The Heart and Stroke Foundation Still Backpedaling on Trans-Fats

For long time readers, the Heart and Stroke Foundation hypocrisy highlighted here is not exactly going to be news. Newer readers on the other hand may find it surprsing.

You see the Heart and Stroke Foundation and most specifically their CEO Sally Brown are heavily entrenched in the war against trans-fats.

Only thing is, appeasement appears to be their battle cry.

Yesterday the trans-fat monitoring program coadministered by Health Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation released their year two findings.

The results?

Not surprisingly the non-regulated approach to removing trans-fat, referred to by Sally Brown in the past as a toxin unsafe in any amount, from our food supply is piecemeal at best. Still plenty of major transgressors and with no teeth to bite them and no incentives or disincentives other than market pressure (which does in fact amount to something - trans-fat free labels help sell foods), not much hope that anything real is going to happen anytime soon.

Of course none of this is a surprise to the Heart and Stroke Foundation's CEO Sally Brown as you'll see below, yet over the past few years, she has been very vocal about her support of this ridiculous voluntary approach afforded to industry.

One ray of light though - perhaps not everyone at the Heart and Stroke Foundation is as comfortable as Ms. Brown at dismissing the absolute need for regulation as Mr. Stephen Samis, the Scientific Director of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, last night on CBC televsion stated,

"We still do believe that the best way to regulate this across the country on a national scale is through regulation."

Below are a collection of posts from Ms Brown issued before the government decided to give Big Food the unconscionable gift of self-"regulation".

Frankly I feel badly for Ms. Brown, as I can't imagine that the woman who made the quotes below is truly ok with the charade of effort that has come to pass over the course of these past two years.

Here's some of what she had to say before she decided or was forced to kowtow to either Big Food or governmental pressure:

(By the way, the formal press release? Conducted at a Swiss Chalet. Nice to know the government and the Heart and Stroke Foundation think eating out is a good plan)

"Taking all the evidence into consideration, the task force agreed to a regulatory approach to effectively eliminate trans-fat in all processed foods"

Sally Brown, CBC News Jun. 28, 2006

The task force took many factors into consideration and was careful in choosing the limits and timeline that it did"

"When you're changing public policy, you have to come up with a solution that is doable, practical but meets your outcomes and that's what we very much tried to do"

"We believe if these regulations were promulgated, Canada would become a world leader in this area"

Sally Brown, Vancouver Sun Jun. 28th, 2006

"The problem is, without regulations, we won't get everyone on board and it's harder to get product changes. Unlike french fries, with something like doughnuts and chocolate bars, you have to take it out of the formulation which is more difficult. We needed regulations uniform across both sectors"

Sally Brown, Vancouver Sun Nov. 1st, 2006

"Trans fats are a "toxic" killer that need to be removed from the food chain as soon as possible"

"We know that the government is taking our recommendations very seriously, but we also know that they're getting some push back from industry who traditionally don't like regulatory approaches"

"Our argument is, if you don't regulate it, it'll be piecemeal"

"We also say that by regulating it, you're sending a signal to the marketplace to ... create healthier oils."

"We think we've given the government a great opportunity to implement what was a consensus report," she said. "[The food industry] supported all the recommendations, they're ready to act. Now we need the government to act."

Sally Brown, National Post Jan. 11th, 2007

"We don't understand why the federal government has not moved on this important health issue,"

"We want this toxin - which is what it is - removed from our food supply"

"Canadians are consuming on average 2.5 times the daily limit, and in some age groups, much higher than that"

Sally Brown, CNews, Apr. 5th, 2007

"could account for between 3,000 and 5,000 Canadian deaths annually from heart disease"

"The longer we wait, the more illness and in fact death will happen, so we know we have to get it out of our food supply"

"There is no safe amount of trans consumption, but many of these foods are well past recommended limits."

Sally Brown, The Windsor Star, Jun. 5, 2007

BRING BACK THE OLD SALLY BROWN!

Shocker - Kids' Foods aren't Healthy

Maybe that's why we're recommending they take cholesterol lowering medications at age 8?

A study, published in the July edition of Obesity Reviews, looked at 367 food products targeting Canadian children (products whose packaging had a cartoon on the front of the box and/or were tied to children's movies, TV shows or toys). The products did NOT include obviously unhealthy fare such as candy, soft drinks and baked goods. What the study analyzed was the food claims made on the label versus the actual product's nutritional value.

The results?

89% of products were classifiable as of, "poor nutritional quality" due to high levels of fat, sodium or sugar.

More importantly, 62% of those products deemed of poor nutritional quality had front of label claims (Health Check?) that made positive nutritional comments about the contents of the package.

The lesson learned here?

Our government needs to do more to regulate health claims on foods. Busy parents with or without a background in nutrition don't necessarily have the time (especially with kids in tow), to analyze each food label for themselves while shopping in a supermarket. Canada needs a robust front of package labeling program based on evidence based nutrition like ONQI to help protect Canadians against the outlandish claims that Health Canada allows on our food packaging.

