Calgary's new trans fat rules kick in on Tuesday

[Azure]

Calgary is just hours away from becoming the first city in Canada to regulate trans fat, with new grease-fighting rules set to kick in on New Year's Day.


The new rules ban restaurants in the city from cooking with oils that have a trans fat content of two per cent or higher.


And margarines and spreads used in restaurants must also remain below the 2 per cent threshold.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Meh, good idea in theory.

But should the government start regulating stuff like this?

Why is it beneficial to use trans fats in the first place?

I don't like this though....caption under picture.

Guilty pleasures, like poutine, won’t be as bad for your health after Calgary's new fat rules are in place.

Sure, lets just ignore the insane amount of calories that poutine has. Hopefully people aren't stupid enough to think they can load up on the poutine everyday because, well, no more trans fats!

[Ozy_Flame]

Hey, we're not as bad as Los Angeles, where their City Council is considering a full-on ban on fast food.

[SOMBRI2]

i like this idea, although it's pretty sure that some fried products may not taste as good before, but Health is paramount.

Most trans fats consumed today are industrially created by partially hydrogenating plant oils — a process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1911. The goal of partial hydrogenation is to add hydrogen atoms to unsaturated fats, making them more saturated. These more saturated fats have a higher melting point making them attractive for baking, and extending their shelf-life.

[redforever]

Why is it beneficial to use trans fats in the first place?

It is not beneficial to the human body whatsoever to use transfats. In fact, it is totally the opposite, very detrimental to the human body.

As someone else said, it is beneficial to the people or businesses using them in their product.

[NSFL]

But a possible added problem with this is that people will assume that eating crap is healthier just because it has little to no trans fats and will end up eating more just because they think it's healthier or feel less guilt about what they put in their mouths. The government can't regulate everything, but this is a start.

[JohnnyB]

I think a little more paternalism when it comes to health issues in North America would be a good thing. The health of the nations people should be a national concern, not just an individual choice.

[Devils'Advocate]

The other issue is that eating right is very hard given the limited choices available. How do I, as a consumer, know which restaurants in Ottawa use oils using trans fats or not? Just because I ordered the vegetable stir fry on a bed of plain white rice doesn't mean that the stir fry wasn't made in oils using trans fats?

And what about choice on the market? My doctor is telling me to ignore the "Heart Smart" labels on soups because the heart smart label indicates that the soup is low-fat. However, just about every soup on the market is very, very, very high sodium. Given that my doctor has told me to cut down on the salt, I've taken soup right out of my diet unless I prepare it myself. And I've made some pretty decent soups WITHOUT using salt, so I don't know why they can't put something on the market that doesn't have your full recommend sodium level for a whole day.

#1 - I think government has to get involved when it comes to restaurants unless each restaurant wants to put the FULL nutritional information beside each menu choice.
#2 - I think the more labeling the better. You can't say "let the consumer decide" and then not give the consumer the information required to decide.
#3 - The government should push back on industries that claim that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I think a little more paternalism when it comes to health issues in North America would be a good thing. The health of the nations people should be a national concern, not just an individual choice.

Well geez, perhaps they should start educating people when they're in high school as to the effects of living a healthy, or unhealthy lifestyle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The other issue is that eating right is very hard given the limited choices available. How do I, as a consumer, know which restaurants in Ottawa use oils using trans fats or not? Just because I ordered the vegetable stir fry on a bed of plain white rice doesn't mean that the stir fry wasn't made in oils using trans fats?

And what about choice on the market? My doctor is telling me to ignore the "Heart Smart" labels on soups because the heart smart label indicates that the soup is low-fat. However, just about every soup on the market is very, very, very high sodium. Given that my doctor has told me to cut down on the salt, I've taken soup right out of my diet unless I prepare it myself. And I've made some pretty decent soups WITHOUT using salt, so I don't know why they can't put something on the market that doesn't have your full recommend sodium level for a whole day.

#1 - I think government has to get involved when it comes to restaurants unless each restaurant wants to put the FULL nutritional information beside each menu choice.
#2 - I think the more labeling the better. You can't say "let the consumer decide" and then not give the consumer the information required to decide.
#3 - The government should push back on industries that claim that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

Very, very well said.

There was a report a couple weeks ago where someone went around to numerous restaurants and asked the people eating there if they knew how many calories they were consuming with each meal.

95% of them didn't.

Pretty sad that many people don't know that poutine at certain restaurants has more than 2,000 calories per tray.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well geez, perhaps they should start educating people when they're in high school as to the effects of living a healthy, or unhealthy lifestyle.

