Connect with us

Science

Too much screen time harms children, experts agree. So why do parents ignore them?

Published

on

Too much screen time harms children, experts agree. So why do parents ignore them?

Parents are bombarded with a dizzying list of orders when it comes to screen time and young children: No screens for babies under 18 months. Limit screens to one hour for children under 5. Only “high-quality” programming. No fast-paced apps. Don’t use screens to calm a fussy child. “Co-view” with your kid to interact while watching.

The stakes are high. Every few months it seems, a distressing study comes out linking screen time with a growing list of concerns for young children: Obesity. Behavioral problems. Sleep issues. Speech and developmental delays.

Maya Valree, the mother of a 3-year-old girl in Los Angeles, understands the risks and constantly worries about them. But limiting her daughter’s screen time to one hour feels impossible as she juggles life as a working parent, she said.

Over the past few years, her child’s screen time has ranged up to 2-3 hours a day, more than double the limit recommended by pediatricians. Valree puts on educational programming whenever possible, but it doesn’t capture her child’s attention as well as her favorites, Meekah and “The Powerpuff Girls.”

“Screen time is in the top three or five things to feel guilty about as a mom,” she said. “I’ve used it to pacify my daughter while cooking or working or catching up on anything personal or professional.”

Advertisement

Maya Valree works while her 3-year-old daughter watches screen time on an iPhone on Saturday in Los Angeles.

(Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

Valree is among the legions of parents who by choice or necessity allow their babies and preschoolers to watch several times more than the limit recommended by experts, creating a vast disconnect between the troubling predictions of harm and the reality of digital life for American families.

But her feelings of guilt may put Valree in the minority. Directives to limit the time young children spend on digital devices may not be taking root because many parents simply don’t believe their child’s screen time is a problem in the first place.

Advertisement

Parents need to have some type of distraction for their kids, and “screens tend to be the easiest option, the lowest hanging fruit,” said Dr. Whitney Casares, a Portland pediatrician and author of the book “Doing It All.” “I hear more people saying, ‘I know screen time is bad, I wish we had less of it in our family, but I feel helpless to change it.’”

Screen time use among older children made news last week, when the Los Angeles school board approved a cellphone ban all day on campus, and the U.S. surgeon general called for a warning on social media platforms advising parents that they can damage teenagers’ mental health.

Many families, however, support their children’s phone use for safety and education. For a generation of parents of who grew up with cellphones and computers, such sentiments appear to start with much younger children. A national survey of families with children 8 and younger found that the majority of parents believe screen time is a net positive — helping their children learn to read, boosting creativity and even improving their social skills.

Should children under 5 have screen time?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends families avoid screens for babies under 18 months, with the exception of video chatting. Parents who want to introduce digital media to toddlers ages 18-24 months should keep it very limited, choose high-quality educational programming, always watch alongside their children, and interact with their children both during and after watching.

For children ages 2-5, pediatricians recommend limiting screen time to one hour a day of high-quality programming that is educational, interactive and pro-social with few or no advertisements. Parents should avoid fast-paced programs, apps with distracting content and anything with violence. Whenever possible, they should co-view with their children to help them understand what they are seeing.

Advertisement
Maya Valree's 3-year old daughter watches an iPhone while her mother works.

Maya Valree’s 3-year old daughter watches screen time on an iPhone while her mother works on Saturday, June 22, 2024 in Los Angeles, CA.

(Zoe Cranfill/Los Angeles Times)

Pediatricians also recommend that children avoid screens during mealtimes and at least one hour before bedtime. When no one is watching the TV, it should be turned off. And parents should avoid regularly using screens to calm their child, because it can make it difficult to set limits and teach children to regulate their own emotions.

“We don’t want to be the scolds. It’s our job to provide information to parents but to also say we understand the reality of everyone’s current lifestyle. It’s just a different world now,” said Dr. Nusheen Ameenuddin, one of the authors of the academy’s policy statement. “[Parents] aren’t going to be perfect 100% of the time.”

Jacqueline Nesi, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Brown University and author of Techno Sapiens, said screen time limits need to be a balance. While there is evidence that endless screen time — especially more than four hours a day — can be harmful, Nesi said there aren’t data to support a strict one-hour cutoff.

Advertisement

“As parents we know life isn’t always aligned with the recommendations. We don’t want to throw them away, but we also don’t want to be in a place where we’re demonizing all screen time.”

What percentage of parents limit their kids’ screen time?

