CBC News, December 1, 2011

Less than 10 per cent of entrees at children’s hospitals in the U.S. were considered “healthy,” a new study finds.

In the study, researchers used a nutritional scale to assess meals at 12 children’s hospitals in California. The researchers modified a widely-used nutrition tool to assess hospital cafeteria meals. Jeff Baughan/Associated Press

“Unfortunately, the food in many hospitals is no better — and in some cases worse — than what you would find in a fast food restaurant,” Dr. Lenard Lesser, the study’s primary investigator and a physician at the University of California – Los Angeles family medicine department, said in a release.

In the study, published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Academic Pediatrics, investigators used a nutrition tool to rate the pricing, availability of vegetables, nutrition labeling, combo promotions and healthy beverages at hospital cafeterias.

Overall the average score for the hospitals was 19.1, out of a range of 0 (least healthy) to 37 (most healthy).

“Most children’s hospitals’ food venues received a mid-range score, demonstrating there is considerable room for improvement,” the study’s authors concluded.

The researchers found that nearly all hospitals offered diet drinks, low-fat milk and fruit.

But fewer than one-third had nutrition information at the point of purchase and 30 per cent had signs promoting healthy eating.

What’s more, most displayed high-calorie impulse items such as cookies and ice cream at the register, the study’s authors said.

“Achieving ideal children’s hospital food environments would be one small, but significant, step in changing the quality and quantity of what our children eat and preventing the onset of dietary-related chronic diseases,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that the study looked at a small sample of children’s hospitals and that no one actually observed what people actually ate.

Hospitals also often have other places to buy food besides the cafeteria, such as candy shops and vending machines.

The researchers called on national hospital groups to establish standards for labeling, pricing, marketing and food quality in their facilities to improve the food landscape.

Since the study was conducted in July 2010, some of the hospitals surveyed have taken steps to either improve their fare. For example, some have eliminated fried food, lowered the price of salads, and increased the price of sugary beverages or eliminated them altogether from their cafeterias, the researchers said.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded the study.
U.S. hospital cafeteria fare for kids often like fast food – Health – CBC News.

September 24, 2011, New York Times, Mark Bittman

To make changes like this more widespread we need action both cultural and political. The cultural lies in celebrating real food; raising our children in homes that don’t program them for fast-produced, eaten-on-the-run, high-calorie, low-nutrition junk; giving them the gift of appreciating the pleasures of nourishing one another and enjoying that nourishment together.

Political action would mean agitating to limit the marketing of junk; forcing its makers to pay the true costs of production; recognizing that advertising for fast food is not the exercise of free speech but behavior manipulation of addictive substances; and making certain that real food is affordable and available to everyone. The political challenge is the more difficult one, but it cannot be ignored.

What’s easier is to cook at every opportunity, to demonstrate to family and neighbors that the real way is the better way. And even the more fun way: kind of like a carnival.

To make changes like this more widespread we need action both cultural and political. The cultural lies in celebrating real food; raising our children in homes that don’t program them for fast-produced, eaten-on-the-run, high-calorie, low-nutrition junk; giving them the gift of appreciating the pleasures of nourishing one another and enjoying that nourishment together.

[...]

Political action would mean agitating to limit the marketing of junk; forcing its makers to pay the true costs of production; recognizing that advertising for fast food is not the exercise of free speech but behavior manipulation of addictive substances; and making certain that real food is affordable and available to everyone. The political challenge is the more difficult one, but it cannot be ignored.

What’s easier is to cook at every opportunity, to demonstrate to family and neighbors that the real way is the better way. And even the more fun way: kind of like a carnival.

Read the rest of the article at: Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? – NYTimes.com.

August 9, 2011, Reuters, Amy Norton

Children are seeing fewer sugary, fatty foods advertised on TV, but unhealthy fare still makes up the bulk of food commercials they see, a new study suggests.

What’s more, researchers found, children were actually seeing more fast-food commercials in 2009 compared with six years earlier.

The study, reported in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, was aimed at gauging the effects of a voluntary food industry program called the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI).

The initiative began in 2006, in response to calls from the Federal Trade Commission and the Institute of Medicine for greater self-regulation of food advertising to children.

It now includes 17 companies — including Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, General Mills and Kellogg — that have pledged to improve the nutritional content of the ads they run during programs geared mainly for kids younger than 12.

