L, for milk and for lobby |The press
Science or lobbying?
Publié le 8 janv. 2019Patrick Lagacé LA PRESSEBasically, this is the essential question in the overhaul of the Canadian food guide, redesigns that makes milk producers conndle, these days.
It is a scoop of Philippe Teisceira-Lessard in the press of January 4 which set fire to milk powder among dairy producers: the journalist told us, documents in support, that dairy products will lose their place asChoice in the Canadian Food Guide: Funny Food Group, they will blend into that of "protein foods".
Our journalist had the scoop about the reduced place of dairy products in the next Canadian food guide, but Health Canada has been sending very clear signals for a few years on what will guide the new guide: science, not lobbyingagrifood.
Since 2016, the various lobbies - milk, beef, etc..- worry not to be consulted for the development of the next guide, which should be published soon.
It must be said that, to develop the latest version of the food guide (2007), Health Canada had given a large place to industry in its "consultations".Whether it is the Canadian Sugar Institute, Kellogg, the Canadian Meat Council or dairy producers in Canada, all these lobbies had Health Canada.
And it's insane.
Of course the Canadian Meat Council will find that meat is good for you.Of course Kellogg will find that cereals, it's excellent to start the day off right.Of course Canada dairy producers find that a glass of milk is good, but two, it's better...
But what does science say?
What does science say that was not funded by milk, beef and cereals?
This blow, for the update of the Canadian food guide, Health Canada has chosen to rule out the views of those who have something to sell to promote the point of view of those who have nothing to sell:Scientists who study food without the money of Big Bouffe.
This blow, Health Canada even excluded from its reflections funded studies in whole or in part by commercial interests.Because, bad luck, scientific studies funded by Big Milk always find that milk is a good deal...
It falls under the sense of choosing only objective sources, but in the big game of commercial interests of the Canadian food industry, it is rather a revolution to base oneself on science to suggest to the Canadians what to eat.
I quote Yoni Freedhoff, Ottawa doctor specializing in nutrition and obesity issues, which in 2006 denounced the presence of agrifood lobbyists in the Canadian Food Guide process: "Should they really be involved in theseDecisions?Shouldn't the Health Canada Food Guide only reflect what it is healthier to eat? ”
***
In 1977, the American Congress looked at the eating habits of Americans.
One of the conclusions: in the years of rationing of the Second World War, the Americans ate less red meat and dairy products.Result: fewer Americans suffered from cardiovascular disease.Specialists have come to testify to scientific studies making a link between the food of Americans and their diseases.
In his book in Defense of Food, the American journalist Michael Pollan relates what followed: "Naively one more one, the committee (chaired by Senator George McGovern) then recommended to the Americans to cut in meat and productsdairy...»»»»
It was without counting the American lobbies of the food industry, who put all their weight - and their money - to dilute the conclusions of the Senate Committee as much as possible.
And in 1980, the beef lobby financed the opponent of.McGovern during the senatorial election of his state, which has a lot of cattle breeders.
"After being elected three times, McGovern lost, ousted with the help of the beef lobby," writes Michael Pollan in his book.It was a clear message to anyone (in Washington) could be tempted to challenge the American diet, in particular the portion of animal protein which is at the center of our plates.»»»»
*** So science or lobby? I choose science.
That doesn't mean I'm going to stop eating meat.That doesn't mean I'm going to stop drinking milk.In the end, I have my free will: I still eat red meat, even if I know that science says that the more I eat meat, the more I increase the risk of developing cancer or heart diseases.So I eat less, but the best.
But I find that it is a good - no, an excellent - idea when public policies are based on the best scientific knowledge available...
Rather than the weight of votes that have huge quantities of dollars to hire as many lobbyists as possible.
Here, an example of the immense weight of lobbies on the development of public policies, for the road: the S-228 bill, which wants to limit advertising on sugary drinks and junk food, in order to protect the health of children...
We know that sugary drinks and junk food are vectors of obesity, adult and child.Science on this is clear.
But Coca-Cola, the Canadian Viade Council, the Canadian Boisson Association, McDo and other Subway, to name only those, want to be able to continue to target children when they make sweet juice, drinksGaseuses, junk food...
How many lobbyists have these companies and associations hired to derail S-228?
Not five lobbyists...Not ten lobbyists...Not 20 lobbyists...
No, it is rather 79 lobbyists who speak to political attachés, ministers, senators and federal officials to swear them that sugar and hamburgers, it's not that bad for our children.
