Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for July 20, 2018

Hosts: Laura Lynch and Karen Gordon

Prologue

LAURA LYNCH: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening, I'm Karen Gordon, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

KG: Tonight…

LL: Unfit for the purpose. 17 people are dead in Missouri after water swamps their tourist boat. A lawyer says their deaths are far from the first because of a dangerous flaw in the amphibious watercraft.

KG: Leaving well enough alone. He is the sole surviving member of his Amazon tribe and appears to be doing fine, which one activist argues makes the case for Indigenous rights.

LL: Meaning business Part 1. U.S. Democrats fight to force Donald Trump's interpreter to disclose the details of his conversation with Russia's president. But we hear from a translator who says they simply don't understand.

KG: Meaning business Part 2. The president of the NBA’s Toronto Raptors is asked to explain something he said after traded All-Star Demar Derozan and passes on the impression that he's been misled.

LL: Bless their stars. A Florida woman celebrates after her community OKs the giant mural of Van Gogh's Starry Night that they painted across their house to help their autistic son find his way.

KG: And…The long and the short of it. First, a billion dollar Spanish submarine was too heavy to resurface, now the innertube alternatives buoying it up or making the contraption too long to use the navy dock. As It Happens: The Friday Edition. Radio that never fails to measure up.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Duck Boat Crash, Amazon Lone Tribesman, Van Gogh Mural House

Duck Boat Crash

Guest: Andrew Duffy

KG: That 911 call came in yesterday in Branson, Missouri after a tour boat began to sink — but it was too late. Seventeen people have been pronounced dead, while several others are being treated in hospital. The capsized boat is what's called a duck boat, an amphibious vehicle used for tours on land and on the water. It's not the first time a duck boat has been involved in a fatal accident. Andrew Duffy is an attorney who has brought lawsuits against duck boat operators. He has serious concerns about the safety of the vessels. We reached Mr. Duffy in Philadelphia.

LL: Mr. Duffy, when you learned about this duck boat incident in Missouri and the high death toll that came with it, what did you think?

MIKE DUFFY: I was horrified. My first thoughts went to the families who lost loved ones. I can't imagine what they're going through. And then I just found it completely unconscionable that we're going through this again.

LL: For those of our listeners who don't know what a duck boat is, can you describe what they look like?

MD: Sure, duck boats were originally military vehicles that were used by the United States Marines to storm the beaches of Normandy during World War II. And these duck boats have been modified into passenger-carrying vehicles that give both a land tour and then go into the water and give a water tour for tourists. They put in seats, they put in life preservers, they put in just certain amenities that soldiers would not need.

LL: Now the witness videos that have come out of Missouri are harrowing. They show the duck boat navigating a heavy storm and slowly sinking further down into the water. From what you know about duck boats what happens when they start to sink?

MD: Sure, what you see in the video is typical of a duck boat in that it has a fatal design flaw. One, the duck boat is unlike a normal boat that we would go on in any lake or river. A duck boat has a limited buoyancy, which means that once the duck boat achieves a flooded condition the reserve buoyancy in most boats keeps it afloat — duck boats have difficulties with their buoyancy. Then what you see is that they easily fill up with water because they ride so low and so close to the waterline. Once they easily fill up with water they quickly sink. And when they sink, that's when the disaster happens, because unlike other boats they have a fixed canopy on top and that canopy actually pulls people down with the vessel as it's sinking quickly. And the ironic part is that if you're doing the right thing and wearing your life preserver you're almost worse off because the life preserver forces you up into the top of the canopy as you're going down with the canopy.

LL: So what do you imagine passengers inside are going through as all of that is happening?

MD: It is sheer horror. It's chaos. It is a mad scramble, I have not heard from reports yet if they had their life preservers on. I would be shocked given those weather conditions that they were not told by the tugboat captain to don their life preservers. But it is just sheer horror and panic because think of it, you're on a pleasure boat, that is a tourist boat that's supposed to be all fun and games, and all of a sudden you're in a life threatening situation.

LL: And you know this from speaking to survivors of previous duck boat crashes who you represented, is that how they described it to you?

MD: They described it to me like something they had never been through in their life and something they would never want anybody else to go through. It was sheer horror when that duck boat was run over in Philadelphia. And there were only two killed — and I say only because we were lucky — the two that lost their lives obviously were not. But there were 37 people aboard that boat and it was the opposite of what happened last night, where the majority of the people last night lost their lives.

LL: And that case you're talking about in Philadelphia that happened in 2010. There was also another case from 1999 where a duck boat sank in Arkansas and 13 people drowned. Do you know if the duck boat that sank yesterday is the same model as these two other cases?

MD: Oh, I'm completely certain. The major flaw in these duck boats is the canopy and the escape-ability in case of sinking as well as their ability to sink quickly. And I saw the same exact attributes on the duck boat that we were looking at last night.

LL: You talked about the buoyancy problems and the canopy issue. How much do you think that those things played a role in yesterday's incident?

MD: There are many blames and yesterday's incident. First, what are they doing on the water? You would hope that the duck boat tourist industry monitors the weather carefully and if there is any chance of high winds and seas like we see in that horrifying video, that they would not run their duck boat operations. But once the duck boat started taking water then you saw the fatal flaws that it easily can capsize. And then once it capsizes, of course, you see the fatal flaw of the canopy pulling people down.

LL: Nearly 20 years ago The National Transportation Safety Board investigated after a duck boat sank in 1999 in Arkansas. Remind us what the board recommended there?

MD: They recommended the removal of the canopies.

LL: And what happened?

MD: Nothing.

LL: Why?

MD: Nobody knows. What we fear is the duck boat is devoid of regulations somewhat. The Coast Guard regulates and inspects the duck boats as if they are a typical boat and they don't look into the canopy issues. And so we have called upon local and state governments, especially now that the death toll for duck boats since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada now exceeds 40 people, to take a look and realize that the best way to promote tourism is to not kill the tourist by putting them on duck boats. I would hope that the government in Missouri, in Boston, in Canada, they take a long hard look at these duck boats and say no more. These are a dangerous tourist vehicle. They are very appealing to young kids. You look at a duck boat it looks like something fun to go on. But I would bet that 100 per cent of the people that went on these duck boats in Missouri had no idea of the past safety records.

LL: So you're suggesting they should be banned outright?

MD: Banned outright, I believe it should be outlawed. I believe they were fit for service in the military and they were used well by our valiant soldiers, but they are not fit for either land or water to haul around tourists and other people.

LL: What do you say then to the companies that market these tour experiences to families?

MD: I say look in the mirror and make drastic changes or don't operate.

LL: Mr. Duffy, thank you.

MD: All right. Have a great day.

KG: Andrew Duffy is an attorney who has brought lawsuits against duck boat operators. We reached him in Philadelphia. Seventeen people died yesterday after their tour boat began to sink.

[Music: Reversed Ambient Tones]

Amazon Lone Tribesman

Guest: Fiona Watson

KG: He is thought to have been on his own for at least 22 years. Known as ‘the man of the hole,’ he lives in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest and is believed to be the last of his tribe. He's rarely seen, but Brazil's Indigenous Affairs Department does keep tabs on him. And this week they've released remarkable footage of the man taken from a distance. Fiona Watson is with Survival International, a non-profit group that works to protect Indigenous peoples. We reached her in Lewes, England.

LL: Ms. Watson, can you describe the footage that's been released? What does it show?

FIONA WATSON: It shows a single man chopping down a tree in a patch of Amazonian rainforest. And the thing about this man is he is the sole survivor of his tribe, who we think were massacred in a genocidal attack possibly in the late 80s the early 90s. So it is really extraordinary footage.

LL: How does he seem?

FW: Well actually, to me, he looks remarkably healthy. And I think what that shows is that despite this appalling attack on his people — and I cannot imagine psychologically what it's like to see all your family and community killed in front of your eyes to escape that and then to live on your own for over 20 years — so in spite of all that physically he looks extremely healthy. And I think that shows that because his land is being protected by the Brazilian authorities, it shows that actually uncontacted people like him, that is people really have no contact with national society, can and do live well and thrive on their lands if they are protected and their land rights are upheld.

LL: Tell us more about how he wound up alone in the first place and the massacre of his family?

FW: Yes, from what we can piece together — we have to put together bits of evidence and what other neighboring tribes have told us. But in the 1980s the then government bulldozed a huge highway through this part of the Amazon, it's the western Amazon in Brazil, and we know that when roads are bulldozed through the Amazon forest they act as a magnet. So when the road is bulldozed through there was no preparation, or very little thought really, given to the indigenous tribes living in the area. And people poured in — loggers, settlers, cattle ranchers — and so the forest was just swamped, it was overrun, people invaded the forests, and people were killed there were genocidal attacks, many happening at that time. And progressively the land was taken over so that today you have this extraordinary scenario where you have a part of the Amazon that this man lives on, this oasis of green. You can see it on the satellite maps, totally surrounded by a landscape of cattle pasture and soil plantations. So he's conserving this tiny bit of Amazon forest on his own.

LL: So he's living on this sort of island of forest and the land that he's living on is protected as long as he's there, is that right?

FW: That's right. Under the Brazilian constitution Indigenous peoples, whether their contacted or uncontacted, have the rights to their land. And in the case of uncontacted tribes Funai came out with a policy in 1987, which said that they would not contact uncontacted tribes. Instead, they would respect that evident wish to remain uncontested. And it said they would protect the land. And in this case that's what they've managed to do. Basically, no one can enter his land other than the Funai officials, the government officials, who are monitoring it to make sure it's not being invaded. And this is a really crucial task because if they weren’t there, quite frankly, I think this man would have been murdered because he is surrounded by cattle ranchers. They use pistoleros they call them, which are gunman. We know from the past that these gunmen have gone in this region, it's a very violent region anyway, and not much federal presence in some of these remote areas, you know, people have literally got away with murder.

LL: Do you think he's aware of the threats that he faces?

FW: I am sure because he clearly rejects contact. If any Funai people have got too near to him he's fired arrows at them. I'm sure that is a sign that his past experiences, this terrible trauma, this appalling attack must still be so fresh in his mind. So he knows that there is that world out there, which probably in his view is an extremely hostile and violent world because that's what his experience has been of it.

LL: How does he survive then on his own? What does he eat? How does he get by?

FW: Well, he clearly hunts because there are bows and arrows that the government officials have found in his hut. He's sometimes called the ‘Man of the hole,’ and that is because he is built around his territory a number, dug a number of holes, which are about one-and-a-half or two metres deep and in the bottom of them he's put little sharp sticks and they think that that's an easy way for him to hunt, because being on his own quite often hunting is done collectively by Amazonian people. He's also tends gardens where he's grown bananas, corn, manioc, and I think as he looked so healthy in the footage it seems to me that in the physical sense and in terms of food he's doing OK.

LL: Now the images we saw today were released by Brazil's Indigenous Affairs Department. But I'm wondering what's to be gained by sharing the images with the world? I'm assuming he didn't consent to have his image distributed. What about his privacy rights?

FW: Yes, I think that's a fair and important question. And I think you have to balance, you know, he couldn't give his consent, but when I think there are real and tangible threats to somebody's life like his, and actually this year has been a very bad year for the Indigenous Affairs Department because its budget has been slashed. So I think by releasing this footage it's showing first of all, that the man exists. There are many people in the region particularly local politicians who have their eye on his land and want to exploit it for their own economic gain, they would like nothing better than for him to be disappeared. And so what it's saying is this man exists, the Funai are not inventing uncontacted tribes, and I think it also it will serve to put pressure on the government.

LL: Ms. Watson, just last year we covered the story of a group of gold miners who were recorded boasting at a bar that they had killed 10 uncontacted tribes people. Have there been any consequences for those miners as far as I know?

FW: As far as I know there haven't. And I think this highlights the difficulties of collecting evidence in these very remote areas. The genocidal attacks on the uncontacted people are not witnessed. So it's very hard to gather the evidence and, of course, any physical evidence that may be in the tropical climates of the islands and this disappears very fast.

LL: So in that sense, has anyone actually been able to confirm that these tribes people were in fact killed?

FW: I think it still has not been confirmed. In my view, something happened. And in my experience, quite often when these attacks happen, the news often trickles out months later and this is actually well illustrated by the case of this lone survivor ‘the man of the hole.’ At the time his community was attacked it was covered up and the news took years to come out. So, you know, we are dealing — it's not it's not a science anyway. There are very remote areas.

LL: Ms. Watson, thank you.

FW: Thank you very much for covering it.

LL: Bye, bye.

FW: Bye. Fiona Watson is the research and advocacy director of Survival International. We reached her in Lewes, England.

Van Gogh Mural House

Guest: Nancy Nemhauser

KG: If you're walking down West Sixth Avenue in Mount Dora, Florida it's hard to miss Nancy Nemhauser’s house. It's the one with a mural of Van Gogh's Starry Night covering two entire walls. Last summer Nancy and her husband hired an artist to paint the mural to help their son. Then the city said the painting was against code — they were fined thousands of dollars. But this week Mount Dora city council changed their minds. They voted unanimously to allow the artwork to stay and they'll also pay Nancy never Houser's family $15,000. We reached Nancy Nemhauser in her painted home in Mount Dora.

LL: Ms. Nemhauser, first of all, can you describe what the starry night mural you have painted on the house looks like?

NANCY NEMHAUSER: It has a great deal of blue and it has waves in it of whites and grays and it has golden yellow stars in it and by stars they're not like the traditional five point star shapes, but the stars that Van Gogh has in his starry night pictures.

LL: Why did you have the mural painted specifically as Van Gogh's Starry Night?

NN: Our son appreciates that picture the most, he has autism and at times if he's upset and unable to express himself, we've learned that if he's able to look at the Starry Night picture it seems to be calming for him and because he has a language impairment we try to take advantage of anything we can to ameliorate the difficulties with his language impairment.

LL: I understand it also wasn't just about calming him down, it also serves as a landmark for him?

NN: That is correct. So for him and for others he unfortunately has a tendency to elope, and because of that if he is seen by strangers and police were to ask him questions or even strangers, his language difficulties are even more exacerbated and he may not be able to articulate his name, his address. So we felt that because he's so familiar with Van Gogh's Starry Night that he would be able to say the star he calls this the Starry Night house. So take me to the Van Gogh house. Take me to the Starry Night house. So that was the reason that we wanted to use that as a landmark. Not only that he could say that, but if he were to say that then other people would know what house he's talking about and know to contact us.

LL: It must be wonderful for him to live in that house given the affection that he has for it?

NN: Laura, it is so relaxing for him to go out on the balcony, we see him looking up at the stars, if you will, even during the daytime, looking up at the stars. So it is very gratifying. And when he's with us and he wants to go home if he's had enough at an event or an activity, he will say ‘Take me to the Van Gogh house.’

LL: So you've done this thing, you've painted the whole house and then the city comes along and it fines you thousands of dollars. What reasons did the city give?

NN: Well, initially we were only going to be painting the wall and I had asked the city permitting specialist if we needed a permit for the wall to put a painting on the wall. And I was told that we did not need a permit and that there were quote “no restrictions” unquote. So the artist started to paint just the wall. When he started to paint the wall after it was partially completed, we were cited with code violation because it was graffiti. And we were told that in order for it not to be graffiti the wall had to match the house. So my husband and I discussed it, our son was by that time, enough of the wall was done that our son loved it and would say take me to the Van Gogh house. And so we decided well, should we make the investment to have the house painted, because the five foot wall is a big difference from a two story house. And indeed the city did drop the graffiti claim at the hearing. But then they said that the house was a sign. So they did claim it was a sign and that it had to be painted within 30 days a solid color.

LL: Was there also suggestion that it would be a distraction?

NN: Subsequent to the sign, yes, they said it was a distraction and that people would look at it. However, across the street from us is Lake Dora, and when the sun sets on Lake Dora is exquisitely beautiful and we often see people looking at the sunsets on Lake Dora and even I go outside and sometimes take photographs of them because they are so lovely. So it was an absurd theory and they then claim that they were just trying to preserve the community.

LL: And how did it feel when you heard the mayor apologize for all of this and award you $15,000?

