FDA panel promotes misinformation about antidepressants during pregnancy, psychiatrists say
The panel had promised to feature diverse viewpoints about antidepressants and pregnancy. But nearly all of the 10 panelists bucked medical consensus on the drugs' safety and emphasized what they said were risks of taking the drugs while pregnant — such as causing autism, miscarriages or birth defects. In some cases, they claimed that antidepressants don't work at all and that depression goes away on its own.
Three of the 10 panelists were from outside the United States. Another runs a clinic to help people taper off of psychiatric drugs.
'They were really rousing concerns about safety that are not evidence-based or established and not at all balanced with concerns about the risks of untreated depression,' said Dr. Joseph Goldberg, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.
Dr. Jennifer Payne, director of the Reproductive Psychiatry Research Program at the University of Virginia, said, 'I'm disappointed that the FDA brought people in from outside of the United States when there's so many experts here in the United States who truly know this [medical] literature inside and out.'
A spokesperson for the FDA said in a statement that the claim that the panel was one-sided was 'insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels.' The spokesperson added that FDA Commissioner Martin Makary 'has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold standard science and protect public health.'
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for a probe into the risks of antidepressants. His 'Make America Healthy Again' report in May claimed there were 'potentially major long-term repercussions' associated with use of the drugs in childhood.
The panel discussion focused on a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, which includes Lexapro, Prozac and Zoloft. The medications increase levels of serotonin, a chemical messenger in the brain that can improve mood.
Psychiatrists often advise women who are taking SSRIs to continue doing so during pregnancy, since the risks of untreated depression tend to outweigh the potential risks of the medication to mother and child. However, the decision is a personal one.
For ethical reasons, there are no randomized-control trials of SSRIs in pregnant women, meaning data on potential risks mostly comes from observational studies and drug registries.
Some babies born to mothers taking SSRIs may develop symptoms such as jitteriness, irritability or difficulty eating or sleeping that resolve quickly — what's known as 'neonatal adaptation syndrome.' The symptoms may be caused by medication in the babies' systems or withdrawal from it.
Certain studies have also found a slightly elevated risk of miscarriage associated with antidepressant use in pregnancy, though others have found no association. However, there's no convincing evidence to suggest that SSRIs are linked to autism or birth defects.
'Well-controlled studies continue to not find an association,' Payne said.
Women with histories of depression are also at an increased risk of symptoms' recurring during pregnancy, and depression can come with its own risks — including thoughts of self-harm or low birth weight.
'The best thing a pregnant individual could do for herself and her baby is to get the treatment that they need,' said Dr. Nancy Byatt, a perinatal psychiatrist at UMass Chan Medical School, who wasn't part of the panel.
In addition to raising concerns about side effects, several panelists questioned the efficacy of antidepressants or suggested that data favoring the use of SSRIs was manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry.
'It's been said that SSRIs help people who are severely depressed. They don't,' said David Healy, an FDA panelist and fellow at the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom.
Goldberg and other psychiatrists said that's simply untrue.
'You can say the moon landing was faked. Conspiracy theories abound in our world. But there is not a doubt about whether SSRIs work,' said Goldberg, a past president of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology who has previously consulted for pharmaceutical companies. He said he was invited to join the FDA panel but declined because the language of the invitation suggested it wouldn't be a fair discussion.
Healy, the panelist, also claimed that some people 'recover spontaneously' from depression.
Another panelist, psychologist Roger McFillin — who hosts a podcast that challenges conventional mental health advice — suggested that depression wasn't an illness but rather a product of 'women just naturally experiencing their emotions more intensely.' He added, without evidence, that many women feel coerced into taking antidepressants.
Psychiatrists who weren't part of the discussion broadly decried those characterizations.
'I have never, ever, ever, ever heard of a third party pushing a prescription in pregnancy,' Goldberg said. However, he said he is aware of some obstetrician-gynecologists who aren't as familiar with SSRIs who have wrongly told pregnant patients to stop taking the medications.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Monday that SSRIs can be lifesaving for some pregnant people.
'Today's FDA panel on SSRIs and pregnancy was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy,' it said. 'On a panel of 10 experts, only one spoke to the importance of SSRIs in pregnancy as a critical tool, among others, in preventing the potentially devastating effects of anxiety and depression when left untreated during pregnancy.'
