Layton introduces motion to restrict trans fats (canada)

[Brundle_Fly]

NDP Leader Jack Layton has introduced a motion that would make Canada the world's second country to ban processed trans fats.

Layton introduced the motion in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon, with a warning that the trans fats found in everything from peanut butter to french fries contribute to heart disease.

<snip>

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1100724942103_96134142

<snip>

If passed into law, Layton's motion would see Ottawa immediately cap permissible levels of trans fats at five grams per 100 grams of oil in a variety of foodstuffs including processed, restaurant and fast foods.

Then, in two years, the limit would be lowered to just two grams per 100.

<snip>

If Layton can rally the Liberal support which seems to be behind the ban, his bill could be law and trans fats could be edging off ingredients in a year.

[Maple]

1. He might try

concentrating on something a tad more important.

It might make him more relevant.

[Stephanie]

3. ...

According to a recent study involving some eighty thousand women, for every five-per-cent increase in the amount of saturated fats that a woman consumes, her risk of heart disease increases by seventeen per cent. But only a two-per-cent increase in trans fats will increase her heart-disease risk by ninety-three per cent. Walter Willett, an epidemiologist at Harvard--who helped design the study--estimates that the consumption of trans fats in the United States probably causes about thirty thousand premature deaths a year.

McDonald's and the other fast-food houses aren't the only purveyors of trans fats, of course; trans fats are in crackers and potato chips and cookies and any number of other processed foods. Still, a lot of us get a great deal of our trans fats from French fries, and to read the medical evidence on trans fats is to wonder at the odd selectivity of the outrage that consumers and the legal profession direct at corporate behavior. McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have switched to a product, without disclosing its risks, that may cost human lives. What is the difference between this and the kind of thing over which consumers sue companies every day?

http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_03_05_a_fries.htm

[Emillereid]

63. Gets more complicated -- the latest AJCN has a study that shows that

women with heart disease who ate more saturated fat as part of a relatively low fat diet actually had less disease progression than those who ate more polysaturates or carbohydrates.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 5, 1175-1184, November 2004
© 2004 American Society for Clinical Nutrition



ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION


Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women1,2,3
Dariush Mozaffarian, Eric B Rimm and David M Herrington

1 From the Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and the Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (DM and EBR); the Health Services Research and Development Program, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle (DM); the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory, Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston (AHL and ATE); and the Section on Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC (DMH)



Background: The influence of diet on atherosclerotic progression is not well established, particularly in postmenopausal women, in whom risk factors for progression may differ from those for men.

Objective: The objective was to investigate associations between dietary macronutrients and progression of coronary atherosclerosis among postmenopausal women.

Design: Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 3.1 y in 2243 coronary segments in 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease. Usual dietary intake was assessed at baseline.

Results: The mean (±SD) total fat intake was 25 ± 6% of energy. In multivariate analyses, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up. Compared with a 0.22-mm decline in the lowest quartile of intake, there was a 0.10-mm decline in the second quartile (P = 0.002), a 0.07-mm decline in the third quartile (P = 0.002), and no decline in the fourth quartile (P < 0.001); P for trend = 0.001. This inverse association was more pronounced among women with lower monounsaturated fat (P for interaction = 0.04) and higher carbohydrate (P for interaction = 0.004) intakes and possibly lower total fat intake (P for interaction = 0.09). Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high. Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein. Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression.

Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1175

[orthogonal]

7. It's more important when you remember not being able to breathe

He might try concentrating on something a tad more important.

I'm not usually much for nanny-state regulation, but it's damned hard to avoid trans fats if you eat any processed foods at all -- and most of my adult life I've been too busy to avoid fast food or restaurant food or quickie microwave food.

Which may be the reason I had a 95% blockage of my right coronary artery that resulted in a heart attack at age 32.

As I read the article -- especially the bit about the study showing that as little as one gram of trans fats a day increases coronary risk by 20% -- I couldn't help but wonder if, had I been born in Canada after passage of this law, I might not have come so close to dying -- to literally breathing my last -- at age 32.

So I guess I'd call this one important.

[Frederic Bastiat]

9. Too busy to avoid fast food??

I find that incredulous.

[Minstrel Boy]

28. Actually, I think this is more relevant to more Canadians

than the NDP's fight against missile defense.

[Spazito]

30. I think both are important to Canadians...

if I had to pick one only, it would be against missile defense but, seeing as we can multi-task and deal with more than one issue at a time, I support the NDP on both issues.

[Brundle_Fly]

2. bah

I think it's brilliant.

Could cut the governments health costs by 20-30%

[Maple]

4. Not exactly a major issue

People will just roll their eyes over this.

[Brundle_Fly]

5. No but the canadian health care budget sure is....

Saving it is important, and cutting 30% off the top will bring about a ton of cash for other problems other than obesity, heart disease, and related cancers.

[Maple]

6. So are a ton of other things

for your health. But this is not exactly a major headline issue in the country right now.

The NDP always seems to be off somewhere chasing butterflys.

[Domitan]

8. It should be one of the headline issues

More power to preventive treatment over reactive treatment!

[Frederic Bastiat]

10. Why not ban vitamin E while he's at it?

Its been known to cause a few deaths, might "save" the government money.

[TO Kid]

23. Let's not forget about the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide

It's a known greenhouse gas, causes soil erosion and can be fatal if inhaled.

[Merlin]

11. Saving lives. Reducing gov't health care costs by 30%. Insignificant!

What the hell is it with these Canadians? Always trying to do sensible crap. Who gives a damn if a few folks die not realizing the risks?

