reading log 2
SUMMARY
In the article, “When zero fat is not zero fat” in Macleans, March, 27, 2006, the author, Danylo Hawaleshka exposes that, a latent problem of “0 g trans fat”, a banner labeling on the a number of the foods’ packages, is that “zero grams does not always mean zero grams”. First, Hawaleshka claims that, seeing from the surface, Oreo is a health food, but there is some problem hiding behind the icon of it. Second, the author emphasizes a loophole, in the rules of Health Canada, allows a “regulatory oversight” of certain remaining of fatty acids to be legal. That leads to manufacturers can sign “0 g trans fat per serving” on their packages if the amount of fatty acids in the products is under limit. Moreover, he also predicts that, companies may not purely take advantage of the original requirement form of the loophole, which means that, they also show the “eligible” remaining on the packages to acquire greater benefit, but shifting the forms of the total amount of fatty acids to the single one by themselves. Furthermore, the author quotes the words of Bonnie Liebman, an expert of nutrition, to condemn that, the loophole seems like a chance given by health Canada of companies producing unqualified foods. Third, Carole Saindon, a spokeswoman of Health Canada, indicates to Hawaleshka that, the regulations of Health Canada permits, “the 0 g claim” can be labeled when the remaining of the fatty acids is “round to zero”. That leads to even though the amount of other kinds of fatty acids are really high in the products, companies still labels “0 g trans fat”, that probably exhibits in one type of fatty acids, on the products. To the above phenomena, Health Canada claims to the author that, they have started to take actions to solve. Forth, Hawaleshka quotes the unclear speech of the representor of Kraft Canada, Don Blair, to reveal that, the authority doesn’t give enough concern to the problem of foods containing over amount fatty acids. Fifth, Bruce Holub explains to the author that, although companies try their best to reduce the amount of trans-fat in their foods, the foods still can be only defined as “less harmful”. Finally, D. Hawaleshka stresses that, besides Oreo, there are some other brands utilizes such similar advertisements of less trans fat to attract consumers, he also quotes liebman’s words to remind people of being careful the existing “trans-traps”
CRITIQUE
In this article, Hawaleshka mainly illustrates the problem,” zero grams does not always mean zero grams”, presented by “0 g trans fat “claim, which is popular with being used by companies to trap consumers. Throughout the article, making the overall structure messy, the author fails to construct an exactly clear layer of paragraphs to show the problem; moreover, all the support opinions are disorganized, which is difficult for readers to successfully understand the content and grasp the principal concepts. In addition, the uses of some pronouns are unclear to point to what. However, as a consumer, I strongly agree with Hawaleshka’s viewpoints of “0 g claim”, which against such cheating actions did by foods companies, implied in the article. Since foods are closely related to our health, the reliability of foods’ advertisements is extremely important. Thus the relevance authorities have responsibility of urging companies to reduce the amount of unhealthy substances in foods, monitoring as well as examining foods’ producing processes.
QUESTIONS
1. What kind of food do you like?
2. Have you ever seen the label of “0 g trans fat” on the packages of some products?
3. Do you mind whether the food, your preference, contains over amount of unhealthy substance?
VOCABULARY
1. wafer---n. a small, thin, crisp cake, biscuit, or candy.
Jimmy gave me a package of wafer.
2. prominent---adj. immediately noticeable; conspicuous.
You will be prominent if you wear a bright color clothes.
3. demolish---v. to end or ruin something completely.
These ants can demolish large area of forest.
4. loophole---n. a small mistake in a law that makes it possible to aovid doing something that the law is support to make you do.
The loophole let companies get the opportunities to product unhealthy foods.
5. exploite---v. to use something fully and effectively.
Companies are fully exploiting the loophole which Health Canada left.
In the article, “When zero fat is not zero fat” in Macleans, March, 27, 2006, the author, Danylo Hawaleshka exposes that, a latent problem of “0 g trans fat”, a banner labeling on the a number of the foods’ packages, is that “zero grams does not always mean zero grams”. First, Hawaleshka claims that, seeing from the surface, Oreo is a health food, but there is some problem hiding behind the icon of it. Second, the author emphasizes a loophole, in the rules of Health Canada, allows a “regulatory oversight” of certain remaining of fatty acids to be legal. That leads to manufacturers can sign “0 g trans fat per serving” on their packages if the amount of fatty acids in the products is under limit. Moreover, he also predicts that, companies may not purely take advantage of the original requirement form of the loophole, which means that, they also show the “eligible” remaining on the packages to acquire greater benefit, but shifting the forms of the total amount of fatty acids to the single one by themselves. Furthermore, the author quotes the words of Bonnie Liebman, an expert of nutrition, to condemn that, the loophole seems like a chance given by health Canada of companies producing unqualified foods. Third, Carole Saindon, a spokeswoman of Health Canada, indicates to Hawaleshka that, the regulations of Health Canada permits, “the 0 g claim” can be labeled when the remaining of the fatty acids is “round to zero”. That leads to even though the amount of other kinds of fatty acids are really high in the products, companies still labels “0 g trans fat”, that probably exhibits in one type of fatty acids, on the products. To the above phenomena, Health Canada claims to the author that, they have started to take actions to solve. Forth, Hawaleshka quotes the unclear speech of the representor of Kraft Canada, Don Blair, to reveal that, the authority doesn’t give enough concern to the problem of foods containing over amount fatty acids. Fifth, Bruce Holub explains to the author that, although companies try their best to reduce the amount of trans-fat in their foods, the foods still can be only defined as “less harmful”. Finally, D. Hawaleshka stresses that, besides Oreo, there are some other brands utilizes such similar advertisements of less trans fat to attract consumers, he also quotes liebman’s words to remind people of being careful the existing “trans-traps”
CRITIQUE
In this article, Hawaleshka mainly illustrates the problem,” zero grams does not always mean zero grams”, presented by “0 g trans fat “claim, which is popular with being used by companies to trap consumers. Throughout the article, making the overall structure messy, the author fails to construct an exactly clear layer of paragraphs to show the problem; moreover, all the support opinions are disorganized, which is difficult for readers to successfully understand the content and grasp the principal concepts. In addition, the uses of some pronouns are unclear to point to what. However, as a consumer, I strongly agree with Hawaleshka’s viewpoints of “0 g claim”, which against such cheating actions did by foods companies, implied in the article. Since foods are closely related to our health, the reliability of foods’ advertisements is extremely important. Thus the relevance authorities have responsibility of urging companies to reduce the amount of unhealthy substances in foods, monitoring as well as examining foods’ producing processes.
QUESTIONS
1. What kind of food do you like?
2. Have you ever seen the label of “0 g trans fat” on the packages of some products?
3. Do you mind whether the food, your preference, contains over amount of unhealthy substance?
VOCABULARY
1. wafer---n. a small, thin, crisp cake, biscuit, or candy.
Jimmy gave me a package of wafer.
2. prominent---adj. immediately noticeable; conspicuous.
You will be prominent if you wear a bright color clothes.
3. demolish---v. to end or ruin something completely.
These ants can demolish large area of forest.
4. loophole---n. a small mistake in a law that makes it possible to aovid doing something that the law is support to make you do.
The loophole let companies get the opportunities to product unhealthy foods.
5. exploite---v. to use something fully and effectively.
Companies are fully exploiting the loophole which Health Canada left.
posted by binbin at 8:56 AM
1 comments