One panelist, Dr. Kay Roussos-Ross, a psychiatrist and an OB-GYN at the University of Florida College of Medicine, was the most vocal advocate for using SSRIs, often pushing back against others' assessments of the risks. Psychiatrists who weren't on the panel praised her science-backed commentary.
'All of us can find a study that agrees with exactly what we think,' Roussos-Ross told the panel. 'But we need to look at the data very objectively.'
Several psychiatrists who weren't on the panel said they worry that the discussion could lead to regulatory action that makes it harder to access SSRIs. For example, one panelist, Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Framingham, Massachusetts, called for stronger warnings on SSRI labels.
'I am just very nervous that some of the discourse around the risks of antidepressants could lead to even more barriers for people seeking care,' said Dr. Lindsay Lebin, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, who wasn't part of the FDA discussion.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
InnovationRx: Sarepta Blinks In Showdown With FDA
In this week's edition of InnovationRx, we look at Sarepta's showdown with the FDA, Moderna's use of quantum computers, a new top drug regulator at the FDA, ARCH Venture's latest biotech company, and more. To get it in your inbox, subscribe here . Sarepta Therapeutics CEO Douglas Ingram Bloomberg Finance U sually when the FDA asks a drugmaker to halt distribution of a treatment, the company complies. Last week, in a remarkable showdown, Sarepta Therapeutics refused to stop distribution of Elevidys, its therapy for the muscle-wasting disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy as the FDA had requested. Then, in a remarkable reversal, on Monday Sarepta blinked and said that it would indeed pause all shipments of Elevidys by Tuesday evening. The latest twist in the saga followed a decision by Children's Hospital Los Angeles to halt use of the drug while it was facing regulatory uncertainty. Elevidys is a gene therapy for Duchenne, a particularly severe form of muscular dystrophy, which typically kills patients before they turn 30. The one-time intravenous infusion was first approved in 2023 in an unusual decision that was made unilaterally by Peter Marks, a top FDA official, despite misgivings of his staff. Last Friday evening, the FDA had requested that Cambridge, Mass.-based Sarepta voluntarily stop all shipments of the drug, citing the deaths of three patients who had taken Elevidys or a similar drug (that's in early-stage clinical trials) from liver failure. Later that evening, Sarepta responded that it would continue to ship Elevidys for patients who do not use wheelchairs (who are generally younger and healthier), citing its own analysis that there were no new safety problems in these patients. It had already voluntarily halted sales to patients who use wheelchairs. The face-off between Sarepta and the FDA comes at a time when investment in gene therapy has slowed, and as Sarepta itself has laid off hundreds of employees. Sarepta's stock is down nearly 40% since last Thursday's close. It's unclear how long the 'pause' might last. The company is working on an enhanced immune-suppressing protocol that could reduce liver toxicity, but a senior FDA official told Stat yesterday that the drug faces an 'arduous and treacherous path' back to the market. Whatever ultimately happens, the ongoing saga highlights the questions about what risks are acceptable for patients with diseases that are fatal at a young age and how the potential for treatment should be balanced against the possibility of death from the therapy itself. Moderna M essenger RNA (or mRNA) is a hugely promising technology for future vaccines and therapies, as was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of its major advantages is that it provides instructions for the body itself to manufacture the medicine it needs, rather than delivering it. But developing new treatments is challenging, Wade Davis, vice president of computational science at Moderna (best known for developing those COVID vaccines), told Forbes . That's in part because of the fragile nature of mRNA–its primary function is serving as a temporary set of instructions for cellular machinery, so it doesn't stick around long. But for the purposes of medicine, it needs to be optimized so that it's both durable enough to provide an efficacious dose, but still transient enough to minimize potential side effects. The potential combinations are mind boggling. For example, there are 10^623 different ways to combine nucleotides in mRNA to encode for the same protein as the company's COVID vaccine, Davis said. To put that in perspective, 'there's only 10^80 particles in the universe,' he said. 