Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


9 Comments

Is it possible that chocolate milk actually saved Andrew Scheer’s son’s life?

1535388105203.jpg.7d7329937df4a921d1efba38efab8b6a

The other evening I was alerted to the latest absurdity in politicizing things that should not be politicized by an Instagram story posted by a fellow RD (thanks Pamela). I promptly went on a rant to my poor boyfriend and the fetus who made a valiant effort to escape my rage by pushing through my belly. This is precisely why I’m taking a break from twitter. It took some deep breaths and a chapter of a book to calm me down enough to go to sleep. So, now I’m going to dredge it all up and rant to you.

Okay, so this is probably old news by the time you’re reading this but I still need to get it all out. Did you see the utterly absurd news story about the esteemed federal Conservative leader Andrew Scheer speaking at the Dairy Farmers’ of Canada annual meeting? If not, you can check it out for yourself. Highlights include his pledge to review the new Food Guide. Why? Because, according to him, “the process was flawed” and there was a “complete lack of consultation”. Are you shitting me Andrew?!!! There was SO MUCH consultation. I know this because I, like any other Canadian, was able to participate in the process. I’m not sure where he came up with the idea that there was no consultation but I’m pleased to see our Health Minister Ginette Petitpas calling him out for “spreading lies”. Maybe his issue was that industry and lobby groups were not invited to the table. However, they were all perfectly welcome to provide input in the same manner as anyone else in Canada, and boy did they attempt to use their clout to influence the process.

Scheer then proceeded to claim that “chocolate milk saved my son’s life”. I know you want to win over the farmers buddy but that is an utterly absurd comment. Apparently his son was a “picky eater” and somehow the consumption of chocolate milk was the only thing that saved him from imminent death. I mean, come on. If your child is only eating toast, bacon, and “very plain grilled meats” as Scheer claimed then chocolate milk ain’t gonna save his life. This is just another shining example of someone who thinks they’re an expert in nutrition because they eat. If your child is a “picky eater” may I be so bold as to suggest working with a registered dietitian to promote life-long healthy eating habits before stocking up your fridge with chocolate milk.

That’s not even the best part though, he went on to say that, “The idea that these types of products that we’ve been drinking as human beings and eating as human beings for millennia — that now all of a sudden they’re unhealthy — it’s ridiculous.” Um… We haven’t been drinking chocolate milk (at least not as we know it now) for millennia but let’s assume he meant milk in general. Nowhere in the new guide does it advise against drinking milk. No one from Health Canada has claimed that milk is “unhealthy”. Milk, and dairy, are still included in the Food Guide. I’d also like to note that there are many people in the world who are unable to digest the lactose in milk or who suffer from milk allergies or who choose not to consume dairy products and who somehow manage to live long healthy lives without the regular consumption of chocolate milk.

I find it completely enraging that the current brand of Conservative seems to think that the best thing they can do is to undo everything that the previous Liberal government has done before them. In addition, it is unconscionable that politicians are politicizing our health and well-being. Evidence-based measures, policies, and healthcare should be non-partisan issues and politicians should not be sacrificing the welfare of the residents of Canada in order to win votes from industry groups.


Leave a comment

A bit about that working mums make kids fat study

Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 11.58.39 AM.png

This article: The Impact of Maternal Employment on Children’s Weight: Evidence from the UK came out a couple of weeks ago and I was appalled. Essentially, the article is blaming working mothers for making their children fat. As if working mums don’t have enough guilt dished out to them already. As if there’s a simple causal relationship between obesity and maternal employment. And as if there isn’t already enough unhelpful fat-shaming going on in our society. I was going to blog about it but a number of other people already have so why reinvent the wheel. Instead, check-out these pieces:

Working Mothers Don’t Make Children Obese by Gid M-K; Health Nerd on Medium explains why the reporting on this study was all wrong.

Aiming the Obesity Blame Game at Working Moms by Ted Kyle on ConscienHealth reminds us that correlation is not causation.

A TL;DR thread from Sean Harrison breaking down the many limitations of the study.

If you’ve come across any other great criticisms of the research (and media surrounding it) please share in the comments. I would especially love to see some from a weight-neutral perspective as the majority of the criticism has been around the study methods and sexism but I think that sizeism is a major problem with the research as well.

 

 


2 Comments

Should we allow advertisers to have unlimited access to children?

Screen Shot 2018-04-28 at 3.36.42 PM.png

As in many countries, including Canada, there is currently a push in the UK for a ban on “junk food” advertising to children. Naturally, there’s push-back but surprisingly not (just) from the food industry but from registered dietitians. I have to admit, I was pretty taken aback when I saw a number of Bristish dietitians arguing against this proposed ban on twitter last week. I know that we don’t always agree, but I thought that this would be one measure that all dietitians would support.

The arguments I saw against the ban were as follows:

  1. This won’t make much of a difference
  2. The term “junk food” is unscientific
  3. Only people who work in advertising should be allowed to have an opinion on advertising
  4. Parents should just “say no” to their children when they beg for products they’ve seen advertised
  5. Parents should do a better job parenting and control the tv their children are watching
  6. There are bigger issues than this so why are we wasting our time on support for an advertising ban
  7. This campaign is just about making Jamie Oliver look good

Let’s address these shall we?

  1. There is no one measure we can implement that will make a substantial change in childhood obesity and healthy eating. However, a ban such as this is just one of many measures that, together, will improve the eating habits of children. See last week’s post for a few other ideas. There is evidence to support restricting marketing of food (and other products) to children. If marketing to children wasn’t effective companies wouldn’t continue to do it.
  2. I agree that marketing to children should not apply to “junk food”. I think that a complete ban on advertising food should be implemented. This would avoid the whole distraction and difficulty of defining “healthy” and “unhealthy” foods and protect children from the promotion of food which encourages overeating and the development of unhealthy relationships with food.
  3. Do I even need to comment on this one? Does anyone outside of industry truly believe that industry self-regulation is a good idea? Yes, let’s put the fox in charge of the hen house. What could possibly go wrong?

4. Most parents I know would be much happier not to have to constantly have to say no to their children. Banning marketing of food to children would help parents to do their job. It would make it just that little bit easier.

5. Excuse me, your privilege is showing. Must be nice to be a parent who has complete control over every bit of advertising your child is exposed to and who prefers to “just say no” to your child when they’re pitching a fit in the grocery store.

6. Sure, there are lots of serious issues facing society and children today. That doesn’t mean that we can only address food insecurity at the expense of all other issues. Similar to number 1, we can address many issues simultaneously, and banning advertising to children really doesn’t have any downside (unless you’re feeling sorry for cereal and pop manufacturers).

7. Y’all know JO drives me as batty as the next person but I’m not inclined to cut off my nose to spite my face. I’m happy to put aside my disdain for Jamie in support of ending marketing to children.

For more information on Marketing to Kids, and to support Bill S-228 in Canada, check out Stop Marketing to Kids.


4 Comments

Kid-friendly foods aren’t doing kids any favours

Screen Shot 2018-02-25 at 4.02.34 PM.png

Not being a parent I hadn’t realized the excess of unhealthy recipes on the Internet promoted as “kid-friendly”. That is, until last week when I was searching for recipes to update the selection we offer at our children’s cooking classes at work.

I was searching for “kid-friendly recipes” and “kids cooking” and similar terms thinking that the results would quickly yield some new promising recipes to try. Boy was I wrong. Nearly every recipe was either unhealthy or a bizarre offering for a child. For example, a slide show of recipes would go from donut hole kebabs and “spider burgers” (umm… ew) to “semolina and sun-dried tomato waffle pizzas” or banana split bites and any number of variations of chicken fingers to “pappardelle with leeks and corn”.

Most of the recipes were intended to appeal to children, not so much to involve them in the kitchen, unfortunately. Even more unfortunate was the fact that most of the recipes were high in sugar, salt, or fat (or some combination thereof). Pappardelle and sun-dried tomato pizza notwithstanding, I don’t think we often give kids enough credit as adults. Just as I’ve discussed before, when it comes to kids menus and family cookbooks, the assumption seems to be that children innately dislike anything nutritious (or they need to follow our personal dietary beliefs despite the potential inadequacy of nutrition and promotion of future disordered eating, but I digress). For the most part, kid friendly recipes seem to comprise one of two categories: completely lacking (or minimally containing) vegetables or fruit or vegetables or fruit made to look like adorable animals or something else. Fruit animals are fine and all, although I would hate to be the parent who had to spend ages styling my child’s food every day to get them to eat something green. The real issue here is that most of the offerings were not nutritious balanced meals. Most of them consisted of only two food groups: meat (no alternatives) and grains. Oh, and fries which I refuse to count as a vegetable, sorry. I think that most people agree that nutrition is important for children’s growth, development, and health. And yet, there seems to be some cognitive dissonance because even as people are saying this, they’re sitting their children down to a meal of chicken fingers and fries.

We adults need to stop assuming that children won’t like foods that are nutritious and assuming that there are “kid foods” and “adult foods”. Presenting these unhealthy options as “kid-friendly” and not exposing children to a variety of foods simply results in a self-fulfilling prophecy. If children are never given the chance to try new foods, they will never learn to like them. Give kids a chance.


7 Comments

If children are the future we may be in trouble

Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 6.11.01 PM.png

After coming across a few teacher resources I’ve started to wonder about what lessons we’re really teaching children in schools.

The first example was actually a list of nutrition curriculum supports for teachers compiled by dietitians. Most of them were great but a few that really stood out to me were ones produced by companies whose m.o. is to sell products, not to educate. I found it concerning that nutrition professionals would consider promoting self-esteem resources from Dove and videos about farming from companies like Kashi to students would be appropriate. Considering the clear lack of media literacy and nutrition literacy in our society, I think it’s vital that as nutrition professionals we do our utmost to promote credible, unbiased (or at least as unbiased as possible) sources of nutrition information to the public and particularly to children and youth.

So, there was that. Then I came across a (US-based) website of “food resources” for teachers with a number of activities featuring candy to teach kids lessons about various subjects such as math and science. For example, we have: gummy bear genetics, gummy worm measurements, the history of marshmallows, math with candies, and chocolate and solvents. Why exactly do we need to use sugary treats to teach children in school? Is this the norm? Is the prevailing perception that children need to be bribed to learn anything in school?

There’s lesson plans on the website including things like “Juice Nutrition 101” which one might reasonably assume would be about the pros and cons of juice. If so, you would be incorrect. It’s actually only about the alleged benefits of juice and was (get this) used with permission from Ocean Spray Cranberries, inc. I shit you not.

What kind of lessons do these sorts of things actually teach children? Not critical thinking, I’m sure. Nor do they teach children accurate unbiased nutrition information. They also normalize and encourage the regular consumption of candy and treats that should really be “sometimes” foods. We need to have more dietitians involved with the development of educational resources. We need to ensure that teachers are nutrition and media literate so that they don’t use resources such as those mentioned above in their classrooms. If children are the future we need to do better at equipping them with the skills to navigate and emerge from this “post truth” era.