Many of us in Canada have had great pride in what we viewed as a superior system of protecting the people of this country from dangerous products. I know at times in the past, many of us have been led to believe our government agencies have our best interests in mind as they set up the regulations for what products are safe and which ones are not safe for the consuming public. I grew up being taught the people who were there to protect us had our best interests in mind and that I could just sit back, relax and let them make the decisions for me and live my life without worrying because they were there to look after us.
Over the years, I have found that this trust was sometimes misplaced. The decisions these controlling agencies make are often not based on pure science but are often swayed by lobbyists for special interest groups whose only wish is to make a buck. We were often under the impression every person who worked in research and had much higher education was, because of their credentials, in possession of high moral standards.
My belief in this started to wane as I became aware of numerous reports by scientists and doctorates who worked for the large tobacco companies stating that there were no adverse effects on the human body from using tobacco products. Even as a younger person I knew it did not take a rocket scientist to know these reports were nothing more than hay recycled by members of the male bovine species. It did not take a doctorate, for someone to sit and listen to the way those of us who smoked would cough, to realize these products were detrimental to our health yet here were some of those who had doctorates who were, for the right dollar value, ready and willing to spread such fertilizer around. There were also companies who were quck to spread the wealth they received from the sale of these products to anyone who would willingly prostitute themselves for a buck. In other words, honesty has its price.
As a person who has to watch what I eat due to allergies, I have a distinct problem with the level of honesty that is shown on the ingredient lists our governments require all manufacturers to place on the food products we buy. Many of these labels are confusing and make it difficult to be sure we know what is really in some products. For instance, do you realize that if, like me, you are allergic to corn it takes an amazing amount of research to ensure foods do not include corn in any of its forms? So far, I know of over 20 ingredients listed in some products that are, in essence, corn. For example: glucose can be from corn and thus carries the ability to cause the same allergic reaction as if I was to eat plain corn. Unfortunately, I have often had to find out about these ingredient names by accident when I have a reaction and then, when we trace things down with the manufacturer, we find out that yes, the ingredient is sourced from corn.
Now this is where I question the attitude of our protection agencies. A couple of years ago, when we were down in the warmer climes of the southern United States to enjoy some clement weather in the depths of early February, we found on products there, they stated where the ingredient came from. An example of this was on soft drinks where they listed glucose syrup and then stated it was corn based. This made it easy for me to decide that I did not want to break out in an eczema-like rash from consuming this product. On the other hand, in Canada, we had checked in the past with the companies (who were not always happy to answer questions about the contents of their products) and had been assured that the source for the sweetening of their product was not corn. Thus, when we continued to read the labels, we thought great! I can enjoy this. Then, all of a sudden, here I was breaking out in rashes again and it seemed to be from a bottle of root beer. Lo and behold, even though the label ingredients list read the same, when we checked again with the manufacturer they were now using corn based glucose. It was only by phoning them again that we found this out. There was no way to know from reading the label.
To me, this smacks of being a bureaucratic shell game to hide the reality of what the product contains. They are following the rules set out for them by a government agency, but in the long run, through lobbying, they themselves exercised great control over the ruling and had great influence in creating the loophole that allows them to be so vague about what they tell us.
I am lucky my reactions are not of the anaphylactic type that are so life threatening but what must it be like for those whose life is threatened by even the most microscopic amount of an allergen. Why can't these labels be fully honest? Why are they trying to hide the full truth?
Next time you shop, take a look at some of the labels and see if you really know what they are feeding you.
At the recent meeting of the Do Drop In Senior's Center, it was decided membership dues would be raised to help pay the costs of the facility. They will now be $10 instead of $5. You still can't find a better bargain than that. There was also a lot of discussion about how to get more members out to attend meetings. They need more input into the running of the facility. One idea tossed around was to have pot luck lunches in conjunction with the meetings as a carrot to entice people to attend (pun fully intended).
Feb. 13, when the bridge players got together to play the contract version of the game, first place went to Eric Callbeck and second was taken by Frank Antoine. Then, Feb. 20 when they went at it again, Eric Callbeck again came in first with Robert Iverson placing second. Feb. 14, when they played duplicate bridge, Marg Dyck and Ross Morton took first place with Jim Hamilton and Frank Antoine taking second.
In Kaiser play Feb. 16, Beulah Corbeil came in first, Fred Gansauge took second, Linda Ard placed third and Herman Hoogland followed in fourth place.
Quote: "The law does not pretend to punish everything who is dishonest. That would seriously interfere with business." Unknown
