Obesity prevention is a major global public health priority. Drinking sugar-sweetened drinks has been correlated to putting on weight and becoming overweight in both kids and adults. SSB is a prominent supplier of power for kids in the United States. Two to nineteen year olds are estimated to take in around sixteen percent of their total daily energy in the form of additional sugars. Folks who live in households with lower incomes are more likely to drink a lot of sugary drinks than those in households with higher incomes. The proof is clear that how parents act, the atmosphere of the home, and mature role models influencing youth all have a big effect on how much sugary drinks they consume. The World Health Organization suggests that added sugars should not exceed 10 percent of your total energy intake. The US dietary guidelines and suggestions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are in agreement with this. The WHO has advised, on the grounds of limited data, that the total daily energy derived from added sugars be limited to 5 % or less.
A study that examined the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity suggests replacing them with healthier options such as water. Not drinking enough water is associated with mental impairment and headaches, while drinking more water is connected to heightened focus and comprehension, as well as fewer cavities. There is a disparity in the amount of hydration that children have based on their race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Many of them are not getting enough fluids.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest offering access to clean and free drinking water in all areas of the school. Furthermore, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act mandates that schools providing meals through the school lunch program are obligated to offer children free, nutritionally adequate water in the dining area while they are having their meals. Interventions have been carried out at urban schools so that people can drink more water and have less of sugary soft drinks. These interventions had different focuses, such as providing more access to water, and also utilized promotional plans for various age groups. Kenney et al. conducted an investigation wherein they put up signs in a cafeteria to encourage individuals to drink more water and made disposable cups easily accessible near the beverage dispensers. At the end of a study, students in the schools that received interventions had almost twice as much water intake as those in the control schools did from the beginning. In another research, Muckelbauer and colleagues combined an educational program with the addition of water fountains and discovered that water intake rose, but there was no evidence of an effect on BMI or intake of sweetened drinks. Brooks and colleagues discovered that variations regarding the drinking of tap water are linked to availability and the belief that the available tap water sources in the area are not secure. Onufrak et al. discovered that Hispanic and African-American pupils were more inclined to view school water fountains as unclean and precarious.
Studies into how water safety is perceived and what drinks people prefer to consume and when have been carried out mainly in cities. Research conducted on young people, primarily in cities, has revealed that their choices regarding drinks rely heavily on their individual tastes, their budget, their access to the product, and their convenience. Many students do not worry about the health issues related to consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and when they know the potential long-term effects, such as gaining weight, they don’t relate it to their own drinking habits. Little is understood regarding what has an influence on the amount of sugary drinks and water intake among adolescents living in rural areas.
This study was conducted to learn more about what beverages rural youths, specifically American Indian and Hispanic youth, are consuming and to help with implementation efforts in the area. The aim of the study was to acquire a thorough knowledge of the feelings connected to drinking water safety and desirability, and views on sugary drinks, their utilization and the motivations behind them, in addition to particular elements of the countryside that might shape beverage choice among adolescents. This research is instrumental in gaining insight into how views of water and sugary-sweetened beverages (SSB) impact one another, thus informing efforts to encourage lower consumption of the latter and higher consumption of the former.
This study looks at young people in a rural area of the southwest United States in relation to their thoughts on drinking-water security and taste, their preferences towards sugary soft drinks, and how much of them they consume. The individuals taking part in the study were conscious of the potential dangers to health that could be brought on by sugary soft drinks; yet, they held the belief that these risks only applied to soda, rather than the sugary drinks they normally drank, such as sweetened iced teas and sports drinks. In addition, similar to research on Hispanic immigrants, grown-ups were more focused on the ‘unnaturalness’ of SSB, specifically citing their worries about artificial colors instead of sugar’s effects. Everyone involved in the study, from the students to the parents and educators, recognized that consuming sugary drinks had possible adverse long-term health results such as obesity and especially diabetes.
The students were conscious of the good implications of water for one’s health, though not to the same degree as the dangers associated with drinking soda. The students mentioned the importance of staying hydrated in the desert, yet it seemed that, like many young people, they weren’t conscious of their tendency to be chronically dehydrated. These discoveries agree with investigations concerning school understudies’ water utilization which additionally found discernments of medical advantages related with water utilization, implying that these assumptions should be created upon in efforts that back sound practices.
The reactions to the taste and safety of the local water supplies were varied, yet there were many who did not favor the flavor and some were anxious about the safety of the tap water. Rural community members had conversations about issues related to access to water, many of which were comparable to those faced by those in urban areas, although some were distinct. Our research study included individuals from an assortment of neighborhoods with various access to water sources: one village that had processed water, more remote areas that used well water, and reservation societies that conveyed in water. It was of concern for both rural and urban areas that water be readily available in schools, however, there was an additional concern in rural communities regarding the lack or scarcity of markets offering water. Safety issues were discussed in both urban and rural areas, although the things that were discussed were different. The Gold King Mine disaster that caused damage to Navajo and other locales in northern New Mexico may have increased fears concerning the safety of the water. We also discovered that high mineral count and water with an undesirable taste were often confused with safety concerns. However, as shown by other research, if those in the health sector wish to convince people to switch to drinking water instead of sugary beverages, making sure there is free, enjoyable water available is a priority. In order to promote increased water drinking among students, schools need to install filtration and softening systems while also emphasizing that the school’s water is safe and good-tasting. Further, initiatives should address SSB policies in schools. Despite the presence of national policies like Smart Snacks aimed at regulating SSB access at schools, students and teachers noted that the regulations were often befuddling, not applicable to all SSBs, or not properly enforced. In conclusion, students and their guardians ought to be provided more knowledge and data about the health perils posed by particular beverage alternatives in order to draw attention to the hazards associated with certain habits, involving both helping them become aware of inadequate hydration and detailing the high levels of sugar found in popular sports drinks, sweetened teas, and juice-based beverages.
