My regular readers will remember a ways back I blogged about the QEII hospital in Halifax where a cardiology resident wrote an opinion piece about the state of the cafeteria's food there.

Well, I've decided to take a tour of our local hospitals and last week I took advantage of being at the Ottawa Heart Institute (OHI) giving a talk and I brought my new toy - it's a Flip video camera that's roughly the size of a cell phone that dead easy to use and at least a little bit inconspicuous.

My goal was to record the dietary fare at the OHI. The picture of the frying bacon on the grill above in the Heart Institute's Cafeteria (named Tickers) sums things up fairly well, but I'll run it down for you a bit further.

One of the first things you see when you walk through the Heart Institute's main doors is a Tim Horton's replete with its many varieties of deep fried donuts. More interesting are their non-donut options - here's a smattering along with some of their nutritional information:

Sausage, Egg and Cheese Breakfast Sandwich - 500 calories, 34grams of fat and 920mg of sodium.

Turkey Bacon Club - 440 calories, only 8 grams of fat and a blood pressure bursting 1730mg of sodium (that's more than Blood Pressure Canada recommends in an entire day for a healthy individual let alone a patient at the Heart Institute)

Hearty Vegetable Soup - 70 calories, 0.4 grams of fat and, wait for it, 1,060mg of sodium

In fact if you were a patient or a visitor at the OHI and you didn't particularly like the cafeteria or the hospital's food and instead decided to eat at Tim Horton's for breakfast, lunch and dinner and you chose the options with the lowest amount of sodium, you'd still almost certainly consume over 3,000mg of sodium. If you weren't being careful it'd be no trouble at all to clear 4,000mg.

Ok, so maybe an argument could be made that Tim Horton's is just there for snacking rather than meals and that instead OHI's Tickers has the healthy fare.

If only that were true.

Eat at Tickers too often and heaven help your tickers. While there may be a healthy option here or there, the bulk of the food served at Tickers is junk food. Burgers, fries, pop, ice cream, pastries etc., and I could not find a nutritional breakdown anywhere. That's really a shame given that many of the folks eating at Tickers will be patients and their relatives, all of whom clearly have risk factors for heart disease and therefore don't need to incur any additional dietary peril - I wonder if they'd appreciate a means with which to evaluate their choices?

Hey Heart Institute MDs - isn't sodium something you recommend we reduce?

Certainly the hour long lecture entitled "Salt and Hypertension" available on your website suggests you do.

Funny, I didn't see a slide that suggesting folks reduce their dietary salt intake by avoiding the food sold at the Heart Institute!

Below's a choppy video tape I took at the OHI. Hopefully I'll get more skilled with the equipment as this series progresses.

(Future editions of this series will cover the Ottawa Civic, the Ottawa General, the Queensway Carleton, the Royal Ottawa and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.)

Just what every child needs - a scooter after all, walking's for suckers.

Buy this for your kid and you can feel confident that you're setting them up for needing one of these as an adult.

[Via Gizmodo]

It's not exactly funny for Funny Friday but it's just too cool to not blog about.

It's a time lapse movie of graffiti drawn by an Italian graffiti artist (and I mean artist) named Muto.

Have a great weekend!

Today I'll be quoted in the National Post talking about obesity rates and likely some relationship will be drawn to the incredible indirect and direct health care expenditures attached to it.

Well today I've got a more positive spin on how obesity helped one man hit an incredible payday.

Tuesday night Christie's auction house sold a painting by Lucien Freud entitled, "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping".

According to CNN, The painting was painted over a period of 9 months back in 1995 and it's of Ms. Sue Tilley, a British governmental benefits manager.

With the sale Freud gained the honour of his painting selling for the highest dollar value of any painting ever painted by a living artist.

His obese payday?

$33.6 million dollars.

That's $3.73 million a month or $124,000 per day for the 9 months he spent painting it.

Unfortunately Ms. Tilley didn't get paid quite as well - she took home a comparatively anorexic $51/day.

[Hat tip goes out to my mom]

UPDATE: I received a phone call today from someone who felt this post was offensive to folks with weight to lose.

Frankly I don't see it.

I definitely don't understand art, that I'll readily admit and I can't fathom how any painting of anything is worth 33.6 million dollars.

I think it's a great painting and wonderful that the model wasn't self-conscious about her weight as frankly body image need not be tied into weight, but the post was really meant to highlight the tremendous value that society has placed on weight as evidenced by the incredible dollars spent on a portrait of an obese woman lounging on a sofa.

Anyhow, if anyone else was upset by this post feel free to let me know in the comments.

Ok, maybe it's not a surprise, but today at least, it's sure going to be news (and perhaps I'll be the first to break the embargo at 12:01AM - thanks Blogger for allowing scheduled posts!).

It's going to be on radio, print and television - the results of the first prong of the DiOGenes study. DiOGenes is a multi-pronged study spearheaded over in Europe and today's spear has to do with trying to answer the question, "What's the best diet to help maintain weight loss?".

This study was an enormous undertaking as it looked at whole families, in 8 different European countries for between 6 and 12 months and randomized their dietary intakes to compare weight gain with diets high or normal in protein and high or low in glycaemic index carbohydrates.

In total, the study aimed

"to recruit a total of around 850 obese/overweight parents (BMI>28) from the 8 participating centres, corresponding to 450 families with an estimated 450-1050 children, where at least one child in each family is overweight."

Mandatory too was an 8 week run-in weight loss phase where adult family members were required to lose 8% of their body weight before their family was admitted into the study.

The results weren't particularly surprising. Dietary protein helped maintain weight loss while GI index did not.

I think the most important part of the whole paper was a quote in the introduction that does a great job explaining why the world's getting so big so fast,

"Given our genetic background, it is essentially infeasible for humans to self-regulate food intake under current environmental circumstances."

What this basically states is that in 2008, the default is weight gain, and I can't agree more. People haven't changed in the past 100 years, but our environment sure has and the reason we're gaining weight so quickly now is that since weight gain is the default, that means by definition maintenance of a healthy body weight in our current environment has actually become a skill. And just like other skills (martial arts for instance), just because your minds' eye might know what it looks like to do a jumping, spinning hook kick, it doesn't mean you can simply jump up and do one.

To extrapolate a martial arts analogy to healthy weight think of it this way: Just because your minds' eye might know what a healthy lifestyle looks like, to expect yourself, without instruction, to be able to simply jump up and happily live with one is often too much to ask (people do it unhappily all the time - that's called dieting).

Not surprisingly this study was funded by Big Food and here's one time where I think it's a great partnership. Here's an opportunity for Big Food to help by using their study to help pave the way to the creation of new food products that may be useful in preventing weight gain/regain.

Hurray for Big Food!

(there's something I don't say very often)

[BTW, I'll likely have a 5-10 second sound bite on CTV's National News tonight in Avis Favaro's story on this study should any of my Canadian readers want to watch]

Not a magazine goes by it seems without a dairy ad extolling milk's (or another dairy product's) role in weight loss - this of course despite the fact that Big Milk in the US admitted that there was insufficient evidence to suggest or refute that milk has any weight-related benefits after being confronted by the FTC.

Well guess what? A new meta-analysis came to a different conclusion - it came to the conclusion that dairy products do not help with weight,

"Of 49 randomized trials assessing the effect of dairy products or calcium supplementation on body weight, 41 showed no effect, two demonstrated weight gain, one showed a lower rate of gain, and five showed weight loss. Four of 24 trials report differential fat loss. Consequently, the majority of the current evidence from clinical trials does not support the hypothesis that calcium or dairy consumption aids in weight or fat loss."

So back to the FTC - if Big Dairy admits there's not enough evidence, and if the evidence suggests in fact there's enough evidence to prove dairy is not a magic food covered in pixie dust that disobeys the laws of thermodynamics without affecting dietary consumption, why then are there still so many ads from Big Milk tied to weight?

