50 years after LBJ declared a War on Poverty, progress but more work to do – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

In his 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty. Today, Martin Luther King Day – a day to celebrate equality, justice, and progress – we reflect on the status of struggling families. While there is still much work to do to ensure every American worker has enough money in her pocket to pay the bills, provide for for her family, and guarantee a stable household, we have made great leaps in the last 50 years. 

Johnson put in place a series of anti-poverty programs – VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), Job Corps, Head Start, Legal Services, and the Community Action Program the likes of which we’ve never seen again. These programs significantly tempered the impact of poverty for millions of Americans. Indeed, in the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty programs, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3 percent in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1 percent in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2 percent ever since.

We can be proud that the legacy of Frances Perkins and the New Deal programs of FDR’s administration – Social Security and Medicare and more recently Medicare Part D which covers the cost of medications – have vastly improved the lives of elderly Americans: the most dramatic decrease in poverty is among Americans over 65, which fell from 28.5 percent in 1966 to 10.1 percent today.

Hubert Humphrey, a Minnesota Senator and the man who served as Vice President to LBJ, talks in his spellbinding book “A Public Man” about making a real dent in poverty with these programs. Sadly, the Nixon administration that came into power after LBJ’s reign dismantled many of them. There was a tide that swept over America that offered a few egregious examples that these programs made people “too dependent on government” and unwilling to work.  Yes, there are some lazy people looking for a handout; but there are far more who use these safety net programs to feed their families and get back on their feet so they can work and be productive members of society.

Today the biggest drag on the economy and the notion that “a rising tide lifts all boats” is that the gains in GDP have landed disproportionately in the wallets of the top 1 or 2 percent whereas in the 60s and 70s these gains were shared far more broadly. The number of union jobs that offer good wages and benefits has fallen dramatically. Unionization of the workforce today is at its lowest level since 1916, when it was 11.2 percent. Sadly, our labor laws do not favor union organizing and there’s been a steady drumbeat by the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, against ceding any power to unions to organize and negotiate on behalf of workers.

So, the War on Poverty, though successful in offering relief programs to the poor, has been undermined by the lack of decent jobs and poor educational opportunities. There’s a little light at the end of the tunnel, however. I’m personally thrilled and delighted to see the wave of state laws increasing minimum wage and the bipartisan support from red and blue states alike in favoring these increases. More than 70 percent of voters in March of this year told Gallup pollsters they would like to see the minimum wage increase. By November that percentage had risen to 76 percent including 58 percent of Republicans supporting an increase.

If the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 is passed into law, 30 million Americans will see an increase in their paycheck. Providing an increased minimum wage may not be a panacea for these struggling Americans, but it will go a long way toward lifting families out of poverty.  It’s good for kids too, because they suffer the most when there’s not enough food in the cupboard. President Johnson had it right – we have to treat the problem of poverty in America like a war –and many strategies need to be deployed to combat the problem. With the recent gains in minimum wage in states around the country and momentum building, we may indeed be opening the next chapter in President Johnson’s War on Poverty.

Disturbing phenomenon: Rapid increase of unaccompanied minors entering US – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

maki Imagine you are a child, age 13, 14, or 15. Gang members in your school are threatening to beat, kidnap, or kill you. They want money, but you are poor. They threaten to harm you and your family if you don’t pay them large sums of money. There is no way for you to obtain those sums. This is the situation faced by increasing numbers of teens living in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador as gangs spread throughout their countries. 

The kids are scared to death and clinging to a desperate hope: Escape their tormentors, get to the US, find work, and send money back to protect their families. Unfortunately, the numbers of these “unaccompanied minors” is exploding. According to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which is alerting the public about this new trend, the numbers of children expected to cross into the US without adult supervision is expected to be 60,000 this year. This represents nearly a tenfold increase in the number of unaccompanied minors in just three years.

According to a fact-finding delegation led by the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services, there is a “perfect storm” of contributing factors pushing teens to leave their homes and attempt a perilous journey to the US. In addition to the fear of violence from gangs, these “push” factors include:

  • The absence of economic opportunity;
  • The inability of individuals and families to support themselves
  • The lack of quality education and access to education; and
  • The desire to reunify with family members in the US.

The USCCB held a forum on this disturbing trend on January 9th. Among those who attended was a consular official from Guatemala’s diplomatic corp. She told attendees that her country is overwhelmed with the number of migrating children. Since 70 percent of the kids are turned back at the US border, Guatemala is trying to identify funds to deal with the returned migrant youth. They would love to establish programs to help the kids stay in Guatemala, but for the most part the funds are not available.

Migrating teens often make multiple attempts till they make it into the US. USCCB believes that 30 percent eventually make it in, but they often incur significant debts to pay to smugglers—sometimes as much as $5,000 to $8,000. Farms and homes are being mortgaged to pay for these “coyote” fees. So when the teens get to the US, they are often desperate to find work and repay the loans.

The journey to the US is particularly dangerous for the migrating teens. Children are losing limbs as they try to board trains. Teen girls are especially vulnerable. Advocates believe 60% of girls are assaulted or raped on during their trips; nearly one in four become pregnant on the journey. Both boys and girls are vulnerable to being trafficked.

What happens when the children make it to the US? Imagine being here at a very young age and being separated from your family. You may not speak the language. You have no safety net. US nonprofits are struggling to deal with the services needed by this most vulnerable population. From our work on the Child Labor Coalition, we believe that many of these unaccompanied youth may end up performing hand harvest work in agriculture—a difficult, dangerous job. Most of these children will not make it into a school system. Their futures are very uncertain.

What can be done to help the incredibly vulnerable children trying to flee violence and dire poverty in their homelands? The USCCB delegation to the four source countries came up with several recommendations that include providing legal representation to the migrants, considering asylum for those children whose fear of gang violence is credible, having child welfare experts help assess the migrants when they are captured by border agents, and investing in prevention programs in the sending countries. The complete list of recommendations will be available at USCCB’s *Refugee and Migration Service publications page soon.

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings.

Rates of tobacco use have drastically declined over the last 50 years. Another win for regulations. – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

I recently wrote about the miraculous number of lives saved by tough auto safety regulations. Some states today are recording the lowest traffic fatalities ever. Why? Because of safety devices (seatbelts, airbags, etc.) and designs that were lobbied for by consumer advocates like Ralph Nader, Joan Claybrook, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, CARS,  and Consumer Reports/Consumers Union beginning in the 1960s.

Now I’m writing about another miraculous success story also related directly to a sustained public health education and awareness campaign. Fifty years ago – in 1964 – the US surgeon general issued a groundbreaking report on smoking and health. The paper offered definitive proof – based on thousands of studies -that smoking causes lung cancer and is linked to other serious diseases. Tobacco companies had spent years denying and obfuscating the evidence. Research since then has shown that tobacco can cause or exacerbate a wide range of ailments, including heart disease, stroke, multiple kinds of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, asthma and diabetes, and can cause disease in those who inhale the secondary smoke – including wait staff in restaurants and bars and children of smokers.

This sustained campaign to discourage Americans from smoking –including high taxes on cigarettes, banning smoking in bars, restaurants, workplaces, airports, airplanes, trains, and other enclosed spaces, requiring smoking in restricted areas, curbs on advertising, banning sales to minors, penalizing smokers with higher health care premiums, and local and state programs for smoking cessation  – all have  helped to dramatically reduce smoking in the US.

I’m one of those who had a two pack a day habit so I know about smoking. It was incredibly difficult to quit – I did it four or five times for months or years at a time but got hooked again immediately upon taking the first puff.

I did finally call it quits and don’t dare come close to a cigarette today. Why did I quit finally? Lots of reasons, including that I felt shockingly short of breath when going up just a few stairs, the ever escalating cost, and the unpopularity of puffing away and polluting the air I was sharing with colleagues and friends. Not to mention it’s about the stupidest thing you can do, given all the terrible health conditions caused by and exacerbated by smoking. Thirty years after quitting, I also am happy to report that all of the six members of my immediate family who smoked back then have all kicked the habit.

So we are part of the success story. The percentage of American adults who smoke dropped from 42 percent in 1965 to 18 percent in 2012. A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that tobacco control measures adopted since 1964 have saved eight million Americans from premature death and extended their lives by an average of almost 20 years.

However, we still have 44 million smokers. To tackle this challenge, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids have called for a new national commitment to drive down smoking among adults to less than 10 percent over the next decade. The groups also want to protect all Americans from secondhand smoke within five years by having every state enact laws against smoking in all workplaces, bars and restaurants; and ultimately eliminate death and disease caused by tobacco.

The power of the tobacco industry is a challenge. It spends $8 billion a year to market cigarettes and other tobacco products in the US, marketing too often aimed at young people.

The industry also enjoys profits from heavy smoking prevalent in so many developing countries. My recent visits to China and Cuba underscored the ubiquitous use of tobacco around the world. Happily we’re spoiled in the US by being relative smoke free in communal places.

Meanwhile, back in the US, many groups are rededicating themselves to driving rates of smoking down to under 10 percent. Federal, state, and local government health officials are working alongside these groups. So there we have it – another victory for sensible regulation and here’s to the millions of lives saved as a result.

Can a soda tax create a healthier America? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

kelsey As the obesity rate in Mexico rises, lawmakers have taken action in the form of a tax on sweet drinks and some unhealthy packaged foods.  This action in Mexico might ultimately lead to similar laws in the United States and other parts of the world.  Similar measures are being passed in many South American counties such as Chile, Ecuador, and Peru all of which are promoting healthier eating through law making.  

Ecuador even banned industrial food makers from using images of celebrities, cartoons, or animal characters on foods that are high in fat, sugar, and salt and Chile banned toys in fast food meals.

The 8% tax on packaged foods and one peso (about 8 cents) per liter tax on sweet drinks was not passed without criticism.  Food companies argued that snack food is a staple for the poor and that their companies played a large role as contributors to economic growth.  Taxing unhealthy foods raises their cost to competitive monetary levels with their healthier counterparts, causing difficult economic effects on the poorest citizens who may not be able to afford either.  Soda and junk food taxes also earn these foods a “forbidden fruit” reputation which could have negative outcomes, especially in children.

California State Senator Bill Monning proposed a one cent per ounce “soda tax” that a University of California, San Francisco study found would save between $320 million and $620 million in medical costs associated with diabetes.  San Francisco may also move ahead with its own city wide soda tax of two cents per ounce.  It isn’t just California that’s pushing for these taxes either.   Telluride, Colorado and New York City are among the many cities that have proposed their own soda tax.

As junk food taxes are becoming an increasingly popular idea we need to keep in mind the best means of implementation.  Raising taxes alone addresses one area of the obesity issue.  A multifaceted approach that targets junk foods and seeks to make healthy foods more desirable would produce lasting effects. If vegetables and potato chips are similarly priced, we need to make the vegetables are marketed in a way that is more attractive.  Focusing on reducing advertising of foods high in fat, sugar, and salt and targeted toward children while simultaneously initiating campaigns promoting healthy eating would a great starting place.

Cancelled policies, mandatory insurance, oh my! What consumers need to know about health care insurance – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

92_ayannaHealth care Marketplace exchanges went into effect on January 1. Since open enrollment began in October, 6 million+ people have enrolled for new coverage under the law. Enrollment is still ongoing, and if you sign up by January 15, coverage will be effective on February 1. Despite the good news, media attention to “Obamacare” has been mostly negative because of roll-out glitches with the site and health plan “cancellation letters.”

It is estimated that 4.7 million people have received cancellation notices, stating that their 2013 health insurance policies have been cancelled effective January 2014 because of Affordable Care Act (ACA) guidelines, according to a House Energy and Commerce Committee report. About half of those who received cancellation letters are now able to renew their prior coverage. As for the other half, the government estimates that roughly 10,000 will not have access to affordable coverage under ACA and will have to buy unsubsidized insurance on their own. The remainder, however, will be insured through expanded Medicaid, state or federal health exchanges, expanded age limits on parents’ plans for young adults under 26, or in purchasing a catastrophic coverage plan.

What hasn’t been covered in the media is the reason behind cancelling health insurance policies. These policies were cancelled because they do not meet minimum standards set up by the ACA for health insurance coverage. For example, prior to the ACA, it was legal for health insurance companies to exclude certain individuals from purchasing health insurance policies based on their preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, practices such as this are no longer legal. Additionally, all insurance policies must include certain “essential health benefits,” as defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. An example of an essential health benefit that is mandatory under the ACA is the complete coverage of all childhood and adult vaccinations. If an insurance policy does not meet the ACA’s minimum requirements, it must be modified so that it complies with the ACA or it must be cancelled.

The Confusion— On multiple occasions, President Obama asserted that, under the ACA, all Americans would be allowed to keep their insurance policies, if they were happy with them. However, the ACA states that if you are signing up for or renewing an insurance policy that does not meet minimum standards, it either must be modified to meet these standards or must be cancelled. Unfortunately, President Obama’s statement was not broad enough, and did not take these minimum standards into account.

The Fix— Health insurance companies may now continue to provide plans that do not meet ACA guidelines for an additional year. This is left up to the discretion of the state and if a policy remains valid, insurance companies have the right to keep or discontinue these policies. If a health insurance company renews a policy that does not meet ACA minimum standards, it is required to specifically inform customers about how these plans do not meet ACA requirements and of alternative ways of getting health insurance, such as through the Health Insurance Marketplace where customers might be eligible for lower cost plans.

There are still a number of options for consumers to get coverage, in the event of a cancelled or modified policy. It is strongly recommended that if your policy has been cancelled you shop around for other health insurance policy options before choosing any particular policy. There have been reports of cancellation letters that urge customers to sign up for “comparable” policies at the same health insurance company that are often significantly more expensive. The smart thing to do is to look at your options before signing up for any policy.

If your insurance company cancels your plan, your options include:

  • Buy one of the plans that the company offers in its place. It must allow you to buy any of its other plans available to you.
  • Buy a new plan in the Marketplace. You may qualify for lower costs on monthly premiums and out of pocket costs based on your income. Visit the Health Insurance Marketplace. Use this online resource to find out if you qualify for lower cost private health insurance plans or inclusion within Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  If you are not qualified for these, the Health Insurance Marketplace is still a place to get insurance at a standard price.
  • Shop around for health insurance policies outside of the Health Insurance Marketplace.  This can be a good option if you don’t qualify for lower costs based on your income.
  • Buy a catastrophic plan. If your plan has been cancelled and you can’t afford a Marketplace plan to replace it, you can apply for a hardship exemption. This will allow you to buy a catastrophic plan. A catastrophic plan has lower premiums than a comprehensive plan but only provides coverage if you need a lot of care. This plan typically requires paying all your medical costs up to a certain point, which is usually several thousand dollars.

It’s time for broadcasters to step up on deceptive advertising – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

If you’ve turned on the television or radio recently, chances are that you’ve heard at least one advertisement that made you sit up and say “what the…?” From bogus weight-loss products, to suspicious tax “advice” firms, to “free” cruises to the Bahamas, it often seems difficult to avoid ads that are misleading, if not outright fraudulent. At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive advertising.

Over the years, the agency has brought hundreds of cases against companies that have made dubious claims in their advertisements. In addition, in cases where there is evidence of fraud the FTC can also shut down operations under its “unfair and deceptive acts or practices” authority. State attorneys general also have authority to go after deceptive advertising and fraudulent operations.

Unfortunately, given the limited resources at their disposal, regulators are often only able to go after the most egregious cases of deception and fraud. The result? Ads for all kinds of deceptive and fraudulent products and services continue to proliferate on the public airwaves and on cable TV.

So what can be done to better police the airwaves for deceptive and fraudulent content? As part of its recent enforcement action against four bogus weight-loss companies, the FTC sent a letter to publishers and broadcasters asking them to refer to the FTC’s guidance on spotting phony weight-loss claims when advertisers submit ads.

While this action is a step in the right direction, we think the broadcasting and publishing industries can and should do more to vet the ads they run before they run. The FTC has largely steered clear of putting pressure on publishers and broadcasters to take this common-sense step. The Commission’s last significant effort on this was back in 2003, when former chairman Tim Muris asked cable television advertisers to strictly screen weight-loss ads.

As the Washington Post’s Lydia DePillis noted in a recent article on this topic, publishers and broadcasters usually cite two big reasons for resisting ad screening: their First Amendment right to publish and broadcast what they wish and the expense of setting up a screening program. With the proliferation of Internet-based advertising, the problem becomes even harder to control.

That said, we don’t think that these excuses are reason enough for the industry not to even try. Consumers tend to trust the ads they see on the radio or on television to a greater extent than online ads. When a fraudulent or deceptive ad runs, it undermines confidence in the advertising industry generally. More concretely, when a deceptive advertiser goes under due to enforcement actions, it can leave media outlets holding the bag. For example, when “tax resolution” company TaxMasters went bankrupt in 2012 after being investigated by the Texas Attorney General’s office, it owed CNN and Fox News Channel more than $3.5 million in unpaid advertising.

Doing a better job of screening out deceptive ads is not only the right thing to do from a public interest point of view, but it makes good business sense too. That being the case, why aren’t more companies doing it? Consumers deserve no less.

Our roads have never been safer, car safety regulations work! – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

It’s hard to measure things that don’t happen. But the recent news that Americans killed in traffic accidents has declined to the lowest point since the 1940s – especially in certain states – is evidence that people have not been dying in nearly as large numbers on our highways as they once did. This truly great news can be directly attributed to the years of work by consumer advocates, groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and government regulators.

I would like to credit auto manufacturers but it’s hard to do, given that they fought very sensible and lifesaving technologies – like seatbelts and airbags –  tooth and nail  and still fight efforts like making backup cameras standard in all  cars and trucks.  They have developed some tremendous safety technologies – like Electronic Stability Control to prevent rollover in SUVs and cars – and for that we can all be grateful.

Back to these very promising numbers. According to the Iowa State Department of Transportation, there were only 317 fatalities in Iowa in 2013 the lowest number of traffic deaths since 1944. Similar results in Ohio: 982 motorists and pedestrians died in Ohio in 2013, the lowest number since the state began keeping records in 1936. In New Jersey, state police reported 542 traffic deaths on highways and main streets in 2013, another all-time low. Eighty-five people were killed in Wyoming traffic accidents last year, the state Highway Patrol said Monday. The last time there were fewer than 100 deaths in Wyoming was in 1945. The South Carolina Highway Patrol said traffic deaths dropped by 125 over 2012 figures, a decrease of 17 percent.

According to the Washington Post, the national statistics, compiled by the Department of Transportation, won’t be released until later this year. But the early data is encouraging: In October, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the number of fatalities for the first half of the year had declined 4.2 percent from the same period in 2012.

When I first worked on auto safety for Consumers Union, the number of people dying on our highways each year was well over 40,000. The falling fatality numbers of today are part of a national trend that experts attribute to stronger regulation and better built cars with many safety technologies standard equipment:  head, side and lower body airbags, side, frontal and offset crash testing of cars and awarding five stars to those that perform well and sharing that information with consumers so they can make informed buying decisions. Electronic Stability Control (ESC) to prevent often deadly vehicle rollovers. We have cars that are far better designed and today auto makers not only acknowledge that safety helps sell cars but they advertise that their car or van received five star ratings in crash tests. That is progress!

The reduction in numbers is especially good news when we consider that the number of vehicles in the United States has increased significantly. The Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported there were 253 million registered vehicles in the United States in 2011, compared with just 161 million in 1980.

The AAA says that younger drivers and passengers are less likely to be involved in fatal accidents than in years past. The number of fatalities among adolescents between age 10-15 fell by almost 4 percent between 2011 and 2012, the last year for which federal statistics are available, while the number of teens who died in accidents fell by 5.7 percent.

How many parents have their teenagers alive and well today? How can we count these priceless lives saved?  These are young people who might have otherwise died on the road  had we not had strong education campaigns about drinking and driving and cars designed to withstand crashes far more effectively.

Consumer advocates and those who support us should be shouting from the hilltops that sensible regulations requiring safer cars and testing of those cars and advertising which are safest has saved thousands of lives this year and will likely continue to do so in the future. NCL is proud to be among the groups that have long advocated for strong safety regulations for automotive vehicles  and we can see from these very uplifting reports, our efforts have paid off handsomely.

Sitting on mountains of cash, U.S. corporations do too little to reduce income inequality – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

The question of income and asset inequality has certainly moved center stage. Demands for an increase in the minimum wage are being met by howls of protest, and complaints about skyrocketing executive compensation, alas, are being met with apparent indifference in corporate boardrooms. So the struggle for justice continues, and NCL is right in there, as we have been since 1899.

There’s another player in this drama, though, that doesn’t get the same attention, even though it may have an even greater impact. That’s the fact that U.S. corporations are sitting on top of mountains of cash, but they’re not investing in creating new jobs. With the big increases in stock value — the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 28% in 2013! — a reasonable person might think, why, let’s use some of this new wealth to help out all those unemployed Americans, our fellow citizens!

What are many corporations doing instead? They’re buying back their own stock, which increases the value of the shares still available to be traded. Great, if you’re a shareholder. If you’re one of the millions who lost their jobs in the great recession and whose unemployment benefits have just run out, not so good.

What can we do about it? If you are a shareholder, agitate! Let the company know you want it to invest in jobs, in community development, in public health. Tell the executive leadership to get off the sidelines. If you’re a public employee, contact your retirement system managers and tell them you don’t want them investing in companies that are basically on strike against unemployed and underpaid U.S. workers.

The time for credit card security reform is now – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

During the busiest shopping time of the year – the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas – Target, one of America’s largest retailers, suffered the second biggest data breach in U.S. history as 40 million credit and debit cards were compromised. 

Americans assume that when they shop their personal financial information will be kept private and away from identity thieves. Unfortunately, that is not always the case evidenced by the more than 4,000 data breaches that have been reported since 2005, an average of more than one a day over the last nine years.

Consumer advocates hope that the scale of the Target data breach will serve as the impetus for much needed credit card security reform. The time for change is now. Although consumer’s financial information will never be 100% secure, there are things that can be done. Retailers can use advanced encryption technology and more secure firewalls. Credit card companies can encourage the use of “Chip and PIN” technology in their credit cards. Our politicians can pass legislation establishing a national data breach notification standard and urge the Obama Administration to explore incentives and penalties to encourage private sector businesses to better protect consumer data. These changes will not happen without pressure from consumers.

This week, a group of Democratic Senators requested that the Senate banking Committee hold hearings to examine cybersecurity practices. The letter, written by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Charles Schumer (D-NY) stated, “We believe it would be valuable for the Committee to examine whether market participants are taking all appropriate actions to safeguard consumer data and protect against fraud, identity theft, and other harmful consequences, and whether we need stronger industry-wide cybersecurity standards.”

Changing and improving security standards will inevitably cost time and money. No one wants to foot the bill for needed innovations. Our lawmakers must capitalize on the current consumer awareness of the need for better cybersecurity and hold a congressional hearing to determine how businesses can better protect consumer data.

Some sweet tips for a new diet in 2014 – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

kelseyThe new year almost inevitably brings dieting difficulties for many of us, but many people realize that a diet isn’t always the best approach to losing weight and keeping it off. Changing your eating and exercise habits can have lifelong effects on your health, but doing so is more easily said than done. It can be a struggle, especially at the end of the day when you feel like you have eaten so healthfully and you just need a little something sweet.

It’s important to remember at these times that small indulgences are necessary for a balanced diet—so you don’t find yourself binging after too much deprivation.

Try getting your sweet fix in with some of these healthier options:

Banana and peanut butter: A great option because of the decadent texture. Make sure to not go overboard with this because it still has a lot of sugar in it but it also has a lot of redeeming nutrients like protein and potassium.

Greek yogurt and frozen berries: A fast and easy dessert, frozen berries are easier to keep on hand for when you need something sweet, and the Greek yogurt is a super food with plenty of lean protein.

Pomegranate seeds and dark chocolate: The pomegranate seeds are a challenge to separate from the rest of the fruit but it can be fun and satisfying to take your time eating them. A little bit of dark chocolate balances the pomegranate seeds out and provides antioxidants.

Apples and honey: Another traditional sweet snack, honey has antibacterial properties and you know what they say about having an apple a day.

Popcorn: Popcorn can be a slippery slope with outrageous amounts of sodium and fat when things go awry. However, I maintain that this can be a healthy, whole grain snack when it’s done right. Buying the kernels loose instead of pre-bagged allows you to make it yourself on the stove, giving you total control about the amount of butter, salt and flavors you add (no more fake butter!). If you want savory, go ahead and add Old Bay or other spices or seasoning (just watch the salt); if you’re looking for sweet, add sugar to the pot you’ll be popping it in for some homemade kettle corn.

Chocolate milk: Typically chocolate milk evokes memories of childhood, but it can actually be a satisfying dessert. It’s especially good as a post-workout snack, with the necessary sugars and protein that your body needs for recovery.

Wine: A great standby, wine can be the perfect dessert to wind down before bed as long as you don’t go overboard (no more than one glass). It might even lower your blood pressure and provide you with excellent antioxidants. Be careful though, alcohol can be known to stimulate appetites. If this describes you, it might be prudent to opt for a different dessert.

Tea or hot cocoa: Tea can be an excellent antioxidant filled option with virtually no calories (unless of course you take sugar and cream in your tea). If you are looking for something sweet, hot cocoa might fit the bill. It doesn’t have many nutritionally redeeming qualities, especially if you are making it with water not milk, but calorie-wise you aren’t doing much damage, and sometimes you just need something sweet.

So with these new tools to curb your nightly sweets craving, go forth and embrace the new year, knowing that a more healthful lifestyle isn’t out of reach.