Collecting preliminary data from the target audience leads to uncovering the worries and the environment of the local people that are important to the design and execution of the project. In this research, despite the attention nationally to Pb pollution after the occurrence in Flint, Michigan, there weren’t any worries about Pb in the water supply. People were anxious about having access to drinkable water in households which did not have water supplied by the government. Although it is thought that everyone should have the right to safe drinking water, there are areas in the USA, such as in rural, frontier, and tribal communities that are underfunded and therefore lack access to water systems. Additionally, research has found that there are schools with unsafe water available for students.
This research is not applicable to a wider population as it was based on individuals from just one given locality who were students, as well as their parents and teachers. Even though the information gathered was initially used in investigation and development purposes, it has still expanded our knowledge on this subject and could be used to help determine activities in related settings. The information may be influenced by the reaction of participants, even though both the good features of SSB and the bad points of water were discussed.
Beverage Consumption in the United States
The Beverage Marketing Corporation stated that Americans consumed nearly 29.3 billion gallons of various refreshment beverages, such as soda, coffee, tea, sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit drinks, and bottled water, during 2010 in the US. The Beverage Marketing Corporation reported a 1.2% rise in the American Liquid Refreshment Beverage market in 2010. Carbonated soft drinks still accounted for the greatest amount of beverages drunk, just as it had done in previous years. In recent years, the amount of calories people have been consuming in the US has gone up, and it is usually linked to the greater amount of snacks and high-calorie drinks being consumed. Those between the ages of nineteen and thirty-nine consume 10 percent of their entire energy supply from soda.
On average, beverages make up 21 percent of the total calories consumed in individuals of all ages. The IOM’s suggested caloric intake from beverages is exceeded by 7 percent. In addition, the heavy consumption of carbonated drinks and sweetened drinks takes away from the ingestion of healthier drinks, like nonfat milk.
Research has revealed that although all drinks can quench your thirst, they do not create a feeling of fullness or contentment. Consuming a beverage that has calories in it alongside a meal will not reduce the amount of food one consumes, rather it will just contribute to the total amount of calories that are taken in. The team at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill assigned to the Beverage Panel is taking it upon themselves to research and evaluate the various health benefits and risks associated with different types of beverages, and then give their advice on which kind of drinks are recommended.
In reference to carbonated beverages and juices, The Beverage Panel contends that they increase energy intake, provide no feeling of fullness, and that any rise in calories is not supplemented by a decrease in other foods. These elements cause an rise in energy consumption and obesity. The Beverage Panel has suggested that one should take in even fewer calories from drinks than the Institute of Medicine has proposed – no more than 10% of the total amount of calories consumed.
Sources of Drinking Water
The Beverage Panel suggests that women should consume a minimum of 32 ounces, and males should consume a minimum of 48 ounces of water every day. In 1974, the US federal government passed The Safe Drinking Water Act with the purpose of supplying the American public with secure drinking water. The EPA must establish water quality standards and ensure that the more than 150,000 public drinking water systems in the US comply with them. Approximately one out of seven people in the U.S. get their drinking water from private wells, which are not covered by EPA regulations.
Making drinking water safe requires one or several of the following procedures: sieving out large items, eliminating extra calcium carbonate from tough water resources, flocculation, which incorporates a precipitating element to take out strong fragments, confirming, precipitation, straining, as well as disinfection. The basic goal of these operations is to eradicate unhealthy particles and provide hygienic, clear, odorless, great-tasting water.
Generally, chlorine compounds are added to the water to disinfect it. This is known as the process of chlorination. Chlorination is cheap and effective at killing bacteria. Nevertheless, it is not as good at eliminating protozoa, including Giardia lamblia. Extensive filtration is used to get rid of chlorine-resistant protozoa and viruses. In the years after the adoption of chlorination and purifying processes of water in the U.S., diseases like cholera and typhoid fever nearly vanished. It has been widely acclaimed that the process of treating drinking water has been one of the most remarkable advances in the healthcare industry in the last 100 years.
The potential production of hazardous materials can occur when chlorine reacts with water that has not been filtered properly. In experiments conducted on rodents, certain types of these chlorinated compounds have been found to be potentially cancer-causing when present in very large amounts. The EPA has created upper limits for chlorinated compounds in water to prevent the spread of sickness, among other types of contaminants. Though the monitoring of public water systems in the US is far from perfect and the cases of water-borne illnesses are inadequately reported, the number of afflictions from water-borne illnesses is substantially less than the amount of food-borne illnesses that have occurred recently.
Is Bottled Water a Better than Tap Water?
The Environmental Protection Agency does not oversee bottled water, rather it is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA maintains the same level of quality for bottled water as the EPA does for water from the tap. In conclusion, the EPA has the same standards of contaminants for both bottled and tap water; however, due to differences in testing, monitoring, and regulations, bottled water may be examined less frequently than tap water. The taste and quality of bottled water is similar to tap water and is dependent on the origin and how it is processed. Depending on the geographical area, faucet water can offer a certain amount of minerals like calcium and magnesium, but it’s important to remember that food is a more plentiful source of these minerals than the water.
Bottled waters that have been distilled and purified have had all of their minerals taken out during treatment, yet not all bottled waters go through this procedure. Types of bottled water such as mineral water, carbonated water, and Artesian water have some minerals in them, however, they cost more than other waters. The cost of tap water in the U.S. is approximately one cent per gallon, while bottled water can range around three dollars per gallon. Bottled water requires more resources and creates more waste than tap water does. Iowa State University states that in America, the production of plastic bottles for bottled water utilizes more than 1.5 million barrels of oil yearly, equating to the amount of fuel necessary to fuel one hundred thousand cars.