The Shotgun Blog
« Talk about a special interest | Main | In Kandahar until 2011 »
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Most Canadians support a ban on trans fat, but "the Remnant" remains
In a Western Standard exclusive on the Calgary trans-fats ban, reporter Cheryl Mitchell asks an important question: “Calgary's health police have decided that Calgarians are too dumb to make their own food choices. Are they?”
Well, I don’t think so, and neither does Mitchell. And, for what it’s worth, Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, is even on our side. He called a federal NDP proposal to ban trans fats the “usual approach to massive government intervention in our lives.”
But we’re in the minority. According to a recent Angus Reid survey “Canadians overwhelmingly support banning trans fats.” Here are the key findings:
» 84% support a trans fat ban in schools and restaurants
» 73% think it is OK for government to take action against trans fats because they pose a health risk for Canadians
» Support is equally high across the country, and along various demographics
Only 19% of respondents supported the statement that “a ban on trans fats would be unacceptable, because governments should not tell people what they can eat.” Let’s call these people “the Remnant,” a term coined by Alberta Jay Nock.
In the article “Whither the Remnant,” Butler Shaffer wrote:
Decades ago, when I first read [Albert Jay] Nock’s essay about “the Remnant” – an essay written in 1936 – I dismissed it as a form of millenarian thinking. But as Western civilization reveals its weakened foundations in the form of rapidly expanded state violence, his words have become more relevant. An “obscure, unorganized, [and] inarticulate” group of individuals, the Remnant, said Nock, need to be supported because “when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society.”
Read more about “the Remnant” here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on March 13, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/27084504
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Most Canadians support a ban on trans fat, but "the Remnant" remains:
Comments
Here's a better idea, instead of banning shit left right and center, why not mandate that companies have to fully disclose what they put in their products? This way people CAN chose.
But as the debate and argument over labellling of GMO foods show, the industry doens't WANT to be upfront about it because they fear a negative impact.
As it stands: Do YOU know what is REALLY in your chips that you eat while reading the blog?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 13-Mar-08 11:06:57 PM
I wonder if they got it right this time. I've seen quite a few reversals over the years. It's confusing.
I agree with Snowman. Label it and let us make our own bad choices.
Posted by: dp | 13-Mar-08 11:19:41 PM
I see the likes of Butler Shaffer on the streets at night trying to get a good night's sleep in a public park where they believe they can sleep for free anytime even if the park is downtown in anyones' home town. I see his likeness in the graffiti I see splashed over public and private property. I see his image waiting in the government line to collect a welfare cheque. Maybe he's right. Maybe the meek(?) shall inherit the earth....
Posted by: dewp | 14-Mar-08 12:01:17 AM
Then most Canadians are ignorant and deserve the loss of their freedoms.
On this I also agree with Snowy. Identify the ingredients and let the people choose. Why the refusal to identify foods and livestock feed containing GMOs?
Posted by: Alain | 14-Mar-08 11:41:17 AM
Why the refusal to identify foods and livestock feed containing GMOs?
Posted by: Alain | 14-Mar-08 11:41:17 AM
Industry claims are that GMOs are safe, and thus there is no need to label it as it would just cause confusion for the consumer.
That's marketing speak for: "We don't want people to get scared and not buy our products."
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 11:46:32 AM
Snowy,
I agree. Label and choice.
And that includes allowing to eat trans-fat and GMO foods.
So both industry and the anti-science neanderthals can stuff it.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 12:08:32 PM
So both industry and the anti-science neanderthals can stuff it.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 12:08:32 PM
Yeah right, that will happen.
Have a look at the howls of the industry when they mandated labelling in Europe.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 12:19:48 PM
I'm not sure how you can identify GMO foods. We've been modifying food for centuries, how do you separate non-modified foods when they no longer exist?
My uncle grafted a Golden Delicious branch onto a MacIntosh tree in the fifties. That tree had two different coloured fruits, with totally different flavours. A neighbour of ours developed his own brand of potatoes (maybe brand isn't the correct term). Without GMOs, there would be no wheat crops north of Idaho. And do you think cows without horns (Polled Angus) taste any different?
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 12:22:29 PM
dp,
There is a difference between breeding for a specific gene, grafting, and modifying a genetic code which is what Genetically Modified means.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 12:27:06 PM
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 12:22:29 PM
I think most people define GMO food as crop / animals that have been altered by adding genes that aren't usually found in the breed / class of animal / plant.
Crossbreeding of course has happened for hundreds if not thousands of years, but usually this was limited to plants and animals of the same genotype (think Mendel).
