NEXT PAGE -->
|
| * * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
TV VIEWED AS A PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT
During 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that children younger than 2 should not be allowed to watch television for fear that it will stunt the development of their brains.[1] The intellectual and emotional development of young children depends upon interaction with adults, and children watching TV are unlikely to receive the active attention they need from adults, the Academy said.
Specifically, the Academy said, "Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for children under the age of 2 years. Although certain television programs may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (e.g., child care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore, exposing such young children to television programs should be discouraged."[1]
The Academy also urged parents, once again, to limit all children's exposure to TV to 1 to 2 hours of "quality programming" per day. (The Academy has issued a series of similar recommendations, based on its concern about youth violence and TV, since 1984.) The national average for all children is now more than 3 hours of TV per day, the Academy said.[1] In other words, children now spend about 20% of their waking hours glued to the tube. This does not include time spent watching movies on videotape, watching music videos, playing computer or video games, or surfing the internet for recreational purposes. "Time spent with media often displaces involvement in creative, active, or social pursuits," the Academy said. By age 70, typical American children will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching TV, the Academy said.
The Academy published a short list of problems associated with children watching TV:
** Children are exposed to more than 14,000 sexual references in a year's time. If children are watching 21 hours of TV per week, this works out to one sexual reference every 5 minutes for the 1100 hours that the average child spends glued to the tube each year.
** The Academy blamed TV for some of the violence exhibited by some children. The Academy said, "More than 1000 scientific studies and reviews conclude that significant exposure to media violence increases the risk of aggressive behavior in certain children and adolescents, desensitizes them to violence, and makes them believe that the world is a 'meaner and scarier' place than it is."[1] In a 1995 statement, the Academy pointed out that by age 18 the average American child has viewed an estimated 200,000 acts of violence on TV alone. Video games increase that number. "Although media violence is not the only cause of violence in American society, it is the single most easily remediable contributing factor," the Academy said.[2]
** An American child has viewed about 360,000 advertisements before graduating from high school, the American Academy of Pediatrics pointed out in 1995.[3] At that time the Academy said, "In 1750 B.C. the Code of Hammurabi made it a crime, punishable by death, to sell anything to a child without first obtaining a power of attor- ney. In the 1990s, selling products to American children has become a standard business practice." The Academy went on to say, "The American Academy of Pediatrics believes advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under 8 years of age" because children who are developmentally younger than 8 "are unable to understand the intent of advertisements and, in fact, accept advertising claims as true."3
** But probably the most important information that the Academy published about TV, from a public health perspective, is that watching TV causes weight gain in children. The Academy said in 1999, "Increased television use is documented to be a significant factor leading to obesity...."[1]
This is important for two reasons. First, excess weight is a significant, and worsening, problem among American children.[4] Roughly 25% of U.S. children are overweight or obese. Secondly, children who are overweight turn into adults who tend to be overweight as well, and the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION said in 1999 that excessive weight gain among American adults is an "epidemic" and a major cause of disease and death.[5]
How is "overweight" defined? To find out if you are overweight, you need to know (accurately) your height in inches and your weight in pounds. (Most people overestimate their height and underestimate their weight.) Now convert your weight into kilograms by multiplying pounds times 0.45, and convert your height into meters by multiplying inches times 0.0254. Now square your height (in meters) by multiplying it by itself. Now divide the resulting number into your weight in kilograms. The final result is your Body Mass Index, or BMI. Put most simply, BMI=kg/m[2].
A BMI of 19 to 24.9 is considered "normal." A BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight, and a BMI of 30 or above is considered obese, according to the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization.[6]
Among U.S. adults, the prevalence (occurrence) of obesity (BMI 30 or greater) has increased rapidly in recent years, according to a study based on telephone interviews with more than 100,000 randomly-selected individuals each year, 1991-1998, who reported their own height and weight. In 1991, 12% of the population was obese; by 1998 17.9% of the population was obese.[5] And these numbers are likely to underestimate the problem because overweight people tend to underestimate their true weight and everyone tends to overestimate his or her true height.