And we need it yesterday.

Nova Scotia's School Food Policy

Working on an editorial with Dr. Rob Stevenson (hospital cafeteria crusading cardiologist out in Halifax) I have had the opportunity to review Nova Scotia's School Food Policy and for the most part, I've got nice things to say.

Unfortunately almost by definition the policy will have to follow Canada's Food Guide and consequently there are bound to be flaws and while I do have some issues with the specific foods mentioned in the accompanying document Food and Beverage Standards for Nova Scotia Public Schools (a fat-phobic, juice loving, calorie-ignorant document), the policy statement clearly shows both caring and thought.

Here's some of Nova Scotia's progressive thinking,

"School food and beverages should be served and sold primarily for the purposes of providing nutrition rather than for revenue generation"

"The business world is keenly aware of the potential to build preferences and cultivate brand loyalty by targeting schools that house a captive and impressionable audience of future consumers. Partnerships between schools and businesses can be mutually beneficial. However such partnerships work best when designed to meet identified health and educational needs rather than commercial motives"

"Schools will not use deep fat fryers to prepare food"

"When possible, schools should integrate nutrition education into other subject areas and activities beyond the classroom."

"School schedules should recognize that students need nourishment every 3-4 (I recommend 2-3) hours, based upon the time they would have last had an opportunity to eat. For example, students may benefit from a 10 minute break to eat a snack scheduled separately from recess, if possible."

"Effective September 2006, school staff and volunteers will not use food as a reinforcer or withhold food from students as a consequence."

But it's certainly not without warts and while certainly worthy of praise, there are two large areas where I feel Nova Scotia dropped the ball: They don't put a limitation on juice, despite calls from both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Pediatric Society to limit its consumption, and they recommend that children wait until they're hungry to eat.

As I've noted in this blog many times before, waiting until you're hungry to eat is not necessarily a great plan. We make different choices when we're hungry, both in terms of dietary content and quantity. If you don't believe me, head to a supermarket hungry or go to a restaurant hungry and compare your purchases and meals to going back on days you're not hungry. Good thing the policy includes snacking as consequently the likelihood of real hunger is markedly diminished through the use of snacks.

Me, I believe wholeheartedly in eating pre-emptively to avoid hunger rather than trying to outsmart over a hundred million years of evolution that has taught my body that if I'm hungry and I don't eat a lot, the ice age will get me.

All in all though, some forward looking thinking and free-from-industry recommendations.

Kudos to Nova Scotia.

He Ain't Heavy, He's my Canadian Public Service Executive

So thanks to a Canadian government public service executive that I have the pleasure of knowing I was tipped off to a report put out by the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada.

The report looked at various determinants of health and among them, obesity.

Specifically the report looked at self-reported rates of obesity (which are notoriously inaccurate in that people tend to report themselves as being lighter and taller than they actually are) and guess what? Being an executive in the public service in Canada's not too good for your weight.

How not good?

Well their rate of obesity is about 50% higher than the general population's rate. General population clocks in at around 23% obese while our public service executives clock in at over 36%.

That's not a small difference.

It's also not surprising. Having my office in Ottawa has had me involved in the care of many government executives and one thing's very striking about their lifestyles - there's a ton of travel and/or a ton of business meals. Consequently there's a ton of restaurants and if there's a ton of restaurants, there's probably a ton of Calories.

I wonder if they get danger pay?

[Hat tip to an anonymous and lovely bigwig who has done great and is no longer part of the 36%]

An Employment Lawyer's Take on the McDonald's "Human Rights Violation"

Last week I blogged about the "human rights" case involving a worker at McDonald's who was awarded $50,000 because McDonald's, a restaurant, had the audacity of not creating a job for the worker that did not involve handwashing - this despite the fact that in a McDonald's restaurant no such job exists.

In the comments section of my blog there were a few folks who were quite upset with my take on the situation.

They felt that I misunderstood the ruling.

I felt they misunderstood the ruling.

Apparently, the Financial Post sides with my take on the issue as today they weighed in on this "human rights violation".

It was Howard Levitt's Workplace Law column that took on the story.

He too felt that the ruling to "cease the discriminatory conduct or similar conduct and refrain from committing such conduct in the future." meant that McDonald's could no longer insist that their workers wash their hands and commented,

"One might think consumer safety should supercede the right of an employee with unclean hands!"

He also took issue with the notion that McDonald's should have created a job for this worker noting that the tribunal (Ms. Parrack) was well aware that there were no jobs that did not require handwashing,

"This is despite Ms. Parrack's acknowledging all jobs at Mc-Donald's require hand washing and, depending on how busy a section is, any position might quickly take over for another."

and that the Ms. Parrack also agreed that it may not be possible to create such a position.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Levitt has also called for a reigning in of these ridiculous tribunals.

Think Mr. Levitt is wrong?

