Tuesday, March 08, 2005

UNETHICAL FOOD FADDISTS

Meat is a vital part of a child's diet, according to a two-year study of Kenyan schoolkids. Without it, children grow up smaller, less strong and less intelligent, the results suggest. So clear are the benefits, in fact, that denying children meat or dairy products in the first few years of life is unethical, argues Lindsay Allen of the University of California, Davis, who carried out the research.

The 544 children in the study, who had an average age of seven years, were given two spoonfuls (about 60 grams) of minced beef each day to supplement their ordinary diet. Other groups were given a cup of milk, an equivalent amount of energy as vegetable oil, or no supplement at all.

Over two years, kids given food supplements gained an average of 400 grams more than those without, Allen told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC on 20 February. Those given meat showed the biggest benefits. Children in the meat-supplemented group showed up to an 80% greater increase in upper-arm muscle compared with the non-supplemented children; for milk drinkers, this figure was 40%1. Kids who were fed meat also outperformed their peers in tests of intelligence, problem solving and arithmetic. "The group that received the meat supplements were more active in the playground, more talkative and playful, and showed more leadership skills," Allen said.

More here



Food for thought on childhood obesity

"Recently, the Institute of Medicine held hearings in Washington, DC, on the marketing of food to children. The hearings came on the heels of a media blitz by the reliably nanny-statist folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who want tough restrictions on the marketing of so-called 'low-nutrition' foods to children, including a complete ban on cross-promotional campaigns (think SpongeBob SquarePants Cereal).... Even conceding free speech concerns, ad bans make for bad public policy for a variety of reasons.

1. Ad bans have failed everywhere they've been tried. So far, the list includes Sweden, Quebec and Norway. None of these places have shown comparatively significant reductions in child obesity. In Sweden, the restrictions have been in place for a decade, yet the country's childhood obesity rates are in line with the rest of Europe's.

2. There's no correlation between ad exposure and childhood obesity. George Mason University's Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What's more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. For one, the remote control has made ad watching optional over the last 20 years. And more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete.

Broadcast television is also losing younger viewers to cable, where ads in general are 40 percent less prevalent, and where food ads comprise about half the percentage of overall ad time that they do in broadcast. Cable also offers more options for channel flipping during commercials, and the emerging popularity of premium cable stations like HBO often means there are no commercials at all.

All told, the average American child viewed 900 fewer food commercials in 2003 than he did in 1994. Since that same average child gained weight, it amounts to a pretty solid rebuttal to the theory that food marketing is a significant contributor to childhood obesity.

3. You'd need to ban ads in adult programming as well. The fact is, you simply can't limit a kid's exposure to food ads, unless you're prepared to ban all food advertising. Most children's television viewing isn't limited to children's television programming. They watch shows intended for adults, too. In fact, common sense suggests that the kids most prone to obesity - those with minimal parental supervision - are also those most likely to watch adult programming.

4. A ban would cripple children's television. The FCC already mandates that broadcasters devote a portion of the broadcast day to children's programming. Food ads make up a huge portion of the ad revenue for those programs. Cut off that ad revenue, and the broadcasters subject to FCC regulation lose any incentive to invest in high-quality children's TV. Why put money into a sure loser? Furthermore, television not subject to FCC scrutiny - cable, for example - would likely drastically cut back on the amount of television time it carves out for children, or just disregard children's programming entirely.

5. The evidence indicates the source of childhood obesity lies elsewhere. Several recent studies have suggested that the single best indicator of a child's health, diet, weight, and activity levels is the health, diet, weight, and activity levels of that child's parents".

More here

No comments: