GLP-1 prescribing rises among eight to 11-year-olds
GLP-1 prescriptions rose among children aged eight to 11 between January 2019 and June 2026, according to a study described in the Daily Mail. In a commentary published by the newspaper on 3 October 2026, clinical social worker and eating disorder specialist Kathryn Garland questioned how treatment might affect children’s development and their relationship with food.
The research, reported as published in Pediatrics, covered 3.5 million children whose body mass index was at or above the 95th percentile and who did not have diabetes. About 0.6 per cent — approximately 20,000 children, according to the newspaper’s account — received a prescription for a GLP-1 medicine.
Prescribing therefore remained uncommon within the group studied, despite increasing over the period. The account does not give annual prescribing figures or the size of the increase, so it cannot establish how rapidly use changed from one year to the next.
Nor does the supplied report identify which medicines were prescribed, their doses or how long children used them. A prescription count is not evidence of treatment outcomes: the figures alone cannot show whether children benefited, experienced adverse effects or continued taking the medicine.
Garland’s central concern was not that medication should never be considered. She acknowledged that some children have serious health conditions for which families and clinicians are seeking ways to reduce substantial medical risks.
Childhood GLP-1 treatment involves more than adult prescribing
GLP-1 medicines act on a hormone pathway involved in blood glucose regulation and appetite. Some are used for diabetes and some for weight management, with eligibility depending on the particular medicine, indication and age group. Evidence about one drug or population should not automatically be applied to another.
For children, BMI is interpreted in relation to age and sex rather than solely through the fixed thresholds used for adults. The study’s 95th-percentile threshold describes its selected population; it is not, by itself, a complete account of an individual child’s health or treatment needs.
Puberty adds another consideration. Body composition and fat distribution change during development, while children are also forming their understanding of their bodies and how other people perceive them. Garland argued that the meaning a child attaches to treatment deserves attention alongside its physical effects.
The prescribing figures should not be read as a description of NHS access. The Daily Mail account does not establish UK prescribing rates or NHS eligibility for the children discussed. Age-specific recommendations are a separate question, explored in our coverage of WHO advice on weight-loss injections for under-10s.
Kathryn Garland urges care over the messages children receive
Garland grounded her commentary in her own childhood experience of attending Weight Watchers with her mother at 11, in the early 1990s. She recalled asking to go and described her mother’s agreement as an attempt to help, rather than an intention to undermine her confidence or relationship with food.
Now a parent herself, Garland said the wish to protect a child from teasing and exclusion was understandable. Her concern was that a well-intentioned intervention could nevertheless leave a child believing that acceptance depended on losing weight.
She also drew a distinction between the dieting environment of her childhood and the scrutiny children can face through social media today. Changes in appearance may attract public judgement, adding another influence at a time when young people have limited control over decisions made about their care.
These were Garland’s clinical and personal concerns, not findings demonstrated by the prescribing study. Her commentary did not establish that GLP-1 treatment causes eating disorders. It argued that the longer-term relationship between these medicines, childhood development and eating disorder risk remains insufficiently understood.
The issue sits within a wider discussion about GLP-1 access and concerns among eating disorder specialists. Garland’s emphasis was on giving parents better information without blaming them for seeking help.
Research must address childhood treatment and stopping GLP-1s
Garland identified several questions for future evidence: how appetite suppression affects a developing child’s understanding of hunger and fullness, how clinicians should recognise vulnerability to disordered eating, and what happens when medication is stopped.
She also called for a clearer understanding of how weight loss or subsequent regain affects growing bodies. The account provides no child-specific estimate of regain after stopping treatment and no evidence-based stopping plan; adult experiences cannot resolve those questions for this age group.
Her proposed measure of health was broader than body weight, including whether children have energy, can concentrate at school and can participate in activities and relationships they value. These are aspects of daily life that families may want treatment discussions to address explicitly.
The commentary announced no prescribing change, new trial or timetable for further guidance. For now, its practical challenge is to keep children’s own experiences within the conversation, while being clear about what the available evidence does — and does not — tell families.
