On Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama launched her third “Let’s Move!” tour to combat childhood obesity. Before she kicked off the tour in Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri, Mrs. Obama appeared on “Good Morning America” to praise her campaign’s success in changing children’s eating and exercise habits. She also unveiled Let’s Move latest initiative, the MyPlate Recipe Partnership geared toward parents looking for easy, nutritious recipes:

OBAMA: We’ve really changed the conversation in this country. When we started, there were a lot of people in this country who would have never thought that childhood obesity was a health crisis. But now we’re starting to see some movement on this issue. Our kids are eating better at school. They’re moving more. And we’re starting…to see rates of obesity coming down like never before.

Childhood obesity rates are indeed showing small declines for the first time in decades, especially in cities with aggressive nutrition policies. As Mrs. Obama pointed out, “Let’s Move” has helped call attention to the childhood obesity crisis, and one of her cornerstone achievements was comprehensive school lunch reform that increased funding for public school meals and gave the USDA the ability to regulate foods sold in schools.

Besides school lunch reform, however, “Let’s Move” has deliberately veered away from pushing actual legislation, instead focusing on personal responsibility in nutrition and fitness. That’s a very different approach than the one Mrs. Obama took during the inception of her fight against childhood obesity. In 2010, the First Lady gave a fiery speech at a Grocery Manufacturers Association conference, arguing that changing personal habits won’t work if big companies like Kraft and General Mills continue to target children with misleading ads for sugary, fatty food:

This is a shared responsibility. That’s why I’ve gone to parents and I’ve asked them to do their part. They have a responsibility to watch what their kids eat and teach good habits.[...]And all of you have a responsibility as well.

And we need you not just to tweak around the edges, but to entirely rethink the products that you’re offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children. That starts with revamping or ramping up your efforts to reformulate your products, particularly those aimed at kids, so that they have less fat, salt, and sugar, and more of the nutrients that our kids need.

As a mom, I know it is my responsibility — and no one else’s — to raise my kids. But what does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids? And what are these ads teaching kids about food and nutrition? That it’s good to have salty, sugary food and snacks every day — breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

Read more

Gov. Nikki Haley’s (R-SC) state has a serious weight problem — and she knows it. That’s why last week, flanked by public health officials, Haley announced that she will push for a controversial overhaul of South Carolina’s nutritional assistance program that would limit food stamp purchases to “healthy” items. It’s a well-meaning idea meant to tackle the state’s rampant obesity epidemic and its resulting health care costs — unfortunately, the proposal isn’t the most effective way to tackle obesity, and implementing it could end up preventing low-income Americans from receiving adequate nutrition.

Any changes to a state’s food stamp program require a waiver from the federal government, and no state has successfully received one to date. The Charlotte Observer reports that Haley will hold group meetings with food stamp recipients, public health advocates, food makers, and various other officials to determine which foods should be purchasable with food stamps — and which shouldn’t — before requesting the waiver, in an effort to sway the federal government by putting up a unified front. That means that the specifics of Haley’s plan have yet to be fleshed out, and her office did not respond to ThinkProgress’ request for more details.

Still, Haley’s statements on the matter suggest that she wants to discourage South Carolina residents from using food stamps to purchase high-fat, high-calorie, and high-sodium products. “That $1 billion [in federal nutritional assistance] no longer will go to candy and chocolate and sodas and chips — it’ll be going to apples and oranges and things that are healthy,” she said.

That’s certainly an admirable goal considering South Carolina’s abysmal public health statistics: a full third of the state’s 4.7 million resident are obese, making it the eighth most obese state in America; another third are overweight; and the state ranks second in the country for obesity-related diabetes risk. Furthermore, the cost of treating obesity-related illnesses for low-income Americans accounts for almost 12 percent of national Medicaid spending — and likely an even higher percentage in South Carolina, where 18 percent of residents are on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

But the efficacy — and the practical logistics — of Haley’s approach remains an open question. Proposals to limit food stamp purchases are a source of fierce debate among both public health and poverty advocates — not to mention supermarkets and food makers who argue that the transaction costs of separating SNAP from non-SNAP products would be too high or hurt product sales.

Read more

American children are still consuming far too many calories from fatty foods, even as U.S. adults have made modest cuts in their caloric intakes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Between 2009 and 2010, American adults cut back on eating pizzas, french fries, and other greasy fast foods by about two percent — and while children also reduced their caloric consumption in the aggregate, they still received a high share of their daily calories from saturated fats during that time period:

Recommended U.S. guidelines suggest that no more than 10 percent of one’s daily calories should come from such fat, but American youth took in between 11 percent and 12 percent from 2009 to 2010, data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics showed.