Well feel free to take it up with him - you can write him at hlevitt(at)langmichener.ca

Before you do so however you should know that Howard Levitt probably knows a bit more than you about workplace law as he is an employment lawyer who practises in seven Canadian provinces, is recognized by the 6th Edition of The World's Leading Labour and Employment Lawyers published by Euromoney, is listed in all editions of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory as a leader in Employment & Labour Law, and is the author of Canada's leading dismissal text book, The Law of Dismissal in Canada and the recently published The Law of Dismissal for Human Resources Professionals.

Japan Penalizes Employers for Obese Workers

Who says governments can't get involved in the obesity fight?

Not Japan.

This month all Japanese employees over the age of 40 will undergo a mandatory "flab check" to ascertain their risk of developing metabolic syndrome - the constellation of high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL (good cholesterol) and insulin resistance.

The cut off for men will be 85cm or 33.5 inches (I couldn't find the cut off for women).

If you're found to be wider than the cut off you'll be given an exercise and diet plan and in some cases you might be referred to a doctor.

Japanese firms will be required to cut the number of overweight workers and their dependants by 10% by 2012 and those firms who fail to do so will face surcharges of up to 10% on contributions to a welfare fund for the elderly.

My take?

While I'm all for government involvement in obesity treatment and prevention, I don't think this is really the way to go. Penalties are not something I would ever want to see imposed and while one might argue they're penalizing the corporations not the individuals, I'll be curious to see what Japan's unemployment numbers do in 2012 when a bunch of obese folks get layed off before their corporations get penalized.

What do you think?

[Hat tip to my sister Michal and her colleague Josh]

Kids Agree Ontario's Trans-fat "Ban" is Useless

Some of my longer term readers may remember my take on Ontario's trans-fat "ban".

The word ban is in quotes because it's not actually a ban, it's just the removal of trans-fats from schools whereas a ban would involve removing it from the Province.

I called it shameless political hay and pointed out that banning it solely in schools will do nothing to decrease its consumption since you can buy it elsewhere and that it will have zero impact on the rates of childhood obesity since the currency of weight is calories and not trans-fats.

Interestingly, on the CTV blog who picked up my take on the story, I took some flak in their comments section. Readers were aghast that I was unable to see the good in the plan.

Well, today I'd like to share some comments with them. These comments come from a Durham region online news source's story on the trans-fat "ban". For the story the reporter interviewed some students about their take on the "ban". The kids were asked,

"How will the upcoming trans-fat ban affect you?"

You can see their responses in the articles sidebar, but I'm going to include them all here,

"I think it'll suck because I eat food there every day, I eat chips, chocolate bars, chickenburgers and cheeseburgers. I'll have to go to Pizza Nova or make my lunch and bring it in"

"it won't really affect me because I only eat large fries once a week, a cheeseburger once in a while, and Miss Vickie's jalapeno chips. I'll just eat that stuff when I get home."

"It won't affect me at all because I don't eat in the cafeteria very much. I eat a chickenburger or some chips once in a while. I think it'll be a good thing, though"

"I don't think it'll affect me because I don't buy lunch in the cafeteria.""

Yeah, that "ban"'s sure going to do a lot.

[Hat tip to our fitness director Rob]

More Canadian Health Hypocrisy

Four days ago, Tony Clement, Canada's Minister of Health announced that the Government of Canada was calling on an immediate ban on the sale of bisphenol-A containing bottles in Canada.

Why?

Well there have been some studies that suggest that there may be some risk to bisphenol-A, especially with newborns.

But I think the real reason why is because politically it's easy to do.

Certainly the science isn't there yet, and of course the government knows that too. Here's a quote from their own press release,

"The scientists concluded in this assessment that bisphenol A exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that may pose a risk"

But they want to be prudent. Here's Tony Clement on the matter,

"We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A, because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical."

So where's the hypocrisy?

Let's look at what Tony Clement and our government had to say about trans-fats - an absolutely proven to be harmful substance,

"We are giving industry two years to reduce trans fats to the lowest levels possible as recommended by the Trans Fat Task Force."

Our government needs to stop making policy on the basis of politics and instead make policy on the basis of evidence.

I guess the baby bottle industry lobby isn't as powerful as Big Food's.

[And before anyone gets themselves in knots regarding my personal stance on bisphenol-A (which I don't note above), you should know that my 15 month old now drinks from glass baby bottles. If there's no need to take a chance, why would I?

It's not that I'm suggesting the risk associated with BPA is or isn't a certainty, just that the evidence isn't in yet. The same cannot be said for trans-fats where the evidence is quite overwhelming, yet here's our government acting immediately on BPA and sitting on its trans-fat filled hands.]

Your Human Right NOT to Wash your Hands Working at McDonald's?

In Canada right now there is a great deal of scrutiny being cast on our country's various human rights tribunals.

