Will a tax on junk food solve America's health epidemics?

Every couple years it seems someone proposes a tax on "junk food." The premise is that such a tax would motivate more people to make healthier food choices based on the dollar value.

Value is the keyword, in my opinion.

As in, what is the perceived value of healthy food? The junk food tax proposal supposes that the value of food is predominately financially based, and food choices are therefore, mostly financially motivated.

So, let's say that a week's worth of apples is almost the same price as a week's worth of potato chips (which, in my neck of the woods, they are). Who would choose the apples over the potato chips? Now what if the potato chips were less expensive - would the purchasing distribution change dramatically? And vice versa? What would the price differential between the two foods have to be in order for significantly more people to start eating an apple with their lunch instead of chips?

It would be an interesting social experiment to watch purchasing behavior if the government did start taxing or subsidizing (is a penalty more motivating than a reward?) certain foods. Based on the people I know, regardless of income level, short of something drastic like a 300% potato chip tax, I suspect purchasing habits would vary very little.

In my opinion, the slight difference in price doesn't matter. Afterall, bananas are almost always cheaper than chips per serving, and a bag of baby carrots (5 servings) is around $1.29 at my local grocery stores. The logic that folks purchase chips and crackers over produce based on price is faulty.

By in large, we are talking about adults who, plain and simply, have already decided that they want the chips or they want the apples. You probably have identified yourself with one of those two groups as you're reading this. The bottom line: I bet chips are rarely placed in a cart because they are a cheap way to fill up. Keep in mind, we're not talking about taxing pasta.

So now the challenge is obvious: How do we motivate people to buy an apple instead of chips? How do we educate people on the value of healthy foods?

C'mon. Who doesn't know that an apple is healthier than a serving of chips? The apple has fiber, vitamins and minerals. It is low-calorie and low-fat. Chips are the opposite. Who doesn't know that diet high in calories and fat, and low in nutrients will contribute to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and more?

So ultimately, the real money question is: How do we get people to value their own health? And that, my friends, is something that the government may not ever have any control over.

How Green Are you?

If you're looking for some fun Saturday quizes and practical ways to go green, I found this cute little site called Practically Green. The quizes test your current green-ness, and therefore, by default, you get a list of items that would increase your green rating. There are also great badges that you can rack up once you register: these are specific for babies, the kitchen, and more. You can also see the badges and results of others who live near you to see if you're keeping up with the green Jones' (personally, Stephanie kicked my butt). And, while I'm happy to be "solidly green," armed with their marching orders and a competitive nature, I expect to have a better score soon. Watch-out Stephanie!

Federal guidelines for youth wellness are unsatisfying, and unsatisfied

While the debate about the causes and effects of childhood obesity rages on, even the smallest efforts to improve the physical and nutritional education of our children are falling short. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently reviewed the status of local wellness policies in 6 school districts. None of the districts had entirely implemented their local wellness policies during the past 5 school years of the policies' mandated existence.

"schools in their district provided few nutrition education or physical activity opportunities even though the premise... was that nutrition education and greater physical activity can help combat childhood obesity."

In 2004, the Child Nutrition and Women Infants and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act included a mandate for the creation of "local wellness policies" (LWP) in each school district by the 2006-2007 school year. In short, these well-intentioned policies are designed to address the increasing childhood obesity epidemic by creating nutrition education and physical activity guidelines. Here are the basic requirements of the LWP:

• Establish goals for nutrition education and physical activity at the discretion of the local educational agency.



• Modify in-school food choices with the intention of promoting health and reducing childhood obesity.
  



• Be consistent with the Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C. 1779; subsections (a) and (b) of section 10) and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1766(a); section 9(f)(1) and 17(a)).



• Establish a plan for monitoring the implementation of the LWP and designate persons responsible for operations associated with meeting the policy guildelines.
  



• Include staff, school board members. parents, and community members in the development of the LWP.

For starters, this mandate does little more than establish an anti-childhood obesity think tank in each school district; and the results of a CDC study to be published in the August 2011 issue of the Journal of School Health confirm just that.

Let's start at the beginning: The federal mandate is inherently weak beacuse it does not require that the LWP be created with the inclusion of nutrition or physical activity experts. The policies rely on the best judgement of the education agency. This is an example of the unhealthy and obese leading the unhealthy and obese. If the average person knew how to effectively prevent and/or correct obesity, how would we explain the steady increase in obesity in the United States? If nutrition education and physical activity guidelines are only now being implemented in our schools, how can we expect the older generations to know that information and develop an educational plan without expert input? The CDC does offer sample LWP's developed by select states, and resources on their website. It is unclear whether expert input was contributed to those.

Now let's fast forward 5 years: In the published study, of the 6 school districts with complete and satisfactory LWP's (a condition of their inclusion in the study) that were reviewed, none had fully implemented their LWP's during the 5 school years of the LWP existence. In fact, the report states that "schools in their district provided few nutrition education or physcial activity opportunities for students even though the premise... was that nutrition education and greater physical activity can help combat childhood obesity."

The study does not say how many school districts were inelligible for review because their LWP was incomplete, insufficient, or non-existent.

Multiple studies have shown the importance of nutrition in a child's ability to focus, learn and have regular attendance. So here's what each of us can do:

• Contact your local school district to review your child's LWP. Demand expert input and immediate implementation.
  



• Stop relying on the government to know what's best for your child. Educate yourself on good nutrition. Take it upon yourself to educate your children (see some links below).
  



• Consider packing lunches until the school-provided food choices are nutritionally sound.
  



• Encourage physcial activity at home - even as a family.
  
  

Other links:

"Schools Face New Mandate on 'Wellness' "

Super Kids Nutrition

Family Education: Learning Good Nutrition

Fuel Up to Play 60

The Case for a Stay-At-Home Neurobiologist

It happened again last weekend.  While catching up with some old friends at a town festival, the conversation took that dreaded turn: "Well, you're still working at the University of Chicago, right?"

Normally, I would have been flattered that they remembered where I had studied and worked so many years ago, but instead, it felt like an emotional blow.  Did I need to defend my decisions?  Was our society's stance on motherhood, and feminist dogma really so narrow-minded?

Let me back-up.  I had already introduced my 3 year old and 18 month old.  When asked "what are you doing now," I had enthusiastically answered "I'm a mommy!"  So that dreaded question was laden with disbelief that I was not still acting as an academic, or at least a "professional."  They went on to encourage me to "use that degree again sometime, because it is so impressive."

In the past, I've racked up many of these so-called compliments.  I've heard "I'm sure you're a great mom, but I still think that brain of yours could be doing more."  Their intention may be to praise my intellect, or to acknowledge past accomplishments, but in reality, they are questioning my priorities.  More importantly, it insinuates that my child's rearing is less important and requires less intellect than the latest scientific or professional endeavor.

I will not dispute that there are plenty of people short on intellect who are raising children.  These are the people we usually judge should not be raising children.  Or these are the couples for whom we would whole-heartedly endorse child-rearing classes.  But on the other hand, we uphold a notion that our best and brightest are somehow too good for staying at home with their children.  We, as a society, seem to subconsciously believe that those who are most competent should be in the workforce, contributing "tangibly" to society (because money is the tangible by which we can assess the relative value of work).  The question becomes: should the job of child-rearing be left wholesale to the lesser qualified or under-achieving?  Is that really what we, as a society, want?

It has become cliche' to say "mothering is so hard," or "mothering is so important."  However, I question the sincerity of those statements with every insinuation that a stay-at-home mom is wasting her potential.  Or a stay-at-home father, for that matter.

Obviously, I believe that giving any child the best opportunities is our priority as parents, and as a society.  When did we decide that intelligent, competent women were "overqualified" to raise children?  Don't get me wrong, I don't judge those who have chosen daycare or nanny options in order for both parents to earn an income or to devote themselves to their careers.  But, I do believe that it is an appropriate allocation of human resources for children to be raised by an over-achieving neurobiologist.  As my sister (who was an attorney in her former life before children) pointed out: Raising children is likely to have a more profound impact on this world than anything she could have done as a high-profile litigator.  Again, I'm not diminishing the value of neurobiology or law.  I am simply asserting the equal value of child-rearing.

And while I'm on my rant, here's another point: There is no such thing as being "just" a stay-at-home mom.  The idea of a 45-minute train ride when I peruse the latest copy of my favorite magazine, followed by a great cup of coffee that I get while chatting with a coworker before planting myself in front of a phone and computer, sounds downright serene.  No offense office-goers, but I think that office work is pretty stinkin' easy in comparison to my days.  Yes, even my memories of getting bitten by feisty rats pale in comparison.  You see, when you are devoted to raising children, every second counts.  Every second of setting an example, encouraging compassion, supporting curiosity, and feeding their bodies and minds.  You know, creating life and then supporting it with every available opportunity, and trying to stay one step ahead the whole time.  

While feminism seems to have deemed that doing as a typical male would do is the definition of gender equality, I disagree.  Perhaps gender equality is better accomplished by embracing and truly valuing the contributions that women make in all facets of society, including the very difficult job of mothering.  After all, my children are the accomplishment that I believe is "so impressive."

New Information in the Vaccine Controversy - More Questions Unanswered

This week's announcement by a group of law researchers and parents of children who were injured by vaccines made a stunning announcement: The federal government has awarded millions of doallars to the victims of childhood vaccines. A statistically large proportion of those children who were awarded financial compensation suffer from autism. So, not only is the hot topic "Do Vaccines Cause Autism?" rekindled, but a host of other questions have been brought to the foreground.

First, we all want to know: Are Vaccines Safe?
The prelimary review published in Pace Environmental Law Review looks specifically at cases of vaccine-induced brain damage. Here's the fact: there have been 80+ cases to-date reviewed in this article that the courts have either decided in favor of the children, or that the government has settled out of court to the tune of multi-million dollar settlements, each. So, the courts and our government seem to have accepted that vaccines cause brain damage in some children. To keep our panic in check, we of course want to know: How often?!?

The Institute of Medicine, which is tasked with collecting and processing data on vaccines (and advising the government), does not offer that information on their website. They did, however, assemble a committee in 2008 to review all of the adverse reactions associated with a multitude of vaccines. Those eagerly awaited findings are expected in June 2011.

The Pace Review suggests that the cases identified are the tip of the iceburg, with additional information to come. This study also suggests that the compensated families are only a small fraction of the total number of victims. In order to be compensated, a very clear line must be made betwen the time of the vaccine and onset of medical symptoms. Children with delayed onset of symptoms (afterall, vaccinations begin within hours of birth), or parents who waited-out the symptoms as "basic side-effects" (first time parents often don't know what to expect, and babies can only communicate by crying), would be less likely to make a compelling case. This means that the total number of victims is likely to be grossly underestimated if based solely on the number of successful court cases.

So, if we know that vaccines cause brain damage, and we know that an unusually high proportion of the victims that have been granted compensation have autism, why the persistent denial that vaccines are associated with autism? Why can't the biomedical society admit that quite simply, we don't know everything? I am perfectly willing to concede that among the many forms of autism, some cases are definitely not vaccine-related. Can we also concede that it is possible that some cases of autism are the result of a rare combination of circumstance and vaccine exposure? It is becoming more clear that some children are susceptible to vaccine injury, while others are not. According to the families who have received compensation for injury, no follow-up research has been done on their children to try to answer the question: What Makes Some Children Susceptible to Vaccine Injury?

There are still more questions, and the group has called for a congressional hearing. As a mother, and a scientist, here's my list:

Is there a comprehensive epidemiological review of people who have received vaccinations and those who have not? Vaccines have been used for plenty of years that a longitudinal study that correlates medical history with vaccine history is possible, and computers make it a reasonable, albeit tedious, undertaking. And I'm not talking about only brain damage or autism here. Let's look at cancer (yes, some vaccines are tainted with genetic material that can cause cancer); and autoimmune diseases (is it too unlikely to think that a shot designed to impact the immune system, does in fact, affect the immune system?); to name just a couple.

Can we do genetic research on the children who have suffered vaccine injury?

What can we do screen for children who may be susceptible to vaccines?

What precautions can we take to detect vaccine sensitivity? We wait two years to expose our children to peanuts and other allergenic foods; we try small portions the first few times as a precaution.

Should we giving so many vaccines? Should we be givig so many vaccines all at once? Any epidemiological study must take into consideration the number of vaccines that were given over the individual's lifetime and the number of vaccines given at once.

Are the identified victims being compensated adequately?

Is the vaccine claim legal system fair?

Why are the government settlements sealed? To me, this is a matter of public safety, not corporate confidentiality.

Why are exclusively taxpayers footing the bill? Where are the pharma companies who profit off the government-encouraged (some would say that they are mandated given the requirement by public schools) vaccines?

What is being done to change the way we view vaccines? Not many advancements have been made in the past decades to the vaccine protocol itself (other than finding new illnesses to vaccinate against, and using one adjuvant instead of another). What can we do to boost the immune system instead of the standard vaccine?

Why does my pediatrician's office have a poster encourgaing the chicken pox vaccine because a girl had a near-fatal infection in one of her sores; but no poster of a child with mental retardation, seizures and autism from said vaccines? I want to know whether it is more likely to get a fatal infection in a chicken pock than brain damage from a vaccine.

Moms Must De-stress

This is downright hypocritical for me to write - but moms MUST de-stress. Personally, I battle with mothering, working, and housekeeping stresses just as much as the next woman. I'm the type of gal you could call a worry-wart. Plus, I seem to perpetually set my standards too high (for myself, not others, of course). The result? Ironically, even making time for my own leisurely interests has become a source of stress.

You would think that I'd know better. Afterall, I wrote a graduate dissertation, and published a paper in the Journal of Neuroscience on the effects of chronic stress on brain function. Yeah, that's right. Chronic stress alters brain function, and not just momentarily. Stress actually changes the numbers of particular receptors and the activity of specific brain regions for an indeterminate amount of time. Science is showing us every day that stress was never intended to be chronic, and that persistent stress can result in a staggering number of ailments. Plus, stressed moms pass that lifestyle on to their children - not exactly something to win you the Mother of the Year t-shirt this May.

So, here's an article with some bits of advice for moms. Not every tip may work for you, but investing time into solutions for your stress will bring great returns...

5 Ways Moms Can Find More Time

The truth about diet soft drinks

Check out the article below published on Yahoo! about the health effects of artificial sweeteners.

Artificial sweeteners were originaly developed with Type I diabetics in mind. These are the diabetics who have a genetic alteration that prevents the pancreas from creating enough insulin. Typically, this disease devlops early in life, and because of the poor insulin production, sugar poses a risk to these individuals. Artificial sweetenrs became a way to "sweeten" the world of the diabetic without affecting blood sugar levels.

Artificial sweeteners have been increasing in popularity as long as individuals have been looking for ways to trim their waistline. These low-calorie options have flooded the grocery store shelves, without consumers really understanding the potential health risks.

One of the research citations in this article points out that artificial sweeteners can still raise insulin levels in healthy people. This effect would be inconsequential to a Type I diabetic, but can have very real consequences to a healthy individual. Read about the other most important scientific articles that every diet soft drink user should know. You may think twice about what you drink...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7739012/is_your_diet_soft_drink_making_you.html?cat=5