Your View

Coming from a different type of community back in the 1970s,we did what everybody is doing now.

Organically grown foods,wind power,solar energy.

It's good to see the rest of the country catching up to what we knew back then.

The comment a poster made about butter and oil,is true.Have been doing it all my life.

Most food choices go back to common sense.

Although unless you grow your own fruits,vegetables and meats,it's hard to know what you are getting.

Anymore it is hard to keep up with what is GOOD for you and what's BAD for you.

I remember when butter and eggs were suppose to be bad for everyone yet now it is proven false.

Calling trans fats a poison is propaganda.

The government shouldn't limit what we can and cannot eat. That is disturbing. Likening it to lead in toys or whatever topical irrelevant issue is not a valid argument.

This is completely a freedom issue. If you people want the government to decide what's on your plate, then it's your problem. I don't want them to do that. What's next?

Ron: I'm with you most of the way on safety of GM foods. I've seen very little credible evidence that GM foods are dangerous to consume, and I've never heard a good reason why they should be.

Of course it would depend on the product, but I don't believe that any GM foods are dangerous just because they are GM. The opposite is obviously quite true about trans-fat.

However what you say about the environmental impact and overall health impact of GM foods is a little bit off the mark. GM technology does allow us crops that are more naturally pest resistant, but they haven't been developed much or used much. Would that they were.

Most GM crops that are actually in use are designed to be resistant to harsh pesticides, and are sold in conjunction with those pesticides, the seeds and the chemicals are designed and sold by the same people.

When you eat GM grains and soybeans you are actually ingesting more pesticides than from non-GM crops, rather than less. Due to the high pesticide use they allow, most GM crops are actually worse for the environment and overall health than the alternative.

Michele, you may want to argue that, but unfortunately you didn't. Stating a conclusion isn't the same as arguing it.

The difference between trans fats and GM foods is that trans fats have a different chemical structure than cis fats (normal fats). Without getting into the detailed chemistry, I think we can agree that this chemical structure, which is rare outside of hydrogenised fat, has been clearly found to be poisonous and harmful.

GM foods, on the other hand, are (for all intents and purposes) *identical* in terms of chemistry. It's all amino acids, monosaccharides and fatty acids to your digestive system, and the fact that you ate a protein in a tomato that once existed only in a fish doesn't make a difference to the chemistry, and therefore doesn't make a difference to your digestive system.

Thus your point about not being in the food chain long enough doesn't really make much sense. There's nothing 'different' to actually be in the food chain to test in terms of chemistry.

Your idea of labelling, however, makes sense in this context. GM foods, unlike trans fats, are a matter of personal taste, so if somebody wants to pay a premium for non-GM foods, they can.

To address the last point about the environment, non-GM methods of food production rely heavily on pesticides, and organic farming simply cannot provide enough food for the country (let alone the planet). GM foods allow for less pesticides, have a lighter impact on the environment, and (for example) are allowing birds to make a comeback in heavily farmed areas.

So, whenever you are eating non-GM foods, remember that somewhere, out there, a little bird has dropped dead.

Happy Holidays!

I find it amusing how people preach this false sense of humanity for issues like animal control, abortion, social welfare, etc, but these same people say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to products and food that unquestionable cause harm to people. The term hypocrite seems to enter my vocabulary.

On that note, start using common sense for the issues you support. Your support environment, healthy lifestyles, or safety is whats needed. This garbage about political correctness or infinitely pointing out the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda's' serves our society no purpose. So essentially, if you're one of those people who point out that you should say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", but you say nothing against corporations poisoning our food and children's toys, you need to sit down, shut up, and not speak again until common sense has caused a revolution in your mind.

Time to wake up people, we're being poisoned and if you don't stand up against that, you might as well not have a heart beat either!

I wish I could say it's great to see BIG brother regulating what I, as an educated consumer, already regulate, but it's just a facade when you consider what's going on in other industries.

What I really would like to see is my government providing more details on products that aren't regulated like genetic manipulated food products, water or the fisheries industries so that consumers, such as myself, will have the means to determine and self regulate their own intake of those products.

Of course there are thousands of products that are sold in this country that are dangerous, and are not banned.

This does not illustrate any kind of point or conclusion.

Using this reasoning you *could* justify allowing lead in toys, or abandoning building codes, and let market forces determine everything.

If trans fats was not like letting people use lead paint on toys, then perhaps this would be a freedom issue.

But how can anybody determine that banning a poison in food tramples their 'rights'?

Yes, your children have had their 'right' to play with lead toys removed.

And local governments are busy removing your 'right' to eat in restaurants contaminated with rat droppings.

And yes, if you want deep fried chicken with trans fats you're going to have to make it yourself.

Such terrible hardship.

On the other hand, we will have removed a poison from our food supply.

If you want to take a stand on freedom issues, there's lots of issues that would make sense, from free speech, to drugs, to abortion.

This is not, in any way, a freedom issue.

Nobody has made any case that shows any benefit to trans fats that out-weighs its harm, or has made any case to show that the harm has been over-stated.

I think part of the problem stems from the belief that 'freedom' means being able to do whatever you wish.

This neglects the 'duty' side of 'rights'.

If you have a right, it is subject to the competing rights of others.

Your right to drive a car means you have a duty to follow the necessary regulations and drive on the right side of the road.

You have the right to make a buck off of people, but you have a duty to ensure your product does what is intended.

Education, in this case, is not the answer.

It doesn't matter how much you 'inform' a parent that lead is dangerous, you're still not allowed to paint it on toys.

And even if you're brave enough not to care if a restaurant isn't meeting health regulations, it's still going to be shut down.

It's not just about you.

Ron, I would argue that GM foods "have no known safe level of consumption and are not required in the diet all", as well.

There is "nothing to suggest they are unhealthy" mainly because they have not been in the human food chain as long like trans fats. Do you think when trans fats where
first used people knew they where bad?

I could care less if you want to consume GM foods (only if growing them causes problems in the enviroment). I, however, would like mandatory labeling so I can make the choice.

I want is this regard.

I agree with those who defend freedom and the right to choose. Make restaurants and food producers label their products. Make Burger King and fast food outlets post the contents of their food.

And no, I do not agree that this is anything like building codes, or lead toys.There are literally thousands of products sold in this country every day that have hazardous qualities. Do we ban them all?? No.

We label them properly, and advise consumers. That is the proper role of the government.

Woody goes on about "liberal democracies" and "liberalism" in bashing Linda's point of view. That, in my opinion, misses the mark.

I don't agree with all of Linda's comments. But I do agree with the concept of government intervention in every aspect of our lives. And it is typical of governments of "liberal democracies", to use taxes and legislation as solutions to every thing under the sun.

More than anything,I am troubled by how quickly Canadians give up freedoms, surrender rights, and look to others to make choices for them. And also, the increasing number of social engineers who feel they have the right to not only live their own lives, but to demand other follow their lead.

Of all the reasons people came to Canada, going right back to our earliest beginnings, FREEDOM was the most common reason.

I would now ask, when the social engineers finally take over everything, where will those who want to live in freedom go? And, if they do actually find a place, will the social engineers follow them there too??

This is an issue that requires education and product labelling. Not legislation and taxation.

Those that think this is a freedom of choice issue have chosen the wrong battle.

Preventing manufacters from putting lead in toys, ensuring buildings codes are such that buildings don't fall down, etc, is what government is for.

The science on trans fats is very clear: it should be outright banned. If you want to go and put some in your own food, along with DDT, lead, and E. coli, go right ahead. That's about the only spot 'choice' comes in.

This is a completely different issue from, for example, GM foods. GM foods have nothing to suggest they are unhealthy, are not poisonous, and are a matter of choice.

