Home | Childhood Obesity News

Some Doctors Are Prescribing GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs to Children Under 12

Tatyana Meshcheryakova July 1, 2026 No Comments

How young is too young for GLP-1 meds? The use of GLP-1 weight-loss medications in children continues to expand, but a growing number of physicians are raising questions about whether these drugs should be prescribed to children younger than 12 years old.

Although medications such as Wegovy (semaglutide) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating obesity in adolescents ages 12 and older, some physicians are prescribing them off-label to younger children with severe obesity. The practice reflects the difficult choices doctors face as childhood obesity rates rise and obesity-related health complications appear at increasingly younger ages.

At the same time, many pediatric specialists caution that there is still too little research to understand the long-term effects of these medications on young children’s growth and development.

As has been established, GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Wegovy, help regulate appetite by slowing stomach emptying and increasing feelings of fullness, often leading to significant weight loss. For children under 12, however, these medications have not been approved by the FDA for obesity treatment. Physicians who prescribe them are doing so off-label, which is a legal and common medical practice in some circumstances when a doctor believes the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, some pediatric obesity specialists say they are seeing severe obesity-related complications in children at increasingly younger ages. Conditions that were once considered adult diseases, including high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar, and fatty liver disease, are now appearing in children as young as four years old. Four! Just think about that.

Doctors who support earlier use of GLP-1 medications argue that traditional interventions often do not produce enough weight loss for children with severe obesity. While intensive nutrition counseling, physical activity programs, and behavioral therapy remain the foundation of treatment, many children continue to struggle despite these efforts. For some families, physicians believe medication may offer another tool to reduce health risks before permanent complications develop.

Despite the potential benefits, many experts urge caution. One of the biggest concerns is the lack of long-term research involving younger children. Scientists still do not fully understand how years of GLP-1 treatment might affect a child’s bone growth, brain development, nutritional status, and future weight regulation after stopping medication.

Because children are still growing physically and neurologically, specialists say more evidence is needed before these medications can be widely recommended for elementary school-aged patients. Some physicians also worry about whether children who stop taking the medications could rapidly regain weight, potentially creating additional health challenges later in life.

Current recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) continue to emphasize intensive, family-based behavioral treatment as the first-line approach for childhood obesity. The AAP recommends intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment for children six years and older with obesity.

Another recommendation is to consider weight-loss medications beginning at age 12, when appropriate, as an addition to lifestyle treatment. The organization does not currently recommend routine use of anti-obesity medications in children younger than 12 because there is insufficient evidence regarding safety and effectiveness in this age group.

Dr. Sarah Hampl, who chaired the development of the AAP’s obesity treatment guideline, has stated that more research is needed before these medications can be safely recommended for younger children. Although these medications are not yet approved for younger children, research continues.

Drug manufacturers, including Novo Nordisk, are conducting clinical trials evaluating medications such as Wegovy and Saxenda in children as young as six years old. These studies aim to determine whether the medications are both safe and effective in younger pediatric populations. The results could eventually influence future FDA approvals and pediatric treatment guidelines.

The debate highlights the difficult decisions physicians and families face when treating severe childhood obesity. On one hand, delaying effective treatment may allow obesity-related diseases to progress during critical developmental years. On the other hand, introducing medications before long-term safety is fully understood raises legitimate concerns about children’s growth, development, and lifelong health.

For now, experts generally agree that healthy nutrition, increased physical activity, behavioral support, and family involvement remain the cornerstone of pediatric obesity care. Whether GLP-1 medications will become a standard treatment for children under 12 will likely depend on the results of ongoing clinical research.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Wegovy and other GLP-1s are reaching kids,” NewsNation, 6/28/26
Source: “When Diets Don’t Work: Parents Turn to Wegovy for Elementary School Kids,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/22/26
Source: “Efficacy and Safety of GLP-1 RAs in Children and Adolescents With Obesity or Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” NIH.gov, 12/1/25
Image by Atlantic Ambience/Pexels

Psychological Roots of Shame and Blame

Pat Hartman June 30, 2026 No Comments

To have a large body used to mean something. If you were a man, it implied that you possessed the power to take what you wanted. If you were a woman, it meant that your father or husband could afford to not only basically nourish, but to indulge you.

On the human scale of such matters, in the depths of the preverbal mind, there is a lot more justification for overweight people to look scornfully at normal-weight people than vice versa. It’s just so glaringly obvious (in the absence of actual logic, of course) that the overfed specimen is superior to the less bulky kind.

But with modern, logical knowledge, there is no valid reason to be proud of fat. The urge to brag about the size of the belly has been displaced. So, instead of showing off the obvious result of privileged eating — the expanded waistline — it is now necessary instead to show off how you got that way. The primitive urge to be admired for our sheer poundage is displaced by the urge to be admired for where, how, and what we eat.

