What? Time to check in with the McDonald’s empire again? Yes, because those rascals just won’t stay out of the news. They seem to operate on the Water Balloon Principle of Ethics. You can squeeze a water balloon in one area and some of the water will move to a different place. But the balloon still has the same amount of water in it. Same with McDonald’s. Every time a public outcry puts a spoke in the wheel of one of their shenanigans, up they pop somewhere else with new mischief. Or old mischief that we just got around to finding out about.

Seems like lately, everybody has been dumping on Jamie Oliver and calling him a failure. Some even criticize him for coming over here instead of staying home and minding his own Great British business. That’s nonsense, because traveling has always been a great career move. Somebody once said, “An expert is a guy from out of town with a slide show.” Nothing wrong with that. Anyway, according to rumor, Chef Oliver can be credited with wrestling the mighty McDonald’s to the ground and forcing an increment of reform.

Here’s the lowdown, from M. Alex Johnson of MSNBC News.

McDonald’s confirmed that it has eliminated the use of ammonium hydroxide… in its hamburger meat… It acknowledged this week that it had stopped using the unappetizing pink goo — made from treating otherwise inedible scrap meat with the chemical — several months ago.

Why do we not want ammonium hydroxide in our fast food feasts? Johnson obligingly explains:

Besides being used as a household cleaner and in fertilizers, the compound releases flammable vapors, and with the addition of certain acids, it can be turned into ammonium nitrate, a common component in homemade bombs… It’s regulated by the U.S. Agriculture Department, which classifies it as ‘generally recognized as safe.’

Yikes! That last statement belongs with the other comedic material Childhood Obesity News has been discussing. But wait – it seems that this chemical is “widely used in the food industry as an anti-microbial agent.” So, it was supposedly mixed in with the hamburger meat to kill germs. What has been substituted? This article doesn’t say.

Last April Jamie Oliver’s TV series introduced viewers to scrap meat (also known as “select lean beef trimmings” in the industry’s terminology) which he characterizes as fit for dogs. The scrap meat is ground up, washed with ammonium hydroxide, then pulverized further and voilà! Pink slime! To make burger patties, it’s combined with more standard ground beef.

The goo looks to be the texture of soft ice cream. In fact, if you thought it was pink ice cream, it would look quite appetizing. The photo of it gushing forth from a machine “went viral,” so the real thing is easy enough to see all over the Web. The bad news is, Mickey D is still making chicken nuggets with the chicken version of pink slime. And pink slime is found in the lunch burgers served to kids in schools all across America.

So McDonald’s quit loading the burgers with ammonia and offal. What about the speculation that this decision resulted from Oliver outing the pink slime? The corporation, of course, denies any causative connection. Hey…whatever. As long as the job got done.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source:  McDonald’s drops use of gooey ammonia-based ‘pink slime’ in hamburger meat, usnews.msnbc.msn.com, 01/31/12
Image by weelakeo (wee lakeo), used under its Creative Commons license.

An onion can make people cry but there’s never been a vegetable that can make people laugh.

Will Rogers said that. What does it have to do with childhood obesity? Nothing. It’s just an example of one type of funny, something that brings on a giggle because even though you never thought of it that way before, it’s true. Other things are funny because they are such blatant examples of baloney, you have to either laugh or cry.

Like the outpourings of the American Beverage Association‘s public relations department. For example, a press release titled “American Beverage Association Shows Beverage Industry is a Good Part of America”:

Our industry’s self-regulation has demonstrated success and will continue to improve the health of children nationwide.

Anyone who doesn’t get a chuckle out of that hasn’t been paying attention. Now, here is something worth getting emotional about. After all the hard work done by so many dedicated people to boot sugar-sweetened beverages out of schools, studies are coming in with a disheartening message. They’re saying it doesn’t make any difference. Banning soft drinks from schools doesn’t help.

Last November, the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine dropped a bomb on the anti-obesity movement. Here is the bottom line, eloquently and succinctly told by Karen Kaplan in the Los Angeles Times:

Students in schools that limited sales of soda and other sugary beverages on campus consumed just as many of the drinks, overall, as students in schools without any such restrictions.

