Why Would a Hospital Serve Poutine?

One of the things I've learned from writing this blog is that make enough noise and have a strong enough case and you'll be amazed what can come of it.

Today I've got an example of a young new doc, using his voice.

Dr. Rob Stevenson, a cardiology resident at Dalhousie, recently wrote a column for the Chronicle Herald detailing his experiences with his hospital's cafeteria.

The QE II hospital's cafeteria had been featured in the news as students from a local school who had outlawed junk food, started showing up in the nearby hospital's cafeteria to eat the now comparatively junkier hospital food. In fact that picture up above was taken by Rob and shows a group of cardiologists and nurses heading over to the high school to see their healthy fare and a group of students heading out to the hospital cafeteria to get their french fry fix.

The QE II, in response to the bad press, apparently came out to state that cafeteria customers were adults, "who can make their own decisions" and that there were some, "healthy choices at point of sale".

Adults sure, but as Dr. Stevenson rightly points out,

"The customers of the QE II cafeterias are often patients and their families, in addition to many of my fellow workers at the hospital. The food is often consumed during the most stressful of times, and throughout long days, and nights in-house."

And about those healthy choices?

"I have been mostly aware of chips, cookies, doughnuts and chocolate bars – hardly a lasting image of sound nutrition."

The QE II has hemmed and hawed that changes will be coming sooner rather than later, but Dr. Stevenson wonders, why wait?

"Every day is the perfect day to stop serving fries and doughnuts. Every day is the perfect day for a health care institution to lead by healthy example."

No, it's not going to change obesity rates in Canada but I can't help but agree with Dr. Stevenson that hospitals have an obligation to patients to lead by example and to quote him again directly,

"On a daily basis, we physicians make recommendations to patients regarding lifestyle, and every day we battle with the poor food choices offered by vendors within the hospital. Why would any fried food (yes, doughnuts are fried) ever be available in a health care facility? Why would a hospital serve poutine?

Why indeed?

Kudos to Dr. Stevenson - I wish there were more docs like him willing to use their voices. Let's hope his noise affects change.

Stay tuned over the course of the next few weeks for more hospital cafeteria woes as I take you on a guided tour of Ottawa's offerings (hint, they're not any better).

UPDATE: For my international friends and readers who don't know what poutine is, it's french fries, smothered in cheese curds, smothered in gravy. Here's a representative picture.

More Proof We're Failing

We in this case being a global we.

What are we failing at?

We're failing at ensuring the translation of evidence-based nutrition into easy to understand public education.

So what has been done?

We've allowed Big Food to come into our schools, consultations, dietetic organizations, influence national dietary recommendations and in general use their considerable clout to keep consumers confused to the point of paralysis regarding what's healthy and what's not.

So why am I ranting today?

According to a survey conducted by the international market research firm Mintel, British consumers felt that a food package's "recycling credentials" were more important to them than salt content, sugar content or Calorie content.

Why?

Probably because the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much salt, sugar or Calories they should be consuming and therefore those values on packages are effectively meaningless, whereas recycling information is consumable.

Unfortunately to date, governments, dietetic organizations, and of course Big Food, have been loathe to provide folks with consumption maximums. Instead they've been content to rely on fluffy, wishy-washy statements like, "there are no bad foods", or downright stupid statements like our Food Guide's, "Eat the recommended amount and type of food each day."

How about statements like, "Try not to eat more Calories than you burn" along with a calculator to help you figure out how many that might be, or, "aim for less than 2,000mg of sodium daily", or "aim for less than 50g of sugar daily"

Until we actually educate folks how to interpret a food label with actual recommended maximums, we're really not going to get anywhere.

I suppose one good thing will come of it all and that is apparently our food packages, and hopefully our effectively useless Food Guide, will at the very least end up in their appropriate recycling bins.

Is Thin too Expensive?

I realize that at first glance, that may look like an odd question.

Recent research however, suggests that it might not be.

A recent study, by Pablo Monsivais and Adam Drewnowski published in the December 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Organization, looked at the relative cost per calorie of 372 "low energy dense" foods and "high energy dense" foods between 2004 and 2006.

Low energy dense foods would be foods that gram per gram have fewer calories. Fruits and vegetables would be the staples of the low-energy dense shopper.

High energy dense foods gram per gram have more calories and tend to therefore be foods high in fat and/or sugar. This is often the realm of junk food.

Ready for the important and even somewhat surprising results?

Low energy dense foods are much more expensive than high energy dense foods, and while that may not surprise you, the difference in cost may: The least energy dense foods cost $18.16/1,000 kcal as compared to only $1.76/1,000 kcal for foods that were the most energy dense.

Also incredibly important to note, inflation affected low energy dense and high energy dense foods very differently with the 2-year price change for the low energy dense foods being +19.5%, whereas the price change for the high energy dense foods being −1.8%.

So in summary, not only are low energy dense foods far more expensive, their comparative inflation rate over the course of the past two years was 400% higher than the general rate of food inflation and more than 2000% higher than the junkiest of foods.

Put another way, based on a 2,000 Calorie per day diet, if you choose primarily high energy dense foods your Calories will cost you $3.52 a day as compared with a diet consisting primarily of low energy dense foods that will cost you $36.32 a day.

Any wonder why we're getting bigger?

Wanna guess how long it'll be before the government steps in and subsidizes our health food baskets?

Never?

We're in really big trouble.

Slow-motion's Fun

Who knew?

Have a great weekend!

Hide, McRibs are Back!

