Connect with Healthcetera
Saturday, June 7, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 320)

obese-childLiz Seegert is a freelance health writer and adjunct instructor in Media and Communications for Empire State College.

A statement released last week by the American Academy of Family Practitioners confirmed what many in public health already know: childhood obesity is still on the rise, and TV advertising bears a large share of the responsibility. In addition to the sendentary nature of watching TV, the AAFP pointed specifically to marketers who advertise high sugar, high fat, high salt, high calorie meals and snacks that do nothing to foster good nutrition. It’s bad enough our kids are spending so much time in front of the TV screen, computer screen, and smartphone screen. The push by food manufacturers to encourage unhealthy snacking during these activities only serves two purposes. The first is to contribute to the corporate bottom line. The second is to fuel the time bomb of childhood obesity.

Study after study has confirmed this link. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, between 2007 and 2008, 17% of children and adolescents aged 2–19 years were obese. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, since 1980, obesity prevalence among children and adolescents has nearly tripled. Health providers continue to document the growing prevalence of what were once only adult diseases like hypertension, and Type II diabetes. In addition to the physical toll, there is often a psychological and emotional toll upon obese children that leads to low self-esteem, poor school performance, and depression.

The advertising industry argues that it’s not the ads that are to blame. However, the number of TV ads a child in the US watched in the 1970s doubled to 40,000 by the 1990s. This doesn’t even factor in other media that play on children’s psyches.  Kids ages 8-12 are most at risk for this overt influence – they watch more TV than their older counterparts, but do not yet have the cognitive ability to discern the underlying messages presented. More kids home alone after school, more disposable income by even young children, and pressure upon working parents to “give in” or grab some fast food to go after a long day at work, means kids are making more and more food choices on their own while being bombarded with hundreds of messages daily for chips, fries, soda, cookies, candy…

What to do? The Institute of Medicine has called for a ban on food advertising to children if voluntary restrictions by marketers are not effective. It’s clear from the evidence to date that industry self-policing has failed. Some experts believe a complete ban on such advertising would reduce incidence of childhood obesity by as much as 15 percent. Ironically, our Constitution may not permit a total ban in the US, as there is in the UK, where results of strict guidelines have been highly favorable.

While there is plenty of blame to go around for the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity, one thing is clear: the data shows the problem is getting worse, not better. TV ads contribute significantly to this plight. The Federal Trade Commission must step up, and enforce tighter regulations on advertising to children. It may be challenging to do so while balancing the First Amendment rights of food companies to promote their products – however unhealthy they may be – but the corporate bottom line must take a back seat when it comes to the health of our children.

Liz Seegert

Liz Seegert is a freelance health writer

This post is a re-blog from Mashable  Spark of Genius Series  which highlights startups made possible by Microsoft BizSpark

Name: GINGER.io

Quick Pitch: GINGER.io lets users know when their behaviors signal health problems.

Genius Idea: Using data from mobile phones, like location and communication, to flag health problems.

Your smartphone senses your location and who you talk to when. But does can it detect when you’re feeling under the weather?

Anmol Madan explored this question in his thesis at MIT Media Lab. After completing a study that involved more than 320,000 hours of data from research participants’ mobile phones, he was able to model smartphone behaviors that predict the onset of common colds, depression, and influenza.

Now he and two other MIT alumni are using the research to launch a business. GINGER.io uses an Android app to collect SMS data, calling data and location data. When these behaviors change in a way that signals something could be wrong, it alerts the user.

Early stages of depression, for instance, often involve changes in how someone communicates. GINGER.io’s app, DailyData, picks up on those changes. In test deployments, the app was able to identify 60%-90% of the symptomatic days for mental health and common respiratory conditions. Theoretically, it will become better at doing so as more users opt to anonymously add their data to the pool for analysis.

“If you’re showing early signs of loneliness/depression, you might not report them to your doctor or family,” explains Madan. “The app currently detects these changes and sends alerts to you, but in the future, these alerts could be sent to a caretaker with your explicit permission.”

 

Users also have access to a dashboard that shows their baseline behavior and deviations from that baseline. It tries to predict when you might be symptomatic.

The startup used seed funding to launch with its first users in January, and it graduated from Boston TechStars earlier this month. Two medical providers are currently using the app with their patients.

Eventually, Madan hopes to pull in revenue from enterprises, providers and pharmaceutical companies that want to help their employees or patients stay healthy.

“We’re not a diagnosis,” he says. “We’re an early warning, self-support, self-serve tool.”

Barbara Glickstein asks ” What do you folks think about this idea? How close are we to using this type of technology and what issues should we consider with these new app developments?

 

 

 

 

 

This post is a re-blog from Mashable 

Understanding the influence of corporations on the public’s health today requires increasingly sophisticated skills for decoding propaganda as deep-pocketed corporations turn to astroturfing to influence health policy. The public relations strategy known as “astroturfing,” is a form of corporate-driven, top-down advocacy that is disguised to look like bottom-up, grassroots community activism.

In the U.S., the energy in public health is focused around regulating food and beverages with high-fructose corn syrup. In case this controversy has passed you by, high-fructose corn syrup is an extremely common additive to foods and beverages that damages health in a variety of ways.

Manufacturers are keen to leave it in products because for palates accustomed to it, it can be tasty and addictive, so it increases purchases and profits for food companies. Borrowing from effective strategies in the fight against tobacco, some public health advocates want to discourage the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup by making it cost more. This effort is sometimes referred to by the shorthand “soda tax.” Several initiatives have been proposed to establish a soda tax to alleviate budget shortfalls and to help pay for health care reform. Not surprisingly, food and beverage manufacturers see this as an attack on their bottom-line and are lobbying hard against any and all soda tax initiatives.

In the Internet era of easily disguised URL’s and no gatekeepers to vet what gets published, this kind of disinformation is harder to detect than ever. I’ve written here before about “cloaked websites” – websites that intentionally disguise authorship in order to put forward a political agenda – and these are a central tool of corporate propaganda in the digital era, including the battle around the soda tax. For example, the URL “www.nofoodtaxes.com” will take you to this site:

At first glance, it looks like a grassroots movement of everyday people concerned about “big government” and the “difficulty of feeding a family in today’s economy.”  The link in the middle (“watch our tv ad!”) takes you to a slickly produced television commercial that aired in heavy rotation on stations in New York State where a soda tax was proposed. In the ad, a “concerned mother” posing as just a concerned citizen, talks directly to the camera and engages her assumed audience in a shared sense of outrage at the intrusion of big government imposing more taxes on hard-working families.

In fact, “Americans Against Food Taxes” is a cloaked site and is part of a front group funded and organized by the American Beverage Association, to protect industry interests. However, it can be very difficult to tell what’s a front group. The text on this website says that Americans Against Food Taxes is a “coalition of concerned citizens – responsible individuals, financially strapped families, small and large businesses in communities across the country” who opposed a government-proposed tax on food and beverages, including soda, juice drinks, and flavored milks. However, the real membership is the world’s largest food and soft drink manufacturers and distributors, including the Coca-Cola Company, Dr. Pepper-Royal Crown Bottling Co., PepsiCo, Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, the Can Manufacturers Institute, 7-Eleven Convenience Stores, and Yum! Brands.

Corporations that have a negative impact on the public’s health are especially adept at this sort of strategy.

In some ways, these sorts of propaganda efforts are not new. Going back to 1995, the tobacco giant Philip Morris hired PR Firm Burson-Martsteller to create “The National Smokers Alliance,” an early astroturf group. The purpose of the group was to stop Federal legislation intended to curb smoking by young people, a policy change that would have improved the public’s health by reducing tobacco-related deaths, and it would have hurt Philip Morris’ bottom line by reducing the number of future smokers. In this pre-Internet astroturf campaign, Burson-Martseller organized mailings and ran a phone-bank urging people to call or write to politicians expressing their opposition to the federal law.

The National Smokers Alliance continued its efforts against any legislation that would prevent new teen smokers through the late 1990s. In 1998, the group added television ads with a 1-800 number to call to its arsenal of techniques, along with phone-banking and mailing. According to The New York Times, “Those smokers who are reached by phone banks sponsored by cigarette makers, or who call the 800 number shown in television ads, are patched through to the senator of their choice.” Since then, public health advocates have managed to win major victories over big tobacco in the realm of popular opinion in the United States, yet many of these stealth marketing tactics continue unabated in other countries.

So, how do people concerned about the public’s health – or, even their own personal health – make sense of all this? How do we parse top-down, corporate propaganda from actual bottom-up, community-led efforts at activism?

On the one hand, it can be a difficult task. Some argue that astroturf is just another form of organizing. As one strategist accused of astroturfing against health care reform writes in a 2009 New York Times op-ed, “Organizing isn’t cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics. If they believe what they’re saying, no matter who helped organize them, they’re citizens and activists.” This kind of sophistry, “it’s not astroturf, it’s just organizing,” is a common argument made by those trying to defend such tactics.

On the other hand, it’s not all that difficult to parse propaganda from facts if you ask two questions about the information we encounter online (or anywhere, really): 1) where is this information coming from? and 2) who stands to benefit from this information?

If the answers to both those questions are “a giant corporation,” chances are it’s astroturf. The chances are also good that it’s bad for the public’s health.

~ Jessie Daniels, PhD is a Senior Fellow of the Center for Health, Media and Policy.  This post is a re-blog from Corporations and Health Watch, where she is a contributing writer. Her new book, called Google Bombs, Cloaked Sites and Astroturf: Propaganda in the Digital Era, is forthcoming from Routledge.

Understanding the influence of corporations on the