I think it is more of the popularaity of the fast food places than it is working moms or kids vegging out in front of the TV. Kids today are involved in much more activities as compared to when I was a child. When parents have that much running around it is much easier to run through a drive thru or get pizza on the way home (stay at home or working mom) then it is to make a meal, get everyone to sit down, clean up and get out the door. I know because I have four kids and it's not that they are in too much by themselves but with 4 kids it makes for a busy week. I am a sahm but I still struggle with getting them from school, getting homework done, and getting them a nutritious dinner. When we get home in the evening that is when the dishes are cleaned off the table. It is so tempting to just run to McDonalds. Also, did you ever notice how many kids have lunchables packed in their lunches? Those things are packed with sodium, fat, calories, and tons of preservatives. Plus my kids' schools starting selling snacks (like nutty buddies and ho hos for lunch) I tell my kids "no you eat the snack that I pack and you are not getting a ho ho" But of course their friends get them (12 fat grams in the pack of 2) and share some of it with them from time to time. Can you imagine the amount of fat grams these kids are getting? Over 30 at lunch with their lunchable and their nutty buddies and then 30 more at dinner if they eat at a fast food place... not to mention any cookies they might snack on through the day? That amount of fat will make an adult gain weight. I hear that some schools actually have fast food like McDonalds available to them. So even if the kids were active in sports and activities they are getting too many fat grams to offset it :( Also I heard that kids today are getting too much juice. There are a lot of calories in juice and a lot of natural sugars. It is better for them to eat the fruit than it is to drink the fruit juice. I always have OJ but after 2 glasses of it they have to switch to water. My kids would drink a half gallon of OJ a day if I let them (each one of them) So kids are drinking a lot more calories than they use to as well.

"I am hoping this will be helpful to create an awareness of the dangers of relying on medication to solve behavioral problems. " Before even reading your position statement, my immediate reaction was that you are going into this with at least two hidden biases: - First, that the adults are relying on pills to "solve the problems" rather than mitigate the severity of the issues that cause the symptoms, or to assist the child in overcoming the problems, and - Second, that the problems are "behavioral" in nature and not medical. But after reading your stance, it seems like your position is the familiar "overdiagnosing, overmedicating, underparenting" argument. I do hope you'll dig much deeper than this. As the parent of two boys with labels, I will admit that there is some truth to your stance. But that pendulum also swings the other way, with the "overdiagnosing" argument preventing children from receiving the legitimate medical treatment that can help them succeed. My older son was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia, and is also gifted intellectually and artistically. Prior to his diagnoses, he struggled to learn to read and his self-esteem plummeted in response to his unexpected difficulties. I had always been an active and involved parent and had a close relationship with my son, and while he WAS very active, I did not experience ANY discipline problems at home. So when the educational psychologist I took him to (suspecting dyslexia) suggested ADHD in addition to dyslexia, I was surprised and reluctant to believe it. But teacher interviews overwhelmingly supported that diagnosis, and after considring the issue carefully, I agreed to a trial of stimulant medication. It made a significant, immediate and positive difference in his schoolwork. He was finally able to concentrate enough to benefit from his reading instruction, and caught up to 'grade level' relatively quickly. He was also able to curb his impulsiveness, which smoothed over some of his previous social and classroom difficulties. He was happier and doing well again. Then his stepmother got involved, citing the "overdiagnosed, overmedicated" argument, and his father, citing the "He's just like I was!" (therefore?) argument threatened to sue the doctor if he continued to prescribe stimulants, so I agreed to take him off the meds. DS's schoolwork began to slip and problem behaviors re-emerged, though with even more active parenting, those issues were held in reasonable check. He is still disorganized, forgetful, impulsive and very distractable, problems that were much less severe when he was medicated. Does he absolutely for-certain have ADHD? I guess I can't say for sure. Without a scientifically validated medical test, no one can say for 100% sure. But what I can absolutely say is that being on stimulant medication helped him significantly, and the "overdiagnosed / overmedicated" argument harmed him. My younger son is diagnosed with PDD-NOS, a mild form of autism, another of the "wildly overdiagnosed" conditions. There is absolutely no question in the minds of anyone who knows him that there is something going on, some disorder of some sort. What exactly that diagnosis should be is still up for discussion, among experts and parents alike, and PDD/NOS is simply the best (if imperfect) fit. But he too has been harmed by the "overdiagnosed / overmedicated" mindset. Even among treating professionals, there is a certain amount of "overanxious parent" skepticism. With some physicians you can see the skepticism when they first walk in the room, and watch it melt when they determine that there actually IS a basis-in-fact to the parent's concerns. "With this campaign, I hope to bring to light the exorbitant amount of children being diagnosed and medically treated for "disorders" like ADHD." Believe me -- this 'issue' is hardly in the dark. It is out there and being trumpeted far and wide; it needs no advocate. But please know also that this viewpoint harms some children as well as helping some of them. " It will show that many of these "disorders" can be corrected simply by a parent paying more attention, or a teacher altering the way a subject is taught. " Certainly, active, involved parenting and creative teaching strategies geared toward the needs of each individual child are good, effective tactics. But to suggest that medical biological disorders can be "fixed" by simple good parenting / good teaching are simplistic in the extreme, and harmful to the children who actually do have these problems. Now there IS good science being done that establishes how intensive behavioral patterning and effective one-on-one and small group teaching can actually change the structure of the brain, re-wiring neural pathways. (Look into dyslexia remediation strategies and Applied Behavior Analysis in treating autism.) To investigate how intensive training and instruction can actually "cure" medical disorders that originate in the brain by realigning neural pathways -- a similar but more scientific and greatly intensified approach to your 'active parenting/individualized teaching' argument -- there's some thesis material.

Today I stopped at a service station to buy a 20 lb. bag of ice. A young man behind me, also bought a bag of ice. I got to the ice storage thing first, but I have no strength in my "good" hand since I broke my wrist, and my other hand has always been bad since I injured it when I was a child. I was struggling to pick up a bag of ice and he asked me if I would like him to carry it to my car. I said, "No, I can carry it, but I would appreciate it if you would pick it up for me so I can get a grip on it." He did, and again, offered to carry it to my car. I thanked him very much for being so kind, but told him I could carry it. (I try to use my hand as much as I can.) I thought it was very, very nice of him.

That would get 'old' really fast. My kids have been fortunate in that all schools (GS through HS)have been a spit from our front door. All on one piece of property less than 1 to 2 blocks from home (depending on building). I did take the ones in GS to school in mornings and pick-up in afternoon. Not because they could not walk but because it was safer. The parents would zip in and out like crazed road racers trying to get kid to school and off to the city by x time. Or it was the HS kids driving to school like the crazed road racers with a bit of showing off how 'cool' they were in their monster trucks. There was never any thought or concern over any kid who might happen to get in their way. By the time my kids were across the field in the HS building (direct shot from my front door and a slow street) they were on their own in getting there and home. In your case, IMO, any kid who can run around for a few hours at football practice can hike it home less than a mile. Any kid who 'forgot' something 1)can do without forgotten object 2)walk over and get it, or 3)let Dad swing by and pick it up on his way home. The only one who might have gotten a last minute notice ride from me would have been the kid who had to be at work. Is it the kids or the parents? I think it's a bit of both. But as a parent I would not impose on another adult to haul my kids around to places/events that were in safe walking distances except for in the event of extreme weather and/or an emergency. If I wanted to play chauffeur, fine, but the kids would have to understand that when and if I were not available they have two healthy feet that can replace me now and then. Taking advantage of someone else's day off to run my busy, lazy (?) kids would not be an option.