Is your teenager skipping breakfast? Why is that happening and what can you do? As per the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which surveyed adolescent health and well-being found that 1 in 4 students in high school ate breakfast, which means 3 in 4 high school students are not eating their breakfast. This data is as per the 2023 survey.

What Did The Study Intend?

The report describes a 10-year long trend and also recent changes among the two years. The study delved deeper into adolescents' dietary, physical activity and sleep behaviors. The study is also based on a national youth risk behavior survey of a representative sample of students from grade nine to 12.

What Did The Study Find?

The study found that while high school students drank slightly less soda and sports drinks and consumed more water, other healthy eating habits declined. In 2023, only 27% of students ate breakfast every day in the past week. The numbers were even lower for female students, with just 22% eating breakfast daily, compared to 32% of male students. Boys were also more likely to eat fruits and vegetables daily and drink water at least three times a day. Poor mental health and lack of physical activity have also been linked to skipping breakfast.

The other findings included a survey across 10-year period, where a decrease in the percentage of students eating fruits from 65% to 55%, eating vegetables, from 61% to 58%, and having breakfast daily from 38% to 27% was noted.

However, there was a positive trend among this, which was in children drinking plain water at least three times a day, which increased from 49% to 54% from when the survey began in 2015.. There were fewer students who also said that they drank soda in 2023 than in 2013. On an average, in 2013, around 22% students avoided soda, whereas in 2023, 31% students avoided it.

The report also emphasized that a healthy diet, along with daily physical activity and sufficient sleep further contributes to a healthy lifestyle. “The 10-year trends from 2013 to 2023 also show a decline in healthy dietary, physical activity, and sleep behaviors,” the survey reported.

Why Do High School Students Skip Breakfast?

While there is no one straightforward answer to it, psychologists and those who study children, believe that for many high school going kids, it is the easiest time to skip a meal. This is because they are caught between rushing to school, or not just that hungry in the morning. So for them, to sit down to have a breakfast may seem hassle and something they would have to take time out from their busy schedule. They at this age also prioritize their extra-curricular activities.

There has also been a shift in their circadian rhythm, and most teens cannot fall asleep before 11 pm, or even at midnight. Which means they wake up tired and struggle to do things right in the morning, which is why they choose to skip breakfast or give extra minutes to any other activities.

There is of course another, more popular reason, to lose weight. While experts and studies, like the one published in the Journal of Nutrition that found skipping breakfast leads to higher levels of hunger hormones, the students still feel the need to do this. However, it could lead to a slow metabolism, prompt the body to conserve energy and burn fewer calories, weight gain and deprive yo off the essential nutrients like calcium, iron, and vitamin D.

Without a morning breakfast, your blood sugar might drop too, which can increase irritability and stress, along with including the risk of depression in teenage.

Maharashtra Food And Drug Administration (FDA) has taken a significant step towards promoting healthy eating habits in children. On Wednesday, FDA commissioner Tukaram Mundhe announced that foods and drinks high in fat, sugar, and salt should not be sold within 50 metres of school premises.

"Within school premises and up to 50 metres from the school compound, the sale, advertisement and free distribution of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) food items is completely banned by the FDA. It will be implemented strictly," Mundhe said.

Why Did Maharashtra FDA Ban The Sale Of HFSS Food Items?

HFSS food items could neither be sold, advertised, nor distributed free of cost within the prescribed limits around schools in Maharashtra anymore.

The recent ban covers popular junk food items like vada pav, samosas, deep-fried snacks, chips, cold drinks, sugary beverages, chocolates and ice cream.

Mundhe said the state government had issued a compliance order on July 27 to enforce food safety and nutritional standards across educational institutions.

He also said that the move would affect nearly two crore students studying in around 1.08 lakh schools in Maharashtra.

The guidelines would apply to all government, government-aided and private schools affiliated to any education board, meaning that no educational institution would be exempt from the ban.

Also read: No More 'Buy 1 Get 1 Free': After UK, Northern Ireland Restricts Promotion Of Unhealthy Foods To Tackle Obesity

He also said that canteens, midday meal kitchens, food suppliers and hostel kitchens catering to schools must obtain mandatory registration and licenses under food safety regulations.

He added, "No organisation or institution can prepare or supply food to schools, hostels or under the midday meal scheme without registration and a valid license to operate."

