Perhaps no single parenting trend more clearly defines the current generation of parents than the widespread elimination of spanking as a tool to decrease unacceptable behavior and to promote positive behavior. Science is proving them right. "The best kept secret of American child psychology is that kids who are not spanked are the best behaved and do the best in life,"says sociologist Murray A. Straus, PhD of the University of New Hampshire, "You won't find that in a single child development textbook, but it is true." Dr. Straus, has studied the impact of corporal punishment on child development for decades. He is a vocal opponent of the practice.

Spanking Linked to Lower IQs

While numerous studies have linked physical punishment to aggressive behavior, far fewer have examined the impact of spanking on intelligence. Dr. Straus of the University of Hew Hampshire and colleague Mallie J. Paschall, PhD, of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation analyzed data from 806 children who were 2 to 4 years old at enrollment and 704 children between the ages of 5 and 9. The children were tested for intelligence when they entered the trials and again four years later. Even after accounting for factors that could influence IQ scores, such as parental education and socioeconomic status, spanking appeared to have a negative impact on intelligence. The IQs of the younger children who were spanked were 5 points lower on average four years later than those of children of the same age who were not spanked. Scores among the older children were an average of 2.8 points lower among spanked children than children who were not spanked. While these differences are small they are statistically significant.

Second Study Links Spanking to Lower Mental Development

At Duke University, research scientist Lisa J. Berlin, PhD, and colleagues also linked early spanking to reduced intelligence in one of the most rigorously designed studies to ever address the issue. The researchers questioned 2,500 racially diverse, low-income moms about their use of spanking as a discipline tool for their toddlers. They found that children who were spanked at age 1 were more aggressive than those who weren't by age 2 and they scored lower on tests to assess mental development at age 3. "The research as a whole really paints a picture of the detrimental long-term effects of physical punishment," Dr. Berlin says. "The message to parents is find other ways to discipline your children."

Other Negative Effects of Spanking

A 2002 analysis of 88 spanking studies spanning six decades linked spanking to 10 negative behaviors including aggression, anti-social behavior, and mental health issues. More than 90% of the studies found spanking to be detrimental, says developmental psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, who conducted the analysis. "Parents spank to decrease bad behavior in the short and long term and to promote positive behavior," says Dr. Gershoff. "What the research tells us is that spanking doesn't seem to be doing either of these things."

Critics Still Doubt the Research Results

But critics say that research is highly suspect because it has largely been conducted by investigators like Straus, Berlin, and Gershoff who strongly oppose the practice. In addition, the studies are often criticized for lacking scientific rigor -- a charge Gershoff acknowledges is hard to counter. "We can't very well do experiments in which we tell some parents to spank their children and others not too," she says. Straus likens the criticism to that leveled at the early studies linking smoking to lung cancer. "For years the tobacco industry was able to destroy the studies one by one because they all had problems," he says. "No single study was truly definitive. But in the end the Surgeon General concluded that the evidence as a whole just couldn't be denied."

You'll find the Mayo Clinic near the top of the list of the best of the best in medical care. In the media, the Mayo Clinic is depicted as a place where rich and famous people with serious illness go to be treated. You would be hard pressed to find a better brand name in the health care field.

Cost Effective and Superior

One rarely thinks of the Mayo Clinic as a model of cost-effective medicine. Yet they are known for lower than average costs and better than average quality. Mayo Clinic CEO Denis Cortese was interviewed on NPR recently. When asked if the Mayo Clinic could be used as a model for health care reform that could work everywhere, "Yes", he said, "the Mayo model is transportable, but with difficulty".

Salaried Doctors

"The key ingredient is instilling a culture among physicians that puts the needs of patients first", Cortese said. One of Mayo's secrets is putting doctors on salary. One wonders how Mayo is able to attract the best doctors? "Pay at Mayo is competitive and turnover is low, despite the salary approach", Cortese said.

The Patient Experience

"Paying doctors by the procedure, or for treating sicker people can create conflicts", Cortese opined. "When it comes to the patient's experience, taking a doctor's pocketbook out of the care equation makes a big difference."

Cortese suggested that Medicare payments to providers of health care could be based on the value they provide--not the number of procedures they perform. If Medicare paid providers of good value care a little more--enough to give them a 2% profit margin--practices like Mayo's would grow indefinitely," he said. "If doctors end up doing less, keeping people healthier or keeping them at home, they may actually make no money."

A classic big business and consumer battle is bubbling up over a proposal to tax sugary soft drinks. The tax is billed as a way to fight obesity while providing billions in funding for health care reform.

President Obama has said it is worth considering. ''I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring. There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda". But Mr. Obama acknowledged that there would be significant resistance to such a tax.

A team of prominent doctors, scientists and policy makers says it could be a powerful weapon in efforts to reduce obesity, in the same way that cigarette taxes have helped curb smoking. It is estimated that a tax of a penny an ounce on sugary beverages would raise $14.9 billion in its first year, which could be spent on health care initiatives. The tax would apply to soft drinks, energy drinks, sports beverages and many juices and iced teas -- but not sugar-free diet drinks.

Coca-Cola Company. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Muhtar Kent said the idea of a federal tax on soft drinks, under consideration by the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama, is "outrageous." "I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink." Kent said, "If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around."

Published research on the topic appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent. Kelly D. Brownell, the lead author of the study and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, said in an interview that a penny-an-ounce tax would have an immediate and powerful impact on the nation's elevated obesity rate.

John Sicher, the publisher of Beverage Digest, a trade publication, said that, "A one cent per ounce tax would create serious problems and potentially adversely impact sales for the American beverage industry". The soft drink industry has adamantly resisted the notion that its products are responsible for a national increase in obesity or that a tax would help curb the problem.

The proposed tax faces a formidable hurdle in Congress, where several members have voiced strong opposition and few if any have said more than that they would be willing to consider it. And even a supporter of a beverage tax said it was not clear if it would have a direct effect on the waistlines of Americans.

"I think we should be satisfied that soda taxes would be having a modest effect on consumption but would generate billions of dollars that could be used to mount public health campaigns," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that favors such a tax.

Nonetheless, discussion of the tax has the beverage industry on the defensive. The industry began to coordinate its response in June when it created an organization called Americans Against Food Taxes. On its Web site, nofoodtaxes.com, the group calls itself "a coalition of concerned citizens" opposed to "the government's proposed tax hike on food and beverages," including soda and juice drinks. Calls to a media contact listed on the site reach the American Beverage Association, an industry organization whose board is made up of top executives from the major soft drink manufacturers. Americans Against Food Taxes bought a full-page ad last Sunday in The Washington Post. It was fashioned as an open letter to Congress, saying "Don't tax our groceries." It has also been running commercials on cable networks, including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, according to Kevin W. Keane, senior vice president for public affairs at the beverage association.

Across the country, many schools have removed soda vending machines saying they should not be plying children with sugary drinks. Last month, the American Heart Association urged people to reduce their intake of sugary foods and beverages to lower the risk of conditions like obesity and high blood pressure -- singling out soft drinks as a prime culprit.

He said that a tax was justified in part because conditions like obesity and diabetes are often treated with public funds through programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Revenue from the tax could help pay for such care.

Acknowledging how difficult it would be to get a tax through Congress, he said "State or local governments could take the first step". That would follow tobacco, which has been heavily taxed by states in an effort to reduce smoking and defray the costs of smoking-related illnesses.dside/loader.js" defer="defer">