The information for the shocking study was collected from 5,900 students whose health histories were had been carefully tracked since 1998. Kaplan writes:

The researchers looked at 40 states; 22 of them had no policy governing sales of sugary drinks in middle schools, 11 forbid sales of soda only, and seven banned all manner of sugar-sweetened beverages, including sports drinks and fruit drinks (but not 100% fruit juices). In all three categories, the prevalence of obesity was essentially the same, ranging from 22.3% to 22.6%.

It gets worse:

Surprisingly, students who were subjected to some kind of sugar-sweetened beverage rule at school were actually more likely to consume sugary drinks on a daily basis.

Yes, more likely. Speaking of this same research, originating from the University of Illinois, the New York Daily News said:

While bans may reduce in-school access, the latest study suggests kids are actively finding other ways to access sugary drinks. The results of the survey also suggest that schools and public health authorities need to develop more comprehensive anti-obesity strategies that go beyond simply imposing a blanket ban on soda.

Also in regard to the same study, Cindy George of MedBlog reported:

Texas researchers reached a similar conclusion about sweetened drinks in a childhood obesity report for the state’s nonprofit children’s hospitals… The state set policy on the drinkable-calories-on-campus issue about a decade ago. After limiting foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV) available on Texas public school campuses in 2003, the state further curbed access in 2009 to soda and other treats during school hours.

Julie Deardorff gives the soda pop industry its props when she writes:

… [A]fter losing battles at the local and state levels, manufacturers supported federal action to remove sugary drinks from schools. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are aggressively funding physical activity programs and reformulating certain products to reduce the salt, fat and sugar content. PepsiCo scientists are working on ways to reduce sodium content in products; Coca-Cola was a leader in new calorie labeling.

Then, she goes and spoils it by quoting public health attorney and Appetite for Profit author Michele Simon, who says:

Food companies are masters at turning criticism into marketing opportunities and at getting us to give them credit for addressing problems they created in the first place. They work by co-opting the conversation.

Deardorff interviewed another expert, Corinna Hawkes of London’s City University, who specializes in public health and food policy. She believes that a Coca-Cola logo on the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics is “totally inappropriate.” Because its presence there implies endorsement and sends a subliminal message that sugar-sweetened beverages are good, Hawkes is quoted as saying that it:

… obscures the broader message that children and families should reduce their intake of full-calorie soft drinks.

And that’s not so funny.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Beverage Industry is a Good Part of America,” PR Newswire, 10/24/11
Source: “Schools’ soda bans don’t stop sugary-drink consumption, study says,” LA Times, 11/07/11
Source: “School soda ban ineffective in fight against childhood obesity, according to study,” NY Daily News, 11/11/11
Source: “Reports: School soda bans do little to cut overall consumption,” blog.chron.com/medblog, Nov. 2011
Source: “Critics pounce on Coke, Pepsi health initiatives,” Chicago Tribune, 02/04/12
Image by nmhschool (NMH webmaster), used under its Creative Commons license.

Childhood Obesity News has been looking at some of the unintentional humor caused by the beverage industry‘s empty promises. The comedy continues, with the ridiculous spectacle of a world where millions of kids are both fat and insufficiently fed at the same time, while millions more are just plain starving. It’s all just too absurd.

America is the Obese-But-Undernourished capitol of the world, and from it spring the satirical outpourings of a mock-TV show called “Thought for Food.” Steven Colbert portrays some kind of ultra-conservative demagogue/newscaster who is so indignant over the government’s attempts to regulate the food industry, he might even show up wearing a suit made from snack bags. In character, he goes after such icons as reformist chef Jamie Oliver, and even the First Lady and the “Let’s Move” program, making his real points by indirection and with maximum humor.

Colbert talks about the lab rats who would not give up junk food even when they had to endure pain to get to it. In other words, they were addicted. Playing on the well-known connections between junk food and obesity, and between obesity and cardiopathology, he says:

In fact, many of the obese rats were grateful for the shocks, because they restarted their hearts.

In “School Potato Guidelines & Fast Food Stamps,” the comedian defends processed potato nuggets as excellent and necessary school lunch fare. Also, he experiences a meltdown that proves beyond doubt the emotional roots of comfort eating.

In another episode he again refers to emotional eating with the tip:

It’s hard to swallow my pride. That’s why I slather mine in mayonnaise.