Driving my daughter to school yesterday I noticed a billboard outside McDonald's trumpeting the limited return engagement of the Mc"Rib" to Canada.

You may be wondering why I'm using quotation marks surrounding the word rib.

Well, let's just say it's not really a rib.

It is however made up of pork.

It's basically processed pork pressed into a shape that resembles ribs replete with fake "bones".

That picture up above?

That picture's what a Mc"Rib" looks like when the sauce is washed off.

The picture below?

That's a cross-section closeup.

For more pictures, head over to Fast Food Facts for their full post on Deconstructing McRib.....just don't go on a full stomach.

[FYI: 490 calories, 1,040 mg sodium]

What Food Really Looks Like

A while back I linked to a website that took a bunch of fast food items and compared them to what they looked like in their advertisements.

Well today I've got a link to a German website that looked at over 100 store-bought products (with a few fast food items thrown in for good measure) and did the same thing.

Let's just say that food stylists (the folks who take pictures of these products) are really, really good at their jobs.

Here's a quick video short from that same German website.

Words of advice?

You don't want to buy the herring salad.

All You Can Eat Blue Jays!

So the trend of all-you-can-eat admission to baseball games has made it to the great white north.

To date this trend has pretty much been U.S. based and according to an article in the Toronto Star,

"Nearly half of the major league baseball teams in the U.S. have added the "all-inclusive" seats. Nine NHL teams offer them, six NBA teams have them and NASCAR is selling the tickets at several of its racetracks."

Hurray for Canada?

Want to be an early-adopter?

For just $39 you can watch the Jays take on the Kansas City Royals and "enjoy" all you can eat hot dogs, nachos, popcorn, peanuts and soft drinks.

Sorry, no pizza or beer for you.

Hope you can take your head out of the trough long enough to watch the game.

Buy your tickets here.

We Get Mail!

So early last week I blogged about my desire to see family-friendly checkout lines in Supermarkets - where magazines talking about sex and potentially contributing to body image disturbances, and candy were absent.

I also sent off an email to Loblaws (Canada's largest supermarket chain) and on Thursday received a response from Ms. Inge Van Den Berg, Loblaws' Vice President of Investor Relations.

I'll post the email below but here's the executive summary:

6 months ago Loblaws started testing what they call a "clutter-free" checkout aisle in their Milton Superstore.

Since then they have begun to experiment with further such aisles in 4 other Superstores and 3 regular stores.

They are also planning on converting additional stores, but the number and speed with which this will occur she can't say.

Now frankly I'm not against magazines and candy in checkouts, I just want an option where I don't have to face those with my family and ideally I'd love a family-only checkout line where not only might I avoid the candy and magazines, but one where perhaps it would allow me to get my bored little kids out even faster. While I'm not holding my breath, in a subsequent email exchange, Ms. Van Den Berg reported that she'd raise this possibility with her colleagues.

I'll likely check back with Ms. Van Den Berg in 6 months or so for an update.

Dear Dr. Freedhoff,

Thank you very much for your letter. We are glad that you like our Blue Menu product line. We have been receiving positive customer response to this product line and feel very strongly about providing healthy food alternatives to our customers. We share your concerns regarding health matters and have publicly identified one of our eight growth drivers as being "health, home and wholesome" focused.

Regarding your concern about 'child-friendly' checkout aisles, as you may know we have been testing a clutter-free checkout aisle in our Milton Superstore since September of 2007 and have received very positive feedback from our customers regarding these checkouts. Since then, we have begun to convert several store checkouts to this no candy, no magazine design. Currently we have 4 of our Superstores and 3 of our Great Food (conventional) stores using this clutter-free design. We are planning to convert additional checkouts to this clutter-free format, but the timing and full extent of conversion has not yet been finalized. It is too soon to indicate if or when all of our stores will be converted to this clutter-free design, but the customer response to date has been positive and we will continue to monitor response as we continue conversions. Our largest Hard Discount banner, nofrills, does not display magazines at their checkouts. We have not begun testing the full clutter-free checkouts in the remaining Hard Discount stores yet. We do offer self-scanning checkout lanes in 177 of our stores. These self-scanning checkouts are primarily magazine and confectionery free where possible. We are continuing to rollout more self-scanning checkout lanes, with a goal to have them all clutter-free. As you mentioned, these lanes are an option for customers to avoid the candy and magazines in other checkout lanes.

Just so that you are aware, in the stores that we have clutter-free checkouts, we still retain a magazine section and confectionery section nearby the checkouts (often across from one of the checkouts or to the side). We offer these products to our customers, as there are many customers that do want to purchase them. Therefore we do rely on parents to manage their shopping trip around those areas, if they are concerned about the products' impact on their children. We believe this is an acceptable shared responsibility.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.

Regards,

Inge

Inge van den Berg

Vice President, Investor Relations

Loblaw Companies Limited 1 President's Choice Circle Brampton, ON L6Y 5S5 1-905-459-2500

Fight or Flight?

It's an interesting question, and until you're in a situation where instinct takes over, you'll probably never know which way you'll go.

Tyrone on the other hand, well, he's pretty clear cut.

Today for Funny Friday is why it's probably best to think your pranks through before you pull the trigger and why you probably shouldn't scare Tyrone (be forewarned, clip involves a punch).

Have a great weekend!

A BSc. in Obesity?

Yup.

According to a newspaper report in yesterday's National Post, the Univesity of Guelph and Humber College are teaming up to create a 4 year degree program in obesity.

To start next fall, the program will aim to train students to work with the obese through courses on nutrition, exercise science, anatomy and "the science behind obesity related diseases".

Graduates will receive two degrees: A BSc. in kinesiology from Guelph and a diploma in fitness and health promotion from Humber College. According to the University of Guelph's press release they will then be,

"qualified to work as personal trainers, kinesiologists, wellness consultants and fitness practitioners in both clinical and rehabilitation settings."

For me, this hammers home two messages:

Firstly, that clearly there's a crying need for more health professionals trained in obesity management.

Secondly, that medical schools and residency programs are failing our obese patients.

Frankly in an ideal world, I don't think obesity management should be a University course. The reason you don't see 4 year degrees in blood pressure or diabetes is because doctors are taught how to adequately manage those conditions in medical school and residency. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for obesity.

In my ideal world obesity medicine would be a sub specialty program within the department of Family Medicine and/or a real 5 year physician specialist program.

If you're interested in the course, you'd better have good grades - they've already received 430 applications for the 60 available spots.

Pediatrician Peddles "Herbal" Water

Introducing Ayala's Herbal Water; a "naturally enhanced flavored water".

Flavors include: Lemongrass mint vanilla, lavender mint lemongrass thyme, jasmine vanilla, cloves cardamom cinnamon, cinammon orange peel and ginger lemon peel.

So who's Ayala?

She's Dr Ayala Laufer Cahana, a pediatrician and medical geneticist from Wynnewood Pennsylvania and she also writes her own blog on nutrition.

Peeking at her blog she seems to be all about evidence-based medicine as she links back to studies on the safety of vitamin supplements, nutrition and cancer, diet soda and many more.

But if she's so keen on evidence based medicine, how come she put out a press release for her water that included the following statements,

"The new water is all natural, has zero calories, zero artificial additives and zero preservatives, and features the complex and sophisticated flavors derived from herbs which also bring all the health benefits associated with antioxidants."

and,

"For centuries herbs have been enjoyed around the world and are known for their healing powers. Some of the herbs used in producing the Ayala's Herbal Water have been known to aid digestion, improve blood glucose levels, strengthen immunity, reduce insomnia, stress, and help maintain healthy LDL cholesterol levels."

Her ads also tout the fact that it was, "created by a pediatrician".

Now I'm all for water and have nothing against herbs, but it strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical, exceedingly misleading and an abuse of public trust to use your MD to promote water with a smidgen of herbs as being something specially formulated by you with explicit inferences that the herbs infused will help improve multiple medical conditions.

Worse still coming from a doctor whose blog at least suggests, understands the astronomical difference between evidence and inference, yet seems to be relying on the fact that most consumers don't to sell her product.

Does Playing the Nintendo Wii Really Burn Calories?

Not so much.

Despite the hoopla surrounding the Nintendo Wii in a putative role in the fight against childhood obesity, the first published study looking at calorie expenditure during gameplay suggests it's far from a prize fighter.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal (and sponsored by Nintendo) took 11 children aged 13-15 and compared their caloric expenditures playing Wii Sports vs. those playing a sedentary XBox 360 title.

The results?

Per hour of Wii sports you can expect to burn an additional 60 Calories.

To put this into perspective it would therefore take your child nearly 60 hours of playing the Wii to burn off a single pound worth of Calories.

Bottom line - Wiis are for fun, not for weight loss.

Oh, and the above's all assuming you are active when playing your Wii - something that the following video demonstrates is in fact not really necessary.

Child-Friendly Grocery Stores?

I'm just starting to hear some whispers of a new trend in supermarkets - the child-friendly checkout aisle.

Are checkout aisles currently child unfriendly?

Ummmmm yeah I'd say so.

Turn to your right and you're surrounded by candy. Turn to your left and you're surrounded by glossy diet magazines, gossip and stories about how to be sexier in bed.

Remove the candy and the magazines and voila - child-friendly checkout.

To that end, yesterday I sent off a letter to Loblaws (Canada's largest grocery store chain) asking them to consider making at least one checkout aisle per store child friendly. I'll be sure to share their response with you.

If you'd like to send a letter in support of this idea, feel free to click here to email customer service and investor relations at Loblaws

Here's mine,

Dear Loblaws,

I know health matters to you. Your President's Choice Blue Menu line, overseen by Dr. David Jenkins, is a great example of how the food industry can partner up with health professionals to provide consumers with generally healthier choices, all the while helping the food industry with sales.

I'm writing to ask you for your comments on a growing trend in Supermarkets and that would be the existence of "child-friendly" checkout lines where confections and magazines were not part of the walk-through experience.

Confection wise - we live in a world where childhood obesity is on the rise. While I certainly don't lay blame on checkout lines for rising rates, for parents harried by bored children to buy them a chocolate bar giving in is often the easiest option. Not being surrounded by chocolate and candy options while waiting to check-out certainly would decrease the frequency of this happening and potentially make family shopping a healthier, calmer, more pleasant experience.

Glossy magazine wise - the media dramatically influences our children's body images and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of their early exposure to such magazines may take place in supermarket checkout lines. Unhealthy body images abound in young children with studies suggesting that half of young girls aged 6 and above want to change their appearances. Given that the bulk of the glossy magazines in checkout aisles detail how to flatten, firm, or trim various body parts along with photos of the requisite ultra-slim model, navigating these lines can be difficult. There's also really no need for my young daughters to read headlines such as, "Sex Shockers Things He Doesn't Know About During the Deed That you Really Really Need to Know", "How Long Should You Wait to Sleep with a Guy?", "The Harmless Habits that Turn Men off to you", and "Naughty Sex Tricks (Let out your inner bad girl)". Those headlines by the way all come from the April 2007 edition of Cosmopolitan magazine.

Having at least one family friendly checkout line per store would allow concerned parents the ability to stand in a child-safe line, and may in turn increase traffic to your store, help your customers improve the health of their families and most certainly would be something news worthy.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter as are the readers of my blog where I've also posted this letter.

Sincerely,
Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, MD CCFP Dip ABBM
Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute

Improv Everywhere's Food Court Musical

If you're not familiar with Improv Everywhere, they're a group of folks who organize spontaneous, and often amusing, improv skits and schemes.

Today for Funny Friday is their latest posting entitled Food Court Musical where 16 seemingly random people in a shopping mall's food court spontaneously launched into a Broadway musical style song.

Have a great weekend!

KFC - Where 43% of Your Chicken's not Chicken!

My friend Julie Van Rosendaal who writes the blogs It Must Have Been Something I Ate and Dinner with Julie sent me something truly wild.

It's a PDF from KFC that details the ingredients of their menu items.

The ingredients themselves are a veritable witch's brew of preservatives and items meant to improve things like the mouthfeel of food with such things as sodium stearoyl lactylate, calcium peroxide, xanthan gum, sodium benzoate, carrageenan and many more.

The best part though is the "chicken".

Why is the word chicken in quotations?

How 'bout if I told you that 43% of the ingredient known as chicken in KFC's chicken strip wasn't chicken?

What is it?

I'll let the Colonel explain,

"Chicken Breast Strips Containing up to 43% of a Solution of: Water, Seasoning (Soy Protein Concentrate, Salt, Rice Starch, Carrageenan, Dextrose, Onion Powder, Dehydrated Chicken Broth, Maltodextrin, Spice Extractives), Sodium Phosphate. Breaded with: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Garlic Powder, Citric Acid, Enriched Wheat Flour (Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Natural Flavor, Maltodextrin, Sugar, Corn Syrup Solids, Wit Not More Than 2% Calcium Silicate Added as an Anti Caking Agent."

Mmmmmmmmmmm, 43% not-chicken slurry.

Thanks Julie, and thanks KFC - you're always a pleasure to blog about!

Front of Cookie Labeling!

So this is a follow-up post to my Stupidest Cookies Ever? post that looked at Voortman's Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs.

A kind reader (who'd like to remain wholly anonymous) was gracious enough to bring me an Omega 3 Zeer-Oh because lo and behold, printed smack dab in the middle of the fake Oreo (click the picture to enlarge it for a better look) are the words,

"Zero Trans Fats"

So Voortman's has basically thrown down the gauntlet here. I challenge anyone to find me a stupider (yes, I realize that's not a real word) cookie!

Interesting TV Show Alert

Airing tonight at 10pm EST on CBC Newsworld's The Lens is a show entitled, "My Big Fat Diet".

My Big Fat Diet chronicles a fascinating experiment whereby a small Canadian community of Namgis First Nations give up their westernized diets for a year and return to their roots eating much more traditional first nation fares.

Basically the entire community goes on Atkins.

What happens next doesn't surprise me, but will sure make for great television and research.

The community loses weight - lots of it. They also get healthier.

The lens has a fabulous website with a tremendous amount of information on the show and if you'd like to watch a clip before tonight, simply click here.

Dream of Becoming a Professional Gurgitator?

Well if you've got a Nintendo Wii, your dream may soon come true with the release of their Major League Eating: The Game title.

The game aims to bring you the world of competitive eating to the comforts of your own living rooms.

Why you ask? Why would anyone want to pretend to be a competitive eater?

Well according to the press release,

"Professional gurgitators have the grace of ballerinas yet the brute strength, mental focus, and intestinal fortitude to push their bodies and minds as hard as athletes in any other extreme endurance sport. Victory is sweet and defeat can be well, really, really messy. It's an experience we're proud to help bring into the home."

So it's on the Wii, will you have to swallow the controllers?

Nope. But you will have to,

"master a smorgasbord of offensive and defensive weapons including bites, burps, belches, mustard gas and jalapeño flames while cramming and chewing food at a world-class pace"

How lovely.

Nutella Goes Too Far

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority recently upheld 53 complaints about a Nutella commercial that tried to spin Nutella as healthy and good for children.

Nutella, with 2.5 teaspoons of sugar per tablespoon of spread, was promoted in the commercial to parents with a voiceover that extolled,

"Surprisingly, each jar contains 52 hazelnuts, the equivalent of a glass of skimmed milk and some cocoa"

with the next voiceover stating,

"Nutella releases energy slowly, so it can be part of a balanced breakfast"

Wow, do the math and you'll find that along with the 52 hazelnuts, each 400g jar of Nutella contains 60 teaspoons of sugar (that's roughly 1.5 cups of sugar - the same amount you'd find in 2 litres of Coca Cola (for the Americans, that's half a gallon)).

Nutella's defense?

According to their press release,

"We took the advice of independent expert nutritionists who; based on the Food Standards Agency "Eat Well plate" nutritional guidelines determined that Nutella Hazelnut Spread could form part of a balanced breakfast"

Made for Canada translation? The Food Guide made us do it.

What does Nutella Canada have to say?

"Mom's across Canada choose Nutella as part of a nutritious and delicious breakfast to give their kids a great start to their day!

Nutella combines the magic of these ingredients into a unique and yummy recipe that kids love. And with no artificial colours and no preservatives, it's easy to feel good about serving Nutella to your kids and helping them spread some energy"

I guess "energy" is Big Food speak for "sugar".

