Home | Childhood Obesity News

Stumbled-Upon Shame

Pat Hartman July 7, 2026 No Comments

In the mind of a typical parent, there are several things that they hope a child will not grow up to be. Researching those possibilities, a journalist will occasionally run across something fascinating to pursue, and here is a great example from the archives of Tumblr.com. The material itself is more than 10 years old, authored by a female cartoon figure pseudonymously known as “edcynic.”

That page was accidentally found in the course of a search for the author of a 10-point list of items relevant to “The Shame of an Eating Disorder,” and here we will elaborate on that rather brief and brusque list, and add a bit of empathic imagination, with the purpose of capturing some of the more distinctive and awkward aspects of living with a pitiful secret that probably everyone around you has long ago guessed. If not treated, what does a binge-eating child have to look forward to?

“Who dunnit?”

Yes, it is easy to imagine the embarrassment when a roommate says, “Where’s that ice cream that was in the freezer?,” and you have to say, “Well, the empty and crumpled container is under the sink…” — especially when it is the third time this week that a supposedly shared treat did a disappearing act. The original author did not go into that much detail, but we know how to extrapolate.

And sure, you want to be as quiet as possible when raiding the refrigerator at 2 AM and everyone else is asleep. Still, that particular awkwardness can be avoided with careful planning, and the average binge eater probably catches on to the techniques of ninja-like stealth pretty early on.

The author mentions how shameful it is to realize that you can’t get to work or to school, or pick up the kids from their school, because you spent the gas money on food. But taking into account the number of people within a 10-mile radius who spent their gas money on crack or lottery tickets, it could be a lot worse.

You again…

A shame that cannot be avoided, unless you want to spend even more of that gas money driving around to stores outside your neighborhood, is the third, fourth, or fifth encounter this month with the same checkout clerk who also processed your last cartful of junk food, and the one before that…

Excessive exercise is a slow-motion purge method, lacking the elements of drama and urgency that a problem eater may be hooked on. And then, there are episodes that qualify as more than just a little embarrassing. Like calling off a plan to do something with friends, because it has become clear that staying home to binge and purge is really the only possible way your mental/emotional quirk will allow you to get through a Saturday night.

Binge-and-purge

In this equation, the “binge” element is simple. Just acquire plenty of edible items made from flour, sugar, fat, and additives. Eat as much of that stuff as possible. So far, the program is pretty straightforward.

The “purge” part is when it gets complicated. Vomiting can be induced in a couple of different ways, and is rough on the digestive system, and expensively destructive to the teeth. However, it is a relatively quick process that can successfully be accomplished in a public restroom or a friend’s bathroom, or even outdoors.

Alternately, the resulting waste may be let out through the other end. A person can swallow a substance to induce diarrhea, a choice that involves the constant threat of exposure in the most elemental, irrefutable way. And, depending on how much you like your job and/or your paycheck, you need to be technically adept at the precise self-administration of your laxatives on workdays. This purge method can also damage a person’s innards, and is not recommended by any sane individual.

A tough one

According to journalist Paula Spencer Scott, binge eating disorder (BED) is “one of the most common eating disorders.” WebMD offers a concise page covering the pertinent categories of questions that parents may have if they don’t want binge eating disorder to become a part of their child’s future.

What should a parent watch for? Exactly how harmful can it be to overall health? At what point is it appropriate for a parent to say, “Okay, this needs to be addressed”? What are the treatment options? What about prevention? And more…

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Pro-Anas and Their Ridiculous “Mono” Diets,” edcynicArchive.tumblr.com, undated
Source: “Binge Eating Disorder in Kids and Teens,” WebMD.com, 02/14/26
Image by Ricinator/Pixabay

Embracing Shame and Blame

Pat Hartman July 2, 2026 No Comments

Members of the general public who tend to hunt for scapegoats can’t help noticing a huge category of humans who are eligible to receive a share of the blame for the crushing expense of modern life: the population of obese children, along with their parents, who seem to be co-conspirators in a plot to make everyone else go bankrupt.

Some families receive government assistance with their medical bills, which may be caused or exacerbated by a child’s unfortunate condition. At any given time, there is only so much money to go around, and one school of thought says that available funds should only be spent on kids whose condition was 0% caused by any actions of their own, or by any neglect or wrongdoing on the part of their parents.

And it must follow, as night follows day, that in a universe shaped like that, childhood obesity is always 100% the parents’ fault.

Yes, in certain circles, a child’s obesity is fondly accepted as being his, or her, and/or the parents’ exclusive problem. Each time a medical professional or institution is paid to alleviate a situation caused by obesity, it reduces the funding available to cure children whose medical problems cannot be dismissed as their own fault.

It means that some other child might not obtain help at all. It is the sort of public budget scandal, based on half-baked evidence and janky reasoning, that some taxpayers love to be upset by.

Universal participation

Of course, overweight kids and their progenitors are not the only recipients of blame in modern society. Shamers get blamed too, and blamers also are shamed. There are plenty of bad feelings to go around! Some grownups are blamed for trying to make overweight people feel not just lousy about themselves, but unworthy of human consideration, period. Moreover, obesity arguments tend to metastasize into every aspect of life.

For instance, more than one critic has pointed out that the average passenger airplane seat is an inch and a half narrower than its counterpart of two decades ago. And yet, the average passenger’s rump is not 1.5 lateral inches slimmer than those of his immediate ancestors. Or even close. It gets worse. Some frequent flyers report, instead, that seat width has actually narrowed by an entire two inches, while “leg room” is now as mythical as a leprechaun.

Meanwhile, folks with other interests note that, although airplane seats may have shrunk, theater seats have widened. And yet, that is not universally appreciated. In another context, a different anonymous online malcontent recently complained that theater is a dying art form because the seats are still too small. In their opinion, to discriminate against large-bottomed moviegoers is a losing strategy for an art form that hopes to stay relevant in this day and age.

Freedom of speech

It is not surprising that the more secret a website allows posters to be, the more open their communications become. A pseudonymous woman, for instance, might point out that “Fat people deserve dignity, fat people deserve to be treated with respect, fat people deserve to have their healthcare concerns taken seriously and their healthcare needs met.”

Confronted by unsympathetic normies, some correspondents take great care to explain just why their weight is so difficult to control, while others declare with explosive anger that the reason why a person is fat is nobody’s business and doesn’t matter anyway, when it comes to a basic issue like common courtesy. No one owes a rude stranger, or even a polite one, any justification for their own existence.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Image by Wadams/Pixabay

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

Stumbled-Upon Shame

“Who dunnit?”

You again…

Binge-and-purge

A tough one

Embracing Shame and Blame

Universal participation

Freedom of speech

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

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

The Book

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Presentations