Bloglovin

<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/11667383/?claim=jxrjv8rd734">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>

School Lunches

Lucy Komisar wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled How the Food Industry Eats Your Kid's Lunch, which describes the relationship among The Agriculture Department, schools, and food processing companies. While schools get food, such as apples, chicken and turkey, for free, instead of cooking the food on site, many schools outsource the food to companies such as Sodexo and Aramark, that turn the food into unhealthy meals like pizza and chicken nuggets.  These companies are profiting and are receiving rebates from food-service management firms in exchange for contracts with schools. Many children depend on school lunches, especially since the recession, and these unhealthy food options are harming them. Komisar stated:

"One-third of children from the ages of 6 to 19 are overweight or obese. These children could see their life expectancies shortened because of their vulnerability to diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Unfortunately, profit, not health, is the priority of the food service management companies, food processors and even elected officials. Until more parents demand reform of the school lunch system, children will continue to suffer."

When asked to include healthier options, Sodexo stated that children may not like the healthier options or may already be in the habit of not eating fruits and vegetables, which will only create more food waste. For more information read the entire article, which is linked above.

U.S. Health Care Costs

The article Why Does Health Care Cost So Much in the United States? by Sarah Clune and Jason Kane is really informative and helps to clarify the reasons for differences in health care costs around the world. As referenced in the article, I watched Frontline's documentary, "Sick Around the World," which was really interesting and described the different health care systems around the world; as to which is the best, that is still up for debate.  I think that this article, which includes an interview with Matthias Rumpf from the OECD, is a great supplement to the documentary and this topic of conversation in general.

Some key takeaways from this article are summarized in a list of bullet points. Rumpf said:

"A few things are common to the high-performing health systems:

• An emphasis on primary care, to ensure that most care takes place outside of (expensive) hospitals
• A system which encourages use of (cheaper) generic drugs, when there are alternatives to expensive brands
• Tight regulations of prices and fees, for at least those services that are paid for by public programs
• Adherence to clinical guidelines, so that excessive use of expensive diagnostics or unnecessary health care is prevented"

I encourage you to read the full article here.

Serving Sizes

An article written by Anahad O'Connor in the New York Times, The Problem With Serving Sizes, discusses the FDA and its efforts to get food manufacturers to change their serving sizes and nutritional content on their food labels to a more realistic serving that Americans typically eat.

Parts of this article, I agree with.  For example, have you ever read the food label on a can of soup? The majority of soup cans contain 2-2.5 servings, but typically, when someone has a can of soup for lunch, they eat the whole can.  The next culprit is cooking spray.  Technically, a serving size is a spray that lasts about 1/4 of a second, but I don't know anyone who uses that little amount, unless it's in a cupcake tin.  I think it would be reasonable for the serving size of soup to be changed to one serving per can, and for the serving size of cooking spray to be changed to a spray that lasts at least a few seconds, and adjust all nutritional content accordingly.

But here is where I have to disagree with O'Connor. O'Connor explains that "critics say these so-called reference amounts are often laughably small because they’re based in part on surveys of eating behavior that were carried out in the 1970s, when Americans ate less food and portions had not been supersized" (para. 3).  But when you think about it, isn't the fact that our portions are supersized the root of the problem?

O'Connor states that in a pint of Häagen-Dazs ice cream, there are four servings, and that when it comes to Oreos, "a serving is a paltry three cookies" (para. 2).  Is there really ANY reason why someone needs to eat an entire pint of ice cream or more than three Oreos in one sitting?  I understand that people do it, but if we increase the serving size to appease them, aren't we only condoning and even encouraging those bad eating habits?

New Research Against Multivitamins

Did you take your multivitamin today?  This is something that, at least in my house, has been drilled into my brain ever since I was taking Flintstones vitamins in elementary school.  At age 23, I just got into the groove of actually remembering to take it each day, and I've noticed that for the past year, I didn't get sick (other than a cold) and my hair and nails were growing faster and stronger.  However, new research suggests that women who take multivitamins won't live as long as those who don't.

The study was published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, and was covered by Nicholas Bakalar in the New York Times:

"Scientists followed 38,772 women, whose average age was 62 at the start of the study, over a period of 19 years, during which 15,594 of them died. Those using multivitamins or supplements of folic acid, iron, magnesium or zinc were more likely than women who did not to have died during that period, the researchers found.

Some supplements, like iron, were associated with a substantial increase in the risk of death, while others — vitamin A and vitamin D, for example — had no effect. Multivitamin use was linked to a 2.4 percent increase in the absolute risk of death, but calcium supplements appeared to decrease the risk."

The article also mentions that other studies have not produced such dramatic results, but it certainly makes you wonder if multivitamins are really necessary if you are eating a well-balanced diet.  After all, any claims made by vitamins or supplements are not approved by the FDA, so who should we believe?

Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?

"THE 'fact' that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, 'when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli ...' or 'it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.'


This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28."

I LOVE every single word of this article written by Mark Bittman.  PLEASE read on for his full argument: Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?

nytimes.com

In addition, to support my argument I made about healthier happy meals a couple of weeks ago:

"Real cultural changes are needed to turn this around. Somehow, no-nonsense cooking and eating — roasting a chicken, making a grilled cheese sandwich, scrambling an egg, tossing a salad — must become popular again, and valued not just by hipsters in Brooklyn or locavores in Berkeley. 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."

Another Benefit of IUDs

According to this article from USA Today, Study: IUDs may also prevent cervical cancer by Liz Szabo, women who use an IUD have about half the risk of developing cervical cancer as women who don't.  "The international analysis, published in The Lancet Oncology, combined data from 26 studies with a total of more than 20,000 women" (Szabo, 2011). 

Mirena

Scientists aren't sure as to why the IUD could prevent cervical cancer, and I have a feeling it could be the result of an outside variable.  For example, as the article states, cervical cancer is caused by an HPV infection (humanpapilloma virus), which is a common STD.  However, since the IUD is only effective in preventing pregnancy and not STDs, and IUDs are generally marketed to women who are married or in committed relationships, it would be logical to assume that the majority of women who have the IUD do fall into that category and are not exposed to HPV or other STDs. Therefore, they are less likely to develop cervical cancer.


Just a thought! Read the article and see what you think!