No sound here at the moment - but is that a bag of dried strawberries?
Health Checkâs nutrient standards are based on Canadaâs Food Guide
Every food product and menu item in the Health Check program must earn the right to display the Health Check symbol by meeting specific nutrient standards based on Canadaâs Food Guide ***or bybribingdonating generously to the Heart and Stroke Foundation ***
**Above quote has been edited for accuracy.
Iâm reserving judgement until my Registered Dietician friend gets back to me with her thoughts. I will say that a lot of doctors are not up to date on diet and nutrition because itâs not their specialty. But for this video, thatâs really neither here not there.
At least here in the US lot of these âheart smartâ type labels are not heavily policed and often just need to meet some minimum requirements for saturated fat, trans fat, and fiber content. After that itâs basically a rubber stamp. Hereâs the thing I learned from working with PHA (Partnership for a Healthy America) rules: It is damn near impossible to set standards for labeling certain foods âhealthyâ that canât be worked around. PHA dictates that you canât have certain kinds of snack food items in front of the cash register at a hospital cafeteria. Well, somehow that excluded candy bars, but included pork rinds. Mainly because pork rinds have the kind of minimum sugar level to make them âhealthierâ I guess.
Generally whatâs healthy for one group of people is not for another. Genetics, disease, income level, and physical mobility all contribute in some way to making any one food âhealthierâ for someone than another. So I guess my big point here is: There is no such thing as a universally healthy food. There are only food that are better in certain ways than others for certain people.
Food Category: Dried Fruit Snacks Products must fit the criteria per 40 g servingThat does seem like a pretty low bar- No added sugar - Fat free - Source of vitamin C (5%) or vitamin A (5%) or folate (5%) or fibre (2 g)
Iâve seen stuff like this before with the Health Check symbol. Basically, if itâs low in fat, no matter what else is in it, itâll get the stamp of approval. The narrow view that is taken is, âfat and cholesterol are bad for the heart â if it doesnât have those, itâs okay.â
I think the doctor made an excellent presentation, and I hope he makes other videos about nutrition and posts them.
I used to think Canadians were wise people, but after seeing this, not any more. Theyâre more like United States Lite.
Could you provide a link to that quote? I honestly would like to see that : )
Iâve done a cursory glance at their site, but have yet to come across it. Thanks!
Sorry, I did not accurately read what you wrote ; )
I see now!
I donât think you can be fair in broadly painting the people of any country. Accept the Icelanders. Everyone knows those guys are morons.
I can hardly wait for the bumper (bummer) stickers!
Candy Kills
MACC
Mothers Against Candy Canes
Just Say No
(to HoHos)
Look Twice!
Candy is Everywhere.
Corn is for Gas Tanks -
Not Huge Flanks.
People eating candy in public areas will be castigated
and insulted. Because, second-hand binges.
And just think - red and white striped ribbon campaigns.
Oh, the millions we shall raise!
The charity runs! And just think - instead of shaving your head, you can put on 40 lbs in a show of solidarity.
The tee shirts! Just think, wear your XXXL to condemn XXXL.
The educations programs! Theyâll show âReeses Madnessâ, and
before and after pix of people who snorted Smartees.
ButâŚwho will be the celebrity spokesperson?
The Heart and Stroke Foundation was widely criticized a few years ago the last time this issue was brought to the publicâs attention. The Foundationâs PR people expressed surprise at the controversy.
Taking a look at their, ahem, âLicensing Feesâ, I canât imagine that the the program supplies a large percentage of their income budget. I canât imagine that itâs worth it, given the damage this program does to their reputationâŚunless youâre a upper-level manager there.
Or perhaps nutrition isnât as simple as governments keep trying to make it.
They seem to love pouring effort (and money) into coming up with food groups or redesigning labels or running informative ad campaigns, but none of that addresses that the poison is in the dosage. Until they can train people that the amount that goes in their mouth is at least as important as what goes in, no badge system is going to accomplish anything.
Iâd argue that âheart smartâ type labels damaging because it creates a false sense of security. Someone sees an advertisement that a thing is healthy and eat three times as much of it because what could go wrong?
The âfood groupsâ thing is actually pretty sound. Itâs more important to make sure people are eating a balanced diet than eating a certain amount. Generally, the latter isnât a huge priority because by eating a balanced diet, most people will end up eating healthy. Telling people, âDonât Eat too frequently.â is like telling people, âDonât urinate too frequently.â Itâs not an effective message. You canât quit food âcold turkeyâ or get a âfood patchâ. Food is essential, and eating is instinct.
When I was working with dieticians in a hospital, the kinds of nutrition-related problems people were having had less to do with how much they ate, and everything to do with what they ate. People with renal problems consuming too much sodium, people with diabetes eating getting too much in carbs, people with cardiac issues drinking a full cup of half-and-half every morning. Hereâs the fun part- for most of these people, food choices never caused the illness.
Agreed.
And, the corollary to âthe dose makes the poisonâ is
âthe individual makes the doseâ.
Unfortunately, when you combine government with the broad-strokes of epidemiological surveillance, the results areâŚno surprise, even broader strokes.
The further problem arises where government âpartnersâ with industry, and non-profits accept corporate donations. Thereâs a reason such romantic triangles are the stuff of Hollywood formulas - we just have to ask ourselves why that has any place in public health.
Australiaâs Heart Foundation gave McDonaldâs their âtick of approvalâ⌠for a $300,000/year fee (only to selected meals, but who looks at the fine print?). It was revoked a few years later, presumably in part due to reputational damage.
A note to non-Canadians - this is the Canadian version of seething hatred, lips foam-flecked with rage. I was uncomfortable watching such a display.
Alice, that was a Canadian celebrity spokesperson.
Yes, I was⌠perturbed.
It is a bag of gummies
I wonder, however, if they know how to spell âexcept?â Otherwise, funny post!