Big Milk's new slogan by the way?

"Milk your Diet"

It's part of their,

"Campaign for Healthy Weight"

I've got to ask again, did Big Milk lie to the FTC?

Today marks two occasions.

Today's post is the 500th post of Weighty Matters and consequently I'd like to take the time to thank the folks out there who are taking the time to read it - it's only fun to write because of you.

Today is also my wedding Anniversary and consequently I'd like to take the time to thank my wonderful wife as without her, there'd certainly be no blog, I'd likely not be doing what I'm doing, I wouldn't have my two wonderful girls and my life would definitely not be as happy.

Thanks honey, I love you.

Yoni

(Back to my regularly scheduled ranting tomorrow)

Poor Kermie.

Life without the Muppets has clearly been hard on him.

For today's Funny Friday, here's Kermit's rendition of Elliot Smith's Needle in the Hay.

(for fans of the movie the Royal Tenenbaums, this is a must see video)

You know, the fact that I think the Health Check program is nutritionally bereft and a national disgrace is debatable for some and indeed there are folks out there who disagree with me and think Health Check's great.

I think they're wrong of course (and so too does nutritional evidence) and certainly I've posted plenty on why Health Check stinks in the past.

Of course even the folks who disagree with me the most aren't going to be able to squirm their way out of acknowledging that math is certainly not Health Check's strong point.

Today I'd like to look at a page I've scanned in from Health Check's recent publication, "A Woman's Guide to Healthy Eating and Active Living" that my wonderful wife picked up for me at Sobey's.

Click the page for a larger view (the red highlighted areas are my added emphases)


So here the fantabulous dietitians of the Heart and Stroke Foundation are once again endorsing the consumption of beef. According to them,

"Choosing leaner beef is part of healthy eating"

"Beef, Goodness in Every Bite"

and,

"Eating well is easy by adding lean beef to your busy mealtimes"

Now let's put aside the fact that eating beef is certainly NOT a part of healthy eating (for more information click on the Beef tag at the end of this post to see my various concerns regarding beef). Instead I want to focus on lean ground beef.

I've gone through this math before on my blog, but for the sake of the Heart and Stroke Foundation (clearly they need some help), let's go through it again:

Following the Food Guide and eating Health Check'ed-dietitian-approved lean ground beef women are allowed 150 grams a day and men, 225 grams a day.

Lean ground beef in Canada by definition is 17% fat (extra lean is 10%).

17% of a woman's 150 gram allotment = 25.5 grams of fat.

17% of a man's 225 grams = 38.25 grams of fat.

There are 9 calories per gram of fat.

25.5 grams of fat = 229.5 calories.

38.25 grams of fat = 344.25 calories.

Health Canada, as evidenced by our food labels, believes the average adult needs 2,000 calories daily (though that's likely too much for the average woman and too little for the average man).

If only 30% of our daily calories are supposed to come from fat, 30% of 2,000 calories would mean that Health Canada recommends that we get no more than 600 calories from fat daily.

However, 229.5 calories divided by the recommended 600 total daily fat calories = 38% of the recommended daily intake of fat, while 344.25 calories divided by the recommended 600 total daily fat calories = 57% of recommended daily intake of fat!

So in case you didn't follow all of that the end result is that if you choose the Health Check'ed lean ground beef that Heart and Stroke Dietitians say, "is part of healthy eating" and you even actually restrict your portion to those recommended by the Food Guide (and let me tell you, that's not a ton of meat), then in that single serving if you're a woman you'll be consuming 38% of your total daily recommended intake of fat and if you're a man 57%.

That sure sounds like a lot.

Apparently that's even a lot for the Heart and Stroke Foundation given that highlighted on the left hand side of the page is there admonishment not to consume foods containing more than 10% of your total daily recommended value of fat.

So here we have the left hand telling us no more than 10% and the right hand telling us 38%-57% is just dandy.

Brilliant work Health Check!

(Oh, and of course I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the admonishment not to consume more than 10% also applies to sodium, yet doing the math on sodium, Health Check allows single items to contain between 21% and 57% of current daily recommended maximums and between 32% and 87% of those the Heart and Stroke Foundation themselves endorsed in signing the National Sodium Policy Statement)

Any of my readers grade school math teachers that want to do a good deed? Maybe you can give the HSF a call and offer your help.

Canada's a big place.

Walking across it might take some time.

I don't have much in the way of time.

Doesn't mean I can't do it.

Thanks to the Trans Canada Trail new website feature, by entering my steps daily, I can do it from the comfort of my own province and still walk the roughly 18,000km of trail (11,184 miles).

Want to walk across Canada too?

Simply sign up for a free account here and log your steps daily.

Last one to the East coast's a rotten egg.

[Hat tip to our fitness director Rob]

I had meant to blog about this ages ago but it got lost in bookmark limbo.

It has to do with a book, McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods that has been collecting information in Britain about just that, the composition of foods (ingredients).

Not sure who it was that noticed it first, but low and behold, food's getting sweeter (and likely as a consequence higher in calories).

Keep in mind, the graphic above refers to British cereal (compositions vary the world over) however I would be shocked to learn that the same weren't true in North America.

And of course, it's not just mass produced items - can anyone out there remember fruit and berries that taste as sweet as today's do?

Strange world and only getting stranger.

[Via The Daily Mail]

According to their vision statement, the Dietitians of Canada purports itself to be,

"the voice of the profession"

I think they forgot to mention they're also quite comfortable being the mouthpiece of Big Food.

While I recognize that physician groups aren't immune from conflict of interest (primarily stemming from Big Pharma), I know as a physician I'd be fairly uncomfortable to land on the Canadian Medical Association's website and find advertising there from drug companies.

Imagine my surprise when learning that the "Members only" section of the Dietitians of Canada (DoC) website does in fact have Big Food advertisements as evidenced in the screen captures below (click them to open them in a large window) where the first shills for President's Choice Blue Menu products and the second for eggs:



Apparently if you keep refreshing the page, new ads pop up.

But let's put internet advertising aside, we can chalk that up to poor judgment, (UPDATE - Poor judgment shared by the Canadian Medical Association where I also found some internet drug ads) I mean after all, it's not like it's a clinical practice guideline or a resource manual for the profession.

Ummmm, about the DoC professional resource manuals....

After a bit more sniffing on their website I came across this link to the Dietitians of Canada 2001 National Nutrition Month Resource Manual for Dietitians (I realize it's 2008, but this is still featured prominently on the DoC website and is one of many Fact Sheets explicitly endorsed and implicitly steered by Big Food).

Read through it and you'll find it was sponsored (paid for) by the Canadian Sugar Institute, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Dairy Bureau of Canada and Kraft. Ominously the Canadian Sugar Institute was referred to as an "internal sponsor" while eggs, dairy and Kraft were merely, "official sponsors".

Think the sponsors were just silent spectators?

Then how come there's giant pictures of dairy products throughout; 3 pages on encouraging Canadians to drink more milk (replete with a section on getting the lactose intolerants to drink milk too); and two pages devoted to encouraging Canadians to eat more eggs?

There's also messaging that sugar is a carbohydrate just like fruit and this great quobesity,

"With the exception of dental caries, there is no evidence to show that sugar causes health problems. There is no specific limit or recommendation to reduce the amount of sugar we are currently eating."

Did the Dietitians of Canada really just steer their members as the "voice of their profession" to educate the public that sugar doesn't contribute to health problems and that you can eat as much of it as you want and not worry?

Looking at the 2008 Nutrition Month page that details some information about sponsors, DoC spells out who'll they'll happily take money from:

"Food products and Manufacturers", "Food Retailers".

No real limitations there either - basically if you makes or sell a food that can conceivably fit in Canada's Food Guide, you're welcome to play.

Marion Nestle, world-renowned nutrition expert (don't believe me, click here and check out her rather ridiculous C.V.) on her wonderful blog What to Eat details the equivalent practice within the American Dietetic Association (ADA). Here's a recent excerpt with her call to action for her fellow ADA members (feel free to mentally swap DoC for ADA),

"Respected ADA colleagues: as long as your organization partners with makers of food and beverage products, its opinions about diet and health will never be believed independent (translation: based on science not politics) and neither will yours. Consider the ADA’s Nutrition Fact Sheets, for example, each with its very own corporate sponsor (scroll down to the lower right hand corner of the second page to see who paid for the Facts). Is the goal of ADA really the same as the goal of the sponsors–to sell the sponsor’s food products? Is this a good way to get important scientific messages to the public? ADA members: how about doing something about this!"

Now I know that I have many Canadian readers who are registered dietitians. What do you think about the involvement of the food industry with DoC?

[Hat tip to a concerned dietitian who threw the screen caps my way]

Ever wonder what the emerg would look like if urban legends were true?

Well today on Funny Friday you need not wonder any longer.

(Fair-warning - occasional random profanity)

Have a great weekend!

I know, I know, TV's bad and contributes to obesity and so do video games.

I don't care.

I want one of these!

(Yes, I'm a nerd)

Any remarkably generous multi-millionaire readers out there who want to donate one?

Only $2,9995.

Yup, Health Check, the nationally disgraced Heart and Stroke Foundation front of package labeling program, is at it again.

Today's inappropriately labeled-as-healthy product is Chapman's Dark Chocolate Rapture YogurtPlus.

Per half cup you'll be getting 3 teaspoons of sugar, 3 grams of fat, 85mg of sodium and 150 calories.

I'm sure a great many consumers will be thrilled to have a "healthy", Heart and Stroke Foundation endorsed alternative to ice cream.

Well, they shouldn't get too excited.

Comparing the Chapman's frozen yogurt to another Chapman's product, Chapman's Original Dutch Chocolate ice cream you'll find that the Chapman's Health Check'ed frozen yogurt contains an identical amount of sugar, 2 grams less fat, an identical amount of sodium and 25% MORE calories than an equivalent portion of ice-cream.

Comparing it to Chapman's Premium Vanilla Fudge Chunk ice cream described on Chapman's website as,

"the essence of indulgence"

you'll still find that the Health Check'ed yogurt has an identical amount of sugar, more sodium and more calories.

Gee thanks Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Last week I blogged about the "human rights" case involving a worker at McDonald's who was awarded $50,000 because McDonald's, a restaurant, had the audacity of not creating a job for the worker that did not involve handwashing - this despite the fact that in a McDonald's restaurant no such job exists.

In the comments section of my blog there were a few folks who were quite upset with my take on the situation.

They felt that I misunderstood the ruling.

I felt they misunderstood the ruling.

Apparently, the Financial Post sides with my take on the issue as today they weighed in on this "human rights violation".

It was Howard Levitt's Workplace Law column that took on the story.

He too felt that the ruling to "cease the discriminatory conduct or similar conduct and refrain from committing such conduct in the future." meant that McDonald's could no longer insist that their workers wash their hands and commented,

"One might think consumer safety should supercede the right of an employee with unclean hands!"

He also took issue with the notion that McDonald's should have created a job for this worker noting that the tribunal (Ms. Parrack) was well aware that there were no jobs that did not require handwashing,

"This is despite Ms. Parrack's acknowledging all jobs at Mc-Donald's require hand washing and, depending on how busy a section is, any position might quickly take over for another."

and that the Ms. Parrack also agreed that it may not be possible to create such a position.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Levitt has also called for a reigning in of these ridiculous tribunals.

Think Mr. Levitt is wrong?

