cruz and Garcia opened their business in Wilmington, a nutrition center called Silvia Nutricion. At the center they offer zumba classes for adults and children; they have child care for parents to leave their children while they exercise; and they sell protein shakes and vitamins. They opened the center almost four months ago and it has quickly gained popularity in the community.

"I found out about the center through a friend," said Dora Clark, 43, a Wilmington resident. "I've been coming for two in a half months and I love it. It helps me stay in shape and be healthy."

The couple originally started their business from their apartment. They invited neighbors to their home and offered nutrition guidance, encouraging one another to live a healthier lifestyle by exercising and taking vitamins. They began to sell Herbalife products. Then Garcia landed a job at a jewelry store in Wilmington. After three years, the couple saved enough money to rent a space in Wilmington and open their own nutrition center.

“We do this to help people," Garcia said. "We’re not really focused on the business side of things. We’re focused on making sure people feel healthy, stress-free and we encourage exercise.”

Garcia was diagnosed with a nervous system disease that was life-changing for him. The stress of not having a job and not being able to provide for his family had taken a toll on his health. Doctors prescribed medication to temporarily relieve his pain, but he knew he had to change his lifestyle to prevent a stroke.

“I lacked energy. I always felt fatigue,” he said.  “Before starting the nutrition club I was overweight and since then I’ve lost 30 pounds." He says he feels much better since achieving a healthier weight.

Participants of the classes like the fact that there is no monthly cost commitment and moms can dance zumba while there children are being cared for. The five dollar shake/zumba combination is very appealing for Wilmington residents because it is affordable and they can attend classes in the morning or in the evening.

"It's perfect for single moms because they have a day care center and they also offer classes for children," said 18-year-old Laura Navarro.

Even though Garcia continues to work for a local jewelry store both he and his wife hope to expand their nutrition center and continue to inspire others to live a healthier lifestyle.

“Our health is important for many reasons: to live a longer life, to have better self-esteem and most importantly to have energy and never give up in our daily lives,” said Garcia.

Darryl Evey stands in the dining room of "Our House" homeless shelter in Redlands. (Photo: Bobbi Albano)

Although they are difficult to count, Terrance Stone, CEO of Young Visionaries homeless youth shelter estimates there are 25,000 homeless kids in San Bernardino County at any given time. The California Homeless Youth Project agrees. "Homeless youth are highly mobile and often try hard to avoid detection and contact with adults. ... This means they are often not counted during annual homeless surveys." During 2008-09, 81,000 services were provided by federally-funded runaway and homeless youth programs in California. While these services ranged from beds to street outreach contacts, it isn't known how many homeless kids received no services.

There are only two shelters in San Bernardino County for kids who have run away from home, have been kicked out or are living on the streets. Young Visionaries, which has space available to house just four children at any time, is located in the city of San Bernardino. The other shelter, Our House, is in Redlands and has room for twelve homeless youth.

Homeless, as defined by the California Homeless Youth Project, “generally refers to unaccompanied minors ages 12 through 17 who are living apart from their parents or legal guardians.” Living situations for these youth could include living on the streets or on a friend's couch. They could be runaways or "throwaways" -- youth that have been thrown out of their family’s home.

Darryl Evey, Executive Director of the Family Assistance Program and Our House says the most common complaint he hears from kids is “my home life sucks." He continues, “A 16-year-old that is hormonal coupled with a parent that’s stressed out and working two jobs -- a parent that doesn’t have the [parenting] skills they need -- makes for a nice storm."

Stone says about 30 percent of the kids he sees at Youth Visionaries are experiencing either some sort of conflict at home over their sexual orientation or are victims of abuse, but most show up at the shelter over a “misunderstanding” at home. The California Homeless Youth Project agrees that family conflict and breakdown is an overwhelming reason for homelessness.