'The numbers just go crazy.' Conventional computers, even supercomputers using the best AI algorithms, struggle with this sort of problem, he said. For one, because mRNA is so fragile, there aren't a lot of known structures that an AI program could be trained on. And when it comes to optimization of structures, the numbers are so large that it's difficult to scale, forcing chemists to rely on rules of thumb and oversimplifying the data to try and find solutions. Moderna has found one solution: quantum computing. It recently partnered with IBM to use its quantum hardware to optimize mRNA structures. Quantum computers are uniquely suited to solving large scale optimization problems like this, because they can search and compute potential solutions in parallel. By contrast conventional computers have to calculate everything in sequence, which goes ever slower the bigger the problem gets. Using IBM's quantum computers, Moderna was able to predict a 60-nucleotide sequence of mRNA. The previous record was only eight. While that's still a long way from the sequence lengths, comprising thousands of nucleotides, that biotech companies will need, it shows a potential new way to find new mRNA therapies. More importantly, it could lead to breakthroughs that might have never been discovered with conventional approaches. With quantum algorithms, Davis said, 'you get into the space of possibilities in a different way than some of the classical approaches.' BIOTECH AND PHARMA CAR-T cell therapy has been a life-saving treatment for patients with cancers like leukemia or lymphoma, with many going into remission. But the therapy so far has been less successful on solid tumors, which comprise most cancers. Dispatch Bio aims to change that: The three year-old company emerged from stealth today with $216 million in funding led by Midas Lister Bob Nelsen's ARCH Venture Partners and the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. One reason it's challenging to treat solid cancers with CAR-T therapy is that it's more difficult for the cells to identify their targets, Dispatch Bio CEO Sabah Oney told Forbes . To get around this, Dispatch has developed a viral vector that targets cancer cells and then 'tags' them with a protein that the T-cells can use to attack the cancer. The virus uses the cancer cells' own replication system to make copies of itself, making it difficult for the cancer to develop a resistance to it. Because this mechanism is different in healthy cells, the risk is lower that the therapy would attack them. So far, the Philadelphia-based company has tested its therapy in both human cells in the lab and in animals, Oney said. It plans to start clinical trials in 2026, but is still working out what indication it will go after first. 'Ultimately, we have plans to be able to scale this approach so we can get to millions and millions of patients because that's the broad potential of this platform,' he said. 'We can do lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer with the same drug.' Plus : AstraZeneca plans to invest $50 billion in U.S. drug development and manufacturing by 2030 as pharma companies look for ways to deal with Trump's tariffs. DIGITAL HEALTH AND AI Mental healthcare startup Slingshot AI launched an AI-powered chatbot to provide support for those dealing with mental health issues. It simultaneously raised $53 million in venture funding led by Forerunner Ventures and Radical Ventures, bringing total funding to $93 million, at an undisclosed valuation. The chatbot, called Ash, has been beta tested with more than 50,000 patients. Plus : Aidoc, which has developed FDA-cleared algorithms for use by radiologists, raised $150 million led by General Catalyst and Square Peg at an undisclosed valuation. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS The FDA has named George Tidmarsh, a pediatric oncologist and pharma company veteran, as its top drug regulator, director of its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He will replace Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, who has been serving in the role in an acting capacity after the departure of former director Patrizia Cavazzoni in January. Tidmarsh has led teams that have developed seven FDA-approved drugs and has served as CEO of several pharmaceutical companies in addition to being an adjunct professor at the Stanford School of Medicine. He takes over as the FDA has faced substantial upheaval under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. WHAT WE'RE READING How a push for increased organ donation led to people enduring rushed or premature attempts to remove their organs. Wellness startup Truemed, cofounded by RFK Jr. aide Calley Means, helps people buy Peloton bikes and $9,000 saunas with tax-free funds set aside for healthcare. Bankrupt hospital system Steward Health sued its former CEO claiming he conducted insider transactions that drained its assets and led to its collapse. AI companies, including OpenAI, Grok and others have stopped warning users that their chatbots aren't doctors. Life sciences investment firm Omega Funds has raised $647 million for its eighth fund. Researchers figured out a way to deliver a vaccine using dental floss, which has so far been successfully tested on mice. Former Citigroup chair Sandy Weill gave $100 million to harness AI for a West Coast cancer hub. MORE FROM FORBES Forbes Vibe Coding Turned This Swedish AI Unicorn Into The Fastest Growing Software Startup Ever By Iain Martin Forbes Why JPMorgan Is Hitting Fintechs With Stunning New Fees For Data Access By Jeff Kauflin Forbes Go Back To The Office, But Bring Your Own Snacks. Blame Congress. By Kelly Phillips Erb
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Talc Is Suddenly in the Spotlight. Is it Bad for You?
Credit - Photo-Illustration by TIME (Source Images: Liudmila Chernetska—Getty Images, LanaSweet/Getty Images) Federal health officials are scrutinizing a mineral—added to some makeup, medications, and foods—that many people have never thought twice about: talc. In a recent viewpoint article called 'Priorities for a New FDA,' published in the medical journal JAMA, Dr. Martin Makary, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA's Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, wrote that the FDA conducted an expert panel on talc in May. They also noted that some companies have removed talc from baby powder because it's a carcinogen. Johnson & Johnson, for example, stopped using talc in 2023 following more than 60,000 legal claims from ovarian cancer patients. The JAMA article added that talc remains common, since people still 'ingest it regularly' as an ingredient in various medications and foods. Despite the lawsuits, though, research hasn't confirmed whether talc causes cancer, especially when consumed through food. Meanwhile, companies continue to use talc in powders and cosmetics. Here's how people get exposed to talc, the potential health risks, and what to do about them. Talc and asbestos A naturally occurring mineral, talc consists of several elements like magnesium and silicon. When ground into fine particles, talc becomes talcum powder, which works to absorb moisture and soothe the skin. People have used cosmetics and powders with talc for more than a century. Before talc is mined by companies from deep within the earth, it mixes with another mineral, asbestos. This often results in talc's contamination with asbestos, which is proven to cause cancer. Talc, when laced with asbestos, is a carcinogen, especially when it's inhaled. Less clear is the cancer-causing potential of talc when it's not contaminated. In theory, talc on its own could drive cancer because its particles create inflammation when inhaled or migrating into the body after talc is applied to skin, according to Joellen Schildkraut, professor of epidemiology at Emory University. 'Inflammation can promote cancer,' Schildkraut says. 'Many studies have shown an association.' Some research shows that asbestos-free talc leads to tumors in animals, but animals reveal little about ovarian cancer in humans, Schildkraut says. Read More: The Race to Explain Why More Young Adults Are Getting Cancer Regardless, it's impossible for consumers to learn if products with talc are contaminated. Since the 1970s, companies have tested talc voluntarily, but the methods aren't sensitive enough to detect asbestos in their products—and the FDA doesn't require proof that they're asbestos-free. 'This means a lot of contaminated talc likely went through without anybody detecting the asbestos,' Schildkraut says. Using better tests, researchers have spot-checked whether cosmetics are asbestos-laced. From 1948 to 2017, two-thirds of these tests (conducted as part of litigation) came up positive for asbestos, typically in trace amounts. In 2020, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found asbestos contaminated 15% of makeup samples with talc. In 2023, the FDA detected no asbestos in 50 talc-containing cosmetics. (The agency didn't reply to TIME's request for comment.) However, conclusions can't be drawn about the entire market from these checks because they involved small sample sizes, says Kaley Beins, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group. Later this year, the FDA is expected to finalize a new rule aimed at improving companies' testing methods. Ovarian cancer risk Some data show links between cancer of the ovaries and a specific type of talc exposure: the use of baby powder in intimate areas for personal hygiene. But the findings have been mixed. In a June letter to Makary, several talc researchers—some with ties to companies that make products with talc—criticized the recent FDA roundtable on talc's health impacts. The roundtable discussions, the authors wrote, were skewed because they 'included several paid plaintiff-side experts in talc-related litigation' without any defense-side experts. The letter says that studies involving several different groups of women have found only very weak associations with ovarian cancer. Schildkraut—an expert participant in the May roundtable without any ties to the lawsuits—notes that some of these studies involved relatively few women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It's possible there simply wasn't enough data to yield stronger evidence. However, in 2020, scientists pooled together data from groups studied previously and still found no significant link. Read More: Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is An important factor is that 'people may not be good at reporting their personal talc use,' says Katie O'Brien, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies and lead author of the 2020 research. In another study last year, she tried to correct for reporting errors while reanalyzing data from over 50,000 women and found that frequent users of talcum powder did have higher risk of ovarian cancer. 'This type of research doesn't determine causation,' says Schildkraut, who emphasized the same point during the public roundtable. 'But we do see a consistent relationship.' The self-report issue noted by O'Brien could extend to powder use for babies. 'People may not know whether baby powder was used on them,' O'Brien explains. Meanwhile, some laboratory research shows that human ovarian cancer cells, when exposed to talc, have more inflammation and cellular growth, mechanisms that can fuel cancer. Read More: Inflammation May Be the Culprit Behind Our Deadliest Diseases But Jennifer Permuth, an epidemiologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center who has served as an expert witness for J&J and signed the letter to Makary, questions how talc would migrate from where it's applied to cause cancer in the ovaries—without causing cancer in other organs along the way, such as the cervix. 'We would expect cancer to also develop in those other organs,' but studies find only weak links to these cancers, says Permuth. In a 2024 review, the World Health Organization found that, overall, evidence doesn't prove talc causes cancer, but it's 'probably carcinogenic.' The review focused on ovarian cancer 'because that's where the most evidence was' compared to other cancers, says Schildkraut, who served on the review committee. Meanwhile, the American Cancer Society states that, if there's an increased cancer risk, it's 'likely to be very small.' The E.U. has designated talc as a carcinogen, and it's expected to ban talc from cosmetics in 2027. Other potential health issues There's less research on other health issues related to talc. Some studies suggest that when miners repeatedly inhale talc, even if it's asbestos-free, their risk of lung cancer increases—but evidence on inhaling baby powder is more limited. In addition, a deadly cancer called mesothelioma is closely linked to asbestos exposure, though links to talc are less clear (partly because mesothelioma is extremely rare). Read More: What to Expect at a Mammogram Karen Selby, a patient advocate for the Mesothelioma Center at team of advocates, doctors, and attorneys supporting people with mesothelioma—works with patients who developed the disease decades after early-life exposure to cosmetics, she says. Every Christmas as a kid, Selby got a new box of cosmetic powder to play with. She'd cover herself and act like Casper the Friendly Ghost. She doesn't have mesothelioma, but recalling the haze of talc dust, she sometimes thinks, 'Holy cow, what was I doing to myself?' These makeup kits often have cheaper ingredients like asbestos-contaminated talc, despite that 'children are a susceptible group in environmental health,' says Beins, the Environmental Working Group scientist. 'I would try to keep talc away from them.' Safety precautions As researchers continue to study talc, Beins recommends using products with talc substitutes like cornstarch. (That's what J&J now uses instead of talc.) 'We can acknowledge the uncertainty and use safer alternatives,' Beins says. The Environmental Working Group has a database called Skin Deep that tracks which cosmetics contain ingredients like talc. Currently, the database lists about 150,000 products, and 8,000 have talc, Beins estimates. 'I wouldn't use talc personally,' Schildkraut says. 'It's not worth the risk because you don't need much exposure to asbestos to develop cancer.' Read More: 6 Things to Eat to Reduce Your Cancer Risk If possible, try passing on baby powders in general. Even if they lack talc, 'there may be other chemicals of concern,' such as ones added for fragrance or texture, O'Brien notes. If you've been exposed to talc for decades—whether through personal product use or occupations that often involve talc, like those in hair care—share this information with your doctors. They may recommend screening for ovarian cancer and other conditions, O'Brien says. What about food and medicine? Talc is commonly added to several foods like chewing gum and candy to keep them from sticking to wrappers and caking together. However, relatively few foods have talc. 'It's there and present sometimes, but it's not in a ton of food,' Beins says. To find which foods contain talc, you can search EWG's Food Scores, which tracks ingredients. Out of 80,000 products in the database, only 39 are currently listed to contain talc. In addition, the Environmental Working Group's Verified program certifies brands that meet its strictest health standards. To be certified, brands must disclose their ingredients, provide testing data, and avoid ingredients of concern. Products with talc can't be certified. Read More: Why Food Chemicals Are a Problem—And How to Reduce Your Exposure Talc is also added to some pill coatings because it helps pills travel smoothly through manufacturing equipment during production. But very little is known about cancer risk from talc in either food or pills. 'There's some thought that gastrointestinal issues might happen due to food exposure, because it's pro-inflammatory,' Beins says. However, this effect is mostly theoretical at this point. 'For the sake of public health, we shouldn't raise false alarms and make people scared of their food and medications,' says Permuth, who researches gastrointestinal cancer. 'Frequent users of talc-based personal care products or cosmetics are at the highest risk,' O'Brien says, adding that there's no medical reason for using these products. Whereas other established environmental risks like air pollution may be hard to avoid, O'Brien notes that for the most part, the 'use of talc products is something that individuals can control.' Contact us at letters@ Solve the daily Crossword
Associated Press
39 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Beyond the numbers: rethinking diets for overweight kids
GA, UNITED STATES, July 23, 2025 / / -- Tackling childhood obesity has long centered around rigid calorie counting and restrictive diets—methods that often backfire when applied to children. A new review proposes a gentler, more effective strategy: focusing on structure, not strictness. By encouraging consistent mealtimes, improving breakfast quality, simplifying food group choices, and cultivating a positive relationship with food, the approach shifts from control to cooperation. The goal is not immediate weight loss, but the establishment of healthy habits that last. These strategies reduce stress, empower families, and offer a sustainable path toward preventing obesity—without the numbers game. Over the past decades, childhood obesity has become a global health crisis, intensified by the sedentary routines and dietary disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess weight gained early in life not only leads to physical and psychological complications but also sets the stage for obesity in adulthood. Traditional treatment models often involve strict calorie control, which can overwhelm young children and create negative associations with food. In fact, research shows that pressure to diet can worsen weight gain and emotional eating. Due to these challenges, there is a growing need for kinder, more developmentally appropriate approaches to childhood nutrition and obesity prevention. On January 10, 2025, Pediatric Discovery published a narrative review (DOI: 10.1002/pdi3.2524 ) led by Dr. Karolina Kuźbicka from the Medical University of Gdańsk. Drawing on two decades of scientific literature and clinical insights, the study outlines a practical set of nutritional strategies to combat childhood obesity—without the use of calorie counting. Aimed at healthcare providers, educators, and parents, the review emphasizes simple, flexible routines that respect children's emotional needs and foster lasting behavioral change. Instead of calorie limits or rigid meal plans, the review introduces four foundational strategies: structured meal timing, balanced breakfasts, proportion-based food planning, and a healthy attitude toward eating. For instance, the author recommends eliminating unplanned snacks between meals, maintaining consistent mealtimes, and encouraging family meals to promote mindful eating. Breakfast is highlighted as a vital habit that supports better nutrient intake and cognitive function; small changes—like replacing sugary cereal with fiber-rich porridge—can make a meaningful difference. The review also advocates using visual plate models or daily portion guidelines to simplify food decisions without invoking calorie anxiety. Importantly, the emotional context of eating takes center stage. Rather than forcing children to eat certain foods, parents are encouraged to model healthy choices and create a low-pressure, positive environment around meals. Techniques such as sticker charts or involving children in meal prep help build confidence and ownership. These strategies aim not just to reduce weight but to reframe eating as a supportive, family-centered activity—one that sets the foundation for lifelong health. 'Childhood obesity isn't just a nutritional issue—it's an emotional one,' said Dr. Karolina Kuźbicka, the lead author of the review. 'What children need most is not dietary control, but guidance, routine, and trust. Our role is to shape a home environment where healthy choices feel natural, not forced. By making small, sustainable changes, we can help families shift the focus from counting calories to nurturing long-term well-being.' These nutrition-first strategies offer a low-stress, high-impact solution for professionals and families confronting the rise in childhood obesity. Their adaptability makes them especially useful in schools, clinics, and at home, with no need for complex diets or rigid tracking tools. While this review centers on nutrition, the framework opens doors for integration with physical activity and psychological support to further enhance impact. As research and practice evolve, this gentle, child-centered method may become a cornerstone of public health efforts—empowering children not through restriction, but through healthy habits and a positive food culture. DOI 10.1002/pdi3.2524 Original Source URL Lucy Wang BioDesign Research email us here Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