The most recent data available come from a national survey of nearly 1,500 families with children ages 8 and younger conducted by Common Sense Media in 2020, just weeks before the pandemic closures began. The survey found that few families were coming anywhere close to pediatricians’ recommended limits.

  • Children under 2 watch an average of 49 minutes of digital media a day, while the guidelines recommend avoiding screens for children under 2.
  • Children ages 2-4 watch an average of 2.5 hours a day, more than twice the limit recommended.
  • Children 5-8 watch just over three hours a day. The American Academy of Pediatricians does not provide strict time limits for school-aged children but advises parents to make sure screen time does not displace other activities.

The majority of parents surveyed reported that they’re not concerned about the amount of time their kids spend with screens, the impact screen media have on their child or the quality of the content available to them. The survey also asked about the reasons for children’s screen use: More than three-quarters of parents said “learning” was very or somewhat important, and more than half said parents need “time at home to get things done.”

For a generation of parents who grew up with cell phones and computers, letting kids indulge in a bit of phone or TV time doesn’t feel like a big deal.

Advertisement

Henja Flores, a mother of three in Fresno, said videos from YouTube sensation Ms. Rachel taught her toddler sign language and the ABC’s. “I use it as an educational thing, but also if I have to make lunch or dinner,” she said. She’s seen the headlines, but she lets her children watch two to three hours a day, as long as the shows don’t seem too overstimulating.

“I just don’t think it’s something parents need to stress about. Moms need breaks. Moms needs to get things done. As long as it’s helping, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it at all,” said Flores.

The Common Sense survey found screen habits varied by income level, race and ethnicity. In lower-income families, for example, children were watching an average of two more hours each day than those in higher-income families.

Advertisement

“For lower-income families there are going to be bigger barriers to limiting screen time. It takes a lot of time and work. Higher-income families are more likely to have high quality child care, which is very expensive in our country,” said Nesi. “Sometimes screen time is serving as that thing that’s going to keep your kid occupied and safe.”

Black parents and those in lower-income households were also much more likely than their higher-income or white counterparts to perceive educational benefits to their children from screen media. Latino parents, meanwhile, had the highest level of concern about the possible negative effects of media in their children’s futures.

Why do pediatricians want to limit children’s screen time?

The strongest evidence for avoiding excessive screen times involves the “opportunity cost” — the valuable learning opportunities children miss out on during the hours they spend on digital devices.

In order to develop cognitive, language, motor and social-emotional skills, young children need to experience the world hands-on — playing with toys, exploring outside, experimenting with different materials, and having back-and-forth interactions with nurturing caregivers, said Ameenuddin. When they are watching digital media, they lose that time to grow and learn.

 Maya Valree's 3-year old daughter plays with a toy laptop while her mother works.

Maya Valree’s 3-year old daughter plays with a toy laptop and watches a video while her mother works on Saturday, June 22, 2024 in Los Angeles, CA.

(Zoe Cranfill/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

This is particularly true for babies and toddlers, because there isn’t much evidence that they can learn through screens.

For preschoolers, there’s more evidence that educational shows like “Sesame Street” can help improve literacy and social development, but only in limited amounts. Heavy media use in the early years has been linked to a greater risk of obesity because these children often miss out on physical activity and outdoor time. They’re also more like to see advertisements for sugary foods and drinks.

Children who are watching screens also have fewer valuable interactions with caregivers and hear fewer words during the course of their days, which is linked to cognitive, language and social delays. Some studies have found evidence linking excessive screen time with behavioral issues such as ADHD, though the research did not show that one was actually caused by the other.

A bigger question is whether the screen time is changing the wiring of babies’ and young children’s brains. A small MRI study of preschoolers found that children who watched more than the recommended one hour a day had lower development in the brain’s white matter that supports language and early literacy skills. But Ameenuddin says the evidence isn’t clear yet that screens themselves are affecting brain development.

Advertisement

Is screen time harmful for babies?

Babies should be playing and exploring the world, not watching screens, experts advise.

In the first three years of life, more than 1 million neural connections are formed every second, and key to this development are the “serve and return” interactions between children and their caregivers, according to Harvard’s Center for the Developing Child. Babies babble and make faces and gestures, and the people who love them respond in kind. Without these important interactions, the brain’s architecture can’t form the way it should.

These sorts of interactions don’t happen through screens.

A recent Japanese study found that the more time a baby spent watching screens at age 1, the more likely they were to have developmental delays in communication and problem-solving at ages 2-4 — particularly when they watched more than four hours a day.

But Nesi, the psychiatry professor, said there’s no need to shield a baby’s eyes when in a room with a television on. “There’s a lot of fear messaging around this, and there’s no evidence to suggest that your baby catching a glance of a screen every once in a while could do harm.”

Advertisement

How can I make the most of screen time?

“There is a lot of incredible, cool stuff for kids to watch and do on screens,” said Jill Murphy, chief content officer at Common Sense Media, which offers quality ratings and media reviewsfor children. In general, Murphy says it’s safer to stick with branded content from a production company that’s intended for young children, which often have child development staff or advisors.

YouTube Kids requires more parental guidance, she said, and parents need to evaluate videos in advance. If they can’t, they should create a profile with a child’s selected interests and a set number of videos coming into the feed.

“Anything violent is a hard no for young kids, even if it’s play slapping or hitting each other with a stick,” said Murphy. “They’re very quick to mimic that behavior.”

A mom kisses her her 4-year-old daughter's cheek from behind, laughing as she pushes her away.

Are you a SoCal mom?

The L.A. Times early childhood team wants to connect with you! Find us in The Mamahood’s mom group on Facebook.

Share your perspective and ask us questions.

Advertisement

Researchers recommend age-appropriate programming that actively involves children by asking them questions, helps them make meaningful connections to their everyday lives, and includes “socially meaningful” characters they can get to know rather than a disembodied voice.

Murphy says parents should designate screen-free zones and times, and set clear limits around when screen time will end. And whenever possible, stick with high-quality educational content without commercials, like the kind found on PBS Kids, which has been found to lead to better behavioral outcomes and language skills.

Set boundaries, avoid screens around bedtime, and whenever possible, watch alongside your child.

Advertisement

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Science

What’s in a Name? For These Snails, Legal Protection

Published

on

What’s in a Name? For These Snails, Legal Protection

The sun had barely risen over the Pacific Ocean when a small motorboat carrying a team of Indigenous artisans and Mexican biologists dropped anchor in a rocky cove near Bahías de Huatulco.

Mauro Habacuc Avendaño Luis, one of the craftsmen, was the first to wade to shore. With an agility belying his age, he struck out over the boulders exposed by low tide. Crouching on a slippery ledge pounded by surf, he reached inside a crevice between two rocks. There, lodged among the urchins, was a snail with a knobby gray shell the size of a walnut. The sight might not dazzle tourists who travel here to see humpback whales, but for Mr. Avendaño, 85, these drab little mollusks represent a way of life.

Marine snails in the genus Plicopurpura are sacred to the Mixtec people of Pinotepa de Don Luis, a small town in southwestern Oaxaca. Men like Mr. Avendaño have been sustainably “milking” them for radiant purple dye for at least 1,500 years. The color suffuses Mixtec textiles and spiritual beliefs. Called tixinda, it symbolizes fertility and death, as well as mythic ties between lunar cycles, women and the sea.

The future of these traditions — and the fate of the snails — are uncertain. The mollusks are subject to intense poaching pressure despite federal protections intended to protect them. Fishermen break them (and the other mollusks they eat) open and sell the meat to local restaurants. Tourists who comb the beaches pluck snails off the rocks and toss them aside.

A severe earthquake in 2020 thrust formerly submerged parts of their habitat above sea level, fatally tossing other mollusks in the snail’s food web to the air, and making once inaccessible places more available to poachers.

Advertisement

Decades ago, dense clusters of snails the size of doorknobs were easy to find, according to Mr. Avendaño. “Full of snails,” he said, sweeping a calloused, violet-stained hand across the coves. Now, most of the snails he finds are small, just over an inch, and yield only a few milliliters of dye.

Continue Reading

Science

Video: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order

Published

on

Video: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order

new video loaded: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order

Bruce, a disabled kea parrot, is missing his top beak. The bird uses tools to keep himself healthy and developed a jousting technique that has made him the alpha male of his group.

By Meg Felling and Carl Zimmer

April 20, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

Contributor: Focus on the real causes of the shortage in hormone treatments

Published

on

Contributor: Focus on the real causes of the shortage in hormone treatments

For months now, menopausal women across the U.S. have been unable to fill prescriptions for the estradiol patch, a long-established and safe hormone treatment. The news media has whipped up a frenzy over this scarcity, warning of a long-lasting nationwide shortage. The problem is real — but the explanations in the media coverage miss the mark. Real solutions depend on an accurate understanding of the causes.