In order to qualify for federal funding, the shelters must contact the child’s parents or legal guardian within 72 hours of the youth’s arrival, create a reunification plan and have that plan completed within 21 days. The kids go through a phone screening first and must meet the minimum requirements. If they are using drugs, they need to get clean first. If they have a criminal record for violent crime, they can’t be at the shelter.

Other than that, when they get to the shelter the staff go over the rules and talk about counseling. However, not all the kids stay. Some kids leave and go back home. Some simply decide they don't want to be there and go back to the streets or to a friend's house, according to Evey. It appears that kids need to build up trust in the shelter. For example, one of the girls who showed up at the shelter was a prostitute. "She stayed for a day or two but didn't want to stay gone too long," said Evey. "Usually those types of girls will need to come into a shelter three or four times before they decide that it's safe."

Evey said that kids usually don’t mind giving their parents' information to the shelter. Stone agrees, “All of our placements have been positive." Both Evey and Stone ran non-profit organizations from which the idea of starting a youth shelter was born.

Evey is the Executive Director for the former High Desert Domestic Violence Program (now the Family Assistance Program), a program that “provides shelter, counseling and advocacy to victims of domestic violence and their children." He said girls come into the agency in Victorville for help because a boyfriend was beating them up, but since they were under 18, there was no place for them to go.

Stone, on the other hand, worked with gangs. He said, “San Bernardino has the third largest gang population in the United States." His experience with homeless youth is working with kids living on the streets, kids who are not in school and are unemployed. It was through this outreach that he saw the need for a place for these kids to go.

Stone also runs a print shop that gives kids an opportunity to acquire job skills and a first job to put on their resume.

Kids who spend a great deal of time on the streets risk the potential for sexual abuse and exploitation as well as drug abuse. According to the California Homeless Youth Project, more than half of street youth are homeless for two to nine years unless they get connected with services such as a homeless youth shelter.

Butte Environmental Council members Mary Muchowski and Julia Murphy (at left) discuss dioxin at a public seminar in Oroville.. (Photo: Marley Zalay)

In July of 2011, Community Correspondent Rachelle Parker wrote about Butte Environmental Council's (BEC) fascinating study assessing dioxin levels in backyard chicken eggs around Oroville. She outlined the history of the Koppers fire which caused dioxin contamination in surrounding soil and the original study by the former California Department of Health Services (CDHS). Dioxin is known for its toxicity and persistence in the environment. BEC recently held a workshop in Oroville about dioxin to educate community members about this issue.

The intention of BEC's study was to gain a better understanding of the public's exposure to dioxin by eating backyard chicken eggs. Julia Murphy, Education and Outreach Assistant at BEC, explained that dioxin is linked to a myriad of negative health effects, "from hormone disruption and immune system dysfunction, to birth defects and cancer." But because we are exposed to dioxin from a variety of sources, it is difficult to draw a straight cause-and-effect line from the source to adverse health effects.

BEC also wanted to assess how long dioxin remains in soil, as there is a great lack of data on this subject. What is known about dioxin? It has a half-life of seven to 11 years in the human body, and it is passed from mothers to babies via breast milk. Dioxin binds to organic material in soil, which is scratched and consumed by chickens. Because dioxin is fat-soluble, it becomes concentrated in chicken eggs and other animal products. Fruit and vegetables, on the contrary, do not store dioxin.

The FDA has set 1 part per trillion (ppt) as the "level of concern." The results of testing 18 eggs in different areas of Oroville yielded an average dioxin level of 2.32 ppt. However, several outliers of 14.7 ppt, 7.25 ppt and 4.55 ppt increased this average. The CDHS study which sampled eggs in 1988 and 1994 yeilded an average dioxin level of 4.2 ppt. "It appears that over 25 years since the original study, dioxin levels have slightly decreased; however we are working with a very small sample size," said BEC's Education and Outreach Coordinator, Mary Muchowski. Julia Murphy added, "It's unclear whether we're looking at the Koppers' legacy of dioxin contamination or more recent sources of exposure." Other local sources of dioxin include cogeneration plants and rendering plants, incineration of industrial and medical wastes, backyard barrel burning and chemical manufacturing.