Obsession leads to… more obsession

Currently, to be observed dining in an absurdly expensive restaurant is something that insecure people do in the hope that they will consequently feel better about themselves. To engineer a situation where both your financial peers and the less privileged commoners watch you eat overpriced food becomes the most significant event of the day.

Meanwhile, within someone with a differently attuned conscience, lives the awareness that impoverished people are more likely to be obese because of gnarly food additives, low availability of healthful fresh foods, unaffordable medical care, fewer opportunities to enjoy safe outdoor exercise or to afford home gym equipment, and other factors.

If a conscientious critic has a choice between mentally persecuting the wealthy obese or the poor obese, resentment toward the overfed will be much easier to justify and reconcile with a finely-tuned sense of basic morality.

Historical echoes

Whether intellectually defensible or not, the attitude itself is basically instinctive. To look at an overweight person is to trigger a very deep concept that the mind does not even need to translate into words, but to which it automatically leaps: If that person has access to enough food to fatten them up like that, it must be because they intentionally, knowingly, and wrongly deprived someone else.

That assumption, arrived at by the subconscious mind of a well-to-do person, might be right or wrong. They might be recognizing a fellow piratical spirit, but they also might be totally off the mark. Likewise, a penniless individual could also be either sadly correct, or unfairly 180 degrees wrong, about the stout person.

Or, at the sight of an individual who looks pretty darn good, the onlooker might assume that he or she goes to great lengths to keep that body in presentable shape — and might be correct. Or, it could simply be the case that the fine-looking object of their gaze was lucky enough to inherit incredible genes.

A pitiful waste of mental energy

The point here is, for multiple reasons it would be much more sane and healthy for us to not think about other people’s bodies at all. First, because our subconscious minds are capable of reaching erroneous conclusions all day long, and second, because we are totally able to believe bounteous amounts of nonsense without even being aware of this flaw.

But mainly, regarding the condition another person is in, all that mental energy is simply wasted because our theories and opinions will not affect that shape at all. And how does this relate to the psychology of blame and shame?

Suppose that someone gives up the chance to run a lucrative family business in order to rescue cats that might otherwise be “put to sleep.” In the public eye, this person might be considered saintly, and spoken of in complimentary terms, and admired for the strength of his or her convictions, and for his or her refusal to bend before public opinion.

Now, suppose that a different person could have captured a top-level position in a powerful company — but sadly, during the immediate post-graduate year of corporate ladder-climbing, she gained 80 pounds. She could have prevented that from happening — but did not. She ignored public opinion, refused to bend to any sort of pressure, and just got fat, and lost the chance to climb the corporate ladder. Strangely enough, to resist the reasons and rules of others — in that situation — is not admired one little bit.

Our minds versus reality

It is totally possible that additional studies could discover other factors that affect and are affected by the relationship between obesity and income. Many other interesting truths might be discovered, too. But the bottom line is, why bother? Unless we happen to be a person working toward an advanced degree in a specialized academic field, there is really no reason at all for us to expend mental energy on these matters.

Few things in life are more futile than wasting even a moment’s thought on the shape that anyone is in, other than 1. ourselves and 2. the minor children for whose health we are legally and morally responsible. To grasp this principle is to free up countless brain cells for more productive and satisfying use.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Income and obesity: what is the direction of the relationship?,” BMJ.com, January 2018
Image by joenomias/Pixabay

A Trap to Vigorously Avoid

Pat Hartman June 25, 2026 No Comments

Seen on a neighbor’s wall, a poster stating, “What happens at Grandma’s house never happened.” Numerous possibilities present themselves. And if one word was changed — for instance, “What happened at Grandpa’s house never happened” — the imagination could go dark, but that is not our topic. The problem here, though not subject to legal prosecution, is nevertheless responsible for plenty of damage.

In the sort of ongoing warfare that can all too often occur in the home, a favored tactic is abuse based on personal characteristics, of which obesity is a temptingly obvious weapon — and a versatile one. If the parent is lucky enough to be of normal weight, a child can be emotionally abused for being obese.

Conversely, if the parent is obese, resentment can be directed toward a child who seems to have escaped that fate. The versatility is extended by the possibility of any generation pointing the weapon at either the elders or the youngsters.

In assessing whether a child might need some sort of therapy, it behooves a parent to consider whether he/she himself/herself might also benefit from therapy. After all, how did the kid get so messed up in the first place? Common sense says to look at the mother and/or the father, and if you happen to be either of those, go ahead and draw the obvious conclusion. It’s just possible that you could benefit from some inner work, too.

Relentless persistence

Otherwise, without psychological and emotional help, when the same resentful people become grandparents, the sick drama persists through another generation, to potentially be handed on to yet another generation after that, and so on, ad infinitum.

One thing we are talking about here is the everlasting variety of stuff that grandparents have been known to do, out of some obscure sense of ancient leftover spite that was churned up during the daughter’s or the son’s childhood, with residual bad feeling that winds up being inflicted on an innocent child.

Regarding the illustration at the top of the page, please refer to the traditional tale, “Little Red Riding Hood,” in which an alleged grandma is actually a vicious predator in disguise. Nobody wants that, yet some of us have experienced the phenomenon firsthand, as either victim, perpetrator, or both. Yes, this is the sort of dynamic that tends to repeat itself in families, tainting the emotional lives of one generation after another.

Alluring possibilities

Folks really need to look at the family dynamics that they have managed to ignore or tolerate. But when it comes to the kids, look out. On hearing the happy news that a daughter or daughter-in-law is expecting, something regrettable can happen in the brains of even the nicest women.

All bets are off, and specialized weapons have been lying in metaphorical closets for years, gathering dust, but ready to be spiffed up and called into use — start the countdown — four months from now… two months from now… The kid pops out, and soon, the mom and the grandma will need to navigate a whole new dynamic between them, and no matter what the relationship has previously been, there will be some surprises.

Neither party might even be conscious of the sense that there are scores to be settled. But that’s the tricky thing about feelings. They rarely rise to the level of consciousness. In the most outwardly cordial relationship between relatives, just below the surface might be an emotional jungle full of ravening beasts.

Beware of the urge to settle old scores

Buying too many gifts, exposing kids to radical ideas or alternate religious viewpoints, letting them stay up too late, allowing them to view inappropriate or undesirable TV programming, feeding them bowls of icing, taking them to unhealthy environments… There are a thousand ways to punish daughters and sons for past offenses by trifling with the rules and standards those offspring have drawn up for their own children. For a member of the older generation to declare, “That kid needs boundaries,” or to go in the opposite direction, “She’s not fat, just cuddly,” are both bad if motivated by ancient scripts that have been lurking around, just waiting for a chance to jump into the picture.

There are many ways to allegedly spoil a child — some of them more damaging than others. What is being suggested here is for each adult, whether parent, grandparent, step-parent, or babysitter, to carefully examine their own motives and self-deceptions about what the heck is actually going on.

“What do you call yourself doing?” is a countrified way to say, “What do you think you’re doing?” and in either form, or expressed in any other way, it is a valid question that people really do not ask themselves often enough.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Image by Grafixxkoeln/Pexels

Chile’s Food Policies Linked to Lower Childhood Obesity Rates

Tatyana Meshcheryakova June 24, 2026 No Comments

Over the years, our head writer, Pat Hartman, has tirelessly covered how advertising to children, along with questionable food additives designed to appeal to kids’ palates, can lead to increased obesity rates. Here’s just one of the many snippets:

Weird stuff inside the food, and enticing, persuasive words about the food: Both in their own distinctive ways are responsible for the overwhelming wave of obesity that has engulfed society…

When it comes to pouring enormous amounts of money into the economy, visual and auditory stimuli both play their parts. Every little purchase of a convenience-store doughnut, glimpsed by someone who just went in there to pay for gas, performs its role in the overall ascendency of food.

Now, a major new study suggests that comprehensive food policies designed to limit children’s exposure to unhealthy foods may help reduce childhood obesity.

Researchers found that Chile’s nationwide strategy, which combines front-of-package (FOP) warning labels, restrictions on food marketing, and regulations governing foods sold in schools, was associated with measurable declines in excess weight among young children. Published in The Lancet, the observational study provides some of the strongest evidence to date that a coordinated policy approach can positively influence children’s health population-wide.

Apparently, Chile has long struggled with high rates of childhood overweight and obesity. In response, the country implemented the Food Labelling and Advertising Law (FLAL) in 2016, a sweeping set of regulations often described as one of the world’s most ambitious food policy initiatives.

The law introduced highly visible front-of-package warning labels on foods and beverages high in sugar, sodium, saturated fat, or calories. It also restricted the marketing of these products to children and prohibited their sale in schools. How impressive is that?

Researchers examined data from more than 321,000 children enrolled in prekindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade between 2012 and 2017. Their analysis found that children exposed to the policy had a lower likelihood of developing excess weight.

Among children between six and 18 months of age, exposure to the regulations was associated with approximately a 2% reduction in the probability of excess weight. While that number may appear modest, researchers note that even small improvements during early childhood can produce meaningful health benefits later in life.

According to the study’s authors, the greatest strength of Chile’s approach lies in the way multiple policies reinforce one another.

Dr. Guillermo Paraje, professor of Economics at the Adolfo Ibáñez University Business School and the study’s lead author, believes countries considering similar measures should avoid relying on a single intervention. He said:

This is because integrated policies usually work better than single ones… It makes no sense to have a good FOP labels system and to allow food companies to target children with their advertisements, giving them toys with their products or luring them with cartoons.

The study found that children who experienced the first phase of the FLAL demonstrated meaningful reductions in overweight risk. The strongest effects were observed among children exposed during kindergarten and first grade. Girls experienced a 2.85% lower probability of excess weight, while boys saw a 2.4% reduction.

Even children with shorter periods of exposure benefited. Girls who were exposed for only six months or during first grade alone had a 1.91% lower probability of excess weight, while boys showed a 2.24% reduction. (Researchers used data from Chile’s Nutritional Map and Vulnerability Survey to evaluate the law’s impact.)

Despite growing evidence supporting food labeling and marketing restrictions, implementation efforts often face opposition from industry groups. One common argument is that stricter regulations could negatively affect employment or economic growth. Dr. Paraje says the available evidence does not support those concerns:

Quite often, industry claims that these policies affect employment. But these claims are unfounded… There are studies published for Chile, Peru, and Mexico showing that, after labeling policies, there were no changes in employment or wages attributable to them.

Dr. Paraje also pointed to recent debates in Argentina, where efforts have emerged to repeal front-of-package labeling regulations adopted in 2022. Critics of repeal efforts argue that the labels have already helped consumers identify less healthy products and make more informed purchasing decisions.

As childhood obesity continues to rise globally, Chile’s experience may provide a useful roadmap for policymakers looking to create healthier food environments and improve children’s long-term health outcomes.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “The impact of Chile’s multipronged food labelling and advertising law on early childhood excess weight: a cohort difference-in-differences study,” The Lancet, 6/11/26
Source: “From Chile to the world: Food policy package linked to lower childhood obesity risk,” Nutrition Insight, 6/19/26
Source: “Combined Food Policies, Including Labeling and Advertising Bans, Plausibly Reduce Childhood Obesity,” Pharmacy Times, 6/17/26
Image by Marcia Salido/Pexels

The B-word and the S-word

Pat Hartman June 23, 2026 No Comments

Blaming and shaming take many forms and have many faces. Back when Twitter existed, plenty of pseudonymous Americans exercised their right of free speech by stating that, because most pandemic fatalities occurred among folks with pre-existing medical conditions, the rest of us need not worry about dying of COVID.

Often, obesity was named as a liability, as well as other conditions associated with obesity. In many cases, it seemed that the opinionated citizens really wanted to say, “If they died from a little virus that a lot of people don’t even catch, it’s their own darn fault for being fat.”

“Othering” people, or presenting alleged evidence that sickness and death are the others’ own fault, apparently helps some folks nurture the fiction that they themselves could never possibly become a pandemic statistic.

A writer went so far as to proclaim that, in 90% of COVID fatalities, the actual cause of death was “selfish lifestyle choices,” which would, of course, include the choice to be overweight. Others retaliated by accusing the blamers of kidding themselves about that, just to preserve the comfortable fiction that it could never happen to them.

Righteous rhetoric is not universal

Of course, there are always other voices to offer other views. One example is an article titled “Harms of Framing Obesity as a Disease of Individuals,” which appeared last month in JAMA Health Forum:

[T]he currently dominant “obesity is a disease requiring individual treatment” framing undermines public and political support for tackling the epidemic’s root causes. First, we contend that the media-saturated debate centering medical treatments such as expensive glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reinforces food, pharmaceutical, and wellness industry communication strategies emphasizing obesity as a problem requiring medical treatment, rather than prevention.

The authors said a mouthful, all right! But there is more:

Second, this framing focuses on individuals rather than the food environments individuals find themselves in, which are shaped by government-set laws and financial incentives for the food industry.

And, they offer a solution: Follow the example of the war on smoking, which has achieved at least partial success by simply pricing a lot of would-be tobacco fiends right out of the market. A skeptic could retort that we would then face the ludicrous sight of cars with tinted windows pulling up next to schools to peddle candy and cupcakes to innocent children.

But as it has done in so many similar cases, the government could probably arrange to discourage any sugar black market. Before our readers go on to read that very interesting article, let us contemplate just one more quotation from it:

Narratives describing an identified individual’s struggle with obesity […] generate less support for obesity prevention policies than depersonalized narratives” and “personalized stories make people less likely to […] support governmental actions.

Among the small percentage of adult Americans who could be considered healthy, a devout belief in the virtues of diet and exercise apparently helped to allay their fears. Of course, some of the same zealots had previously devoted their energy to dissing First Lady Michelle Obama, who did her best to encourage everyone to be as healthy as possible. Some critics are just never satisfied.

And, of course, there exists the possibility that both public and private action can coexist and support each other!

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Harms of Framing Obesity as a Disease of Individuals,” JAMA Health Forum, 05/01/26
Image by truthseeker08/Pixabay

Adults, It’s On Us

Pat Hartman June 18, 2026 No Comments

As this blog has suggested before, there is a difference between feeling generous concern for the health of an obese person and being an ill-intentioned busybody.

As much as we wish that a certain relative would lose a few dozen pounds, this does not necessarily have to be said out loud — not to that person, or to third parties, or even to ourselves. Maybe our need to criticize people should be quashed as vigorously as their need to consume cheese crackers. It is incumbent upon us as grown-ups to restrain our own worst impulses.