Why can't these politicians concentrate on more important issues, like gay marriage and the cost of beer?

(Did I capture the mood of this thread correctly?)
:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

12. good for the country and good for the party

This legislation is something tangible that people can easily understand. The results of enacting and enforcing trans fat reduction can be measured.
There isn't a partisan slant to improving the overall health of the nation so just voting against it because "OMG! We can't support an NDP initiative or we'll fall down the dark slope of socialism!" sounds silly and petty.

I think it's a brilliant move.

Now, if we can only get a national plan to recuperate the used frying oils and convert them to bio diesel...

[KDLarsen]

13. That reminds me..

.. of the episode of Top Gear (BBC car programme) that featured an inventor that had made it possible for diesel-driven cars to run off frying oil from restaurants. As the host mentioned, the only negative effect it has, was that the exhaust would smell like a kebab-shop.

Also, Top Gear demonstrated an Audi (I think) that was able to drive a staggering 1100 miles ON A SINGLE TANK OF FUEL! The host walked away looking quite shocked. He drove the last 20-odd miles with the empty fuel tank warning on - which prompted him to make the remark to tell Audi's engineers that they've apparently come up with an engine that runds on air.

[GliderGuider]

18. reducing toxins

The City of Toronto is testing biodiesel on their fleet.
I hear there's actually a gas station that retails biodiesel. We're seriously considering buying a VW in a couple of years (when the Mazda dies) and taking advantage of alternative (read non-Saudi) fuels.

"Biodiesel is an environmentally friendly fuel that comes from renewable sources (animal by-products or soybeans). It is estimated that this biodiesel test reduced eCO2 emission output by 657 tonnes, the equivalent of taking 300 passenger vehicles off the road for an entire year."

http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/fleet/technology_testing.htm

I had to shake my head at that argument on another thread about drilling in Alaska. We need to reduce our reliance on petrochemicals in every area, for the sake of dead Iraqi babies as well as fragile northern wildernesses.

[telamachus]

15. So you believe that the government should

dictate what you can and cannot eat? I thought that Canadians were progressive not communist.

Arguments can be made for governments to give incentives for citizens to keep healthily but limiting choice is limiting liberty and belongs only in the harshest of dictatorships.

[jdj]

16. there are actually alot of substances and chemicals

that the gov't doesn't allow in food. And if these things were allowed in food, and a corp. could use them to make food cheaper and faster to turn a bigger profit, it would. This kind of processing of natural oils was allowed because the manufacturers (and doctors for a long time) believed it was healthier for people. It doesn't hurt that it is really cheap, shitty crap,easy to make a profit off of and that alot of people bought the lie.

Some health food stores in the U.S. won't stock any thing with transfats in them. I read a while back how they are made, but I can't find the link. I recall that one of the things they blend in with the oils to make them solid at room temp is cheap metal like nickel and such. Mmmmm, Mmmmm, good. The govt regulates (supposedly) environmental toxins, and we have laws against smoking in some public places, so if the Canadian gov't cares enough about it's citizens to protect them from the corporate sharks of this world and their toxic pseudo-foodsI say more power to them.

[telamachus]

17. The government regulates TOXINS in food

trans fat is not a toxin.

[GliderGuider]

19. trans fats kill

Removing an element from our diets that can kill us is a good thing.
Kinda like removing cigarettes from the work place.
Just because something kills you slowly, doesn't mean it gets to enjoy a free ride.

[telamachus]

20. So we should get rid of

anything that creates ANY pollution? We should ban cigarretes, unsafe sex (since no condom is %100 then I guess anal sex should be banned), any food containing any trace levels of toxins (sorry no fish or sea food) I guess that ALL fast food resturants should be closed no more paste no more butter no sugar etc...

GIVE ME A %%%ing break. LIFE IS THE SLOW PROCESS OF DYING.

No driving cars or taking baths or walking or running or any activity that can cause death or injury...

computers caues RMI and possibly eye problems..throw them out!! better yet lets live in caves and eat raw foods that we kill or find...wait that damp air in the caves might cause problems...


DO YOU GET IT YET?????

[GliderGuider]

21. Bump. Ouch!

Just how do you get around when you can only see in black and white?

[telamachus]

27. Yep

and you make yourself look silly when you miss a point. Just how do you get around supporting fascist control of your life. It ain't no slippery slope it is a philosophy of liberty regulated by democrcy and guided by freedom. If you want some socialist or communist utopia leave me out if you want to participate in a democracy that ensure the most freedom for the most people then lets get on with it.

[jdj]

74. transfat

is an already unhealthy, cheap, oil mixed with a bunch of crap to keep it solid at room temperature. Because of the metal mixed in with it, it coats the arteries with plaque and eventally leads to arterial blockage. It results in heart attacks and strokes, many of which probably catch the victim unaware and are therefore treated in the emergency room. Since the poorest people are most likely eating the foods that contain the most transfats, they are also the most likely not to have health insurance and the most likely not to
be able to pay medical bills. They are also most likely to end up on public aid if they lose a supporting member of the family, so it makes good sense for a govt to ban a product that corporate sharks came up with to be able to mass-produce food with. If you pay attentiont to the news, you'll see that our own FDA bans food ingredients and drugs from time to time, the latest to bite the dust that I know of being ephedra, which was in both food and dietary supplements.