Noting that some “energy” drinks contain, along with their sweeteners, not only caffeine but alcohol, Colbert introduces a new product of his own devising, that takes the concept to the next level and kicks it up a notch. And, like Childhood Obesity News, he has plenty to say about cheese. And bacon? Don’t get him started!

We learn which snack food package now contains the reassuring motto, “natural flavor with other natural flavor.” Colbert discusses the foot-long cheeseburger and his innovative idea for improving it. He creates GulpZilla and lives to regret it. After listing the disadvantages of fruit mush in a non-recyclable plastic pouch, his entrepreneurial side really gets fired up as he suggests:

… [A]n apple snack encased in some sort of edible skin. That would be a real breakthrough.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source:  “Thought for Food – Corn Diapers, Fatty Foods & Jamie Oliver,” ColbertNation.com, 03/30/10
Source:  “School Potato Guidelines & Fast Food Stamps,” ColbertNation.com, 10/18/11
Source:  “Thought for Food – C-Zurrrre, Medal of Hunger Winner & Cheesercize,” ColbertNation.com, 11/16/10
Screen capture of “Colbert Nation” used under Fair Use: Reporting.

Childhood Obesity News has been talking about how the beverage industry promised to mend its ways, and the hilarious hijinks that have ensued. The beverage industry has this concept called self-policing, and it’s the most humorous thing since (insert here the name of your favorite comedian, funniest movie or YouTube clip, etc.).

For instance, they solemnly promise to scale back on the advertising of sugar-sweetened beverages to kids. Then, they go and inundate kids with even more advertising, especially the ethnic groups that are most at risk for serious health damage. Are those guys a laugh riot, or what? They’re putting more bad stuff in the bottles and cans, and omitting some pretty darn important information from the labels. Those wacky captains of the beverage-industrial complex, what uproarious jokes will they play on us next?

Along with its legendary self-policing abilities, so appreciated by connoisseurs of comedy everywhere, the food industry has many other talents. We mentioned the Chicago Tribune piece where Julie Deardorff reported how willing the industry is to use its “dramatic reach and persuasive marketing skills.” We just bet it is! The industry wants to help by cozying up to such august organizations as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians, the better to influence them. What the beverage-industrial complex really brings to the table is dramatic verbal baloney and a persuasively fat wallet.

Ready for another round of side-splitting humor? Deardorff quotes a Coca-Cola spokesperson, who says:

We believe in healthy people; when they’re healthy and happy, that’s the best thing to do for the long-term health of the business and the right thing to do.

What does that even mean? They believe in healthy people… Is that like believing in unicorns, certain that they do exist somewhere? Like maybe there are a few healthy people left, in some remote corner of the globe where the tentacles of Coca-Cola have not yet reached? But wait, there’s more. The reporter conveys to us the corporation’s assurances that:

Partnerships with the medical community help present a balanced picture of what the science says about diet and exercise.

But, not to worry, says Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, chairman of the Committee on Nutrition at the AAP. We shouldn’t be concerned because there are firewalls, a notion that’s about as comical as the beverage industry’s famous self-policing. Dr. Bhatia believes in firewalls, however, explaining it like this:

Coke is so popular that if we can, over time, get them to create healthier products or healthier messages, then we have won. Coke’s Live Positively initiative aligns with healthychildren.org to improve the health of children through educational resources.

Yes, many doctors have apparently convinced themselves that by teaming up with Coke and whoever else comes around offering money, their professional organizations can actually exert a reforming influence on the industry. (Nothing was mentioned about whether these doctors also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy.)

Note: The illustration, by Jeff Carter, is called “Rotten Tooth Fairy.” It’s a reminder that childhood obesity is not the only aspect of health affected by the food industry. Ask a dentist some time, about sugar-sweetened beverages.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source:  “Critics pounce on Coke, Pepsi health initiatives,” Chicago Tribune, 02/04/12
Image by I’m Fantastic (Jeff Carter), used under its Creative Commons license.

Joe Rogan is a standup comic who also produces podcasts. In one of them, he talks about working in a nightclub where a very hefty young woman was in the audience, so he skipped over a “fat chick joke” that would otherwise have been part of his routine. He could have set the whole room laughing, but instead left out the bit and explained later:

… [R]eally obese people are so sensitive, because there are so many people staring at them all the time. It’s got to be so painful…

Rogan’s co-host, Brian Redban, added:

I would go home and eat.

As Childhood Obesity News has mentioned, there is much unintentional humor in the American Beverage Association‘s statement on the anniversary of “Let’s Move.” Check out this hilarious claim:

Childhood obesity is a complex issue, and we know that everyone has a role to play in reducing it — including government, industry, schools, the public health community and parents.

Just exactly how diligently has the industry performed its own role in reducing childhood obesity? Answers are in the new report from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, quartered at Yale University (with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). Some of the answers are, as the old saying goes, “so funny I forgot to laugh.”

Despite the industry’s solemn promises to curb its advertising to the young, teenagers in 2010 were exposed to many more television ads for energy drinks than they had been only two years earlier. The worst offender was — you know, it’s amazing how many childish jests come to mind when considering this topic — “Three guesses, and the first two don’t count.”

That’s right! To the surprise of no one, the worst offender in the area of egregious advertising was (drum roll, please…) Coca-Cola. The Dr. Pepper Snapple group is another baddie. On the positive side, PepsiCo has cleaned up its act, a little.

Apparently, there is no requirement to note the caffeine content of a sugar-sweetened beverage on its label, and consequently, many products contain unknown amounts of the stimulant. No wonder kids have attention deficit disorder. The American Academy of Pediatrics frowns very much on caffeinated “energy drinks,” stating that they have “no place in the diet of children and adolescents.”

Another area in which the beverage industry has not changed its evil ways is the concentration of advertising in places where it will reach black and Hispanic kids, who are already more at risk for obesity because of a number of factors.

Another funny thing is how the aforementioned American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can face up to itself in the mirror, when it’s accepting flowers and candy from the very industry that does so much damage to the health of children. The AAP is, after all, America’s most prestigious group of children’s doctors. What’s up with that?

Julie Deardorff of the Chicago Tribune explored that very question quite recently, beginning with the observation that many critics look at the AAP’s actions and see a “serious conflict of interest.” (Some even regard it as selling out, though they may be too polite to say so.)

The industry has deigned to give lip service to the principles of moderation, physical activity, and balance. Big whoop! With its unconscionable accumulated profits, the industry is buying the partnership of such professional associations as the AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians. This does not bode well for the health of the children.

Deardorff writes:

Proponents of such collaboration say addressing the complex problem of obesity requires the type of public-private partnership advocated by first lady Michelle Obama in her Let’s Move initiative. Rather than working separately, the argument goes, it’s better to use the food industry’s resources, such as its dramatic reach and persuasive marketing skills.

And how’s that workin’ out for ya, kids?

To be continued…

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “American Beverage Association Statement on ‘Let’s Move!’ Anniversary,” Ameribev.org, 02/09/12
Source: “Just give me the FACTS!,” SugaryDrinkFacts.com
Source: “Critics pounce on Coke, Pepsi health initiatives,” Chicago Tribune, 02/04/12
Image by Grace and Lily, used under its Creative Commons license.

Want to hear something funny? The American Beverage Association‘s statement is pretty darn hilarious. Issued on the anniversary of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” program, it contains the following gems of humor:

Two years ago today, we proudly stepped up to support the First Lady’s comprehensive approach with our Clear on Calories initiative — and we’re delivering on that commitment. By placing clear calorie labels on the front of every bottle, can and pack we produce, our industry is making it easier for parents and individuals to choose the beverage that’s right for them and their families. This effort, along with our industry providing more choices and fewer calories, will have a meaningful and lasting impact.

An SSB is not, as the initials seem to imply, a “social disease,” but it might as well be. An SSB is a sugar-sweetened beverage, containing either natural sugar or artificial sweetener, or both, and it may or may not be fizzy. It might call itself soda pop or fruit juice, or a sports drink, or an energy drink, but it’s all the same old grossly unhealthful swill in different-shaped bottles and cans with multi-colored labels. Yet the lobbyists have the nerve to claim:

America’s beverage companies are making it easier to choose the beverage that’s right for you — with more choices, smaller portions, fewer calories and clear calorie labels.

