Our Better Health

Diet, Health, Fitness, Lifestyle & Wellness


Leave a comment

Busy Schedules are Putting Children’s Health at Risk

‘Worry and busyness and stress is robbing children of their peace of mind,’ says child therapist

According to child and family therapist Michele Kambolis, children are vulnerable to anxiety and stress preventing them from getting a good night’s sleep.

Busy schedules, too many worries and a lack of sleep could be threatening the health of your children, one expert is warning parents.

Vancouver-based child and family therapist Michele Kambolis says she often hears from children who say they are working with tutors or doing homework late into the night.

“Worry and busyness and stress is robbing children of their peace of mind,” she says.

But getting enough sleep is crucial to a child’s development, Kambolis says.

“It’s a non-negotiable part of their health. Children who are sleep-deprived are at risk for a whole host of problems including difficulties at school.”

Cultural attitudes to sleep play a big role, she notes.

“We seem to live in a culture that doesn’t value sleep in the way that it should,” she says.
“Our lifestyles are more hurried and more worried and a lot of busy, busy activity is falling into the time of day when children really need brain rest.
“We’re focusing on high productivity and we know that children match us. They match our choice and our behaviour.
“It’s really important to create a clear delineation between the busyness of the day and nighttime when children can wind down, lean into our care and talk about whatever worries have arisen throughout the day.”

(Natalie Holdway/CBC)

Some of her tips include:

  • Cut back on children’s screen time an hour and a half before bed.
  • If nighttime wetting is a problem, help keep kids dry by using absorbent bedtime pants.
  • Address dietary issues. Caffeine and sugar late in the day makes it very difficult for kids to sleep at night.
  • Practice ways to calm the mind and body in order to facilitate sleep.
  • Communicate with teachers, day care providers or other caregivers about how the child is functioning through the day to see if a lack of sleep is causing concern.

 

CBC News      Posted: May 17, 2017 
source; www.cbc.ca


Leave a comment

Sleep Apnea in Children Tied to Changes in Brain

In children with a common condition that causes them to periodically stop breathing during sleep, areas of the brain involved with thinking and problem-solving appear to be smaller than in children who sleep normally, a study finds.

Researchers can’t say the brain changes actually cause problems for children at home or school, but they do say the condition, known as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), has been tied to behavior and cognitive problems.

“It really does seem that there is a change in the brain or that the brain is affected,” said study author Paul Macey, who is director of technology and innovation at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Nursing.

Macey and colleagues write in Scientific Reports that up to 5 percent of all children are affected by OSA. The condition causes the child’s airway to become blocked, which ultimately causes the brain to go without oxygen for short periods of time and may wake the child up.

Previous studies on lab animals and adults with OSA have shown changes in the brain due to nerve cells dying, they add.

For the new study, the researchers used magnetic resonance imaging to analyze the volume of children’s gray matter, which is the outermost layer of the brain that allows for higher levels of functioning like problem solving.

They compared brain scans from 16 children with OSA and 200 children without the condition. All the youngsters were between 7 and 11 years old.

Overall, children with OSA had decreases in gray matter volume in areas of the brain important for controlling cognition and mood, compared to the other children.

Macey, who is also affiliated with the UCLA Brain Research Institute, said it’s unclear how closely changes in the brain are connected to behavior, cognition and other issues.

“We know these two things are happening, but we’re not sure how much the reduced gray matter tracks with poor scores,” he told Reuters Health.

The researchers also can’t say exactly why OSA is tied to reduce gray matter volume among children. A lack of oxygen may kill off brain cells or it may stop the brain from properly developing, for example.

Macey’s team wants to see whether treating the condition helps children get back on track with their healthy peers.

“If we did that we would know better how people recover from it or not,” he said.

Dr. Eliot Katz, of Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said previous research shows treating OSA by removing tonsils and adenoids improves children’s school performance, behavior and sleep-related issues. Evidence is mixed on whether it improves cognition.

Katz, who wasn’t involved with the new study, said the previous research on problems faced by children with OSA – like behavior and cognition – is fitting nicely with the brain imaging studies.

“This is really the first large, really well controlled study that has found decrements in gray matter in children with obstructive sleep apnea,” he told Reuters Health.

He said parents should discuss symptoms of OSA with children’s healthcare providers. Those symptoms include chronic snoring and gaps in breathing while they sleep.

“Sleep complaints are often not addressed in well child care visits,” he said, or in training programs for pediatricians.

He advises parents to “take a brief phone video of the breathing pattern that’s concerning to them and show it to their pediatrician.”

Macey said daytime tiredness and mood issues can also be symptoms of OSA. Children who are overweight and obese are at higher risk for the condition.

By Andrew M. Seaman (Reuters Health) 
 
source:    bit.ly/2mY9IFX        Scientific Reports, online March 17, 2017.        www.reuters.com


Leave a comment

TV Ads May Spur Snacking in Kids as Young as Two

Mindless snacking in front of the television set may start long before children know how to work the remote control, a U.S. study suggests.

In an experiment with 60 kids aged 2 to 5 years, researchers focused on how advertising influences what’s known as eating in the absence of hunger.

They gave all the children a healthy snack to make sure they had a full belly, and then sat the kids down to watch a TV program with ads for Bugles corn chips or for a department store.

All of the kids had Bugles corn chips and one other snack in front of them while they watched the show. Children who saw ads for the corn chips ate 127 calories on average, compared to just 97 calories for kids who didn’t see Bugles on the screen, researchers report in Pediatrics.

“This is the first study to show that exposure to food ads cues immediate eating among younger children – even after they had a filling snack,” said lead study author Jennifer Emond of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

“Young children average up to three hours of TV viewing a day,” Emond added by email. “If kids are exposed to food ads during that time, they may unconsciously over consume snacks which can lead to extra weight gain.”

More than one third of U.S. children are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends against any screen time for children younger than 18 months and suggests no more than an hour a day for kids aged 2 to 5 in part to encourage language development, support healthy sleep habits and limit sedentary activity that can set preschoolers on a path toward obesity.

The type of TV program matters too. The AAP encourages educational programming like “Sesame Street” that can support language learning.

For the experiment, researchers sat kids down to watch a 14-minute segment of “Elmo’s World” that included three minutes of advertising.

kids-watching-tv

Before the show started, all of the kids could snack as much as they liked on banana, sliced cheese and crackers. They also got water to drink.

Children were randomly assigned to view ads for national department stores or to watch Bugles spots that showed kids playing and eating the corn chips.

While the shows played, kids were given bowls of Nabisco Teddy Grahams and Bugles corn snacks.

There wasn’t a meaningful association between how much kids ate during the program and their age, weight or the way their parents typically supervised mealtime at home.

In particular, researchers looked at whether parental feeding restrictions – which can include things like pressuring kids to eat or prohibiting certain foods – and didn’t find any association between these practices and the amount of snacks kids consumed in the experiment.

One limitation of the experiment is that it included mostly white, affluent rural kids, which may make the results less relevant to the broader population of U.S. children, the authors note.

Young children can also be unreliable when they tell adults whether they are full, so it’s possible some children who claimed they had enough to eat before watching TV were actually hungry, the researchers also point out.

Even so, the findings should give parents another reason to limit children’s exposure to media that comes with advertising, said Dr. Julie Lumeng, a researcher at the University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Many children’s programs are now instead using product placement to advertise,” Lumeng added by email. “Parents should also pay attention to how product placement occurs in the television programs or other media their young children may be watching.”

Age 2 may be too young to understand how ads can influence behavior, Lumeng noted.

“But parents can consider gradually introducing the power of advertising to young children as a strategy for helping their children resist the effects of these ads,” Lumeng said. “Ultimately limiting the child’s exposure to the ads is the key strategy.”

 By Lisa Rapaport    Reuters Health

 SOURCE: bit.ly/2fCqsMF Pediatrics, online November 21, 2016.

 source: http://www.reuters.com


Leave a comment

Childhood Obesity: Sizing Up Our Kids

A new Senate committee report on the obesity crisis in Canada was released this week. It includes 21 recommendations to combat the high rate of obesity, including a ban on food and drink advertising aimed at children, a tax on sugary drinks and creating government subsidies for healthy food.