The current study looked not only at ads aired during children’s programs, but all commercials seen by the under-12 set (based on Nielsen ratings data).

It found that by 2009, children were seeing fewer high-fat, high-sugar or high-sodium foods in TV ads, compared with what they were seeing in 2003.

Still, the bulk of 2009 ads — 86 percent — were for fatty, sugary or salty products, according to the researchers — down from 94 percent in 2003.

In addition, fast-food commercials were actually more pervasive in 2009. Children ages 6 to 12 saw about a third more of those ads than in 2003.

“Overall, fewer of these (unhealthy) products were being advertised, which is good news,” said Lisa M. Powell, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago who led the study.

“On the other hand,” she told Reuters Health, “we saw a large increase in the number of fast-food ads.”

According to Powell, the results raise questions about the extent to which self-regulation of ads during children’s programing can “change the landscape” of food marketing to kids.

Lee Peeler, a spokesperson for the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which runs the CFBAI, said the study “shows a lot of progress has been made.”

But he took issue with the fact that the study looked at all ads seen by children, rather than ads aired during children’s programing — which are the focus of the CFBAI.

“They didn’t use the right measure of industry self-regulation,” Peeler said in an interview.

As far as the finding on fast-food ads, Peeler noted that the researchers looked only at the number of ads, and not the content.

He said the two fast-food giants that are members of the CFBAI — Burger King and McDonald’s — have made improvements to their kids’ meals (and the ads for them), like offering apple slices and low-fat milk instead of french fries and soda.

A dietitian with the National Restaurant Association made the same point and defended the industry’s progress on the nutrition front. “Restaurants continue to innovate and provide more healthful menu options for children and adults alike,” Joy Dubost told Reuters Health in a written statement.

Despite her team’s findings, Powell was not arguing for government to step in.

She pointed out that the CFBAI has made some recent changes that could be for the better.

Last month, the program announced that it had developed uniform nutrition criteria, based on U.S. dietary guidelines, for foods that can be advertised to children. As it stands, individual companies have been able to create their own standards.

The uniform criteria will go into effect in 2014. They include standards like limiting advertised children’s cereals to 10 grams of sugar per serving — down from the 12 grams companies are generally holding themselves to now.

“We may well see some improvements (in ads) in the future,” Powell said. “Time will tell. We’ll have to keep monitoring this.”

Peeler argued that the evolving CFBAI policies are evidence that self-regulation works. “Self-regulation moves forward more quickly and is more flexible than government regulation,” he said.

Not everyone agrees. In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for a ban on fast-food ads during children’s programs, saying voluntary guidelines for industry are not enough.

The extent to which advertising is to blame for childhood obesity is controversial. But there is evidence that the commercials themselves may affect kids’ hunger for junk food; one recent study found kids watching cartoons downed 45 percent more snacks when they were exposed to food ads instead of ads for other products.

Powell said that parents should be aware that sugary, fatty, salty treats are still heavily featured in TV ads. “And that makes their job that much tougher,” she noted.

To help limit kids’ exposure to ads — and to get them off the couch — the AAP recommends that parents allow no more than two hours of “screen time” per day. That means both TV and computer time.

SOURCE: bit.ly/poTJLM Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, online August 1, 2011.
Junk food still stars in TV ads seen by kids | Reuters.

ABC, Kim CArollo, Oct 1, 2010

If there were ever a reason to cut back on kids’ consumption of cake, cookies, pizza and soda, nutrition experts say a new study highlights just how unhealthy young people’s diets really are.

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found that nearly 40 percent of calories consumed by children ages 2 to 18 were empty calories, the unhealthiest kind of calories.

Obesity Rates Rise in Some States, Fatty Food Abounds Everywhere McDonald’s to Be Sued Over Happy Meal Toys?Kids Think Food Tastes Better From Cartooned Packages

“Consumption of empty calories far exceeded the corresponding discretionary calorie allowance for all sex–age groups,” wrote the researchers, led by nutritionist Jill Reedy.

“This number is staggering and depressing,” said Kelly Brownell, professor of psychology, epidemiology and public health at Yale University.

While the findings don’t surprise many nutrition experts, they say the reasons kids consume so many empty calories are complex. The push for healthier foods over the past few years has helped a little, but they say there are still many obstacles to changing eating habits for the better — including a lack of physical activity, parental and peer influences, and marketing by the food industry.

