The Pica Perspective

TV coming to a supermarket near you...

Here's the latest from Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. All I have to say is "Argh!"

This fall, Food Lion supermarkets will unleash 3GTv, mini-televisions attached to grocery store shelves running continuous commercials -- right next to the product being advertised.  If a test run in Maryland and Virginia is successful, other supermarkets are sure to follow Food Lion's lead.  That's why, no matter where you live or shop, Food Lion needs to hear from you.

Do you agree that families have a right to grocery shop without being forced to run a gauntlet of screens blasting commercials in every aisle?  Take a moment to tell Food Lion to pull the plug on its grocery store TVs.

Screen-based advertising has erupted into the public sphere where it is inescapable.  Even the most vigilant parents can't protect children from it.   It's time to challenge the notion that marketers have the right to fill every nook and cranny of our lives with televisions and their blaring commercials.

It's bad enough that popular children's characters like Dora the Explorer and Shrek beckon from packaging on grocery shelves, encouraging children to nag for snacks and cereals of dubious nutritional quality.  It's even worse that many supermarkets have TVs at the checkout counter, exploiting a captive audience waiting in line to pay for groceries.  But now, at the exact moment families are making purchasing decisions, in-your-face TV ads will undercut parental authority by compelling children to lobby for whatever is being advertised.

So let's stop 3GTv before it even starts and keep it from spreading to every supermarket aisle across the country.  The continuing intrusion of marketing into public space disrupts our ability to pay attention to each other and corrodes our sense of community. Take action now to stop TV ads from coming to a grocery store near you.

Tell McDonald's: No clobberin' time for preschoolers!

Violence and gender stereotypes all in one fell swoop! From the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood:

It's hard to believe, but McDonald's Happy Meal toys have hit a new low. 

The fast food giant's latest giveaway for preschool boys features eight Marvel comic action figures.  One, The Human Torch, is a man engulfed in flames. Another, The Thing, menacingly roars "IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!" at the press of a button.

Tell McDonald's its toys are pressing your buttons:  "No time is clobberin' time for  preschoolers."

It's bad enough that McDonald's relentlessly uses junk toys to sell children on junk food.  It's awful that this giveaway continues the troubling trend of fast food restaurants promoting toys linked to violent PG-13 movies. And it's terrible that McDonald's, the leading distributor of toys in the United States, relentlessly perpetuates the worst gendered stereotypes with its Happy Meal giveaways.  During the current promotion boys get violent action figures with their burgers and fries, while girls are offered cutesy animals that, bizarrely, come with handbags.

But now, for preschool boys, a so-called happy meal at McDonald's features the horrifying spectacle of a man on fire and a menacing figure that explicitly spurs them to violence.

The fast food giant claims that "getting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's."

If clobberin' time is McDonald's idea of family fun, it's time to steer clear of the Golden Arches.

Tell McDonald's: No Clobberin' Time for Preschoolers.

The latest on the childhood obesity crisis

Two interesting reports have surfaced this week: one good news and the other good news if you care only about the children in this country...

Regarding the latter, it turns out that American children aren't the fattest in the world after all. According to a CBS News report, there are more children -- 44 and 45 percent, respectively -- in Spain and Italy who are overweight or obese. In this country "only" 41 percent of the children are overweight or obese.

There was a positive side to this story: According to the study cited, the incidence of childhood obesity is increasing more slowly in the U.S. than in most of the other countries.

The really good news is that there's evidence that the childhood obesity crisis is beginning to subside. Several recent studies reported that rates of overweight and obese children plateaued after rising rapidly since 1980, but now a first major study has detected a decline - of 4 percent - and it was in a national sample dominated by low-income blacks and Hispanics, the groups at highest risk and the least likely to make a change.

Maybe people are finally getting the message! We can hope...

Happy meals lawsuit

I'm no fan of McDonald's, and I certainly don't approve of the tactic of offering toys (particularly toys related to children's favorite movies and TV shows) as incentives to buy Happy Meals. But someone, somewhere has to draw the line at what is corporate America's responsibility and what responsibility belongs to parents.

This week the Los Angeles Times reported that "a public health watchdog group called on the fast food giant to remove the playthings from all its meal packages" and has written a letter of intent to sue if the toys are not removed. The Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants where they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt.

"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," Stephen Gardner, litigation director for the advocacy group said in a statement. "McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity."

I'm sorry, but who's in charge here -- the children or the parents? Are the children driving themselves to McDonald's and then whipping out their wallets to pay for their Happy Meals?

I realize we're living in an age when parents hesitate (refuse to?) say "no" to their children, but where are their priorities? Are they more fearful of stifling their children's budding self-esteem than of feeding them food that is too high in calories, fat and salt? The former concern is a myth; the second, if ignored, a killer.

For more perspective on this, listen to experts on "When and How to Say 'NO' to Children!"

It's TOADY time again...

...and all I can say is OMG.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood Reclaiming Childhood from Corporate Marketers

Back by popular demand: CCFC's 2nd annual TOADY AWARDS.  Last year, Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader Barbie took home the top prize.  Who will win this year's dreaded TOADY?  It's up to you!  Click here to cast your vote.

In February, the Toy Industry Association of America presented their annual TOTY (Toy Of The Year) Awards.  Now, in recognition of the industry that has led the way in commercializing childhood, we have selected five nominees for the TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young Children) Award for the worst toy of the year.  

Here, from among the thousands of toys that promote violence and/or precocious sexuality and/or push branded entertainment and electronic wizardry at the expense of children's play, are the five exceptional finalists:

• A website celebrating lechery, violence, and animal cruelty...and is marketed to preschoolers.
• A portable device that turns the whole world into a screen.
• A violent toy doubling as an ad for Mature-rated videogames.
• A $2,500 toy introducing preschoolers to the soul-crushing monotony of office work.
• And Barbie's back - with a toy that has to be seen to be believed.

Who are these nominees?  Find out and cast your ballot at: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/toady2010.html.  Voting is open until May 10.  All voters can enter a drawing to win their choice of one of four decidedly unTOADYish toys.  So vote today - and let your friends and family know about the TOADYs.

NAEYC's parent site

Below is a press release from the National Association for the Education of Young Children:

NAEYC offers new website, tips for parents searching for quality child care
Newly redesigned RightChoiceforKids.org gives parents a one-stop shop for information about high-quality early childhood education

(Washington, D.C.) – The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is very excited to announce the launch of a newly redesigned website specifically made for parents and families. The new rightchoiceforkids.org should be every parent’s first stop when beginning their search for quality child care for their young child from birth through 5 years old. The new rightchoiceforkids.org offers families tips on finding quality child care, allows for easy search for NAEYC-Accredited programs in your area, provides parent-focused articles and videos, and other great resources!

Rightchoiceforkids.org first launched in 2006 as a way to help parents look for NAEYC-Accredited programs – the mark of quality in early childhood education. But looking for a high-quality program can be challenging with all the choices available to parents. Rightchoiceforkids.org helps communicate that the best way to guarantee a program’s quality is by looking for the NAEYC Torch – a symbol of NAEYC Accreditation. NAEYC-Accredited programs are required to meet 10 early childhood program standards and demonstrate compliance with more than 400 specific criteria, which were created using the latest research and developmentally appropriate practices in the field.

“High-quality early childhood education is a critical component to a child’s success in school and life,” said Mark R. Ginsberg, executive director of NAEYC. “For years parents have asked us what early childhood program would be best for their child and rightchoiceforkids.org helps answer that question."

In addition to looking for NAEYC-Accredited programs, parents can also use the following checklist of tips when visiting programs for the first time:

1. A good program will always provide parents an opportunity to visit, stay awhile, and get a good sense of the environment.
2. Parents should ask about and observe group sizes and the number of teaching staff in each classroom. NAEYC recommends no more than 8 babies or 12 toddlers with at least 2 teaching staff. For preschoolers, group size should not exceed 20 children with at least 2 teaching staff always present.
3. Play, including dramatic play and blocks and active play outdoors, should be integrated into classroom topics of study. Play not only supports children’s intellectual development; it is also very important for the physical development of children.
4. Programs should promote the health and nutrition of children.
5. Children in the program should be engaged with one another and their teachers. Listen and watch for a happy buzz of activity—neither too quiet nor too loud.
6. Teachers should use positive speech and be loving and responsive to a child.
7. A good program should be able to adapt to the needs of each individual child without ignoring the whole group.
8. Teaching staff should be qualified academically.
9. Parents should ask about teacher turnover. A high-quality program will have well-compensated and well-trained staff to ensure retention.
10. Programs should have a strong connection with the families of each child and the community, as well.

Parents should also think about what they see based on what they know about their child. Are the teachers treating children in ways that will be comfortable to their child? Are the materials and activities likely to be of interest and to be challenging but achievable to their child? Is the program interested in what is important to the parent and willing to work with the family to give a child the high-quality experiences he or she deserves?

Overall parents should feel comfortable in an early education setting. Chances are if a parent does not feel comfortable, neither will the child. It is also important for parents to understand that NAEYC-Accredited programs will not only meet a child where he or she is, but will also present challenges to improve that child’s cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development.

For more information about how parents can find the best child care or preschool program, visit www.rightchoiceforkids.org or call NAEYC toll-free at 800-424-2460.

Carla Hannaford has a new book

 
Smart Moves: Why Learning Is Not All in Your Head, by neurophysiologist Carla Hannaford, is my favorite professional book of all time. It makes a compelling case for the mind/body connection and the need for movement as part of the learning process. No surprise, then, that I recommend it to teachers and parents at nearly every presentation I give. (I may be responsible for selling more of Carla's book than I have of my own!)

Now Carla has a new book. It's called Playing in the Unified Field: Raising & Becoming Conscious, Creative Human Beings. From the back of the book:

Our ideas about what we are and what we are capable of lag far behind what the science of the last hundred years has shown us. We are vibrational fields in a sea of vibrational fields, open to all potential. We are dynamic, learning beings with unavoidable power to influence one another and the surrounding world. The time has come to integrate these discoveries into our lives and the ways we educate our children.

Carla Hannaford, bestselling author of Smart Moves: Why Learning Is Not All in Your Head, draws on science, our heritage of human wisdom, and her own experience as a biologist, parent and educator to advance an empowering new view of reality. Playing in the Unified Field offers inspiration, models and practical advice for raising our families with coherence, presence, love, and trust in their capacity to learn and grow.

Carla was lovely enough to have sent me a copy. I haven't had a chance to read it yet (I'm particularly looking forward to the chapter called "Educating with the Heart in Mind!") but wanted to pass along word of its existence!

Families of Couch Potatoes

Following on the heels of my last post about the high cost of being a couch potato is a new study showing that "families rarely take part in physical activity as a family because of the demands of work, school and the different interests of family members."                          

Interestingly, the majority of parents reported that they consider family participation in physical activity to be important, and they identified its many benefits, including time spent together, parent-child communication, having fun, better mental health, weight control, and physical fitness. Still, most parents reported their families did little or no physical activity together as a family unit during the week, and any activities performed together were usually sedentary in nature.

Sorry, parents, but if you want your children to be physically active, you're going to have to lead by example. Your influence is considerable.

For example, research has shown that parents' inactivity may exert more influence on their children's behavior than being active does. That is, if a child sees mom or dad sitting in front of the TV during all their free time -- if he never sees his parents exercising or enjoying themselves as they do something physical -- the parents' actions (in this case inactions) will speak volumes. He'll simply follow suit. Even if his parents tell him how important it is to be physically active, he'll have no reason to believe them.

A Penn State study demonstrated that children do indeed follow the example their parents set for them. Their research, conducted over two years, established that 79% of the girls who became overweight from ages 5 to 7, with or without a genetic disposition to obesity, were from sedentary families.

