Beware the Beverage Police

Don't drink energy drinks! Don't drink raw milk! What next?

Energy Drinks: The Nanny-State on Steroids

I've written before about the pointless panic over energy drinks, and the complete lack of context in this conversation (eg, the fact that coffee has far more caffeine than most energy drinks).

Well, just when I thought the debate over energy drinks couldn't get any more ridiculous, we learn that the federal Health Minister is considering this:

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq won’t say whether she’s ready to accept the advice of her own expert panel on energy drinks to classify the caffeinated beverages as drugs and sell them at pharmacies, saying she first needs to be assured the science is right and the report is balanced.
(...)
The panel’s report, provided to Health Canada last November and obtained by Postmedia News last week, says such energy drinks as Red Bull, Rockstar and Monster should be renamed “stimulant drug containing drinks’’ and be sold only under the direct supervision of a pharmacist instead of on grocery store shelves.

So it would then fall to a pharmacist to sell a can of Red Bull (80mg of caffeine), but a Starbucks barista will still be the one to sell you a coffee (upwards of 300mg of caffeine), the young employee at Tim Horton's can still pour you an iced coffee (up to 150mg of caffeine), and the grocery store can still stock all the soft drinks it wants (some 500ml bottles of soda contain as much or more caffeine than a can of Red Bull).

Insanity.

Junk Food Bans Can't Ensure Healthy Eating

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the junk food ban soon to be in place in Calgary Public Schools:

Much like the allegedly sinister foods we're aiming to vanquish from Calgary schools, perhaps sweeping bans could also find their way onto a list marked "choose least often."
The Calgary Board of Education is proceeding with a plan to rid public schools of junk food by the start of 2012. That will mean removing sugary and salty snacks from vending machines, and removing such offerings from school cafeterias. Catholic schools are removing junk food from vending machines next week.
However, for as much as this discussion revolves around schools and children, perhaps we should more precisely identify the target of such policies: high school students. The very same high school students who, in many cases, are holding down part-time jobs and driving themselves to school, or making preparations for post-secondary education. It is at the high school level where students typically have disposable income or are at the age where they are trusted enough to be sent to school with money, rather than a packed lunch.
Certainly, by the time a child reaches high school, nutritional patterns and eating habits are going to be fairly well established, and it's hard to see how these policies are going to have much impact.
Clearly, though, many expect the bans to make a difference. So far, the evidence is less than encouraging. For example, a study published in July in the American Journal of Public Health found that junk food bans in school did lead to a reduction in the consumption of soft drinks, particularly among certain minority groups. However, the same study found the bans led to no decline at all in students' body mass index.
A major study in 2009 by the non-profit RAND Corp. found that banning the sale of junk food in schools had no significant effect on BMI, had no significant effect on overall consumption of health food, and found no evidence of broader effects on behaviour or academic outcomes.
And what's to say these policies promoting healthy food actually lead to healthier eating? Surely juice is healthier than soda, but why are the 41 grams of sugar in a cup of grape juice more acceptable than the zero grams of sugar in a Coke Zero?
In a profile on celebrity chef Jamie Oliver - who has become a major activist for healthy food in schools - Reason magazine found that one of Oliver's own recommended "healthy lunches" contained more calories and fat than not one, but two McDonald's Happy Meals, including soft drinks.
There is also a financial side to all of this. For one, removing the products means losing that revenue. It seems to me that such additional revenues could help toward the availability and quality of physical education, which might make more of a difference than removing the snacks.
Secondly, will offering healthier meals in the school cafeteria make those meals more expensive? Will that mean an even greater burden on schools on top of lost revenue? Or will that cost be passed on to the students, making it even more likely they'll avoid such fare?
If a 17-year-old can find a way to cheaply satisfy his hunger, he'll do so. There's a reason Kraft Dinner is a staple of many high school and university students' diets.
One might still argue, however, that banning junk food sends "the right message." But does it? It seems to me that a policy devoid of any creativity and flexibility, and based on an inherent mistrust of teenagers, entails some poor messaging.
Indeed, a little flexibility and creativity could go a long way. Cornell University's Brian Wansink has done some fascinating research on how to guide young people toward healthier choices. For example, one study showed that by simply labelling carrots as "X-Ray Vision Carrots," young children consumed significantly more of them.
Wansink and colleagues also showed that by combining that approach with some changes in menu selection and the layout of the cafeteria, students will make healthier choices.
As they put it, "children can be presented healthy and unhealthy items and be led to willingly choose the good."
That's what we all want. But by simply removing junk food, we're ensuring it won't happen. Let's rethink the junk food ban.

Life Imitates "The Onion"

Al Qaeda has had it with all these 9/11 conspiracy theories:

The terror group al Qaeda has found itself curiously in agreement with the "Great Satan" -- which it calls the U.S. -- in issuing a stern message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories. 
In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine "Inspire", an author appears to take offense to the "ridiculous" theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East.
"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government," an article reads. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

 The Onion News Network was on this two years ago:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Ethical Oil vs. Unethical Saudis

The Saudis are not happy about this:

 

 

More here, here, and here.

