100-Calorie Snack Campaign Sparks Debate About Calorie Counting For Kids

100-Calorie Snack Campaign Sparks Debate About Calorie Counting For Kids

A campaign advising parents to give their children 100-calorie snacks has sparked a debate about the effects of calorie counting kids’ food. 

Public Health England (PHE) introduced a campaign in January 2018 calling for parents to give kids “100 calorie snacks, two a day max”, to encourage healthier snacking.

However national charity Beat believes PHE should have considered the impact the campaign may have on individuals at risk of developing an eating disorder.

“We have heard from parents and treatment providers who cite the promotion of anti-obesity messages to children as a factor in the onset and maintenance of eating disorders,” the charity said in a statement.

“While the campaign is aimed at parents, it is easy to see how it will also engage a younger audience. Encouraging excessive focus on calorie counting could be harmful for young people susceptible to disordered eating.”

However PHE argue that it is hard to tackle the problem of obesity and eating disorders at the same time.

They shared statistics that showed 34% of children aged 10 and 11 years old are overweight and obese, while 1.3% are underweight.  

“Our Change4Life campaign helps millions of families make healthier choices,” said Dr Alison Tedstone, chief nutritionist at PHE. “Every campaign encourages families to eat more fruit and vegetables and use front of the pack labelling to choose healthier foods.

“This campaign responds directly to parents’ concerns and our campaigns are rigorously tested with parents to ensure they provide helpful and practical advice.

“It’s not about counting calories – it’s a simple tip for parents to help change their children’s snacking habits.”

PHE advised those who have, or are worried about others with, eating disorders should seek help from a registered health care professional.

Beat also questioned whether the campaign gave the impression that counting calories of snacks indicated how healthy they are.

“A 100 calorie drink or snack with high levels of processed sugar will not reduce feelings of hunger, whereas many healthy snacks are over 100 calories and can play an important role in a healthy and balanced diet,” Beat argued. “Focusing on calories rather than on healthy and balanced eating is unhelpful. 

“We understand there are public health obesity strategies in other countries that have a positive impact on mental wellbeing and reduce the risk of eating disorders. We are investigating these to see whether they could be applicable to the UK.”

Paediatric dietitian Judy More agreed that PHE could have further emphasised the importance of nutritious snacks for children.

“100 calorie snacks will not be suitable for all children,” she said. “I think listing recommended (low sugar, high nutrients) snacks and non-recommended snacks (high sugar, low nutrients) would have been a better way forward.

“I also think one sugary snack per day is better for teeth than two sugary snacks per day. Evidence shows limiting sugar containing foods to four episodes per day (e.g. the three meals and no more than one snack) reduces the risk of dental caries. They seem to have overlooked that research funded by the WHO and carried out in England.”

However, she added that eating disorders are multifactorial and said PHE has a remit to reduce obesity in the UK population and becoming overweight or obese is linked to an excess calorie intake.

“Living in a family where parents or older siblings obsess about calories and weight is not a good environment for a child with the genetic potential to develop an eating disorder,” she told HuffPost UK. “However not every child living in that type of environment goes on to develop an eating disorder.”

For more information on PHE’s healthy eating campaigns for the family, visit their website.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/100-calorie-snack-eating-disorder-charity_uk_5a6b019ae4b01fbbefb0b0ba

#FlashbackFriday: After Coming Out, Ellen Delivers Moving Speech at HRC’s First National Dinner

#FlashbackFriday: After Coming Out, Ellen Delivers Moving Speech at HRC’s First National Dinner

Over the years, Ellen DeGeneres has come to symbolize what it means to live life authentically. Her courageous decision to come out more than 20 years ago on national TV not only helped change hearts and minds, but inspired countless other LGBTQ people to live their truth.

As HRC celebrates Ellen’s 60th birthday today, we also mark the occasion with a very special #FlashbackFriday commemorating the powerful speech she delivered at our first ever National Dinner back in 1997.