[Hat tip to Cathy in Edmonton for pointing me to the story]

I'm Just Not Drunk Enough

Thanks to Google and Blogger this was quite a week!

Over 10,000 hits over the past 3 days alone.

So for all of my new subscribers, let me explain what happens on Fridays. On Fridays, I take a day off the serious stuff and try to post something, well, funny. This week is no exception and I've got a great video from Catherine Tate of the BBC telling it like it is.

Have a great weekend!

[Unfortunately for email subscribers that usually means a blank box at the end of the email. To watch the video, just head over to the blog.]

Pre-Schooler Hot Chocolate Hack

With over 12 feet of snow falling this winter thus far in Ottawa there have been many occasions where my sweet 3.5 year old daughter has come inside rosy-nosed and cheeked looking for hot chocolate.

Given what I do and my views on sugar and calories, you might imagine that hot chocolate is not on my list of healthy go-to beverages (it's a pretty short list - water).

So what's an obesity medicine doctor to do?

One option which we do when we're out is not care too much - she's a healthy kid, with a healthy weight and a little hot chocolate now and then is part of growing up.

Of course in our home, well things are much more controllable and that's where my wife's pre-schooler hot chocolate hack comes in handy.

It's an easy one.

She uses espresso cups.

Perfect size for my tiny daughter (who also loves the tiny daintiness of the cup) and provides her with a treat that's quite calorie controlled.

So for context, the average "packet" of hot chocolate combined with 6oz of water would contain roughly 120 calorie and 5 teaspoons of sugar. Make it with 6oz of skim milk and now you're up to 190 calories - buy it at Tim Horton's and you've got 240.

My wife's recipe - 34 Calories and piles of cute.

1/4 teaspoon Caotina (crazy rich chocolate drink mix) (4 calories)
1/4 cup skim milk (23 Calories)
5 mini marshmallows (7 Calories)

Welcome Google!

I want to welcome the folks arriving from the Google Blogs of Note blog!

I'm a Canadian family doctor with a focus in obesity medicine and my blog Weighty Matters tries to look at obesity, the media and nutrition from what I feel to be a common sense, realistic and hopefully at least sometimes, a humourous manner.

Enjoy yourselves, poke around and hope to see you again soon.

Best regards,
Yoni

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.

President Elect of the Obesity Society Resigns

Regular readers will remember a post from a few weeks ago detailing how the Dr. David Allison, President Elect of the Obesity Society, in a paid testimony for the New York Restaurant Association, asserted that he felt that posting Calories on menus would be ineffective at combating obesity and potentially even detrimental to the fight.

Shocked members (myself included) were appalled to see Dr. Allison comfortable asserting something was ineffective and potentially detrimental in the absence of evidence suggesting his assertion was true. Furthermore many Society members were furious that he did so under the banner of the Obesity Society.

The Society quickly issued a press release detailing their support for placement of Calories on menus and just a few moments ago I received an email from Dr. Allison containing his resignation from the post of the Society's President-Elect. Dr. Allison noted in his letter that with his testimony he had lost the will of the people who had voted for him and that would have greatly undermined his ability to lead this wonderful organization.

Kudos to Dr. Allison for stepping down. It was certainly the right thing for him to do and I'm sure it was done with a very heavy heart.

When Life Gives you Lemons.....

Give them to babies?

Turns out, there aren't too many things funnier than happy babies eating lemons?

Don't believe me? Take a peek at today's Funny Friday clip.

Have a great weekend!

[Hat tip goes to BMI's own Lorne]

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]

Feng Shui at McDonald's?

Huh?

According to the press release,

"The restaurant combines elements of water located on the exterior of the dining area, symbolizing life and relaxation, with elements of fire and red accents throughout the dining area to symbolize good luck, laughter and light. The dining area also features symmetrically balanced seating arrangements in earth tone shades, pendant lights to warm up the interior, an elevated PlayPlace and three plasma televisions."

Because nothing says Feng Shui like plasma screen televisions?

So why Feng Shui? According to owner/operator Mark Brownstein,

"We chose a Feng Shui design that creates a soothing environment for our customers to better enjoy their dining experience"

Huh?

Dining experience?

People "dine" at McDonald's?

Wouldn't even the weakest definition of "dining" include cutlery?

Only in LA.

[Photo via Eater]

A New Form of Child Abuse?

This past December my family spent some time away from Ottawa's frigid temperatures on Florida's Sanibel Island.

On the island is the original Cheeburger, Cheeburger a burger joint likely named after the goings on in the classic Saturday Night Live John Belushi skit, Olympia Cafe. Cheeburger, Cheeburger now has over 80 locations across America and their motto is, "Big is Better".

Walk inside and immediately you'll see their Wall of Fame where folks who eat their 1lb burger are immortalized by Polaroid and pinned in pride to a wall of cork.

They also have another wall of fame - the Kids Wall of Fame where kids under 12 who eat a 1/2lb burger have their own wall of "pride".

Looking at the pictures of the kids, many look to me to be in the neighbourhood of 6-10 years old and sadly I'm sure the vast majority of their parents likely provided a great deal of encouragement and reinforcement in teaching their child that eating far more in a sitting than they'd ever need to is an accomplishment worthy of parental pride.

I know, I know, I'm a stick in the mud and it's all in good fun, yet over the past 30 years, American childhood obesity has quadrupled for children ages 6–11 (from 4 to 19 percent) and while I don't think it's all because of Cheeburger, Cheeburger (who by the way make absolutely fantastic burgers), I do think a great deal does have to do with parents who encourage unhealthy eating and sedentary behaviours through poor role modeling, and in cases like this, through what I would describe as overt gastronomic child abuse.

Me? I'd love to see another wall up in Cheeburger, Cheeburger. I'd call it the Parents Wall of Shame and I'd take the picture of any parent who encouraged and allowed their child to gorge unnecessarily, all the while cheering them on, and then I'd post that picture for all the world to see what woe-derful parents they are.


[Hat tip to my father for taking the pictures after we'd left the island, to Ronnie for lending him his camera and to my wife for noticing the walls while she picked up our takeout]

Don't play Rock, Paper, Scissors in Japan

They apparently take it very, very seriously!

Have a great weekend and happy Funny Friday!

[Hat tip to our fitness director Rob]

Flintstones Style Human Powered Car On Its Way!

Fittingly it's called the "Human Car" and for only $15,000 you and three of your fittest friends can go cruising, gas-free, and make lots of new friends on your way.

The chassis is designed to travel at "unlimited speed", and while going downhill in the video looks like great fun, I imagine climbing it may be less so.

Good news is that the production model will be a "Human-Electric" hybrid so the ups won't be quite so bad.

Preorders are being collected on their website, though I'm guessing demand won't outstrip supply too quickly.

Maybe you shouldn't have a lemon with your drink

This has been floating around the net for a while, however I only first saw it yesterday.

Apparently lemons in restaurants are covered in bacteria.

Now that's not in and of itself a surprise as pretty much everything is covered in bacteria, but the fecal bacteria, those I'd rather avoid.

Watch the video and decide for yourself.

Me? I think I may forgo the lemons.

[Hat tip to my friend and colleague Hillel]

Kellogg's Frosted Flakes Gold

The press release reads,

"Kellogg's Frosted Flakes Gold(TM) is one example of Kellogg Company's continued commitment to provide better-for-you options that moms can feel good about."

While Kellogg's Director of Nutrition Marketing (there's an evil sounding moniker) Jennifer Garrett says,

"Kellogg's Frosted Flakes Gold(TM) offers better-for-you nutrition that will satisfy moms and a great taste that kids will love"

Better for you than what Jennifer?

Better for you than regular Frosted Flakes?

Not so sure.

Better than a bowl filled with white sugar?

Probably.

Good for you?

Probably a stretch.

Compared with regular Frosted Flakes your added benefits include 1 whole gram less of sugar (1/4 of a teaspoon less), 1 whole gram more protein and 2 whole grams more fibre.

Oh, and compared to regular Frosted Flakes the Gold version also has 36% more salt.

Similarities include sugar being the second ingredient on both, identical calories, and identical micro-nutrient breakdowns.

The press release also expounds on the fact that they're "baked with honey" as if that's a healthier and more nutritious form of sugar.

Sugar is sugar, God sugar, man sugar and bee sugar - they're all just sugar.

My advice - if you happen to try them and love the taste, eat 'em, but please don't buy them because you think they're better for you than other sugary cereals 'cause they're not.

Sign of the Times - Boy Scouts Healthy Eating Badge

If you're a Beaver Scout in the UK, check out the new badge - it's the Healthy Eating activity badge.

Not sure what it says about society. Maybe this is a great idea. Of course even if it is, it makes me a little sad.

Our world is spiraling faster and faster away from healthy living.

Even if you think it sounds like a great idea, what does the eager Beaver Scout need to do to get the badge?

According to ScoutBase UK he's got to:

1. Make a fruit salad
2. Make a healthy snack
3. Make two different sandwiches
4. List some unhealthy foods

Wanna know what they think a healthy snack is (emphasis is mine not theirs)?

"Examples of healthy snacks include omelette, salad, mini pizzas, strawberry smoothie, homemade meatballs, etc."

Yup, it's a strange world alright.

Finally, an effortless form of exercise!

This one's for the men only.

Today for Funny Friday I'm bringing you a clip of how you can get your heart rate up to 180 beats per minutes without actually breaking a sweat!

Can't say I'd recommend this form of "exercise" though. The question that leaps to my mind is, "Who the heck would volunteer for this experiment?"

Have a great weekend!

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]

Are You Fated to be Fat?

A study was published last week to a great deal of media fanfare.

The study Evidence for a strong genetic influence on childhood adiposity despite the force of the obesogenic environment, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, details twin analyses whereby 5,092 twin pairs (some identical, some fraternal) were monitored for weight change. Comparing the weight change over time of identical twins versus those of fraternal twins was used to help determine the degree of nature vs. nurture on weight gain.

The researchers concluded that the vast majority of weight was heritable, or genetic in nature and in their discussion they make a point of noting,

"What is important is this finding means that “blaming” parents is wrong"

I'll come back to that in a moment.

First let's look at North America where roughly 70% of the population is now overweight or obese.

Clearly our genes haven't changed in the past hundred years or so, something the authors of the paper readily agree to.

So if our genes haven't changed yet the study is blaming obesity on our genes, why is it that obesity has become such a concern now?

George Bray perhaps said it best,

"Genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger"

So does that mean parents aren't to blame? Their kids have these fat genes and there's nothing we can do about it? They and worse yet their kids are fated to be fat?

No, though blame is a very strong word.

While certainly it's true that the interactions of genes with our obesogenic environment are what's responsible for the rapidly rising weight of the world, given the percentage of folks gaining weight, clearly those genes are pretty darn common. Therefore if you're a parent with however many kids and one or more of them are overweight or obese, at the end of the day does that mean there's nothing you can do about it?

Of course not.

While you can't change the outside environment, certainly your home's foodscape is within your explicit control. You're responsible for the foods in your cupboards, you're responsible for how much viewing time or internet time your children are allowed, and most importantly, you're responsible for both the example you set in terms of eating behaviours and also you're responsible for learning about nutrition, caloric intake and expenditure and healthy living as a whole and you alone are responsible for trying to pass that knowledge on to your kids.

Again, blame is a sharp word and if I'm going to wield it, I like to blame our government and public health systems for not providing parents with the necessary tools to properly understand the impact of the environment on weight nor the skills to maintain a healthy weight within our environment.

Long post short - 100 years ago obesity wasn't a problem; our lifestyles were different, which is why a time machine would serve as a fabulous weight loss aid. Certainly the environment is responsible for changing our lifestyles, however we can certainly still live responsibly within that environment, it just takes education, planning and organization.

The only thing your children are absolutely, for better or for worse predestined to be is related to you. Everything else is modifiable.

The Obesity Society President Elect in Bed with Big Food?

The flying pig that flew by my window yesterday morning appeared to be crying.

Apparently Dr. David B. Allison, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Alabama and incoming president of the Obesity Society, testified on behalf of Big Food in the Big Food vs. New York City lawsuit on mandatory calorie labeling.

Somehow not only did he argue that there is no credible evidence that providing customers with calories on menus would affect choice or obesity, he went further to state that placing calories on menus,

"would be ineffective and possibly even deleterious"

Allison's testimony was reportedly paid testimony which according to the Centre for Science in the Public Interest's Integrity in Science Watch newsletter, would be par for the course for Dr. Allison. They provided a link to 3 paged, single spaced document highlighting all of Dr. Allison's conflicts of interests with monies paid to him by Big Food and Big Industry as a whole. For shock value, I'll add the list below this post.

That there's no research to confirm that posting calories on menus will help is not a shock since it has only been over the course of very recent history where this has been suggested let alone tried. That it could be "deleterious" to provide consumers with information about calories is to my mind at least, a jaw-droppingly bizarre statement, and when coming from the future president of the Obesity Society, a dangerous one. Let me ask you Dr. President-elect - if there's no evidence to suggest that posting calories on menus would affect choice or obesity how is there enough evidence for you to make the flying leap that their posting would be, "ineffective", and possibly even, "deleterious"?

Can any readers out there give me some examples of how being more informed before making a decision lead to a potential for harm? While posting calories on menus certainly isn't going to eliminate overweight and obesity in one fell swoop, if you're concerned about your weight and notice that your appetizer has more calories than your main, or that your main has more calories than 3 Big Macs, it may in fact influence your decisions, may in fact give you a grounded education on calories and may in fact help you with your weight. More importantly, if consumers are interested in Calories, that of course will put pressure on Big Food to at the very least have some lower calorie menu options which again, those interested in watching their calories may choose.

My friendly, governmentally sourced email tipster (who forwarded me the newsletter) also included their own thoughts as to Dr. Allison's testimony. They stated that from the CSPI document it appeared as if Dr. Allison likely,

"isn't anti-calories on menus, he's pro-expert witness fees in lawsuits"

A sad day indeed.

The following are the companies that Dr. Allison has signed in a document listing them as conflicts of interest due to received grants, monetary donations, donations of product, payments for consultation, contracts, honoraria or commitments:

Air Canada
Alabama Agricultural Land Grant Alliance (AALGA)
Allegheny University
American Bakers’ Association
American Dietetic Association
American Oil Chemists Society
American Psychological Association
American Society for Parentaral and Enteral Nutrition
Amgen
Amylin
Archer Daniels Midland
Autogen
Bayer
BioAnalogics
Biogen
Biognosis
BodyStat
Bristol Myers Squibb/Mead Johnson
Campbell Soup Company
Catalyst Communications, Inc
Celgene
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Ciba Foundation
Coca-Cola
Consumers’ Union
Corning HTA/Covance
CuraGen
Current Drugs Ltd
Cytodyne Technologies, Inc.
Decision Resources
Elsevier Science Publisher
Entelos
Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.
Ergo Science
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology
Fertin Pharma A/S
Fisons Corporation
Fleishman Hillard, Inc
Food and Drug Administration
Gardiner-Caldwell Communications Ltd
Gemini
Gene/Networks
Genentech
General Mills
Genetics Institute
Genome Canada
Genome Explorations
Genome Therapeutics
Genset
Gerber Foundation
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Glaxo
Grey Health Care Group
Health Learning Systems
Henry A. Murray Research Center at Radcliffe College
Hershey
Hoffman La-Roche
IBC UK Conferences
Institute for the Future
International Association for the Study of Obesity
International Food Information Council
International Life Sciences Institute
Interneuron
InvaCare, Inc.
ISL Healthcare Group
Isotech
J P Morgan
Janssen-Cilag
Jenny Craig
Johnson & Johnson
Kelloggs
Knoll Pharmaceuticals
Kraft Foods
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing
Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin, & Patterson, Attorneys at Law
Life Measurement Instruments
Ligand Pharmaceuticals
Lilly Research Labs
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Publishers
Lockheed-Martin
M&M Mars
Many Universities, hospitals, and not-for-profit research organizations (list available on request)
Marcell Dekker Publishing
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Attorneys at Law
McGraw-Hill Publishing
McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., Attorneys at Law
Medical Economics (Thomson Healthcare)
Mediva Pharmaceuticals
Medlab, Inc.
Merck
Millennium Pharmaceuticals
Mitos
Monsanto
Nabisco
National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders
National Institutes of Health
National Science Foundation
Neurogen
New York State Department of Health
Noonan/Rosso Communications, Inc.
North American Association for the Study of Obesity
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NutraSystems, Inc.
Nutratech, Inc.
Nutricia
NutriPharma (Scan Diet; Nutralet)
Original Marketing, Inc.
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals
Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cortina, Attorneys at Law
PAREXEL International Corporation
Paterson, MacDougall, a Toronto, Canada law firm
Pepsi-Cola
Pfizer Central Research
Pinnacle
Porter Novelli
Proctor & Gamble
Queens University, Canada
Rand Corporation
Research Testing Laboratories
Rexall
RW Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute
Schering-Plough
Sequana
Servier Amerique
Slim America
SlimFast Foods Company
Spadoro & Hilson, Attorneys at Law
Sugar Association
SuperGen, Inc
Tanita
Terrapin Technologies
The Cortland Group
United Soybean Board
United States Postal Service
V2, Inc.
Variagenics
Veteran’s Administration
VimRx Pharmaceuticals
W.B. Saunders Publishing Co.
Weight Control Digest
Weight Watchers International
Wellcome Trust
Wheat Foods Council
Wilentz, Goldman, & Spitzer, Attorneys at Law
Wyeth-Ayerst
Zeneca Pharmaceuticals

