SUBJECT: JUNK FOOD AND ALCOHOL
PURPOSE: This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to the sales of junk food and alcohol.
ISSUE: There is not enough regulation on the sale of junk food and alcohol.
Background:
Junk food and alcohol have received preferential treatment by the government and the media. These two consumables are provided to the masses without any concern of their effects on individuals and society. Canada’s food is stipulated under the Food and Drug Act. This also includes alcohol. What is not actioned however is the fact that some of these foods and beverages can result in long-term negative effects, which seem to have not been addressed by provincial or federal governments. Junk food contains many additives. For example, MSG or monosodium glutamate. It is thought that this additive causes cancer. Another additive is tartrazine, which is known to cause behavioral problems in children and is also considered a neurotoxin which damages the brain. Junk foods also contain numerous food coloring which have physiological effects to the body of which hyperactivity, depression, irritability, and skin rashes. To add insult to injury, some of these foods exceed the recommended daily intake of the food pyramid. For example, the food pyramid stipulates that normal intake of sodium is 2,300 milligrams/ day. The average American consumes 3,400 milligrams/ day. To put this into perspective a 1-ounce bag of potato chips contains 7 to 12 percent of the total daily sodium intake. Not only do these foods have a problem with sodium, but there is also high fructose corn syrup added to sugary drinks. Continuous consumption of this causes possible heart disease and can even result in stroke. HFCS 90 — the most concentrated form — contains 90% fructose, and HFCS 55, consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose. The difference between high fructose corn syrup and sugar, is that sugar is granulated. The use of these in sweets such as candies and treats, along with sugary beverages can result in the liver being overloaded, unable to break down the glucose and in turn resulting in fat. For example, The Keck researchers discovered that Coca-Cola and Pepsi contained as much as 65 per cent fructose (and only 35 per cent glucose) this roughly results in 85%- 10 teaspoons for a can of pop, of daily added sugar. The recommended daily intake of sugar however is 6 tsp for a diet of 1,600 calories. There are also foods that contain what are known as “trans-fats.” These fats occur when vegetable oils are chemically staying solid at room temperature resulting in a longer shelf life. These raise the bad (LDL) cholesterol levels, lowers the good (HDL) cholesterol levels. And continued consumption can result in heart disease and stroke. The next issue with junk food is the preservatives. Preservatives are added to non-perishable foods. There are a variety of preservatives added to these foods of which include sorbic acid, propionic acid, acetic acid, and epoxides and inorganic compounds such as nitrate and nitrite salts. These inhibit the growth of fungi, bacteria, or microorganisms which result in a longer shelf life. As an example, a diet high in nitrate can increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Benzoates which are used to preserve such food as flour, margarine, and, and beer, can cause brain damage. Propylene glycol on the other hand is used to make ice cream can result in central nervous system depression and then paralysis. It is interesting to note that this is the same substance used in antifreeze. However, specifically related to the matter of poisoning, such antifreeze is now required by law to have an additive to make it distasteful and not sweet.
To sum up the issue with the foods in question, AZ Chemistry claims that there are 11 preservatives to note here which are food dyes, artificial sweeteners, food preservative, flavor enhancers, emulsifiers, stabilizer and thickeners, antioxidants, acidulant, anti- caking agent, firming agent and sequestrants. The briefing note has only detailed some of these however, it becomes evident that the vending of food becomes very complicated when these mentioned facts are conveyed. The next issue of concern for food is packaging. Some foods are served in tin cans and some in plastic. It is also interesting to note that these packaging can result in such adverse exposure – metals as is the case with cans and BPA (bisphenol A) as is with plastics. Some food also contain mercury, and such metal is what is referred to as a heavy metal, continued intake of mercury can result in brain damage. Aluminum on the other hand can cause Alzheimer’s.
Now with foods explained, it is time to detail the issues with alcohol. Alcohol has long term negative side effects to the body. Such health issues that may arise as a result of long term alcohol consumption include neurological damage, gastrointestinal problems, heart disease, reproductive disorders, cancer and death. One of the main concerns of alcohol is that it can result in addiction which then health concerns would present with psychological and social issues. Just like the cigarettes, alcohols health benefits are not recognized. Alcohol can result in stress relief, fat reduction, avoidance of the common cold, and heart benefits amongst others. The problem with alcohol is that it is already widely known that it is a risky activity but its direct health concerns are not addressed, however some action, specifically after its consumed has been organized by such nongovernmental organization as MADD who promote the responsible use of it. What remains a question is that, why such precautions and risks are not mentioned in the label? For example, in the USA, as it pertains to “failure to warn,” there was a lawsuit against multiple alcohol companies (Miller Brewing Company, Anheuser-Busch Co., Adolph Coors Co., Brown-Furman Co., American Brands Inc., Pepsi-Cola, RJR Nabisco, Gallo’s Winery, Ernest Gallo and Julio Gallo) in 2012 specifically pertaining to the specified matter. The lawsuit was a product liability claim which theorized that the companies failed to adequately warn its customers that their products were addictive. The courts claim that there is a flaw in the argument because it would be impractical for alcohol companies to create warning labels to address the dangers of alcohol consumption. However, the flaw in that is that it has already been done with tobacco companies in Canada. As the case pertains to the USA “In January 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the complaint with prejudice”. This case then, if presented to the courts of Canada, would have justification.
Considerations:
The food and beverage industry in 2020 generated over 8 trillion U.S. dollars in revenue according to Statista. It is a large industry as it encompasses the consumption of individuals. The food and beverage industry addresses the primary concern of the population, nutrition. It is nutrition that is a main determinant of health, along with the environment. Thus, the importance of the food and beverage industry cannot be emphasized more. Canada’s food and beverage industry had retail sales amounting to almost 130 billion Canadian dollars in 2019 where Loblaw Companies Ltd. reached over 50 billion Canadian dollars and Sobeys Inc. and Metro Inc placed high on the list of leading food retailers (Statista 2021). Further, the food manufacturing industry's revenue was 117 billion Canadian dollars in that same year. It is clear that the food and beverage industry is highly profitable however, what is concerning is that such profits do not take into account the negative effects of such consumption. Through imposing social responsibility measures, the manufacturers of such food and beverages and the retailers as well would be promoting accountability to the people and the government. For example, according to Obesity Canada, “over 5 million adults have obesity and according to the 2015 Canadian Health Measures Survey.” According to Stat Can, “in 2017, 7.3% of Canadians aged 12 and older (roughly 2.3 million people) reported being diagnosed with diabetes.” As it pertains to stroke, the Ontario Stroke Network specifies that every year there are “50,000 new strokes”. Heart attacks are also an issue of contention, “158,700 (6.1 per 1,000) Canadian adults aged 20 years and older” receive a diagnosis for ischemic heart disease every year according to Canada. And lastly, according to the Cancer Society, “206,200 new cancer diagnoses and 80,800 deaths from cancer occurred in Canada in 2017.” To give perspective on this issue, according to a “2019 CIHI report, total annual health expenditures increased from $100 billion to $200 billion between 2000 and 2011 and reached an estimated $264.4 billion in 2019.” What is unclear here is the causations of these illnesses. But what is a fact of the matter is that such foods and beverages depicted in this briefing note contribute to a reduction in overall health of the citizen which then results in illness and or disease at which point Canada is left to shoulder the expenses via the public health care system. Therefore, more effective means to address the food and beverage concern need to be employed to not only reduce the Canadian budgets expenditures but to also be accountable to the Canadian citizen. The main stakeholders for this matter are the government, the food and beverage companies, the retailers and the citizens.
Options:
Option 1: Label junk foods and alcohol.
This option is really feasible, as there is already a means by which products are required to be labeled by the government found in the sales of nicotine products. The government would adapt such template to the sale of junk foods and alcohol with consideration. This is a sustainable option as it would allow increase awareness of the implications of junk foods and alcohol. This would then prevent or deter people from excessive consumption in turn reducing the strain on the public health care system. From an equity perspective, this option helps people maintain their health. Looking at this from the equality perspective, it gives equity to the nicotine companies who have been ravaged by herding. This is the most accountable option as it serves to benefit the people and the budget of Canada. There would likely be high acceptability for this option, as more awareness of illness and disease can be identified.
Option 2: Tax junk food and alcohol.
This is the least feasible option however, selecting this option would help reduce the strain on public health care expenditures. Adding an extra health tax would anger the population thus, it is advisable to find a median by which all concerned can achieve harmony. There is likely to be push back from the food and beverage industry. However, it is true that some of these foods and drinks do cause long term health effects and its necessary to inform them that the government is acting in social responsibility and that these companies should also consider a more accountable approach to consumption by the population.
Option 3: Mixture of option one and option two.
This option is feasible. It would allow the government to adjust option one and option two to their liking and as they see fit with consideration of the companies involved, the population and the budget. This is very sustainable as it seeks to incrementally make changes to the ways these foods and beverages are sold. Slow taxation would benefit the government in the long run as the push back can be mitigated.
Option 4: Status quo.
This is the most feasible option however, it is the least accountable. Selecting this option means that the current expenditures on the public health system remain unchanged. The statistics for the above-named disease and illness will continue. It is not advisable that this option be selected as it wont serve the government or the people.
Recommendation:
Option three is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment