Thursday, March 30, 2006

Health Canada needs to get a grip!!


Recent events at Health Canada have to make you start scratching your head and wondering, “What are they doing?!?!?”.


In no other time in the health and diets of the Nation has there been more definitive evidence about Type II Diabetes growing in massive populations of Canadians. First, in older, sedentary Canadians with bad diets, in spite of all the nutrition information available, we resort to Lipitor , rather than change our lifestyles. Then, data began to pour in about our children, succumbing to Type II diabetes, in record numbers.


As well, we have seen much concern over Trans fats, and their impact on our bodies. Worldwide, many countries are working to control the amounts of these fats their populations are exposed to. (see Denmark)


Younger and younger women are feeling the impact of Calcium deprived diets, from decades of misinformation and an Osteoporosis epidemic is waiting in the wings.


So what does the watchdog of the Health of Canadians do? They do nothing definitive on Trans fats or labeling & standards to aid consumers. Nor do they use valid research to fix their broad brush approach to Calcium. They decide to rewrite the FOOD GUIDE to focus our population and guide Dietitians. There is only one problem with this whole massive effort. The FOOD GUIDE as currently proposed is WRONG!!!


What will Canadian Consumers do when they find out they have been sold out by their own Health department? Just what are they thinking? They don't appear to be using good research to support where they are going and how they are taking us there.


Vilifying good natural fats (butter and milk fat), ignoring Trans fats in processed foods, and focusing our attention on substitute products for milk (soy beverages) and then calling them MILK, with NO RESEARCH to prove their claims, suggesting that added Calcium in these man-made products will fix all…… my head is spinning.


How is this nonsense going to aid Canadians and our straining Health budget in the next 10 years? I believe it is going to make matters far worse.


Health Canada assumes TOO MUCH!!!! Our once esteemed watchdog is succumbing to VOO DOO Science and populist theories and then trying to take us all down a one way track to trouble!


I just can’t believe that after all the documentation and research out there they would go along with unproven and dangerous crap from a group of society that forgets the Naked Ape is an Omnivore!! (Look it up!)

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Canadian Consumers Need to know the REAL Cost of their Food.

There is an enormous, untallied cost to our modern food system. Very few consumers understand this untold 'cost'. I have reprinted this excellent article because it should give everyone food for thought!

Fossil Fuel For Breakfast
By Chad Heeter, Tomdispatch.com. Posted March 29, 2006

Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again.
On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this particular morning is a healthy looking little meal -- a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee. Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home and the ingredients for this one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a cafe in downtown Berkeley, I'd likely have to add another $6, plus tip for the same.)

My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So, for just over a buck and half an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal, what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a little butter, milk, and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a Saudi Arabian one.

Then, what you'd be likely to see -- what's really there, just hidden from our view (not to say our taste buds) -- is about four ounces of crude oil. Throw in those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (another three ounces of crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk, and salt (another ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen.

Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.)

Nearly 20% of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare, Ireland, and that specially-raised coffee in Guatemala -- think tractors as well as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.
The next 40% of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging, and shipping.

Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy goodness -- a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices.

Scattered around the bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns, and three fresh raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a few steps twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's website illustrates each step in the cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting, and rolling that turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require significant energy costs.

Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which is in turn inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only then does my "breakfast" leave Ireland and travel over 5,000 fuel-gorging, CO2-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in California.

Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps hints at a birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "Product of Chile" tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California.

If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That final 40% of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and restaurants, the chilling in refrigerators and the cooking on stoves using electricity or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine.

For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping, consuming, and finally disposing of it. The "caloric input" of fossil fuel is then compared to the energy available in the edible product, the "caloric output."

What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of over seven calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400 calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have "consumed" 2,800 calories of fossil-fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio to be as high as ten to one.)

But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me only a few calories of energy, but to process just one pound of coffee requires over 8,000 calories of fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or around two and a half pounds of coal.

So how do you gauge how much oil went into your food?

First check out how far it traveled. The further it traveled, the more oil it required. Next, gauge how much processing went into the food. A fresh apple is not processed, but Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal requires enormous amounts of energy to process. The more processed the food, the more oil it required. Then consider how much packaging is wrapped around your food. Buy fresh vegetables instead of canned, and buy bulk beans, grains, and flour if you want to reduce that packaging.

By now, you're thinking that you're in the clear, because you eat strictly organically-grown foods. When it comes to fossil-fuel calculations though, the manner in which food's grown is where differences stop. Whether conventionally-grown or organically-grown, a raspberry is shipped, packed, and chilled the same way.

Yes, there are some savings from growing organically, but possibly only of a slight nature. According to a study by David Pimentel at Cornell University, 30% of fossil-fuel expenditure on farms growing conventional (non-organic) crops is found in chemical fertilizer. This 30% is not consumed on organic farms, but only if the manure used as fertilizer is produced in very close proximity to the farm. Manure is a heavy, bulky product. If farms have to truck bulk manure for any distance over a few miles, the savings are eaten up in diesel-fuel consumption, according to Pimentel. One source of manure for organic farmers in California is the chicken producer Foster Farms. Organic farmers in Monterey County, for example, will have to truck tons of Foster's manure from their main plant in Livingston, Ca. to fields over 100 miles away.
So the next time we're at the grocer, do we now have to ask not only where and how this product was grown, but how far its manure was shipped?

Well, if you're in New York City picking out a California-grown tomato that was fertilized with organic compost made from kelp shipped from Nova Scotia, maybe it's not such a bad question. But should we give up on organic? If you're buying organic raspberries from Chile each week, then yes. The fuel cost is too great, as is the production of the greenhouse gases along with it. Buying locally-grown foods should be the first priority when it comes to saving fossil fuel.

