The war on junk food: Canada’s compromise

Fortified junk? Still junk.

Canadians love compromise – in all things but hockey. I would know because I grew up in Calgary, the land where “howdy” from sidewalk passerby and “pass the Alberta beef, please” were both standard social norms.

It’s that tendency to placate rather than dictate that might be to blame for Canada’s new health care gaffe: fortified junk food. Health Canada is considering an amendment to Canada’s food and drug legislation that would give food manufacturers greater leeway in fortifying candy bars, chips and other fatty fare. Not only would companies be able to fortify the foods, they’d be able to market the pseudo-nutrition boost…”Double-Stuf Oreos, now with more folic acid for a healthy pregnancy!”

I can think of so many reasons why I hate this idea, but I don’t think I need to spell it out. Proponents argue that we’re going to eat junk anyway, so it might as well be fortified. Come on, Canada! Would you rather have a population of robust, healthy hockey players, or a nation of fortified, fat couch potatoes? Fortifying junk food does not negate the damage that pork rinds will do to health. It will not solve the obesity epidemic that has spread across the border from the United States to my northern homeland.

Speaking of the United States, it seems my new nation is actually to blame for the entire idea. In the Health Canada proposal, they credit America’s lax food legislation with the inspiration:

“…we know from our American colleagues, where there is a mature market and more relaxed control of food fortification, that not all foods are fortified even when manufacturers are permitted to do so.”

Let’s add it to the long list of unwanted American hand-offs…MTV. Acid rain. Never-ending wars. Chrysler.