Below is an excerpt from Ellen’s keynote speech:    

‘This hasn’t been an easy journey for me. I lived with a sense of shame for a long time. Every interview, I tried to dodge around that dreaded question, “Are you gay?” My answer was always: “My private life is my private life.” And it is. But my sexuality is as much a part of me as my skin color. I tried to justify why I should keep it hidden for as long as I could.

I finally got to a point where living honestly and being proud of who I am was more important than fame. Ironically, my being honest made me more famous. So much for those who said it would hurt my career. I was willing to risk it all and i was reward for it. My life is better than it’s ever been — I found love and there’s nothing more important than that…

I feel so good knowing I’ve made a contribution — that’s my reward. I never wanted to be an activist — i just wanted to entertain people to make them feel good. But as I’ve witnessed the discrimination —  the double standards —  and heard the statistic of teen suicides —  I’ve had to re-think that. If by standing up for what I think is right makes me an activist — I’m an activist.’

Thank you, Ellen, for inspiring a generation.

www.hrc.org/blog/flashbackfriday-after-coming-out-ellen-delivers-moving-speech-at-hrcs-first?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed

Ivanka Trump streicht einen Satz aus ihrer Twitter-Bio – und erntet Kritik

Ivanka Trump streicht einen Satz aus ihrer Twitter-Bio – und erntet Kritik
Ivanka Trump hat ihre Profilbeschreibung bei Twitter geändert – und erntet dafür harsche Kritik.

  • Ivanka Trump hat ihre Profilbeschreibung auf Twitter geändert 
  • Mit der neuen Bio stößt sie auf wenig Begeisterung 

Die Trumps sind Fans von Twitter. Nicht nur US-Präsident Donald Trump nutzt den Microblogging-Dienst, um über die “Fake News Media” zu schimpfen oder Drohungen gen Nordkorea  zu schicken. Auch seine Tochter Ivanka ist auf Twitter sehr aktiv.

Vergangenes Wochenende änderte die Beraterin des Präsidenten ihre Profilbeschreibung in dem Netzwerk. Und löste damit hitzige Debatten aus. Denn sie löschte die Zeile “Verfechterin für Erziehung und Bekräftigung von Frauen und Mädchen”.

Eine kleine Abänderung – ein großer Unterschied 

Sie änderte ihre Bio von dieser:

“Ehefrau, Mutter, Schwester, Tochter. Unternehmerin und Verfechterin für die Erziehung und Bekräftigung von Frauen und Mädchen. Das ist meine persönliche Seite. Die geteilten Ansichten auf dieser Seite sind meine eigenen.“

Zu dieser:

“Ehefrau, Mutter, Schwester, Tochter. Beraterin des POTUS für das Erschaffen von Jobs und den wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung, die Entwicklung von Arbeitskräften und Unternehmen.Das ist meine persönliche Seite. Die geteilten Ansichten auf dieser Seite sind meine eigenen.

Mehr zum Thema: Ivanka Trump heißt eigentlich gar nicht Ivanka Trump

Unklar bleibt, was genau sie zu dieser Änderung bewegte.

Die US-Journalistin Stephanie Ruhe entdeckte die ausgetauschte Profilbeschreibung genau an dem Wochenende, an dem tausende von Frauen weltweit am “Women’s March“ teilnahmen.

 

As the #womensmarch2018 weekend comes to a close, please note @IvankaTrump has recently changed her @Twitter bio – IT NO LONGER INCLUDES “Entrepreneur + passionate advocate for the education and empowerment of women and girls.”

— Stephanie Ruhle (@SRuhle) January 22, 2018

Seitdem ist Twitter voll von Kommentaren über die geänderte Bio. Ein Nutzer kommentiert zum Beipsiel: “Ich denke, sie ist jetzt endlich mit sich selbst im Reinen.“

I guess she finally got honest with herself.

— Are we winning yet? (@williams1977) January 22, 2018

Eine andere Nutzerin schreibt: “Lol. Ivanka’s Feminismus ist genauso leer wie ihr aktualisierte Twitter Bio.“

LOL, Ivanka’s feminism is as empty as her updated Twitter bio. t.co/JInRCx3rFW

— Sarah Lerner (@SarahLerner) January 22, 2018

Wieder eine Andere macht sich lustig, indem sie ein GIF mit der Inschrift “Komplizenschaft“ teilt.

