photo credit: jbelluch

Would you offer Cheetos® to your 1 year old? What about soda?

I was at a birthday party this weekend where I noticed someone giving a small child a piece of Cheetos. The child clearly relished the taste as she licked away the last bits of cheese from her mom’s fingers. One point of view could be that it is ok to introduce different tastes at an early age. Others may say that this is how children get hooked on junk food and that is why we have a childhood obesity problem.

What do you think? Do you have a list of forbidden foods you will never let your child eat no matter what?

©2010 Littlestomaks.com

By how much would limiting TV food advertising reduce childhood obesity?

This is the question researchers from Netherlands and Australia asked in their recent article published in the European Journal of Public Health. TV food advertising has attracted considerable public scrutiny, especially from experts in nutrition and public health. There is a popular belief that food advertising plays a big role in influencing food choices and brand awareness among young kids. As a result, kids get hooked on processed food and snacks full of fat, salt and sugar. Clearly, this could be one reason why we have a rapidly rising rate of childhood obesity believe most experts.

Beliefs and opinions are common, but thoughtful scientific inquiry to support them is rare. That is why I found this article interesting because it tackles this tricky problem through a good scientific approach. The researchers candidly acknowledge that the effect of advertising is difficult to study in a direct way. In fact they did not find a single study which quantified the effect of advertising and body weight in a realistic setting. Instead, they looked at changes in the total energy intake due to TV advertising based on a single study from 1983, which concluded that an extra 25 minutes/week of exposure to TV advertisements would cause a child to eat one extra snack which would increase his energy intake by 1.4%.

This is a very small effect. The researchers then decided to set up an expert panel of academics and asked them to complete a questionnaire to estimate the effect of TV advertising on energy intake and effect of energy intake on BMI. Surprisingly, they got a very poor response rate – only 8 out of 33 completed their questionnaires. As a result, there was considerable bias and uncertainty in the data.

Bottom line, they came to the following conclusions:

1. If all TV advertising (about 80 minutes/week) was stopped, the prevalence of obesity will drop by 2.7% in boys and by 2.4% in girls
2. Based on the “expert panel” response, they estimated these numbers to be a reduction of 6.8% in boys and 6% in girls
3. They estimated that about 1 in 7, or as many as 1 in 3 children would not be obese if there were no TV advertising

Overall, these numbers have a very large amount of uncertainty. The evidence against the effect of TV advertising is weak and calls to ban or limit TV advertising are largely based on personal opinions.

Personally, we have not experienced the effect of TV food advertising in our household because we hardly watch any TV. Mostly our twins watch animated shows on demand where we completely bypass the advertisements.

I am not a supporter of cheap junk food. But I also do not support the idea of banning TV advertising. I continue to believe that the best protection against such advertising is to build the wall of your family’s own personal brand which defines your approach to food and nutrition.

Parents: what is your opinion? Do you think that your family’s food choices are strongly affected by TV advertising? Would you support a complete ban on food advertising to kids?

©2010 Littlestomaks.com

Greetings! It is Friday again. We are getting ready for a week-long trip to the Disney World with our kids. This is the first time for them and I can tell they are excited. My daughter keeps saying “next week we will go to Mickey Mouse Clubhouse!” It should be fun and we are looking forward to this little time off!

I am taking a slightly different approach to my regular Five for Fridays this week. Instead of writing about 5 nutrition news of the week, I am going to cover just one news in more detail and try to look at it from 5 different ways.

The big news this week was a report issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) which urges local governments to take a decisive action in controlling childhood obesity. Reading the report brief, it is hard not to be impressed by many of the suggested recommendations from the committee. The media, however, picked on one of the most provocative idea that a “twinkie tax” be imposed on junk foods and sugary drinks to limit their consumption. A 10% tax on sugary beverages could reduce their consumption by 8-10% according to some experts.

To these experts, I say a better way would be to simply ban all junk food and sugary drinks. Seize the products from the stores, treat them as controlled substances and shut the manufacturers down! It has a better chance of working if that is the culprit behind childhood obesity.

Obviously no one will stand up for it because this would be considered so un-American.

Here are 5 reasons why I believe a “twinkie tax” will have no real effect on the obesity problem:

1. Tax is like using a spigot when a dam is needed- let us face it; consumers love sugary foods and drinks. There is a huge demand for them and as a result, there is a huge supply. Imposing a small tax will be like trying to control the flow of a river by a spigot when we need to build a dam. The real question is, how high the taxes should be before the resulting prices are simply prohibitive for most consumers to give up on these products?
2. Tax does nothing to the production cost – manufacturing junk food is cheap! Cheap raw materials and large scale production keeps unit cost at a very low level. What is not cheap is packaging, marketing and distribution of these products. It would be very easy to keep the same sticker price by simply reducing these costs by a small amount. It will take a lot to cut them to a level which can affect their availability on the shelves.
3. Tax will actually increase the desire for these foods – let us say the price does go up to a point that these products become out of reach for some consumers. Do you really believe that their desire for these foods will diminish? In fact, if they can’t have them as often as they would like, they will actually want more of them. They will find some other way to get them anyway.
4. Tax will do nothing to the consumption of healthy foods – those who favor taxes on junk foods justify their idea by suggesting that the money could be used to promote awareness of healthy options. This is absurd! It makes the assumption that those who will give up junk food because of high prices will actually be able to afford healthy foods if they become aware of them. Not true at all in my opinion. As long as the availability of healthy foods remains limited, the current demand from consumers with higher income will continue to keep their prices high. A lot of people eat junk food not because they don’t know it is unhealthy, rather because it is cheap, readily available and tastes good.
5. Tax will encourage producers to develop bad habits – dealing with taxes is like dealing with a strict teacher in school. You try to find a way around him rather than developing a desire for learning. This is particularly true if the producer is confident that the demand for his product is not going to be changed in a fundamental way. You can expect more lobbying, more promotion and even more products at a lower price point. Is this what we want?

By now, you might be tempted to believe that I am not a tax-and-spend kind of a guy! Let me clarify – this is not a political discussion for me. I am looking at this situation purely from a business perspective. In fact, if you are a proponent of taxes, I suggest the following ideas might work better:

1. Tax the raw materials, or lift the subsidies that result in low commodity prices. Now that is a touchy political issue, isn’t it?
2. Tax the machines that make these products. The trickle down effect on the manufacturing sector would be tremendous!
3. Tax the utilities used by producers of these products. Make their electricity, water and gas more expensive. I bet the utility companies will be delighted!
4. Tax the transporters of these foods by making them pay more for gas and use of highways and railroads. Maybe they will consider going after producers of healthy foods then!
5. Tax the retailers who stack their shelves with these products. Make them pay more for healthcare and unemployment taxes. Perhaps that will persuade them to opt for healthy foods instead!

No matter how you look at it, taxing these products is not a sustainable solution. In my opinion, we should rather focus on finding ways to make healthy foods cheaper and more readily available to consumers of all socio-economic backgrounds.

Another approach would be to change the demand patterns in a fundamental way. Businesses innovate in response to consumer demand, not necessarily in response to legislation. For example, the demand for soda in our household is zero. It is as if the soda aisle does not exist in the store. Not even offers like buy-one-get-one-free tempt us anymore. I am not saying that this has had an impact in the bottom line for Coke and Pepsi. But imagine, if just 1 in 5 shoppers bypassed the soda aisle in every store in America. That would certainly force them to find out what consumers like me want and develop products to satisfy this need. That is what drives innovation. Not taxes.

I hope the “experts” can exercise their brain cells to think about that for a while!

What is your opinion? I would love to hear your comments.

©2009 Littlestomaks.com

Hello everyone! Seems like I still can’t let go of summer – this picture was so cute, I had to post it this week to remind us of summer fun on the beach. We did manage to get out a few times to the nearby beach, although my daughter refuses to step on the sand! She finds it too yucky – go figure!! Luckily both of our twins love the pool, so that is where we spent most of our summer this year.

It’s Friday, which means it’s time for another Five for Fridays! Here are 5 interesting nutrition stories of the week that caught my eye. Enjoy and drop a comment to let me know what’s on your mind.

Finally some guidance on daily sugar intake for Americans

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that Americans consume a whopping 22 teaspoons of sugar every day. That is about 355 calories, nearly 20% of the 2000 recommended daily caloric intake. I am sure you have noticed that on a typical nutritional facts label, there is no daily percentage for sugar content. This is because a daily limit has not been established, although there is good consensus on limiting the daily intake to less than 25% of total calories. As a result, it is very difficult for consumers to keep track of their daily sugar consumption. A while ago, I wrote about how to take the guesswork out of daily sugar to help set some boundaries and regulate the sugar intake.

Now, for the first time, the American Heart Association has come out with fairly clear guidelines on daily sugar which suggest that most women should limit it to less than 6 teaspoons and most men should limit it to 9 teaspoons. Note that these are still not official USDA recommendations, which I hope will follow soon. I think the breakfast cereal makers will respond first since their products tend to make heart-healthy claims although they contain a lot of sugar per serving. But I hope to see it change other food products as well. It is possible that this will drive the use of zero-calorie sweeteners in food products.