It’s all part of the plan. The multiplicity of products and the garishness of their packaging can just about stupify a person. While a beleaguered parent is busy reading labels and trying to figure out which is the not only the lesser of two evils, but the least of several hundred shelf-feet of labels, the kids are loading more highly suspicious items into the grocery cart.

Meanwhile, Yale University’s Rudd Center has issued a report that blows all the industry propaganda right out of the water. It shows how the nutritional claims on the packaging can mislead even the most conscientious parents.

The beverage-industrial complex promised to reduce its advertising of SSDs to children and teens. Well, guess what — now there is more advertising than ever! And it’s just as deceptive as ever. A lot of the stuff that’s sold as fruit juice or energy-boosting refreshment is just as full of sweetener as soda, if not more so.

It’s easy to convince oneself that children’s fruit drinks must be beneficial, but 40% of them contain artificial sweeteners, and some of those chemicals are not even required to be listed on the label!

Remember the nasty stuff called neotame that Childhood Obesity News wrote about a while back? It hasn’t gone away, and its menace has grown. Mike Barrett of Natural Society tells us the worst part:

Even if you wanted to avoid this sweetener, you may find it impossible to do so. Not only are there no labeling rules for Neotame, but it is even included in the USDA certified organic food.

To be continued…

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “American Beverage Association Statement on ‘Let’s Move!’ Anniversary,” Ameribev.org, 02/09/12
Source: “Just give me the FACTS!,” SugaryDrinkFacts.com
Source: “Toxic Artificial Sweetener ‘Neotame’ May Be Lurking in Your Organic Food,” NaturalSociety.com, 01/10/12
Image by 2493 (Gavin Bobo), used under its Creative Commons license.

Did we not, very, very recently, just get finished discussing Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s, and other winter celebrations, and their relationship to childhood obesity? Now here comes another holiday, and this one doesn’t even have any cranberries or turkey attached to it. Nope. Without an iota of shame, Valentine’s Day is all about the sugar. (In the picture, note the symbolic ominous dark shadows cast by the scrumptious treats.)

In Newton, MA, a school principal named Mark Nardelli got to thinking about this. School policy is against sharing food, and the institution tries to make every day a healthy eating day. Furthermore, in recent years, Valentine’s Day has really gotten out of hand.

Deirdre Fernandes, of The Globe in Boston, tells us that Nardelli asked parents to substitute the sweets with little gifts like pencils, stamps, bookmarks, or even “a nice note.” As of the day he was interviewed, no parent had yet complained. The reporter adds:

Horace Mann Elementary School parent and local blogger Emily Norton said she is thrilled with Nardelli’s attempt to start a new Valentine’s Day tradition. Norton said last year her children fought over sharing the candy once they got home and then she had to battle them to stop them from eating the sweets.

Fox News got in touch with Dr. Pretlow and asked for his take on this, and he replied:

I applaud the Newton school principal’s stand against Valentine’s Day candy. Our country absolutely has to implement such draconian measures if we are to curb the horrific childhood obesity epidemic. Emerging evidence is pointing to food addiction, involving highly pleasurable foods, as a significant cause of the childhood obesity epidemic.

Children eat junk food, such as Valentine’s Day treats, because it tastes good and is readily available. The problem is that the brain insidiously undergoes changes to keep the behavior going, until at some point the child may be unable to stop eating the junk food — an actual addiction. Obesity can be the result. Brain imaging studies are now showing this.

We conducted an online survey of overweight children coming to our website, asking, ‘Do you have a problem with mainly one food?’ 61% of 84 overweight kids responding indicate that they have a problem with mainly one food. We asked what food. Candy and chocolate topped their list.

For further study, Dr. Pretlow suggested the paper he has published last year, “Addiction to Highly Pleasurable Food as a Cause of the Childhood Obesity Epidemic: A Qualitative Internet Study” (PDF). For anyone who wants to not only know, but to do something, we suggest Dr. Pretlow’s presentation on the iPhone app he has developed, “W8 Loss 2 Go.” (It’s about a 3MB download; link is PDF.)

When The Huffington Post picked up the story of Horace Mann Elementary School’s effort to break new ground, on the childhood obesity front, Laura Hibbard also included an interesting anecdote:

Back in December, a Florida 10-year-old was arrested and charged with battery after allegedly attacking her teacher when the educator confiscated the student’s halloween candy.

