ParticipACTION partnership with Coke draws critics

A variety of Coca-Cola cans and bottles are displayed on a counter at a local store in West Bath, Maine, Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, in this photo illustration. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Share:

4

Text:

•  
•  
• Share on print 
• 
  
• (1)

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Friday, June 22, 2012 3:18PM EDT
Last Updated Friday, June 22, 2012 3:23PM EDT

One of Canada’s most famous fitness enthusiasts is speaking out against a partnership between ParticipACTION—the national non-profit organization that promotes healthy living and physical activity—and Coca-Cola.
The two partnered to create SOGO Active, a national physical activity program designed for youth.
The campaign asks young Canadians to pledge to complete a challenge involving physical activity online, and complete the challenge.

Related Stories

• Health board signals support for ban on supersized, sugary drinks in NYC
• NYC proposes ban on sale of oversized soft drinks
• Coca Cola plans $4 billion investment in China

Hal Johnson, longtime host of ParticipACTION’s Body Break public service announcements, criticized the partnership in a tweet on Friday.
Reports indicate the deal between ParticipACTION and the world’s most popular soft drink manufacturer is worth $5 million over five years.
“I am disappointed that ParticipACTION has partnered with Coke, it doesn't fit no matter how much money they are getting,” read the tweet.
And Johnson is not the only person critical of the pairing.
Ottawa University professor and obesity expert Yoni Freedhoff sounded off on the partnership on his blog, Weighty Matters.
Freedhoff slammed the way Coca-Cola was described by ParticipACTION President Kelly Murumet.
In the past, Murumet has called Coca-Cola “a responsible, effective partner.”
In the end, the partnership between the two will not improve the health of Canada’s youth, wrote Freedhoff.
Health Canada estimates that in the last 25 years, childhood obesity rates have nearly tripled. Studies have shown a link between the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity.
To help children maintain a healthy body weight, the Canada Food Guide recommends limiting the amount of sweetened drinks consumed by children.

Obesity research confirms long-term weight loss almost impossible

Obesity research confirms long-term weight loss almost impossible

No known cure for obesity except surgically shrinking the stomach

By Kelly Crowe, CBC News Posted: Jun 04, 2014 5:00 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 04, 2014 10:34 PM ET

The nasty reality is that humans are efficient biological machines. "We have evolved not to lose weight." (Reuters)

Permanent weight loss is a losing battle 2:23

Facebook 12K

Twitter 0

Reddit

Share 12K

Email

Kelly Crowe
Medical science

Kelly Crowe is a medical sciences correspondent for CBC News, specializing in health and biomedical research. She joined CBC in 1991, and has spent 25 years reporting on a wide range of national news and current affairs, with a particular interest in science and medicine.

Related Stories

• Obese, overweight population hits 2.1 billion worldwide
• Child obesity fuelled by stress response
• Canada's obesity rate higher since global recession: OECD
• Obesity to overtake smoking as worst heart disease risk factor
• Weight-loss surgeries leap in Canada, study says

External Links

• 1959 review on results of treatment for obesity, JAMA
• Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity, The Lancet
• Lancet commentary

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

There's a disturbing truth that is emerging from the science of obesity. After years of study, it's becoming apparent that it's nearly impossible to permanently lose weight.

As incredible as it sounds, that's what the evidence is showing. For psychologist Traci Mann, who has spent 20 years running an eating lab at the University of Minnesota, the evidence is clear. "It couldn't be easier to see," she says. "Long-term weight loss happens to only the smallest minority of people."

We all think we know someone in that rare group. They become the legends — the friend of a friend, the brother-in-law, the neighbour — the ones who really did it.

But if we check back after five or 10 years, there's a good chance they will have put the weight back on. Only about five per cent of people who try to lose weight ultimately succeed, according to the research. Those people are the outliers, but we cling to their stories as proof that losing weight is possible.

"Those kinds of stories really keep the myth alive," says University of Alberta professor Tim Caulfield, who researches and writes about health misconceptions. "You have this confirmation bias going on where people point to these very specific examples as if it's proof. But in fact those are really exceptions."

Our biology taunts us, by making short-term weight loss fairly easy. But the weight creeps back, usually after about a year, and it keeps coming back until the original weight is regained or worse.

This has been tested in randomized controlled trials where people have been separated into groups and given intense exercise and nutrition counselling.

Even in those highly controlled experimental settings, the results show only minor sustained weight loss.

When Traci Mann analyzed all of the randomized control trials on long-term weight loss, she discovered that after two years the average amount lost was only one kilogram, or about two pounds, from the original weight.

Tiptoeing around the truth

So if most scientists know that we can't eat ourselves thin, that the lost weight will ultimately bounce back, why don't they say so?

Tim Caulfield says his fellow obesity academics tend to tiptoe around the truth. "You go to these meetings and you talk to researchers, you get a sense there is almost a political correctness around it, that we don't want this message to get out there," he said.