Ideas for packing a healthy lunch your kids will actually eat

My Twitter friend @RelevantMom alerted me to this article by the Associated Press which highlighted a few interesting school lunch box ideas from TV food stars Rachel Ray and Melissa d’Arabian. It is hard to resist the ready-to-go lunchables but they can end up costing a lot without providing good nutrition. Simple ideas like peanut butter, hummus, canned tuna, beans and lentils are good source of protein. You can mix them with breads, pitas and rice to create a quick and easy nutritious item. Add fruits and veggies selected by your child on the last grocery shopping trip to make sure he will actually have an interest in eating them. Get creative on snack ideas and skip the packaged snacks to save money. Their last tip is the best – add a loving note to the lunch box; it costs nothing but it can make your child feel special and loved when out of home in school where they might still not be very comfortable.

Share your tips for the school lunch box this back-to-school season. Here is what @themenumom suggested when I asked this question to my Twitter followers:

What has worked for you so far?

How normal is your eating?

Ever wonder if you practice normal eating? I can see you rolling your eyes and thinking “please, not another diet buzzword to make me feel guilty about my eating behavior”!

I was intrigued by a short note in the Well column of the New York Times by Tara Parker-Pope this week which asked this question. I am sure if you ask different people, they will come up with their own answer, and be quite sure that their eating preferences are perfectly normal. Turns out that the term normal eating was coined by famous dietitian Ellyn Satter. She explained that normal eating is when you “listen” to your body, eat when hungry and stop when full. Sounds simple and common sense. Except that we now seem to listen more to our tongue than to our stomach when it comes to eating. There are some who believe that the food industry has figured out how to rule the tongue by loads of salt, sugar, fat and other taste enhancing chemicals in processed foods. Self-control is lacking, especially when most family meals are consumed in front of the TV. We no longer have a sense of portion control. We try hard when we are motivated to go on a diet, only to give it all up and return to our old ways when things don’t work out the way expect. From this point of view, today’s normal eating is hardly normal the way nature intended it to be. I think it is about time we paid attention to it, especially when it comes to raising healthy children.

Functional food is nothing but dressed up junk food

That seems to be the opinion of many nutrition experts such as New York University’s Marion Nestle as cited by one of my favorite bloggers Dr. Ayala on her recent post “Are functional foods healthy foods?” I liked her article very much because she reminds us that with a little bit of right information, planning and effort you can prepare your own nutritious foods without having to waste money on these so called functional foods. It is easy to slap catchy slogans like low cholesterol, zero trans fats and fortified with brain-boosting omega-3′s without really changing the basic nature of the food inside the box. Sad truth is that such marketing works since such fortified functional foods deliver over $27 billion in sales each growing at up to 20% each year.

I am not personally against all processed foods. To our busy lives, they offer the convenience of immediate consumption although there is a cost to it. I do want to credit the food industry for many innovations that have made the modern life possible. I am not suggesting we turn the clock back by making all of our food from scratch. What I don’t like is that the industry at its heart is no longer concerned about the health of its consumers, rather the profit motive has become the main driver of innovation. Surely there are exceptions, which I hope will become the norm in future.

One Hungry Monkey and a dad committed to raising a healthy eater

I was finally able to finish reading a delightful book by Matthew Amster-Burton called Hungry Monkey! If you did not get a chance yet, check out my review of Hungry Monkey published this week. And let me know what you think.

Enjoy your weekend!

Photo source -sara.atkins on Flickr via everystockphoto
©2009 Littlestomaks.com

Greetings! It’s Friday again, so here are 5 interesting nutrition stories of the week that caught my eye. Enjoy and drop a comment to let me know what’s on your mind.

Great ideas for nutritious snack combinations for kids

Check out these cool practical tips for snack combinations your kids are sure to enjoy! They are all very healthy and nutritious options, and best of all, you are likely to find most of the ingredients in your refrigerator or pantry already. Registered Dietitian Maryann Jacobsen, a guest writer on this blog, offers these ideas based on her knowledge of nutrition and real-life experience as a Mom. I am sure cookies and milk will be a hit with my son as well as whole wheat cracker with peanut butter or cheese! He also loves to snack on strawberries which are a great source of vitamin C. His twin sister on the other hand favors cheerios with milk and honey. Go for snacks that offer a combination of carbs, proteins and fat without too much sugar or salt. There is, after all,  a smart way to let your kids enjoy snacks!