But if there were really truth in packaging, on the back of my oatmeal box where it now tells me how many calories I get from each serving, it would also tell me how many calories of fossil fuels went into this product. On a scale from one to five -- with one being non-processed, locally-grown products and five being processed, packaged imports -- we could quickly average the numbers in our shopping cart to get a sense of the ecological footprint of our diet. From this we would gain a truer sense of the miles-per-gallon in our food.

What appeared to be a simple, healthy meal of oatmeal, berries, and coffee looks different now. I thought I was essentially driving a Toyota Prius hybrid -- by having a very fuel-efficient breakfast, but by the end of the week I've still eaten the equivalent of over two quarts of Valvoline. From the perspective of fossil-fuel consumption, I now look at my breakfast as a waste of precious resources. And what about the mornings that I head to Denny's for a Grand-Slam breakfast: eggs, pancakes, bacon, sausage? On those mornings -- forget about fuel efficiency -- I'm driving a Hummer.

What I eat for breakfast connects me to the planet, deep into its past with the fossilized remains of plants and animals which are now fuel, as well as into its future, when these non-renewable resources will likely be in scant supply. Maybe these thoughts are too grand to be having over breakfast, but I'm not the only one on the planet eating this morning.

My meal traveled thousands of miles around the world to reach my plate. But then there's the rise of perhaps 600 million middle-class Indians and Chinese. They're already demanding the convenience of packaged meals and the taste of foreign flavors. What happens when middle-class families in India or China decide they want their Irish oats for breakfast, topped by organic raspberries from Chile? They'll dip more and more into the planet's communal oil well. And someday soon, we'll all suck it dry.

Chad Heeter is a freelance writer, documentary filmmaker and former high school science teacher.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

ROB.TV gets it wrong!!! Are we surprised?

The “Spilled Milk” gang is at it again! Some of the same old partnership from the December MacLeans article. This time, the focus is designed to freak out the Canadian government and the Canadian position at the WTO.

The current flavour of the month is an American Lawyer for Mr. Birch, Mr. Todd Weiler. He obviously doesn't understand the Canadian dairy system and probably doesn’t care. It looks as if, after continuously losing their case in court, they are now taking their view of life to selected media. Of course the media chosen is ROB TV(Report on Business http://www.robtv.com ) Their business reporting, as far as the dairy industry is concerned , is not known for its balance.

This time around it was a one sided view of the Birch case (Squeeze Play-March 2,2006). It is an expanded 20 minuet version of the news report below, all produced without any comment provided from the province of Ontario (who is fighting the current case) or Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

Georgian Bay Milk, U.S. investors plan NAFTA suit vs. Canadian government
Canada Press

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

BARRIE, Ont. (CP) - Georgian Bay Milk Co. and its U.S. investors are threatening to sue the Canadian government over Ontario's dairy quota system.

The claim will be filed under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Barrie-based company said Wednesday. Georgian Bay Milk sells milk directly to the United States and to Canadian processors who use it to make cheese and other dairy products that are exported to the United States.

The firm said in a release that its business "has been consistently under attack by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, a producer group that is broadly empowered by the Ontario government to set rules for (who) is allowed to buy and sell milk and milk products in Ontario."

The DFO maintains a supply management system that requires anyone wishing to produce milk for consumption in Ontario to obtain a quota, now selling for more than $25,000 a cow.

Georgian Bay and the farmers who supply it don't take part in DFO's quota system and has exclusively used non-quota milk for its export business.

"With the blessing of the Ontario government, the DFO is now attempting to force Georgian Bay to abandon its existing suppliers and only use milk from quota-holding DFO members," the company said.

Georgian Bay says it can't comply with the DFO rules because exports of DFO quota milk to the United States were ruled illegal in late 2002 by the World Trade Organization.

Todd Weiler, Georgian Bay's NAFTA lawyer, said the Ontario government "has bowed to pressure from the DFO and taken steps to destroy Georgian Bay's business - costing my clients their livelihoods.

"Under the NAFTA, the government of Canada is responsible for all of the actions of its provinces. It will be the one to write the cheque."

© The Canadian Press 2006

A bit of sleuthing finds out who is listed as the NAFTA challengers. (See http://www.naftaclaims.com ) The challengers are listed as GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams. Hmmmmm!??! GL Farms LLC does not appear to be a processor. There is no information out there on the internet about them at all.

A brief look on the internet under LLC, finds out some fascinating information. You can purchase your LLC in Delaware, for instance, for about $1000.00. Not only that, under Delaware law, shareholders can remain anonymous. Foreign companies are welcome!

It doesn’t stretch my imagination much, to speculate that there may not even be any US investors, but a shell company set up by Mr. Birch and his co-horts, to hide who is doing what and to then launch their Chapter 11 challenge from the safety of a Delaware shell company.

Dairy Farmers of Ontario is an Ontario non-profit corporation set up and run by the dairy farmers of that province. Chapter 11 is an American procedure. Chapter 11 is a process Canada has no control over. We have historically lost all of these, as they tend to support American companies. How convenient to have an American LLC , that any foreign company can purchase, to initiate an expensive challenge against the government of Ontario and the dairy farmers of the province.

Add to this mix, the ROB Reporter believes and states, without any proof, consumers in Canada pay more for their dairy products than their American counterparts. There is ample documented proof at the DFC website( http://www.dairygoodness.ca/en/Media/home.htm ) that this is NOT true. This same old lie is trotted out, time and time again, the only reason detractors can think up to support their bid to destroy Supply management.

In Canada, there is no requirement or mechanism for the retailer to pass on ANY decreased prices, to the consumer. And there is overwhelming historical data that shows no matter what is happening to on farm prices, consumers never see the benefits. (See Feb. 20th posting)

A bunch of right wing reporters and an American lawyer!!!! Just what Canadian dairy farmers need! Total objectivity!!