Does Diet Pop make you Fat?

Maybe if you're a rat, but even then, only maybe.

The media is going crazy today for a study that looked at rats consuming saccharin (yes, saccharin - a sweetener currently banned in Canada) sweetened yogurt. The study found those same rats later consumed more calories and the researchers postulated that it was a compensatory behaviour.

The media of course has postulated that therefore in humans (a long leap from rats), consumption of diet pop sweetened with aspartame and Splenda (long leaps from saccharin), leads to weight gain.

They also point at the recent study that suggested diet pop drinkers have greater risk for metabolic syndrome, but of course in that study they don't note that drinking diet pop is almost certainly a marker for other eating behaviours which may be more likely to account for the slight increase in risk.

If we look at human studies done on aspartame in weight management one meta-analysis concluded that human studies in fact suggested,

"that replacing (added) sugar by low-energy sweeteners or by complex carbohydrates in an ad libitum diet might result in lower energy intake and reduced body weight. In the long term, this might be beneficial for weight maintenance."

Looking at one study in particular, a randomized trial comparing women who were randomly assigned to consume or abstain from aspartame sweetened foods during a 16-19 week weight loss program followed by 2 years of maintenance showed that,

"The aspartame group lost significantly more weight overall (P = 0.028) and regained significantly less weight during maintenance and follow-up (P = 0.046) than did the no-aspartame group."

My take on the rat study?

If the researchers fed the rats low to zero calorie meals by means of artificial sweeteners, it would not be surprising for those animals' bodies to note the lack of calories and compensate later in the day in a normal response to a low-calorie meal. Put simply, they compensated because they got hungry.

Of course, that's not how people tend to use sweeteners, and certainly not how I would recommend that they be used. People tend to use sweeteners to eliminate excess calories, generally liquid calories, but of course still consume sufficient calories from their meals to register that they've eaten. Therefore their bodies don't generate excess hunger, don't compensate later in the day and do avoid the excess liquid calories that they have replaced.

Long story short, I wouldn't throw out your diet pop just yet but don't have just it for breakfast.

Health Check Technical Advisor Doesn't Recommend Health Check

Maybe I'm reading into this, but I don't think so.

Fran Berkoff is a nutrition columnist for the Toronto Sun and Canadian Living. She's the author of Foods that Harm, Foods that Heal and she's a member of the 7 person Technical Advisory Committee for the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program.

Today in her nutrition column for the Toronto Sun she wrote a piece for Heart Month entitled, "All the Right Foods your Heart Desires". Heart Month, in case you forgot, is the Heart and Stroke Foundation's largest grassroots fundraising initiative.

Sounds like a perfect fit for a Health Check plug, and clearly Fran's not afraid to plug things as in the article she plugs Kellogg's All Bran Guardian cereal (Fran's worked for Kellogg's on multiple initiatives in the past) and Canada's Food Guide.

So in this nutrition column about foods that are Heart Healthy, written in the midst of Heart Month - the Heart and Stroke Foundation's major fundraising initiative, written by one of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check technical advisors, an advisor who is clearly comfortable promoting corporate programs and products, I think it's rather telling that she does not recommend that folks seek out the Health Check in making their product choices!

Can't say that I blame her.

[FYI: Kellogg's All Bran Guardian cereal's second ingredient is sugar. It contains over 83% the sugar of fruit loops (10 times the sugar of Cheerios), almost 50% more sodium than fruit loops, and like fruit loops it's also made with BHT, the food additive the CSPI recommended we ought to avoid if at all possible. Why am I not surprised that this particular product has a Health Check?]

Kentucky Fried Chicken's Flying Pig

I swear a pig just flew by my window.

According to the Wall Street Journal KFC is considering a, "nonfried chicken platform".

One can only hope that doesn't mean a literal platform made entirely of non-fried chickens because that would certainly not help their recent run-ins with PETA and would be rather vile to boot.

You know what else they have that may be definable as vile to boot? Their famous bowls which are the subject of today's Funny Friday video featuring comedian Patton Oswald.

(Please be forewarned - not safe for work or young ears - Patton, like many comics, really likes using the f-word)

Email subscribers, to see the video you usually need to actually visit the website.

Have a great weekend!