The real cost of our addiction to cheap junk food

It is no secret anymore that we are a country of BIG people! What may surprise you, or even give you little shock, is new data from the CDC that the cost of treating obesity-related diseases soared to $147 billion in 2008. That’s about a 100% increase over the last 10 years! Obese people spent nearly $1500 more than what people of normal weight did on medical costs in 2006. Even though it probably does not include those without health insurance, the message should be clear to everybody. The Dollar Value Meal may not put a dent in your wallet, but the extra calories with each meal will continue to add on and hit you later in life! Of course, some will argue that it has nothing to do with junk food but the fact that people just don’t exercise anymore. Whatever! There is a lot of talk about fixing the Healthcare system so it becomes affordable for everyone. I am sure that bringing technology to the doctor’s office and going paperless for medical records will help. But maybe we should also tackle the hidden (and rapidly rising) cost of obesity head-on. Else, the whole thing might come crashing down under its enormous weight!

Fat tax will reduce obesity say “experts”

A new report from the Urban Institute says that a 10 percent tax on fattening food would reduce consumption while raising more than $500 billion over 10 years. The idea is that if you tax these foods, their price will go up and people will eat less of them so they will not get obese. Just the way we have reduced smoking by taxing, warning labels and education, we can reduce obesity by following a similar policy. I think there are two problem with this logic. Although the link between cheap, junk food and obesity is clear (see above), that is not the only factor. Obesity is a multi-dimensional problem and I don’t think we can solve it simply by taxing fatty foods. And I don’t really buy the tobacco example – even with heavy taxation, legislation and restricted advertising over many years, people are still smoking! Second, the final price of these foods that a consumer pays may not go up by that much. This is because an easy way of dealing with the extra cost of taxation is to reduce the cost of operation (fire people, improve efficiency etc.) and decrease the product quantity. How far should we go in raising taxes before a real effect in prices is seen at the store?

We need to address the fundamental reasons why people prefer these foods. They are cheap, convenient, readily available and taste good. Why can’t we do all that for nutritious foods? Simply by lowering the supply chain costs of fruits and vegetables, we can bring their prices down and improve their availability. That is just one idea.

I think the approach should rather be to create conditions that lower the price of healthy options. Taxing fatty foods, or sugary beverages, I think is a very short-sighted approach which lacks creativity.

CDC offers interesting ideas for tackling obesity

When it comes to tackling obesity, the CDC suggests that we think global but act local. A new report entitled Recommended Community Strategies to Measure and Prevent Obesity in the United States offers simple ideas at the community level. Offer incentives for food retailers to locate in under-served areas, give out coupons to buy fruits and veggies, encourage people to buy “local” are some of the good ideas in this report. They came up with 24 strategies which can be organized in 6 categories -

1. promote availability of healthy foods and beverages
2. support healthy foods and beverages choice
3. encourage breastfeeding
4. encourage physical activities and limit sedentary activities among children and youth
5. create safe communities that promote physical activity
6. encourage communities to organize for change

I think these are smart ideas. Certainly, it will not happen overnight and will take resources and effort from everybody, but it reflects the right mindset on this problem. What do you think?

Hungry Monkey is now on my reading list

I love the title of this book! Ask any parent of a toddler and you will hear their struggles with a picky eater. This book is written by a “food-loving” father who wanted to find new recipes and new ways of cooking that could satisfy his own taste buds and still be acceptable to his 5 year old daughter. I came across a review of Hungry Monkey in the New Your Times which also offers a few selected recipes – they look very good. It is also a part parenting memoir, so I am sure there are some real-life examples and lessons learned. I definitely want to check it out, and when I do, I will write my review here.

Enjoy your weekend! And let me know what you think.

Photo source -Thiru Murugan on Flickr
©2009 Littlestomaks.com

Bonjour! So glad it’s Friday again! Last week was Safe Kids Week (Apr 26 – May 3). It is a good time to remind us of the very real risks of unintentional injuries to young children. Check out a short video on kids safety in this week’s Five for Fridays in addition to the usual nutrition-related stories. And of course, feel free to share your tips for safety especially in the kitchen.

