Hope you all are having a great week so far. Here is my commentary on 5 interesting nutrition related news of the week.
1 in every 5 four year old children is obese
Based on the height and weight measurements of over 8500 children, this study provides more recent data on childhood obesity. The fact that nearly 20% of our four year old are considered obese (BMI equal to or more than 95th percentile) should be a wake-up call for all of us. This study also gives a breakdown of childhood obesity across different ethnic groups. American Indian/Native Alaskan children are nearly twice as likely to be obese as their non-Hispanic White or Asian counterparts. This kind of a breakdown may be of interest to some; however I think the focus should not be on any specific ethnic group. Unless someone can prove that there is an effect from genetic factors, childhood obesity should be treated as common problem for everybody. Sure, specific intervention programs can be tailored to suit the needs of specific regions, but the overall strategy should be based on a common approach.
Concern over E. Coli and Salmonella high; but what about sugar?
In response to the question “how concerned are you that the following pose a health hazard in the food you might eat in the next month“, most consumers listed Salmonella, E. Coli and trans fatty acids as their top 3 picks. Sugar was not even on the list! Although High Fructose Corn Syrup was, and it ranked 6th out of a total of 10. This survey was done by the NPD Group which has published the results in the NPD Food Safety Monitor. I notice two interesting things – first, the items in this list are what we commonly hear in the news media; and second, the top 3 are those which have received the highest coverage recently. Clearly, public perception is shaped by popular media, which does not seem to care that much about sugar. Not sensational enough for them? Doesn’t make interesting headlines? Surely “Mad Cow” and “Mercury in fish/seafood” sound scary, but so do “Type 2 diabetes rising in children as young as 8″ and “1 in 3 American is obese”! Why can’t we also make a connection with sugar and obesity? Am I missing something?
National PTA chief champions school nutrition before Senate
I am really impressed by Byron Garrett, CEO of the national Parent Teacher Association, who according to this story delivered the “voice of millions of parents and child advocates” to a Senate subcommittee. He emphasized the need to update the national standards for foods sold outside the school meals program. This will target vending machines, cafeteria a al carte menus and school stores. I was amazed to read that many junk foods with their high calories, sugar, salt and fatty contents are not considered Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value (FMNV), which is the only criteria for them right now. I am not a big fan of too much regulation, although I must agree that the definition of FMNV needs a serious and urgent update based on current scientific understanding. I believe in consumer choice. In the long run, and with enough awareness, consumers will either reject these junk foods completely, or greatly reduce their daily consumption. Therefore, I personally favor his first recommendation “Require policies for the provision of recess, physical education, and regulation of food marketing in schools to be included in local wellness policies” out of the six he outlined in his testimony. What do you think?
Soda tax will cut obesity – are you kidding me?
Looks like France is considering raising taxes on “nutritionally imbalanced” foods which are too fatty, too sugary, too salty and not needed! Although tempted to do so, I am not going to get into what the French are thinking. What I find interesting is that several states and cities here in America are also considering the same moves according to this article in the Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog, which cites a recent article from the New England Journal of Medicine. The theory is that raising taxes on soda will reduce consumption and the government could use the extra tax revenue to fund nutritional education programs which will further encourage everybody to substitute the soda/sugary foods with more healthy options. This idea is so twisted, I can’t believe that so many smart people are actually thinking about it! Taxing will decrease demand somewhat, but then it will level off because those who can still afford it, will continue to do so. Then, should we raise taxes even higher at that point? And continue to do so until there is zero demand? What is an acceptable level of tax (the authors suggest a penny per ounce), and how do you get to it? Cigarettes have been taxed heavily over the years but that has not stopped people from smoking even though everybody knows the consequences. I don’t think you could stop soda demand in its tracks simply by increasing the pain to the wallet. And as for cutting obesity, some could argue that there is no problem with diet soda. What do you think?
Curious to know more about trans fats? Check this out
Cathy from A Life Less Sweet, another one of my favorite blogs, provides an excellent scientific introduction to trans saturated fats in this article. She digs into the chemistry of fats to clarify the difference between saturated and unsatruated fats. If chemistry is not your thing, you can still get tons of useful information about why you should care about this artery-clogging, cholesterol-increasing bad boy found in a lot of processed foods. And don’t be fooled by the “zero trans fat” claim because the FDA allows it if the per serving amount is less than 0.5 g and no claims are made about the fat or cholesterol content. A convenient little loophole in the regulations! Another reason why you should look at the list of ingredients carefully before falling for this marketing gimmick.
Enjoy your weekend! And feel free to submit a nutrition news story you found interesting this week.
Image source: Wolfgang Staudt on Flickr
©2009 Littlestomaks.com

![[del.icio.us]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Newsvine]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/newsvine.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.littlestomaks.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)


{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for the mention! Off to check out the other great sites and articles!
Nice post, as always.
I beg to differ on the issue of taxation not affecting consumption: Price is always a factor in purchase decisions, and most experts agree that taxation has been one of the most effective tools in reducing smoking. See here:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf
In the case of foods I don’t think consumers really crave these sweet drinks, but they’re practically the cheapest, most abundant a most advertized “food” out there, which makes for mindless purchase and consumption. Once their price is in par with more nutritious food people will think twice before they buy them, and either give them up or replace them with more nutritious choices.
Ayala -
I agree that taxation will reduce consumption, but only in the beginning. Thank you for sharing the link on effect of taxation and price increase on smoking. The “consensus” estimate of 10% increase in price reducing consumption by 3-5% supports my point. To drop cigarette consumption by 50% using price increase alone, taxes will have to be high enough to raise prices by 2.5 times. To drop it by 70%, price increase will have to be around 8 times. I think the impact of taxing is only temporary; they will have to be progressively higher to sustain the drop in consumption.
You make a good point about getting to price parity between sugary drinks and healthy food. One way could be to create conditions where healthy foods are offered at lower prices rather than taxing unhealthy foods. Another variable in this equation is availability and awareness.
I am sure there are many creative ways to solve this problem. Keep the debate alive!