Here's Penn & Tellers take on it:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOPPFncCv7c
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s36k8nJj8Uo
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcQ7hW1FkA8
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 12:29:17 PM
Yes I realize that Speller, but from a common sense point of view, the results are the same. Whether you modify them, or encourage them to modify themselves, you're still guilty of "messing with nature". Some radical environmentalists won't be happy until we go back to the stone age.
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 12:32:58 PM
Snowy
"Have a look at the howls of the industry when they mandated labelling in Europe."
I don't care if they howl. Just like I don't care about the howling of European anti-science neanderthals who don't want GMO foods. I want that choice.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 12:34:20 PM
>"Whether you modify them, or encourage them to modify themselves, you're still guilty of "messing with nature"."
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 12:32:58 PM
Selective breeding is breeding to encourage traits that are already in the genetic code.
A breeder doesn't change the code.
The code remains the same, it isn't modified, and isn't encouraged to "modify itself", if that were possible, which it isn't.
GM means altering the genetic code itself by adding to or removing parts of it.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 12:43:19 PM
So Speller, are you for or against?
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 12:49:52 PM
I'm for choice, like waterdog is.
Let the "industry" spend their ad money to tell us how good FrankenFoods are.
What?
It'll make the Greens shit kittens?
Awwww.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 12:56:50 PM
I may seem to be confused about the definition of GMOs, but it's because my opinion sort of echoes this guy's.
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 1:06:25 PM
I don't care if they howl. Just like I don't care about the howling of European anti-science neanderthals who don't want GMO foods. I want that choice.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 12:34:20 PM
You're not going to get it, there are enough interested parties that want you to just shut up and eat what' son the table.
Seems like back in 2002 90% of Canadians wanted labelling and yet, so far nothing has happened.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/cac_gmo/
Yeah, for the democratic process. Guess that's one way to stop "tyranny by the masses".
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 1:07:06 PM
Snowy
"You're not going to get it, there are enough interested parties that want you to just shut up and eat what' son the table."
I never predict the future with such certainty. Besides, I can dream, can't I?
"Seems like back in 2002 90% of Canadians wanted labelling and yet, so far nothing has happened."
Canadians poll a majority in a lot of things yet never get it. Death penalty comes to mind.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 1:10:32 PM
"You're not going to get it, there are enough interested parties that want you to just shut up and eat what' son the table."
I never predict the future with such certainty. Besides, I can dream, can't I?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 1:10:32 PM
Sure you can, dreamers are important, without them we'd still be where we were 1000 years ago.
---------------
"Seems like back in 2002 90% of Canadians wanted labelling and yet, so far nothing has happened."
Canadians poll a majority in a lot of things yet never get it. Death penalty comes to mind.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 1:10:32 PM
At 90%? I haven't met someone who was for the death penality (in person) here in Canada yet, people had different reasons for it, the most common theme was: What if we're wrong? How can we "undead" someone?"
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 1:38:59 PM
At what threshold of parts per million would aspiring food Nazis cut off on compulsory labelling. Coffee has 150 known compounds (along with unknown ones), including 22 known carcinogens and would probably never be approved by Governmental food safety bureaucracies if it were a new artificially created beverage. Do we really want to go there?
Canadians (among others), if given the extremely limited choices at the voting booth would likely choose to ban dihydrogen oxide.
If they think they are educated enough to vote for the food Nazis, then they are educated enough to choose as consumers what they want. If Snowy or others can't find what they feel safe eating, they must be on a different planet then the rest of us. Zero risk doesn't exist. Caveat Emptor!
Posted by: John Chittick | 14-Mar-08 1:42:52 PM
Snowy,
" haven't met someone who was for the death penality (in person) here in Canada yet,..."
You need a larger circle of friends. Diverse opinions on a wide array of topics are everywhere.
Take GMO for instance. Some are for it. Some not.
I love freedom of conscience.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 1:52:06 PM
John-
Penn and Teller actually started a petition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 1:52:34 PM
Snowy or others can't find what they feel safe eating, they must be on a different planet then the rest of us. Zero risk doesn't exist. Caveat Emptor!
Posted by: John Chittick | 14-Mar-08 1:42:52 PM
Oh Johnny boy...... Sorry, not good at singing.
So I take you are all for the "ignorance is bliss" approach to life? "What I don't know about, can't hurt me!"? Or why oppose labelling.
There is a lot of talk on here about how little people know when it comes to politics and who they vote for, but judging by your statement above that's okay really, because there is no safe choice.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 2:03:11 PM
>"There is a lot of talk on here about how little people know when it comes to politics and who they vote for, but judging by your statement above that's okay really, because there is no safe choice."
Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 2:03:11 PM
There are only safer choices.