I think the whole process should be started by parents. Yes, teenagers will go through a phase where they will eat junk food, but it has been my experience, that a bit later in their life, they will go back to healthy eating habits if that is what they experienced in their home environment.

I know a lot of parents are very busy these days, in most households, both parents work, they come home, kids are hungry, parents are dead tired on their feet, they want something quick. Quick can be healthy but in too many cases, quick means previously prepared. Again, that can be healthy but in most cases, quick is high in salt, high in additives, high in fat.

Cook from scatch is the healthiest alternative. The cook then determines what goes into the food they are preparing. And yeah, you still have to watch what you are adding to the food you eat, so you better be able to read some labels and hope that the labels disclose most of what is actually in there. I am all for full disclosure on anything purchased in food marts.

And yes I know that cook from scratch takes time, but it can save time too. Many dishes can be doubled, tripled and frozen, making for a quick and nutritious meal another night where you are really tired and rushed. And in the short run, you save money because it is cheaper to cook from scratch.

And the best thing of all is food cooked from scratch is much more tasty.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by redforever

I think the whole process should be started by parents.

Sure.

But with both parents working most of the time, and kids spending more of their first 20 years in school than anywhere else, I suffice to say that the healthy lifestyle should be taught in school.

Parents should absolutely enforce it at home, but how many parents have control over what their kids do once they become 15 years old?

Leave for school, sports after school, homework, off to bed.

[redforever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by redforever
I think the whole process should be started by parents.

Sure.

But with both parents working most of the time, and kids spending more of their first 20 years in school than anywhere else, I suffice to say that the healthy lifestyle should be taught in school.

Parents should absolutely enforce it at home, but how many parents have control over what their kids do once they become 15 years old?

Leave for school, sports after school, homework, off to bed.

Yes taught in school as part of a health and physical education program. But that program should be one that augments what should be going on in the home, not replace it.

And absolutely, as I said before, teenagers are gonna be eating a lot of junk food, it goes with the territory, but as I also said, that usually they go back to a more healthy lifestyle a few years later on if that is what they were raised with.

And you can not enforce most things on kids, no matter what the age, especially teenagers. Enforce usually means rebel and that usually means they are gonna do exactly the opposite of what you are trying to enforce just to spite you. The best you can do is show by example and hope that foundation serves them well later on in life.

Schools and teachers have enough on their slate. Parents have to learn to quit delegating their responsibilities.

[Azure]

From my experience, schools and teachers are NOT doing enough to build the foundation of a healthy lifestyle.

Sure I heard that phrase a lot during gym class, but learning how to play the game instead of actually playing it is a poor way to build the 'foundation.'

I agree with you on everything else though.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The other issue is that eating right is very hard given the limited choices available.

<snip for shortness>

#3 - The government should push back on industries that claim that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

Intelligent remarks.

A good percentage of items you can buy at the supermarket which are supposed to be healthy, are in fact, very deceiving. It's doubly so for the fast food industry. Marketing things as being healthy when they actually contain as much fat, calories and carbs as the "unhealthy" choices.

It actually requires a lot of effort to search out truly healthy choices; effort that most people don't want to put into forming their diets. It's confusing as well. You're supposed to eat your fruits and veggies, but too much of certain fruits or veggies is bad for you. Add to all this the health-fads we see every year like the Atkins diet, the big trans-fat crusade, or more recently the promotion of psylium fiber and it's really too much for the average person to absorb.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Azure

From my experience, schools and teachers are NOT doing enough to build the foundation of a healthy lifestyle.

Sure I heard that phrase a lot during gym class, but learning how to play the game instead of actually playing it is a poor way to build the 'foundation.'

I agree with you on everything else though.

Schools will do as much or as little as the public deems the priority or as their budgets allow.

At one time, all schools not only had compulsory and participatory Phys Ed but compulsory French as well. And that was also true for my university years as well. No longer you say? Why not? Well, somewhere along the line, the focus became the academics. Universities demanded more academics, so did parents, and the school systems had to deliver.

Too many parents want their kids to have high enough acacemic marks so they can get into university, period. When parents and the public start asking for a more balanced approach to schooling, so that not only the academics but sports and phys ed and the fine arts are emphasized as well, and when they are willing to put up the bucks to finance those programs, you will see more of them.