NN: We were jubilant. We were jubilant for several reasons. One is, we no longer have to come home and worry that maybe the city will paint our house and so our son will be able to enjoy it. We were excited that part of the legal fees will be paid and that's just a portion of them. My husband was particularly interested in the apology, he is from Poland and was raised behind the Iron Curtain and feels that he worked very hard 10 years to become an American citizen and he values that he's a very proud American and wants to be able to enjoy his constitutional rights. He felt that what the city did was wrong and that they should apologize. And to him the apology was probably worth more than anything. And he did say and he really meant it, he would have lost this house if it meant keeping his rights, his constitutional rights. He would have given up the house.

LL: Ms. Nemhauser, thank you for your time.

NN: You're so welcome. Thank you for your time.

LL: Bye, bye.

NN: Take care.

KG: Nancy Nemhauser is the owner of the Starry Night house in Mount Dora, Florida. And to see photos of their home check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Russia Interpreter, Fish Oil Review

Russia Interpreter

Guest: Yuliya Tsaplina

KG: She is one of the few witnesses to that presidential meeting in Helsinki. Now interpreter Marina Gross is being thrust into the spotlight — whether she likes it or not. Yesterday on the show we told you how Democrats in the U.S. Congress were attempting to subpoena Ms. Gross to find out what Donald Trump discussed with his Russian counterpart on Monday. Republicans denied that request late yesterday, but it still leaves interpreters feeling unnerved. Yuliya Tsaplina is a freelance Russian interpreter who knows Marina Gross. We reached her in Paris.

LL: Ms. Tsaplina, how do you imagine your colleague Marina Gross' feeling after being in the spotlight this week?

YULIYA TSAPLINA: Well, I think it would be presumptuous for me to speak on her behalf, but I think that if I were in her shoes so be very, very uncomfortable right now and wishing for this unnecessary attention to go away.

LL: Why uncomfortable?

YT: Oh, because it puts us in a very delicate situation. As interpreters we are bound by the strictest code of ethics. We are not supposed to divulge any information that we learn about in the course of our professional duties. And so any attempt to make us testify necessarily creates a very uncomfortable situation for any interpreter.

LL: People are obviously very eager to hear what went on in this closed-door meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin. Why shouldn't they hear from her because of that?

YT: Well, an interpreter is only in a meeting as an extension of the principals. An interpreter is not someone who makes decisions, an interpreter does not set the agenda, an interpreter it only in the meeting because there is a need for the ideas to be rendered in a different language. So all questions about what happened to the meetings should be addressed to the principals and not to the interpreters.

LL: There are photographs of Ms. Gross with her note pad on her lap. If anyone was actually to get access to her notes what might they see on a notepad?

YT: I’ve never seen Marina's notes, but I can assure you that, for example, if it were my notes that would have been completely useless to anyone else.

LL: Why?

YT: Because no one would be able to decipher them. When we take notes in consecutive interpretation those notes only serve our short term memory to make sure that we don't forget any details. We use a lot of symbols, we use abbreviations and it's literally impossible even for me to decipher my own notes, let's say a week after the meeting.

LL: Can you give me a sense of what kind of symbols you use?

YT: Certainly, and again, every interpreter has his own system of notetaking. So the symbols that I use will be different from everyone else. But for example, I use a little square as a symbol for a country. I use a triangle as a symbol for change. I use little circles to say that someone is thinking about it or is of an opinion, a certain opinion. If someone were to get hold of my notes it would be like getting a coded message, they wouldn't be able to decipher it.

LL: Is that why you do that?

YT: No, absolutely not. This is not shorthand, it is a special method that was developed specifically for consecutive interpretation. And it is taught in interpreting schools so all graduates of conference interpretation schools learn how to take notes. It was not designed to be indecipherable to anyone else. It was not designed to be a code — it just is, because the purpose of the notes is for the person who took the notes to be able to render the message in the moment. And the symbols can change from one meeting to the next. For example, I can use ‘e’ either as a symbol for energy if the meeting is all about energy, and in a few days it will mean an environment.

LL: So clearly you're not there to be a stenographer, but if you can get past the symbols, the handwriting how reliable would the information in the notes be to gauge what actually went on in the meeting?

YT: I don't think it is possible for anyone to look at an interpreter’s notes and figure out what was going on in the meeting. And that is my opinion based on the way I take notes, on the way I teach my students to take notes and on the way I was taught to take notes.