But without information choice isn't choice.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 2:08:35 PM
But without information choice isn't choice.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 2:08:35 PM
Agreed.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 2:13:18 PM
John I am unaware of anyone requesting that kind of extreme breakdown when calling for labeling. As Speller has pointed out without information choice is not choice.
I am opposed to any of these food bans and am in favour of people being able to choose. Without the information they cannot do this. If you or anyone has no problem with GMOs, that is fine with me and should be your choice. I do have a problem and want to know if my food or livestock food contains GMOs. At present the only way to avoid them is to purchase organic, and this should not be the case.
Posted by: Alain | 14-Mar-08 4:18:51 PM
Right now, my concern is about tuna and the mercury it may contain.
I want to eat more fish because I like fish and fish contain good fats.
Not only tuna, but many of the best tasting fish have mercury levels which are concerning.
I think it would be easier to select which fish to eat and how often if they were labeled with a mercury grading system.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 4:39:14 PM
The job of educating consumers is up to them. Its too important to leave in the hands of Government. Consumers can insist on labelling from the supplier, producer, retailer, certifier etc.-if in sufficient numbers (true democracy anyone?) Consumers can do it themselves, contract it out, use voluntary standards associations, consumer groups etc. All the busybodies that want government to do everything can put market pressure on the food service industry. Why can't food have a J.D. Powers report, Consumer Report, CSA, ISO etc. In other words, Snowy, get out of College, get a job and then, get educated. Hey maybe you could use the Internet to find information on food safety! Its probably there already. Oh, and smoking isn't good for you, in case you're waiting for a ban.
Posted by: John Chittick | 14-Mar-08 4:57:54 PM
I want to eat more fish because I like fish and fish contain good fats.
Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 4:39:14 PM
You better start eating fast then:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da48a154-6ae0-11db-83d9-0000779e2340.html
Talking to some small fishers out here in Vancouver they indicated that the catches aren't as big anymore as they used to be, so maybe there' something to it.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 5:58:11 PM
Snowy
"Talking to some small fishers out here in Vancouver they indicated that the catches aren't as big anymore as they used to be, so maybe there' something to it."
The sky is falling. er, well, you get the point.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 6:00:27 PM
The sky is falling. er, well, you get the point.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 6:00:27 PM
I guess that's why there won't be any Salmon fishing in the US this year. Numbers over the last decade have gone down from ~800K fish coming back to spawn to less than 1/16 of that.
But I guess the department of Fisheries and Wildlife just puts those numbers out because they want to scare people like me.
-----------------------
GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Fisheries managers have canceled the early season of ocean fishing for chinook salmon off the coast of Oregon and Northern California because of a collapse of stocks in California rivers.
The managers are also considering whether to close most of the Pacific salmon fishery.
The best West Coast salmon fishermen can hope for is a "bare bones" sport and commercial fishing season this year, but the outlook remains bleak, officials say.
Federal fisheries managers meeting this week in Sacramento, Calif., canceled early spring salmon fishing in the Pacific off Northern California and Oregon to protect salmon that remain alive in the ocean.
Today, the Pacific Fishery Management Council is expected to choose three management options for the rest of the season, and will set final regulations when they meet in Seattle in April.
One possibility is shutting down the salmon fishery from the northern tip of Oregon south to the Mexican border — something fishermen are hoping to avoid.
Washington may see some fishing, but even if fishing is allowed, many fishermen expect that catches will be poor.
"We had a pretty good idea they were going to cut it back," said Mark Newell, a fisherman from Newport, Ore., and a member of the Oregon Salmon Commission.
"We are trying to craft a very bare bones season which would give California some sport fishery, a very limited amount of commercial troll, and Oregon a somewhat limited sport fishery and very limited troll in Oregon also," he said.
In angling, trolling is the practice of fishing by trailing a baited line behind a slow-moving boat.
California commercial trollers traditionally can't start fishing until May 1, but sport charters have been allowed to fish out of Fort Bragg, Calif., since the middle of February. They were shut down, along with Oregon commercial trollers set to begin fishing Saturday in a season authorized last year to run through April.
Some marine scientists say the salmon declines can be attributed in part to unusual weather patterns that have disrupted the marine food chain along the Pacific Coast in recent years.
But many fishermen believe the main culprit behind the Sacramento River's collapse is increased pumping of freshwater from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmers and water districts in the Central Valley and Southern California.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 6:09:39 PM
Snowy,
"But I guess the department of Fisheries and Wildlife just puts those numbers out because they want to scare people like me."
I've never been afraid of numbers, myself.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 14-Mar-08 6:26:35 PM
Post a comment