Child health news round-up (8-10 March 2010)
Contents:
* US school soda deal ‘cuts sugar’
* Action urged on pregnancy deaths
* Do working mums make healthy children?
* EU adds month to parental leave
US school soda deal ‘cuts sugar’
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8557195.stm
Published: 2010/03/09
The US soft drinks industry says it has dramatically cut the number of high-calorie soft drinks sold in US schools as part of a drive to tackle obesity.
The American Beverage Association said shipments of full-calorie drinks to schools were down 95%.
Nearly one in three children and teenagers in the US are overweight or obese and health experts say sugary drinks are part of the problem.
Several US states and cities are considering taxing soft drinks.
The reduction in sugary soft drinks in schools formed part of a deal between the major companies and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint initiative of the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation.
Under the voluntary guidelines, in place since 2006, full-calorie soft drinks were removed from school canteens and vending machines. Lighter drinks, including low-fat milk, diet sodas, juices, flavoured waters and teas were promoted in their place.
“There’s been a dramatic shift toward lower calorie and more nutritious beverages in schools, it could lay the foundation for broader changes in our society,” former US President Bill Clinton told a news conference on Monday.
Soda tax
Independent consulting firm Keybridge Research looked at what changes the guidelines had brought about and found that:
the total beverage calories shipped to schools between the first half of the 2004-05 school year and the first half of the 2009-10 school year has decreased by 88% there had been a dramatic shift toward lower-calorie and higher nutrient beverages in schools, including waters, 100% juices, and portion-controlled sports drinks shipment volumes of full-calorie drinks were 95% lower in the first half of the 2009-10 school year compared with the first half of the 2004-05 school year.
The soft drinks industry has been a main target of critics who say the sugary beverages they sell are a key factor in the levels of childhood obesity in the US.
The state of California and the city of Philadelphia have introduced legislation to tax soft drinks, while both the New York Governor David Paterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are also pushing for such a tax.
“In these tough economic times, easy fixes to our problems are hard to come by,” said Mr Bloomberg at the weekend. “But the soda tax is a fix that just makes sense, it would cut rising health costs.”
Susan Neely of the American Beverage Association, which includes major firms like Coca Cola, PepsiCo and Dr Pepper Snapple Group, said such a tax would not solve “a complex problem like obesity”.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Action urged on pregnancy deaths
By Jane Dreaper
BBC News health correspondent
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8551481.stm
Published: 2010/03/08
Pregnant women in developing countries face the same risk of death as women in the UK did 100 years ago, according to a coalition of campaign groups.
They are using International Women’s Day to call for more action to reduce deaths among women during pregnancy.
They say improving mothers’ health is “the most off-target” of the UN’s eight Millennium Development Goals.
For every 100,000 live births in developing countries, 450 women die during pregnancy or labour.
The coalition, which includes White Ribbon Alliance, Amnesty International and Oxfam, says that in 1910, 355 women died per 100,000 live births in England and Wales.
In Scotland and the Irish Republic, the rate was higher – at 572 and 531 respectively.
In Ghana today the rate of pregnancy-related deaths is 560, while in Chad it is 1,500. The rate in the UK is now 14 deaths per 100,000.
“ There still remains a long way to go for the protection and security of pregnant women and their newborn children ”
Brigid McConville, Director of White Ribbon Alliance The comparison has been drawn because it was 100 years ago that International Women’s Day was established.
The UN says although it is difficult to get accurate figures on maternal mortality, very little progress has been made in sub-Saharan Africa – and deaths in southern Asia “remain unacceptably high”.
Brigid McConville, the director of White Ribbon Alliance, which campaigns for safe motherhood, said: “There still remains a long way to go for the protection and security of pregnant women and their newborn children.”
Monday is the official launch of a week of events. Campaigners will march at the Millennium Bridge in London and lay white roses outside Parliament.
Preventable deaths
Some countries have made progress in improving women’s health – most notably Nepal and Rwanda.
In Mongolia, reduced deaths were achieved by educating women about the signs of complications in pregnancy and by helping them travel to special homes where they could wait to give birth.
Many of the medical problems are easily preventable if, for example, women have access to skilled health workers who can treat infections and use drugs to prevent haemorrhage.
The Millennium Development Goal also envisages preventing deaths that result from complications after unsafe abortions and allowing women access to contraception – to prevent riskier births in teenage mothers and to allow them to space their children.
The issue has become politically more significant in recent years, with the backing of the British Prime Minister’s wife Sarah Brown, who is patron of the White Ribbon Alliance.
The Women Deliver conference in Washington DC in June aims to put increased pressure on world leaders to tackle the problems.
Amnesty International’s UK director Kate Allen said: “It’s clearly been possible to cut back on the rate of maternal deaths here in the UK.
“We need to demonstrate that same level of commitment worldwide.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Do working mums make healthy children?
By Clare Murphy
Health reporter, BBC News
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8547984.stm
Published: 2010/03/04
A new study suggests the children of mothers who work part-time are healthier than those of their full-time or stay-at-home counterparts. Where does this take the debate on the effects of working mothers on the health and happiness of their offspring?
The study of 4,500 Australian pre-schoolers found those whose mothers worked some of the week were less likely to eat junk food, watch TV and over the course of the two-year research period were less likely to become overweight.
The authors suggested that mothers who worked part-time went to “considerable lengths” to ensure the time they did spend with their children was high quality.
“When mothers work part-time, there’s obviously something about the way the house is run, and the way parents are looking after their children that is protective,” said Jan Nicholson of Melbourne’s Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.
Mothers’ messages
Her study – Do working mothers raise couch potatoes? – concluded that apparently they do if they work more than 34 hours a week, struggling to find the time for family cooking and activities.
The reasons why mothers who do not work have children with less healthy habits are not fully understood, the study says, and requires a closer analysis of “household dynamics”.
The findings are the latest in the steady flow of contradictory information on the effects on child wellbeing of the mass movement of mothers into the labour market over recent decades – in the UK some 60% of women with children under five work.
“ It is a shame these studies always forget the father – if there isn’t a healthy meal on the table, why is that always the fault of the working mum?” ”
Dr Martina Klett-Davies, Family and Parenting Institute Within the course of just one month at the end of last year, two major studies were published with different, if not necessarily conflicting, messages for working mothers.
One suggested they were damaging their children’s health – with children of both full and part-time mothers less likely to eat an apple and get out and walk to school than those of stay-at-home mothers, the second that they were not harming their emotional and intellectual development in the slightest.
Meanwhile various studies have also thrown up differing perspectives on the potential pitfalls of the childcare they choose.
Nurseries have been accused of fostering anti-social behaviour and increasing stress levels in toddlers, but have also been found to improve educational outcomes and even to lower the risk of a child developing leukaemia because their immune system is stimulated through early contact with others.
Meanwhile grandparents, an increasingly attractive childcare choice for many parents as they tend to be both reliable and free, are now said to increase the chances of a child being overweight – although only in the wealthiest socio-economic groups.
“A lot of the time when you look at the actual statistical differences in these studies, they are really quite small. We see associations, but not necessarily causes,” says Prof Heather Joshi, head of the Centre for Longitudinal Studies at the Institute of Education.
“All parents should perhaps derive comfort from the fact that what these studies really demonstrate is that there are no clear relationships and conclusive answers – that there is not a one-size-fits-all policy.
“Everybody needs to think carefully about what is right for them and their children, and be prepared to change if it is not working out. You play it by ear.”
Forgotten fathers
And some may not have the luxury of choosing whether to stay at home or work, be it part- or full-time.
Limited and expensive childcare mean some who may want to work cannot afford to do so, while others need to work to financially provide for their child.
“Flexible working and better childcare is key,” says Dr Martina Klett-Davies of the Family and Parenting Institute. “It is also a shame these studies always forget the father – if there isn’t a healthy meal on the table why is that always the fault of the working mum?
“But we also need to be wary of turning parenting into a science. We like the idea that we can provide definitive proof of what is best for children, but a lot of the time all it does is make parents feel even more insecure about the way they do things and the choices they make.
“That, frankly, is not good for anyone.”
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
EU adds month to parental leave
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8557238.stm
Published: 2010/03/09
The European Union has extended the minimum period of leave for parents to four months each – a benefit separate from maternity leave.
At least one month of the four cannot be transferred to the other parent. The idea is to enable more equal take-up of leave by both parents.
A previous EU directive set the minimum leave period at three months.
The 27 EU nations now have two years to amend their laws. The leave will apply to all workers, regardless of contract.
Parental leave is aimed at assisting childcare for children up to the age of eight, though each EU member state is free to decide the time scale, through negotiation with employers and trade unions.
The member states can also decide whether the leave is paid or unpaid, as well as other details of implementation.
The new EU directive is aimed at providing a better balance between work and family life by allowing parents to transfer most of their time off to each other.
The directive says workers will retain the right to return to the same job or an equivalent without suffering discrimination for having taken parental leave.
The agreement reached by EU ministers on Monday also says workers may request changes to their working hours for a limited period after returning from parental leave.
A European Parliament committee has adopted draft legislation to extend maternity leave across Europe to 20 weeks on full pay, but the proposals still have a long way to go and may be substantially revised.