Muchowski and Murphy believe that free-range and backyard chicken eggs are still healthier than store bought eggs. They cited a study by Mother Earth News showing that eggs from chickens raised on open pasture have lower saturated fat and cholesterol, and more vitamin E, vitamin A, omega 3's and beta carotene than store bought eggs. They suggested that homeowners who have high levels of dioxin in their tested eggs remove treated wood from their yard, refrain from putting ash in chicken pasture, keep chickens in a coop to limit their exposure to soil, or just eat egg whites, which contain substantially less fat, and therefore minimal dioxin.

Nancy Kerns was one of the Oroville residents who participated in the study. "I was eager to participate and happy that BEC offered the testing," she said. However, she was "surprised and dismayed to see that our eggs contained dioxin at a level of 1.3 ppt." The previous study of dioxin in backyard chicken eggs of Oroville performed by CDHS led to a public advisory urging people not to eat eggs with dioxin levels of 2 ppt or higher. Therefore, there is inconsistent information from governmental regulatory agencies about the level of dioxin that can be safely consumed. Some studies even suggest that there is no safe threshold dose, said Murphy.

Kerns and her husband still eat their backyard eggs, but with more caution. "We are now conscious of the amount of eggs we eat every week, and we would never offer them to pregnant women or children," Kerns said. The Butte Environmental Council will continue their public education workshops at various locations around Oroville. "We plan to work with the Department of Public Health to explore the need for a second advisory as well," said Murphy.

BEC's study is unique in that they work with individual participants to provide education and tools to minimize their exposure. The data is also significant because it contributes to establishing regional patterns of dioxin contamination. BEC hopes to replicate this study in 10-15 years to further the body of knowledge about how this potent chemical behaves in the environment and how to best protect the public's health.

Children at Union House Elementary School in Elk Grove enjoy a "school dinner" as part of the federal school lunch program. (Photo: Sharon Chandler)

Back in the day, school lunches were just that, school lunches.  There was no breakfast, snack, or dinner, no matter how many hours you were in the classroom. Today, school lunches, and afterschool snack programs provide a much-needed nutritional benefit for a majority of children who might be poorly fed or in some cases, not fed at all.

In the Elk Grove Unified School District, in the South Sacramento area, kindergarten students through 6th graders who receive Title 1 or reduced or free lunch program are provided an additional meal in the afterschool programs.  Previously students received breakfast, lunch, and a snack after school, around 2:15pm. Now dinner is served around 4:15pm.

A great number of students are at school from 7:00am to 6:00pm, which makes for a very long day and a lot of growing, energy-exuding bodies. Beginning this past October, and continuing for the next couple of years, federal dollars will make these dinner meals available to after-schoolers. The meals include a meat or meat alternative, bread, fruit, vegetable and milk.

The 39 Elk Grove elementary schools participating in the Harvest of the Month food program are feeding its students and educating families, by way of a collaborative effort of educators, child nutritionists, school administration, retail outlets and local media. A monthly food curriculum and daily physical fitness opportunities act to support and encourage the students to make healthy food choices, namely fresh fruits and vegetables. Another program goal is both to demonstrate and encourage a sense of moderation in students' daily food choices -- with fewer snacks, high sugar drinks, and processed foods. All of these actions are not only to feed the student but to help prevent childhood obesity and other chronic diseases, like diabetes, that are on the increase.

The movement comes as a directive from the California Department of Public Health's Network for a Healthy California’s Champions for Change program.  With all of the concern about the nutritional value of school meals, the School Nutrition Association's (SNA) research confirms the following:

Meals served under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) must, by federal law, meet nutrition guidelines based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. No more than 30% of calories can come from fat and less than 10% from saturated fat. School lunches provide one-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowances of protein, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, iron, calcium and calories. These guidelines apply over the course of one week of school lunch menus.

