Passage 2
If you want to teach your children how to say sorry, you must be good at saying it yourself, especially to your own children. But how you say it can be quite tricky.
If you say to your children “I’m sorry I got angry with you, but ...” what follows that “but” can render the apology ineffective: “I had a bad day” or “your noise was giving me a headache” leaves the person who has been injured feeling that he should be apologizing for his bad behavior in expecting an apology.
Another method by which people appear to apologize without actually doing so is to say “I’m sorry you’re upset”; this suggests that you are somehow at fault for allowing yourself to get upset by what the other person has done.
Then there is the general, all covering apology, which avoids the necessity of identifying a specific act that was particularly hurtful or insulting, and which the person who is apologizing should promise never to do again. Saying “I’m useless as a parent” does not commit a person to any specific improvement.
These pseudo-apologies are used by people who believe saying sorry shows weakness, Parents who wish to teach their children to apologize should see it as a sign of strength, and therefore not resort to these pseudo-apologies.
But even when presented with examples of genuine contrition, children still need help to become a ware of the complexities of saying sorry. A three-year-old might need help in understanding that other children feel pain just as he does, and that hitting a playmate over the head with a heavy toy requires an apology. A six-year-old might need reminding that spoiling other children’s expectations can require an apology. A 12-year-old might need to be shown that raiding the biscuit tin without asking permission is acceptable, but that borrowing a parent’s clothes without permission is not.
Passage Two
The food we eat seems to have profound effects on our health. Although science has made enormous steps in making food more fit to eat, it has, at the same time, made many foods unfit to eat. Some research has shown that perhaps eighty percent of all human illnesses are related to diet and forty percent of cancer is related to the diet as well, especially cancer of the colon. Different cultures are more likely to cause certain different illnesses because of the food that is characteristic in these cultures. That food is related to illness is not a new discovery. In 1945, about 35 years ago, government researchers realized that nitrates, commonly used to preserve color in meats, and other food additives, caused cancer. Yet, these carcinogenic additives remain in our food, and it becomes more difficult all the time to know which things on the packaging labels of processed food are helpful or harmful. The additives which we eat are not all so direct. Farmers often give penicillin to beef and living animals, and because of this, penicillin has been found in the milk of treated cow. Sometimes similar drugs are given to animals not for medical purposes, but for financial reasons. The farmers are simply trying to fatten the animals in order to obtain a higher price on the market. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tried repeatedly to control these procedures, the practices continue.