Also, where children are concerned, adults really ought to acknowledge our own culpability in the whole childhood obesity quandary. Let’s face it. If a bunch of children were left alone in an island society free of grown-up mistakes, where there was just enough to eat, they wouldn’t get fat. If the opportunity to gobble down a bunch of junk did not exist, it simply would not happen. To be blunt, without the participation of grown-ups, children would not have the means or the opportunity to gain inappropriate amounts of weight.

What could help?

It’s a safe bet that every last person who ever expressed an opinion about someone else’s body has something less than perfect about their own body. In life, some things are just guaran-dang-teed, and one of them is that nobody is perfect. Couldn’t we just hush up about it and move on? Unless, of course, we are health professionals, but that is a topic for another day.

In society at large, would it help to more seriously study people who have somehow turned their lives around? How does a decision like that get made, anyway? What or who helped the person change their life? What were the aims and ambitions behind it? What finally changed their lives, and can we gain from that knowledge a sense of what might help children not be obese?

Story time

An anonymous reader tells about a childhood that included frequent visits to her maternal grandmother’s house, where she was allowed to make “icing,” otherwise known as a bowl of powdery confectioners’ sugar, moistened with water and consumed with a spoon. She writes:

One time when Mom came to pick me up, the bowl and the spoon were still in the kitchen sink, and the sugar hit the fan. Me turning into a pimply pile of blubber wasn’t even the issue. It was that Grandma had the nerve to make a decision like that. Mom did a lot of messed-up things, but she was the mom. At the time I was pretty upset, especially because Grandma didn’t stop feeding me that mess. So in addition to scarfing down liquified sugar, I was lying too. Eventually Mom found a neighbor close to home, and didn’t ask Grandma to babysit me any more.

Then she added,

Who knows, maybe that’s what Grandma was aiming for all along. I mean, it wasn’t a hundred years ago. Surely, tin cans were invented. She could have kept some canned peaches or something on hand instead, and fed me that. Just to show some pretense of awareness. Even if it had the same amount of calories as a bowl of sugar, it would have avoided trouble.

Peeks into other lives

In childhood, visiting a friend’s home can be an unsettling experience. Many of us grew up marveling at the items other kids sometimes brought to school in their lunchboxes, and all of a sudden, there we were, right in the heart of weirdness. It probably smelled funny, and you never knew what you would find.

Maybe anybody was allowed to raid the refrigerator at any time. Or maybe there was a locked cabinet above it. Did the big sister have an eating problem so serious that the parents had to keep her out of the cupcake stash? Or is that just where they stored the schnapps?

This should go without saying, but it would really behoove us, as grown-ups, to zip our lips and refrain from disparaging anyone — old or young, fat or thin, etc. It 99% won’t help, and might hurt. There isn’t a chance in Hades that any good will be done, any improvement attempted, or anybody going to sleep happier than they woke up.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Image by cagdesign/Pixabay

Medicare Opens the Door to GLP-1 Weight-Loss Medications

Tatyana Meshcheryakova June 17, 2026 No Comments

Beginning July 1, 2026, millions of Medicare beneficiaries living with obesity will gain access to GLP-1 weight-loss medications through a new federal program, marking a significant change in how obesity treatment is covered for older Americans. This is a major step to provide access to weight-loss meds for those who cannot afford them. We can only hope that Medicaid will do the same eventually for all ages, including children.

The initiative, known as the “Medicare GLP-1 Bridge,” was announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in May 2026. The temporary program will allow eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries to obtain certain obesity medications, including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), for a fixed monthly cost of $50 through the end of 2027. For many patients, the program represents a long-awaited opportunity to access medications that were previously out of reach due to Medicare coverage restrictions.

Why this change matters

Although obesity affects millions of older adults, Medicare has historically been prohibited from covering medications prescribed solely for weight loss. Since the creation of Medicare Part D in 2006, federal law has excluded weight-loss drugs from routine prescription coverage, leaving many beneficiaries responsible for paying thousands of dollars out of pocket each year.

The Medicare GLP-1 Bridge is designed as a temporary demonstration program that operates outside of traditional Part D coverage rules. CMS will use the initiative to evaluate the effects of expanding access to obesity medications while lawmakers consider longer-term policy solutions. The launch marks the first time Medicare beneficiaries whose primary diagnosis is obesity will have a dedicated pathway to receive these medications at a significantly reduced cost.

Which medications are included?

CMS has indicated that the program will cover the obesity-specific versions of two widely used GLP-1 medications: Wegovy (semaglutide) and Zepbound (tirzepatide). Both drugs are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for chronic weight management and have demonstrated substantial weight-loss benefits in clinical trials.

Eligible participants will pay a flat $50 monthly copayment regardless of where they are in their Part D benefit cycle. However, unlike standard Part D prescriptions, these payments will not count toward Medicare’s annual out-of-pocket spending cap. CMS structured the program this way to help manage costs while testing broader access to obesity treatment.

Who may qualify?

The Bridge program is intended specifically for Medicare beneficiaries whose only reason for taking a GLP-1 medication is obesity treatment. Those who already receive GLP-1 medications through Medicare for other approved conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular risk reduction, or obstructive sleep apnea, will continue obtaining their medications through their existing Part D coverage rather than through the new demonstration program.

CMS is expected to provide additional details about eligibility requirements before the program launches. Those details may include body mass index (BMI) criteria, documentation requirements, and any prior authorization procedures that participating plans may require. Beneficiaries should watch for information from their Medicare Part D plans in the coming weeks and discuss potential eligibility with their healthcare providers.

A broader expansion of GLP-1 access

The Medicare GLP-1 Bridge is just one of several developments reshaping access to obesity medications in 2026. Another CMS initiative, the BALANCE (Better Approaches to Lifestyle and Nutrition for Comprehensive hEalth) Model, allows state Medicaid programs to voluntarily expand coverage for GLP-1 medications used to treat obesity. The program began accepting participating states in May 2026 and is intended to make obesity treatment more affordable for lower-income Americans.

At the same time, efforts to reduce out-of-pocket costs in the commercial market are also underway. Pricing agreements announced in late 2025 are expected to lower costs for cash-paying consumers purchasing GLP-1 medications outside of insurance coverage. Industry observers also anticipate the arrival of oral GLP-1 medications currently in late-stage development, which could further expand access and affordability in the coming years.

Cost remains a major challenge

Despite growing availability, affordability continues to be one of the biggest barriers to obesity treatment. Surveys consistently show that many patients struggle to pay for GLP-1 medications, especially when insurance coverage is unavailable or limited. Even with recent price reductions, monthly costs remain prohibitive for some individuals.

The Medicare GLP-1 Bridge addresses part of that challenge by offering eligible beneficiaries access to leading obesity medications for a predictable $50 monthly payment. While the program is temporary and does not solve all coverage issues, it represents a meaningful step toward making evidence-based obesity treatment more accessible.

Being cautiously optimistic

The launch of the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge on July 1 could serve as an important test case for future Medicare coverage of obesity medications. If the program demonstrates positive health outcomes and manageable costs, it may influence future policy decisions regarding permanent coverage options for a broader range of the population.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Medicare Is About to Cover Weight-Loss Drugs for the First Time — Here’s What the GLP-1 Bridge Program Means for Millions of Americans with Obesity,” Medical Daily, 6/10/26
Source: “Coming Soon: CMS to Provide $50 Monthly Access to GLP-1 Medications for Medicare Beneficiaries,” CMS.gov, 5/6/26
Source: “What to Know About the BALANCE Model for GLP-1s in Medicare and Medicaid and the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge,” KFF.org, 5/11/26
Image by MART PRODUCTION/Pexels

Nice Try, Obesogenic Chemicals

Pat Hartman June 16, 2026 No Comments

As the old saying goes, “No news is good news.” It is a joking-but-not-really expression. If nobody came rushing up to you today saying, “Did you hear about… (some horrible thing),” then today was a good day. Since yesterday, no disaster has happened, and to be aware of that is, in its way, “good news.”

But lately, the expression “No news is good news” has taken on a whole different meaning. It’s pretty much all bad news. None of it could be classified as good. At least that’s how it looks on some days, doesn’t it?

Just to illustrate the point, here is a very recent headline, along with its subtitle:

“Dangerous hormone-disrupting chemicals found in US breast milk samples”
Study of mothers in Seattle underscores ‘widespread, systemic problem’ of chemical contamination, experts say

The journalist is Tom Perkins, who goes on to clarify: “Breast milk samples from mothers in Seattle contain alarming levels of dangerous hormone-disrupting chemicals.” Amongst those substances are BPA, BPS, and melamine, all of which perform the useful service of allowing food products to slide unhindered from their packaging materials.

BPA is associated with obesity, and so is BPS. Between them, they have a lot to do with an estimated 100 million (probably a lot more) cases of obesity worldwide. Apparently, the detection of melamine in breast milk is a fairly recent occurrence, but never fear, it is unlikely to disappear. In fact, Perkins reports, “Congress is considering gutting the nation’s laws around toxic chemicals.”

Further information is added by Ryan Babadi, senior scientist at a nonprofit called Toxic Free Future and a lead author of the pertinent study. He also affirms that this gunk being found in mothers’ milk represents a “widespread, systemic problem” for which we need “stronger protections […] not rollbacks.” His work explains what nobody in a civilized world should have to explain; namely, why and how the stuff makes its way into the mouths of infants “who are undergoing rapid stages of development that are orchestrated by the endocrine system.”

It’s not brand new

Previous studies have found endocrine disruptors, like, for instance, flame retardants, in mothers’ milk, which indicates trouble not only for those mothers and their children, but for the entire societal structure of “adults, workers, and communities.” This currently discussed study is one of the recent ones in which melamine is showing up for the first time.

Out of 50 specimens of mothers’ milk tested in this study, about 92% of them contained one or more of the substances the technicians were looking for, which are known to be “harmful at very low levels of exposure” — especially to a fetus, a possibility that should not even be conceivable outside the script of a horror movie. The news is all bad, because…

The chemicals have been found in epidemiological studies to have a wide range of developmental and reproductive harms.

How could those mothers let this happen? What were they thinking? And yet, we are assured that many of the study participants were intelligent, educated women, some of them even able to afford the highest quality groceries. In their defense, Babadi notes that the harmful chemicals are so universally present in edible products that the very concept of trying to avoid them is a joke. Consumers can’t just “shop their way out of this.”

The study also found cyanuric acid and triclosan, but they are old news at this point. Along with the breastfeeding hazard, these substances and others equally bizarre are found in commercially available baby formulas.

The Perkins piece leaves us with a thought that, after all this, is not actually very inspiring:

Babadi emphasized that breastfeeding remains the healthiest choice for infants when possible, because it is the most nutritious and generally the safest option.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Dangerous hormone-disrupting chemicals found in US breast milk samples,” TheGuardian.com, 06/14/26
Source: “BPA Exposure Linked to 127 Million Global Metabolic Disease Cases,” AJMC.com, 11/20/25
Image by K3IST/Pixabay

Fathers Play a Big Role in Childhood Obesity Risk

Tatyana Meshcheryakova June 12, 2026 No Comments

When discussing childhood obesity, most conversations focus on mothers’ health during pregnancy and early childhood. However, emerging research suggests that fathers may have a significant influence on a child’s future weight and metabolic health long before conception even occurs.

A recent review published in Current Obesity Reports highlights the growing evidence that fathers contribute to obesity risk across generations through biological, behavioral, and environmental factors. The findings suggest that efforts to prevent childhood obesity may be more effective when both parents, not just mothers, are included in research, education, and intervention programs.

Research has consistently shown that children are more likely to develop obesity if one or both parents are affected. The risk becomes even greater when both parents have obesity. While genetics play a role, scientists now recognize that obesity is influenced by a complex combination of inherited traits, lifestyle habits, family behaviors, and environmental factors.

How do fathers influence health before conception?

Traditionally, scientists have focused on how maternal health affects a developing baby. The concept known as the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) emphasizes that conditions around conception and pregnancy can shape a child’s lifelong health.

More recently, researchers have expanded this framework to include fathers through the Paternal Origins of Health and Disease (POHaD) model. This approach recognizes that a father’s health before conception may also affect a child’s future risk of obesity and metabolic disease.

According to the review, paternal obesity can influence offspring health through changes in sperm quality and function. Excess body weight in men has been linked to lower sperm concentration, reduced sperm movement, and increased DNA damage within sperm cells. These changes are thought to result from obesity-related disruptions in hormone regulation, inflammation, and metabolic function.

Researchers estimate that men with obesity face a 30% to 66% greater risk of infertility compared to men of healthier weight. Obesity has also been associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss that cannot be explained by maternal factors alone.

Epigenetics may help explain the connection

Beyond genetics, researchers are investigating how epigenetic changes may influence obesity risk across generations. Epigenetics refers to modifications that affect how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Obesity has been linked to changes in the epigenetic markers, and some of these alterations may be passed to future offspring.

Scientists believe these changes could affect biological pathways involved in appetite control, insulin function, and fat storage. Animal studies have shown that fathers consuming high-fat diets can pass obesity-related metabolic changes to their offspring.

While researchers are still working to fully understand these mechanisms in humans, one encouraging finding is that some obesity-related epigenetic changes appear to be reversible. Improvements in diet, exercise, and overall health before conception may help reduce potential risks.

Fathers also shape family health habits

A father’s influence extends well beyond biology. Research shows that fatherhood often brings changes in weight and lifestyle habits, and poor dietary habits may negatively affect reproductive health.

After a child is born, fathers continue to influence obesity risk through everyday behaviors and parenting practices. Children frequently model the habits they observe at home. Fathers who prioritize nutritious meals, regular exercise, and active lifestyles can help establish healthy routines for their children. Likewise, fathers who spend more time being sedentary or consuming unhealthy foods may unintentionally reinforce similar behaviors.

Environment and neighborhood matter too

The review emphasizes that obesity risk is not solely determined by individual choices. Social and environmental factors can strongly influence health outcomes for both fathers and children.

Income, education, neighborhood conditions, and food access all affect obesity risk. Families living in areas with limited access to affordable, nutritious foods may rely more heavily on calorie-dense processed foods. Food insecurity has been linked to higher obesity rates in both adults and children.

Access to safe parks, playgrounds, and recreational spaces can also influence physical activity levels. When opportunities for exercise are limited, sedentary behavior often increases.

… As does mental health

The review notes that fathers experiencing depression may be less likely to engage in positive parenting behaviors or prioritize preventive healthcare for themselves and their families. This can affect household routines related to nutrition, sleep, and physical activity.

