Too much sugar in young children's diets, government study suggests
ATLANTA - Tooth decay in young childrenâs baby teeth is on the rise, a worrying trend that signals the preschool crowd is eating too much sugar, according to the largest government study of the nationâs dental health in more than 25 years.
Experts are concerned about the prevalence of cavities in baby teeth of children ages 2 to 5. It increased to 28 percent in 1999-2004, from 24 percent in 1988-1994, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For the last 40 years there had been a decrease in the amount of tooth decay in young children, based on federal health statistics. Other studies have suggested the decline might have ended, but the new report contains the first statistically significant proof the trend has reversed, dental experts said....
There are a lot of things I don't eat, but it's not because who they were invented by--peanut butter was also a Kellogg invention.
I'm probably in agreement with you, Neil, in that I didn't like fluoridation because it was an involuntary medical application. I'm not sure though if a lot of vaccination programs are not the same, and children won't be able to attend public schools if they don't get vaccinated. One can argue it is child abuse not to get children vaccinated. But, I would prefer to have a choice on what medical treatments I get.
So long as courts & legislatures understand the difference between a bona fide public health problem, & merely providing a captive market for drug companies. I'm not so sure they can these days - follow the money.
"A family I know was once compelled to compulsory hospital quarantine by the government, and in my view it was the right thing to do."
I agree with you on that. There are situations where the gov't must act to protect the public.
I should have clarified in my posting that Vancouver BC and area was never fluoridated in the first place. Some politicians were trying to start it in the lates 70s. Fortunately opponents, myself among them, were able to prevent it from happening.
Thanks Neil, of course I would not hold that an ethical Christian politician need hold simply to a defend the borders/punish the evildoer/praise those who do good regulative principle of government. A Christian politician should obey and uphold the law of God.
Wayne - as you would expect, I would pay heed to evidence of medical harm. I think there are circumstances in which almost all of us would agree to compulsory medication for some. A family I know was once compelled to compulsory hospital quarantine by the government, and in my view it was the right thing to do.
Thirty years ago I was quite involved in campaigning against fluoridation of Vancouver BC's water system. There is a ton of evidence pointing to it being very harmful (cancer causing, osteoporosis, etc.). If you don't believe me just type fluoridation in a search engine and see for yourself.
The fluoridation of Vancouver BC and surrounding municipalities was stopped by one vote out of about 50 votes cast on the Greater Vancouver Regional District board back in the late 70s. Today it is still not fluoridated. Fluoridation was also stopped in a town of about 5500 near here a few years ago after a battle. It has been stopped in other places as well.
The thing about fluoridation is it is a forced medication of everyone regardless of the possible harmful effects. As I said then and as I say now it is undemocratic. That thought scares politicians.
It can be stopped, but it takes a lot of work by a lot of dedicated people.
33K, I was speaking within the sphere of political ethics (i.e., what a Christian legislator ought to do). But I do agree that the public is not free to disobey civil laws, however unwise they may be, unless obeying them clearly disobeys God. It is a high threshold. E.g., if the gov't bans or taxes an imported good, we are not at liberty to smuggle it just because free trade may be Biblical or some lobby benefits unfairly.
No dispute about your contentions on church gov't.
I would agree to the qualification: "Pragmatism in public policy is not a sin within the bounds of what God delegates to human gov't" provided there was no additional implicit presumption of a de facto regulative principle of government.
Unless government does or requires something that the Bible clearly defines as sinful then we should obey our rulers. The injunction - we should obey God rather than man - requires there to be a demonstrable disobeying of God by the government.
In the example, the onus should be to prove that mandatory flouridation of water is harmful and damaging. Government would then be causing knowing or reckless injury to others. Only then would it be sin.
However, when churches and their leaders do or require any practice or doctrine or conduct that is not specifically required in the Bible they have sinned. There are no grey areas. The regulative principle has been given to the church in its specific sphere and not to governments and rulers.
Christ has given earthly government to depraved, pragmatic men. So we must obey these fallible men unless they require us to disobey Christ.
Christ requires government of His Church according to the mind of Christ. There are no grounds to use our depraved pragmatic minds to add to his rule.
Pragmatism in church order and worship, however, is an abomination and seeks to depose Christ as Head of the Church and substitute the mind of Christ with the minds of depraved men. It is the essence of antichrist.
Ah, the one thing you guys are in tune with the Adventists is the hostility towards floridated water. I would think one has to see where water has florides in it naturally to see if there were any negative heath problems with it. I only heard of positive ones. You guys against chlorine in water? However, this is one thing a parent or adult can control. He can buy either bottled water, without all the additives or distill the stuff himself. I find this particular government action of adding fluoride to water a non-issue.
This is old news; excessive sugar has worried diligent parents for several generations now. The problem is not knowledge but motivation. The processed food industry has caught on to the trend. Kellogg (founded by a 7th-Day Adventist, BTW) took the word "sugar", but not the ingredient, out of their cereal brands ("Sugar Frosted Flakes" is now "Frosted Flakes", etc.).
And as for enhancing public dental health via water flouridation, that's not the govt's business, quite apart from the below-mentioned potential hazards.
Smart to replace that polluted fluoridated water with something healthier. Fluoride chemicals are very dangerous. It's called lack of responsibility and so the junk food and possibly lack of brushing the teeth enough only helps with the tooth problem.
A quotation from the article, "One reason for the rise in baby tooth decay is that parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water, Dye said."
The main reason I had heard for this tooth decay was a lack of fluoridated water. There are other reasons given in the article as the above quotation shows. It is strange how Great Britain is tackling the problem of too much sugar and salt in children's diets but not here the United States.