The tribunals were established to help ensure that complainants who felt they were being discriminated against due to their race or sex could settle their disputes. Unfortunately it seems that over time these tribunals have extended their reach and now try to arbitrate many matters that you might have thought would have been beyond their purvey.

In the case of Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, they are trying to quash his freedom of speech. He is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for his magazines publication of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that led to riots in many Muslim countries. He's explicitly detailed his dealings with the courts and regardless of your political bent, it makes for fascinating and frightening reading. I'd start with this post of his and then work your way up from it (January 11th, 2008) in his archives.

So after that long tangent it brings me to Ezra's post from yesterday detailing the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruling that awarded a McDonald's employee almost $50,000 for apparently violating her "human right" to not wash her hands while she worked there. Here's a brief clip from Ezra's blog,

"Datt wouldn't wash her hands. She just wouldn't -- she said she couldn't. So her employment was terminated. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered that McDonald's pay her not only $23,000 for "lost income", but an additional $25,000 for her "dignity and self-respect". You see, in B.C. a food preparation worker's self-respect trumps a company's commitment to cleanliness. They violated her "human rights".

The $50,000+ penalty -- plus several years of legal fees and medical and rehab experts -- isn't the worst of it. Inventing a "human right" for a worker to go to the bathroom and then to handle meat without washing her hands in between, as an excuse for that $50,000 shakedown isn't the worst of it either.

The worst of it is that the BCHRT has ordered that McDonald's, in paragraph 298 of the decision, to "cease the discriminatory conduct or any similar conduct and refrain from committing the same or similar contravention."

While I'm not trying to diminish the medical condition of the complainant, I would think that certainly a restaurant has the right to fire someone who is unable to wash their hands especially given that it's actually the law as Ezra points out,

"In B.C., McDonald's hygiene policy isn't just a matter of corporate pride. It's a matter of the law -- both the Health Act and the Food Premises Regulations. And then there's B.C.'s Food Protection Guidelines issued by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control."

We live in a strange, strange world.

Bottom line on the matter?

Maybe it'd be best to avoid the McDonald's located on South West Marine Drive in Vancouver.

For a brief overview of this whole issue (human rights tribunals, not the McDonald's case), here's national treasure Rick Mercer's rant on the matter:

Children's Junk Food Ad Ban in Ontario?

We're one step closer.

Yesterday Ontario New Democrat Rosario Marchese introduced a private members bill that if passed would ban advertising of food and drinks to children under 13.

Proponents of the bill (myself included) recognize that banning advertising to children is a good idea in and of itself given that studies have proven that children (especially children under the age of 6), are unable to discern the difference between truth and advertising, and that there's simply no need to enable Big Food to hoodwink our kids into thinking junk food is healthy.

So who would be against this bill? Well Big Food and marketers.

Guess what?

In the media today you're going to see quotes from two organizations, a group shadily entitled, "The Concerned Children's Advertisers" which is an industry organization representing the interests of 16 Big Food corporations including General Mills, Kraft, Coca Cola and Pepsi and another group entitled the, "Media-Awareness Network" representing the interests of founding member Bell and supporter CTVGlobemedia.

What will they be saying about the proposed ad ban?

They'll be saying that:

There's no proof it'll help

In our day and age with the internet and satellite television even if we ban it in Ontario, it'll still trickle in

That Big Food has already voluntarily reduced targeted children's advertising

My take on those arguments?

1. There's no proof it'll help because it hasn't been done (except in Quebec where albeit minimally, they have the lowest rate of childhood obesity in the country) and frankly given the inability of young children to see the difference between truth and advertising, it doesn't matter. We shouldn't allow folks to prey on our children's innocence. Furthermore, the argument's longer version is the, "obesity it too complex to blame on one thing" argument which then effectively paralyzes action. As I've mentioned before, "no single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood". Junk food ads are certainly one fat raindrop.

2. Yes, there are still satellite televisions and the internet - so what? There's a heck of a lot of hard core pornography on the internet too, doesn't mean I want my kids watching commercials for it. Furthermore, as we're seeing with calls to ban trans-fats and post calories on menus, these types of things have a tendency to build on themselves.

3. Big Food's voluntary reduction? Read my post on their fantabulous initiative by clicking here.

Perhaps MPP Marchese said it best in a quote from an article in the Toronto Star,

"Some children's advertisers claim that you can't put a fence around the ocean to protect children. We're not trying to put a fence around the ocean, we're simply putting lifeguards on the beach where our children are just learning to swim."

What can you do?

Well if you live in Ontario you can contact your MPP and let them know that in fact your support Mr. Marchese's bill. If our MPPs feel there's enough public support, maybe, just maybe, the Trix rabbit will die.

(For a list of Ontario MPPs click here. If you don't know your electoral district you can click here. Unfortunately the government's postal code MPP search is down)

Health Canada's Latest Debacle - Your Role

Right now Health Canada is sitting down with Big Food and asking them directly how best to display front of package claims that for Big Food will generate sales and for Canadians will generate confusion.