LL: I know that there's also been discussion that the interpreters often can't remember from one day to the next what they've heard in a meeting, but I'm just wondering there must be times when you're doing your job when you hear something absolutely jaw dropping and there is absolutely no way you would ever forget it?

YT: Certainly. There are some meetings that I remember better than others. That is absolutely true. By and large I think it is safe to say that at the end of the meeting interpreters don't have perfect collection of everything that's been said. Interpreters may remember the general idea discussed in the conversation, but not the details in the wouldn't be able to reconstitute what was said.

LL: And I'm wondering if that view of sort of the general meeting or of the tone of that might be of use?

YT: Well it could be, but again, our code of ethics is very clear about it. It says that the code lays down the standards of integrity, professionalism and confidentiality, which all members of the association shall be bound to respect in their work as conference interpreters, that Article 1. And then we have a code of honour with Article 2, and it says members of their association shall be bound by the strictest security, which must be observed to all persons and with regard to all information disclosed in the course of the practice. So it is really no way for us to disclose any information, anything that learned in the meeting. You know, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

LL: That's quite a comparison to make. I'm wondering though, it almost seems like the precedent has been set. This can of worms has been opened. Republicans have denied the request in Congress from Democrats to subpoena Marina Gross, but are you worried that there are going to be subpoenas in the future now that people are talking about this?

YT: I'm very worried about it because it will essentially destroy the profession. And I think it would be very short-sighted. Let's assume it happens, and I certainly hope it doesn't, but even if it were to happen my guess is that it would produce very little information. But more importantly, it would destroy trust in the profession; it would destroy trust in interpretation as a profession and in interpreters. And so if that gets done then down the line with those team members of Congress were to have meetings with their counterparts from Indonesia, from China, any other country in the presence of interpreters, how would they feel about discussing confidential issues knowing that an interpreter can be called to testify and tell the world about everything that was said?

LL: We will leave it there. Ms. Tsaplina, thank you for your time.

YT: Thank you.

LL: Bye, bye.

YT: Bye.

KG: Yuliya Tsaplina is a freelance Russian interpreter. We reached her in Paris. For more on this story go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Guitar]

Trudeau NAFTA

KG: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Markham, Ontario today and he was talking about the ongoing NAFTA negotiations. Mr. Trudeau faced questions about claims that he was prolonging talks with U.S. President Donald Trump to gain political traction here at home. Here's what the prime minister had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I think I've been very clear for a long time now that the issue of trade with the United States and our relationship with the United States is far too important to play partisan politics with. I am pleased with the strong and concerted effort that our government and all Canadians have played in working hard to negotiate a better deal for Canada, the right deal with NAFTA. We're going to continue to draw on people of all different regions and political stripes. I'm very pleased that amongst the efforts that we've had that go beyond partisanship, I can highlight prominent conservatives like former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who's been extraordinarily helpful in making sure that Canada's interests are at the centre of this. I will continue to work with people right across the country to demonstrate that Canada is strong and united and focused on getting the right deal for Canada as we move forward on renegotiating NAFTA and I won't be playing politics with it.

REPORTER: Just a follow up, Mr. Harper also said that he told your office that he could be very helpful to you in NAFTA negotiations, but that want to use him in another way. Do you think it would be helpful for Mr. Harper to be involved with NAFTA negotiations?

JT: I have had a many conversations with a broad range of people, including almost all of our former prime ministers including Mr. Harper, to ensure that everyone understands that this is an all hands on deck approach. This is not a partisan approach. This is an approach where Canadians expect and demand all of us to work together because our relationship with the United States, particularly around trade and renegotiate NAFTA, is much more important than playing politics. I'm not going to play politics on this, I'm going to remain focused on getting the right deal for Canada, not just any deal but the best possible deal, to stand up for Canadians to stand up for our economy and to move forward into the future in the right way for all of us.

KG: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking in Markham, Ontario earlier today.

[Music: Piano]

Fish Oil Review

Guest: Lee Hooper

KG: Many of us probably take them on a regular basis, but Omega-3 fish oil supplements are pretty much doing nothing to benefit our hearts. That's the conclusion of a new review that looked into dozens of trials on the supplements. Lee Hooper is from the U.K.’s University of East Anglia. She led the review. We reached her in Ithaca, New York.

