Free school dinners

‘Golden ticket to a healthier Britain’- Sharon Hodgson, guardian.co.uk, 03/10/08

In response to the Government’s recent plans to provide free school meals to the first 3 years of primary schools, the article explains that this is a good opportunity to promote healthy eating, and would make progress on tackling obesity and childhood poverty.

This article also refers to Jamie Oliver’s campaign, where we found that social class dictated diet for Rotherham’s people (as discussed in previous post).

With the government tackling the problems head-on, it looks like we would achieve our goals much faster.

 

The author of the article encourages the proposal and has been working together with Roberta Blackman-Woods MP towards it, thus giving a positive view to the reader. However, some readers who have commented to the article do not agree; they say food is not the reason but exercise is for obesity, they do not want to see tax-payer’s money put towards children’s school dinners etc.

It relates to other Jamie Oliver articles on the guardian website, and attracts readers interested in the topic.

The new Mediterranean diet

‘The Mediterranean diet sinks in a sea of obesity- Elisabeth Rosenthal, International Herald Tribune, 25/09/08

Not about the UK or the US, surprisingly Greece has problems with obesity too.

The Mediterranean diet that often uses olive oil, fresh produce and fish, has been associated with longer life spans and lower rates of heart disease and cancer. However, it is now in retreat in its home area and are replaced with fast food. Today in Greece, two-thirds of children are now overweight, and three-quarters of the adult population is overwegiht or obese, the worst rate by far according to the UN.           

The Greek government is alarmed by the trend in obesity and its health effects, and have been visiting schools annually for the past few years to weigh children and lecture them on nutrition. ‘“It was the talk of the school,” said Stella Kazazakou, 44, whose son Theodore is 9. “Instead of grades, the moms were comparing cholesterol levels.”‘

Dr. Antonia Trichopoulou, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Athens Medical School, said the problem had grown dramatically with the spread of supermarkets and, especially, convenience foods. Advertising has swooped widely across Greece; there are TV commercials for chips, there are stands of candy at supermarkets.

‘But facing both aggressive convenience food marketing and obesity for the first time, many rural residents here have little resistance to or knowledge of the dangers.

Trichopoulou said that some older people might have even been tolerant of childhood chubbiness because Greece had for so long been a poor nation where hunger was a recurrent problem.

The traditional diet, low in saturated fats and high in nutrients like flavonoids, was based on vegetables, fruit, unrefined grains, olive oil for cooking and for flavoring, and a bit of wine – all consumed on a daily basis.

Fish, nuts, poultry, eggs, cheese and sweets were weekly additions.

Red meat, refined sugar or flour, butter and other oils or fats were consumed rarely, if at all.’

 

It was surprising to find that a country known for their healthy lifestyle is facing obesity problems and it was refreshing to read on a country other than the UK and US.

The article gives figures on the percentage of obese children, adults and daily cholesterol consumption, and compares them with figures of the US and other European countries, to show the dramatic change in lifestyle over the years. The article explains how obesity had become a problem in Greece and what the government is doing to tackle it, giving a deeper overview of the topic.

Unlike the other International Herald Tribune articles I discussed, the first part of this article was introduced on the front page of the newspaper, and continued onto the main part of the newspaper. Since it was featured on the front page, it has a large possibility of attracting reader’s attentions (though the top article would have attracted the most). The article did not particularly include scientific words that were difficult to understand and it was easy to follow the article. The front page part of the article was placed next to a colour picture of another article (though it looked like it could have been featured for both) and the continuing part of the article featured a picture and a chart making it easier to understand and attract the eye of the reader. Both parts of the article were placed in the middle of the page, the latter part taking a large amount of space so there is a good chance that it would be read by many people.

 

Children watching fast food ads

‘Children still watching ‘junk food’ ads, says Which?’- Mark Sweney, guardian.co.uk, 19/09/08

Since one of my original media sources did not contain as much healthy eating news as I expected, I decided to change my media source to the guardian website.

The guardian website featured an article about a criticism made by consumer body Which?, that Ofcom’s restrictions on the TV advertising of ‘junk’ food needs to be reviewed.

A report made by Which? showed that  only 4 of the top 20 programmes among under-16-year olds met Ofcom’s restrictions on TV ads for products high in fat, salt or sugar. Ofcom’s restriction bans ‘junk’ food ads from programmes if the proportion of under-16s viewing is 20% higher than the general population.

Ofcom’s research, ‘based on data from audience measurement body Barb, showed that programmes in the top 20 between June 9 and June 22 included Emmerdale, Coronation Street, 10 Years Younger, The Bill, Animals Do the Funniest Things, The Hulk movie and Beat the Star.’

The Advertising Association has hit back at Which?, saying it has missed the point; “Their list includes programmes clearly not aimed at children and films screened after 10pm. There clearly has to be an element of parental responsibility on which programmes they allow their children to view”.

 

 

The article ends saying, ‘ The Which? report showed that Ofcom’s proportional regulation system did block ads from appearing in shows clearly targeted at children such as The Simpsons, SpongeBob SquarePants, Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue, and The Power Rangers’, which is in more in favour of the Advertising Association’s argument. Although this last part was probably put in to show a fair view of the subject, it has left me, the reader, feeling that Which? has been nit-picking over the small details and their findings isn’t much of a fuss to be made of.

Whilst reading the beginning of the article, I was slightly alarmed that junk food was advertised in the top 20TV programmes among under-16s, but after reading the Advertising Association’s argument, I realised that they had a point…the Bill is a program not aimed at children, it isn’t a children’s program.

Of course, exposing junk food ads to children is a concern, but we can’t protect all children. Besides, most children wants to watch programs made for adults, because they are curious and think it is ‘cool’, so it is difficult to slot in the junk food ads into ‘appropriate’ programs, Is Which?’s finding such a fuss to be made of? I can’t remember the last time I watched a junk food ad on TV. As the article says, ‘The loss of prime advertisers such as Coca-Cola, Mars, Cadbury, Kellogg’s and Nestlé – which advertise in and around live sport content – would be disastrous and unsustainable for broadcasters.‘

The article is written as if Which? sounds like it has a weak argument, and does not mention the effects that junk food advertising has on children, whereas the Advertising Association is reported to describe Which’s report as sensationalist and unconstructive, which is much more hard-hitting and emotional, thus making it much easier to gain reader’s support.

The online article is categorised and linked onto other similar articles with key words such as ‘health’ and ‘Ofcom’ (listed on the right side of the article), which directs users to and from the article easily.

Honey, I supersized the kids

‘Study: Restaurant kids’ meals loaded with calories’-The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, 4/08/08

I missed out on the printed version of this article and only knew about it through the website. Oh well.

The article discussed a report that said it’s difficult to find healthy kid’s meals at top restaurant chains.

 

UNSURPRISINGLY, according to a report by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, nearly every possible combination of the children’s meals at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and Chil-fil-A are too high in calories.

The report looked into the nutritional quality of kids’ meals at 13 major restaurant chains, and found that 93% of 1,474 possible choices at the chains exceed 430 calories- 1/3 of the daily calorie intake the National Institute of Medicine recommends for a 4-8 year old child.

Subway, the only chain that didn’t offer soft drinks with kid’s meals in the report, came out best among the chains. 6 of 18 ‘Fresh Fit for Kids’ meals, which include a mini-sub, juice box, and one of several healthful side items such as apple slices, raisins or yogurt, exceed the 430-calorie mark.

The report also said that eating out now accounts for a third of children’s daily caloric intake, which is double the frequency 30 years ago.

It also found that 45% of children’s meals are above the recommendations for saturated and trans fat (which can raise blood cholesterol levels and increase the risk of heart disease), and 86% of children’s meals are high in sodium.

 

First of all, you wouldn’t take you child there in the first place if you want them to eat healthily.

The article wasn’t surprising, but what did raise my eyebrows were the figures found in the report, which were higher than one realised. 93% of kid’s meals exceed the recommended daily calorie intake…you might as well think all kid’s meals exceed it.

Restaurants should take responsibility of what they serve, but it’s the customer who orders it. Parents should be more careful of where and what they eat.

Perhaps in America it is even more common to eat out than in the UK and it’s difficult to find a family-friendly restaurant without the burgers and sodas. Not just the meal’s nutritional content, but I think the portion size also contributes to the calorie count. From my own experience, I know how big a regular slice of pizza can be over there.