Feeding a child can be simple—in the beginning, at least. Weight gain is celebrated: We smother plump bellies with raspberry kisses, gush over dimpled knees and happily dole out extra helpings. After all, food is love; it’s warmth; it’s family. Until suddenly it’s not. Baby fat blossoms into a fleshy frame. Bullies take their toll. Maybe food becomes a solace, consumed mindlessly while staring into screens, turning flesh into flab. As a parent, do you even see it?

Many of us don’t. Parental bias can stack its own mental blocks. In the past year, three major studies have concluded most parents fail to recognize when their child is overweight. One study from New York University, involving nearly 7,000 kids, found the vast majority of parents felt that even their obese children were “just about the right weight.”

Yet it’s also true that overweight kids don’t stand out as they once did. Children all over the world are heavier than they ever have been. As the World Health Organization reported in January, 41 million children under age five are now overweight or obese—in 1990, the number was 31 million—a spike blamed largely on the consumption of processed foods and not enough physical activity. In Canada, the rate has tripled over the past 30 years; almost a third of children between ages five and 17 are overweight or obese.

“It’s quite natural that parents don’t recognize it, because we assess ourselves by comparison and look at everyone else,” says Tom Warshawski, a paediatrician and chair of the Childhood Obesity Foundation in Kelowna, BC. But experts agree this is a worrisome gap in perception, as parents who don’t see a weight problem are unlikely to help a child overcome it, and there’s no sugar-coating the end result: Most children will not grow out of it. “If you are obese at 16,” says Warshawski, “there’s an 80 percent chance you will be obese as an adult.”

With obesity comes a long list of life-threatening ailments: hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, respiratory problems, bone conditions and many more. Some scientists predict that with the record-high rates of childhood obesity, today’s kids will be the first generation to live shorter lives than their parents. Last November, the American Heart Association reported that obese kids as young as eight are showing signs of heart disease. Says Warshawski: “We are setting our children up for a life of ill health.”

Of course, it’s a prognosis no parent wants to hear. Yet even if you recognize that your child is overweight, figuring out what to do next can be daunting. There’s no magic potion to make pounds disappear, and most obesity research has focused on adults. In fact, helping a child reach or maintain a healthy weight may be one of the thorniest challenges of modern parenting.

It’s hard enough for adults to lose weight, and we presumably have more patience, reason and willpower. No one wants to police the pantry or make a kid count calories. In most families, fat is the other F-word. So how—in a conflicted world that’s thin-obsessed but awash in junk food—do you manage a child’s weight without creating lifelong anxieties around eating and body image?

Very carefully, says Laurie Clark, an Ottawa psychologist at the Centre for Healthy Active Living (CHAL) at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. At CHAL, there’s a team of specialists who help children with severe obesity and their families improve their health through behavioural and lifestyle changes. But none of it is set in the context of losing weight or slimming down—rather, it’s all about getting fit and healthy.

When kids are just starting to develop their relationship with food and themselves, Clark says it’s important they hear that healthy bodies come in different shapes and sizes, and that the goal of making healthier lifestyle choices is “to be active and happy in our bodies.” So instead of talking about calories or diets, which “sets kids up to be preoccupied with that,” she says, discuss choices in terms of good health and overall happiness. “If a child is functioning well and has no other health issues, a parent needs to step back and say, How are we running our household?”

The most critical step in managing a child’s weight, experts say, is to recognize that the issue is not about the child—it’s about the family. When lifestyle changes are the best (and usually the only) available treatment for a kid carrying excess weight, those changes have to be adopted by everyone.

“You may see the problem with one child, but weight is a reflection of genetics and environment,” Warshawski says. “So it’s actually a problem with the whole family that’s just showing up in this one kid.”

About 16 different genes impact an individual’s propensity to gain weight, Warshawski says, and you can see the effect even in infancy. One baby will be content after four ounces of milk, while another needs three more to feel full. “That will continue into childhood, but now the food you’re filling him with is rich in fats and sugars. So one child can eat whatever she wants and never gain, while others just see food and pack on the pounds. That’s the way genetics interplays with the environment.”

But unlike genes, the environment is something parents can generally control, especially in the younger years, when we hold more sway than peers and when the chances are highest of forming healthy lifelong habits. Yet studies suggest that many families have a long way to go: Most kids—seven out of 10 of those between ages four and nine—do not eat the recommended five-serving minimum of fruits and vegetables each day, and only seven percent of five- to 11-year-old kids get the daily recommended minimum of 60 minutes of physical activity.

Which is why, in 2013, Warshawski’s foundation helped launch a family-based program in BC called MEND, short for Mind, Exercise, Nutrition, Do It! Started in the UK in 2004, the program takes a hands-on approach to helping parents and kids with weight issues become fitter, healthier and happier by teaching them how to make healthy food choices and live more active lives. Run out of local recreation centres, the free 10-week program involves at least 20 visits with a team of specialists. It also includes a three-month membership to the community rec centre and a tour of a grocery store to learn how to shop healthily.

Obesity & Children
Ed.’s Note: A new Senate committee report
on the obesity crisis in Canada was released this week.
It includes 21 recommendations to combat the high rate of obesity,
including a ban on food and drink advertising aimed at children,
a tax on sugary drinks and creating government subsidies for healthy food.

It’s a big commitment, says Warshawski, but studies suggest it can make a difference in reducing weight and body mass index. However, he cautions, it may not work for everyone: “I saw a family yesterday, and they are all still gaining weight; another is doing really well. It’s not one-size-fits-all.” What is key, he says, is that “the whole family has to buy into the lifestyle solutions for this to work—if you get the habits right, you’ll get the body that’s right for you.”

At the CHAL program in Ottawa, dietitian Anna Aylett says that any attempts to change the lifestyle of just one child are likely to backfire. “I often see families where they have started to restrict the overweight children by not giving them dessert or treats, but it can lead to food sneaking,” she says. There may be genetic differences in a family that make one child prone to gaining weight, but the food available has to be the same for everyone in the household, Aylett says. “You have to have the same rules for everyone.”

Doing otherwise can make your kid feel unfairly singled out and cause her to associate feelings of guilt and shame with eating. Instead, experts say, it’s up to parents to create a healthy food environment for everyone and then practise a clear division of responsibility on food matters—parents decide what, when and where the family eats; children choose how much they want to eat.

If a child, however, seems to suddenly gain weight, there could be underlying forces at work. Stasia Hadjiyannakis, a paediatric endocrinologist and director of the CHAL program, says parents should find out if there are genetic factors that could be influencing weight or whether kids are eating in private, skipping meals or not getting enough sleep. Screens, especially in the bedroom, she notes, can interfere with sleep and lead to hormonal changes “that can impact your appetite and increase the risk for obesity.”

Emotions can also figure powerfully into food relationships. After all, the idea that people eat their feelings has been around longer than ice cream binges have been associated with breakups. Alex Jadad, for instance, a renowned University of Toronto physician and founder of the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, learned the hard way that unhappiness was at the root of his 10-year-old daughter’s overeating.

Jadad and his wife hadn’t even realized their daughter Alia had gone from chubby to obese. “I think sometimes familiarity breeds blindness,” says Jadad. But then she told them that she was being bullied at school because of her weight. “They called her ‘Blue Marshmallow,’ because of her blue jacket…. They taunted her with chocolate,” he says. “That’s how we found out [she was obese]—we didn’t realize it ourselves. You know your child, you see her all the time, and she’s perfect—and she was perfect.”

Only when they took Alia to the doctor did they discover that school bullies were not the true source of her sadness—as Alia diagnosed herself: “She said, ‘I’m jealous.’” Jadad explained that his wife’s niece had recently come to live with them, and Alia felt displaced. “She was overeating to compensate. Weight was the issue, but it was a manifestation of other things.”

Alia’s revelation marked the beginning of a long journey—one the Jadad family took together. They bought bicycles, educated themselves about nutrition and eliminated most sugar from their diet. They even grocery shopped together, making a game of it to find packaged products that did not carry one of the 50 sugar synonyms on their labels. (It was almost impossible, he says.)

Alia, now a grown woman, did eventually lose weight, but more important, says Jadad, is that his daughter and the whole family created a new and healthier—and happier—lifestyle for themselves. Alia also switched to a new school, where she thrived and regained her self-confidence.

The point, he says, is that “it’s not an individual’s responsibility to solve—it’s not ‘Oh, there’s something wrong with you.’ It wasn’t her fault, and it cannot be a case of telling your child, ‘Don’t do this. Don’t eat that. Don’t eat this.’” It’s about getting the family back to fundamentals, says Jadad, who is a founding member of the Canadian Obesity Network.

Blaming individuals for being overweight only contributes to the discrimination and isolation they already face. “What makes this problem so monumental,” Jadad says, “is that it’s one of those rare cases where the stigma alone can become a public health problem because of the toll it takes on mental health.” In fact, Warshawski notes, kids who are obese rate the quality of their lives lower than children undergoing cancer therapy.

What’s important is that children feel good about themselves by making healthy choices. “We know a lot comes down to the way our body was designed, and there’s a strong biologic response to weight loss —that’s why it’s often regained. Ideally, prevention happens early on,” says Hadjiyannakis. For example, encouraging kids to move, play and be physically active is a huge step in the right direction.

“I think it’s about shifting the outcome we’re celebrating,” she says. “So we might not see a big change in body weight, but if we have patients that find a new physical activity they love—that’s a success, and that’s something people can control, more than a number on a scale.”

By the numbers

The MEND program encourages families to follow the daily 5-2-1-0 formula: five servings of fruits and veggies; no more than two hours of screen time; at least one hour of activity and zero sugary drinks.

Taking measure

The body mass index isn’t a fail-proof way to diagnose childhood obesity—if your kid is muscular, for instance, the results might be skewed. That said, tracking BMI is a good starting point to help you and your paediatrician monitor your kid’s growth.

Today’s Parent    Carolyn Abraham    2016-03-02
source: www.msn.com


2 Comments

Junk Food Ads Sway Kids’ Preferences

Children under 8 most vulnerable to marketing’s effects, study says

Any parent who’s ever endured a whining child begging for that colorful box of cereal won’t be surprised by a new study’s findings: Children are more likely to eat junk food when they’ve seen ads for unhealthy foods and beverages.

The new review included 29 past studies. There were more than 6,000 children involved in those studies.

The researchers found that ads and other marketing for products high in sugar or salt have an immediate and major impact on youngsters. And children younger than age 8 might be most susceptible to junk food and beverage marketing, the study authors reported.

The findings show the influence that such ads can have on children, said lead author Behnam Sadeghirad, a doctoral student at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

tv watch

“This [review] shows that the extensive exposure kids have to marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages via product packaging (superheroes, logos), TV and the internet increases their short-term caloric intake and preference for junk food,” Sadeghirad said in a university news release.

Unhealthy products account for more than 80 percent of all televised food ads in the United States and Canada, according to past research. The authors behind the new study noted that recent research revealed that children see an average of five food ads an hour.

Study corresponding author Bradley Johnston said, “Overall, our analyses show the need for a review of public policy on child-targeted unhealthy food and beverage marketing.” Johnston is an assistant professor in the department of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster.

“The increasing prevalence of obesity seems to further coincide with marked increases in the food and beverage industry’s budget for marketing aimed at children and youth, with data showing that energy-dense, low-nutrient foods and beverages make up the majority of commercially marketed products,” Johnston said.

WebMD News from HealthDay    By Robert Preidt   HealthDay Reporter  TUESDAY, July 5, 2016 
SOURCE: McMaster University, news release, July 5, 2016    HealthDay   WebMD


Leave a comment

8 Countries Taking Action Against Junk Food Marketing

Some countries are responding to the high levels of junk-food advertising by restricting broadcast advertising and other child-targeted marketing techniques.

Children from the United States view an average of one food commercial for every five minutes of television watched, according to a study from the University of Minnesota. Unfortunately, these youth-targeted advertisements focus predominately on foods high in sugar and fat, such as fast food, high-sugar cereals, sugary drinks, and candy, making it no surprise that many children are not consuming healthy diets. In response to the high levels of junk-food advertising, some countries are taking the issue into their own hands by restricting broadcast advertising and other child-targeted marketing techniques.

According to the World Health Organization, advertisements can significantly influence food preferences and consumption. The impact is especially acute for young children under 10 years old, who tend to view ads as unbiased sources of information, making it more difficult for them to respond judiciously to marketing, found researchers from the University of Minnesota.

Furthermore, food marketers have expanded and intensified marketing efforts through a variety of channels in recent decades. “Parents’ efforts to help their children eat healthily are being undermined by sophisticated promotion of junk food to children: on TV, online, at the cinema, in magazines, in supermarkets, on food packaging, and for some even at school,” says Malcolm Clark, coordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign, a United Kingdom-based organization that aims to protect children from junk-food marketing.

Anne Lappé, founder of Food MythBusters, a food-focused media initiative, accuses food companies of pushing cheap, addictive foods on children and teens in the name of profit. “Food corporations spend roughly two billion a year on ads specifically targeting children and teens,” says Lappé in a Food MythBusters video. “No wonder pediatricians are seeing diet-related illnesses of young people alarmingly on the rise.”

Some countries have pursued voluntary, industry-led pledges restricting advertising. The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, EU Pledge, and Children’s Advertising Initiative in the United States, European Union member states, and Canada, respectively, are composed of candy, fast-food, and soft drink companies who pledge to shift their marketing to healthier foods for children under 12. Critics say that these policies are ineffective since industries set the bar too low given the highly competitive marketplace. However, EU Pledge participants claim that children’s exposure to television marketing has fallen 48 percent and that U.S. industry spending on child food marketing has dropped by 19.5 percent since the pledges were enacted.

But governments can play a greater role in limiting the harmful public health impacts of food advertising by implementing legislation that restricts broadcasting, bans the use of cartoons and toys, or requires health warnings on commercials. This week, Food Tank highlights eight countries that have taken steps to limit the harmful impact of junk-food marketing.

1. Canada.

Quebec’s law passed in 1980 restricting junk-food marketing to kids was the first of its kind, banning fast food marketing aimed at children under 13 in print and electronic media. Fast-food expenditures subsequently decreased 13 percent. While the rest of Canada has seen a drastic increase in obesity among children, Quebec maintains the lowest child obesity rate.

obesity in kids

2. Chile.

Chilean law restricts advertising which targets children under the age of 14 for foods considered high in calories, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. The regulation applies to television programs, websites, radios, and magazines directed at children or those where the audience is composed of 20 percent children or more. Likewise, these select food items may not be marketed in schools. Promotional strategies including the use of cartoons and toys are also prohibited.

3. France.

Rather than setting restrictions on the amount of junk-food advertising, French authorities require that advertisements for products containing added fats, sweeteners, or sodium be accompanied by a message explaining dietary principles. One example is “for your health, eat at least five fruits and vegetables a day.”

4. Ireland.

Foods high in fats, sugar, and sodium are banned from advertising, sponsorship, teleshopping, and product placement in children’s TV and radio programs where over 50 percent of the audience is under 18 years old. Any advertising targeting children under 18 cannot include celebrities, and those directed to children under 13 cannot include health claims or use licensed characters. Overall, advertisements for unhealthy foods may compose up to only 25 percent of all paid advertising on all channels.

5. Mexico.

The Mexican government commission reports that their children see more junk-food advertisements than any other country, totaling 12,000 a year. The Ministry of Health has taken a series of steps to limit child exposure to unhealthy food marketing, beginning with restricting advertising of certain foods and sweetened beverages, determined by their compliance to a nutrient profile model. Restrictions apply to television programs with more than 35 percent of the audience under 13 years old, between 2:30 pm and 7:30 pm on weekdays and 7:00 am and 7:30 pm on weekends. In July 2014, the government extended the restriction to films.

coke-obesity

6. Norway.

The Norwegian government restricts all broadcast advertising directed specifically to children through the Broadcasting Act of 1992. In 2013, industry and government took a step further: companies agreed to a self-regulated ban on all marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks to children under the age of 16. Norway also leads a World Health Organization network of 28 countries focused on reducing marketing pressures on children.

7. Taiwan.

In January 2016, Taiwan implemented unhealthy food advertising limits for kids under 12 years old. Dedicated television channels for children cannot broadcast advertisements of foods exceeding set fat, sodium, and sugar content limits from 5 pm to 9 pm. Like their Chilean counterparts, food marketers cannot promote their products with free toys at restaurants, a common practice among fast food chains.

8. United Kingdom.

A decade ago, the government passed a statutory ban on television advertising to children under 16 of foods high in fats, sugar, and salt. According to the UK Department of Health, children are now exposed to 37 percent fewer commercials and annual expenditures towards child-targeted advertisements have decreased 41 percent.

By Marisa Tsai / Food Tank June 27, 2016

Marisa Tsai is a Masters candidate of the Food Policy and Applied Nutrition program at Tufts University. In addition to her academics and work with Food Tank, she is involved with the Long Beach Health Department’s healthy retail program and nutrition education efforts. Marisa is passionate about food justice, nutrition, and sustainable food policy. Find her on social media: @marzipantsai.


1 Comment

This One Childhood Experience Turns Out to Have Major Consequences Later in Life

According to results of a new study, you might want to rethink before moving your family around at a vulnerable time.

In 2014, according to a United States national census, more than 11% of Americans relocated across state borders. In our mobile society, this might seem like par for the course—no cause for alarm. But what about the effects such internal migration has on children later in life? Washington Post writer Christopher Ingraham recently asked this very question. His conclusion: In the long run, it’s bad for the kids.

For the article, Ingraham drew on the findings of a recent study published by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that addressed the effects of moving one’s family around. In the study, a team of researchers conducted a comprehensive analysis using information gathered from everyone in Denmark born between 1971-1997 (which is only marginally less impressive when you consider that the country is around a third the size of New York state.) The team looked at the ratio rates of “attempted suicide, violent criminality, psychiatric illness, substance misuse, and natural and unnatural deaths” within this data set.

Their conclusion? Based on the “uniquely complete and accurate registration of all residential changes in [Denmark’s] population,” the team found that moving during childhood was directly tied to an increase in all of these measured negative outcomes later in life. And repeated moves in the course of a year — even worse. The team further found that children are most vulnerable at ages 12-14, with those who moved at 14 experiencing double the risk of suicide by middle age.

Young man in the dark

As Ingraham duly noted, however, while the study took into account parents’ income and psychiatric history as a control, the data was unable to provide information on the reasoning behind the moves. Ingraham illustrated this flaw by pointing to previous research conducted in the United States, which shows that beyond the act of moving itself, environment plays a far greater role in childhood development and its implications for adulthood. In other words, the positive effects of moving during childhood to a less violent neighborhood far outweigh any negative consequences. Of course, this oversight could also be attributed to Denmark having a generally lower rate of violent crime.

One of the study’s findings likely to carry more weight in the U.S. and abroad concerns the effects of changing schools. For these purposes, the study only considered moves across municipal boundaries, which meant a change in the child’s school district. Here the authors concluded:

“Relocated adolescents often face a double stress of adapting to an alien environment, a new school, and building new friendships and social networks, while simultaneously coping with the fundamental biological and developmental transitions that their peers also experience.”

Overall the results of the research are pretty damning. How much they directly apply contextually to other countries such as the United States is less clear. The study’s authors conceded that “the findings may not apply universally beyond Denmark, although it seems likely that they are relevant to other western societies with similar drivers of residential mobility.”

It seems pretty logical that changing one’s living environment during the onset of puberty could have lasting psychological consequences, and families that need to do so should take into account the hardship it presents to their growing children. Any direct link to higher risks of other negative consequences later on in life may be harder to establish.

Robin Scher is a freelance writer from South Africa currently based in New York.
He tweets infrequently @RobScherHimself.
By Robin Scher / AlterNet June 15, 2016