Now, first of all, who still has Halloween candy in December? At any rate, the confiscation was not even permanent, but only until the end of the school day. But the girl freaked out, perhaps from eating too much sugar. The police report says she threw objects from the teacher’s desk, hit the teacher in the stomach and side, and threatened to kill the teacher and her family.

If candy brings on behavior like that, schools don’t need it.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Sugar-free Valentine’s Day at one Newton school,” Boston.com, 01/31/12
Source: “Valentine’s Day Candy Banned By Horace Mann School In Massachusetts,” The Huffington Post, 02/01/12
Image by WordRidden (Jessica Spengler), used under its Creative Commons license.

Way back in 2003, Dr. Neal D. Barnard wrote about the cheese industry’s awareness of its product’s addictive qualities. He said that strategies are carefully crafted by the marketing staff to lead “cheese cravers” into further involvement with their product. Barnard wrote:

At a ‘Cheese Forum’ held Dec. 5, 2000, Dick Cooper, the vice president of Cheese Marketing for Dairy Management Inc., laid out the industry’s scheme for identifying potential addicts and keeping them hooked. In his slide presentation, which was released to our organization under the Freedom of Information Act, he asked the question, ‘What do we want our marketing program to do?’ and then gave the answer: ‘Trigger the cheese craving.’

There was also much talk of special partnerships to create special promotions, like a single pizza with a pound of cheese on it.

In 2004, Starre Vartan wrote, “Eliminating cheese… was a daily torture,” and speculated on the question of whether cheese is a drug:

When I started seeing articles declaring that cheese could be addictive, it didn’t take much to convince me that I was a recovering cheese addict. Or was I? Was there something found naturally in cheese that is as habit-forming as the caffeine in coffee?

Yes, childhood obesity is related to fast food joints, and cheese shows up pretty frequently on those menus. We have talked about Leigh Peele, a trainer certified by the National Academy of Sports Medicine. She considered dairy products, and specifically a casomorphin known as BCM7, as possibly addictive substances. But, as we also mentioned:

Peele gives her sources and concludes that the main reason why BCM7 can’t be addictive is that it doesn’t survive its journey through the human digestive system long enough to retain any potentially addictive properties. In order to have any effect at all, it would have to be administered by injection.

That sounded an awful lot like a final word on a subject. But now Kristi Gustafson Barlette, a Times Union staff writer, is saying a whole lot of new and different things about cheese. Here’s a shocker: The reporter learned from dietician Beth Wasniski that some patients will give up chocolate before they will quit cheese. Chocolate! When a substance conquers chocolate as an object of desire, that substance needs to be taken seriously.

Wasniski said cheese is loaded with saturated fat, which is the worst kind, and also stated that:

… [C]heese poses a bigger dietary problem than other foods because people have a hard time gauging portion size.

For these reasons and others, a nonprofit group called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has caused two billboards to be put up next to highways. The one for men says, “Your Abs on Cheese,” and the women’s version says, “Your Thighs on Cheese,” and people have varying opinions about them. They have, in fact, been called insane.

But billboards are not the only expression of the group’s beliefs. Barlette tells us:

Studies have shown obese children often become obese adults. So, in an attempt to curb the weight gain early, Dr. Neal Barnard, president of PCRM, has pleaded with schools to minimize dairy products served in schools to help students reduce the risk of childhood obesity. This week, he sent a letter to Daniel Egan, president of the Albany city school board, criticizing popular, higher-fat lunch options such as pizza, cheeseburgers and lasagna.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “The Food Fix is In,” Orlando Sentinel, 07/13/03
Source: “Just like cheese? Avoiding ‘addiction’ with dairy-free alternatives,” FindArticles.com, 2004
Source: “Food Addiction: Just Say Cheese?,” Childhood Obesity News, 10/05/10
Source: “On naughty list, does cheese stand alone?,” Times Union, 01/18/12
Image of PCRM billboards is used under Fair Use: Reporting.

Childhood Obesity News has been talking about different ways that parents, teachers, and health care professionals have found of listening to kids and putting the information to useful work. A nonprofit group called ACTIVE Life attempts to fight obesity through social activism (link is PDF). The organization believes it has some answers, which the website Be Smart. Be Well. (BSBW) elicited from its executive director Baker Harrell in an interview.