If you want to start a nationwide "Save my margarine" campaign to keep trans-fats free in the U.S.A (which it will be as long as Bush is in office), be my guest, however, I'm gonna save my energy of protest for something actually significant,

[telamachus]

14. Fascism alive and well

the only thing worse than a right wing fascist is a left wing fascist.

[Wat_Tyler]

22. You have no understanding of the term.

[telamachus]

31. Well according to this definition

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Both Bush and this Canadian socialist fit the bill. Dictatorial control over what you eat is quite in line with the definition. Also centralized control (socialism/communism) also applies here.

[Minstrel Boy]

32. According to that defintion

you are being very silly.

Jack Layton is not a dictator and does not advocate becoming one. The NDP does not suppress "through terror and censorship," and does not have a "policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

[telamachus]

35. I love it when people

only read what supports their view point. Dictating what people eat is well within the definition. Centralized control is well within the definition.

[Wat_Tyler]

38. One of the most ironic statements I've read on DU.

Since it's exactly what you're doing.

[telamachus]

43. I guess that it is time

to agree to disagree because I am not quite sure what you mean by that. I see no irony. I do see a poster with the inability to move beyond simple statements in the course of a dialog.

[Wat_Tyler]

34. I don't see a restriction on dangerous fats fitting in there.

Like I say, you don't understand the term.

[telamachus]

36. Reading only what supports your

viewpoint does not make you right.

Dictating what people eat is well within the definition. Centralized control is well within the definition.

[Wat_Tyler]

37. In your dictionary, it would appear that most things are fascist.

[telamachus]

42. from your posts it would appear

that you can only respond with simple statements. This is not IRC.

When you can discuss beyond simple retorts then I will listen.

[Minstrel Boy]

26. Of the multitude of items reported on this board

justly begging to be called fascist, you choose this. The suggested banning of trans-fats.

Please, stick around.

[telamachus]

29. Whenever

something that limits freedom or takes away rights is suggested I am going to call it as I see it.

I have been fighting fascist policies of the bush gang since before he was even nominated to run in 2000. Policies regarding 'freespeech'zones and 'invitation only' political appearances has been the target of my criticism for years. The patriot act is an abhorrent set of laws. etc...

[FlaGranny]

40. Do you realize that your government

has taken away your freedom to have lots of arsenic in your drinking water?

[telamachus]

44. I wish that posters would move

beyond simplistic single, unsupported statements when responding to posts. You have most assuredly NOT read all of my posts. I have noticed how many why respond to posts on DU are not ones to recognize nuance. If you REALLY think that I would somehow support not controlling TOXINS in water and air and food then you have shown to me that you did not read what I wrote. Trans fat is not a TOXIN get it?!

[Minstrel Boy]

47. You ask for nuance, and yet to this news you say

"fascism is alive and well"?

Pardon me while I :eyes:

[telamachus]

51. Hope you read my posts

then you would see where I am coming from sorry we don't agree but that is the great thing about freedom of thought (and what to eat)

[FlaGranny]

50. Trans fat KILLS just as well

as if it were classified as a toxin. It is an unnecessary food additive that is dangerous to your life. It is a manufactured and NOT a naturally-obtained product and the only thing that can be said in its favor is that it is cheap. I care very little whether it is technically a toxin - if having it as a part of my diet can clog my arteries and kill me it shouldn't be in my food. I don't want it there and will gladly vote for it to be regulated. I shouldn't have to spend hours reading food labels to make sure unhealthy food additives aren't in my food - but I do. Anyhow, consumers are driving the food manufacturers to replace the transfats. None too soon, either.

Edit: It is amazing that someone would actually post in favor of an unhealthy food additive?!?

[telamachus]

52. Why not fight to get HONEST labelling

On all food? Now I would fully support this concept and I would even work to get it done. If you know of a group working towards this then please tell me I will sing their petition and even call my reps.


Look.. trans fats are a by product of keeping oils solid at room temp. These are found in many foods but if you look at the foods they exist in they are fot he most part the kinds of foods that are unhealthy anyway. Why not ban cookies? You either need hydrogenated oil or you need butter both of which increase your level of bad cholesteral and can lead to diabetes. If you can't make a healthy cookie then why allow them to be sold at all I'll bet that more people die from trans fats than heroin so we should just ban anything that is bad for you.

Well I for one would enjoy a nice fatty cooke every once in a while and I would like some french fries and a nice fatty butter burger from culvers every now and then....

Call me crazy but I would rather have the freedom to eat tasty crap than not have the freedom. I would rather have informed consent then be slowly made unhealthy.

Educate to allow more freedom not less.

[FlaGranny]

55. Eating tasty stuff is a favorite

passtime of most everyone. The thing is, transfats are totally unnecessary to produce tasty food. I know because I like tasty food and I never eat transfats or anything that contains them.

You might enjoy tasty treats, but wouldn't you rather have them be healthy rather than unhealthy?

Even Crisco is now making a trans-fat free product.

[telamachus]

56. Due to both science and

consumer pressure. I aggree that TFA are way bad but I fear the imediate economic result of a forced change.

Wouldn't honest labelling help?

As we can see change will come from education and consumer demands alone.

[FlaGranny]

62. Honest labeling is just fine. No argument.

But I really honestly doubt it would hurt the "fat industry." All they have to do is use different oils and it is fairly simple for growers to switch from one oil-producing crop to another. The manufacturing process I am sure is different, but plants are probably already shifting the production processes.