Remarkably this study showed that, from 1991 to 1998, obesity increased in every state, in both sexes, and across all age groups, all races, all educational levels, and among both smokers and non-smokers. As the authors of the study said, "Rarely do chronic conditions such as obesity spread with the speed and dispersion characteristic of a communicable disease epidemic."[5]
A different study, in which peoples' height and weight were actually measured, concluded that 21% of U.S. men and 27% of U.S. women are obese. When this study considered not only obesity but also overweight (a BMI of 25 or greater), then 63% of American men and 55% of American women qualified in 1998, an increase of more than 25% in the past 3 decades.[7] As noted above, at least 25% of U.S. children are overweight or obese.[8]
The BMI of 25 was not chosen arbitrarily to define "overweight." It was chosen because that is the BMI at which weight-related diseases start to increase among the population. As BMI increases above 25, so do high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gall bladder disease, and osteoarthritis.[7] About 80% of obese individuals have at least one of these disease conditions, and 40% have 2 or more of these conditions.
A study published in 1999 estimated that in 1991, excess weight killed about 280,000 Americans. That is to say, 280,000 people who died in 1991 would not have died that year if they had not been overweight.[9] Excess weight shortens people lives by about 1 to 3 years.[9]
The currently-accepted medical explanation for the rapidly-increasing epidemic of obesity in the U.S. (and, indeed, in other countries) is starkly simple: we are eating more calories while at the same time burning fewer calories at work and through exercise.[10,11]
However, to us the occurrence of an uncontrollable epidemic of excess weight is somewhat perplexing in a society that is preoccupied with body weight, fitness, and diet. Nearly one-half of all U.S. women and one-third of all U.S. men report that they are attempting to lose weight.[10] Health clubs and fitness centers abound. Home exercise equipment is a booming business. Walkers, joggers, in-line skaters and bicyclists are visible in every city and town. Low-calorie, low-fat "health foods" are featured in supermarkets and restaurants. Why then are Americans of all ages, races, education levels, sexes, and geographical locations, unable to control their weight?
A hypothesis worth considering has to do with hormones. Clever research this past decade has identified a family of hormones that control both appetite and the way in which the body turns food into fat.[12] One such hormone is called leptin, and leptin injections have recently been shown to reduce weight in humans in a dose-dependent fashion.[13] At least as interesting as leptin is melanocyte stimulating hormone (MSH), which caused such rapid weight loss in obese mice that it "prompted a double-take from the surprised scientists" who conducted the experiments.[14] We know from recent studies of wildlife, laboratory animals, and humans that some industrial chemicals, released into the environment, can interfere with hormones.[15] It is conceivable that something in the environment -- something widely dispersed -- is interfering with the hormones that control appetite and fat metabolism.vBut of course these hormone-disrupters would not be acting alone. No doubt fast foods and snack foods, and the barrage of advertisements that induce us to eat them, are having an effect on many of us. And a sedentary lifestyle is taking its toll, too. Just recently a study published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION showed that children lost weight, and lost inches around the midriff, if they simply watched less TV.[16]
In sum, excess weight is a major public health problem, and television viewing is an important -- and preventable -- contributing factor.
MAKING THE MOVEMENT VISIBLE
The grass-roots environmental movement is largely invisible. Thousands of groups are working at the local level but they have no way to learn about each other's existence, and therefore no easy way to communicate. A journalist looking for a grass-roots perspective on environmental problems or job safety may not know who to call. Someone concerned about policy at the state or federal level may not be able to find anyone who can provide a community-based perspective on environment-and-health problems.
The RACHEL'S staff has begun a project to identify local groups working on any aspect of "environment and health," including, of course, occupational safety and health. We call it, Making the Movement Visible.