On this blog in the past you've read about the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check and how front-of-package labeling, even when put forth by credible organizations, can in fact do more harm than good.

In the supermarket products scream out at you they're healthy, and not only do you have to navigate Health Check, but you've also got Pepsi Co.'s Smart Spot and Kraft's Sensible Solutions.

So is there anything you can do?

I suppose, if you're really keen, you can read the 124 page discussion paper by Health Canada and then submit your formal response back to them. If you'd like to do that, you can click here to head to the page where you can download the comments form and find the addresses as to where to send it.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest in their March 2008 issue of Nutrition Action suggests a simpler course.

They invite concerned Canadians to either write or email Tony Clement or fax their MP to demand that at the very least, Health Canada adopt a national front of label program that evaluated ALL of the products available in the supermarket reflecting both nutrition and ingredients.

They have a suggested wording that I've modified slightly and you can click here to email it to Minister Clement. The email will be copied to the folks running the current consultation process, and while of course you can modify the content as you see fit, here's what it will say,

As a concerned Canadian who cares about my health, I urge you to conduct a consultation and then require simple front-of-package nutrition labels on ALL foods. The labeling should reflect both nutrition and ingredients and should have a transparent and evidence-based basis derived in consultations free of the involvement of the food industry.

CSPI will also be mounting a Fax your MP campaign which I'll link here when it's available, but is not quite live yet.

You can also find your own MP and email the letter to them using this site and your postal code to find the appropriate email address.

While I'm not sure an email and fax campaign will help one thing's for certain - doing nothing will certainly do nothing.

Health Canada's Latest Debacle Part III

So today, thanks to a concerned and anonymous tipster, I'm going to take you on a tour of a typical table in Health Canada's latest consultation process involving putting health claims on fronts of packages.

Here's their description of the goings on at this Kangaroo consultation (edited only to remove identifying information),

"I recently attended Health Canada's stakeholder consultation workshops as they traveled around the country. I found out that industry representatives traveled along too to ensure that their voice as stakeholders was consistently heard. Health Canada wanted to know whether it would be a good idea to allow health claims substantiated by lower levels of evidence.

I personally think that health claims are more a marketing tool than a consumer education tool and lower levels of evidence will result in even more confusion for Canadians, who already seem to be confused about nutrition.

After you arrive, you are placed at a table and your table mates are pre-chosen for you, presumably so there is a wider variety of representatives at each table than might randomly occur. After hearing the presentations from Health Canada, you are asked to discuss a very specific question at your table.

One individual from each table (the group reporter) captures the responses on paper, as does a Health Canada staffer, and then this is reported to the larger group. The reporter tries to capture for the larger group what was said by putting it into their own words. If the reporter isn't equitable in capturing your opinion (which is likely given the time constraints), then it doesn't get captured. What this process does, in the end, is whittle away the issues to a few generic type bullet points.

I was shocked to find out that all opinions are not equally captured, and some are overtly ignored. Only those that represent the consensus at the table are. In other words, if your opinion is not mainstream, it isn't really captured. What is the point of having a diverse group of people come together?

I am bothered by the fact that: 1) The questions are so narrow that the answers are almost as well 2) The process captures only what the mainstream agrees on 3) Discussion about whether health claims actually do what they were intended to do - help Canadians eat better, is not addressed. 4)The most frequent responses carry the weight and the food industry is present at every meeting, not the average person.

And that's actually not even the meatiest parts.

Unfortunately my tipster is very concerned about remaining anonymous and therefore some of the more shocking bits had to be removed so as to ensure no identifiable information remained.

So to summarize, if your view differs from the majority at the table it will be as if you weren't even there as your view will not make it back to the official consultation record. And if the majority at the table represents Big Food, can you guess what the outcomes of these consultations will be?

No?

Well I'll tell you.

Health Canada will be able (just as it did with the Food Guide) to point at a poorly designed consultation process as proof that all views were heard, while Big Food will be allowed to ensure the best possible chance to have their positions adopted as a reflection of what the consultation process itself suggested was consensus.

Stay tuned tomorrow to hear about what you can do to make yourself heard (though after watching how Health Canada operates, unfortunately I'm not sure how much good it'll do).

Health Canada's Latest Debacle Part II

Today we'll be continuing our discussion of the current Health Canada consultation entitled, "Managing Health Claims for Foods in Canada: Towards a Modernized Framework" which is meant to set new rules as to what Big Food is allowed to print on fronts of packages to entice consumers to buy them.

So let me ask you, who do you think has the largest vested interest in what Health Canada ultimately recommends?

I'd love to tell you it was a highly organized establishment of health professionals and researchers whose aim it was to ensure that Canadians were given the best, most robust, evidence-based information possible to help with their dietary choices. You might think that such a group already existed and it was in fact Health Canada itself, but unfortunately you'd be sorely mistaken. While undoubtedly there are some outstanding folks over at Health Canada, somehow their contributions don't seem to make it to Health Canada's final products (witness our abysmal Food Guide).

Nope, the folks who care the most are of course Big Food who know that health claims on packages are remarkably effective at generating sales.

Knowing that, let's take a look at the current consultation process.

Right now they're in their, "multi-stakeholder" phase where they invite interested parties to give their opinions on what should and should not be included. In true Health Canada fashion, Big Food is formally invited to share their opinions. They're invited to share not just by way of letter or email submission (which I think would be entirely appropriate), they're invited to sit in on the consultation process itself and no doubt once there, they'll do everything in their power to spin tabled discussions to support their positions. That's an important distinction given that as noted in my post last Thursday, amazingly Health Canada is basically trying to decide whether or not to cater to Big Food's push for laxity in required evidence or instead to the pillar of any credible health claims system - evidence.

So let's say you as a fellow health care professional who cares about nutrition, or as a private citizen who's been reading this blog, let's say you wanted to put your two cents in. What would you have to do to be included in this consultation process?

Well, you'd have to read a dry 124 page document put out by Health Canada detailing the issue and then you'd either have to take a day off work to attend one of the regional consultation meetings or take the time to craft an email to send out to Health Canada.

In this hectic society, how many folks do you think would have the time to do either of those things?

I know if I took the time to attend a consultation, as someone who was self-employed, that'd be a day where I wasn't getting paid, and as a physician, a day where I wasn't able to help patients.

If you're not self-employed, I doubt many bosses would think that attending a Health Canada consultation on food labeling was a decent excuse to take off work.

Nope, not many private citizens are going to attend these meetings.

So who is going to attend these meetings? The folks paid to do so. Big Food, and a smattering of folks from public interest groups like the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and from various arms of government.

Big Food however will not only pay its employees to attend, it'll also pay for research into how to spin data to support its aims and pay to teach its employees how to best assert themselves and their views at their "multi-stakeholder" tables.

Basically at the end of the day, Big Food is going to spend a small fortune, training and equipping a legion of employees from coast to coast to inculcate and represent at all of the various consultation sites. Consequently, an average citizen, an independent health professional, or even a well-intentioned governmental health care researcher is simply not going to have the resources or the sheer manpower that Big Food has at their disposal.

Is that going to ultimately affect the recommendations that arise from the consultation process?

Of course.

By including Big Food in the consultation process, just as with the Food Guide, Health Canada has once again stacked the deck in Big Food's favour. As a result, Health Canada is likely going to shortchange the Canadian public by ultimately setting policies where the overrepresented interests of Big Food unfortunately end up supplanting best evidence.

Stay tuned tomorrow to hear a first hand account of how Big Food controls the consultations.

Health Canada's Next Debacle?

First we were handed a Food Guide that encouraged Canadians to consume cancer-causing red and processed meat, metabolic syndrome promoting refined carbohydrates, all the while giving no guidance whatsoever on how to control, look for, or understand obesity inducing calories.

So what now?

Currently Health Canada is in the midst of a "public" consultation process involving whether or not to increase the available claims that Big Food can place on packaging and thereby create as Dr. Brian Wansink would state, a Health Halo around the food and of course in so doing, increase its sales.

The consultation process is entitled, "Managing Health Claims for Foods in Canada: Towards a Modernized Framework" which by itself to me is worrisome as I'm not sure what "modernized" means but I'm pretty sure it's not synonymous with "evidence-based".

So what are we talking about here?

According to Health Canada a health claim is,

"any representation that states, suggests, or implies that a relationship exists between a food (or a constituent of that food) and health."

So what's the issue here?

Well of course Big Food wants it to be easier to put claims on foods while health professionals like me and nutritional advocacy groups like the Centre for Science in the Public Interest want it to be more difficult.

It absolutely boggles my mind that Health Canada has determined that we need a 2 year long process to sort out what's more important - the interests of industry or the interests of health?

In the 124 page discussion paper they spell out this conundrum directly on page 11 and although it's a long quotation, I'm going to put it all in,

"Some stakeholders feel that current standards are too uniformly rigorous, and should vary according to the level of risk represented by the product and the nature of the claim. This view is supported by industry pressure worldwide and, in Canada, by current application of the newly introduced Natural Health Products Regulations. According to this view, consumers would benefit from access to safe food products carrying health claims, even when their health benefits cannot be demonstrated with a high level of certainty.

Others believe that application of clear, consistent, high standards of evidence is the cornerstone of a credible health claim system. Their view is supported by international standards, by research that shows that consumers do not differentiate among claim wordings and do not necessarily respond to disclaimers and qualifications, and by concern that less well-substantiated claims may need to be withdrawn at a later date, and which may erode public confidence in the system.

Health Canada is seeking input on the appropriate level of substantiation for claims in light of the obligation not to mislead consumers."

My jaw hurts from hitting the floor every time I read those paragraphs.

