In Our Best Interests

A recent Canadian survey came to the conclusion that a majority of Canadians would like the federal government to enact legislation that would compel manufacturers of pre-prepared foods and snack foods to use less fat, salt and sugar in their products, to make them healthier. Which is rather interesting, in that it appears that enough people are aware of the health-adverse effects of consuming foods high in fats, salt and sugar, but they would prefer that government take steps to protect them, rather than themselves take responsibility by refusing these products.

Similarly, data has been produced that concludes that francophones, due to their lifestyle choices, primarily in smoking and drinking, diminish the length of their lives. Anglophone Canadians have been demonstrated to live longer than Francophone Canadians. The French are culturally attuned to 'enjoying life', and this is construed as partying along; smoking and drinking to excess. Quality of life is therefore seen as consuming these harmful products, while in essence doing so shortens life itself.

Can there conceivably be anyone in society who is unaware of the long-term deleterious effects of smoking and drinking? To choose to do so nonetheless bespeaks a fairly cavalier attitude toward life and personal responsibilities. Can and should a government take legal steps to protect people from the harmful effects of excess when people should be considered intelligent and responsible enough to make those choices on their own?

And then there's the issue of young people who also have a tendency to harm themselves by doing things that are clearly inimical to physical well-being. The international community is in agreement that constant exposure to the harmful rays of the sun can result in skin cancers. And it is not only natural exposure during the summer months, but includes as well sun tanning salons. Advertising is geared to the vanity effects of appearing to have a tan unlike anyone else's.

Say, for example, in the winter. To make it seem that one is robustly healthy, glowing with colour. Perhaps they've been on a holiday to the Caribbean, or to Florida or Mexico, lucky them. International health agencies have named tanning beds as carcinogenic to humans. Yet their allure still brings people out to use them; going away with indoor tans, feeling good about themselves.

In Ottawa, there has been a virtual epidemic among young people of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. It has presented as the second-most prevalent cancer in Ottawa among young people, accounting for over 10% of all cancers in those aged between 15 to 29. People are not stupid, just stubbornly devoted to appearing attractive, and tans are felt to be becoming in appearance.

There is a growing mood among those who care that it should be illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be admitted to a tanning salon. The Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario Medical Association have called for restrictions on tanning booths to those under 18 years of age. Health Canada currently offers voluntary guidelines that tanning salon operators may use should they wish to.

One large tanning salon chain informs its clients that parental consent is required for those under the age of 18 who wish to use their premises. And there are some municipalities in Ontario and British Columbia which restrict tanning bed use to over-18s. Nova Scotia, California, Australia and some European countries, along with Brazil, ban tanning beds altogether.

It's too bad, in a sense, that we haven't the good sense to freely decide for ourselves what is in our best interests.