Opponents of soda taxes say they don't work. They point to a study from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Actually, that study showed that soda taxes do work. Weak soda taxes of three percent, without any accompanying public health campaign, work weakly. But, they work. They decrease soda consumption.
By Nancy Chuda founder and Editor in Chief of LuxEcoLiving and co-founder of Healthy Child Healthy World ...
Why is dietary self-control so difficult, even when we know full well what's at stake and what's right? It's not helpful at all to say simply that some people have more willpower. What's going on, at the most fundamental cognitive level, that leads to good and bad dietary decisions?
In 2000, Australia implemented a 10 percent tax on soda, candy and white flour bakery products.
What do these three threats to our health and our planet -- air pollution, obesity and greenhouse gas emissions -- have in common? Fossil fuels.
This is not a substitute for screening by mammography. But these findings may provide the women not getting screened with a simple and easily understood message: Taking note of your skirt size may save your life.
I don't begrudge the soda executives their photo op with former President Clinton. But if the companies were really serious about reducing Americans' caloric intake from beverages, they would stop reflexively fighting sensible public health measures, such as taxes, warning labels, and limits on sugars in beverages, that would drive down consumption by 75 percent.
In the face of climate change, our basic food systems have to be reimagined so that the world is producing nutritious food in a more sustainable way that increases livelihoods.
The U.S. is considered a sports-mad country but what we're really crazy about is sitting on our couches watching elite athletes play sports on our HDTVs. It's time to get out and play the games ourselves. Tennis. Basketball. Volleyball. Soccer. Whatever the sport, it's time to participate instead of watching from the sidelines.
The controversy over the Girl Scouts using cookie sales to raise funds may be nothing new, but a new arrangement with Nestlé steps way over the line in its willingness to compromise our children's health for the sake of corporate profits.
As the rest of America frets over ISIS, I'd like to turn my attention to what could be emerging as a much more serious and significant threat to national security. And no, I'm not talking about Khorasan. I'm talking about obesity.
A study out last week in the top-tier journal Nature told us that non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) may contribute to glucose intolerance by mucking up our microbiomes. That's a serious indictment, since these products are intended to help defend against glucose intolerance, and other ills related to diabetes risk and weight gain.
With the number of American men and women with big-bellied, pear-shaped figures reaching alarming rates over the past decade, one bright spot is that plus-size conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh is no longer a big fat idiot.
This study shows quite nicely that non-caloric sweeteners can alter gut microbes in mice -- a change that has negative metabolic consequences -- and provides preliminary evidence that it can happen in humans too.
It is a moral disgrace that child poverty in the U.S. is higher than adult poverty, higher than for children in almost all other competitor nations, and higher than our country with the world's largest economy should ever allow.
We may all acknowledge, with the great pride warranted, that fighting childhood obesity and simultaneously marketing multicolored marshmallows and toaster pastries to our children as part of their complete breakfast is an impressive feat of cultural legerdemain.