So to paraphrase - Big Food is pressuring Health Canada to allow unsubstantiated health claims on food that international standards, a credible health care system and peer-reviewed research have shown consumers naively would accept whether accurate or not AND YET Health Canada is holding 2 years of public consultations to figure out which view to listen?

Wow that's messed up.

Stay tuned Monday to learn more about the actual consultation process from someone who's had the intestinal fortitude to sit through one of the regional consultation meetings.

Stupidest Cookies Ever?

"Zero trans fat!"

"Zero Cholesterol"

"Low in Saturated Fat!"

"A Source of Omega-3 Polyunsaturates!"

Yup, those are all the claims currently on the front of Voortman's phenomenally stupidly named, "Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs!" cookies and if the food industry has its way, there will soon be more.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I introduce you to the goings on behind the scenes at the current Happy Corporations (Health Canada) consultations into food labeling where surprise, surprise, the food industry has an invited seat to the table, the process is skewed dramatically in their favour, and with industry of course wanting it be made easier for them to make outlandish health claims on foods (health sells) in the absence of real evidence to support them.

When they have their way (unfortunately, I don't say if - I think it's likely a forgone conclusion that Health Canada will bend over for Big Food again) perhaps these cookies will have a statement to the effect of,

"Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. One serving of Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs! provides 0.5 grams of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids."

And then perhaps Voortman's will rename them, Omega-3 Super Heart Healthy-Ohs!.

Yum.

[Nutritionally per 2 cookies: 120 Calories and sugar is the first ingredient while the source of the omega 3s is ground flax which has not been shown to be as helpful as marine based omega 3s in cardiovascular disease prevention.]

[Hat tip to my lovely wife for buying the cookies, scanning in the package and ultimately returning them unopened to the store]

Ads Inside your Children's Schoolbuses?

If you live in South Carolina, that horrifying headline is about to come true.

According to Brandweek, the caring folks that make up the South Carolina Department of Education have sold out your children by allowing advertisers to pay school districts $2,100 per month per bus for an 11 inch strip of advertising above their school buses' windows.

Think it's unconscionable?

Clicking here will take you to a form to send Jim Rex, the elected Superintendent of Education in South Carolina, an email.

Or you can call his office at: 803.734.8500

Does everything always come down to money?

[Story and conceptual photo via the wonderful blog Consumerist]

Revived ParticipACTION Program Sells Out to Highest Bidder

So a kind email tipster alerted me to this new development that Canada's newly resuscitated ParticipACTION program will happily sell its logo and name to apparently whoever ponies up with some cash.

So wanna meet the new dream team?

Wrap your brains around this one - ParticipACTION and Coca Cola have teamed up to help promote activity to Canada's youth.

Last Tuesday the Coca Cola Company proudly announced the launch of something called The Torch Leadership Program, the mandate of which is to,

"to promote healthy active lifestyles among youth"

which is Big Food double speak for trying to shift the blame for obesity off of caloric intake (from tall, cold glasses of sugar for instance) to a lack of caloric expenditure.

But get this,

"Coca-Cola has retained ParticipACTION, Canada’s authority on active living, to lead the design of the program and to coordinate its delivery across Canada."

Some of my international readers might be wondering by now, "What the heck's ParticipACTION?".

Well ParticipACTION is now a federally funded phoenix program that uses mass media to try to get Canadians more active and currently has been dusted and polished with clarion calls to its renewed role in the fight against obesity.

(To give you an idea of how effective ParticipACTION is at fighting obesity just look to its track record. Prior to its 2007 rebirth ParticipACTION ran for 30 years from 1970-2000, three decades during which obesity rates in Canadian children rose by roughly 300%.)

So if you were unlike me and in fact remained optimistic that ParticipACTION might help make a difference I'm sorry to deflate your bubble, but as evidence to support my contention that ParticipACTION just doesn't get it and almost certainly won't help do anything to stem the tide of childhood obesity in Canada, here's their quobesigenic quote from the press release,

"ParticipACTION is the national voice for physical activity in Canada. We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with Coca-Cola Canada on its program to get Canadians moving more and to fight rising levels of inactivity among youth"

That quote by the way is from Kelly Murumets, the President and CEO of ParticipACTION, and she wasn't finished yet as she went on to state,

"We applaud Coca-Cola Canada for their leadership in using their Olympic sponsorship to inspire Canadians to adopt physical activity and sport as a way of life"

Already this January ParticipACTION has sold its logo to Weston Bakeries literally to be slapped on Wonder Bread and to Neilson's Dairy to be slapped on 2% and lower milk products (if anyone sees the logo on chocolate milk, please send it my way).

Yup, quite the dream teams.

Perhaps next we'll see the Canadian Lung Association sell its logo to Marlboro to help launch a bold new initiative aimed at decreasing urban air pollution?

Remember, nightmares are dreams.

Stupidest Idea Ever?

Meet Mississippi House of Representative Republicans W. T. Mayhall Jr., John Read and Bobby Shows. These are the gentleman that yesterday submitted perhaps the stupidest idea I've ever seen regarding obesity in the form of House Bill 282.

How stupid?

So stupid I felt compelled to post on Saturday.

So what did their collective brain-trust come up with?

Well they've proposed that the State of Mississippi make it illegal for restaurants to serve folks who are technically definable as obese (utilizing a BMI of 30 as a cut off).

In Mississippi, the fattest State in America, that would be more than 30% of the population.

Any restaurant who failed to do so would risk having their restaurant license revoked.

While I'm all for a top down approach to providing consumers with more information (like Calories on menus, proper education in schools and national eating guidelines that actually address the issue of obesity), blind, hateful bias helps no one.

Well boys, hope you're ready for the onslaught, because a move that stupid is going to take the blogosphere and media by storm.

To read their bill in its entirety, click here.

UPDATE: (February 4th) Thanks to Paul here's another great quote on the matter. This one's from Morgan Downey, the Executive Vice President of the Obesity Society. He referred to Bill-282 as,

"the most ill-conceived plan to address a public health crisis ever proposed"

I don't disagree.

[Hat tip to my sister Michal who actually popped this story over to me before it had hit the airwaves]

The McDiploma

No, it's not another report card scheme like the one I reported on a few weeks ago. Now, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority of England has awarded McDonald's restaurants the right to award the equivalent of an advanced high-school qualification as part of a governmental push to build skills in English youth.

Apparently McDonald's will train "students" in "basic staff management" and in their course work,

"cover everything the 7,000 managers of McDonald’s outlets across the country need to know for the day-to-day running of a McDonald's restaurant; from basic operational requirements to finance, marketing and HR."

Currently in England there are over 1,000 McDonald's restaurants.

Currently in England one in six 11 and 12 year olds is obese as are 1/4 of adults and as recently as two days ago experts in England predicted that obesity will soon be the number one cause of preventable death in their country.

Last week in England it was announced that 372 million pounds were being put aside to combat obesity.

Hmmmmmm, so let me get this straight England. Your country thinks obesity is about to become its number one preventable cause of death, your kids and adults are obese, there are tons of fast food restaurants all over and you've just pledged almost 400 million pounds to work on obesity treatment and prevention and yet you've also gone ahead and officially encouraged your country's obese youth to learn how to open more fast food franchises?

Brilliant?

Canadian Government thinks Dietitians are Useless

Or so it might seem.

Do you work for the Canadian Government? If you do, perhaps you'd like to call your HR department and ask them why it is that the federal government's health care insurance plans don't cover the services of a registered dietitian and while I can't speak for all provinces, neither does the plan for the Province of Ontario's government workers.

That sure seems a bit incongruent doesn't it?

After all, we know that the government worked closely with the Dietitians of Canada in the creation of the Food Guide and putting aside my various condemnations of the Guide's non-evidence based recommendations, doesn't it strike you as odd that while the government might feel dietitians are valuable contributors to counsel Health Canada on nutrition that they don't insist their insurers pay for individual dietetic consultations for their employees?

It's also odd given that the Canadian Government is well aware of the perils of obesity and the role of a healthy diet in the prevention of chronic disease.

David Butler Jones, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer has been heard to state that,

"with the rapid increase in obesity in young people, that this generation currently in childhood will be the first ever to experience poorer health than their parents"

and that,

"by increasing their levels of physical activity, improving eating habits and achieving healthy weights, Canadians can help ensure good health and prevent many chronic diseases, including some cancers, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke."

Tony Clement, our Minister of Health has stated,

"More than ever, Canadians understand the consequences of an unhealthy diet. We know that a bad diet and no exercise can lead to serious conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and certain types of cancer."

And it's not as if the government's insurance plan doesn't cover complementary health care and paramedical services. Both the federal and the province of Ontario's plans cover psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, chiropodists, audiologists and naturopaths. I'm told they even shell out for homeopathic consultations, a highly contentious practice desperately lacking in evidence-based results covered elegantly in the Guardian by Dr. Ben Goldacre and with mirth yesterday regarding its use in obesity treatment by Dr. J. on Calorie Lab.

If you'd like to complain to Tony Clement feel free to click on his name to send his office an email.

If you're looking to email David Butler-Jones, while according to his website the Chief Public Health Officer "welcomes your comments and suggestions", his office's website doesn't provide an email address to which to address them. Instead they provide a fill in the blank form to fill out and Dr. Butler-Jones' snail mail contacts. I was however able to find his phone number in the Government directory and so if you'd like to call him to discuss this just buzz (613)954-8524 or fax him at(613)954-8529.

If you work for the Canadian government, please share this post with your colleagues.

Anyone out there up for a petition?

UPDATE: A kind reader has forwarded Dr. Butler-Jones' email. Click his name if you'd like to share your thoughts.

UPDATE 2: Another kind reader has informed me that really the person in charge of these type of decisions is Mr. Vic Toews from the Treasure Board. If you'd like to email Vic Toews simply click his name.