BREAKING NEWS :

Nearly half of all newborns in the United States are introduced too soon to solid foods, causing them digestive problems and nutritional deficiencies that can have lasting health effects as they grow older.

According to a recently published study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 40 percent of interviewed mothers said they gave their babies solid food before they were four months old. Nine percent started as early as four weeks.

Pediatricians recommend that infants should be given nothing but breast milk or, if that is not an option, baby formula or a combination of both at least until the age of six months.

The researchers found that many young parents were either unaware of these guidelines or found them hard to follow, often for financial reasons. Those who turned to solid foods too early were primarily young, less educated and single mothers, according to the study.

Expenses for baby formula can be quite high, between $50 and $100 for the first month and between $1,138 and $1,188 for the first year, according to one cost calculator. Many low-income families cannot easily afford them, especially when there are other children at different growing stages.

Still, nothing good can come from feeding babies food they cannot handle yet, said Dr. T. J. Gold, a pediatrician at Tribeca Pediatrics in Brooklyn in an interview with the New York Times. Before they can sit and hold their heads up without help, it can be difficult if not outright dangerous to put solid food in their mouths. They also don’t have the right gut bacteria for digesting it yet, which can lead to gastroenteritis and diarrhea and interfere with proper nutrient absorption. Long-term problems can include obesity, diabetes, eczema and celiac disease, he added.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), formerly the American Dietetic Association (ADA), recommends breastfeeding as an “important public health strategy for improving infant and child morbidity and mortality.” In a position statement, the AND says it regards exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and breastfeeding with complementary foods from six months until at least one year of age as the ideal feeding pattern for infants.

What makes breast milk the ideal source of nutrition for newborns is that it offers a good balance of important nutrients that are easily digestible. Moreover, the mother’s milk changes its composition over time to fit the changing needs of her growing child.

There are also important benefits from breastfeeding for the health of the mother, including bonding with the child, increased energy expenditure, leading to faster return to pre-pregnancy weight, decreased risk for postpartum depression and improvement of parenting skills, among others.

The AND advocates a number of measures for the promotion of breastfeeding, including professional counseling for pregnant and postpartum women and their families as well as public policy changes and legislation that favors and facilitates breastfeeding.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

The NBC hit show, “The Biggest Loser,” now in its 14th season, is well known for its rigorous (to put it mildly) workout sessions where contestants are regularly driven to the brink of collapse in the pursuit of rapid weight loss. Of course, all the huffing and puffing during the exercising also adds drama and entertainment without which the show would probably not have lasted this long.

Although the participants come from all age groups, this year’s focus is on obesity among children and adolescents, which is a good idea considering that 17 percent (12.5 million) of Americans age 2 to 19 are now diagnosed as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since 1980, obesity rates among the young have tripled, and the latest data show only slight improvements despite of stepped-up efforts by government agencies and advocacy groups to curb the trend.

While it is disheartening to see how much damage the obesity crisis is doing to all generations, programs like “The Biggest Loser” can help convey the message that it is never too early or too late to make positive changes, provided one is willing to put in the hard work. For that they should be applauded. Still, there are some disconcerting elements at play here.

With progressive success in their weight loss efforts, many of the contestants develop a high, if not inflated confidence level. Naturally, a certain amount of faith in one’s abilities is necessary just to stay motivated. However, when I hear a candidate who has still a long way to go to a healthy weight range talk about her plans for running a complete marathon in the near future, I wonder how expectations of what’s possible can sometimes spin so much out of control. Yes, it would be a headline-grabbing sensation if a once morbidly obese person could pull off one of the most challenging athletic performances known to man after just a few month of training – but is that a healthy, even desirable prospect? Why this tendency to swing from one extreme to another?

It is no secret that radical weight loss bouts over short periods of time don’t last in most cases. So-called yo-yo dieting is a well-known phenomenon in the weight loss industry. Many former “The Biggest Loser” contestants have gained at least some of their old weight back. What seems feasible within a controlled environment often doesn’t hold up when people resume their own daily routines.

And there is also no need for that. The intensity and rigor of a concentrated weight loss program cannot and should not continue indefinitely. Studies have shown that most people reap the greatest benefits from light to moderate but consistent exercise such as resistance training, fast walking or jogging for limited distances (up to 20 miles per week). More than that does not produce significantly greater advantages for physical health or longevity, according to Dr. Carl Lavie, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans who conducted extensive research on the subject. “If anything,” he says, “it appears that less running is associated with the best protection from mortality risk. More is not better, and actually, more could be worse.”

His colleague and study report co-author, Dr. James H. O’Keefe, a specialist in preventive cardiovascular medicine, agrees. “In general, it appears that exercise, like any therapy, results in a bell-shaped curve in terms of response and benefits. To date, the data suggest that walking and light jogging are almost uniformly beneficial for health and do increase life span. But with more vigorous or prolonged exercise, the benefits can become questionable,” he said in an interview with the New York Times.

So, instead of going from years of overeating and doing no exercise whatsoever to competitive running, I suggest that the young lady in question finds some middle ground where she can manage her weight and engage in an overall health-promoting lifestyle that can make life so much better for her for the rest of her life. The same goes for the rest of us.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.”, and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Parents have long felt outgunned when battling the food industry for the hearts and minds of their children. Whenever they try to limit exposure to advertisements on TV, the Internet and in supermarkets, marketers have already found new ways to interact with their youngest customers.

The latest frontier: Ads on smartphones and tablets. New technologies allow companies to directly reach children by placing their products in games and other displays designed for touch-screen devices.

This is an especially fertile ground. Mobile apps are extremely popular with young kids as well as teenagers. And what’s even better for the industry, so far they are completely unregulated.

“The mobile games demonstrate how new technology is changing U.S. commerce, drawing tighter bonds between marketers and young consumers,” writes Anton Troianovski in an article for the Wall Street Journal.

This provides many new opportunities for food companies that have long been pressured by government agencies and advocacy groups to limit their advertising efforts aimed at children. “If [kids] have their phone with them, they can be playing these games that are basically advertisements in school and basically 24/7,” warned Jennifer Harris of the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity in an interview for the article.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has made a number of attempts to impose more regulations on advertisers who target underage audiences but has never been able to get beyond issuing a few “voluntary guidelines.” In its latest initiative, the agency hopes to at least “shine some light” on current industry practices. It is unclear what that will entail.

Past proposals for regulatory measures have been rejected by Congress as too strict or burdensome, and several government agencies have eventually dropped their combined efforts to tighten control. Still, over a dozen major food companies, among them McDonald’s, Burger King, Mars Inc. and Kraft, have committed themselves to promoting more healthy foods to children, a somewhat vague but welcome step in the right direction. However, product placements on apps are not affected by this agreement.

Other increasingly common approaches marketers take are so-called cross-promotions where foods and beverages are simultaneously tied to movies, TV shows, product packaging, the Internet and in-store displays. According to one report by the FTC, film characters like Superman or Pirates of the Caribbean reappear in video games (a.k.a. “advergames”) and free downloads (a.k.a. “Webisodes”) from websites. The agency has recently asked media and entertainment companies to be more discriminatory when licensing such characters and to restrict campaigns to healthier foods and beverages when they are directed towards children. Again, there are no mandatory rules in any of these matters.

What concerns me most about these new technologies and their ability to help reach children by bypassing parental supervision is just that. Parents are supposed to be gatekeepers who protect their children from outside influences, at least in the early stages of their lives.

You may say it is still up to the adults to decide what foods are being bought and served in the home. But companies know very well about the “nag factor” and how persuasive children can be in their demands. They know that snack foods and candy are widely used as pacifiers to stave off temper tantrums. They know that their youngest targets are unable to distinguish between advertising and truth-telling, and that they can easily be manipulated. As I said before, parents find themselves routinely outgunned against this onslaught.

It would be naïve to think we can completely control the impact of new technologies on our lives and how they will be used. But that still does not absolve us from acting responsibly, especially on behalf of our children. It’s a battle worth fighting.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Is the traditional family dinner a thing of the past? Is it overvalued as an institution that was once a cornerstone of the American home but has become obsolete with changing times? In today’s households where both parents go to work and kids have busy schedules with school, homework and an array of afternoon activities, finding time for a gathering at the table seems all but impossible.

Yet, studies have shown time and again that eating together has multiple benefits for everyone involved, but especially for children, and not only for nutritional purposes but in many other aspects as well.

According to a number of study reports issued by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), children who eat at least five times a week with their family are at lower risk of developing poor eating habits, weight problems or alcohol and substance dependencies, and tend to perform better academically than their peers who frequently eat alone or away from home.

To be sure, the iconic family meal, as for example depicted by the painter Norman Rockwell, came only into American life in the mid-20th century. In the 6os and 70s, profound social, economic and technological changes quickly dissolved that short-lived idyll. Restaurant visits, take-out and TV dinners have since become the norm rather than the exception.

There are indications, however, that the old customs are coming back, at least in parts. According to the latest CASA reports, 59 percent of surveyed families said they ate dinner together at least five times a week, a significant increase from 47 percent in 1998. Whatever drives this trend, it is a development that should be welcomed.

Eating together as a family is not just about food and nutrition. It is about civilizing children, about teaching them how to become members of their society and culture, says Robin Fox, a professor who teaches anthropology at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Food has become such an ubiquitous commodity, so easily and cheaply available, we no longer appreciate its significance, he says. We have to rediscover its importance and its value. Sharing a meal with loved ones should be considered a special event, he says, that can almost take on the form of a ritual or a ceremony, as it was practiced by our ancestors for whom finding food was a constant struggle.

Besides appreciation for the value of food and the work that goes into preparing it, there are also many social elements that come into play when families share meals, says Miriam Weinstein, author of “The Surprising Power of Family Meals”. The dinner table can be the perfect environment where kids learn how to conduct conversations, observe good manners, serve others, listen, solve conflicts and compromise.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the simple act of eating at home surrounded by family will save children from developing unhealthy lifestyles or making regrettable choices down the road. It may not make them more virtuous or socially more responsible. But it can lay the groundwork for a lot of things that point them in the right direction.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also be interested in “Healthy Eating Habits Can Be Learned – Mostly by Example.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Nearly a quarter of American children and adolescents is developing type 2 diabetes or has already the disease, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in the journal Pediatrics. Diabetes and other metabolic conditions seem to spread more rapidly among the young and are harder to treat than in adults.

The study also found that over 50 percent of overweight and obese teenagers had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure. Prediabetes and diabetes rates rose faster than other lifestyle-related diseases among adolescents. “This was unexpected, especially since obesity has been leveling off,” said Dr. Ashleigh May, a researcher at the CDC and lead author of the study report.

The term “prediabetes” refers to higher than normal blood sugar levels and the possibility of developing type 2 diabetes and other risks factors for heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, according to the CDC.

Not too long ago, type 2 diabetes was known as adult onset diabetes because it was virtually unheard of affecting children. But with the growing childhood obesity epidemic in recent years, more youngsters are being diagnosed with the disease every year.

Even normal-weight children are not completely safe. Of those thinner kids, 37 percent have at least one heart risk factor, said Dr. May. “Anyone who’s eating a diet high in sugar and fat will likely have problems, even if it isn’t apparent in their weight,” said Dr. Dorothy Becker, chief of endocrinology and diabetes at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. “If they don’t make a change, then they’ll carry all of these risk factors into adulthood, and that’s like having a ticking time bomb over your head. You don’t necessarily know when it’s going to go off, but it’s likely that it will,” she added.

Dr. Mark Hyman, chairman of the Institute for Functional Medicine and founder of The UltraWellness Center as well as bestselling author of “The Blood Sugar Solution,” agrees. “One in three children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime. We are raising the first generation of Americans to live sicker and die younger than their parents. Life expectancy is actually declining for the first time in human history,” he warned.

Even the distinction between prediabetes and diabetes he considers as meaningless. “Prediabetes is not ‘pre’ anything,” he said. “It is a deadly disease driving our biggest killers – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and more. So if your doctor has diagnosed you with prediabetes or metabolic syndrome, don’t think that you are only at risk for something “in the future,” such as diabetes or heart attack. The problem is happening right know.”

In response to study reports like these, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has recommended that children and adolescents undergo regular check-ups of their blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The good news is that these developments are largely reversible and avoidable in the future through dietary changes and lifestyle improvements. “The big message here is that children and teenagers need more help with following a healthy diet and staying physically active,” said Dr. May.

Obviously parents are the first line of defense when it comes to their children’s health and well-being. But society has a role to play as well – nutrition and health education in all public schools being one of them.

In all likelihood this latest CDC study will be dismissed (like most others) in the public discourse as just another “doomsday” report that can be ignored. In truth, however, an entire generation’s future is at stake. If we continue on the path we are currently on, we are going to become a nation where being sick is normal and good health is the rare exception. It doesn’t have to come to that.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

You have probably heard by now of Marshall Reid, the sixth grader from Sanford, North Carolina, who managed to change his and his family’s poor eating habits and wrote a book about the experience, titled “Portion Size Me,” which was obviously inspired by the well-known documentary film, “Super Size Me,” by Morgan Spurlock about the negative health effects of fast food.

Like many overweight children, Marshall was bullied and made fun of by his peers. After being called “fat” one too many times, he decided to take action and asked his mother to help him lose weight and eat more healthily. He also took up exercising with his father. Eventually, the family made a video about their lifestyle changes and put it up on YouTube. The book that followed is filled with healthy recipes, easy to understand nutrition facts and a journal describing Marshall’s journey to a new life. “We realized that the amount of weight you drop isn’t the endgame. It’s about how good you feel about yourself, about making healthier choices,” said Alexandra Reid, Marshall’s mother in an interview with the New York Times (4/24/2012).

Marshall is by no means alone in his struggle with weight problems at a young age. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost 20 percent of American kids ages 6 to 11 are now obese. Childhood obesity is one of the greatest health threats we’re facing today, not just here but around the world. What makes this story so remarkable, however, is that one child’s determination to take control of his life and turn his situation around can make this much difference.

Understanding your child’s nutritional needs
Parents are often confused not only about the kind of foods but also how much their young ones need at different stages of their lives. Children always want more of the foods they like, and often these are not the most nutritious choices.

Moreover, appropriate portion sizes can be difficult to determine. Deciphering serving sizes on Nutrition Facts labels is hard to do for adults. There is virtually no information that can help parents with apportionments for smaller stomachs.

The right amount of food to put on your child’s plate varies with age. Toddlers should eat about a quarter of an adult’s serving in one meal, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Preschoolers and younger school-age kids have greater calorie needs, especially during growth spurts. Between the age of four and eight, appropriate portion sizes are around one third of those of an adult. Older children and teens will eat almost as much as their parents, but this is the time when overeating becomes particularly tempting.

Addressing the issues
For families like the Reids, weight problems can be a sensitive subject to discuss. Parents don’t want to embarrass their children even more than they already are and yet the issue must be addressed before things get further out of control.

“While it may be uncomfortable to discuss weight concerns, the sooner you bring it up and help your child take action, the easier it will be to help him or her achieve a healthy weight. Ignoring it won’t make it go away, and in fact, waiting until your child is older to deal with weight issues may make it harder in the long run,” wrote Constance Matthiessen a freelance writer for WebMD.

She strongly recommends tackling weight problems when a child is still young and more open to lifestyle changes. Parents, she says, must act as their child’s ally, not their critic. When it comes to making better food choices, children should be involved in the decision-making process. It gives them ownership and teaches them to take responsibility for their actions. Most importantly, parents have to be good role models. “If parents go to fast-food restaurants and expose their child to junk food around the house, that child will develop the same habits – and those habits are extremely hard to break.”

That’s also Alexandra Reid’s, Marshall’s mom’s experience. It’s a challenge to keep up the hard-won eating and exercise regimens for the whole family. “We are a work in progress,” she said. Aren’t we all?

If you are interested in learning how to determine healthy portion sizes for children, go to “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D./Kids’ Health.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

The physical health effects of childhood obesity are well researched and documented. They include type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, sleep apnea and certain forms of cancer. Less talked about are the psychological damages children and adolescents with weight problems often suffer. But the truth is that low self-esteem, discrimination and isolation in connection with obesity can be just as devastating as the physical aspects and can make matters even worse.

Too many overweight kids find themselves being teased and made fun of because of their physical appearance, according to psychologist Dr. Kelly Brownell, the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. Teasing, he says can come from classmates, teachers, even from family members. More so than adults, children tend to internalize criticism or scorn, which can make them feel inferior, unattractive or out of place. In response, many lose their aspirations and motivations to better themselves. They withdraw and become socially isolated. Some develop behavioral dysfunctions, depression or addictions.

The psychological consequences of weight problems at a young age are not easily outgrown. As adults, many continue to carry the scars from their earlier struggles. A study conducted by epidemiologists at the University of Michigan found that people who were overweight during their high school years were significantly less likely to pursue higher education or professional carriers and were more at risk of unemployment and dependency on welfare programs than their normal-weight peers.