Blaming Manufacturers

“Empty-calorie foods are manufactured by the food industry to be maximally palatable,” said Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center in Derby, Conn.

“I don’t see a solution unless we have serious limits on advertising of foods that damage the health and reduce the longevity of today’s children,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

But the picture is complex, said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. Many kids — and their parents — simply do not know what they ought to be eating.

“Nutrition education needs to start in prenatal classes and move through the entire education system,” said Diekman. “As I work with college students it amazes me, the number who don’t know the nutritional value of many foods or even how much of each food group they need.”

Empty Calories: Children and Junk Food

“The school curriculum must include thorough teaching of the value of real food and what food to avoid,” said Dr. Jana Klauer, a New York-based physician and nutrition expert. “It is crucial that nutrition be addressed thoroughly throughout the elementary school years; high school is too late because the damage has been done by then.”

This summer, the Senate passed a bill that would provide $4.5 billion to help improve the nutrtional quality of school lunches and the food in vending machines. The bill has yet to pass the House of Representatives.

Another nutritionist blames teen culture for the over-consumption of junk food.

“Fast food is very inexpensive, filling, and tasty,” said Joanne Ikeda, nutritionist emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. “Teens view it as a bargain. They don’t want to spend a lot of money on food. They want to spend it on clothes, shoes, iPhones, etc.,” she added.

Parents Also Play a Role

Experts also believe children’s poor diets are a result of their home environment.

“Eating is learned behavior. Kids eat what their parents eat,” said Dr. Charles Clark, professor of medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine. If busy parents throw a frozen pizza in the microwave, he said, that’s a bad meal that sends a bad message.

“[We need] better food labeling, including fruits and vegetables, clarification of serving sizes … [and] food labeling with caloric content,” said Dr. Robert Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Hospital.

One nutritionist said that while the food industry does serve up a less-than-healthy dose of junk food, restaurants are improving their choices, and it’s up to consumers to make the right choices.

“[W]e need for customers to continue to ask for healthier options. Change won’t happen in these environments unless customers financially support the changes,” said Diekman.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, an organization that represents 300 food, beverage and consumer product companies, said that between 2002 and 2009, food and beverage companies have introduced thousands of healthier alternatives.

“Food and beverage companies are responding to consumer needs by providing thousands of healthier product choices that make it easier for shoppers to build a healthy diet for them and their families,” the association said in a press release.

The association also said more than 90 percent of its companies actively promote healthy lifestyles.

Despite the National Cancer Institute study’s findings, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called the obesity epidemic a “winnable battle.”

“CDC is committed to addressing the epidemic of obesity and overweight in the U.S.,” says the agency’s website, “and improving the public’s health through the promotion of good nutrition, physical activity, and a safe food supply.”

via Junk Food Makes Up Nearly Half of Kids’ Calories – ABC News.

For many students, “back to school” means back to a vending machine diet. As you might guess, this isn’t necessarily a good thing for student health.

Vending machines are found in 16% of U.S. elementary schools, 52% of middle schools and 88% of high schools. About 22% of students in grades 1 through 12 buy food in vending machines each day – and those purchases added an average of 253 calories to their diets, according to a new study in the September issue of the Journal of School Health.

Just to be clear, those were not 253 calories’ worth of tofu, yogurt or carrot sticks. The most popular vending machine items included soft drinks, candy, chips, crackers, cookies, cakes and ice cream. On the plus side, kids also bought low-fat milk, fruit juice and even fruit, the study found.

Get breaking news alerts delivered to your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.

But the net effect on kids’ diets was not good. Those who bought from vending machines ate an average of 156 grams of sugar per day, compared with 146 grams for those who abstained. They also consumed less dietary fiber, iron and B vitamins like thiamine, riboflavin, niacin and folate.

One silver lining: Vending machine customers ate 4% less sodium than other students – an average of 3,287 milligrams per day compared with 3,436 mg for those who didn’t buy from vending machines. That’s probably because the extra snacks made kids too full to eat as much at mealtime, when dishes are especially salty. In any event, kids should eat no more than 1,200 to 1,500 mg of sodium each day, according to the Mayo Clinic. (Even for adults, the government recommends a daily limit of 2,300 mg.)

Overall, vending machines in school appear to be taking a toll on public health. The researchers – from the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Food & Nutrition Database Research Inc. of Okemos, Mich. –  calculated that all that snacking adds up to about 14 extra pounds per child per school year.

“For some students this might be a serious contributor to weight issues,” they wrote. Other public health problems include Type 2 diabetes and cavities.

The study was based on data collected from 2,309 children nationwide for the third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study, which was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service.

via Another study highlights the insanity of selling junk food in school vending machines – latimes.com.

San Fransisco Chronicle, Rachel Gordon, August 11, 2010

Toys that have been synonymous with kids’ meals at fast-food restaurants could soon be banned in San Francisco under a new law proposed Tuesday if the food contains too much fat, sugar or salt.

Earlier this year, Santa Clara County became the first local government in the nation to adopt such a law, but it only applies to unincorporated areas and affects a handful of restaurants.

San Francisco’s proposal could have a far greater impact. The restrictions would pertain to all restaurants but effectively would target the dozens of fast-food establishments in the city, among them McDonald’s, Jack in the Box and Burger King.

San Francisco’s legislation would not prohibit toy giveaways outright, but limit them to menu items that meet strict nutrition guidelines.

For example, no single item could contain more than 200 calories or 480 milligrams of sodium. An entire meal could have no more than 600 calories.

That would wipe out all but a handful of the Happy Meal offerings at McDonald’s – and none of those options include a small hamburger. Several meet the calorie count, but would fail on the sodium content.

“Our legislation will encourage restaurants that offer unhealthy meals marketed toward children and youth to offer healthier food options with incentive items or toys,” said Supervisor Eric Mar, chief sponsor of the legislation.

“It will help protect the public’s health, reduce costs to our health care system and promote healthier eating habits,” he said.

Fruits and veggies

In addition, the proposal would dictate that the meals that come with toys also have a helping of fruit and vegetables. Not spelled out in the legislation is whether ketchup, pickle relish and French fries would fulfill that requirement.

The focus on fast-food meals marketed to kids comes amid a heightened awareness of health problems associated with childhood obesity and diabetes.

Rajiv Bhatia, director of occupational and environmental health for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, helped craft Mar’s legislation and said many of the existing menu offerings could conform to the proposed nutritional standards by reducing the portion size or altering some of the ingredients.

“This is not an anti-toy ordinance; this is a pro-healthy-meal ordinance,” Bhatia said. “The assumption is that restaurants can meet these standards.”

But should a government so boldly intrude on the eating habits of the people who live here and visit? Mar said the proposal wouldn’t stop people from eating the high-fat and high-salt foods, but would remove an incentive for young people to clamor for them.

Called punishment

The restaurant industry doesn’t like the strategy.

“The San Francisco Board of Supervisors seems to have an insatiable appetite for punishing the restaurant industry. However, the widespread ridicule that this proposal will receive should give them a case of heartburn,” said Daniel Conway, director of public affairs for the California Restaurant Association.

“Toy bans are only proven to disappoint kids, frustrate parents and generate headlines for ambitious politicians,” Conway added. “The Board of Supervisors needs to stop gorging on political gimmicks and instead focus on creating jobs in their city.”

Santa Clara’s restriction, which was adopted in April, took effect Monday. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President Ken Yeager, who authored the law, has received inquiries from officials in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City and Orange County.

Leave it to the parents

Two blocks from San Francisco City Hall, Ursula Choice sat in a McDonald’s on Van Ness Avenue with her 3- and 6-year-old sons, who each got a plastic Marvel comics hero figurine in their Happy Meals. Were San Francisco’s proposed law already in effect, they wouldn’t have gotten the toys: Their cheeseburgers, fries and boxed apple juice exceed both the proposed caloric and sodium threshold.

Choice said coming to McDonald’s was a treat for her boys, who had to endure a visit to the nearby Board of Education headquarters to enroll her oldest son in school. “They were hungry. We got something quick and they got toys to play with,” Choice, 24, said.

“These are growing boys, extremely active. I think it should be up to the parents, not the city, to decide what they eat.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/08/11/MNJG1ES4M2.DTL#ixzz0wMzNTvOp

S.F. proposal: Healthier kids meals or no toys.

The Huffington Post, Michelle Locke, July 15, 2010

It’s not hard to figure out that stocking school vending machines with sugary sodas and salty, fatty snacks is a bad idea. Replacing those culinary culprits with something more nutritious is tougher.

But a growing number of school districts around the country are trying anyway.

