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.

The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to allow federal prisons to restrict gender-affirming medical care for transgender inmates. This has escalated a legal battle over what healthcare transgender inmates in federal custody are entitled to receive.

The Justice Department filed an emergency request on September 28, asking the court to lift a lower-court order that currently prevents the Bureau of Prisons from enforcing its restrictions.

The case concerns a policy introduced by the Bureau of Prisons in February 2026. Under the policy, federal prisons would stop providing surgeries and hormone therapy for transgender inmates and would also remove certain cosmetic accommodations like wigs and other clothing-related provisions. Mental health and psychiatric care would remain available.

Here's a wider look at its implications on prison healthcare for transgenders.

Why Is The Policy Being Challenged?

Also read: Why Is The Trump Administration Stopping Obamacare Health Plans For 760,000 Enrollees?

Three transgender inmates in federal prisons in New Jersey, Florida and Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the restrictions.

A federal judge, Royce Lamberth, ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming medical care like hormone therapy to affected inmates. He found that the Bureau of Prisons was likely to have acted unlawfully.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to lift that order on September 18, leaving the restrictions blocked while the legal challenge continues.

The administration has now taken the dispute to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to allow the restrictions to be enforced while the wider case proceeds.

The administration argues that an executive order required the Bureau of Prisons to revise its medical care policies so that federal funds aren’t spent “for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex." It also argues that security and prison-management concerns support the policy.

The government is seeking permission to enforce the policy before the courts reach a final decision on whether the restrictions themselves are lawful. It says that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”

What Do The Inmates Say?

Also read: Trump Proposes A New Board That Could Have Veto Power Over 48 Billion NIH Budget & Prevent 'Woke' Research

Attorneys representing the transgender inmates argue that withholding medically necessary treatment because a person is transgender could violate their constitutional rights. They have also raised the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Their argument is that prison officials have a constitutional obligation to provide necessary medical care for serious health conditions and that gender dysphoria can require personalised treatment.

The legal dispute therefore involves two questions: whether the Bureau of Prisons can change its medical policy in this way, and whether denying gender-affirming treatment to transgender inmates can amount to unconstitutional refusal of medical care.

What Is Gender Dysphoria?

Gender dysphoria is a clinical diagnosis that identifies significant emotional distress that someone experiences when their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth do not match.

Treatment for gender dysphoria can vary from person to person. Depending on an individual's circumstances and clinical assessment, gender-affirming care may include mental health support, hormone therapy or surgery.

Having gender dysphoria does not automatically mean that every person diagnosed with it will receive every form of gender-affirming treatment.

How Does This Affect Healthcare For Transgender Inmates?

Inmates cannot simply choose another doctor if a certain kind of treatment is restricted. Medical treatments are largely controlled by the correctional authorities. The Bureau of Prisons previously allowed inmates with gender dysphoria to receive gender-affirming treatment when clinicians determined that it was medically appropriate. The new policy would make that approach invalid.

The Bureau said in 2025 that it was providing hormone therapy to more than 600 inmates, highlighting the number of people affected.

The case could ultimately affect other areas besides federal prisons, as it challenges medical necessity, prison healthcare and transgender rights directly before the nation's highest court.

A blood pressure medicine manufactured in India has been recalled in the US for the second time in three months after a few batches failed a test designed to ensure that the drug dissolves properly in the body.

The medicine is chlorthalidone 25 mg, a commonly used diuretic, or 'water pill', manufactured by Inventia Healthcare Limited in India. The latest recall involves more than 13,500 bottles, while the earlier recall included 11,460 bottles. Both recalls have been classified by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as Class II recalls.

India-Made BP Drug Recalled In The US For The Second Time

The US Food and Drug Administration recalled chlorthalidone due to “failed dissolution specifications.” It means that when the tablet is swallowed, its active ingredient needs to dissolve at the right rate so the body can absorb the medicine.

If a tablet does not dissolve properly in the body, less of the active ingredient may become available for absorption, making the medicine less effective that it should be.

For someone taking chlorthalidone to control high blood pressure, inadequate drug absorption could mean that blood pressure is not controlled as effectively as intended. The FDA has not reported contamination or a toxic ingredient as the reason for this particular recall.

Also read: Chlorthalidone Recall: FDA Flags Second India-Made Blood Pressure Drug

Why Was The Drug Recalled Again?

The first recall was made by Inventia Healthcare on June 5, 2026, involving 11,460 bottles. A second, separate recall was initiated on September 3, involving another 13,567 bottles. The FDA classified this second recall as Class II on September 17. Together, the two recalls affect more than 25,000 bottles of the medication.

The second recall has raised eyebrows as both issues were linked to the same type of manufacturing quality problem, which is failure to meet dissolution specifications.

The earlier recall involved batches RISA24001 and RISB24002. The latest recall involves 25 mg chlorthalidone tablets. Patients must check their medicine packaging for:

• Manufacturer: Inventia Healthcare Limited
• Strength: Chlorthalidone 25 mg
• Batch: RISA24002
• Expiry: April 2027
• NDC: 64980-599-01

Also read: Thyroid Medicine Recall Gets US FDA’s Highest Risk Rating: What To Know

More About Chlorthalidone & Class II Recall

Chlorthalidone is a diuretic used to treat high blood pressure. It works mainly by helping the kidneys remove excess sodium and water from the body. This reduces the amount of fluid circulating through the blood vessels and helps lower blood pressure.

Keeping blood pressure under control is essential as untreated hypertension increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, heart failure and kidney disease.

A Class II recall does not mean the medicine will cause serious harm in everyone who takes it. The FDA defines Class II recalls in which the affected product could cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, or where the probability of serious harm is remote.

In this case, the concern is primarily that the affected tablets may not work as intended because of inadequate dissolution.

What Should Patients Who Take This Medicine Do?

Patients should not stop the medication abruptly without speaking to a doctor or pharmacist. The FDA advises that people generally should not stop a recalled medicine without medical guidance, as suddenly stopping treatment for high blood pressure could be risky.

If you take chlorthalidone, check the batch number on your bottle and contact your pharmacist or healthcare provider if it matches one of the recalled ones.

Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of people at high risk based on age and smoking history can reduce lung cancer deaths and advanced-stage disease, according to an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group.

Speaking to HealthandMe, Dr Abhishek Shankar of AIIMS New Delhi, the only Indian author among the 23 experts from 17 countries involved in the IARC review, said India needs to generate its own screening evidence.

The review was published in The New England Journal of Medicine as part of IARC WHO Handbook 21.

India Should Not Wait For A Perfect Model

Dr Shankar, a lung cancer specialist, said India needs to generate its own screening evidence while ensuring high-risk people have access to screening and follow-up care.

“India should not wait for a perfect screening model and there is a need to generate Indian evidence while ensuring that those at highest risk have access to lung cancer screening and care pathways for screen positive cases,” he said.

Dr Shankar is leading the Indian Lung Screening Trial (ILST), which is assessing risk-based lung cancer screening across 10 centers in India.

Also read: Never Smoked, Still Got Lung Cancer? Rare Gene Mutation Linked To Over 60x Risk

Who Should Undergo LDCT Screening?

The evidence mainly covers people aged 50 to 80 with a substantial smoking history, typically 20–30 pack-years or more. Studies involving former smokers generally included those who had quit within the previous 10–15 years.

In India, people aged 50 to 80 who have smoked at least 20 pack-years and are current smokers or quit within the past 15 years can contact ILST about screening under the trial.

“High-risk smokers should be encouraged to participate in organized screening rather than opportunistic CT scanning, with appropriate nodule management, follow-up and smoking-cessation support,” Dr Shankar said.

What Did The Trials Show?

Read More: World Lung Day: Dry Cough, Breathlessness May Not Always Be Asthma — Could It Be ILD?

In the US National Lung Screening Trial, LDCT was linked to a 16% lower relative risk of lung cancer death at seven years compared with chest X-rays. The European NELSON trial also found lower lung cancer mortality among men screened with LDCT at 10 years.

IARC classified LDCT as Group A, indicating established evidence that it reduces lung cancer mortality and stage III or IV disease. Chest X-rays, with or without sputum examination, were classified as Group C, as a mortality benefit could not be established.

What Are The Risks Of LDCT Screening?

LDCT is not meant for everyone. Across studies, false-positive rates ranged from 1% to 42%. Among those with false-positive results, 5% to 32% underwent an invasive procedure, with complications reported in 10% to 22% of those procedures.

The review also estimated that 3% to 26% of lung cancers detected in randomized trials could represent over-diagnosis.

The IARC group stressed that screening requires more than CT scans, including risk assessment, nodule management, follow-up, smoking-cessation support and adequate healthcare capacity.

“India has an opportunity to build an equitable, affordable, locally relevant lung cancer screening pathway and ILST can provide the evidence needed to guide that future,” Dr Shankar said.