He advises looking for opportunities to do things together as a family, and asking the kids for help in figuring out how to make nutritious eating habits a central part of life within the home. In fact, BSBW offers on one of its pages an entire list called “Childhood Obesity: Habits2Have.” Harrell says:

Young people in this generation seek out empowering experiences — experiences that allow their voice to be heard. For parents, what’s important is not talking down or telling a child to do something and instead becoming a collaborative partner with that young person. Let their voice be heard and let their perspective be heard and let their fears and desires be heard.

A while back, the ABC network show “Nightline” produced a segment called “Childhood Obesity: Two Kids’ Stories.” The first kid is Samantha, four years old, the biggest girl in her preschool class, weighing in at 54 pounds. Little Samantha is described by her mother, Lori Cohen, as a carbohydrate addict. That’s what Mom says. The child has a formidable appetite for bread, pasta, and all the usual white and sweet stuff. And chocolate. But she also appreciates meat and cheese as much as a soldier returning from a 15-mile hike, and is never shy about asking for a second helping.

Samantha’s mom signed her up for a six-month program with Dr. Joanna Dolgoff, a pediatrician whose specialty is managing children’s weight. The little girl’s body mass index (BMI) was characterized as “dangerously high.” She was definitely in the obese category, and at risk for medical illness as a consequence.

One of Dr. Dolgoff’s techniques is to divide all foods into three types. Green is go; it’s okay to eat however much of this food you want. Yellow means use caution, and red means stuff that’s bad for you, and you can only get it twice a week. Her program is called “Red Light, Green Light, Eat Right.” Dr. Dolgoff says:

Using that to relate to food just makes it easy for them. They get it… after a while, the kids learn sometimes they can have those unhealthy foods and sometimes they can’t.

Is this sustainable? Maybe not, because one of the things we know for sure about addiction is, an addict can’t have just a little bit of the addictive substance. Dr. Pretlow makes the comparison to an allergy. If you know peanut butter will send you to the hospital, you just don’t eat peanut butter, ever. Any time an addict flirts with just a little bit of whatever, it’s a recipe for backsliding and disaster.

Dr. Dolgoff feels that, the younger a child is caught and intervened with, the higher the likelihood for success. Samantha will probably make it. Over the six months, she lost three pounds and squeaked out of the obese category back into just plain overweight.

Another child on this show is Nick, eight years old, 117 pounds. He weighs more than his 13-year-old brother. His mother reports that he is “just hungry all the time.” Strangely, Nick is very active, but his calorie-burning can’t keep up with his intake. Reporters John Donvan and Melia Patria say that:

… his weight has already impaired his health. Nick had to have his tonsils removed because the thickness of his neck was causing sleep apnea.

Nick also went into a program where his progress was monitored and recorded by the network team. His was in Tennessee, in the pediatric weight management clinic of Dr. Greg Plemmons, who found that Nick’s BMI was over the 95th percentile, and he could be staring type 2 diabetes in the face. There was an intense consultation with Nick’s mom about how meals are usually cooked and served, or procured from outside sources like fast-food joints. Gatorade was identified as a major problem.

Unlike adults, where the goal of a program is to lose weight, we are told by the reporters:

The goal for overweight kids is to get them just to stay at one weight for a while, a weight their bodies can grow into until it becomes more normal for their height and age… If Nick could maintain his current weight over the next several months, while also growing taller, his BMI would drop and that would mean success.

But, alas, Nick gained five pounds and didn’t grow at all. Dr. Plemmons used this occasion to point out how difficult it is to accomplish the goal even when the family is supportive and the child is in a program. Dr. Plemmons, who has treated over 500 kids, says that by Nick’s age, there is only a 50-50 chance of reversal. And for Nick, even though he’s only eight, it might be too late.

Now, here is an important point made by Dr. Dolgoff, who is quoted as saying:

We don’t understand what a normal child looks like any more. Overweight has become the norm.