LL: Ms. Hooper, are people who are buying fish oil supplements wasting their money?

LH: Well, some of them maybe. So if you prescribe fish oil supplements by your doctor then you will be being given them for good reason. So you maybe prescribe them to bring your triglyceride levels down for example.

LL: But aside from a doctor telling you to take them is there any other reason?

LH: If you've decided that you want to buy Omega-3 capsules yourself because you think it will reduce your risk of heart problems, we've got very large amounts of evidence now that suggests that actually there will be no useful effect of that on your heart or on risk of things like stroke.

LL: How common is it in your knowledge for people to take these supplements for exactly that, to improve their heart health?

LH: It's hard to tell. I don't think we've got any good very good evidence. We know, for example, that in the United States more EPA-DHA, those are the Omega-3 fats, more EPA-DHA in the diet comes from supplements than it does from actual fish. So there are large quantities being taken by people, but it's hard to know why people have chosen to take those supplements. So it's likely that quite a lot of them will have taken them for their hearts, but we don't know that exactly.

LL: So these so-called long chain Omega-3 supplements like like what is found in oily fish isn't beneficial, but what about different types of Omega-3s such as those that can be found in nuts? Is there any benefit there?

LH: Yes. So ALA is the other type of Omega-3 and, as you say, it's found in canola oil, which we also call Rapeseed oil, and some nuts, walnuts for example, that shows some but quite small amounts of benefit to heart disease. So it does look as though having a little bit more of that ALA from those sources will be quite a beneficial thing to do. But you only get a small amount of benefit from it. On the other hand, it's very easy to have a little bit more Rapeseed canola oil, you can add a little bit into salad dressing or a little bit into cooking and you get that benefit with very little difficulty.

LL: Tell me how you did your review? How many studies did you look at?

LH: Well, we looked for all the randomized control trials that had gone for at least a year, had a duration of at least the year that had randomized people either taking Omega-3 in some form or not taking that. We found 79 trials of a huge number of trials out there, and those trials included well over 112,000 people in trails at least a year, some of them up to eight years. So we have a huge amount of information that we're basing this on. If there were effects on our hearts if there were effects on stroke we would be seeing those in a group this large, but we're not seeing a effects and we’re consistently not seeing effects. So it really does suggest that we're not getting benefits from those long chain Omega-3s, the fish base three supplements. What we don't have is very much evidence on the effects of eating oily the fish. We look for those studies, too. We only found four trials that looked at the health effects of eating oily fish. And sadly we don't have enough information from those trials to know very clearly whether we are seeing health benefit on the heart from from eating more oily fish itself.

LL: But at least if you're eating something like salmon It's displacing something else that you might have in the diet that's not as healthy? I'm trying to log on to the good side because I love my salmon.

LH: Absolutely. Do eat salmon, absolutely. Oily fish have lots of other potential benefits as well as just the EPA-DHA. Their rich in iodine, rich in selenium, they're rich in calcium, sometimes rich in vitamin D and all of those nutrients that are good for us. So you get a lot more out of eating fish than you would expect to get out of a fish oil capsule. What I'm saying is not that fish isn't a healthy food. What I'm saying is we don't have evidence in this review that says it's a healthy food.

LL: What sort of response has there been then to your review from consumers?

LH: Some very positive and some feeling a little bit upset, I think. I think people — when you believe in something and when you do something that you believe will be doing you good, it's sometimes a little bit hard isn't it to we told ‘Well, actually that’s doing you no good at all. So we're trying to do that tactfully. I think in terms of the evidence, the evidence is pretty clear and I think people can make their own minds up about whether they choose to spend their money on these long chain Omega-3 supplements. My suggestion would be spend the money on something much more fun, you know, a healthy treat would be would be great.

LL: But it won't hurt them to keep taking that will it?

LH: No, no. There was a suggestion actually that's taking these long chain Omega-3 supplements would protect you from heart disease but would increase your risk of stroke. And actually what's really interesting is we see neither of those effects. So there really is effect on stroke and there really is no effect on heart disease, so we're not seeing either benefits or harm. So if people decide to keep on taking them that's their own decision. I guess, the problem is that you may be spending money that you could spend on other things.

LL: And you were asked to do this review by the World Health Organisation and I'm wondering why it wanted to know about this? What was it hoping to find out?

LH: Well there were about to update their guidelines on polyunsaturated fat intake. And so Omega-3s and also Omega-6 is a part of that group of polyunsaturated fat. So this review is part of a much wider review. We're also looking at the health effects of the Omega-6 fat and we're looking at health effects wider cardiovascular disease. We're just finalizing now as there is evidence that the effects in diabetes, effects and dementia, effects in depression, and effects in cancers as well as inflammatory bowel disease — so a whole range of other health effects we've been asked to look at. One but we're not looking at actually is rheumatoid arthritis and people have traditionally taken Omega-3 supplements to calm their arthritis down and if people feel that's a useful thing to do if it seems to benefit then that's absolutely fine, but we don't have strong evidence either way on that.

LL: Do you take any supplements yourself?

LH: No, I don't. I try and eat well.

LL: That sounds like not bad advice.

LH: To look after a hearts there are a lot of really positive things we can do, aren't they. I mean, staying fit and active is great. Not smoking, a sensible thing to do. If we drink alcohol drinking in moderation only makes sense. And eating, I mean, there are so many wonderful foods to eat out there that are just great and healthy.

LL: And don't rely on a magic pill.

LH: No, I mean you know the magic pills don't seem that magic these days. You know, there's been evidence from several different directions recently suggesting that that magic pills don't really do the magic, so let's go back to basics. We know what works.

LL: Ms. Hooper, I look forward to the results of the rest of your studies. Thank you for your time.

LH: Thank you very much.

KG: That was Lee Hooper in Ithaca, New York. She studies nutrition at the University of East Anglia’s Norwich Medical School. Her paper on Omega-3 supplements and heart health was published this week by Cochrane, an organization that does systematic reviews.

Derozan Trade

KG: It's time to try something new. That's the message Masai Ujiri had for reporters today. Mr. Ujiri is the president of the Toronto Raptors basketball team. He was talking about the controversial decision to trade their beloved All-Star Demar Derozan to the Spurs in exchange for Kawhi Leonard. Earlier this week Mr. Derozan took to Instagram to share how upset he was with the trade. He wrote quote “Can't trust them. Ain't no loyalty in this game. Sell you out for a quick little bit of nothing.” End quote. Mr. Ujiri began this afternoon's press conference by apologizing to Mr. Derozan for any miscommunication there may have been in the past. Then he was asked if anyone from the organization had given Mr. Derozan indications that he would not be traded.

SOUNDCLIP

MASAI UJIRI: I had a conversation with Demar at summer league and I really want to leave it at that. We spoke and I spoke to him and I think maybe my mistake was talking about what we expected going forward from him. So not necessarily talking about trade but what I expect from him going forward and I think that's where the gap was because in my job I always have to assume that we’re going forward with the team that I have. And if there was a miscommunication there I do apologize to Demar and his family and his representation it's not it is not what I meant, but these things come and go, opportunities come and go. And we have to react in my position and I had to react at this time with this deal on the table.

REPORTER: Masai, you touched upon loyalty earlier and a lot of fans online were talking about why would we trade our most loyal player for a guy who allegedly has expressed a lack of interest to come play in Canada, who's also going to be a free agent within a year?

MU: Yeah he didn't express a lack of interest in playing Canada to me. A lot of these things are people — everybody has their own opinion about everything and I know firsthand. I dealt with this kind of situation in my first job as a rookie so I know firsthand how these things work and how they don't work. And I understand with Demar he was unbelievably loyal to us. I've never seen anything like this. It puts — it's honestly like while I will not be doing this one day. Because the human part of this business is to me is what it's all about. And he has no fault, our team is just is just not on that level and we keep pounding on the same thing over and over again. I think if we look at ourselves honestly everybody knows that, anybody that questions we need to do something different even if it wasn't this.

KG: That was Toronto Raptors president Masai Ujiri speaking today in Toronto about the Kawhi Leonard Demar Derozan trade. After today's press conference Mr. Derozan took to Instagram once more this time — A facepalm emoji.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

July 20, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This