There is, however, a public perception problem with GM foods that seems to stem from non-scientific issues (and usually seems to be the same people who don't like vaccines, and believe we should stop living in houses and go back to caves).

A government tax or regulation in this matter would then be a matter where one could stand up and demand the choice between cheap GM food over expensive organic food, both of which are essentially the same in terms of health.

This is also different from the government regulating the amount of salt in food, or the amount of regular fat, both of which are unhealthy in high amounts.

Trans fats have *no* known safe level of consumption, and they are not required in the diet at all.

The best comparison here would be when shady wine-makers add anti-freeze to a cheap wine to sweeten it. Despite the economic advantages, it's a poison, and should be banned.

Probably no one on this board dislikes our current conservative government more than I do, however even then one must give credit where credit is due.

So it is, reluctantly, that I offer my congratulations to this government on trans-fats reduction and the focus on preventitive health.

The whole issue of public health is arguably the most important issue of the 21st century, including, as it does, not only health care and health care delivery, but also environmental (green energy included) concerns and food production as well.

If we are to enjoy a universal health care system that responds to the needs of Canadians then we must also deal with prevention.

I would now like to see them concentrate on genetically modified foods, industrial fertilizers and insecticides, the waste from the oil sands development that threatens not just Alberta's ecosystem but Saskatchewan's and Manitoba's as well.

Trans-fats was a good first step and Minister Clement is to be congratulated for his efforts in this area but as we can see, there are miles to go yet and time's a ticking away.

Kelly - I lived this long only because of one thing... common sense. I do not subscribe to every new fear that the goverment or media plays up each week.

This is dumb.

We have 50+ years of the "best" nutrition research under our belts and all we have to show for it is the fact that our guts bulge over our belts more than ever.

Trans fats are not the problem. Healthy food choices are. Take an individual that eats a box of Oreo cookies every week. All of a sudden they're now trans fat free. Yahoo! My government saved my life!

Please.

A person who thinks they're going to live longer solely by running away from trans fats will live as long as someone with honey smeared on their ass running away from a bear.

And for that matter, the same goes for those that buy into the new nutritionism, chasing after this phytonutrient or that dietary supplement.

The person who eats lots of vegetables, meats in moderation, and uses appropriate amounts of natural fats and oils in their cooking is on the right track. Mind your portions and get some exercise, and you'll be even better off.

Don't choose foods based on what ingredients the food has or doesn't. Choose foods that are good for you in the first place.

Self-regulation in industry doesn't work.

It never has and it never will. Sure, there will be a few companies who voluntarily comply – but for the vast majority ... it is more about the short-term dollars than the long term gain.

The Libertarians among this board who don't want government to interfere with our 'choices' are a little out to lunch (I'm looking at you Noel King).

Without government regulation ... we'd all be living in Asbestos filled houses, all our stuff would be lead-painted, we'd all enjoy DDT covered food and half of all kids over 12 would be smoking.

Remove trans fats......this is for our own good..!

Why can't we as thinking humans..make that decision !!

Studies coming out are warning about the oils used to replace the trans fats.so are we really ahead... or like "Big Bother"... to babysit us !! sheeshhhh

Well, that's nice.

Now maybe the government can also give some attention to genetically modified and non-organic foods.

Apples really don't need to and shouldn't be the size of a person's head...

Look... avoiding Trans-Fats is easy folks.

Just stop buying any prepared foods with the words 'hydrogenated, modified, or any product made with the oils that have been overheated.

All you need to do is look at the labels and read. We do it every time we shop.

Turn the box or container around; look at the ingredient label and voila'. To buy or not to buy... that is the question.

Use natural lard fat or other materials in your baking.

Burger King is not the only holdout either.

Canada Safeway and other major grocery chains with baked goods on site, still have loads of transfats in their goods.

It will take another year or so for the legislation to catch up.

Needless to say, it isn't always the governments work to do this;' it is up to Canadians to stop being lazy and read the labels on foods.

That's why they were put there; for all of us to read.

Limit convenience foods in your grocery cart and prepare meals from scratch.

We run three businesses and my wife works a full time employment and we have the time.... so do you. (unless you're busy watching TV!!)

You can make your own non-hydrogenated margarine really quickly by taking one pound of 'real' butter and mixing it with 1 cup of oil in a blender or by handblending.

You can use flaxseed oil, grapeseed oil, olive oil or any type of ordinary cooking oil or salad oil which contains no heat produced transfats.

My wife and I have been using that mixture instead of margarine for 25 years because that is how long we have known about trans-fats.

It's basic biochemistry folks. Plus the mixture is easy to spread even when cold.

Enjoy food and life without transfats and you will likely live longer and be healthier.

To Cait who thought I was joking by referencing those 2 leaders, please understand that this is one form of legislation among tons and tons of it.

It starts this way, it ends, well, history shows how it ends. You may say "never, ever" but I believe you're wishful thinking. Bans don't just "stop," they set the precedent for more.

Ya, it always looks like a little bit when it comes out one by one but each piece of legislation and ban is one less freedom you and I have; One less choice.

Is trans fat bad? You bet, but let people decide that. You don't control your children all their lives, yet, you think its appropriate to have a Government do it, instead. Try teaching education and discipline. That's where intelligence spawns from, not 'control.'

These bans don't make people intelligent, they give them one less thing to think about. If no one is making mistakes, no one is thinking, and, well, we then develop an even more irresponsible and more dependent society (resulting in more bans).

Linda has no use for the concept of the "public good". The alternative "good", presumably, is a multitude of private interests going about their business unhindered and, ideally, well "informed".

As anyone who understands liberalism knows, there are ends to which personal freedom (or free "choice", to cite another popular mantra) can go before it intrudes upon the liberty of others.

Liberal democracies have been established to, among other things, bring legitimacy to individual claims of liberty - but in the overall interest of the public good.

As individuals in law (enjoying limited liability) corporations ought to enjoy similar protections on the freedom to act. They ought not be allowed, however, to sell food with what amounts to a poisonous, artificially occuring substance. That's a "public" health issue.

"Public" here meaning all citizens as well as an issue relevant to the public authority - democratically elected government and state agencies comitted to the public interest.

Now, if you reject the legitimacy of those institutions I suppose your rejection of the "public interest" makes sense to some degree. And certainly politicians (like Steven Harper, who used the term recently in parliament to defend his government's choice to over-ride a regulatory agency) spout the "public interest" when they mean something else entirely.

But to be so cynical as to reject the notion of a collective good is another thing. A frightening descent, to be sure.

John your comments about trans fat and critical fat is mistaken. There are a small number of types of fat that are critical and they are called essential fatty acids. Removing trans fat from a food supply will not decrease the intake of these essential fats.

Also, trans fat is an independent risk factor for heart attacks which means that eliminating trans fat and running will be much better for you than just running alone.

I'd rather see them lower the sodium content of processed foods first. Can't even buy a can of soup that doesn't have a ridiculous amount of salt in it.

I suppose if people just stuck to fresh vegetables, fruit and meats, we wouldn't have these problems.

Most fatty acids are critical in neurological and cardiovascular development. It is difficult to seperate the critical fatty acids from the bad trans fats. Introducing a regiment of physical activity is the only way to play it safe.

WOW!! More taxes as a solution.Or banning peoples choices. What country are these posts coming from? Hmmm.I have to work night shift,and that is proven to be unhealthy.I would favour banning night shift work for everyone.

Would we have to hire "fat police",or could we just use the "smoke police" or the "tire police"??

"It's about time that THEY really started taking our helath sreiously". Are you serious Dan?? Are you so helpless you can't do that for yourself?? Is MY health ANY of your business?? MY HEALTH. MY CHOICE.All I ask is to be able to make INFORMED CHOICES.To do that,I need information and proper labeliing on all products.Food being at the head of the list.I DO NOT need the "food police",or any other self appointed do-gooder in my kitchen or at my restaurant.

Unfortunately,it is the fat in most foods that give them a lot of their taste.While a lot of fat is obviously not a healthy choice,it surely is up to a consumer to choose either the flavour,or the taste.He,or she can then deal with the consequences.

If legislators and lobbyist keep going in the direction they are going,we are going to have to revise our national anthem.You know the part that says "true north strong and "FREE".

"Public good" is a cop out excuse for telling other people what to do.Each of us has one life to live.We should be FREE to do that in our own way.

INFORMATION--Absolutely.LEGISLATION--No way.

One of the things not often discussed in news paper articles on trans fat is the magnitude of the problem.

Canadians are among the highest consumers of trans fat in the world. Four good quality epidemiological studies consistently showed an increased risk of heart attacks with increased consumption of trans fat.

By decreasing trans fat by the amount the average Canadian eats (about 2% of total energy)these studies suggest the incidence of heart attacks should drop about 23%. The number of annual heart attacks in Canada would drop by thousands.

It is not difficult to ban trans fat, Denmark serves as an example. Their consumption of trans fat from industrial sources has almost been eliminated with no change in food taste or undue hardship on the food industry.

As several people have alluded to, the problem with labeling and voluntary restrictions is that it puts the onus on the consumer. Self protection however is difficult because most trans fat is now from fast food and commercial bakery products and these foods are often unlabeled.

Proper legislation banning trans fat would prevent many more heart attacks compared to the governments voluntary compliance approach.

Joan from BC -- I admit I have conflicting feelings towards your proposal to heavily tax "junk" foods. I agree with you in theory, however, the price of food is already embarassingly high, and to raise the price of "junk" food is frankly, a morally superior position to argue.

The obvious question, first and foremost, is what constitutes junk food? Where do you draw the nutrition line in the sand? While we heavily tax cigarettes and alcohol, there is a distinction. First, no body needs alcohol or smokes to live.

Second, there are direct and indirect effects of these items on both oneself, but also on others (second hand smoke, drunk driving). Proper labelling of food has been all but ignored in this country. And until we know what exactly is going into everythign, it would be very hard to enforce this tax.

Lastly, while junk food is obviously not desireable, the reality is that it is cheap. It costs a lot of money to eat healthy in Canada.

The price of quality, healthy food is an often insurmountable obstacle for many of the poor who you condemn for their "choices". For the hundreds of thousands of people who are working and living in poverty, "junk" foods are the only kind of sustinence that they can afford.

Until the cost of fruit and vegetables and other nutrious foods are lowered, there can be no talk of raising the price of the "junk" food.

LOL @ Noel King's witty satire.

Oh man, the way you just slide Hitler and Stalin references in to you response?

Pure deadpan genius!

I think it is great that we are getting rid of trans fats, hopefully the next generation will benefit from it.

I don't see this kind of action as over-legislating (like Gov saying, hey chubby, eat less red meat, which they never ever would say), but more akin to removing lead-tainted toys and bacteria tainted meats from the market.

Sure, dangerous and shoddy products can be great for their low prices and instant gratification, but people in general are just not smart enough to have such things pervasive in our society.

Hey Michael, at least your first sentence makes sense.

By current law, you can read what is included in the food that you could put into your body.

You then make that decision called “YOUR CHOICE”.

Places that serve food that people do not want to eat go broke.

It is called a market economy based on CHOICE.

If you are unable to choose for yourself then that is your problem.

Don’t encourage government legislation to regulate what the rest of us choose to eat.

Some of your responses scare the hell out me.

Taxing junk food? You can't be serious!? I will make a point to find something you may do and make sure they tax it to pieces and see how you like it.

I don't eat crap all day and like to have McDonald's for a rare treat. Are you telling me you want to tax my occasional bad meal? Who are you?

Do some of you not understand that taxing stuff doesn't do anything except make people poor? I cannot believe this, in a land of taxes, you want MORE taxes.

Eating or not eating food is the INDIVIDUAL'S choice. Some famous leaders who didn't like individuals choice include Adolf Hitler (he taxed smoking and it increased 800%) and Stalin.

North Korea loves telling people what they can and can't do.

Let people make their mistakes. I'm desperately sorry, but you cannot control people.

I know some of you want to but you have to understand you cannot.

Do some research and learn alternatives before you come to knee-jerk conclusions.

Taxing and forcing people to eat right is exactly why America was formed.

Too bad they lost their way, don't make us anymore the same.

One does have to wonder why it took the government 50+ years to feel the need to ask for voluntary reductions. how about banning them from all foods if they are bad. Maybe more testing should have been done BEFORE manmade trans fats where allowed in Canada.

Sure doesn't give me much reassurance that the government has our best interests at heart. What about GM foods 50 years from now; when it will probably be to late to remove them from our soceity. What about the stark change in how much Omega 6 we consume compared to Omega 3; compared to 50 years ago.

Maybe the government should look at the fact that todays mass produce fruits and vegetable's contain significantly less vitamins and minerals as they did 50 years ago; or that they have increased fat and sodium.

I'm not convinced that 'our' government cares about he average Canadian. They just look like they do, to win votes.

Joan, a law like that would be impossible to make. We would have to halt research on nutrition, because the law would need to be changed every year. What they should do is get rid of all these fad diets. Atkins is terrible for you. Diets that are severely low calorie are bad for you.

Not only that, but I suggest you look into the 3 genetic body types before you assume all large people are that way because of eating habits.

Not only that, but according to a JAMA (Jorunal of American Medicine Association) report this year or last, those who are overweight had the least amount of health problems. T

hey were followed by those who were of average weight. Then I believe the underweight and obese were around the same level. Not only that, but cancer deaths were not more common among the obese, just some types of cancer. Funny that the overweight had the lowest death rates, I think.

As for trans fat, I honestly think fries and stuff taste better without it. Not that big a deal. I don't think the government should control what we eat though. People can do that themselves.

I am spending some time in the U.S. at present. When eating in restaurants I have noticed that the food is very salty and the servings are huge. The doggy bag is often used.

We should take this oppurtunity to ship down the Reggressive Conservative Government to see what they can do for the U.S. population.

Babs - you're just lucky. Actually I hate the line of reasoning from people that "gee, we never had all these safety regulations when we were kids and we turned out just fine.

Therefore the government should just leave us alone and let us do what we want". Well... those that didn't turn out just fine aren't really around to dispute you are they.

But that doesn't mean they don't (er, didn't) exist. I wonder how they would feel about it?

The government should start heavily taxing junk food; food with trans fats, food with more than a certain percentage of calories from sugar or fat with not enough nutritional value to redeem it.

The rules would be easy to make.
No tax exemption for First Nations or poor people on this either, it is about time everyone paid for poor decisions they make, rather than some of us struggling with a shoddy healthcare system because of paying for the health consequences of folks with nasty alcohol, tobacco, and Twinkie problems.

Avoiding transfat when feeding your kids is as easy as avoiding Chinese toys at Xmas.

Regulatory institutions clearly need a supportive government with a spine to tell corporations what Canadians want. Hands up how many of you want to feed your children transfat.

The government shouldn't be "working with industry" on these matters. It should be telling industry that it is illegal to sell food products containing transfat and it should prosecute offenders.

That would be a truly useful "first step."

And why always the kid gloves with industry? Tony Clement's cheer leading over this meagre announcement suggests the degree to which our standards have fallen.

Russ, it is NOT political spin. Saturated fats are bad, yes. No doubt. BUT at least your body knows what to do with it. Yes, it stores it and it's unhealthy. Trans fats are NOT metabolized.

They turn into free radicals, or worse, they are stored in fat cells to be released at some later date as free radicals. They do far more than contribute to obesity. They, literally, are poisonous to the system.

I think that, based on two decades of deregulation and the behaviour of business to the new "smart' regulation, it is obvious that government must regulate most business activity in the interest of the public.
In the cost cutting world of today the temptation for profit driven corporations ,including the food industy, to do whatever is necessary to provide the shareholder with the highest possible rate of return is just too great.

They will produce whatever will sell whether it is good or bad for human health. An outside agent , government is needed to steer them a direction that benefits the health of citizens.

The argument that consumers are capable of makiing intelligent choices is a false one. Who can possibly keep up the the health and safety risks of all the products than tumble into the market place?

We cannot possibly all be experts on chemistry and biology and interpret whether the ingredients on food packaging are harmful or not. In the case of restaurant meals we do not even know the ingredients or cooking proceedures that are used in the food that is served to us.

Finally if we all had perfect knowledge who would have the time to do the analysis of every product and service we buy? The reality is that none of us are up to the task of being the perfectly knowledgeable consumer.

I hope that the tide is turning on the question of government regulation vs business self regulation. The past 20 years have indicated to me that we need government to protect us from products and services that may threaten our health. We need to push government to act for our interests and not those of the food industry.

John Gaul

You gotta love political spin, don't you?

Removing trans fats and replacing them with saturated fats is the 'progressive' equivalent of trading in a heroine addiction for a meth addiction. Yay! let's all celebrate! Your NEW CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT is working for you!

Thank you to those involved in decreasing the ammount of trans fat in Canadian foods. North American society has been on a continous trend of being the fattest slobs in the world.

I do see it as sad though that the government had to step in and set a regulation to try and make people healthier and combat mass obesity. Come on people take care of yourselves!

It is terrible, I was shopping for a fancy top for my girlfriend's formal christmas party for her work. We wanted a nice top that was slim around the waste. We had to spend hours looking for one in store after store. All the tops were ones that hung off her and were loose around the waist. Even the fashion industry is designing their clothes to accomodate for everyone's muffin-tops and flabby guts.

Let this start a trend for the food industry to make healthier choices, and let us as a society take control of our lives and start eating healthy and leading active lives.

I generally believe that it's every person's own responsibility to monitor what goes into thier bodies.

Except of course for children.

The responsibility then lies with the parent.

That being said, I'm fully in favour of government regulation of trans fat levels.

Trans fats are totally unnatural and as such, unable to be properly metabolized by the body.

They exist solely for the purpose of making products cheaper to manufacture.

Once it became evident that they were in an astronomical number of products, the government realized the seriousness of the issue.

Who would have thought, 15 years ago, that it would actually be healthier to eat butter than to eat margarine?

I was a person who just assumed that margarine was healthier because it was non-animal fat.

Your body knows what to do with butter, but has no clue what to do with margarine.

So the trans fats just cruise around your body looking for somewhere to lodge, causing countless health issues, some known and I daresay more unknown, and won't be known for years to come.

I've always been conscious of what I eat and what I feed my son, so I read the ingredients of everything we eat and avoid those with any amount of trans fat.

However, when we eat out, we really have no idea of what we are consuming.

When we go to a restaurant, we have some idea of the fat content of what we're eating, but no idea of the trans fat content.

Are the tortilla chips made with canola oil, or are they loaded with cheap margarine?

There are times when even a conscious educated consumer can be completely unaware of what's in their food.

In those cases, it is the government's job to ensure the food's safety.

Who really knows how poisonous trans fats are?

Remember, they've only been on the market for the past 50 or so years.

I have to wonder how much of today's myriad health issues are caused by them.

The prevalence of cancers and heart disease (to name only two) pretty much mirrors the time frame.

Why doesnt the government step up and ban trans fat.

It's about time that they really start taking our health into consideration!

Trans-fat levels.
Global Warming crisis.
Politically correct Christmas songs.
Riding a bicylce without a helmet.

How did I ever manage to live this long???

On the surface the announcement lauds the government's efforts to improve the physical health of Canadians.

But like so many government releases, it's a promotional advertisement designed to attract voters to the federal conservative side in the pending federal election.

Personally, I'd like this current claim be substantiated by much more than a mere public communiqué.

I don,t want to be lulled into a false and misleading sense of security when I visit various food courts, processors, and restaurants.

How do I know for certain, this establishment or that, have eliminated or drastically reduced their reliance on 'Trans-fats' in food preparations ?

It's simply not enough to tell me not to worry
all is well.

So many past politically messages have been replaced by incessant greed, continuing poverty, homelessness, and declining access to health care services.

You would think that all this cutting of fat would actually cost the companies extra money to implement.

You would think they would be crying hard times.

But it would seem the consumers said "We don't want to eat all this fat that is killing us."

The Government said "We don't want to pay for all of the heart conditions caused by this."

The food companies said "I can make the money back by writing off losses and advertising trans fat free."

This illustrates that it is the consumer that drives the economy and not the commodity.

This illustrates that moving away from a carbon based economy is possible without the economic nightmare the oil companies are crying about.

Good job by the Conservatives on this one.

It was a no-brainer to implement and a win, win, win situation.

Well, Allan from Simcoe, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

We should not have our government stepping in to require actively toxic chemicals from our food supply.

Indeed all food regulations should be removed once and for all so that companies can put in whatever makes their operations more efficient -- arsenic, say -- instead of all this "complying" for reasons of "public health".

Brilliant!

Read it again, Stan Welner! Tony merely made the announcement that the program, instituted by The Heart and Stroke foundation, was working, and that trans-fat use was decreasing.

Another instance of this government's tendency to take credit for everything good and blame the Liberals for anything bad.

P.S. Isn't this the same Tony who used public money for private purposes when he was in Mike Harris' unlamented government?

It's interesting that Burger King is being singled out as the one trans-fat holdout.

That chain appears to be setting a completely different course than anyone else.

It is the only one of the fast food giants that has recently refused to pay a penny a pound extra for tomatoes so that foreign migrants who pick the fruit in Florida have a chance of making a livable wage.

Neither of those two independent positions in the industry is not winning the chain much good PR.

But then profits will be profits, no matter how you get 'em.

By the way Stan Welner, weren't you guys in Ontario lucky enough to have Clement as Health Minister there under the disastrous reign of Mike Harris?

Rather than assisting Harris in ruining the economy and pushing Ontario deeper into trouble, why didn't Clement tackle trans-fats then?

Let me suggest you or I, if appointed federal Health Minister in the current regime, would have had same battle over trans-fats once Health Canada experts advised us on what to do.

Why? Because Clement like his boss and most politicians probably thought that trans-fats were some gender bending things until the public raised enough noise the politicos had to pay attention.

But then Clement's eating a lot of humble pie these last few days over the handling of the Chalk River nuclear site fiasco and the contradictions he's having to clarify on behalf of other cabinet colleagues and political appointments gone wrong, so he'll no doubt appreciate your comment more than I.

If this story is indeed true, then this may initate a trend of corporate resistance in terms of safety protocols regarding food and other nutritional supplements.

It may begin a growing conflict between government regulatory authorities and corporations, and if this happens, then what else could we be in for, regarding other banned or dangerous chemicals in our foods, not only in fast food establishments but in our grocery stores?

It is great to see prevention being more of a priority.

We applaud Minister Clement & Sally Brown, CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada for their efforts to identify success and failures.

Poor diet and trans fat are very harmful, especially to Canada's youth!

Good first step, hopefully, more to come. Canada needed someone like you, Mr. Tony Clement, years ago!

Thank You! Keep on the good work!

May the good Lord protect us from those who have appointed themselves to protect us from ourselves!