Visiting the Union House Elementary School, I observed and commented to Principal Dorothy Stoppleman and District  Nutritionist Michelle Drake that the students were eating these strange white strips that looked like raw potatoes.  "Oh, those are jicama, a large bulbous root vegetable used in a lot of Mexican recipes. The students learn about the veggie and get to explore its taste through food demonstrations and taste tests in the classroom," they explained.

When I asked several of the students what they thought of the dinners, some of the comments were, "good food," "I don't have to be hungry before I get to have dinner at home," or "I like that we get to try more new foods."  Fourth grade student Jordan Reeves said, "At my house we usually eat around 7 o'clock, so what I eat here after school is like a snack before dinner."

In wake of the nation's economic difficulties profoundly affecting struggling, poor families, one parent commented that, "This program helps me expand my food dollars at home. I don't have to buy so much to make sure everyone gets enough to eat." Nutritionist Drake added that a few negative comments from the public have been that the schools spend too much money on social programs and don't allow the parents to take on the responsibility for feeding their own families. "Our District feels, if we have the ability to to help our families with a little extra food each day, then we should do it. We are only talking about feeding children."

Fernando Cuevas holds up a sign in support of the Clean Up Green Up campaign at a press conference earlier this month at L.A. City Hall. (Photo: Anabell Romero)

In September 2010, I was having dinner with my family when I received a text from my friend, Kat Madrigal, who told me that my name was on the Wilmington Neighborhood Council agenda. She was at the meeting and saw that the council was going to vote on my application to be a Member at Large. I was puzzled, because while I had applied, I did not know I was being considered that night.

Then I wondered, “If I am voted in as a member of the WNC how will I be able to make a difference in my community?”

Kat instantly texted me, “I think you should come.”

I was voted in that night-- one of three members-at-large on a council of up to 23 people. Now almost two years later I am honored to still sit on the board along with others who represent Wilmington residents, businesses, non-profits, senior citizens, education institutions, parks, churches and our youth.

I joined the WNC because I wanted to take action on a number of issues. The ongoing violence, our poor education system, and our lack of resource centers are big challenges. But more than anything, I'm concerned about the toxic air our neighborhood produces by being the home of active rail yards, storage tanks, oil refineries, salvage sites and other industry that dominates and pollutes our community.

The WNC was created in 2001, making it the first neighborhood council in Los Angeles. Ever since, community members have held very high expectations.

During last month's WNC meeting, a representative from Clean Up Green Up told the council about its program and asked members to support it. Clean Up Green Up aims to counter some of the negative environmental effects of heavy industry in three Los Angeles neighborhoods the group identifies as "toxic hot spots": Wilmington, Boyle Heights and Pacoima. One approach of the group -- as stated on its website -- is to "streamline inspection and enforcement" of industry.  Clean Up Green Up also plans to attract green industries through incentives like advocating for tax and utility rebates for these companies.

I was not able to be at that meeting which proved to be especially unfortunate.

Earlier this month members of Clean Up Green Up along with Boyle Heights Councilman Jose Huizar, environmentalists and hundreds of residents from the three neighborhoods held a press conference at L.A. City Hall. I was there and watched as speakers announced this new approach to cleaning up some of the most contaminated neighborhoods.

Then, last week, I received the draft agenda for this month's WNC meeting. The agenda included an "action item" for the board to vote not to support Clean Up Green Up. I immediately replied to the entire board suggesting that we revisit this item and really review the Clean Up Green Up proposal. I also provided some background information about the organization.

I did not receive any replies.

Now we come to last night's WNC meeting. The agenda included the action item about not supporting Clean Up Green Up. Clearly word had gotten around as many people were not only present, but enraged and confused.