He said school principals, headmasters and local authorities would play a key role in implementing the restrictions.

According to the guidelines, the move is applicable for children from 22 months of age up to students studying in Class 12.

Experts React

Also read: Nearly 1.6 Million Dozen Eggs Recalled in US Over Potential Salmonella Contamination: FDA

HealthandMe spoke to Dr Rahul Verma, Director of Paediatrics and Neonatology at Sir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, about the impact this move would have on children's health.

Dr Verma says that rather than viewing the decision only as a ban on junk food, it should be seen as an attempt to reshape children's food environment.

He says, "When healthier choices become the default in schools, children are more likely to develop better eating habits that can continue into adulthood. Reaching over 1.08 lakh schools and nearly 2 crore students from preschool to Class 12 gives this initiative the potential to influence an entire generation at a stage when lifelong dietary preferences are still being formed."

He also said that the policy also goes beyond simply removing HFSS foods. By making FSSAI licensing mandatory for school canteens, introducing regular compliance checks, and encouraging the inclusion of nutritious foods such as fruits, pulses, and whole grains, it creates a structured system that supports healthier eating rather than relying on restrictions alone.

In an X post, Dr. Sivaranjini, a pediatrician, suggested a different approach which seems to be a much simpler way of differentiating between healthy and unhealthy foods.

She wrote, " Front-of-pack label (FOPL) warnings are the simplest and most effective way to help people make better food choices in India. A clear “High in Sugar” or “High in Salt” or "High in Fat" warning takes seconds to understand. No calculations. No nutrition knowledge. Just a simple signal that says, 'Think twice'".

The doctor says that unhealthy, processed foods are often marketed as healthy due to misleading labels and claims on their packaging.

She added, "The problem with systems like Nutri-Score or Health Star Ratings is that they average everything into one score. A product loaded with sugar can still look “healthy” because it has added protein, fiber, or vitamins."

Providing real-life examples, she informed, "A sugary breakfast cereal still gets HIGH IN SUGAR, even if fibre and vitamins are added to it. An instant noodle high in sodium still gets HIGH IN SODIUM even if protein and vitamins are added to it. A packaged fruit juice with excessive free sugars still gets HIGH IN SUGAR, though it's directly from the fruit."

Although the move is a positive step towards protecting children's health, sustained success will depend on whether healthy food remains accessible, affordable, and appealing to children. If children continue to consume highly processed foods outside school or at home, the long-term benefits may be limited.

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the Centre's ongoing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for adolescent girls. The court said that there is no evidence of "immediate harm" from the vaccine.

It also said that the concerning questions around its rollout, safety and scientific backing remain open for judicial scrutiny.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay HPV Vaccination Drive

A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by gynaecologist Dr. Sujata Mittal and health entrepreneur Jitendra Chouksey, who challenged the nationwide rollout of Merck's Gardasil vaccine.

The plea states that the vaccination programme violates the constitutional rights of adolescent girls, including their rights to bodily autonomy, informed parental consent and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It also raises concerns over long-term safety, efficacy, and post-vaccination monitoring.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected the plea for an interim stay.

The Bench observed, "There may not be long-term benefit (of HPV vaccination) but there is no immediate harm."

It added that the safety concerns related to the vaccine would be examined during the course of the proceedings.

Also read: Delhi High Court Questions Govt, ICMR Over HPV Vaccine Rollout, Issues Notice

Centre Defends HPV Vaccination Programme

Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told Delhi HC that over 55 crore people worldwide have received HPV vaccines across nearly 160 countries.

He also informed the Bench that more than 55 lakh doses have been administered in India so far and only around 120 recipients reported minor side effects like nausea or headache.

"The government is taking appropriate and adequate measures while administering the vaccination," Sharma said, arguing that there was no scientific basis to drop the programme.

The High Court directed the Centre, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) and the National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) to file detailed replies explaining the scientific and regulatory justification for introducing the vaccine.

Also read: India Vaccinates Over 5.2 Million Girls Against HPV To Fight Cervical Cancer

What Does The Petition Allege?

Apart from arguing that the programme violates the bodily autonomy of adolescent girls, the petition also alleged that the vaccinations are being administered through schools and public health systems without adequate informed parental consent.

It also states that frontline health workers have been assigned with enrolment targets. This directly creates pressure on the workers who compel these girls to receive the vaccine.

The plea also includes cases of reported adverse events after vaccine administration, including that of a 14-year-old girl from Tamil Nadu.

Also read: Cervical Cancer Cases In India Drop 37% Over A Decade, Highlighting Impact Of Screening & HPV Vaccination

About The Case

The case was first heard by the Delhi High Court on July 22, when the Bench described the issue as "extremely important" and sought the Centre's response.

During the latest hearing, the court declined to halt the programme but clarified that its order should not be considered as the final endorsement of the vaccine rollout.

The court will continue hearing arguments on the programme's scientific basis, efficacy, informed consent process, and adverse event reporting.

HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted viruses and persistent infection with high-risk strains, particularly HPV-16 and HPV-18, and is responsible for nearly all cases of cervical cancer.

Vaccination before exposure to the virus is considered one of the most effective ways to prevent cervical cancer and many other HPV-related cancers.

India launched its HPV vaccination campaign in February 2026, offering a free single-dose quadrivalent HPV vaccine to eligible 14-year-old girls as part of its cervical cancer prevention strategy.

COVID-19 antiviral drug remdesivir can help kidney transplant patients in more than one ways. Apart from keeping them free from COVID-19 infection, the drug could also help lower the risk of losing the transplanted kidney and reduce future heart-related complications.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, come from one of the largest studies to examine the long-term effects of remdesivir in adult kidney transplant recipients.

The subsection of patients that remains especially vulnerable to severe COVID-19 because of lifelong immune-suppressing medications.

What Did The Study Find?

Researchers from Johns Hopkins Medicine studied data from 432 adult kidney transplant recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2024.

Of these, 177 patients received remdesivir within a week of diagnosis for at least three consecutive days, while 255 did not receive the antiviral.

Patients treated with other COVID-19 therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies or alternative antivirals, were excluded.

After adjusting for factors including age, underlying illnesses, transplant timing, vaccination status and disease severity, researchers found that patients who received early remdesivir had a 47% lower risk of all-cause graft loss, over the following year.

Graft loss refers to transplant failure or death. They also had a 42% lower risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attack, stroke or cardiac-related death.

“These findings suggest that timely antiviral treatment may have benefits beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 in this population,” said Dr. Nitipong Permpalung, senior author of the study and associate director of the Johns Hopkins Transplant Research Center.

“We hope these findings will help reduce hesitations that physicians may have with considering providing remdesivir, when clinically appropriate, to adult kidney transplant recipients,” he added.

Also read: Dr Anthony Fauci's Personal Journals Reignites Debate On COVID-19 Origin; Says He Overshadowed President Trump

Kidney Transplant Recipients Are At Higher Risk

Patients who have undergone kidney transplants take immunosuppressive medicines to prevent organ rejection. While these drugs protect the transplanted kidney, they also weaken the body’s ability to fight infections, making COVID-19 more severe and increasing the risk of serious complications.

In the study, nearly 95% of participants had high blood pressure, 46% had diabetes, and one in five required supplemental oxygen when diagnosed with COVID-19.

More than half also temporarily stopped one of their immunosuppressive medications during infection.

Also read: Can Long COVID Be Prevented Before It Starts? Study Suggests Early Paxlovid May Help

What Does This Mean?

Although the initial results are encouraging, researchers stressed that the study was observational rather than a randomised clinical trial.

That means it shows a strong association but cannot definitively prove that remdesivir alone caused the improved outcomes.

“I do think that the findings suggest the potential benefits of treating COVID-19 early may extend beyond the short-term benefits that the early clinical trials have shown,” Dr. Permpalung said in an interview with The American Journal of Managed Care.

He also said that that larger and more diverse studies are needed to understand why early treatment appears to protect transplanted kidneys and whether similar benefits extend to recipients of other transplanted organs such as the heart, lungs and liver.

The findings could help guide treatment for transplant specialists, particularly because kidney transplant recipients are often excluded from large clinical trials.

If confirmed in future studies, early antiviral treatment with remdesivir may become an important strategy not only for reducing severe COVID-19 but also for protecting transplanted organs and lowering long-term cardiovascular risks in such patients.