One of the reasons why overweight kids are discriminated against may be the still widespread assumption that all weight problems are caused by lack of personal discipline and restraint. “People think that overweight adults have only themselves to blame. They should eat less and exercise more,” says Dr. Brownell. “But blame is simply unreasonable when it comes to children, especially in low-income neighborhoods where markets are often inadequate and places to exercise are nearly nonexistent. So, it’s unfair to put people in an environment where weight gain is a very strong possibility and then blame them for having problems.”

Another issue often mentioned in connection with childhood obesity is the powerful influence of food marketing. Children and adolescents are extremely impressionable and don’t know how to respond to the conflicting messages they are receiving from society, popular culture and the media. On the one hand, they are constantly challenged to comply with physical beauty ideals, which can put a lot of pressure on them to be thin, especially on girls, thereby increasing the risk of developing eating disorders. On the other hand, they are constantly exposed to food and soda ads on TV, encouraging them to consume more. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found compelling evidence that food advertisements had a direct impact on childhood obesity. On average, American children watch up to 10,000 food, soda and snack commercials every year, according to a survey by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), titled “Children, Adolescents and Advertising.” For the food and beverage industry, this is a multi-billion dollars investment worthwhile making. Under these circumstances, the notion that it’s up to the kids themselves to exercise self-control is just laughable.

In an ideal world, parents would be best equipped to prevent childhood obesity from occurring in their families in the first place. But parents are often too busy to control their offspring’s eating habits or are having weight issues themselves. Statistics show that if one parent is overweight, the children have a 40 percent chance to follow in his or her footsteps. If both parents are struggling, the chances increase to 80 percent.

Healthy eating and lifestyle habits do not just appear out of nowhere. They must involve the entire family but also social surroundings like schools, work places and communities. Instead of further stigmatizing people of all ages because of their weight problems, we as a society must find ways to address the issues at hand constructively by creating an environment that is conducive to the health and wellbeing of all its members.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

With one in three children in the United States struggling with weight problems, the fight against childhood obesity is becoming ever more desperate. Some of the new health care provisions that are going into effect this year include insurance coverage for screening, counseling and other preventive care measures for obese children.

While the need for more programs for preventing and treating childhood obesity is obvious, experts say that creating them poses considerable challenges. “Few proven models exist for helping children and adolescents to achieve and maintain a healthier weight, and researchers do not even fully understand the factors that contributed to the rapid rise in childhood obesity in recent years,” writes Reed Abelson in an article for the New York Times, titled “Learning to be Lean” (1/17/2012).

Insurance companies are developing new policies to determine treatment coverage of childhood obesity. One insurer, Wellpoint, is working with pediatricians by offering training in obesity treatment and connecting them with dietitians. And Weight Watchers has announced an upcoming program specifically designed to meet the needs of overweight children and teenagers.
Experts agree that for the fight against childhood obesity to be successful, the focus must be on the greater environment today’s children live in, including families, the media, schools and communities.

Parents
The home is the place where children first learn and develop their eating and lifestyle habits. Parents decide what kind of food is being brought into the house, how it is prepared and how much is served at the dinner table. Parents influence through their own behavior what lifestyles their kids adopt, how physically active they are, how much time they spend watching TV, and how much sleep they get.

For these reasons and others, diet- and lifestyle counseling and education should first be directed towards the parents, according to Dr. Adam P. Knowlden and Dr. Manoj Sharma, both pediatricians at the University of Cincinnati and co-authors of a systematic review of clinical studies of pediatric obesity. Unfortunately, the need for educating parents of overweight children is often difficult to meet. Even those who seek counseling (and by far too few do) don’t always have access to the right resources.

Media
Parents are oftentimes defenseless against outside influences, especially the daily onslaught of advertising by food companies that spend billions on TV ads and product placements geared towards children, according to Dr. Victor Strasburger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and lead author of a study report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), titled “Children, Adolescents and Advertising.”

“It’s not that easy when you are up against Ronald McDonald,” says Dr. Strasburger, referring to McDonald’s iconic clown character that is popular with many kids. “In fact, it is inherently unfair and deceptive to advertise to children who are too young and too impressionable to distinguish between advertising and factual reporting,” he says.

On average, children watch up to 10,000 food and snack commercials every year, according to the AAP. The best thing parents can hope for is limiting the time their kids are exposed to television and other advertising outlets, which, of course, is easier said than done.

In response to the AAP report, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has asked food manufacturers to regulate their marketing efforts to children but has stopped short of asking for any binding policies. Critics say that calling for voluntary self-regulation by the industry is not sufficient to change the existing advertising practices.

Schools
Despite of the government’s more recent efforts to improve the National School Lunch Program with “The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” many schools across the country still don’t have the necessary resources for facilities and personnel to meet the nutritional needs of their students. Due to the downturn of the economy in years past, millions of children depend on the free or subsidized meals they receive at their schools, which in many cases is the only food source available to them. School officials say the increase of federal reimbursement for school lunches by 6 cents per meal does not nearly cover the costs for the growing demand.

So, vending machines filled with sodas and snack foods will not disappear from campuses as long as schools depend on corporate funding for many of their programs and services. And physical Education (PE) is still not available in all schools because of budget limits. The bottom line is that too many schools continue to fail doing their part in the fight against childhood obesity.

Communities
When Michelle Obama started the “Let’s Move” initiative, she put much emphasis on the role of communities. In general, the response was strong and countless grassroots movements have been brought to life all over the country ever since. What is sorely lacking, however, are important changes in our infrastructure. Due to budget crunches, more public parks and playgrounds are being closed than opened. Many cities don’t have bike paths or safe areas to run. Low-income neighborhoods are often too dangerous to let kids play outside or even walk to and from school. In a nutshell: Too many communal environments are not designed to allow kids to be physically active and stay healthy and fit.

Of course, there are many more factors to be considered if we are to deal with the childhood obesity crisis effectively. But these are some of the central issues in this complex task. Education of the public, regulation of industry, funding of school lunch programs and other health services for the young as well as building community support systems and infrastructure are all crucial elements in this fight. Addressing all of them in a comprehensive manner might get us somewhere, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Last week, congressional legislators voted to block a proposal by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve the nutritional quality of the nation’s school lunches, which the agency says contain too much junk food and not enough fresh produce.

The lawmakers named cost increases that would exceed the budget limitations of the coming agriculture spending bill as their main reason for keeping new school meal regulations from going into effect at this time. The USDA plan would have added $6.8 billion to the current expenditures, or about 14 cents per meal.

The proposed changes in the school lunch program would have been the first in 15 year. In keeping with the Obama administration’s commitment to reduce childhood obesity, the new rules would have altered the way schools get credit for serving more fresh fruits and vegetables and less processed items, like pizza, burgers and French fries. Schools that serve federally subsidized meals to students from low-income households are expected to be in compliance with the nutritional guidelines they receive from the government.

The USDA’s proposal was in large parts based on recommendations issued in 2009 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). When the new guidelines were first made public last January, the Obama administration hailed the plan as an important tool “to stem the tide of childhood obesity and reduce future health care costs.”

But food manufacturers and even some school districts quickly objected to the new requirements, arguing that it was not the government’s place to specify what foods can or cannot be served in school cafeterias.

The USDA expressed disappointment over the derailing of its plan: “It is unfortunate that some in Congress chose to bow to special interests,” said a spokesperson for the agency.

While supporters of the congressional action called it “reasonable” and important to “prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations,” nutrition experts generally sided with the USDA and viewed it as a setback.

“It’s a shame that Congress seems more interested in protecting industry than protecting children’s health,” said Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit advocacy group. “At a time when child nutrition and childhood obesity are national health concerns, Congress should be supporting USDA and school efforts to serve healthier school meals, not undermining them,” she added.

Some points of contention over the USDA plan seem downright outlandish. For example, pizza makers insist that a quarter-cup of tomato paste per slice should count as one vegetable serving. The USDA says pizza toppings should be more in line with other fruit pastes and purees, which require higher amounts to be given credit as a serving.

Never mind such silly quibbling over minor details. The bottom line is that unhealthy food items have no place on a school lunch menu, no matter what the law calls them. While it makes sense to control costs in times of economic hardship, imposing austerity measures at the expense of our children’s health is not the way to go.

If school lunches continue to be of poor nutritional quality, a much higher price will have to be paid down the road in terms of health care costs. Meeting the nutritional needs of our youngsters today is an essential investment in our future as a country that should not be made a political football.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

For the majority of American families, homemade meals are a thing of the past. The reasons are multiple: Too inconvenient, too time consuming, too challenging, too expensive.