[jdj]

75. transfats are not essential to production of food

they are used because they are cheap as hell.

anything made with transfats can be made without them. I made my living doing this in health food bakeries for years. It will raise the cost of the food this junk is in, but that is probably not a bad thing.

[partisan to truth]

68. Definition of a toxin:

A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is ***capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues*** but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins.

...The part of this definition of a toxin is the reason that certain toxins are illegal. If it has been proven that a minimal amount of trans fat intake has the extremely negative longterm effect as previous posters have indicated, then I don't see a substantial argument for why they shouldn't be regulated.

IMO, consumers should, at the very least, be educated about the trans fat content of purchased food (i.e. on the nutrition label).

[jdj]

76. as far as I understand

they are listed under saturated fats. If the sat fat is zero, then it won't say anything about trans fats, but if it says, say "sat. fat.= 2g, then underneath it may say trans fat: 1g.

[Brundle_Fly]

70. it's like banning radiation.

ITS BAD FOR YOU, it doesnt come in foods, it is added to preserve them longer.

[Mother Jones]

24. Oh PLEASE!

Stop with the fascism talk! Geez, I didn't expect that in THIS forum.....This is one Canadian who appreciates any steps towards a healthier lifestyle that my govt. may commit to.


This is, as Martha would say, a GOOD thing.

[Bridget Burke]

25. Just shows you what politicians can think about....

When they're not consumed with a "War on Terror" (tm) & an unholy need to cut taxes on the rich.

Most studies say that trans fats are worse for you than butter or lard. Let's hear it for real food....

[Mother Jones]

33. No kidding!

If we're lucky, we'll see a ban on GMOs next! (although Canada has already one-up'd the U.S on that, bannin GMO Wheat)

Sure, there are no known 'toxins' in GMOs, but we don't yet know if they are fully safe, and yet they are in 90% of our grocery store items. In fact, in open air trials, monarch butterflys are dying and/or becoming sterile.
It's driven many (myself included) to solely eating Organic.

[MojoRoad]

41. We'll keep our "fascist" universal health care, thank you.

Now this IS silly. Look, in a complex society there is, sometimes, the need to side with the whole society over the rights of the individual.... This is true, believe it or not, even in the U.S.

Government regulates drugs, water, pollutants (at least in theory) - Guns, drives licenses, old age homes, etc etc etc and everything in between. Your very government, as I recall -and I might be wrong here- did much the very same thing with "olestra" sp? the so called trans fat replacement that gave everyone the shits. remember that? Are you still eating olestra Doritos? Many, many other foodstuffs, chemicals etc. are restricted in BOTH countries for threats to health, be it cancer, or whatever! If, as trans fat is, proven dangerous to the health of our nation, and there are safe(r) alternatives why allow it? Trans fat is so ubiquitous in our food it would be a MAJOR health boost to switch.... and up here in Canada many companies are switching because they know what's coming. pretty soon, trans fat content will be highlighted on all packaging.

Protecting citizens from the dangers of something –easily replaced- is hardly facist. It’s smart social policy, that could pay off big time in the sense that Collective revenue (i.e our tax dollars) could be use in a much more constructive way….

The libertarian BS notion of complete “freedom” would in fact promote the exact social Darwinism the brings about fascism in the first place. So please keep your second amendment rights (which is exactly the same argument the “fascist” point maker makes) at the border.

You should be so lucky to have an actual, real, viable social democratic party in the states.


Cheers!

Mojoroad

[telamachus]

48. Excellent points!

Governments do regulate things that are dangerous. That is perhaps one of the most import role of our government.

One could find little argument against controlling TOXINS in food, air, and water but we are talking about a non toxic food ingredient.

The middle ground for some is to let the market dictate to some extent what is put out to eat. As people are educated they can make a choice to eat trans fat or not. Giant food companies will adapt to market shifts as we have seen in the past 3 decades in the organic food market.

Th primary issue for me is that although it would be great if we were all healthy some people enjoy their french fries and chips. Do you remember when MCDonalds switched to vegetable oil from animal fat? Well I will tell you that the animal fat fries were way better tasting be we adapted be cause enough of us (the smart ones) fought for a market change.

The issue of 'social policy' has always been the cornerstone on dictatorships and fascist countries.

This is a code word for master plans and we all know where those lead.

It is all well to set a precedent about trans fat but what if those in control in the future want even more social control? Fantasy I think not because the precedent will have been set.

I fully agree that the libertarian view has some MAJOR flaws especially in their views of environmental policy. I don't know if they are BS but I have had many a debate with local libertarians.

I am not sure what you mean about the 2nd amendment because I believe that many Americans leave out the first part of it.

[jdj]

77. where in the h. are you getting that trans fats are non-toxic??

what part of heart attack and stroke do you not understand?

The really hideous thing about this is that these products are in many of the foods that are marketed to kids, like pop-tarts and cereal. My generation is going to be lucky to live to be 50 as I am sitting on 35 years of transfat consumption.

[DrWeird]

89. He's playing semantics.

"toxins" are defined as harmful biological molecules, such as venoms, or red tide poison. He's splitting hairs. Which you would expect from somebody labelling consumer safety advocates both "communists" and "fascists." So trans-fatty acids are not really "toxins" literally since they're modified synthetically, even though they are in fact toxic and essentially come from biological sources.

As an organic chemist, I haven't got a problem with banning trans fatty acids. They're not necessary. They exist so RJR Nabisco can say a cent or two on the dollar at the expense of their customers. Fuck 'em.

[telamachus]

46. Oh no the franken foods are coming

head for the hills because we all gonna die....The open air trials that have been conducted on BT corn have shown that in very close proximity to fields milkweed plants have become dusted with BT contaminates from the corn. In these cases the monarchs have died not become sterile. There has been immediate action in the form of policy guidance to enlarge buffer zones around these crops. I suggest that you search some mainstream science publications for the whole story on GMOs the story is very complex and may come down to risk vs benefit.

I think that it is a great idea to go organic as this is most likely the best choice for many reasons.

[telamachus]

45. I think you meant to respond to another

post. In any case the whole point is who is to judge what is healthy or not? Caffine is an addictive substance and has some bad health effects why not ban it? Cheese has animal fats which are worse than plant fats so should we ban it?

What about sweets and portion size?

No answers?! I think not get the point. I don't want to see TOXINS in food air or water but give me a break abotu healthy lifestyles.

Ho wmany hours a day do YOU exercise? How about ddaily morning exercise...ever read 1984 get it yet?

I really must laugh when i see that our truly fascist current gov makes terrible rules that infringe on our rights (petriot act) but when I see people in free contries embracing laws concerning the types of food they eat it makes me wonder....

[MojoRoad]

49. It was addressed to you....

Of course there are many, many things that are bad for you yet perfectly legal, coffee could be one of them, BUT there are instances where the greater good benefits from a *small* sacrifice to "freedom of choice".

There's a law that says most commercial milk must be pasteurized...to protect our health. All meat is radiated...to protect our health... there's fluoride in the water in most states (and provinces)...to protect our health. My "right" to drive requires a license.... to protect our heath. Gun control.... etc etc. I understand what you are saying but happen to disagree with your methodology. Restricting a substance that has been proven to harm a substantial part of the population is NOT “fascism”. No one is saying "you can’t ever eat chocolate cake". Rather, it IS saying that that the cake manufacturers use something that doesn't OVERTLY cause SUBSTIANTIAL health problems. It just makes sense.

Look, if there was something in a Twinkie that caused 20% of people to loose a leg, would it not make sense to restrict that ingredient? *Not the Twinkie*, just the "leg loosing" agent. I mean you could argue that it's everyone’s right to loose a leg if they wanted to... but seriously!

Trans fat is just like that... causes 30% increase in heart attacks or whatever (I really don't remember) and could easily be replaced by alternatives. And remember, this is a substance used everywhere. so what if my twinkie costs 5 cents more. ;-)

[telamachus]

54. I guess that when it comes

down to it I feel that it is an extreme measure when there are alternatives such as Honest labeling and even warnings. These are measures that I would gladly support.

I guess I am the type to error on the side of choice not restriction.

The laws of unintended consequences may apply here as well. If corporations are forced into the corner on this issue they may choose to reduce their products and their work forces in turn. Look at the case of the large bakery (forgot name) on the east coast (US) that close several factories as a result of loss of sales due to the Atkins craze.

It may be true that an alternative can be found but this will lead to high consumer costs and possible costs in grant from the government.

An approach that would force change over time thus limiting the potential economic consequences would be to insist on accurate labeling and even warning on food.

The EU has reached this compromise in regards to labeling GM foods. Let the consumers make the choice.

There are many dangers to consumers but one needs to look at priorities. There are ways of decreasing the use of TFA without the repercussions that come with a ban.

Trans Fats are serious as they not only contribute to coronary artery problems they can increase the likelihood of diabetes.

[MojoRoad]

60. perfect example

I think where we disagree is where that preverbal "line" is drawn between individual and collective rights....

Anyhow high consumer cost is relative concept... I mean the U.S has a SERIOUS obesity problem... mainly because the working class eats cheap (a.k.a fast) food. NOW what i suggest to you is, that, for many, eating cheaply is in fact really not much of a choice. What's cheaper... a proper chicken dinner or a micro waved mass market heat lamped sugarcoated fat injected sweet/salty thing from McD's/ frozen in the 7-11? Now you could argue it's choice, but I think it suggests, for many, necessity. That said, No one would accept a ban on McD's or 7-11. BUT if you could HELP people by reducing a substance that is in 90% of the food some people eat, AND it would cost very little to do, AND would save YOUR tax dollars (that would other wise be going to heath care for the results of this item) AND would honestly NOT EVEN BE NOTICEABLE. I say why not? why deny the rights of poor people to have a larger choice of healthy options? Man I’ll tell you, personally I DREAM of the day a Big Mac is actually good for me! and you know what? Eventually I believe they will be! (Insert utopian theme music here) ;-)

[telamachus]

90. I agree

that it would be best if we all could have a choice. Your point about the fast food being cheap is right on the money! To many the Mc d's dollar menu is their only choice.

My issue is two fold 1: I have confidence that change and healthier foods will prevail but through consumer pressure on the market.
2: I have difficulty supporting a precedent that COULD lead to further limits on choice.

I am not a slippery slope theorist but I do have lines that I draw. I am aware of the potential problem (very real) with trans fats but this danger does not pose the degree of threat that other legal substances do.

I do agree that there is great concern about the public health of the un educated and poor but I would rather take the path of education and consumer demand than the quick fix of legislation. Many quick fixes has unintended consequences.

[GliderGuider]

57. Bertrand Russell

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)

[Brundle_Fly]

58. Well Said!

[Donkeyboy75]

39. This money would be better spent on health education.

This move could very well backfire. Prices for processed foods and fast foods will go up, and now the purveyors of this food will have an easy scapegoat: those pesky liberals interfering with the free market.