Americans’ diets and weight is a source of constant scrutiny and research in a country where two-thirds of the population is considered overweight or obese. According to the CDC, 36 percent of U.S. adults, or 78 million, and 17 percent of youth, or 12.5 million, are obese. Another third are overweight. [...]

Still, Americans lead the world in calorie consumption. Portion sizes also have increased over the years, coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, have added up to extra pounds. Complications from obesity include diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and some cancers.

What is particularly worrying about the report is the fact that “those who are already obese” are among the groups that consumed the most unhealthy foods, highlighting the fact that not only does America remain ill-equipped to prevent obesity in its nascent stages, but is also failing to improve obese Americans’ health after the fact. That doesn’t bode well for national health expenditures, considering that somewhere between 10 and 12 percent of all health insurance spending is driven by obesity-related conditions.

Furthermore, the obesity epidemic is disproportionately impacting black Americans, who are more likely to excessively consume fatty and sugary foods. That isn’t just a coincidence — the food industry is notorious for its efforts to undermine public health with misleading ad campaigns and product information opacity, and those efforts are often targeted in low-income, racially diverse communities. Soda advertising campaigns in particular take aim at poor, young black Americans, contributing to a status quo where low-income black youth are far more likely to consume calories from sugary drinks.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any progress in the war on American obesity. Public health advocates have successfully lobbied major food companies to cut back on sodium in their products, and are now asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to pass rules cracking down on sweeteners in foods and drinks. The FDA has also taken efforts to eliminate fatty foods from school lunch menus. Still, the FDA and American food manufacturers could — and should — do much more, as historical evidence shows that localities with aggressive nutrition policies experienced significant drops in childhood obesity.

Public health advocates have decided to take their fight against American obesity straight to one of its major sources, calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to pass rules encouraging soda and food makers to limit the amount of sweeteners used in their products, the New York Times reports.

As U.S. obesity rates remain sky-high, public health advocates have been tackling the epidemic from all sides. But as Dr. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told the New York Times, curbing excess sugar consumption could go a long way towards getting Americans on a healthier track:

“Just to assure you that sugars are not toxins, I use a teaspoon of sugar in my tea every day and I’m sure it’s not poison,” Dr. Jacobson said. “It’s the overconsumption that is par for the course in the U.S. that we’re concerned about.”

The center is also asking the agency to set voluntary limits on sweeteners in packaged goods, like cereals and snacks, and to mount an educational campaign to help consumers reduce added sugars in their diet.

“This is on solid legal ground,” Dr. Jacobson said. “It’s just a question of whether the F.D.A. will act or what it will take to get the F.D.A. to act.”

Public health officials in the cities that signed the petition [encouraging the FDA to act] said they did so out of concerns that obesity was contributing to rising rates of health problems like high blood pressure, diabetes and even gout, all of which are increasing among the populations they serve.

While the FDA’s efforts to curb obesity — particularly childhood obesity — have centered on encouraging healthy school lunches and posting caloric information on vending machines, a rule encouraging producers to limit fatty substances in their products might be more effective. That way, the Americans who would like to indulge in sugary treats could still do so, but without causing as much harm to their bodies.

Some public health advocates have called for more extreme measures, such as provisions that are in place in some European countries that tax sugary products at a higher rate. However, as Aaron Carroll of the Incidental Economist points out, such measures tend to be politically difficult and lead to mediocre improvements in public health. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) has successfully lobbied major food companies to reduce the sodium content in their products — the FDA could encourage them to take similar and more widespread action when it comes to sugar.

John Alleman, a 52-year-old unofficial spokesman for the Heart Attack Grill — a restaurant notorious for exorbitantly and intentionally high-calorie fare such as “the Triple Bypass Burger” — has died of a heart attack, according to owner John Basso.

As CBS News reports, the restaurant has come under scrutiny for previous incidents in which regular patrons died of heart-related complications, and the flippant attitude that Basso has demonstrated towards critics of his restaurant’s active encouragement of obesity and unhealthy lifestyles:

[Basso] told the paper the man was not heavy, weighing about 180 pounds, and may have had a genetic predisposition to cardiac problems because both his parents died from heart attacks in their 50s.

The death comes about a year after a man suffered a heart attack while eating one of the restaurant’s 6,000-calorie “Triple Bypass Burgers.” Last February, patrons thought they were witnessing a publicity stunt for the restaurant that says it has a “Taste Worth Dying For” and took out their cell phone cameras, but were ultimately seeing a patron around his 40s having a cardiac episode being wheeled out by paramedics. [...]

“I’m here to tell you straight up that I’m here to make a buck,” Basso told CBS This Morning last February. “Anything that’s legal that you want to eat or drink that’s fun, that enriches your life at the moment, I will sell it to you. If I could put danger back into hamburgers, all the better.”

The restaurant also offers free meals to patrons who weigh over 350 pounds.

As CBS points out, the restaurant literally rewards patrons who lead extremely unhealthy — and medically costly — lifestyles. Studies have shown that health care costs directly and indirectly associated with obesity have ballooned alongside Americans’ waistlines, constituting “8.5 percent of Medicare spending, 11.8 percent of Medicaid spending, and 12.9 percent of private-payer spending.”

In an era when public health advocates and some food companies — though not all — are actively looking to improve Americans’ health by curbing unhealthy content in their products and making caloric information readily available, establishments such as the Heart Attack Grill are defiantly moving in the opposite direction. Patronizing such “novelty” restaurants is, of course, a luxury afforded by freedom of choice. But as John Alleman’s story shows, that freedom can come at a steep price to Americans and national health care expenditures.

Thirty-year-old New Zealand mother of eight Natasha Harris was not a casual Coca-Cola drinker: She drank more than two gallons of the soda per day, taking in more than 11 times the recommended daily sugar consumption and twice the recommended amount of caffeine in what her family calls an addiction, complete with withdrawal symptoms. And according to the coroner investigating her death by cardiac arrest, that addiction contributed to her death:

“I find that, when all of the available evidence is considered, were it not for the consumption of very large quantities of Coke by Natasha Harris, it is unlikely that she would have died when she died and how she died.”

The coroner’s report revealed Harris suffered from a variety of health problems possibly connected to her Coke problem, including a racing heart and “absent teeth.” Coca-Cola Oceania issued a statement condemning the report yesterday:

“The Coroner acknowledged that he could not be certain what caused Ms Harris’ heart attack. Therefore we are disappointed that the Coroner has chosen to focus on the combination of Ms Harris’ excessive consumption of Coca-Cola, together with other health and lifestyle factors, as the probable cause of her death. This is contrary to the evidence that showed the experts could not agree on the most likely cause.”

While Harris’s soda consumption was clearly well outside the norm, research has connected the consumption of sugary drinks like soda to health concerns, particularly obesity. Children in the U.S. consume 7 trillion calories of these drinks per year, and studies show that the least healthy of those products are aggressively marketed to children of color who have been hit hardest by the obesity epidemic.

That marketing works so well that Coca-Cola has launched PR campaigns to divert attention from its role in that epidemic. The food and beverage industry touts “personal responsibility” messaging to emphasize that it’s simply up to people to make healthy choices and consume their products in moderation, as opposed to Harris. But health experts warn that those industries’ misleading marketing tactics mimic Big Tobacco’s.

As part of a voluntary public health initiative led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) to lower the amount of sodium in popular foods, 21 companies — including Butterball, Heinz, Subway, Starbucks, and Kraft Foods — have cut salt content in certain products by as much as 30 percent.

As CBS News reports, the affected products include a variety of foods including hot dogs, cold cuts, cheese singles, sandwiches, and crackers. Bloomberg lauded Kraft in particular for “reducing sodium in its Kraft Singles American Slices by 18 percent” and Subway for eliminating sodium entirely from two of their popular sandwiches.

Bloomberg and public health advocates welcomed the companies’ decisions, noting that Americans consume an excessive amount of sodium, and that the source of the excess is in pre-packaged foods rather than salt manually added to products by consumers:

“These companies have demonstrated their commitment to removing excess sodium from their products and to working with public health authorities toward a shared goal — helping their customers lead longer, healthier lives,” said Bloomberg.

Noting that Americans eat about twice as much salt as they should and citing its link to high blood pressure and resulting diseases, the city set voluntary guidelines in 2010 through the National Salt Reduction Initiative for various restaurant and store-bought foods. Bloomberg said that 80 percent of salt came from prepackaged foods, not people adding salt.

“Consumers can always add salt to food, but they can’t take it out,” NYC Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley said at the time.

Bloomberg has established himself as a leader in battling America’s obesity, diabetes, and smoking-related public health epidemics, enforcing strong public smoking bans and limits on soda sizes in his city.

While some critics have labeled his methods as overbearing, some of the evidence vindicates Bloomberg’s tactics, as cities with stronger nutritional regulatory regimes tend to be healthier and less obese — particularly children in such cities. And the companies’ decisions to voluntarily lower salt content is a welcome change from the tendency of Big Food to market heavily processed products, thereby undermining public health.

Curbing obesity rates in the United States would go a long way toward reducing health care costs and improving general wellness among Americans. Other recent efforts aimed at addressing obesity and public health include initiatives to promote healthy school lunches and Obamacare provisions requiring chain restaurants to conspicuously post caloric information on their menus.

Despite significant medical advances and increasingly aggressive public health campaigns over the past several decades, the baby boomer generation is actually sicker than their parents’ generation, according to a new study from JAMA Internal Medicine. As the study’s authors point out, that’s partly because baby boomers — the 78 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964 — are experiencing the adverse effects of the nation’s obesity epidemic.

In one of the first studies to analyze health data across generations, researchers focused on the Americans who were between the ages of 46 to 64 years old in the late 2000s, as well as those who fell in that age range in the late 1980s. After comparing the two groups’ lifestyles, health statuses, and prevalence of chronic diseases, the study’s authors found that — even though younger generations of Americans are now living longer than their parents did — the nation’s rising obesity rates are causing their quality of life to decline:

Almost 40 percent of the boomers are obese, compared with 29 percent a generation ago. Fifty-two percent said they got no regular physical activity versus 17 percent of their parents, according to the study.

The results are a “wake-up call,” said Susan Reinhard, senior vice president of AARP’s Public Policy Institute in Washington.

“We have to cherish the longevity we’ve been given as a gift,” she said in a telephone interview. “We have to fight to live well not just live long. We’d like to believe that 60 is the new 40, but you can’t be that 40-something if you are just sitting on the couch.”

Fewer baby boomers are smoking, or developing tobacco-related diseases, than the older adults in their parents’ generation. But, partly because baby boomers are more overweight than their parents were at their age, they do have higher rates of hypertension and high cholesterol, become sicker earlier in their lives, and are more likely to need a cane or walker.

That shift underscores the fact that addressing the obesity epidemic now surpasses smoking cessation programs as the most pressing public health initiative in the United States today — particularly since, although Americans agree that obesity is a more serious issue than smoking, the majority of them still remain unaware of the public health risks associated with obesity.

This Sunday’s Super Bowl will be punctuated by dozens of ads featuring everything from adorable puppies to kids in Star Wars outfits. But one commercial you won’t see is a provocative ad by the carbonated beverage company SodaStream — an Israeli company that is no stranger to controversy — that takes on soda giants Coca Cola and Pepsi.

That’s because the ad has been pulled after pressure from the mammoth corporations led Super Bowl host CBS to take it down from its programming. Reportedly, Coke and Pepsi were upset with the commercials’ implied criticism of the soda industry’s use of plastic bottles and the subsequent harmful effects on the environment:

CBS rejected the ad, reportedly because of its direct assault on the big two carbonated-beverage makers (CBS didn’t return calls for comment). As the music from the movie Deliverance trills, deliverymen from Coke and Pepsi show up at a supermarket and rush to deliver their products. But the bottles pop and disappear, creating a mess. The ad then pans to a shot of a guy using SodaStream. The implication is that SodaStream will make bottled sodas irrelevant. [...]

Like many upstarts, SodaStream has taken an in-your-face, hyperbolic approach to marketing. The company doesn’t just suggest that SodaStream is a money-saving artisanal device. Rather, it suggests that some of the world’s popular brands (and biggest advertisers) are effectively evil forces. Why? They promote the production of polluting bottles and cans.

“SodaStream empowers consumers to make their own fresh soda at home in seconds, without the devastating environmental impact of plastic soda bottles and cans, which litter our parks and oceans,” said Daniel Birnbaum, the chief executive officer of SodaStream International, in a statement. “Our ad confronts the beverage industry and its arguably out-dated business model by showing people that there exists a smarter way to enjoy soft drinks. One day we will look back on plastic soda bottles the way we now view cigarettes; as a dangerous vice, not as an easily-accepted feature of everyday life.”

Watch the ad here:

Americans throw away enough trash every year to cover the state of Texas — twice. And this isn’t the first time that beverage giants have found themselves in hot water over public health issues. Just last month, Coca Cola launched a deceptive new ad campaign attempting to mask the harmful effects of calorie-laden sodas on America’s obesity and diabetes epidemics.

The U.S. Agriculture Department proposed the first broad standards for healthier school snacks on Friday. Under the rule, required by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, most candy, sugar-filled sports drinks, and greasy foods would not be sold in school vending machines. Instead, they can offer snacks under 200 calories and low-calorie drinks.

Data supports a ban on unhealthy snacks in vending machines, showing that state regulations may have helped slow childhood obesity rates. However, the ban will not apply to food sold at after-school events or affect what kids bring in for lunch.

If passed, the proposal could go into effect as soon as 2014. First, it faces a 60 day comment period from proponents and critics. Taking backlash from Republican critics over its healthy school lunch rule, USDA modified standards in December to allow unlimited calories from meats and grains.