“I can’t say enough for what it does for the kids to have the junk out of the machines,” says Patricia Gray, who as former principal of San Francisco’s Balboa High School oversaw a switch to healthier snacks.

“It was not an easy task,” says Gray, now an assistant superintendent with the district, “it was a re-education process.”

Efforts to get empty calories out of students’ hands are being made in almost every state, according to the Centers for Disease Control. A 2008 School Health Profiles Survey found that fewer secondary schools were selling less nutritious snacks compared with two years before.

Among the findings: Across 34 states, the median percent of secondary schools that ditched non-nutritious snacks increased from 46 percent in 2006 to 64 percent in 2008.

Still, the report found more progress needs to be made.

How big a deal is what kids eat at school?

According to the Institute of Medicine and the National Center for Health Statistics, the average young person gets more than 10 percent of his or her calories from saturated fat, takes in less than two-thirds the recommended intake of calcium and more than double the recommended amount of sodium. And for boys and girls ages 9 to 13, 21 percent get more than one-fourth of their energy intake from added sugars.

Food in the lunch and breakfast programs must meet nutritional standards to qualify for federal reimbursement, but food sold in other school venues, including vending machines, aren’t subject to those requirements.

Some states have passed their own laws regulating vending machines, including California, which forbids some non-nutritious snacks. In San Francisco, the school board has a stricter policy, passing a wellness policy implemented in the 2003-04 year that banned sodas (this is now part of the state standard, too) and nixed snacks like baked potato chips.

“It may be less bad for you, but that doesn’t mean that it’s good for you,” says Dana Woldow, a leader in the push for better snacks and co-chair of the district’s Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee.

Things aren’t perfect now, but they’re “a million times better,” than the past when sodas, candy and fried chips were the rule, Woldow said.

Starting this fall, one machine is being piloted in a San Francisco high school that will offer full, reimbursable, meals – fruit, vegetable, milk, sandwich. The “smart” machine will tally up when a student has selected enough items to qualify as reimbursable.

Drinks allowed in San Francisco school vending machines include water, juice, milk and juice/water blends with no added sweeteners, caffeine or herbal supplements. Snacks include yogurt bars, tuna salad and crackers, fruit bars and sunflower seeds.

Healthier snack machines are showing up all over. Jolly Backer, CEO of San Diego-based Fresh Healthy Vending, says the company has machines in 1,700 locations, including schools, across the United States. Offerings include items such as yogurts and fresh fruit. “All the top-selling drinks and snacks that you’d find in a Whole Foods Market you’ll find in our machines,” says Backer.

Some, like food activist Marion Nestle, say the idea of healthier vending machines is flawed.

“It depends how you define healthy,” she said. “If you define healthy as slightly better for you than junk food, they’re doing a really good job.”

She advocates taking out vending machines and focusing on improving school lunch options.

But Woldow notes that the school day is long with extracurricular activities that can go on for hours after the cafeteria closes, which means students might dash out to corner stores for high-fat, high-sugar snacks. “Isn’t it better to offer them healthy choices which are also convenient?” she says.

For those working to boost the nutrient value of vending machines, one issue is that machines are often under independent contract, perhaps to the PE department or the English department, making it hard to centralize control.

Bringing about change requires a comprehensive approach, says Gray. In addition to working on vending machine content she stopped the sale of candy for fundraisers, a very unpopular decision for a while, and curtailed bringing in junk food from home. “If you don’t have a principal that’s totally committed to (healthier snacks), it won’t work.”

And be patient, she says. Passing out fresh fruit started out as a novelty and turned into a treat. “They will eat it if it’s available and you don’t have the bad stuff. Kids get hungry. They’re going to eat one way or the other.”

Schools Trying To Expel Junk Food.

The Guardian, Randeep Ganesh, July 7 2010

Beer companies, confectionery firms and crisp-makers will be asked to fund the government’s advertising campaign to persuade people to switch to a healthier lifestyle and, in return, will not face new legislation outlawing excessively fatty, sugary and salty food, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, announced today.

In a move condemned by campaigners as the government “rolling over on their backs in front of the food lobby”, Lansley told a conference of public health experts that he wanted a new partnership with food and drink firms. In exchange for a “non-regulatory approach”, the private sector would put up cash to fund the Change4Life campaign to improve diets and boost levels of physical activity among young people.

