Another Reason Not to Eat Beef

Assuming of course you care about the environment and are worried about global warming. If you don't and you're not, this post doesn't apply to you.

There's a new word being bandied about to go alongside words like carnivore or vegetarian and that word is locavore and it refers to individuals who strive to eat locally with their predominant rationale being that it'll help the planet to not truck tomatoes in from Mexico or garlic in from Chile.

Strict locavores may limit their dietary choices to foods that come from within a 50 mile radius of where they live. The word (and presumably the practice) has become so trendy as to have been voted the 2007 word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary.

Well a study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology says that while indeed eating local does reduce greenhouse emissions, if you're a local carnivore who likes beef, you're probably not helping much.

The researchers estimated that shifting to an entirely local diet would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of driving a hypothetical 1,600km (1,000 miles) less per year.

They also estimated that switching one day's beef meal to anything other than beef would likely have the same impact.

Why?

Because transportation of food apparently only contributes 4% to total food supply greenhouse gas emissions, while production of food contributes 83%.

And what food contributes the most?

Beef. Delicious, bad for you, cancer-inducing, beef. On average beef production contributes 2.5 times more greenhouse gas emissions than those from emitted during the production of chicken or fish.

What's the second worst?

Dairy.

Really want to help the environment?

Become a vegetarian - the study authors estimate that doing so would be the equivalent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a hypothetical 12,800 transport kilometres (8,000 miles) per year and this is even if you're not a locavore.

Food for thought?

[Hat tip to loyal blog reader and eagle-eyed 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.]

From the Journal of Duh?

A headline from one of my media trawls caught my eye yesterday, "Fruit and vegetables may help weight loss" and so I clicked the link and found myself face to face with an article discussing a recent paper published in Nutrition Research.

The paper, High intake of fruits and vegetable predicts weight loss in Brazilian overweight adults details the story of 80 overweight Brazilians who attended a nutritional counseling program. Comparing their weight and food frequency questionairre answers from both before and after the 6 month program they found.....

[Drumroll]

People who ate more fruits and vegetables lost more weight.

Why isn't this exciting?

A few reasons.

Firstly because of the study's design. In its analysis it only controlled for age, sex, changes in walking time and total energy intake. No mention of meals out, exercise outside of walking, macronutrient dietary changes, frequency of meals and snacks and many other variables that certainly have a role in weight loss differences.

Secondly because it's not news. Barbara Rolls has dedicated her life's work to the concept of energy density which can be summarized simply in saying eat more foods with lower energy densities (calories per gram) like vegetables and fruits and you'll lose weight.

Thirdly because in the study the weight loss we're talking about in this study is barely weightloss - 3.08lbs over 6 months.

I've seen constipation weigh more than 3.08lbs.

Bottom line?

Eating fruits and vegetables can certainly help with you with weight loss if they are replacing higher calorie options and certainly irregardless of their effect on your weight, they're good for you. But as far as this study goes all it taught me was that I won't be recommending the weight loss program in Brazil that over 6 months only managed to help patients lose a grand total 3lbs and eat a whole 3.5 ounces more fruits and vegetables a day.

How to Use a Scale

A while ago I posted about scale addiction and how often you should weigh yourself. It was my opinion that while losing once a week, stark naked, before breakfast, after pee on Wednesdays was my preference, and that while maintaining, daily was a good idea.

Today I'm going to take it further and explain how to deal with the number you see staring back at you.

Firstly if you're trying to lose weight it's important before you step onto the scale, to ask yourself how you're doing. After all, what does the scale know? How you're doing depends on how you're living, and the scale frankly knows nothing about that. If you're happy with how you've been living and feel that you're making the healthiest choices you can enjoy, even if the scale goes up, it shouldn't take away your pride in your accomplishments.

So once you've decided how you're doing, next you step onto the scale.

Looking at the number, you've got to remember a bunch of stuff. You've got to remember that scales measure a lot of extra stuff. Clothing (if you're wearing any), constipation (can weigh up to two pounds), water retention (time of the month, after a salty meal, from sore muscles) and it doesn't know if there have been great reasons to have Calories - celebratory and comfort reasons that definitely call for indulgences.

Ok, now you're looking at the number. If you're happy with it step down and you're done.

If you're unhappy with it, you've got to ask yourself two questions:

1. Am I doing something about it?
2. Do I know what I'm doing?

If the answers to those questions are "Yes", then there's nothing to worry about, even if the number's not doing what you want. Remember there is the law of averages at play too meaning that some weeks you'll lose far more than you'd expect and some weeks far less and that at the end of the day, doing the best you enjoy, not the best you can tolerate, is truly the best you can do sustainably.

Going back to that question number 2. What does knowing what you're doing mean? Well to me it means knowing how many Calories you're eating, otherwise it'd be like getting upset at your Visa bill despite having gone shopping without looking at price tags.

Bottom line, you may not love the number you see staring back at you, it may be distressing to you, but at the end of the day, if you're doing something about it, and you know what you're doing, you're doing great.

Matzah!

Oy.

It's that time of the year again where for the next 8 days Jewish colons around the globe strain to handle huge volumes of matzah - the dry unleavened bread of Passover.

Today's two part Funny Friday includes this musical tribute to one of my least favourite foods.

Have a great weekend, and if appropriate, Chag Sameach!

Conan O'Brien's Writer gets his Computer Serviced

Living in North America outsourcing computer help desk jobs has become pretty much the norm.

Apparently NBC's computers' help desk is located in India.

How do I know?

I watched this video on youtube.

For this special two-part Funny Friday, you should too (bear with it to the 2 minute mark - it really picks up after that).

Have a great weekend!



[Hat tip goes out to Rob our fitness director]

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:

The "You Look Soooo Great" Speech

4 years of exclusively working in obesity medicine later, I've learned a few things that certainly aren't taught by society, medical school or weight loss books.

One of those things was the, "You should stop losing weight phenomenon" which I blogged about in the past.

Today I'm going to share another.

It's the "You look soooo great" great speech and why you shouldn't deliver it.

Now I realize that on the surface going on about someone looking great doesn't sound insulting, but let me give you a different way to hear it.

Let's say that over the course of the past year you've lost a significant amount of weight - enough weight let's say that it makes folks you haven't seen in a long time's heads' turn and eyes bug out.

Let's say that they're then so inclined to come over to you and deliver an oration on how great you look now, how much better you must feel now, how wonderful it is you've finally done this, how much happier you must be now, and so on and so forth.

You might thing, "So what's wrong with that? Those are all compliments, no?"

Sure they are. But of course their effusive enthusiasm about how great you look now translates into you hearing how terrible you looked before.

My advice?

If someone's lost a great deal of weight and you're so inclined to say something, three simple words, "You look great" is much better received than a full-on speech.

Think I'm nuts?

Let's ask my readers. Can you relate to what I'm reporting here or are the folks who have mentioned this phenomenon to me overly sensitive?

Now This is Going Too Far

You know I'm all about healthy living, but this is really going too far.

It's a house in Long Island, NY and it was specifically designed to be, get this, as uncomfortable to live in as possible.

The house even has a name, it's called the Bioscleave House and it's also known as the Lifespan Extending Villa.

So why would it be a good idea for the home to be uncomfortable?

Well according to an article from the New York Times, the designers feel,

"Its architecture makes people use their bodies in unexpected ways to maintain equilibrium, and that, she said, will stimulate their immune systems."

So what's uncomfortable? Well as you can see from the picture above, the floor is an undulating, uneven mass with poles for stability and if you click on the slideshow on the New York Times' website, you'll also see that power outlets and light switches are placed at seemingly random and hard to reach locations.

Other than perhaps Dr. James Levine, I'm not sure who else would want this house. That might explain why not surprisingly, the house is unoccupied - but if you've got $2 million to spare, its wonders can be yours.

A word of advice to the would be buyers - if you go out for a bender, instead of getting a taxi home, rent a room.

Subway's Jared Celebrates 10 Years of Weight Maintenance!

Congratulations go out to Subway's Jared for doing what the vast majority of those that lose weight don't do - keep it off.

According to an article in the Washington Post, Jared's Subway eureka moment came back when he weighed 425lbs and his college roommate at Indiana University made a tape recording of the sounds he made while sleeping (severe sleep apnea can sound quite dramatic and frightening). He reports trying a few other efforts before finally settling in on his now famous Subway diet which arose with him reading a nutrition facts panel while standing in line for a sub. The rest of course, is marketing history.

Jared's Subway diet amounted to roughly 1,500 Calories a day, low for the majority of men, combined with lots of walking.

Subway took notice after Jared was featured on multiple local media outlets and he has remained a spokesman for them every since.

He no longer formally counts Calories but certainly practices Calorie awareness and knows what portions work best in his own personal foodscape.

Jared's not alone in his weight maintenance success. The National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) now numbers well into the thousands and to be a registrant you've had to have lost over 30lbs and kept it off for over 1 year. The last time I saw Dr. Rena Wing (one of the registry's founders) speak, the average registrant had lost 66lbs and kept it off for 5.5 years.

So how do the registrants do it? The NWCR has a great facts page and here are some highlights,

Duration of successful weight loss has ranged from 1 year to 66 years!

Some have lost the weight rapidly, while others have lost weight very slowly--over as many as 14 years.

45% of registry participants lost the weight on their own and the other 55% lost weight with the help of some type of program.

98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight.

94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.

78% eat breakfast every day.

62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.

90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.

One thing's absolutely certain and during a working day you'll hear me say it at least 5 times a day,

"The more weight you'd like to permanently lose, the more of your lifestyle you'll need to permanently change"

which of course then leads me to the,

"Therefore if you don't like the life you're living while you're losing, you're much more likely to gain it back"

Jared has kept his weight off because he likes his new lifestyle.

Do you like yours?

Congratulations again Jared.

The 3 Minute Parent

Given that my wife's on call this weekend and I've got the kids alone I wonder if I can just loop this video and stay in bed?

Today's Funny Friday - the 3 minute parent.

Have a great weekend!



[Hat tip to my friend and colleague Dr. Barry Dworkin from the nationally syndicated radio program Sunday House Call]

"A Perfect Portion"

My wonderful wife picked these up for me from the cafeteria at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

Notice two things - the words, "A Perfect Portion" and the 75g size of the bag.

I imagine most folks when buying the People's Pantry line of "Perfect Portions" (they sell lots of different "Perfect Portions" - other nuts, jelly beans etc.) would assume that they were appropriately sized portions.

Now let's take a look at the back (click it if you can't see):

2 obvious questions here:

If it is a "Perfect Portion" why is it that the nutritional information is per 40g of the 75g serving?

How it it possible that the salt-as-a-second-ingredient, visibly-covered-in-it nuts only contain 1mg of sodium per serving?

The lesson here of course is that you've always, always got to read labels to actually know what you're eating.

In this case the "Perfect Portion" of nuts, if consumed wholly, would provide you with a perhaps not so perfect 460 Calories (more than a quarter-pounder at McDonald's) and who knows how much sodium.

[Given the sale of this product in a hospital, where some patients may well medically be ill-advised to consume too much sodium, I've taken the liberty of writing to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency who I hope might also take issue with the wording, "A Perfect Portion" on the front.]

Welcome Livin' La Vida Low-Carb'ers

I want to welcome the folks arriving from the Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb blog!

While not a true low-carb'er, 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) humourous manner.

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

Best regards,
Yoni

Treat High Cholesterol with Chocolate?

What? You didn't know you could do that?

Get with it.

Dove Chocolate, an arm of the Mars company, has created two new chocolate bars: Dove Vitalize and Dove Beautiful.