People did not understand why the WNC would take a negative stance on a program designed to improve the health and environment of Wilmington, something the community has demanded for years. In addition, Wilmington would be the only neighborhood of the three opposing the program if this motion passed.

Environmentalists, community leaders and residents were prepared to share their thoughts about the WNC's apparent lack of support of the initiative.

But when the agenda item came up, a member of the WNC suggested tabling the item so the Planning and Land Use Committee could review the proposal again. Since this meant a vote would not be taken, public discussion would not occur.

This further infuriated community members. They felt slighted by the WNC by not being given an opportunity to voice their thoughts. However, the WNC was simply following protocol and agreed by unanimous vote to not act on the item until further reviewed.

During the open public comment period at the end of the meeting, people returned to Clean Up Green Up and shared their experiences of living in Wilmington. My friend Kat passionately spoke about the health effects neighborhood industry has on our community, especially regarding a friend of hers who was recently diagnosed with leukemia and happens to live near a rail yard. A community pastor recalled a junkyard explosion by his church and home. He said it took 32 hours to put it out because employees failed to follow safety procedures. Environmental activist Jesse Marquez frowned upon council members because none of us attended the Clean Up Green Up information meeting late last year -- a meeting more than 200 residents did attend.

Then public comments ended and the chair of the WNC was about to authorize a break. This is normally the point when most members of the public leave.

But before everyone could go, I decided to grab a microphone and share my own thoughts.

I asked all attendees to please not judge the entire WNC, explaining that not everyone on the board opposes Clean Up Green Up. This angered my fellow board members who argued I was implying that the majority are in opposition except me.

I publicly apologized and explained that that was not what I was saying or implying.

I then continued to inform community members of how I am a journalism graduate student, which is why I’ve missed meetings in the past months.

I shared with ‘mi barrio’ that I do care about our public health and the importance of being accurately informed and that together we can built a safer and healthier community.

Even though many of my colleagues from the WNC may still be angry at me, I feel relieved to let my community know that I am in favor of Clean Up Green Up and a greener community.

This is only the beginning of a long, rocky journey to help convert Wilmington from a “toxic hot-spot” to a healthy place to raise our children. That’s the change I hope to create.

Editor's Note: yesterday we contacted Cecilia Moreno, chair of the Wilmington Neighborhood Council and invited her to comment on her position about Clean Up Green Up. She sent the following email:

I appreciate you reaching out to me on this issue that is going before the Wilmington Neighborhood Council (WNC) tonight.  I would like to clarify that the information you have is incorrect.  I have not stated nor implied my negative position concerning the Clean Up Green Up (CUGU) campaign.  What I have stated, very vocally, is my disapproval of how this effort has been handled with regards to Wilmington.

It is my opinion that although Wilmington may appear like a clear candidate to be a part of this pilot project, actual inclusion of our community in the development of the motion was completely omitted.  Other than two environmental groups (CBE and Coalition for Safe Environment) NO ONE else was a part of the development and neither of these groups actually gets involved in all the things that happen in my community.  I serve on the Chamber of Commerce, the YMCA Council of Manager, Co-Chair the Spanish Community Police Advisory Board, the Friends of Banning's Landing, Clean Wilmington Program and MANY other Wilmington community groups and NONE were ever approached by the CUGU campaign.

The proposed motion was originally signed by our then Councilwoman Janice Hahn in January 2011.  The CUGU campaign took their effort to the various communities surrounding Wilmington, like San Pedro, Harbor City and other, but NEVER to Wilmington. With the exception of a meeting held at the Senior Center that few people heard about, no outreach actually took place.  It wasn't until February of this year - three years into their effort - that they reached out to the WNC and the Wilmington Chamber and that was really only because the WNC took our request to Councilman Buscaino to put a hold on this effort UNTIL they engaged the Wilmington Community.

Again, I think CUGU has merit, unfortunately we are being forced to take a position of for or against without actually understanding the implications, costs, enactment and enforcement of this policy.