The time had come, said Lansley, to accept that “lecturing or nannying” people to change their behaviour did not work. He said business people “understand the social responsibility of people having a better lifestyle and they don’t regard that as remotely inconsistent with their long-term commercial interest”.

Lansley added: “No government campaign or programme can force people to make healthy choices. We want to free business from the burden of regulation, but we don’t want, in doing that, to sacrifice public health outcomes.”

Health campaigners said they were “horrorstruck” at Lansley’s remarks. “This is nothing other than a bare-faced request for cash from a rich food and drink industry, to bail out a cash-starved Department of Health campaign. The quid pro quo is that the department gives industry an assurance that there will no regulation or legislation over its activities,” said Tam Fry, a spokesperson for the National Obesity Forum.

The forum took issue with claims by the health secretary that his hands were tied on many aspects of food regulation, including the level of saturated fats, because of European rules. Fry said this was “simply untrue”. “Denmark, America have all used laws, or the threat of laws, to get the industry to move.”

Conceived by Labour, the Change4Life campaign was costed at £75m over three years and was already backed by industry, with high street names such as Tesco, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Pepsi all offering expertise and support. However, Lansley is proposing a radical scaling back of the public contribution to allow “charities, the commercial sector, and local authorities to fill the gap”.

Alan Maryon-Davis, the outgoing president of the Faculty of Public Health, said that legislation had worked in the case of cutting back smoking and “saved us from ourselves”.

“Personally, I mistrust the notion of seeing public health campaigns being sponsored by companies that clearly sell products which are not the healthy option”.

Speaking to reporters after his speech to the Faculty of Public Health conference in central London, Lansley said Change4Life would also be expanded, to cover alcohol misuse which costs the NHS £17bn a year – the same as obesity, which now affects one in four Britons.

He said that in conversations with the food industry before the election, they had been anxious about their products being “stigmatised as junk food”. He said he did not want to “close companies out” by trading allegations of “good food and bad food”.

“It’s perfectly possible to eat a bag of crisps, to eat a Mars bar, to drink a carbonated soft drink, but do it in moderation, understanding your overall diet and lifestyle. Then you can begin to take responsibility for it.”

The food industry said it welcomed the new move and was keen to work in partnership with the government. “We agree that in complex debates, such as obesity, the best solutions will be delivered through a shared social responsibility and not state regulation,” said Julian Hunt, the Food and Drink Federation’s director of communications.

No anti-junk food laws, health secretary promises | Society | The Guardian.

What to do about the obesity epidemic? Here’s a thought: Substitute “tobacco” for “junk food.” That provides a pretty clear road map about what government authorities should be doing to safeguard public health.

Unfortunately, officials are instead just reheating the same old leftovers.

Dietary guidelines issued recently by the U.S. Department of Agriculture basically say Americans need to ease up on the salt, sugar and saturated fats, and instead eat more fruits and veggies.

In fact, more than two-thirds of adults over 20 are either overweight or obese, the CDC says. About a third of all American kids fall into that category.

“It’s not that we’re morons and have no idea what’s good for us,” said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, a nonprofit organization. “It’s the world around us. We’re influenced to eat by our environment.”

In other words, we might know in our heads that a Twinkie or a chocolate shake is a heart attack waiting to happen. But our gut just can’t resist the siren call of all that tasty sugar or fat. And so we eat.

And eat.

And eat.

Food and beverage companies have long argued that if their products are used in moderation, they don’t pose a danger to public health. They also say it’s unfair to blame them for causing the obesity epidemic.

“If we really want to solve this national public health challenge, we must focus on educating Americans through comprehensive approaches that include nutrition education based in fact and focusing on total diet and exercise,” Susan Neely, head of the American Beverage Assn., said in a statement.

Personal responsibility is certainly a factor — no one forces us to stuff our faces. But Goldstein and other health advocates say consumers are brazenly manipulated by an industry that spends billions of dollars annually getting us to consume what it knows is bad for us.

“Up to now, it’s been a complete free-for-all, with the food industry convincing us to eat more and more of their high-fat, high-salt, high-sugar products,” Goldstein said. “It’s time that this was addressed through public policy.”

And tobacco regulation shows the way.

The rate of adults who smoke peaked at 45% in 1954, according to Gallup. It remained around 40% through the early 1970s and then started dropping as awareness about the dangers of nicotine grew, and as state and federal officials enacted anti-smoking programs.

