| |
|
| |
Until the end of this year, it may as well be ignored as it provides absolutely no guarantee of a product's level of trans-fats.
I am told by personal email from the National Heart Foundation that they will be implementing a policy of not awarding the tick to any product containing more than 1% trans fats beginning next year. I wait to see if this is implemented.
Even with this policy implemented, the heart tick of approval is little more than a marketing brand for the oil industry. It is entirely based on an unproven scientific theory that saturated fats and cholesterol in foods are the cause of heart disease. Therefore the heart foundation makes no distinction between oil qualities and nutritional levels.
Under the heart tick scheme, olive oils that do not meet the National Olive Growers guidelines to be classified as extra-virgin see:www.oliveti.co.nz/The_Good_Oil.cfm can still have a heart tick of approval with deceptive labelling. These oils may be part canola oil or highly refined olive oil (known as pomace oil).
Given the heart foundations adherence to promoting the avoidance saturated fats, some of the most nutritious fats which are most stable for cooking are shunned by the tick of approval. These fats are butter, gee, coconut oil and beef tallow, and are the oils most approved by nutritionists that subscribe to the whole-foods philosophy.
Finally, we should consider that the Heart Foundation is an industry lobby organisation more than a scientific advisory board. Industries pay for the heart tick logo on their product, and this is the main source of funding for this organisation. So the question is: Who's interest does the National Heart Foundation serve:
The following email response from the National Heart Foundation clearly demonstrates that, yes they are doing something about trans-fats, but industry must first be given time to get their act together!
So I guess the health of our heart comes second to industry needs in this case!
They bravely compare their policy to that of Denmarks government, but are comparing a health labelling policy to legislation, which are very different. If they were exceeding Denmarks stance on trans-fats then they would be lobbying the government here to do likewise!
Finally, is 1% a great level to achieve? For oils and spreads which are predominantly fat, then this is a good start, but for products which are only partly composed of fats, this is not going to mean much, as a product that is 20% fat (such as a mayonnaise) could be composed of a fat that is 5% trans-fats, and still continue getting the heart tick of approval into next year.
Trans-fats need to be measured against the total fat in the product as the body needs fats, and will absorb what it gets, the trans-fats will be mistakenly used by the body!
Dear Gordon,
Thank you for your enquiry.
As a public health programme that aims to improve the food supply for New Zealanders, the Heart Foundation Tick Programme is committed to tackling the issue of trans fats, given the growing research showing its effects on health.
As a result of the influence of the Heart Foundation Tick Programme, New Zealanders are now among the first in the world to have access to a wide variety of margarines with negligible levels of trans fat.
Manufacturers have embraced the Heart Foundation’s mission to virtually eliminate trans fat from margarines, despite the initial challenges involved in reformulating their products. This has been a costly exercise for food companies as a result of reformulation cost, new manufacturing equipment and testing etc.
By the end of 2006, all Tick-approved margarines on supermarket shelves will contain a maximum of just one per cent of total fat as trans fat. This is half the maximum level allowed by Denmark, one of the few governments to take a hard line on trans fats.
As much as we would like our new criteria to be introduced immediately, industry must be allowed time to meet our new standards, as products take several months, often more than that, to be reformulated to such a significant degree.
Minimising the trans fat content in margarine has probably been the toughest challenge the Tick Programme has ever set food companies. However, it is important to point out that those not meeting the trans fat criteria (as with all Tick approved products), will lose the Tick, with no exceptions.
You may find it helpful to visit some useful resources on trans fat developed by the Australian Heart Foundation. The links are below.
Trans fats frequently asked questions:
http://www.heartfoundation.com.au/index.cfm?page=720
Trans Fats, Spreads and the Heart Foundation Tick – the facts:
http://www.heartfoundation.com.au/index.cfm?page=977
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Warm regards,
Liz Close
Communications Manager
Heart Foundation Tick Programme
|
|
1 Comments
|
|
Comment By: Brenda Courtney |
11:32PM 8/7/2007 |
Re: Liz Close - Heart Foundation.
The products with trans fats should be removed from the shelves. People should not be expected to pick up the costs of getting sick because of products that have been made. The companies should take full responsibility of making them.
When I contacted the heart foundation about my issues, and had contact with the dietican, it seems nothing has been done to sort them out. I am extremely offended about that. I think it shows where the heart foundation is at. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Poll Results
|
|
The milk I consume most is: |
Naturalea 4% unhomogenised (
12 %)
|
Farmhouse (4%) unhomogenised (
4 %)
|
Standard (3.3%) homogenised (
9 %)
|
Low Fat Milk Homogenised (
31 %)
|
Real Farm Milk - non pasteurised (
43 %)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Email To A Friend
 Print This Page
|
|
|