Groups that are working on any aspect of "environment and health" at the community level are invited to add themselves to our public database of grass-roots environmental groups on the world-wide web (www.rachel.org). Naturally, organizations that service the needs of grass-roots community groups or job-safety groups are also welcome. To list your group (or some other group that you admire), just go to the "organizations" section of our web site (www.rachel.org) and add your group to the list. (Note: Your listing will not become public immediately, so you may not see it for a few days. We review all entries, to prevent fake groups from being added to the list.) No matter where you are working -- in Iowa, Ixtapa, or Istanbul -- if you have a community or workplace perspective on health and environment, please add your group to the database. Let's all do ourselves a big favor and Make the Movement Visible! Check yourself in at www.rachel.org.
MONEY RULES
Here we begin our traditional year-end review of significant events and trends.
One of the most important trends of the last half of the twentieth century was the spread of democracy into many countries that had never enjoyed it before. At the same time, democracy within the U.S. continued to shrivel as a wealthy elite gained increasing control. All three branches of government actively encouraged this shift of power from "the rest of us" to the wealthy.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for the wealthy to curry favor with government officials. The court ruled that substantial gifts to a government official are legal unless the official performs a "specific official act" in return for the gift. The matter came before the court because Sun-Diamond Growers of California gave gifts worth $5900 to Mike Espy when he was Secretary of Agriculture. Since Espy did not perform any specific official act on behalf of Sun-Diamond in return for the gifts, the gifts were legal, the court ruled. The American League of Lobbyists, expressed relief at the court's ruling. Lobbyists now know they can shower Congress with gifts without running afoul of the law.[1] One favorite tactic is to give money to Congressional staffers, rather than directly to members of Congress. Another favorite is to pay for lavish vacations for members of Congress, disguised as "fact-finding trips."
By November, it was clear that the Supreme Court's April ruling would deepen the level of corruption in Congress. Federal prosecutors dropped almost all charges against Ann Eppard, former legislative chief of staff for Congressman Bud Shuster, a Republican from Pennsylvania. Between 1989 and 1993, while she was Schuster's chief of staff, Ms. Eppard accepted $230,000 in gifts from a lobbyist. She was subsequently indicted on seven counts. In November she pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of taking illegal compensation and agreed to pay a fine of $5000. The other six charges were dropped. Federal prosecutors defended their plea bargain saying the Supreme Court ruling made it impossible to expect a conviction. Ms. Eppard now runs her own lobbying firm, Ann Eppard Associates.[2]
The NEW YORK TIMES reported December 5 that state governor's offices are now thoroughly soaked in money, just as federal offices have been for more than a decade. "The 'permanent campaign' that has become a fixture of races for the presidency and the Senate has now descended upon the 50 state capitals," the TIMES reported.[3]
It now routinely costs $10 million or more to run for the office of governor, so incumbent governors must raise at least $50,000 per week while they are in office. The TIMES commented, "Mr. Celucci [Governor of Massachusetts] and other incumbents are following one of the oldest political axioms, the golden rule: he who has the most gold, rules."
All of this private money in our elections has had a corrosive effect on our democracy, according to the NEW YORK TIMES. The distinction between Republicans and Democrats has been erased by money. "In fact," says the TIMES, "the public sector has increasingly become the champion of private enterprise.... The degree to which left and right have unified to become the champion of corporate priorities was on full display in the Congressional session that just ended. ...Look at the legislation business got killed," the TIMES says: there was no increase in the minimum wage, no new limits on "soft money" in elections, no ban on agricultural mergers. But Congress exempted corporations from any liability for Y2K computer failures, and legalized the merging of banks, insurance companies and stock brokerages.[4] No doubt about it, money talks.
With the wealthy legally empowered to pour money into government, one might expect the government to return the favor. Late in 1999 the NEW YORK TIMES reported that "...the Internal Revenue Service [the nation's tax collection agency] is reducing its efforts to find cheating by businesses and high-income individuals, and stepping up investigations into two forms of cheating that are more likely to involve the working poor than the affluent."[5]
"For wealthy individuals with gross income of $100,000 or more, fewer than an estimated one in 150 returns will be audited this year compared to one in 33 in 1992," the TIMES reported. "Please don't call us tax collectors in the newspaper," one longtime revenue officer in New York told the TIMES. "We don't collect taxes anymore. We aren't allowed to."