Today, the adult smoking rate is about 20%. The same percentage applies to older teens, while about 6% of younger teens are smokers, according to the CDC.

The answer seems obvious: If we want to protect ourselves from a deadly epidemic of heart disease, diabetes and other ailments, just as we’ve taken steps to protect ourselves from an epidemic of lung cancer, we need to act.

And that means strict — some might say draconian — measures to reduce consumption of what’s bad for us, and aggressive campaigns to get us to eat and behave in a healthier fashion.

“It doesn’t seem at all draconian to me,” said Toni Yancey, a professor of health sciences at the UCLA School of Public Health. “We need to change social norms to make certain foods less appealing, just as we made it less appealing to smoke.”

We’re already removing sugary sodas and junk food from schools, and we’re doing it to help kids be healthier. Surely the same rationale applies to the rest of society.

I’m not saying we close down all McDonald’s and Burger King outlets. I’m saying we significantly limit advertising and sponsorship by companies selling, as Goldstein put it, high-fat, high-salt, high-sugar products.

This has worked for tobacco. It’s worked (on a largely volunteer basis) for alcohol. It can work for junk food.

Yancey said a good place to start would be government buildings — eliminate all bad-for-you foods and beverages. Instead, make healthful alternatives available. Gradually, if the political will can be found, expand the junk food ban to all workplaces, just as smoking bans spread from the public to the private sector.

Meanwhile, we need to step up wellness efforts to get people to make healthier choices and exercise more. These programs should be funded by levies on the foods that contribute most to obesity, and the obvious place to start is soda.

The beverage industry fiercely opposes such ideas. The chief financial officer of Coca-Cola Co., Gary Fayard, said at an industry conference this month that soda makers need to band together to fight any new taxes on their products.

Researchers at Harvard University say soft drinks are a “major driver” of obesity in the United States, and that raising the price of a can of soda by about a third could cut consumption by as much as 26%.

Tax money could also be put to better use.

“Because we subsidize corn, it ends up as high-fructose corn syrup,” Yancey said. “Why not subsidize healthy foods instead?”

I asked her what she thinks the obesity rate will be 30 years from now.

“I think it will be even higher,” Yancey replied. “Adults will be fatter.”

But if we act now, she said, future generations of kids won’t be exposed to all the cues and temptations that contribute to runaway waistlines.

“Hopefully they’ll be less fat,” Yancey said. “That’s where we’ll turn the tide.”

It is very possible to achieve recovery from addictions, regardless of what type of addictions they may be.

Obesity and junk food: Taking a cue from tobacco control – latimes.com.

FAST-FOOD firms have to be a thick-skinned bunch. Health experts regularly lambast them for peddling food that makes people fat. Critics even complain that McDonald’s, whose golden arches symbolise calorie excess, should not have been allowed to sponsor the World Cup. These are things fast-food firms have learnt to cope with and to deflect. But not perhaps for much longer. The burger business faces more pressure from regulators at a time when it is already adapting strategies in response to shifts in the global economy.

Fast food was once thought to be recession-proof. When consumers need to cut spending, the logic goes, cheap meals like Big Macs and Whoppers become even more attractive. Such “trading down” proved true for much of the latest recession, when fast-food companies picked up customers who could no longer afford to eat at casual restaurants. Traffic was boosted in America, the home of fast food, with discounts and promotions, such as $1 menus and cheap combination meals.

As a result, fast-food chains have weathered the recession better than their pricier competitors. In 2009 sales at full-service restaurants in America fell by more than 6%, but total sales remained about the same at fast-food chains. In some markets, such as Japan, France and Britain, total spending on fast food increased. Same-store sales in America at McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast-food company, did not decline throughout the downturn. Panera Bread, an American fast-food chain known for its fresh ingredients, performed well, too: its boss, Ron Shaich, claims this is because it offers higher-quality food at lower prices than restaurants.

But not all fast-food companies have been as fortunate. Many, such as Burger King, have seen sales fall. In a severe recession, while some people trade down to fast food, many others eat at home more frequently to save money. David Palmer, an analyst at UBS, a bank, says smaller fast-food chains in America, such as Jack in the Box and Carl’s Jr., have been hit particularly hard in this downturn because at the same time they are “slugging it out with a global powerhouse” in the form of McDonald’s, which ramped up spending on advertising by more than 7% last year as others cut back.

Some fast-food companies also cannibalised their own profits by trying to give customers better value. During the recession companies set prices low, hoping that once they had tempted customers through the door they would be persuaded to order more expensive items. But in many cases that strategy backfired. Last year Burger King franchisees sued the company over its double-cheeseburger promotion, claiming it was unfair for them to be required to sell these for $1 when they cost $1.10 to make. In May a judge ruled in favour of Burger King. Nevertheless, the company may still be cursing its decision to promote cheap choices over more expensive ones because items on its “value menu” now account for around 20% of all sales, up from 12% last October.

Analysts expect the fast-food industry to grow modestly this year. But the downturn is making them rethink their strategies. Many companies are now introducing higher-priced items to entice consumers away from $1 specials. KFC, a division of Yum! Brands, which also owns Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, has launched a chicken sandwich that costs around $5. And in May Burger King introduced barbecue pork ribs at a hefty $7 for eight.

More cheeseburgers

Companies are also trying to get customers to buy new and more items, including drinks. McDonald’s started selling better coffee as a challenge to Starbucks. Its “McCafé” line now accounts for an estimated 6% of sales in America. Others are testing a similar strategy. Starbucks has sold rights to its Seattle’s Best coffee brand to Burger King, which will start selling it later this year. McDonald’s is now rolling out frappé coffees and smoothies.

As fast-food companies shift from “super size” to “more buys” they need to keep customer traffic high throughout the day. Many see breakfast as a big opportunity, and not just for fatty food. McDonald’s will start selling porridge in America next year. Breakfast has the potential to be very lucrative, says Sara Senatore of Bernstein, a research firm, because the margins can be high. Fast-food companies are also adding midday and late-night snacks, such as blended drinks and wraps. The idea is that by having a greater range of things on the menu, “we can sell to consumers products they want all day,” says Rick Carucci, the chief financial officer of Yum! Brands.

Yet growth opportunities in America are limited because the market is considered to be “saturated”, not so much in fats but outlets. China is the place where most fast-food chains, like so many industries, see big expansion. Mr Carucci, for one, thinks China will be “the biggest growth opportunity for the industry this century”. If so, then Yum!, which has the greatest presence in China of any Western fast-food company, will be celebrating. Already around 30% of the company’s profits come from China, and in the next five years this is expected to grow to 40%. India also looks like a succulent opportunity. Others plan to serve up more business in Russia and elsewhere in Europe. Given that around 75% of fast-food companies’ revenue in Europe comes from people eating in the restaurants (compared with half in America), older European outlets are being done up to make them more attractive places.

Getting chunky

The recession also proved the importance of size in competing for customers, which means that more consolidation is likely. Wendy’s and Arby’s, two American fast-food chains, merged in 2008. On June 11th their shares surged following news that a buyer was interested in the company. Smaller chains may catch the eye of private-equity firms, just as CKE Restaurants did earlier this year when Apollo Management, a buy-out firm, purchased it.

But what about those growing waistlines? So far, fast-food firms have nimbly avoided government regulation. By providing healthy options, like salads and low-calorie sandwiches, they have at least given the impression of doing something about helping to fight obesity. These offerings are not necessarily loss-leaders, as they broaden the appeal of outlets to groups of diners that include some people who don’t want to eat a burger. But customers cannot be forced to order salads instead of fries.

In the future, simply offering a healthy option may not be good enough. “Every packaged-food and restaurant company I know is concerned about regulation right now,” says Mr Palmer of UBS. America’s health-reform bill, which Congress passed this year, requires restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets to put the calorie-content of items they serve on the menu. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which tracked the effects on Starbucks of a similar calorie-posting law in New York City in 2007, found that the average calorie-count per transaction fell 6% and revenue increased 3% at Starbucks stores where a Dunkin Donuts outlet was nearby—a sign, it is said, that menu-labelling could favour chains that have more nutritious offerings.

In order to avoid other legislation in America and elsewhere, fast-food companies will have to continue innovating. Walt Riker of McDonald’s claims the makeover it has given to its menu means it offers more healthy items than it did a few years ago. “We probably sell more lettuce, more milk, more salads, more apples than any restaurant business in the world,” he says. But the recent proposal by a county in California to ban the golden arches from including toys in its high-calorie “Happy Meals”, because legislators believe it attracts children to unhealthy food, suggests there is a lot more left to do.

The changes facing fast food: Good and hungry | The Economist.