Children who grow up in homes where a parent struggles with depression may also face a greater risk of adverse childhood experiences, which have been associated with long-term health challenges, including obesity.

Finally, the findings suggest that childhood obesity prevention should begin earlier than many people realize and should involve fathers from the start. This means including fathers in preconception counseling, pregnancy education programs, and family-based obesity prevention efforts.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Fathers shape childhood obesity risk long before birth,” News-Medical.net, 6/9/26
Source: “The Role of Fathers in the Intergenerational Transmission of Obesity,” Current Obesity Reports, 5/26/26
Image by Towfiqu barbhuiya/Pexels

Blame and Shame — The Costs Mount Up

Pat Hartman June 11, 2026 No Comments

The recent post “It’s Worse Than Wrong, It’s Useless” points out a very high societal cost that occurs because of fat-shaming. The negative effect is to make lots of people feel bad about themselves, and/or about any overweight relatives and friends they happen to have. When we view the big picture, it is clear that any tendency to mentally divide the community into healthy-weight “good guys” and obese “bad guys” can lead to nothing but a bad end.

Of course, children and teens are not the only ones who experience fat-shaming. Grownups get plenty of it too, and the fact that most of it is probably done inadvertently and without awareness does not make the situation any better. In fact, subtlety is almost worse, in a way, because the target then wastes a lot of mental energy on analyzing whether the insult was intended or is merely a thoughtless incident.

When you stop and think about it, to state an opinion about anyone’s overweight condition is quite unfair, considering that the speaker might have some harmful tendency equally as serious, or even more so, that just doesn’t happen to show. Fat people are pathetically obvious targets, while individuals with far darker and more dangerous lifestyles may stroll among us looking innocent as lambkins. Why don’t we all just keep our thoughts to ourselves? As Grandma once embroidered on a sampler, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”

Going to extremes

In a work that won’t even be footnoted here because, really, the whole thing is just gross and jam-packed with what is considered in polite society to be censorable language. George Carlin called obese people “huge piles of redundant protoplasm” and much, much worse. This subject, incidentally, only came up because of the random sighting of a meme making the claim that Carlin once said, “If you can’t fat-shame the one you love, fat-shame the one you’re with.” But verification of the remark proved elusive.

However, the takeaway provided by that quest is that if a graduate student ever wants to research the most extreme verbal abuse ever aimed at obese people, Carlin is the go-to source.

Next up

Now we look at a very personal essay by a writer known as Soler Bean, who has some things to say to anyone whose hobby is “trying to gauge someone’s health simply based on what they look like.” This does not mean the person is a particularly acute observer, but it might mean that she or he is a type of individual defined by a generic term that begins with the letter “a.” (Similar to George Carlin but on the opposite side of the debate, other folks become inspired to use rude language, too.)

One topic of discussion here is the plus-size performer Lizzo, who made a public appearance in a very small bathing suit. Condemning the star for “mindless glorification” of fat, a critic snarked, “Hopefully people with open wounds, leprosy or other diseases won’t start wearing tiny red bikinis.”

Leprosy? Seriously? But this is only one more example of how fat-shaming, body-shaming, and the pretense of caring about a large person’s well-being are rooted in our culture. Even the medical profession has been accused of automatically and erroneously equating thinness to health, wrongfully convicting fatness as the cause of illnesses that have nothing to do with weight.

The author deplores this holier-than-thou approach and gives examples of its effects on actual friends and acquaintances, and also provides a convenient list of points to remember:

1. People do not have to appear to be “healthy” for you to respect them.
2. Body shaming solves literally nothing.
3. Thinking that any food-related health issue can be entirely blamed on the individual and not the society around them is asinine.
4. Empathy goes a long way.
5. It costs $0.00 to mind your business.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “The Reason You Hate Fat People Isn’t Because You Care About Their Health,” AnInjusticeMag.com, 02/09/20
Image by artist ID not given/Pixabay

Some Doctors Are Prescribing GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs to Children Under 12

Psychological Roots of Shame and Blame

Obsession leads to… more obsession

Historical echoes

A pitiful waste of mental energy

Our minds versus reality

A Trap to Vigorously Avoid

Relentless persistence

Alluring possibilities

Beware of the urge to settle old scores

Chile’s Food Policies Linked to Lower Childhood Obesity Rates

The B-word and the S-word

Righteous rhetoric is not universal

Adults, It’s On Us

What could help?

Story time

Peeks into other lives

Medicare Opens the Door to GLP-1 Weight-Loss Medications

Why this change matters

Which medications are included?

Who may qualify?

A broader expansion of GLP-1 access

Cost remains a major challenge

Being cautiously optimistic

Nice Try, Obesogenic Chemicals

It’s not brand new

Fathers Play a Big Role in Childhood Obesity Risk

How do fathers influence health before conception?

Epigenetics may help explain the connection

Fathers also shape family health habits

Environment and neighborhood matter too

… As does mental health

Blame and Shame — The Costs Mount Up

Going to extremes

Next up

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

The Book

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Presentations