How Do Parental Attitudes Towards Sugary Beverages Affect Childhood Obesity?

• Bookmarks: 98


Childhood obesity is an issue in the United States. According to the CDC, nearly 1 in 5 school-age children and young people (ages 6 to 19) in the U.S. experienced obesity from 2015–2016. Policymakers have experimented with several policies to prevent obesity in childhood, ranging from school nutrition and fitness programs, to obesity screenings, insurance coverage for obesity prevention, and soda taxes. There are various risk factors associated with childhood obesity, including the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) (Malik et al., 2013). The intake of sugary beverages, especially in the very early stages of childhood, affects later consumption because beverage preferences are formed during infancy (Park et al., 2014). In this context, drinking soda or SSBs as an infant or young child may be a lifelong risk factor for obesity.

Baidal et al. examined the association between parental attitudes toward SSBs and the consumption of those beverages during their child’s first 1,000 days of life, a period considered critical for the development of childhood obesity. They surveyed 394 low-income families in the northern Manhattan area of New York City, where childhood obesity is abnormally high. Their models showed that negative parental attitudes toward SSBs were associated with lower SSB consumption during the first 1,000 days of life for both parents and infants. Parents’ attitudes toward SSBs were measured using valuative judgments on statements such as “Sugary drinks are part of an active lifestyle,” and “Drinking sugary drinks increases the risk of gaining too much weight.”

The researchers found that a one-point increase in negativity in attitudes towards SSBs was associated with a 14.5 kilocalorie reduction in parental SSB consumption and reduced odds of infant SSB consumption, lending support to the theory that there is a negative relationship between negative parental attitudes towards SSBs and actual SSB consumption by parents and children. These results suggest that in order to influence childhood obesity, policymakers must come up with policies that consider not only the economic availability and affordability of SSBs, but also parental attitudes toward SSB consumption. Public health education, for instance, may provide health information and raise awareness of the health risks associated with SSBs.

But would this be enough to influence the dietary habits that lead to childhood and adult obesity? Beverage preferences are sticky; they rarely change, particularly for matured parents. However, the demand for sweetened beverages is price sensitive (Guerrero-López et al., 2017), and an increase in the price of soda can discourage parents from purchasing it. Therefore, a soda tax is one possible avenue through which to discourage SSB consumption and prevent childhood obesity (though some studies say the impact of soda taxes on population weight is small in magnitude). These results provide support for additional policies that affect public awareness. Further, attitudes may work in tandem with existing policies such as soda taxes.

Another problem is the uneven distribution of SSB consumption over different levels of income and socioeconomic status. In so-called “food swamps”—low-income neighborhoods with a plethora of unhealthy options such as fast food—SSB consumption is higher in part because healthy beverage options are less accessible. In food swamps, increased awareness of the risk of sugary drinks is less effective at influencing behavior. Therefore, in order to impact obesity rates it will be critical to ensure healthy alternatives for families in food swamps in addition to providing information about the health risks of SSBs.

Article source: Jennifer A. Woo Baidal, Kayla Morel, Kelsey Nichols, Erin Elbel, Nalini Charles, Jeff Goldsmith, Ling Chen and Elsie Taveras, “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Attitudes and Consumption During the First 1000 Days of Life” American Journal of Public Health, 108(12), (December 2018): 1659–1665.

Featured photo: cc/(McIninch, photo ID: 144347867, from iStock by Getty Images)

535 views
bookmark icon