Same thing with organic food. When the public starts to be willing to pay the big bucks to grow more organic, then the farmers will increase their productions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by redforever

Schools will do as much or as little as the public deems the priority or as their budgets allow.

At one time, all schools not only had compulsory and participatory Phys Ed but compulsory French as well. And that was also true for my university years as well. No longer you say? Why not?

I think there still is compulsory Phys Ed.

And if I'm not mistaken, the year I graduated the French immersion crap came into school. So everyone below Grade 9 at that time had to take French.

My beef is that while Phys Ed is a compulsory course, up till the 30 level, or Grade 12 for most kids, from my experience not enough emphasis is put into the actual 'playing' of the game, rather more time is put into 'learning' the game, which includes a LOT of classroom work.

Grade 8, had no clue what Lacrosse was. Same goes for most of my classmates. Instead of teaching us numerous drills and techniques, our Phys Ed teacher gave us our sticks, told us the basics in 5 min, and told us to start playing.

I had a blast. And I got a lot of exercise.

Well, somewhere along the line, the focus became the academics. Universities demanded more academics, so did parents, and the school systems had to deliver.

I realize that.

[redforever]

Azure;1127955

I think there still is 1. compulsory Phys Ed.

And if I'm not mistaken, the year I graduated the French immersion crap came into school. So everyone below Grade 9 at that time 2. had to take French.

My beef is that while Phys Ed is a compulsory course, 3. up till the 30 level, or Grade 12 for most kids, from my experience not enough emphasis is put into the actual 'playing' of the game, rather more time is put into 'learning' the game, which includes a LOT of classroom work.

1. In September 2005, Alberta Education began implementing a requirement for 30 minutes of Daily Physical Activity for all students in Grades 1–9.

To be eligible for a high school diploma, students need only take phys. ed. 10; phys. ed. 20 and 30 are optional, in other words, Phys Ed 11 and 12 are not required to receive your Grade 12 diploma.

2. French is not compulsory in any grades in Alberta, it is optional throughout. Each school board is given the mandate if they wish to offer French or any other language. And in some cases, as was the school my children attended, Red Deer Lake in the Foothills School Division, it was left up to the discretion of the principle if they wished to offer French or any other language to the students. So in Red Deer Lake school, it was compulsory for children to take French up to Grade 9 but that was not the case throughout the Division. The Division did however offer French for all grades in Senior High School but it is not compulsory to take French to receive a Grade 12 Diploma.

French Immersion does exist as an option throughout most of Alberta, it is by no means compulsory.

3. Phys Ed is only compulsory up through Grade 10.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by redforever

And yes I know that cook from scratch takes time, but it can save time too. Many dishes can be doubled, tripled and frozen, making for a quick and nutritious meal another night where you are really tired and rushed. And in the short run, you save money because it is cheaper to cook from scratch.

And the best thing of all is food cooked from scratch is much more tasty.

Amen to that!

Even though i'm a male, i love to cook! A big pot of chili on a warm winters night or some curried chicken. Beats the hell out of the prepaired garbage you buy in the frozen foods section.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

From my experience, schools and teachers are NOT doing enough to build the foundation of a healthy lifestyle.

Who actually listens to their teachers though?

I don't think kids are going to eat better and get more exercise because Teach says so. Especially high school kids who think they are invincible and don't listen to anyone. The healthy-eating and exercise-getting kids would be doing it regardless of what they learn at school, and the poutine-and-cigarettes crowd aren't going to change their ways because they learned in health class that they might have heart disease 30 years down the road.

As for the gym class stuff, I agree. I remember a whole lot of standing around in gym class. Maybe not for "lessons", but standing in line so everyone gets a crack at knocking the bar off the high-jump, or having 6 kids in the outfield exercising their right-arm by keeping the sun out of their eyes and never even touching the ball.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who actually listens to their teachers though?

I don't think kids are going to eat better and get more exercise because Teach says so. Especially high school kids who think they are invincible and don't listen to anyone. The healthy-eating and exercise-getting kids would be doing it regardless of what they learn at school, and the poutine-and-cigarettes crowd aren't going to change their ways because they learned in health class that they might have heart disease 30 years down the road.

This is right on the button. Highschool kids are the wrong age group to target. A lot of them will change their ways when they mature a bit but during highschool, they are gonna do what the rest of the crowd does and most of that crowd eats a lot of junk.

You have to start young, IN HOME. Good nutrition starts at home, you can augment that concept outside of the home, but by far the biggest influence will be how the family ate at home.

Perhaps it is time for parents to go back to nutrition school?