And I guess it’s difficult to find something healthy that your child would like to eat.

Ever since (especially since), Morgan Spurlock’s famous documentary was made, restaurants (especially fast food chains) have been pressurised to offer healthier menus. The impact of the documentary was great, but after reading this article, I feel that there is still a lot of improvement that can be made.

Does everything need to be healthy? The odd fast-food won’t hurt, but eating it everyday would be a concern.

I don’t think you will see a day where every menu at every restaurant is healthy, nor a day where you can’t find a restaurant that doesn’t sell burgers and chips. Besides, how healthy is healthy?

With in-depth figures, details of the report, quotes and statements from the restaurants, I guess the article was written to be a wake-up call to parents.

 

Cholesterol drugs for children?

 

‘Cholesterol drugs and children: A recommendation draws fire’ by Tara Parker-Pope, International Herald Tribune 10/07/2008

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued recommendations for warding off heart disease in some children- giving children as young as 8 years old cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins). Worryingly there is no data on the possible side effects of taking statins for 40 or 50 years or on how many heart attacks they hope to prevent this way.

It is known that decreasing cholesterol and giving statins decreases risk of heart disease or death in adults, and indeed recent ultrasound studies of carotid arteries in high-risk children also show that statin use in children does appear to slow the progress of heart disease.

The old guidelines stated that children as young as 10 could be given statins if they are considered to be at high risk for heart disease. If that wasn’t concerning enough, the new guidelines have dropped to 8 years old with LDL, or with ‘bad’ cholesterol of 190mg/dl or those with LDL of 160 and a family history of heart disease or 2 other risk factors. Children with diabetes may start medication when bad cholesterol reaches 130.

Other recommendations that the academy issued:

• children with a family history of heart disease to be screened as early as 2 years old, and no later than 10 years old.
• by 12 months old, if the doctor is worried about future weight problems, low-fat milk may be recommended

 Statins, which are the most prescribed drugs in the world, have side effects such as muscle pain and cognitive problems in adults but it is unclear if children will experience the same problems.

The new recommendation will open the door for pharmaceutical companies to heavily advertise and promote their use in 8-year olds…one can imagine the dangers that awaits there.

Although the new recommendations only applies to a minority of children, the article stresses that some doctors are worried that it would distract from common-sense changes in diet and exercise.

I also find this quite disturbing. With time and technology, people’s lifestyle has become more convenient. And as it becomes convenient, the guidelines restricting the use become more flexible.

Someone finds a problem…they need an answer. Okay, well, one can do this, which is undesirable, but it’s a short cut…or let’s just pretend that that option is not there and find something else. The short cut is tempting and it’s not surprising that many choose that option. Of course, they will take precautions, but over time guidelines are going to relax. This may be an inevitable thing, and I can only hope that people remain to be cautious as they can.  Who knows, in the next few years, the guideline may be lowered to 5 years old?

The academy has responsibility of what they propose, and I don’t like the fact that they have made it sound as if they have found a quick and easy solution to heart disease risks. There’s a problem, what shall we do? I know, let’s give them a drug to fix it. It can easily get out of control.

I would rather liked to have seen more effort and emphasis to change lifestyles such as diet and exercise in children rather than the use of drugs. Isn’t it more important to think of ways to prevent children get to the stage where their ‘cholesterol looks like an over-weight 65-year old’, rather than thinking of what to do after they get to that stage?

 

Being an international newspaper, the article brings in quotes from doctors from the academy as well as from doctors against the recommendation, but does not give any strong reason why the use of statins is such as a good idea. Perhaps there is, but the journalist just chose not to mention it? This article covered the whole Health & Science section of that week, and a photo of an overweight girl is inserted in the middle of the article. Looking at the photo one thinks about how the girl’s future looks like…is it better to let her continue to take the long and difficult path to reduce risk of heart disease by diet and exercise or sympathise and would like to let her take the medication which would be easier?…But what if the drugs have side-effects and puts her in a worse situation?

The miss-match of the word ‘cholesterol drugs’ and ‘children’ in the headline is shocking, and I find that is the article that draws the most attention on the page. The article hints that it is against the use of statins.