Instead of collecting taxes, I.R.S. auditors are answering phones, according to the TIMES: "Highly trained I.R.S. auditors who are paid up to $77,000 annually to examine corporate tax returns have been detailed to answer telephones and greet people at I.R.S. offices, even though their years of specialized work have left them ill equipped to handle mundane questions from the public."[5]
Because of Congressional budget reductions, the I.R.S. has had to prune 82,000 staff positions (a 14% cut) in the last 4 years. However, the agency's workload has increased during the same period as Congress has made the tax laws more complex. Because of 1260 changes in the tax laws that Congress approved in 1997 and 1998, the I.R.S. has effectively had its total resources reduced by 29% during the past 4 years, the NEW YORK TIMES reported.
Despite these resource cuts, the I.R.S. is now conducting an aggressive campaign to ferret out abuses of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which allows the working poor to collect up to $323 for a single person and $3,556 for a family of four.
In 1999, a study by the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that the "welfare reform" law passed by Congress three years ago has had the effect of making the poor poorer. The Congressional Committee that wrote the "welfare reform" law said the conclusions of the CBPP study were valid.[6]
Since 1995 the poorest 20% of families have seen their annual incomes reduced by $577, falling to $8,047 annually. The situation was worse for the poorest 10% who lost $814 per year. Children were hardest hit. In 1995, 88% of poor children were helped by food stamps. By 1998, only 70% of poor children were being helped. "There are people at the bottom who are worse off," said Ron Haskins, staff director of the Congressional subcommittee that wrote the "welfare reform" law. "We need to do something about that," he said in August,[6] but by December, nothing had been done.
Meanwhile 20% of American households have more debt than assets -- which is to say, they have a negative net worth. When real estate is factored out, 40% of American families have more debt than assets, according to the NEW YORK TIMES. A survey in early 1999 found that half of Americans had life savings of $3000 or less and another 40% said it would be "a big problem" if they had to deal with an unexpected bill for $1000,[7] the TIMES reported. In early 1999, 35 million Americans (13.3%) were living in poverty.
The number of poor people would be considerably larger if prisoners were counted. The prison population of the U.S. will officially reach 2 million about six weeks from now, on February 15th.[8] Two-thirds of prisoners are serving sentences for non-violent offenses. America's federal "drug czar," General Barry McCaffrey refers to the U.S. prison system as "America's internal gulag."[9]
The prison industry in the U.S. has now taken on a life of its own. We build 50,000 new prison cells each year. Congress has taken steps to privatize the prison industry. The stock price of the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest private jailer, has increased 10-fold since 1994, making prisons a killer investment. Nearly 60% of all federal prisoners are guilty of drug-related crimes. Americans do not use more drugs, on average, than citizens of other countries, and drug use has not declined for the past 10 years despite the ballooning prison population.
Worldwide, there are 8 million people in prison, so the U.S., with 4% of world population, holds 25% of all the world's prisoners.[8] For an American born this year, the chance of spending some part of their life in prison is one in 20; for black Americans, it is one in 4.[9]
Prisoners are not counted in unemployment statistics, poverty statistics, or welfare statistics -- so all these measures of national well-being are improved each time another person goes to prison. Furthermore, prisoners do not attend "Million Man Marches" or other political demonstrations. Most importantly, prisoners cannot vote; persons convicted of felonies lose their right to vote permanently.
A poll taken in February, 1999, revealed that 47% of Americans believe that the courts do not treat racial or ethnic minorities fairly. And a stunning 90% of respondents said they believe affluent individuals and corporations have an unfair advantage in court.[10] The fix is in, 90% believe.
Where will these trends lead us in the new millennium? In any case, We wish our readers a happy New Year.
NEXT PAGE -->
|
| * * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|