According to the press release Dove Vitalize,

"contains rich dark chocolate, plus energy-releasing B vitamins, the natural goodness of cocoa flavanols to help support circulatory health and plant sterols to help maintain a healthy cholesterol level"

While Dove Beautiful,

"contains smooth milk chocolate, plus skin nourishing vitamins C & E, biotin, zinc, and cocoa flavanols that help hydrate from within to support beautiful-looking skin"

Uh huh. Who needs Lipitor when you can simply eat chocolate?

Yeah, that's gonna help.

I think they ought to be named Dove Dummify and Dove Sucker.

For more, here's a video press release from Mars (designed to look like real news).



[Hat tip to Julie from It Must have Been Something I Ate and Dinner with Julie]

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)

Must See TV

Not so much about weight, more about life.

A celebration of life actually, delivered by someone where illness will almost certainly cut life short.

Over 6 million folks have watched it online already and this coming Wednesday April 9th, ABC and Diane Sawyer will be covering it in their presentation "The Last Lecture: A Love Story For Your Life" at 10pm/9 CST.

"The Last Lecture" the title refers to was actually entitled Really Achieving your Childhood Dreams and it was delivered by Dr. Randy Pausch a Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon who in the summer of 2006 was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. By August 2007 the cancer was found to have spread and he was given the prognosis of 3-6 months to live.

In September of 2007 Dr. Pausch delivered a lecture at Carnegie Mellon University. It was part of a series entitled, "The Last Lecture Series" where academics are asked to present a hypothetical last lecture presenting it as if it were their last lecture; their last chance to impart whatever wisdom they felt was most important for them to share.

Clearly in Dr. Pausch's case, his last lecture wasn't necessarily just a theoretical exercise.

On Wednesday ABC will be covering Dr. Pausch's amazingly inspirational and surprisingly uplifting story. Here's their trailer:





If you'd rather, you can watch his entire "Last Lecture" online (amazing speech), but make sure you've got some time - it's nearly 2 hours long.





And lastly, if you're so inclined, you can watch the lecture Dr. Pausch himself is most proud of delivering and that's his lecture on time management. It's roughly an hour long where Dr. Pausch notes that the first 8 minutes are, "introductions I don't deserve"





Dr. Pausch is still fighting - for his own postings on his fight, feel free to head over to his update site.

Keep on slugging Dr. Pausch, and thank you.

Do you Love your Job?

How many of you love your jobs?

I adore mine.

Some folks however, they're happier than me.

Today for Funny Friday my instruction is, "Keep your eyes on the drummer"

Have a great weekend!

(P.S. Video starts at around the 15 second mark, drummer's happiness grows throughout)

World's Best Nasal Product?

So let me be very upfront - this post really isn't about a "Weighty Matter".

Today I'm blogging about a product I started using a week ago and the results have been so astounding, I feel compelled to write about it.

It's called Neilmed's Sinus Rinse and basically it's a squeeze bottle that you fill with warm water, some salt and some baking soda and then squirt it up your nose.

I know, it sounds rather vile.

It's phenomenal.

I've suffered for years with chronic nasal congestion. Going to bed every night I would sniffle and blow and try to get enough stuff out of my nostrils to be less disturbing to my wonderful wife. I would rarely succeed.

So, desperate I turned to the internet and read about sinus rinsing and found a lot of rave reviews for sinus rinses and neti pots.

Now my readers here certainly know, I'm a natural born skeptic, but given how cheap the thing is and that I had nothing to lose, I picked one up from my local pharmacy.

Within one day of use my nose was markedly clearer. A week later I'm down to using it only once a day and my nose is clearer than I can literally ever remember it being with our without medication.

Frankly I'm gob-smacked.

Now I won't suggest it's a pleasant experience to use, but at the same time, it's certainly not painful.

If you've got nasal congestion or allergies, I'd recommend one in a heartbeat. Worst case scenario, you'll be out the $10.49 it sells for on Amazon.com.

Want one?

Click here.

(In Canada - they sell them in Shoppers Drug Mart for I believe $16)

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.