Nutrition experts have long identified the lack of home cooking as one of the factors contributing to the ongoing obesity crisis, including childhood obesity. There is also general agreement that this is not an easy problem so solve. Here are a few obstacles that keep people from returning to the kitchen.

The traditional household where one spouse – usually the wife – stayed at home is no longer feasible or even desirable for most families. Women commonly have their own careers and bring in badly needed second incomes. Long work hours, commutes, school and afternoon activities make it harder if not impossible to set meal times that fit in everybody’s schedule. Picking up something on the way home that is (almost) ready to eat seems the only reasonable option on most days.

“People really are stressed out with all that they have to do, and they don’t want to cook. It’s one of the few things that even less well-off people have: They don’t have to cook,” said Julie Guthman, professor of community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Time, or the lack of it, is certainly a factor. However, it is also true that even people who claim to be way too busy to think of cooking a meal once in a while do still have enough time to watch TV – at least 1 ½ hours every night on average. And while cooking shows like “Rachael Ray” and “Iron Chef” are highly popular, they don’t seem to have much effect on viewers in terms of motivation to take up the task themselves.

“The core problem is that cooking is defined as work,” wrote Mark Bittman in a recent op-ed article in the New York Times (9/25/2011), titled “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?”
Bittman disputes the widely accepted argument that fast food is so popular because it’s the cheapest kind of food available. “This is just plain wrong,” he wrote, “it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food.” For example, a meal at McDonald’s for a family of four, consisting of 2 “Big Macs”®, 1 cheeseburger, 1 6-piece “Chicken McNuggets”®, 2 medium fries, 2 small fries, 2 medium sodas and 2 small sodas, comes to a total of almost 28 dollars. For this amount, and actually much less, a home-cooked meal could include a whole chicken, potatoes, green vegetables and a simple salad on the side.

So, it’s not so much the money but the convenience, ubiquity and the habit-forming appeal that really helped processed foods to drown out all other alternatives. Now there are about five fast-food restaurants for every supermarket in the U.S., according to Bittman.

“Our addiction to processed food is the result of decades of vision and hard work by the industry,” said David A. Kessler, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and author of “The End of Overeating.” “Companies strove to create food that was energy-dense, highly stimulating, and went down easy. They put it on every street corner and made it mobile, and they made it socially acceptable to eat anytime and anyplace. They created a food carnival, and that’s where we live. And if you’re used to self-stimulation every 15 minutes, well, you can’t run into the kitchen to satisfy that urge,” he was quoted saying in the Bittman article.

Pointing fingers only at food manufacturers and restaurant chains won’t bring about the necessary changes that will make Americans (and people around the world for that matter) reconsider their eating habits. “Real cultural changes are needed to turn this around,” wrote Bittman. “The smart campaign is not to get McDonald’s to serve better food but to get people to see cooking as a joy rather than a burden, or at least as part of a normal life.”

So, what can you do to get your groove back as a hobby chef or discover your talent for the first time?

For starters, you need to “turn on your kitchen mojo,” according to Keri Heron, a Dubai-based journalist and photographer of the food blog “chefandsteward.com.” She advises to take a fun approach that avoids a sense of drudgery right from the beginning. Before you put on the apron and heat up the oven, pick your favorite music and set the right mood. Then, if you are so inclined, pour yourself a glass of wine or another favorite drink to stimulate your taste buds and get those gastric juices flowing. Don’t be shy: Dance and sing along with the music while you cut, slice and dice your ingredients. Think of your cooking not as a chore but an act of love for your family and friends who will enjoy the fruits of your labor and hopefully express their appreciation.

If you are a little rusty or have yet to gain more experience in the kitchen, buy an easy-to-follow cookbook that fits both your abilities and amenities. Don’t be intimidated or get discouraged when things don’t work out right away. One of the greatest chefs of our time, Thomas Keller (owner of “The French Laundry” in Napa Valley and “Per Se” in New York City), named the willingness to repeat and refine his recipes over and over again as the single most important element of his success.

Cooking is not an exact science, so allow yourself to be led by your imagination and curiosity, Heron recommends. There should be genuine joy and playfulness in the kitchen. Only then it will be a place you want to return to night after night (well, almost).

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a clinical dietitian and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” ( http://www.timigustafson.com), and at amazon.com. You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.