Last fall, the Dubai government launched a 30-day weight loss challenge called "Your Weight in Gold" to encourage dieters and combat growing obesity in the Gulf Arab emirate. It should probably save its money if the current science is right. (Reuters)

"You'll be in a room with very knowledgeable individuals, and everyone in the room will know what the data says and still the message doesn't seem to get out."

In part, that's because it's such a harsh message. "You have to be careful about the stigmatizing nature of that kind of image," Caulfield says. "That's one of the reasons why this myth of weight loss lives on."

Health experts are also afraid people will abandon all efforts to exercise and eat a nutritious diet — behaviour that is important for health and longevity — even if it doesn't result in much weight loss.

Traci Mann says the emphasis should be on measuring health, not weight. "You should still eat right, you should still exercise, doing healthy stuff is still healthy," she said. "It just doesn't make you thin."

We are biological machines

But eating right to improve health alone isn't a strong motivator. The research shows that most people are willing to exercise and limit caloric intake if it means they will look better. But if they find out their weight probably won't change much, they tend to lose motivation.

'Healthy stuff is still healthy, it just doesn't make you thin'- Traci Mann, University of Minnesota

That raises another troubling question. If diets don't result in weight loss, what does? At this point the grim answer seems to be that there is no known cure for obesity, except perhaps surgically shrinking the stomach. 

Research suggests bariatric surgery can induce weight loss in the extremely obese, improving health and quality of life at the same time. But most people will still be obese after the surgery. Plus, there are risky side effects, and many will end up gaining some of that weight back.

If you listen closely you will notice that obesity specialists are quietly adjusting the message through a subtle change in language.

These days they're talking about weight maintenance or "weight management" rather than "weight loss."

Michelle Obama has been on an eat better campaign ever since her husband was elected to the White House. An estimated 2.1 billion people on the planet are now considered overweight or obese. (Reuters)

It's a shift in emphasis that reflects the emerging reality. Just last week the headlines announced the world is fatter than it has ever been, with 2.1 billion people now overweight or obese, based on an analysis published in the online issue of the British medical journal The Lancet.

Researchers are divided about why weight gain seems to be irreversible, probably a combination of biological and social forces. "The fundamental reason," Caulfield says, "is that we are very efficient biological machines. We evolved not to lose weight. We evolved to keep on as much weight as we possibly can."

Lost in all of the noise about dieting and obesity is the difficult concept of prevention, of not putting weight on in the first place.

The Lancet study warned that more than one in five kids in developed countries are now overweight or obese. Statistics Canada says close to a third of Canadian kids under 17 are overweight or obese. And in a world flooded with food, with enormous economic interest in keeping people eating that food, what is required to turn this ship around is daunting.

"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."

Perhaps, though, the emerging scientific reality should also be made clear, so we can navigate this obesogenic world armed with the stark truth — that we are held hostage to our biology, which is adapted to gain weight, an old evolutionary advantage that has become a dangerous metabolic liability.

•  

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Share

Email

WSIAT FINDS LIMITATIONS ON MENTAL STRESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL April 29,2014

WSIAT FINDS LIMITATIONS ON MENTAL STRESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL By: Joseph Cohen-Lyons On April 29, 2014, Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") issued a significant decision regarding entitlement to benefits for chronic mental stress under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 ("WSIA"). In Decision No. 2157/09, the Tribunal found that the provisions in the WSIA limiting entitlement to mental stress that "arises from an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected event" violate the equality guarantee in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") and are therefore unconstitutional. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB") policy implementing these legislative provisions was also found to be unconstitutional. As we discuss in this FTR Now, the Tribunal's decision in this case is likely to have a significant impact on employers of all sizes, and will likely increase the number of claims filed by employees who allege that they have suffered mental stress as a result of the regular stressors of the workplace. Employers are strongly encouraged to manage these claims, and their workplaces, more carefully as a result of this decision. THE DECISION Decision No. 2157/09 involved a claim for benefits under the WSIA by a nurse who had worked in a hospital for 28 years. She alleged that, for a period of 12 years, she was subject to ill treatment by a doctor with whom she worked. The Employer was aware of this conduct, and the Tribunal found that the Employer took no steps to deal with the purported mistreatment, and reduced the worker's duties. She further alleged that the doctor's conduct resulted in her being diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed features of anxiety and depression. As a result of this illness, the worker was unable to work and applied for benefits with the WSIB. There was no assault and no threat of any physical violence. The worker's claim for benefits was denied by the WSIB. The WSIB relied on subsections 13(4) and (5) of the WSIA, which provide as follows: 13 (4) Except as provided in subsection (5), a worker is not entitled to benefits under the insurance plan for mental stress. (5) A worker is entitled to benefits for mental stress that is an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. However, the worker is not entitled to benefits for mental stress caused by his or her employer's decisions or actions relating to the worker’s employment, including a decision to change the work to be performed or the working conditions, to discipline the worker or to terminate the employment. The WSIB denied the worker's claim for benefits because it did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 13(5) or the WSIB's policy, as the mental stress she suffered was not "an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event." The worker appealed the WSIB's decision to the Tribunal. In an interim decision (Decision No. 2157/09I), the Tribunal concluded that the worker would have had entitlement to benefits but for the exclusions in subsections 13(4) and (5) of the WSIA. The worker then challenged the constitutionality of these sections. In her challenge, the worker submitted that the provisions of the WSIA limiting entitlement to chronic mental stress violated the Charter's equality guarantee because they drew an unnecessary and discriminatory distinction between those with mental disabilities and those with physical disabilities. In this regard, the worker alleged that the practical effect of subsections 13(4) and (5) was to prohibit entitlement for mental disabilities in circumstances where entitlement would be granted for physical disabilities. In the worker's view, this placed an additional hurdle in front of individuals who had mental disabilities, who were already a historically disadvantaged group. Ontario's Attorney General provided submissions supporting the constitutionality of subsections 13(4) and (5) of the WSIA. The Attorney General relied on the fact that it is notoriously difficult to diagnose mental disorders and determine what caused them. In the Attorney General's view, subsections 13(4) and (5) merely operated as a statutory codification of these difficulties and operated to limit entitlement to mental stress for those cases where the mental stress was clearly work-related. The Employer did not participate in the appeal and therefore did not provide any submissions regarding the constitutionality of subsections 13(4) and (5) of the WSIA. The Employer also did not provide any submissions on the underlying facts supporting the worker’s claim. The Tribunal granted the worker's appeal and held that subsections 13(4) and (5) of the WSIA and the WSIB's Traumatic Mental Stress Policy violated section 15(1) of the Charter on the basis that limiting entitlement for mental stress to situations of "an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event" was substantively discriminatory both in perpetuating prejudice and disadvantage, and failing to correspond to the actual circumstances and characteristics of workers with mental disabilities. The Tribunal found that the WSIA and the Traumatic Mental Stress Policy improperly place additional restrictions on granting benefits to workers with mental disabilities that do not exist for workers with physical disabilities. The Tribunal specifically rejected the Attorney General's argument that the difficulty in demonstrating causation in the case of mental disabilities was a justification for treating them differently than physical disabilities. In the Tribunal's view, any such difficulty could be overcome by the application of the general principles of causation, as set out in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. In the result, the Tribunal held that subsections 13(4) and (5) of the WSIA contravened section 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved by section 1 of the Charter. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to apply either of these provisions or the WSIB's Traumatic Mental Stress Policy to the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the worker was entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress. The Tribunal declined to comment on the constitutionality of the portion of subsection 13(5) that precludes entitlement for mental stress arising out of decisions or actions of the employer relating to the employment relationship. This issue has been left for determination in another case. IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS At present, Decision No. 2157/09 only has an immediate impact on the claim at issue in that appeal, since the Tribunal is technically not bound to follow its own decisions. However, the decision will be highly persuasive in any future appeals on this issue at the Tribunal. From the Tribunal's perspective, the WSIA no longer limits entitlement for mental stress to traumatic mental stress claims. Chronic mental stress claims are now eligible for compensation. The Tribunal's ruling in Decision No. 2157/09, if applied in other cases, will have a significant impact on all of Ontario's employers. It significantly expands the scope of entitlement for mental stress under WSIA and will put increased pressure on employers to limit and address stressors in the workplace. All employers, specifically those with stressful workplaces, will need to take additional steps to reduce workplace stress in order to limit costly and complicated stress-related lost time claims. Decision No. 2157/09 may not have an immediate impact on decisions made by adjudicators at the WSIB level. The Tribunal limited its remedy to the specific case before it. It is, therefore, unclear whether the WSIB will continue to apply its Traumatic Mental Stress Policy. Accordingly, until the situation is clarified, there is likely to be significant inconsistency between decisions of the WSIB and those at the Tribunal level. There is also likely to be a significant increase in appeals to the Tribunal, as well as requests for reconsideration flowing from Decision 2157/09. Employers are encouraged to closely monitor this issue. As the WSIB considers how to address this decision, it will be important for employers to remind the WSIB of the importance of clear evidence and a careful review of files in assessing psychological entitlement. Employers who have ongoing mental stress cases should ensure that the events giving rise to these cases have been, and continue to be, well documented. More generally, employers should be reviewing their practices, policies and procedures in order to ensure that they are protecting themselves to the extent possible from potential mental stress claims. If you require a copy of the decision, or wish to discuss its potential implications for your business, please contact Joseph Cohen-Lyons, William LeMay, Elizabeth Kosmidis, Jodi Gallagher Healy, Samantha Seabrook, any member of our Workplace Safety and Insurance Group or your regular Hicks Morley lawyer. The articles in this Client Update provide general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©

Site Map | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Plan | © Copyright 2008 Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewa