Okay. So we have an exciting new food guide here in Canada, but please do not think this means there is nothing to stick to in Canadian food policy.
Back in 2009, I published a track for the top 10 nutritious hills that are worth fighting.
This list includes:
- A food-based guide
- A national ban on fats
- Mandatory calories with menus
So it is nice that at least some progress has been made.
Although it is not exhaustive and has no particular order, there are 6 hills worth fighting (adjusted from the same starting position):
- We need to find fast food from our schools. Although pizza days, sub-days, shawarma days and others can increase some money for our school system and can give parents a day when they do not have to pack their children with a meal (assuming they have not taught their children to they do so – and here I say yes, children can do it, even children aged 8 or 9), I do not think these reasons justify the means. And here I do not care if the fast pizza (or anything else) is formulated in such a way as to satisfy a document about food policy because it does not change the fact that the school provided weekly branded fast food only because it is Thursday teaches children , even those who do not order it, fast food is a normal and healthy part of the weekly life. Since some schools have different fast food every day of the week, consider the message that our children teach.
- We need a national school program for food. Canada is one of the few western nations that does not support a national public-financed meal program for its students. It has been shown that school nutrition programs significantly improve the mental and physical well-being of students using them with some reports of increase in standardized test scores, fewer illnesses, better discipline and improved alertness. According to Dr. David Butler-Jones, former Canadian Health Manager,
"When children go to school hungry or poorly nutritionally, energy levels, memory, problem solving skills, creativity, concentration and behavior have a negative effect. eat a nutritious breakfast before school. Of nearly a quarter of Canadian 4th grade children do not eat breakfast daily and, from grade 8, that number jumps to almost half of all girls. The reasons for this vary – from lack of available food or nutritional choices for low-income households, poor nutritional choices for children and / or carers. As a result of their hunger at school, these children may not be able to reach their development potential – a result that may have an effect on health, whole lives "
If you are interested, sign this official electronic application of the House of Commons to the government requesting it.
- We must prohibit advertising to children. Simply and simply, young children are not able to distinguish the difference between truth and advertising and therefore I think it is totally unethical to allow marketers to target them. In addition, food, and especially unhealthy food, is the first source of television advertising for children. Honestly to me, whether or not they affect childhood obesity rates (make) is next to the point as I think child targeting is immoral. The somewhat encouraging news is that unlike in 2009, there is action now that Bill S-228 passed the third reading in the House of Commons of Canada, but since he has not yet received a royal agreement, he still needs support .
- We need a soda tax. State intelligence inspectors tend to try to color soda taxes as a draconian cash grab and a violation of civil liberties, but what is generally requested is a nominal tax on beverage manufacturers for every ounce of sweetened sweeteners that will increase the cost of a pot soda at about 12 cents. An enormous amount of money for each person, but it is likely to earn more than $ 1 billion a year in Canada, which if used to fund such projects as the National Food Program would be an incredibly beneficial tax (and according to studies it would lead also to a 10% reduction in national soda consumption). And as long as the tax is depressing, as my friend RD Andy Bellatti sounded, try diabetes and also take a look at this piece that extends to this thought at The Lancet.
- We must put an end to the health claims of the front packet or at least make it dramatic. Sure, the new food guide says:to know food marketing"but why should the consumer make the packs to ensure that the claims on the front are not misleading or that the product on the packaging is not a nutrient? In fact, where Kellogg can boast about Froot's vitamin D content Loops and the whole grains at the front of her boxes. I personally prefer a purchase without any health claims and although I do not think you will go there, boy looks nice.
- We need to address the complement industry (and their suppliers) in the same way we do pharmaceutical products. Simply, if a product is sold to cure a medical condition, the same weight of proof required by the pharmaceuticals (actual evidence of safety and efficacy) should be applied to so-called nutraceuticals. This would be a huge blow to completing sales, as the Canadian Healthy Health Products Division is comfortable and accepts things like traditional uses as a means to get approval. This costs the Canadians in more than one way, because not only these products often cost a significant amount of money, but some will certainly give up the actual medical treatment and evaluation in place of the silly hucksters who deal with fear, goodwill and personal misfortune the hope of selling in bottles.
Here I hope I can pass some of them from my list over the next decade.