 

Oh, by the way, Saudi Arabia has just executed a man convicted of sorcery.

Irresponsible Fearmongering on HPV Vaccine

Of all the major issues the United States of America is dealing with at the moment, it's rather strange to see that a vaccine has become a major issue in the Republican presidential race.

With Texas Governor Rick Perry suddenly a front-runner for the GOP nomination, his rivals have been looking for an opportunity to bring him down a few notches.

Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann believes Perry is vulnerable on the issue of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, specifically the mandate from Governor Perry that the vaccine be offered in all public schools. As summarized here, Perry was assailed over the issue at a Republican debate earlier this week.

Not content to argue against Perry's mandate however, Bachmann went even further by asserting that the vaccine is dangerous:

 

The relevant Bachmann quote:

 

“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. There are very dangerous consequences.” 

 

I'm not sure what is worse: that Bachmann might have made up the story or that someone really did relay such a story and Bachmann accepted it without question (Bachmann is not backing down, either).

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that this anecdote has any validity and no evidence that this vaccine has caused any such reaction. In fact, some professors are now offering more than $10,000 for proof that this story is true. 

 

In reality, this vaccine has a remarkable safety record. As noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics (PDF):

 

There is absolutely no scientific validity to (Bachmann's) statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record.

 

Hoover Institution fellow Dr. Henry I. Miller makes the point even more emphatically:

 

In the extensive clinical studies (on more than 20,000 girls and women) that were performed prior to the FDA’s licensing of the vaccine, the vaccine was 100 percent effective, a virtually unprecedented result. How safe is the vaccine? No serious side effects were detected; the most common side effect is soreness, redness and swelling in the arm at the site of the injection. In summary, Gardasil has one of the most favorable risk-benefit ratios of any pharmaceutical.

 

More here. The fact that we have a vaccine to potentially prevent many of those deaths should be seen as a remarkable medical achievement.
About 95% of cervical cancer cases are linked to HPV, or human papilloma virus. In Canada we see about 1400 new cases cervical cancer annually - more than 400 women die every year from this disease.
However, Michelle Bachmann is not alone in trying to discredit the vaccine. This has been an issue here in Canada and here in Alberta, and we've heard similar claims from from people like Calgary Bishop Fred Henry.
Like this, for example:

Bishop Henry said the Catholic bishops of Alberta are concerned not only about the harmful side-effects associated with the vaccine, but very particularly about the conflicting message the vaccination program sends to young girls about chastity and sexual promiscuity and about putting schools in a position of "grave moral compromise."

 

Or, this:

 

According to Bishop Henry, their studies had suggested the HPV vaccine was “not adequately tested” and could have “problematic dimensions” and “disastrous side-effects.” Adverse reactions, including some deaths, have been reportedly linked to the HPV vaccine. 

 

 

And it's not simply a matter of Bishop Henry having an opinion. As a direct result of his beliefs about the HPV vaccine, Catholic Schools in Calgary - and other jurisdictions - have refused to offer it. As a result, relatively few Catholic girls in the region have been vaccinated.

 

The notion that the vaccine encourages premarital sex is absurd.

 

For one, it's hard to believe that fear of cervical cancer is a major factor for teens considering sex. The Bishop's position, though, seems tantamount to believing that such a fear should remain as a deterrent (a position skewered in this video). The fact is, even if a young woman saves herself for marriage, her husband could be carrying the virus. So much for Bishop Henry's belief that "the vaccine is not a substitute for chastity".

 

Secondly, would all of this really be explained to a ten-year-old? Don't we just sit kids down, give them a needle, and send them on their way? I certainly don't think Catholic schools would be faulted if they took that approach.

 

What would be the point of explaining to a 10-year-old in the first place was cervical cancer is, what HPV is, and how HPV is spread? I doubt most 10-year-olds would comprehend most of that, let alone jump to the conclusion that sexual intercourse is now suddenly a great idea.

 

We can protect these women and save lives. Shame on those who would undercut that effort with irresponsible fearmongering and preposterous moral grandstanding.

 

Corporate Taxes: Gary Mar 1, AFL 0

There may be reasons as to why Gary Mar is the wrong man for the top political job in Alberta, but his support of corporate tax cuts is not one of them.

 

The Alberta Federation of Labour believes it to be of major concern, and has zeroed in on the candidate who the latest poll shows is the frontrunner for the PC leadership.

 

The AFL believes says Mar's plan amounts to a $660-million question giveaway to,  "wealthy corporations" and they wonder if Mar is then planning deep cuts to make up for the lost revenue.

 

There is much wrong with the claims of the AFL, and if indeed our next Premier plans to reduce corporate tax rates, then all the facts need to be on the table.

 

First of all, it's unclear what exactly a "wealthy" corporation is in the first place. There are profitable companies and wealthy people, but the reverse is illogical.