Tips for kids safety

I was shocked to learn this scary statistic – there is one unintentional injury to a child every 12 minutes that is serious enough to require a visit to the ER. In recognition of this, Safe Kids USA along with its founding sponsor J&J is running an awareness campaign called Raising Safe Kids – One Stage at a Time focused on child development and injury risks to children 14 and under. Although their website has very useful information for various age groups, my interest was mainly in the 1-4 years old Stage (Little Kids). Here is a short video for this age group -

Burns in the kitchen or at the dinner table are among the 5 major risks identified by Safe Kids USA. Make sure the stove area is a “kid-free” zone. Use the back burners and turn the handles of pots and pans away from the front of the stove. When using the oven, be vigilant and do not allow children to get close because the oven door can get really hot. Use large bowls when serving hot foods like soup and allow it to cool down by stirring with a spoon before giving to your child. Cut meats and vegetables into small bite sized chunks – this will cool them down and also reduce the risk of choking. Knives and other sharp objects can also be dangerous and should be kept out of reach. Same goes for matches and lighters. The cabinet under the sink where you are most likely to keep dishwashing detergents and other cleaners should be locked. Consider getting a fire extinguisher and keep it in a safe, easy-to-reach place in your kitchen.

Here is an excellent report on kids safety which gives  a lot of handy tips.

Should junk food advertising aimed at children be banned?

Rising rates of childhood obesity in Australia have galvanized a few public health and consumer advocacy groups to kick-off the Burger Corp campaign against junk food advertising on TV during prime time. They want the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) to come out with tougher regulations this year once they complete their review. Ban the practice of giving out free toys with junk fast food; ban the use of popular cartoon or other promotional characters; regulate advertising beyond TV in print media and newspapers – in short ban! ban! ban! Although I certainly do not support excessive and misleading advertising aimed at kids, I am not a big fan of over-regulating our way out of this public health problem either.  There is also a role for parents, educators and community leaders to act as role models and to inform, influence and inspire young kids to make healthy choices, not just for food but for everything else that affects their health and growth. Removing ads from TV will not solve the problem of excessive TV watching. Banning free toys and promotional characters will not reduce the allure of inexpensive, great tasting junk food rich in salt, sugar and fat. Some regulations is needed; in my opinion it should be limited to restricting false and misleading claims. We should rather focus our resources on improving affordability of healthy options and increasing  awareness of the link between nutrition and long term health. What do you think?

Don’t take a multivitamin supplement on an empty stomach

Even though there is considerable debate and uncertainty about the effectiveness of multivitamin supplements, they are quite popular and many people, including me, take them daily. That is why this question about when and how to take vitamins on the Fitness and Nutrition section of the New York Times caught my eye. According to the experts, the time of the day you take the vitamins is not important. What is important is that you take them consistently and that you take them with food. The water soluble vitamins B and C can absorb well on an empty stomach, but the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K need some fat from food to absorb in the body. Of course it does not mean that you need to eat fatty foods in order to take your vitamins. Simply eating some food right before taking the pill should do just fine.

Second hand smoke linked to iron deficiency and low antioxidant levels in children

Exposure to second hand smoke is getting a lot of attention in the 2009 annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies this week in Baltimore. In two separate studies, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for children under 18 years of age was analyzed. One study from researchers at the New York University School of Medicine reported a link between second hand smoke (estimated by blood levels of cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine), obesity and iron deficiency. The other, from researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center concluded that second hand smoke reduces the levels of anti-oxidants in children. Anti-oxidants work to protect the cells in our body from damage by free radicals which are produced as part of normal body functions. Vitamin C is a good antioxidant; although the researchers did not clearly make a recommendation about supplements to counter the effect of second hand smoke. Bottom line – second hand smoke is bad, not just for your lungs, but also for your nutritional health.

Good nutrition strongly linked to education

A new study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association concludes that highly educated and affluent people are more likely to have a low energy density diet (lean meat, fruits and vegetables) compared to those on the lower income and education levels. I was not able to read the original article; still I found this summary very interesting. I am not surprised by it because we have all heard enough about affordability of nutritious food. I think that more than education, awareness and basic understanding of nutrition are more critical in making this choice. I know of many highly educated people who have very poor eating habits. And this is even when they know that salty, fatty and sugary foods are no good for their health. So there is still another factor that is critical – and that is a genuine desire to take a long term view of health and nutrition. And while it is true that low energy density, nutrient rich foods cost more, there are many ways to still have a healthy diet. As I wrote in last week’s Five for Fridays, simply by cutting down on packaged foods and preparing your meals at home, you can save a lot of money and improve your nutrition. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or a genius – just have a desire, some knowledge of nutrition and cooking and be able to find some time to cook. Go for it!

Enjoy your weekend! And do share your opinion or recent nutrition related news you found interesting.

©2009 Littlestomaks.com