Media – Economic Justice

For its 2016 census, the country’s national statistical agency announced changes that would impact citizens’ privacy. For the first time ever, census respondents’ personal information would be retained and linked with other administrative and survey data the agency has access to.

The national media quickly jumped on the story. The country’s public broadcaster wrote “If you’re worried about privacy, you should worry about the 2016 census”. The country’s premiere technology publication wrote “Lost our Census: Why the biggest hit to privacy this year is all about you”.

Once aware of the changes, the public was outraged. Calls for a nationwide census boycott erupted. Academics and former top bureaucrats – including a former federal privacy commissioner and a former chief statistician – publicly voiced their concerns.

No, this isn’t a Bizarro universe scenario of what didn’t happen in Canada following the referenced changes to the 2016 census implemented by Statistics Canada. This is what’s actually happening in Australia, where the Australian Bureau of Statistics has implemented similar changes for its upcoming 2016 census, set to take place next month.

As WHO affirms link between meat consumption and cancer risk, Canada frets over bacon

Figure 3. Non-linear dose-response meta-analysis of red and processed meats consumption and the risk of colorectal cancer

Source(s): Chan DS, Lau R, Aune D, et al. Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20456.

This week, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), released a long-overdue monograph¹ affirming the link between meat consumption and cancer risk. After reviewing more than 800 studies, the IARC decided to classify processed meat as a known carcinogen (Group 1), and red meat in general as a probable carcinogen (Group 2A). The agency urged public health officials to re-examine their dietary recommendations. Those anticipating the Canadian media to objectively inform the public of the news and start a rational dialogue may have been disappointed.

A news segment by Canada’s national broadcaster interviewed a cattleman who viewed the report as “an attack“ on his industry. The reporter referred to it as an “added hit” to declining beef and pork sales before queuing up a spokesman for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. He urged Canadians to ignore the findings and follow Canada’s Food Guide recommendations, as did the family physician who closed the segment.

Canada’s ‘national newspaper’ fared no better. It published an editorial that was criticised by readers for insulting their intelligence, and a column by its public health reporter that urged readers to ignore the supposedly misleading report – even as it misrepresented its content.