You can easily get nutritional information on virtually any food you eat. And if you have the time to post here, you have the time to locate that information.

[Bridget Burke]

53. Well, it's the Canadians' money, isn't it?

Since they have a national health plan, it's in their own self interest to reduce expensive health problems.

[Donkeyboy75]

64. Not by restricting the choice to eat what you like.

Besides, this would open the door to banning shit like cigarettes and alcohol. Those substances cost taxpayer money as well.

[Brundle_Fly]

61. BU**SH*T

30% savings on healthcare costs, can be funneled into so many positive programs.

You can educate smokers about the risks, doesnt stop them, I imagine educating the obese on the logistics of vegetables versus fries is about as effective.

I don't see how this can be considered a violation of a freedom, and if it is, lookout the people who revolt will all be in great shape for the protests.

FUCK THE BOZOS!

[Donkeyboy75]

65. Hey, that's a great idea.

I'll just carry your analogy further and ban the eating of all non-vegetables and smoking. Then, the money saved on health care can be spent on other positive programs.

[MojoRoad]

66. Once again it's about balance...

Dude, think about it...no one is saying you cannot eat crap...Christ you could go to the store and buy pounds of MSG and make a milkshake, that's your right, I suppose. But things like LIMITING alcohol to adults and banning smoking in public spaces (like here in Toronto) just make common sense. ... I think that you are somehow confusing trans fat with "food". It's not. It's a synthetic man made creation.

As I suggested earlier if twinkies caused %20 of all people to loose a leg.... Because of an ingredient, you remove the ingredient from the Twinkie...NOT the Twinkie. The fact is the damage outweighs the benefits in this case. There are alternatives to this ubiquitous product that could be used instead. By your logic we'd all still be using leaded gas... because it's our RIGHT to pollute the environment more than we have to, for example.

[Donkeyboy75]

71. This argument makes no sense:

"By your logic we'd all still be using leaded gas... because it's our RIGHT to pollute the environment more than we have to, for example."

This argument doesn't follow my logic at all. Lead pollutes the environment. Therefore, using lead in your gas harms others. Eating trans fat doesn't. And don't give me the crap about increased health care costs. Again, if that's your argument, we should ban alcohol...as abuse can lead to health costs, and cigarettes as well.

Trans fats existed well before man was on the earth. It's in many animal products and some dairy products, so you need to check your facts on that.

Public education campaigns have worked to reduce smoking, DUI and child abuse. It works.

[MojoRoad]

72. misunderestimated my argument.

What I was trying to say with the gas allusion was simply this...
In yesteryear, leaded gas was considered necessary for motors to operate properly-- BUT, as technology advanced, the need for leaded gas became unnecessary... unleaded would DO THE EXACT SAME THING and HARM LESS PEOPLE. Yes, trans fat does exist, in small levels, in natural cases... ..like canola oil. HOWEVER the ONLY reason it is so readily available AND IN OUR FOOD SUPLLY in a great abundance, is because it is synthesized, because it is a CHEAP way for fast food, junk food, cakes etc have body...(I.E it's a thickener). TECHNOLOGY has surpassed the need for this damaging ingredient in our food supply, WITH VERY LITTLE CHANGE to taste texture etc, etc. It’s gonna save us money. And keep us healthy(er). ..And no ONE IS GOING TO NOTICE! Besides it's a moot point anyway.... looks like it's gonna happen here... IT HAS ALL PARTY SUPPORT (including the so called "free market conservative party", even they know this makes sense.). We'll keep our "nanny" state, with our healthier, less obese children, lowered heart attacks, and take the saving and put it towards...oh I dunno, cancer research. Or peace initiates. Or keeping Bushes Starwars II out of our country.

Cheers.

P.S this is from todays Toronto Star.

Canada to seek near ban on trans fats

OTTAWA—In a rare moment of consensus, the government and opposition parties have united to declare war on trans fats — heart-clogging compounds present in many processed foods.

Canada will become the second country in the world, after Denmark, to seek a virtual ban on trans fats from its national menu.

The government will create a task force including experts from the food industry, academia and advocacy groups to recommend strategies for reducing trans fats in food, Carolyn Bennett, secretary of state for public health, announced yesterday.

Bennett said she was pleased to get support from all parties including the Conservatives who were initially rumoured to have objections.

"I think this is an example of the fabulous co-operation you can get in Parliament," she said in an interview.

"The evidence is very clear that trans fats are bad and we should keep them to the lowest possible level."

The announcement came as the Commons wrapped up a day of debate on a motion by NDP MP Pat Martin calling for the virtual elimination of trans fats.

A gram of trans fat is said to be 10 times more damaging to heart health than a gram of saturated fat.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation has played a leading role in the campaign to reduce trans fat levels.

Trans fats occur naturally but most are created when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil, a process known as hydrogenation. Canadians eat up to 10 grams of trans fats a day, one of the highest rates in the world. It's found in a lot of fast foods and many commercial baked goods.

Denmark has set a goal of reducing trans fats to no more than 2 per cent of food content but Bennett said Canada's goal will be adapted to its food supply. She noted that canola oil, an important Canadian product, contains 3 per cent trans fats. It's highly unlikely that any party would want to damage the canola industry.

"I'm very heartened that no one challenged the science," Bennett said.

Task force members will be chosen by the Commons health committee and recommendations should be ready within a year.

Canadian Press

Transfat

[Donkeyboy75]

81. Minor point:

Trans fats aren't cheaper because they are synthesized. They are produced using a chemical process on existing oil. Since labor and costs are involved, they are actually MORE expensive than your starting oil. I personally am not aware that there exists current technology that will replace trans fats. Could you point me to the link (not challenging you, just curious).

Anyhow, this is good legislation if all parties are behind it. Too much fingerpointing can go on if just the left supports it. Again, prices could go up, and the liberals would play the scapegoat for making cheap food more expensive.

[MojoRoad]

82. I'm no expert on this but...

Here's a list of quotes from major food manufacturers in canada


(chips)


Frito-Lay Canada has been using cottonseed oil in its potato chip brands (like Lay's) for a number of years. Like the U.S., this cottonseed oil is without trans fatty acids and is not hydrogenated.

Frito-Lay Canada has also recently converted some of its brands (like Crunchy Cheetos) to corn oil, an oil without trans fatty acids and non-hydrogenated. The remaining brands will convert to corn oil (no trans fats or hydrogenation) in the future



(Fries)
Today's consumers want healthy alternatives without compromising consistency in quality and taste. McCain Foods is continually working to improve existing products and to develop innovative new products to provide these alternatives. McCain has recently displayed leadership in North America by introducing French fries prepared in non-hydrogenated oils in order to lower the levels of trans fatty acids. Similar initiatives have occurred or are planned at other company operations around the world. At the same time McCain is working closely with its customers to develop new product options for quick service restaurants.


McDonald's Response (on trans fats)
We are still fully committed to the conversion of our oil in all of our restaurants. As I'm sure you can appreciate, it is a very big job. We are working in conjunction with our U.S. colleagues at McDonalds and our entire supply chain system to make this conversion.

Ultimately, the desire is to do what is best for our customers and for McDonalds, and the procedure is one that we have always been concerned with - and that is ensuring the best quality product for our customers. We're always looking at improving our already very high quality standards and we're definitely again still committed to this fully. It's taking a little bit longer than we hoped because it is a big job.

(Is there a better option than trans?)

Many scientists agree that trans fats appear to be twice as bad as saturated or animal fats and that we might have been better off sticking with the original plant oils. Palm and coconut oils are highly stable and do not require hydrogenation and are trans fat free. In fact, studies have shown that coconut oil is a healthy fat and that it reduces the risk of heart disease cancer and other degenerative diseases.


(How will manufacturers replace or reduce trans in their products in the years to come?)

"Experts confirm that in North America the wholesale return to tropical oils is unlikely unless consumers demand it. That's because North America's biggest food producers own more soybean, corn, and canola than they do coconut and palm stock."

source http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/transfat/index_glossary.html



:D

[Donkeyboy75]

84. Good to know.

Thanks. I had been reading that replacement hadn't been ironed out yet. Cool.

[MojoRoad]

86. actually you're right in a way

I don't think there is an exact replacement...just different options depending on what's needed. .. the link I gave you was from last year....so it's a little dated... but come to think of it I DO remember McD's Canada promising to get rid of trans fat with in a year...they didn't and apologized for it with that explanation.

[MojoRoad]

83. Just as an aside....

Up here "liberals" actually takes on a different meaning.

Our main ruling party are actually called the Liberal party. (although I suppose oppisition parties on both sides might argue differently, being called a "a Liberal" is not a "dirty" word like it is down there.. at least not in the same context...as it represents a party). Consequently, our "left wing" aren't even "liberal"... they're social democrats! (yes the dreaded "socialist" party of "Soviet Cannuckistan"...an even "dirtier" word in the U.S.A! I should also add they were the founders of healthcare in Canada. And pensions. And voter equality.).

;-)

[Donkeyboy75]

85. Damn.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Ireland's system as well. There are six major parties here (just got here three months ago). I do prefer Parliamentary democracy...and thanks for the clarification of the Canadian system.

[MojoRoad]

87. he he... thanks for the interesting discussion! But......

although Canada’s parliament is a little more confusing than that simple explanation.... as a matter of fact it's got quite a few distinctly Canadian quirks (i.e funny).

For instance... the "left" as I explained before really only belongs to the NDP outside of the province of Quebec. There, they are represented by the "separatist" Bloc Québécois.. social democratic.., but also committed to the breakup of the country (Not that that is the reason why many vote for them mind you.). Here's the kicker about the B.Q. though.. they are supported by our Taxes (our election system is less dependant on direct fundraising), and not so long ago had the most seats outside the government... thereby giving the historic title "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"!

On the "right" it gets even weirder. One party (the progressive conservatives used to be the main "other" party. yes, that's right, "progressive" Conservatives. This is (was) a uniquely Canadian invention. Like the British system they were nicknamed "Tories". And with in them they had a tradition (their "left") called "Red (AKA liberal/socialist) Tories"....

Still with me? OK. We had a "Progressive Conservative" PM back in the 80's that won for two terms by FORGING AN ALLIENCE with the historically SOCIALIST Quebec SEPERATISTS. His name was Brian Mulroney. He was Reagan's best Friend. We got free trade.

..Mulroney was SO despised by the end his party got decimated getting only 2 seats in parliament. This is what fractured the political system. The B.Q was born when a P.C cabinet minister walked out and started the sepratist party!