Well feel free to take it up with him - you can write him at hlevitt(at)langmichener.ca

Before you do so however you should know that Howard Levitt probably knows a bit more than you about workplace law as he is an employment lawyer who practises in seven Canadian provinces, is recognized by the 6th Edition of The World's Leading Labour and Employment Lawyers published by Euromoney, is listed in all editions of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory as a leader in Employment & Labour Law, and is the author of Canada's leading dismissal text book, The Law of Dismissal in Canada and the recently published The Law of Dismissal for Human Resources Professionals.

Who says governments can't get involved in the obesity fight?

Not Japan.

This month all Japanese employees over the age of 40 will undergo a mandatory "flab check" to ascertain their risk of developing metabolic syndrome - the constellation of high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL (good cholesterol) and insulin resistance.

The cut off for men will be 85cm or 33.5 inches (I couldn't find the cut off for women).

If you're found to be wider than the cut off you'll be given an exercise and diet plan and in some cases you might be referred to a doctor.

Japanese firms will be required to cut the number of overweight workers and their dependants by 10% by 2012 and those firms who fail to do so will face surcharges of up to 10% on contributions to a welfare fund for the elderly.

My take?

While I'm all for government involvement in obesity treatment and prevention, I don't think this is really the way to go. Penalties are not something I would ever want to see imposed and while one might argue they're penalizing the corporations not the individuals, I'll be curious to see what Japan's unemployment numbers do in 2012 when a bunch of obese folks get layed off before their corporations get penalized.

What do you think?

[Hat tip to my sister Michal and her colleague Josh]

According to an article in Diabetes Care the number of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes has doubled in just 6 years.

This was no small study either. The study looked at 175,249 women ages 13-58 years with 209,287 deliveries of 20 weeks gestation from 1999 through 2005.

Back in 1999 only 10% of children born to diabetic mothers were born to moms with pre-existing diabetes (90% were in moms who developed gestational, or during pregnancy, diabetes). By 2005, that number climbed to 21%.

Even more alarming?

The number of diabetic teenagers giving birth rose more than 5 fold.

Yup, diabetic teenagers.

We sure can't call it "adult-onset" any longer. Perhaps we should call it "nutritional" or "weight-related" diabetes?

Some of my longer term readers may remember my take on Ontario's trans-fat "ban".

The word ban is in quotes because it's not actually a ban, it's just the removal of trans-fats from schools whereas a ban would involve removing it from the Province.

I called it shameless political hay and pointed out that banning it solely in schools will do nothing to decrease its consumption since you can buy it elsewhere and that it will have zero impact on the rates of childhood obesity since the currency of weight is calories and not trans-fats.

Interestingly, on the CTV blog who picked up my take on the story, I took some flak in their comments section. Readers were aghast that I was unable to see the good in the plan.

Well, today I'd like to share some comments with them. These comments come from a Durham region online news source's story on the trans-fat "ban". For the story the reporter interviewed some students about their take on the "ban". The kids were asked,

"How will the upcoming trans-fat ban affect you?"

You can see their responses in the articles sidebar, but I'm going to include them all here,

"I think it'll suck because I eat food there every day, I eat chips, chocolate bars, chickenburgers and cheeseburgers. I'll have to go to Pizza Nova or make my lunch and bring it in"

"it won't really affect me because I only eat large fries once a week, a cheeseburger once in a while, and Miss Vickie's jalapeno chips. I'll just eat that stuff when I get home."

"It won't affect me at all because I don't eat in the cafeteria very much. I eat a chickenburger or some chips once in a while. I think it'll be a good thing, though"

"I don't think it'll affect me because I don't buy lunch in the cafeteria.""

Yeah, that "ban"'s sure going to do a lot.

[Hat tip to our fitness director Rob]

Before you click the video be forewarned - if you don't like profanity or Earth Day satire, please don't click the video below.

While I don't necessarily share the sentiments expressed in the video, in honour of this week's Earth Day (during which Starbucks kindly filled up my thermos for free), for today's Funny Friday I thought I'd post a contrarian's view.

Have a great weekend!

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]

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.]