A dad looks around the neighborhood, the building, the mall, or the school, and sees hordes of other chubby kids, and his own little flabster fits right in. As long as there’s some kid around whose bulges are even more outrageous than her own kid’s, why should a mom worry? Apparently, unhealthily overweight children now appear normal to the eyes of many adults. This is indeed a bad sign.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “How do we stop childhood obesity? Ask your kids, expert says” (PDF), Be Smart. Be Well.
Source: “Childhood Obesity: Two Kids’ Stories,” ABC News, 05/17/10
Image by rx2web, used under its Creative Commons license.

Childhood Obesity News has been looking at the good things that can happen when grownups listen and pay attention to kids. In the Pacific Northwest, government agencies have joined with health workers in the tribal community to address the problem of preventing and treating childhood obesity. Over the past 10 years, type 2 diabetes has increased unacceptably, and, apparently, teenagers are the most affected. The leadership decided to make a high priority out of “upstream” interventions, going on the ever-more-obvious evidence that obesity starts before birth.

Kaiser Permanente and Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB) have been fighting childhood obesity on several fronts, through education, community programs, and research. Emily Schwartz gives examples:

… [O]ne tribe created and maintained a breast-feeding room at its tribal health clinic; another passed a resolution to stop buying sugar-sweetened beverages for tribally sponsored events.

A study done by NPAIHB and Kaiser resulted in both good news and bad news. Some of the bad news wasn’t really news, and came as no surprise — nearly half of all American Indian children are overweight. Included in this study were kids from three tribes in the states of Washington and Oregon, representing more than 200 families in all. For some of the participants, in-home visits to pregnant women were added to their already established program, in order to compare how the experimental groups prospered under the various types of treatment.

The author tells us:

The visits started in the third trimester of pregnancy and lasted until the babies were 2 years old. The intervention boosted breastfeeding rates, reduced consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and helped to slow excess weight gain.

The good news is that families can be persuaded to change their behavior to help prevent children from becoming overweight. But the rest of the bad news is, the trend has not yet been reversed or even brought into equilibrium, but only slowed down. Schwartz gives the hard information:

Body Mass Index — which is a measure of weight in relation to height — did increase for all of the children in the study, but the increase was significantly less in the tribes that received the community intervention and in-home visits. BMI scores increased by 30 percent in the tribe that received community intervention alone and by 8 percent in the tribes that received both interventions… One tribe received only community interventions and two tribes received the community intervention along with in-home visits and telephone calls from community health workers.

One thing complicates this type of study. Other research has shown that just the very act of participating in a study can make a difference to a person’s life. For instance, whether they are in an experimental group receiving actual medication or a placebo, or even in a control group that takes nothing, people can get better for subtle psychological reasons that are difficult to recognize or measure.

When subjects react to being part of an experiment, their behavior might stem from something as elementary as a naïve desire to please the scientists by giving the “right” answers. When it comes to a disease process as many-factored as obesity, a  subject can’t help being influenced in some metaphysical way, merely by being studied.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary puts it this way:

It is thought that the touching, the caring, the attention, and other interpersonal communication that is part of the controlled study process (or the therapeutic setting), along with the hopefulness and encouragement provided by the experimenter/healer, affect the mood, expectations, and beliefs of the subject, which in turn triggers physical changes such as release of endorphins, catecholamines, cortisol, or adrenaline. The process reduces stress by providing hope or reducing uncertainty about what treatment to take or what the outcome will be. The reduction in stress prevents or slows down further harmful physical changes from occurring.

The Washington Post has a special section called “KidsPost,” which asked its participants to send in their suggestions to a contest called “Solutions for Childhood Obesity.” They got over 300 entries, and here is a very brief, paraphrased summary:

Age:     Suggestion:
11           Let kids cook, and teach healthful cooking in schools.
10          Make exercise fun by doing circus-style activities such as   juggling.
11           Convince supermarkets to put tempting junk food high up on shelves.
4            Start a garden.
7            Parents and schools, set things up so kids have to eat vegetables and fruits first.
10          Ride a unicycle, which develops muscles, balance, confidence, agility, and provides cardiovascular stimulation, as well as burning 196 calories an hour.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Community Interventions And In-home Visits May Slow Excess Weight Gain In American Indian Children,” Medical News Today, 06/03/10
Source: “placebo effect,” The Skeptic’s Dictionary
Source: “Kids’ solutions to childhood obesity,” The Washington Post, 03/21/11
Image by Jeremy McWilliams, used under its Creative Commons license.