Then.... That also begat what became 1: the "Reform Party" which became the "Canadian Reform Alliance Party" (shorthand, "C.R.A.P" which didn't last to long for obvious reasons)/ Then just "The Alliance Party.". They were the official opposition for a while (but were very regional mostly found in Western Canada and as close as we come to your repugs). ...One of their leaders, Stockwell Day, an admitted creationist, was pretty much laughed off in our "blue states (I.e everywhere outside of the western prairies)when he held a press conference...arriving on a Jet Ski.

Recently (just before our last election) the P.C party (the more "mainstream" party on the Canadian right) held a leadership contest to revive itself. There were 2 "main" contenders 1: a guy named Peter Mckay who signed an agreement "Never to merge with the Alliance" WITH 2: David Orchard, who was a farmer that was pretty much was anti everything the P.C party stood for, and brought many lefties into the conservative party!

Of course with this new found agreement McKay won the convention and the leadership of the P.C party...and promptly merged with the Alliance!!!!!!

This was more like a hostile take over, really, and the Alliance faction "killed" the name progressive conservative... the party is now just called "conservative"... run by a main brain behind the Reform/Alliance "wackos" (my word) Stephen Harper....which has driven many old "Conservatives" to the "Liberals".

and so on and so on..........

[Donkeyboy75]

88. I remember Mulroney.

Funny story. What a fall from grace his party had.

[Emillereid]

59. Another reason to move to Canada --

I used to live in Canada and I was back in Vancouver for a couple of weeks in October -- it's such a civilized place. I noticed then that all the food packages gave the percentage of trans fats. As a nutritionist I appreciate that. Trans fats are definitely bad things.

My husband and I are thinking of moving back -- imagine no trans fats and no war machine -- quite a bargain, eh?

[theboss]

67. You have got to be fucking kidding me....

They can have my French Fries when they pry them from my cold dead hands (which may be a few months from now, but still). What are they going to ban next? Sugar? Fast cars? Porn?

Why not make just everyone live in a yurt and eat wheat-germ?

[jdj]

78. once again, anything made with transfats can be made without them.

they are a cheap ingredient for manufacturers to use, but they've only been on the scene for a few decades, and people ate food before then.

[telamachus]

92. Foods that need to

have solid room temperature fats are made with these trans fats. The trans fats are a byproduct of hydrogenation which was introduced as a process to make liquid fats at room temperature become solid.

These fats are very dangerous when abused and may not be any better than the lards and butter they replaced.

Since you know so much about food processing please help me out and tell me about the alternatives?

[partisan to truth]

69. good synopsis of trans fat synthesis, health effects, and comparison to

saturated fats.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html

*snip*

Conclusion
Five years ago evidence was strong that trans fat had deleterious impacts on blood lipids; ensuing studies have confirmed these metabolic findings and strengthened epidemiologic support for an important adverse effect on risk of coronary heart disease. These data highlight the need for rapid implementation of labeling requirements that include fast foods. Because partially hydrogenated fats can be eliminated from the food supply by changes in processing that do not require major efforts in education and behavioral modification, these changes would be an extremely efficient and rapid method for substantially reducing rates of coronary disease.

*snip*

[MojoRoad]

73. Done Deal! It's got all party support!

Canada to seek near ban on trans fats



OTTAWA—In a rare moment of consensus, the government and opposition parties have united to declare war on trans fats — heart-clogging compounds present in many processed foods.

Canada will become the second country in the world, after Denmark, to seek a virtual ban on trans fats from its national menu.

The government will create a task force including experts from the food industry, academia and advocacy groups to recommend strategies for reducing trans fats in food, Carolyn Bennett, secretary of state for public health, announced yesterday.

Bennett said she was pleased to get support from all parties including the Conservatives who were initially rumoured to have objections.

"I think this is an example of the fabulous co-operation you can get in Parliament," she said in an interview.

"The evidence is very clear that trans fats are bad and we should keep them to the lowest possible level."

The announcement came as the Commons wrapped up a day of debate on a motion by NDP MP Pat Martin calling for the virtual elimination of trans fats.

A gram of trans fat is said to be 10 times more damaging to heart health than a gram of saturated fat.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation has played a leading role in the campaign to reduce trans fat levels.

Trans fats occur naturally but most are created when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil, a process known as hydrogenation. Canadians eat up to 10 grams of trans fats a day, one of the highest rates in the world. It's found in a lot of fast foods and many commercial baked goods.

Denmark has set a goal of reducing trans fats to no more than 2 per cent of food content but Bennett said Canada's goal will be adapted to its food supply. She noted that canola oil, an important Canadian product, contains 3 per cent trans fats. It's highly unlikely that any party would want to damage the canola industry.

"I'm very heartened that no one challenged the science," Bennett said.

Task force members will be chosen by the Commons health committee and recommendations should be ready within a year.

Canadian Press

[Minstrel Boy]

79. "Government and opposition parties unite to declare war on trans fats"

OTTAWA (CP) - In a rare moment of consensus, the government and opposition parties have united to declare war on trans fats - heart-clogging compounds present in many processed foods.

Canada will become the second country in the world, after Denmark, to seek a virtual ban on trans fats from its national menu.

http://www.canada.com/health/story.html?id=f693e59f-1733-4d10-a70a-f7ab648b73de

Yay Canada! If I may say so - we rock! :toast:

And there's a war I can throw my support to.

[MojoRoad]

80. Indeed we do!

Hurraah for grey matter existing (sometimes) in our government system.

[GoSolar]

91. Oh Canada!

You look better every day!