She gave birth less than a month ago, but Charlotte Church is already feeling the pressure to slim down, thanks to boyfriend Gavin Henson. The 22-year-old songstress has supposedly been 'banned' from eating junk food by her man, according to recent reports by sources close to the couple. Um, really? Call me old-fashioned but if my fellow tried to 'ban' me from eating things because he thought I needed to lose a few after birthing his child, he might find himself with a black eye or two.

Am I alone in this? Is it OK for one's partner or spouse to set the rules when he or she wants you to shed a few pounds? And is it in poor taste to ask someone to slim down when she has just given birth? What do you think?

Source

A recent study theorized that banning fast food commercials would have a positive impact on childhood obesity. After all, most kids watch an awful lot of television -- being tempted by burgers and fries (not to mention the toys they're packaged with) can be a big draw. Pair that with the potential sleep problems and loss of physical activity due to TV watching and you've got a recipe for childhood obesity. Or do you?

I asked That's Fit readers what they thought about banning fast food commercials. Here are the results:

• 56.6 percent think banning fast food commercials is a good idea. Remove the temptation and maybe kids would beg and plead for fast food less often.
• 34.5 percent of you think kids will still want fast food, whether they see it on commercials or not.
  
• 8.7 percent of you voted for other. Many comments focused on the fact that it shouldn't matter whether kids see commercials or not -- parents should determine the types of food that their family is eating. Kids shouldn't be the ones who dictate what they eat.

Do you think you're up on knowledge about childhood obesity? Take this AOL Health childhood obesity quiz and find out.

Most fast food meals make me feel a little ill -- yet often, when I catch a fast food commercial running on TV, the food looks so good I salivate like Pavlov's dog. That's exactly what those commercials are designed to do -- make you crave a trip to your nearest fast food joint for whatever triple-decker, bacon-packed, artery-clogging burger they're advertising this week.

A recent study reviewed data on nearly 13,000 children to determine how many advertising commercials most children view on TV each week. Researchers believe the commercials have a big impact on the amount of children who eat fast food. They estimate that banning fast food commercials from TV would reduce obesity in children ages 3-11 by 18 percent and by 14 percent in adolescents ages 12-18.

Source

Kids + soda = bad combination. It's a formula that's accepted pretty much worldwide, considering that soda is made up of everything that is bad for you and your offspring. Banning soda from schools is one way to get it away from children and teens, but does it work?

Nope, says a recent study published in USA Today. Apparently, kids who go to schools without readily-available soft drinks consume just as much of them as kids who do have soda in their schools. There's is a silver lining to this cloud, however -- overall, all kids are consuming less soda, on average.

I think this goes to show that ultimately, it's up to the parents to teach healthy habits to their kids. What do you think?

Source

My son is in the fifth grade this year. The school's cafeteria is small, so they scatter the times kids go out for recess and to lunch. As the oldest kids in the school, my son's class doesn't hit the cafeteria until 1:00. Considering he catches the bus at 7:30, that's a long span of time before lunch.

His teacher has a scheduled snack time at 10:30 to help tide the kids over until lunch. She sent home a note regarding snack time for the kids. She recommended a list of healthy snack options which was great. But what was more impressive was this: she's banned candy from her classroom.

I thought it was wonderful. The kids will still be allowed to have candy on special occasions such as Valentine's Day. But on a day to day basis, my son's teacher is promoting good nutrition that will give them the energy they need.

Source

Recent research shows that when elementary schools ban soft drinks, the improvement in kids' health is minimal.

Schools who have removed soda vending machines have done so in an effort to improve student health. But research shows that fifth graders who attend schools where soda is banned consume only 4% less than students who have access to soda at school.

As far as I'm concerned, 4% is 4% is 4%. It may be a small improvement, but it's an improvement none-the-less. And since soda bans are relatively recent -- starting in 2003 in California -- I think time will still tell. It takes time to change kids' tastes and preferences. Parents just have to get on board, too, and save soda for the rare treat or avoid it altogether.

Source

Artificial food coloring makes kids hyper, say British scientists who wish to ban six different colorings. The European Council doesn't plan on issuing any such ban, however, despite the wishes of several powerful consumer and health groups.

Researchers have concluded after the study of 300 kids that there's a link between the colorings, a certain preservative, and hyperactivity in children. The worrisome additives, found in sweets, cakes, and fizzy drinks are: tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), ponceau (E124), allura red (E129), carmoisine (E122) and sodium benzoate (E211). While Britain's Food Standards Agency, a government watchdog group, has called for a voluntary ban on these colorings, an actual government policy may be a long way off.

Further study will be underway. Maybe more conclusive findings will lead to more action.

Source

Maggie told us on April 11 that France lawmakers were considering a ban on the promotion of ultra skinniness. Well, they considered it. They pursued it. And yesterday, they passed a groundbreaking bill that would make it illegal for anyone, including advertisers, fashion magazines, and web sites, to publicly incite extreme thinness. The bill goes to the Senate in the next few weeks.

If passed, this law would be the strongest of its kind anywhere. It's getting some strong support. Some say encouraging severe weight loss, which can lead to eating disorders -- and contributed to the 2006 death of one Brazilian model -- should be punishable by law. It's also being met with strong opposition. Those involved with French couture don't like that boundaries may be placed on beauty standards.

Regardless of the outcome of this bill, French lawmakers and fashion industry leaders did sign last week a non-binding charter to promote healthier body images. A step in the right direction. But is it enough?

Source

Bars and other hot night attractions in Minnesota have found a loophole to get around the smoking ban that was rolled out last year. According to the legislation passing the ban, nobody can smoke in these public areas... unless you're an actor.

This is for stage performances, and patrons must be told beforehand that an "actor" will be lighting up. Well, to garner more traffic, over two dozen bars have rolled out Theater Nights where customers show up in costumes to become actors for the evening. Essentially, the bars are hosting their own plays using the public as an acting crew!

Needless to say, the Department of Health doesn't take kindly the idea. They're about to slap these establishments with fines as high as $10,000. But bar owners say they were struggling before and that these "theater nights" provide them with huge sales. Even if it means exploiting a loophole in the system, they want to be able to act and smoke. It's a clever idea -- no doubt about it! However it's going to be interesting to see how long they can keep it up.

Source

Ever since food companies had to start being more forthcoming about the trans fat content in their products, consumers have been more educated about what they're eating. But a new study on cheaper snacks reveals that we're still a long way from a trans fat-free world.

As some of you may know, the FDA demands that foods be properly labeled if they contain this substance. But cheaper snack foods, which are manufactured with small amounts of trans fat, still boast 0 grams even though they contain certain amounts of it. The reason being is that they are allowed to round down if the amount is less than half a gram of trans fat.

Is this misleading the consumer? Perhaps, but in the end it's up to us to check out the ingredients before eating it. Knowing what we're putting in our mouths is called personal responsibility, so don't be afraid to turn the box or bag over to look for "partially hydrogenated" oils. Until the technology becomes cheaper to produce trans fat-free products, those of us who are health-conscious will have to keep a sharper eye out.

Source

The American public ban on smoking has been one of the most successful citizen-led public health campaigns of all time. Think a similar-type ban on cupcakes might catch on?

There's a growing movement out there, spurred by a law requiring schools to alter the nutrition of its students, to help kids eat cleaner, healthier diets. The latest manifestation of this obesity panic comes in the form of a cupcake ban in some Chicago schools. That's right. There will be no cupcakes at a handful of holiday parties across the Chicago region. Parents are asked, instead, to bring veggie trays in lieu of sweets and water rather than juice boxes.

I like this idea. Some don't.

"To believe that denying a couple of cupcakes during the Holiday season is going to make a difference in a child's overall nutrition is idiotic," writes the author of this editorial. "The Holidays are a time for celebration. And for generations of American kids, that celebration has taken the form of treats at school, shared in a true spirit of Christmas, with their friends and classmates."

Banning cupcakes only destroys the notion that holidays are special, says this man. What do you say?

12 "healthy" foods that really aren't:

Why? Click to find out!

Source

Beginning January of this upcoming new year, adding mercury to cosmetics will be a thing of the past. At least in the state of Minnesota. They are the first state to lay down a law banning the intentional adding of mercury to makeup, among other products (such as eye drops, nasal sprays and toiletries).

The reason mercury was ever in certain cosmetics to begin with was because it was used to preserve the product and kill germs. A group called the Personal Care Products Council out of Washington believes an amount that small wouldn't end up hurting you. However Sen. John Marty, who sponsored the ban, thinks otherwise. "Every source of mercury adds to [potential damage]. We wanted to make sure it wasn't here," he said.

Mercury has been known to cause complications in the nervous system, but it usually needs to be ingested. And I'm not sure which form they're talking about, but even some mercury compounds would need to be absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract to do significant damage. Either way, so long as women (especially pregnant ones) aren't eating their makeup in the morning, you shouldn't be scared to use your old products that may or may not have mercury. After all, if your mascara hasn't killed you by now, no need to panic!

Source

Retailers who sell tobacco are finally getting with the program in terms of selling those products to underage teenagers, according to a U.S. government report this week.

According to the report, less retailers were found selling tobacco products to teens when unannounced inspections occurred. The percentage? About 10.9 percent of all retailers that were monitored.

This news is encouraging since that is the lowest rate of illegal tobacco sales to minors in the decade since individual states began performing activities to monitor compliance with tobacco sale legality practices.
dropped to 10.9 percent last year, the government reports.

Source

I'm not sure what to say about this news item regarding musician Paul Weller lighting up on stage at a recent London gig despite the smoking ban in that country. I think that Weller has every right to smoke cigarettes if he chooses to, but I also feel it's unfair of him to openly flout the ban in front of non-smokers in the crowd.

I even think it's kind of unfair to the smokers in the crowd who may have wanted to have a smoke as well but couldn't afford to pay the fine. According to the piece, the fine for defying the smoking ban is about $400US, which for a regular person in the audience would likely be a hefty chunk of change, but for Weller is likely a mere drop in the bucket.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if one person in the building isn't able to smoke then no one should be able to, but if the only deterrent is a fine, then what's to stop wealthy celebrities like Weller from defying the rules anyway?

Source

Cough syrup and suppressant products that contain the unapproved hydrocodone ingredient will soon be targeted by the FDA for removal from shelves, according to the federal agency.

The ingredient is included in more than 200 cough suppressants, and it's not approved for over-the-counter drug products. The FDA appears especially concerned about cough suppressant products marketed to kids which contain this component. Why? Well, hydrocodone is a narcotic, naturally.

Ever hear of kids getting high from cough syrup? That's been a well-known problem for years, but for some reason the inclusion of hydrocodone into many easily-purchasable products has not caught the eye of the FDA until now. It's good to know that the agency is catching up with the times, yes?

Source