On the other hand, an article in the Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics reports that children with active mothers are twice as likely to be active as children with inactive mothers. Children with active fathers are three and a half times more likely to be active than children with inactive fathers. And when both parents are active, their children are six times more likely to be active!

Parents might find it difficult, at first, to set aside time for something they consider an "extra." But as evidenced by the results of the first study cited here, parents do realize physical activity is much more than an "extra."

To serve as role models, parents can plan parties, outings, and vacations around physical activity. Looking for something to do on a Saturday afternoon? Go to the roller-skating rink. Planning a vacation? How about a trip to the mountains, where you can hike and swim, rather than to an amusement park, where you'll stand in lines and then sit on rides? Will you be inviting dozens of your child's friends to a backyard birthday party? Why not set up play stations -- one with bubbles to chase, another with balloons to volley, and still anotehr with beanbags to balance -- where the children, divided into groups, play for a while and then rotate?

Additionally, parents can guy gifts related to physical activity, like roller skates, a croquet set, or hiking boots. If a child gets only computer games, videos, and other sedentary materials, she's getting the wrong impression.

Of course, parents can also "walk the walk." As a form of exercise, walking is almost perfect. It's an exercise just about everyone can do, regardless of fitness level. It doesn't require special skill, and you can do it at your own pace. There are no fees involved, and there's no equipment required. Also, it can be both practical (it can get you where you need to go) and pleasurable (you can take in the sights and have a heart-to-heart with your child), while also burning calories.

How about scheduling a family walk every evening after dinner? Do it before you've cleaned up the kitchen so you won't lose momentum. Then come back and clean up together. Housework burns calories, too. And if you put on a piece of moderate- to fast-paced music in the background, you'll probably burn even more calories keeping time with the rhythm.

Obesity starts early in life!

A study published in this month's journal Clinical Pediatrics indicates that the "tipping point" in obesity often occurs before a child reaches age 2 and sometimes as early as three months.

Lead researcher Dr. John Harrington, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters and an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, found that participants in the study had started gaining weight in infancy at an average rate of .08 excess BMI units per month, or just under 1 BMI point per year. On average, this progression toward obesity began when the children were three months old. More than 50 percent of the children became overweight at or before they turned 2, while 90 percent did before reaching age 5.

What's to be done about it?

Dr. Harrington believes pediatricians will now have to act before medical complications arise. He added, "Getting parents and children to change habits that have already taken hold is a monumental challenge fraught with roadblocks and disappointments. This study indicates that we may need to discuss inappropriate weight gain early in infancy to affect meaningful changes in the current trend of obesity."

What's going on here? This goes well beyond the need for increased physical activity and smaller portion sizes.

Thoughts?

To Spank or Not to Spank?

Were you spanked? I was. Parents never thought twice about it when I was a kid.

Did it have any ill effects? Who knows? Maybe I would have turned out differently had I not been spanked, but I'll never know that.

Mind you, I'm not in favor of smacking kids. And I certainly understand the argument that when we do so, we're teaching them that violence is okay. I also understand the point of view of Dr. Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, and others, whose research shows spanking has traumatizing effects. But Dr. Straus's research indicates that these traumatizing effects result in lower IQs, and that spanked children develop more slowly. Could that be true? Is that the case with an occasional pop on the bottom? Or does that result with repeated, furious spanking?

Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe's research has shown that spanking isn't so bad after all. She learned that those teenagers who'd been physically disciplined up until the age of 6 performed better in school, had an optimistic outlook on life, possessed a willingness to perform volunteer work, and were ambitious about attending college.

Do you think her research will provide fodder for spanking advocates?

I had a great discussion with both Murray and Marjorie, along with Amy McCready of Positive Parenting Solutions and Sara Behnke, parenting author and blogger. It's featured this week on the Parents Channel at the BAM Radio Network.

So, what do you think? To spank or not to spank? Do you spank??