Does it say this? pic.twitter.com/eeSiA3Pa9u

— suzy greenberg (@stacytklein) January 22, 2018

Eine andere Userin schreibt: “Wo warst du während des “Women’s March“? Du hast deine Bio geändert, jetzt kümmert es dich nicht mehr?“

Where were you during @womensmarch? You changed your Bio, you no longer care for women’s rights?

— Long Beach Chica (@LBxChica) January 22, 2018

Noch Einer bedankt sich: “Gut, dass wir das bestätigt haben.“

Good to have that affirmed

— Kaaren (@Kaargav) January 22, 2018

Ein Twitter-Nutzer kritisiert: “Jetzt hast du also deine Bio geändert und bist jetzt keine Frauenverfechterin mehr, oder? Du hast das getan, weil es tun musstest. Weil du keine Verfechterin bist. Du bist im Grunde genommen eine Verräterin gegenüber Frauen. Und, wenn du deinen Vater unterstützt, auch noch gegenüber Amerika.”

So you changed your Twitter bio and removed that you’re an advocate for women, eh? Because you had to. Because you’re not. You’re basically a traitor to women. And, if you support your dad, America.

— DanielleL ✨? (@itwaswritten83) January 22, 2018

Trump schadet mit seiner Politik Frauen

Ivanka Trump musste sich in letzter Zeit des Öfteren anhören, sie sei mit Schuld an der umstrittenen Frauen-Politik ihres Vaters. 

Mehr zum Thema: Donald Trump holt seine Tochter Ivanka auf die Bühne – dann sagt er etwas Verstörendes zu ihr

Der US-Präsident ist in der Vergangenheit durch frauenverachtende Äußerungen aufgefallen. Außerdem hat er in seiner nun rund einjährigen Amtszeit mehrere Gesetze durchgesetzt,die Frauen massiv schaden.

(ks) 

www.huffingtonpost.de/entry/ivanka-trump-twitter-frauen-reagierenn-nicht-begeister_de_5a606762e4b054e351776698

Making Men Poorer Isn’t What Women Want

Making Men Poorer Isn’t What Women Want

“I can take away his extra money and just split it between you,” the Skype connection was temperamental but we had definitely heard correctly the offer that was being laid on the table, “so, does that work for you both?”

Clearly our baffled silence wasn’t quite the response our boss had foreseen in response to his ‘innovative’ suggestion that instead of matching my salary to my higher-paid male colleague, he would simply deduct from his pay-packet and divvy up the difference.

Not only was the amount paltry (we’re talking a respective monthly increase and decrease of hundreds not thousands) it fundamentally belied the principles of gender equality.

The call ended and my bank balance was none the richer.

As much as many people on the internet (looking at you Twitter) believe that those fighting for gender equality are a bunch of man-hating feminists who don’t want equal opportunity – and are secretly hatching plans for female superiority – this isn’t the case.

Individual men don’t need to be, and should not be, punished for the failings of a unfair and unjust system that we are trying to correct.

When we as a society call for equal pay, we don’t ask that men have their reward taken away to help even the scales, we ask that all their peers are given the same reward. Even if they have a vagina.

Maybe to many this seems like a minor point. A nuance of balancing the books on a budget.

But for a sustainable move towards an equal world that exists as a natural state, and not as a token gesture or an adherence to legalities, we can not ask that it is a race to the bottom.

When deciding pay scales, bosses decide how much a role is objectively worth to them as a business. This figure will be indicated by the highest number that they are willing to pay any one individual in that job.

When at a later date that business is called out for the fact they are not paying female staff in that role the same as male staff in that role, they shouldn’t say they overvalued the men, but that they undervalued the women.

Because we all know that deep down, if that business truly believed they were overpaying all their male staff for years on end, they wouldn’t have willingly handed over that money.

Instead, they have been willingly ignorant to the fact they benefit from a system that has always allowed them to pay women less (helped by the fact it is a rarity for colleagues to know the exact salary of their entire office). An entire gender just became a handy cost-cutting exercise.

Asking men to take a pay-cut not only lets businesses off the hook for undervaluing their female staff, but it also makes men less likely to be allies to their female peers in the fight for equality.

Afterall, how many of us would really want to help someone seeking to slash our paycheque?

 

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/making-men-poorer-isnt-what-women-want_uk_5a6b00f3e4b01fbbefb0af1a

Trump wollte Sonderermittler Mueller entlassen – sein Anwalt hielt ihn auf

Trump wollte Sonderermittler Mueller entlassen – sein Anwalt hielt ihn auf

US-Präsident Donald Trump hat nach einem Medienbericht die bereits geplante Entlassung des Sonderermittlers in der Russland-Affäre in letzter Minute abgeblasen.

Das ist passiert:

Die “New York Times” berichtet, Trump habe im Sommer vergangenen Jahres angeordnet, den früheren FBI-Chef Robert Mueller “wegen diverser Interessenkonflikte” zu feuern. 

► Die Zeitung beruft sich dabei auf mehrere interne Quellen aus der US-Regierung. 

► Trump habe sein Vorhaben laut diesen nur deshalb nicht umgesetzt, weil der wichtigste Anwalt des Weißen Hauses, Donald F. McGahn II, ankündigte, er würde eher kündigen, als Trumps Anordnung Folge zu leisten. 

Darum ist es wichtig: 

Muellers Ermittlungen untersuchen, inwieweit sich Russland in den amerikanischen Präsidentschaftswahlkampf eingemischt hat, um Trump zu helfen und seiner Konkurrentin Hillary Clinton zu schaden.

Der frühere FBI-Chef ermittelt vor allem, ob es eventuell illegale Absprachen zwischen Trumps Wahlkampfteam und Moskau gab. Er untersucht aber auch Justizbehinderungen durch den US-Präsidenten im Laufe der Affäre.   

Was ihr noch wissen müsst: 

Ein Beispiel für diese ist so möglicherweise die Entlassung des FBI-Direktors James Comey durch Trump. Comey hatte sich als Vertreter der Justiz geweigert, dem US-Präsidenten politische Treue zu schwören

► Hätte Trump tatsächlich Mueller entlassen, wäre dies ein klarer Fall eines Eingriffes in die Arbeit der Justiz gewesen – und hätte das Verdachtsmoment gegen den US-Präsidenten in der Russland-Affäre nur noch erhärtet.  

Mehr zum Thema: Trump will unter Eid zur Russlandaffäre aussagen

www.huffingtonpost.de/entry/trump_de_5a6ac8bde4b01fbbefb0736e

Donald Trump, In Piers Morgan Interview, Apologises For Retweeting ‘Horrible, Racist’ Britain First

Donald Trump, In Piers Morgan Interview, Apologises For Retweeting ‘Horrible, Racist’ Britain First
Donald Trump has apologised for retweeting far-right Britain First, saying he knows nothing about the group and has only just learnt they are “horrible, racist people”.

In an exclusive interview with Piers Morgan aired on Good Morning Britain on Friday morning, the President said he wasn’t aware of the impact of the incident as it “wasn’t a big story” in the United States.

When asked if he would be willing to apologise as “it would go a long way” to help US-UK relations, Trump said: “Here’s what’s fair – if you’re telling me they’re horrible, racist people I would certainly apologise – I know nothing about them.

Morgan asked: ”You would disavow yourself of people like that?”

Trump replied: “I don’t want to be involved with people like that but you’re telling me about these people because I know nothing about these people.”

The incident in November prompted Theresa May to publicly criticise Trump for he first time, saying it was “wrong for the President to have done this”.

Trump hit back almost immediately:

.@Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!

November 30, 2017
The videos retweeted by Trump were either unverified or have been debunked.

They included footage of migrants allegedly assaulting a boy on crutches, clips of a boy allegedly thrown of a roof and a video claiming to show a Muslim destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-britain-first_uk_5a6ac696e4b01fbbefb07288