 

If indeed we want to see gainful employment in this province then I should think we would want companies to be profitable. If those profits are going into people's pockets, then it is income tax and capital gains tax that will take care of that.

 

The fact is, workers are the ones who end up paying for higher corporate taxes. The evidence is quite clear: higher corporate taxes are associated with lower wages. Surely the Alberta Federation of Labour is supportive of higher wages.

 

And it's not necessarily the case that a cut would mean a $660-million shortfall - or any revenue shortfall for that matter. Alberta's corporate tax rate has gone down incrementally from 15.5 per cent in 2001 to it's present 10 per cent.

 

But those reductions have not created any revenue shortfalls. In fact, corporate tax revenues continued to rise (PDF) every year with the exception of a short dip in the recession of '08 and '09. Of course, that's when those so-called wealthy compnies weren't as profitable.

 

The fearmongering of the AFL doesn't quite mesh with the facts.

 

Further reading on the matter - with extensive links to various academic research - here.

Defenders of Bill 16 Missing the Point

UPDATE: Apparently motorists are being stopped for drinking coffee. Don't you feel safer?

 

Today is the day that Alberta's new distracted driving legislation (formerly Bill 16) takes effect. The makes it an offense to talk on a handheld cell phone while driving. Other activities are banned while driving including texting, grooming, and eating (although "snacking" is allowed, leaving people to figure out this grey area themselves).

 

I've written two columns in recent months - here, and most recently here - outlining what I see as the two main problems with the legislation:

 

1. It encompasses an array of activities that have nothing to do with making our roads safer. For example, reading a text while in line at a drive-thru or waiting at a train crossing.

 

2. Studies out of the US indicate this legislation might make little or no difference with regard to road safety, contrary to the numerous claims from the Alberta government and other defenders of the law.

 

Those are my main points. So I would expect, then, if someone is going to respond to my criticism and rush to the defence of the legislation, those points would be addressed.

 

Naomi Lakritz responds to my most recent Calgary Herald column with one of her own.

 

She offers a passionate defence of the legislation and the need to crack down on distracted driving.

 

Yet nowhere in her piece does she address point #1. She does not defend the fact that the legislation specifically deems being stopped in an alley or ditch, or being stopped in a drive-thru lineup or a train crossing as "driving". She simply ignores it. Does she approve of police ticketing someone who is stuck at a train and calls his wife to say he'll be a few minutes late? Who knows.

 

She does, however, address my second point:

 

Tuesday, my fellow columnist, Rob Breakenridge, argued on this page that the evidence isn't there to prove that cellphone bans make the roads safer. Other sources, such as the province of B.C., say there's been a noticeable drop in collisions caused by distracted driving since legislation was brought in. As with similarly contentious issues, such as fluoride, each faction in the debate can summon statistics to its side to prove its point pro or con.

 

Well, Naomi, by all means, summon some statistics. I specifically mentioned two studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Those studies compared the number of crashes in states with bans compared to states without such bans. I also specifically mentioned the report from the Governors Highway Safety Association which examined 350 studies. That report concludes that there really isn't any evidence to show these bans work, and the GHSA is calling on states to hold off on bringing in this kind of legislation.

 

What does Naomi offer in the way of "statistics"? Virtually nothing. She asserts that BC's distracted driving law is working, but offers nothing to back that up. I've searched to find some reference to her claim but so far I am coming up empty.

 

In fact if you read this and this, you'll certainly come away with the impression that police are not yet getting a handle on the problem. This story from just last week illustrates the point:

 

Distracted driving is now the number one factor in driving deaths in Metro Vancouver, police say.
Inattentive driving is now a factor in 47 per cent of fatal crashes, overtaking speed (36 per cent) and drinking (21 per cent) as the biggest danger behind the wheel.

Now, I suppose such a figure might justify the existence of the law. I'm sure Naomi think so, as she offers this:

 

Too bad it's come to this, but since the situation is so bad out there on Alberta's roads, then let's be thankful that the government has finally stepped in.

Another example, however, of not "summoning statistics". As I noted in my piece this week:

The government points to "tremendous technological advances over the last 20 years" as one of the reasons why distracted driving has become such an issue.
But consider this: from 2003 to 2010, Canada went from 13 million cellphone users to more than 24 million. That's after cellphone usage doubled from 1997 to 2003.
Yet while this explosion has occurred in the usage of these devices, our roads have become safer.
In 1990 there were 3,445 fatal crashes in Canada along with 178,515 injury collisions. In 2009 - with more drivers on the road and far more in the way of distractions - there were 2,011 fatal crashes and 123,192 injury collisions. 

Also, Jesse Kline makes a similar point in the National Post:

Between 2005 and 2009, the number of Alberta households with a cellphone increased by 31%, according Statistics Canada. That followed a 170% increase from 1997 to 2005. Yet, between 2005-09, the number of casualties caused by traffic collisions in the province decreased by 22%. The correlation between cell phone use and traffic accidents simply doesn’t exist. 

Another point not addressed by defenders of Bill 16.