 
February 23, 2005
Donut Fighting Duo Transfats Feedback
Winnipeg MPs mix it up on Trans Fats Winnipeg MPs Steven Fletcher and Pat Martin wrote the following letter to the Winnipeg Free Press (published February 21, 2005) in response to an article on a recent discussion at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy by Rolf Penner, Ag Policy Fellow. His response follows. Winnipeg Fight trans fats Re: The Feb. 9 article, Farmer fights ban on trans fat: Mr. Penner believes fears of trans fats in food are based on "junk science." His assertion is based on the work of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov who has claimed that saturated fats do not increase cardiac risk, despite the widely held view within modern medicine. Trans fats are categorically different than saturated fats. Unlike saturated fats, which occur naturally, trans fats are manufactured. Hydrogen is injected into vegetable oil to increase the shelf life and the flavour stability of foods and is a major ingredient in many processed foods. Even Dr. Ravnskov agrees that trans fats contribute to heart disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared that no level of trans fat is safe for human consumption. As the New York Times reported recently, numerous studies have shown the dangers of the substance in any amount. A 1999 study by the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women's Hospital reported that at least 30,000 of the 100,000 cardiac deaths per year in the United States could be prevented if trans fats were replaced with healthier alternatives. The food industry agrees and has already taken small steps to alter its products. Generally unhealthy lifestyles have contributed to a sharp rise in obesity and diabetes in Canada. The economic cost of this growing epidemic to our already overburdened health-care system cannot be overstated. Mr. Penner called us the "doughnut-fighting duo." But we are not after doughnuts. Rather, we fight a growing health epidemic and the costs it poses to our health-care system. Our motion calling on government, in consultation with all stakeholders, to eliminate manufactured trans fats from foods will ensure that Canadians win this fight. STEVEN FLETCHER, Member of Parliament, Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia PAT MARTIN, Member of Parliament, Winnipeg Centre
Ag Policy Fellow Rolf Penner's responds to Steven and Pat's comments (in bold) below: Winnipeg Fight trans fats Re: The Feb. 9 article, Farmer fights ban on trans fat: Mr. Penner believes fears of trans fats in food are based on "junk science." Indeed, I do. His assertion is based (partially, not exclusively) on the work of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov who has claimed that saturated fats do not increase cardiac risk, despite the widely held view within modern medicine. –Remember this for later. Trans fats are categorically different than saturated fats. Unlike saturated fats, which occur naturally, trans fats are manufactured. This statement is hardly true. Trans fats do occur naturally in food, and have been consumed by human beings since the beginning of time, in meat and dairy products and are a source of fuel energy for the body. They are also produced artificially, however when you look at the chemical breakdown, a trans fat is still a trans fat. Naturally occurring trans fats and manufactured trans fats are identical. The simplistic notion that natural is good and man made is bad does not apply. The molecular components of Trans are different than that of saturated fats however their effects on cholesterol levels and therefore heart disease are similar. Hydrogen is injected into vegetable oil to increase the shelf life and the flavour stability of foods and is a major ingredient in many processed foods. Even Dr. Ravnskov agrees that trans fats contribute to heart disease. Above Dr. Ravnskov’s finding are dismissed as being out of step with mainstream medicine. Yet here they are said to be true. Which is it? The claim is identical for trans and saturated fats that eating too much of them leads to heart disease and death through negative effects on cholesterol levels. The difference is only in degrees, that trans fats will increase the LDL\HDL cholesterol ratio quicker than saturated fats. However that does not negate the evidence that Ravnskov discovered, namely the studies in which no sign of heart disease could be found in patients whose cholesterol levels where out of step. And vice versa, heart disease being found in patients whose cholesterol levels where normal. Another factor confounding this link is the lack of accurate, objective data in how much Trans are actually consumed on average. Current estimates are based on unreliable voluntary survey’s that vary widely. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared that no level of trans fat is safe for human consumption. As the New York Times reported recently, numerous studies have shown the dangers of the substance in any amount. This is false, the most recent FDA\Health Canada guidelines, for what they are worth, while stating that trans consumption should be low, specifically warns against zero percent consumption of trans fats within the diet. Because they are naturally occurring in a number of foods, to do so, would involve such a radical change in diet that deficiencies in other vital areas of nutrition would result. Which greatly outweighs the speculative benefits of a trans-free lifestyle. Source- Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (2002), page 400, 8-66 (summary) The negative studies talked about here involve high dose animal testing, and very high consumption rates in humans that are already at a high risk of getting heart disease due to numerous other factors (of which there are at least twelve). Tests done at normal consumption rates in animals, and normal healthy people show no adverse affects due to eating Trans. A 1999 study by the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women's Hospital reported that at least 30,000 of the 100,000 cardiac deaths per year in the United States could be prevented if trans fats were replaced with healthier alternatives. This is where the junk science leaps to the forefront. First off the deaths talked about are what is called a “virtual body count” they are not based on clinical evaluations. The numbers are based on a mathematical model containing speculations, built on assumptions and conjecture multiplied across a population. The relative risk numbers used to come up with the imaginary corpses where 1.07 and 1.31 (1.0 is considered neutral), the industry standard is to look for numbers above 3 or 4 and certainly not under 2.0 as they can be the result of natural statistical variance, statistical bias, or confounding factors. That standard was ignored in making the calculation. On top of this one of the studies that Harvard used to come up with these numbers contained 21,000 smokers. How can anyone honestly say they are doing a proper study on heart disease when 21,000 of the subjects in it, are automatically in the high-risk category for getting heart disease, due to their lifestyle? They can’t, the researchers put their thumb on the scale. That’s dishonest research, that’s junk science. Not to mention that the most important rule with these kinds of epidemiological studies is that even when they find something that looks significant is that ‘correlation does not equal causation’. This is statistics; it is not hard, cause and effect, science. The food industry agrees and has already taken small steps to alter its products. This is irrelevant to the evidence. The food industry has decided to play the appeasement game rather than deal with the public relations problem that fighting this ban would involve. Furthermore, ambulance chasing, trial lawyers have been pushing lawsuits based on this junk science for some time now. Appeasement again makes more sense in the boardrooms here than being dragged into court. Generally unhealthy lifestyles have contributed to a sharp rise in obesity and diabetes in Canada. The economic cost of this growing epidemic to our already overburdened health-care system cannot be overstated. This is a straw dog argument. The argument against Trans is that eating them leads to heart disease, not to obesity and diabetes. Yes, Trans in general are found in more of the foods that people who have unhealthy eating habits consume. However eliminating them from those diets will have zero effect, because these people will still choose to eat too much and exercise too little. There is no way that this ‘behavior’ can be ‘legislated’ out of existence. It is not an epidemic in any sense of the word; it is behavior, it is the result of ‘lifestyle choice’. Mr. Penner called us the "doughnut-fighting duo." But we are not after doughnuts. Rather, we fight a growing health epidemic and the costs it poses to our health-care system. Again this is not an epidemic, and yes-unhealthy lifestyles do lead to higher medical costs. And I do feel empathy for the individuals who are honestly struggling with this in their lives. However, that is no reason to pull on the jackboots and fudge the science. History is full of examples of ‘medicalizing’ behaviors or lifestyle choices that are not approved of by those pushing a more ‘puritan’ agenda for the so-called greater good. It is not something we should be striving to repeat. Our motion calling on government, in consultation with all stakeholders, to eliminate manufactured trans fats from foods will ensure that Canadians win this fight. How on earth will you know you have won when there is no way to clinically evaluate a death from heart disease down to a specific cause from multiple possibilities? You have no measuring stick. As far as the war on obesity goes, rearranging the type of fats consumed will have no effect. Look at the calorie breakdown of McDonalds French fries before and after they lowered the trans levels. Overall calories are identical, even the overall fat calories are identical. If you are overweight to begin with and eat the same amount, you will not lose weight. Rolf Penner, Agricultural Policy Fellow Frontier Centre for Public Policy STEVEN FLETCHER, Member of Parliament, Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia PAT MARTIN, Member of Parliament, Winnipeg Centre  Related Items:
|
Rolf Penner, Agriculture Policy Fellow (2003-2007) is a successful third generation farmer who operates an 1800 acre mixed farm near Morris, Manitoba. His farm is soundly diversified into two parts, half the operation consisting of feeder hogs and the other cropland. Both of which have consistently grown in size, sophistication and scope. He owns a 2000 head hog barn and also operates two more 2000 head hog barns in partnership with 3 neighbours. Crops rotated on his land include wheat, oats, barley, timothy, flax, rapeseed, canola, alfalfa, peas, lentils and sunflowers. He sits on various agriculture industry committees. As a producer delegate with the Manitoba Pork Council he received an education award in 2002. His many practical skills include the general maintenance and operation of heavy machinery, welding, carpentry, electrical work, basic veterinary care, marketing, accounting, and computer work. He graduated from the University of Manitoba with a diploma in Agriculture in 1988. Rolf is a frequent media commentator on agriculture issues and writes frequenty in a range of daily, weekly and monthly newspapers. 