Reporters, pharmaceutical companies and even some doctors have blamed women for causing the shortage, saying they were inspired by a “menopause moment” that has driven unprecedented demand. Such framing does a dangerous disservice to essential health advocacy.

In this narrative, there has been unprecedented demand, and it is explained in part by the Food and Drug Administration’s recent removal of the “black-box warning” from estradiol patches’ packaging. That inaccurate (and, quite frankly, terrifying) label had been required since a 2002 announcement overstated the link between certain menopause hormone treatments and breast cancer. Right-sizing and rewording the warning was long overdue. But the trouble with this narrative is that even after the black-box warning was removed, there has not been unprecedented demand.

Around 40% of menopausal women were prescribed hormone treatments in some form before the 2002 announcement. Use plummeted in its aftermath, dipping to less than 5% in 2020 and just 1.8% in 2024. According to the most recent data, the number has now settled back at the 5% mark. Unprecedented? Hardly. Modest at best.

Nor is estradiol a new or complex drug; the patch formulation has existed for decades, and generic versions are widely manufactured. There is no exotic ingredient, no rare supply chain dependency, no fluke that explains why women are suddenly being told their pharmacy is out of stock month after month.

Advertisement

The story is far more an indictment of the broken insurance industry: market concentration, perverse incentives and the consequences of allowing insurance companies to own the pharmacy benefit managers that effectively control drug access for the majority of users. Three companies — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — manage 79% of all prescription drug claims in the United States. Those companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of three insurance behemoths: CVS Health, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group, respectively. This means that the same corporation that sells you your insurance plan also decides which drugs get covered, at what price, and whether your pharmacy can stock them. This is called vertical integration. In another era, we might have called it a cartel. The resulting problems are not unique to hormone treatments; they have affected widely used medications including blood thinners, inhalers and antibiotics. When a low-cost generic such as estradiol — a medication with no blockbuster profit margins and no patent protection — runs into friction in this system, the friction is not random. It is structural. Every decision in that chain is filtered through the same corporate profit motive. And when the drug in question is an off-patent estradiol patch that has negligible profit margins because of generic competition but requires logistical investment to keep consistently in stock? The math on “how much does this company care about ensuring access” is not complicated.

Unfortunately, there is little financial incentive to ensure smooth, consistent access. There is, however, significant financial incentive to steer patients toward branded alternatives, or simply to let supply tighten — because the companies aren’t losing much profit if sales of that product dwindle. This is not a conspiracy theory: The Federal Trade Commission noted this dynamic in a report that documented how pharmacy benefit managers’ practices inflate costs, reduce competition and harm patient access, particularly for independent pharmacies and for generic drugs.

Any claim that the estradiol patch shortage is meaningfully caused by more women now demanding hormone treatments is a distraction. It is also misogyny, pure and simple, to imply that the solution to the shortage is for women’s health advocates to dial it down and for women to temper their expectations. The scarcity of estradiol patches is the outcome of a broken system refusing to provide adequate supply.

Meanwhile, there are a few strategies to cope.

  • Ask your prescriber about alternatives. Estradiol is available in multiple formulations, including gel, spray, cream, oral tablet, vaginal ring and weekly transdermal patch, which is a different product from the twice-weekly patch and may be more consistently available depending on manufacturer and region.
  • Consider an online pharmacy. Many are doing a good job locating and filling these prescriptions from outside the pharmacy benefit manager system.
  • Call ahead. Patch shortages are inconsistent across regions and distributors. A call to pharmacies in your area, or a broader geographic radius if you’re able, can locate stock that your regular pharmacy doesn’t have.
  • Consider a compounding pharmacy. These sources can sometimes meet needs when commercially manufactured products are inaccessible. The hormones used are the same FDA-regulated bulk ingredients.

Beyond those Band-Aid solutions, more Americans need to fight for systemic change. The FTC report exists because Congress asked for it and committed to legislation that will address at least some of the problems. The FDA took action to change the labeling on estrogen in the face of citizen and medical experts’ pressure; it should do more now to demand transparency from patch manufacturers.

Most importantly, it is on all of us to call out the cracks in the current system. Instead of repeating “there’s a patch shortage” or a “surge in demand,” say that a shockingly small minority of menopausal women still even get hormonal treatments prescribed at all, and three drug companies control the vast majority of claims in this country. Those are the real problems that need real solutions.

Advertisement

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, the executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at New York University School of Law, is the author of the forthcoming book When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide. Suzanne Gilberg, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Los Angeles, is the author of “Menopause Bootcamp.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending