Evidence of meeting #6 for Subcommittee on Food Safety in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was food.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Charlebois said we had the notes. Is it just this one page?
5:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
No, there are five pages.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
Don't you have it?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I don't have anything in front of me, so I'll have to ask the clerk.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Well, that's what he said. It would have been good to have had that.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
I'll slow down.
5:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
At the University of Regina we also published the first world ranking on food safety performances last year, in 2008. We are proud of this particular initiative as it garnered worldwide attention. In our report, Canada positioned well amongst industrialized countries, but more needs to be done.
The outcome of the listeria outbreak is evidence that we need to improve our food safety systems. Since food safety is such a multi-faceted issue, I have decided to address three specific topics for this evening. One is the over-regulation syndrome; second is the architecture of food safety systems in Canada; and three, I'll be addressing the urban-rural divide, which I consider to be one of the greatest challenges when it comes to food safety. In other words, I want to provide to this committee the big picture about food safety.
Risks related to food, like food-borne pathogens, have decreased dramatically over the past decade, but recalls have not, because the system works. Risk can only be minimized and not eliminated. When public expectations on risk are raised too high, unrealistic results are demanded and governments scramble to fulfill public expectations. When measured against a demand for perfection, or no risk, all human actions will come up short.
Calls for greater regulation are most understandable in the area of food safety, but I'm afraid the over-regulation syndrome has overtaken our food safety agenda. Food processing is just one of many examples. As you know, food processing is currently facing significant challenges, and food safety is just one of them. I have personally been involved with start-ups and well-established enterprises. It could be argued now that it is less challenging to start and establish a hospital than it is to start a slaughtering plant. I've seen that in Saskatchewan. Most recently, we just lost our only federally licensed slaughtering plant in Moose Jaw, XL Beef. Both provincial and federal regulations are unbearable at this point in time. Canada doesn't need more regulation, although it needs a different approach to food safety.
Today food is more inexpensive, healthier, and safer than at any time in history. We are asking agrifood companies to spend more on food traceability systems, conduct more inspections, and apply rigorous protocols. In the end, all these initiatives cost money. It is increasingly challenging for the food industry to focus on new food safety initiatives when it does not have access to more wealth.
For years we have seen companies such as Maple Leaf change their cost structure and develop centralized operations in order to offer cheap calories to consumers. In addition, global trade and imported food products are making our food distribution systems highly complex. If consumers want the safety of our foodstuffs to be safeguarded, they should expect to pay more. However, the latest polls from the University of Regina on this subject suggest that consumers are still not willing to pay more for food safety. That will need to change before Canada gets hit by a major food safety catastrophe. The cheap calorie factor is putting a lot of pressure on food industry stakeholders. The current economic downturn is adding fuel to the proverbial fire. Today Canadian and American consumers spend only 10% to 12% of their disposable income on food purchased from the store. Less than a generation ago, that number was at around 25%.
The food industry is now highly fragmented, which tends to encourage fierce competition, especially in terms of price. The food industry has to negotiate within a highly competitive environment in order to succeed. Price is often the first marketing variable that is prioritized. Consequently, we are all to some extent responsible for what happens, since the food industry is providing us with what we are asking for.
Epidemics are a disastrous but unavoidable consequence that we can only hope to limit. Food manufacturers actually go beyond government standards and, as you heard from witnesses before me, standards such as HACCP and ISO certifications to ensure that their food products exceed compliance with health and safety requirements. The problem is more multifaceted than it appears; therefore, solutions require cooperative action across food industries and across national borders, in addition to punitive measures for individual transgressors.
No food companies are deliberately trying to harm consumers; let's make that clear. But irresponsible corporate misbehaviour should be reprimanded. Shared accountability across supply chains should be at the forefront of any new food safety policies. Occurrences like the listeria outbreak at Maple Leaf make our nation fundamentally food-insecure, and this has profound implications for Canadian consumers. But we as modem consumers need to understand that these epidemics and their tragic outcomes can be minimized only by policies that address the complex, interlinked natures of our food economies. Basically, the “let's inspect more” mantra is much too simple.
My next point is on system architecture. It is chilling to read forecasts published in the last decade by food safety experts. Some analysts suggest that the next 9/11 will occur through our food supplies. Such a menace is particularly imaginable because our food safety architecture is inadequate.
It took seven months to find the source of contamination in the 2006 American spinach recall. Even worse, we found out that tomatoes were not the culprit of the salmonella outbreak that hospitalized thousands in 2008; peppers were responsible for the outbreak. It was the same story with mad cow disease: it took months to find the origins of the first declared native case of BSE, which happened on May 20, 2003.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I have a point on order. It sounded as though you indicated that he's almost running of time. I'm wondering whether we can hear the whole presentation, rather than—
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
The food industry is a loose collective organization whose primary goal is to provide safe food to Canadian consumers, but its effort are currently failing. Studies suggest that less than 5% of everything we eat in Canada is audited by competent public authorities. Consider imports, restaurants, caterers, hot dog stands on city sidewalks, chocolate bars and chips bought in drug stores, or food purchased at events. The majority of foods we eat are not screened at all. Most consumers don't know that.
For the food industry to be capable of meeting its mandate, the private sector needs to play a proactive role with public agencies in food safety practices. Food safety authorities in this country need to build reliable partnerships to counter potential threats from the food supply, human-induced or not. The “us versus them” culture is too prominent in the food business.
The problem lies in the architecture of the system itself. With our current resources, we can handle two significant changes. The CFIA needs to alter its dual mandate of protecting the public and assessing risk within the industry. In other words, the CFIA should not deal directly with the general public. The CFIA is inherently hardwired to assess risk and contain threats. The CFIA is not designed to communicate risks properly.
The listeriosis outbreak is proof that it is incapable of communicating risk effectively. The CFIA should work solely with industry and on international trade. As such, the CFIA could better work with Health Canada to set up a better food-borne illness surveillance system that we dearly need, similar to what we see in other countries around the world. The CFIA should also play a key role in developing transverse traceability systems that work from farm to fork, a significant challenge here.
Right now, the relationships between governmental agencies and the functions of the supply chain in the food industry are completely dysfunctional. To protect the public, Canada could establish an independent food safety agency that focuses on consumer concerns alone. Such an agency should report directly to Parliament and not be stuck between two silos, Health Canada's and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's. We also need to see our food chain in its continental context and develop an approach to food safety that does not increase obstacles to international trade.
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have adopted similar approaches with great success. It is high time to design a continentally based food safety scheme for North America. We will face challenges, since harmonization of standards is anything but simple, but it can be done. Since our economy is highly integrated with that of the United States, we owe it to our consumers to engage in a serious dialogue with the U.S. authorities on food safety systems. Food safety is about consumer confidence, not just risks. Regulators and legislators are currently concerned only with safety and risk, not with perception. Rather than forcing governmental authorities to play the role of industry enforcer, we must protect the rapport between Canadian consumers and the food industry before it is too late.
How about rewarding good behaviours rather than just punishing bad ones? How about creating synergies to allow for knowledge sharing among stakeholders, thus creating collective memory for the industry to cope with future crises? A sound partnership between government and industry would allow that to occur.
My last point has to do with the split between people living in rural and urban areas. I think there is a huge gap between these two groups. Let's call a spade a spade: most people who live in urban communities know nothing about agriculture. This gap between people living in urban and rural communities exists throughout the western world. Less than 25 years ago, 30% of the people of Canada depended on farming for their livelihood. Nowadays, here as elsewhere, most people who live in urban centres have trouble understanding the agricultural community around them.
This lack of understanding has led to a sort of divorce between rural food production and the consumption, particularly of basic food products, by urban dwellers. That is why most of the people who live in cities have a poor understanding of the risks involved. As a result, our policies on food safety suffer. We need to give serious consideration to educating people about farming, distribution channels, issues in the agrifood industry, and so on. For example, there are six different types of Listeria bacteria. Only one of them, Listeria monocytogenes, can make people ill. The others are generally innocuous to human beings. Moreover, the Listeria bacteria is everywhere, we eat it every day. That must be said. We have to make sure that consumers know this. Most urban dwellers know absolutely nothing about a number of aspects of farming.
People think that we need more food inspection, and that is because people who live in major urban centres have trouble understanding the fundamentals of the agrifood industry. If people were better educated, it might be possible to better control some of the myths that underlie people's fears. So we have to educate the public, not just during crises, but at other times as well, and we must do so proactively. That is why we need to set up an independent agency to better serve consumers. In the case of the H1N1 flu, we are seeing a great deal of fear and uncertainty throughout the world at the moment. As a result, embargoes and restrictions on imports are being announced. I think education is a key component of food safety.
In conclusion, never before has food been as safe, healthful, and inexpensive as we now enjoy it being. By the same token, never before have we faced so many challenges when it comes to maintaining food safety. The scope of every recall is increasing, but more regulation is not the answer. More domestic regulation will only mask the real problems. We need to build a better partnership between industry and public regulators and establish an agency to serve the public that reports to Parliament. The worst is yet to come, and we need to get ready for it.
There is a lot we know, but few consumers take the trouble to analyze anything. Moreover, few of them take the trouble to understand the changes in food that are happening around us. The dangers exist, they are real, but they are poorly understood. We can do better in this regard.
Thank you.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much, Mr. Charlebois.
Ms. Bennett, you have seven minutes.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thanks very much.
I think a lot of people have been concerned about the dual and perhaps conflicting responsibilities of CFIA. I am interested in your architecture and machinery change. Having set up the Public Health Agency of Canada, we made a very distinct decision that we couldn't do that, because in terms of ministerial accountability, who would make sure that the remedies that came forward would be put in place?
I believe food safety is a health responsibility. If there was going to be a health protection agency or something that looked after all the regulatory functions, I guess I would like your feedback on how you would do that reporting through the Minister of Health to Parliament, as we do with the Public Health Agency. As in England, Public Health would do the prevention, promotion, and all those things, but our regulatory activity would be in a health protection agency that was responsible for regulation. Then CFIA, if you wanted it, would be the supportive, coaching, best practices, quality assurance kind of helpful organization. It's very hard to be the coach and the referee. I've played hockey that way, and it's not a lot of fun. They tend to call everything on the other side.
I was just wondering about your thinking on this. I'm not sure what Parliament would do. Would it be this committee? How would Parliament make the changes that would be required?
When you get a report card, if you get an F, you get a detention or you have to go to summer school. You can't give report cards unless there's a remedy, right? You actually want to know who will do the remedy. Our experience around this place, right now, is that we can write beautiful reports, and the report the government sends back to us is pretty well their opening testimony. They don't deal with any of our recommendations. You want to table them again, because they don't seem to have even read the report, because it's actually page and verse what their opening statement was.
I'm not sure how you would get a better system, unless there is a minister responsible who could be fired if this stuff didn't happen.
6:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
It's a fair question.
When I talk about creating this independent agency, the target I have in mind is the public. It's not necessarily Parliament.
The model I have in mind is the EFSA in Europe. As you may already know, the Europeans long ago came to the conclusion that a dual mandate just doesn't serve the public well. They've created this independent agency. This is not a novel idea; Europe came forward with it in the aftermath of mad cow in 1997. They felt that they needed to do something. They felt that they needed to adopt a continental approach, which I think is key for us as well in Canada. Then the Japanese followed suit, and the Australians and New Zealanders followed suit as well. They all have these independent agencies that are there to educate the public.
We do surveys every year at the University of Regina, and right now the public is increasingly confused.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I agree. But I've been there, and I know that if you have professional help who know the content, you need somebody there who knows how to go downtown and get the money. They are two different jobs. I'm not sure parliamentarians know how to go and get the money out of PCO or Treasury Board or how to get it put into the budget. In our parliamentary system, without a link to the boys with the money, it's very hard to do your job. You watch a budget just shrink and shrink and shrink, and there's nobody to stick up for it in Parliament.
I think these agencies should have professional leadership, and they should be run by scientists. But you need a sidekick who knows how to go and get the scientists the money and a minister whose job it is to sit at the cabinet table and ask for the money.
6:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
I went for a visit at the CFIA last year, and I met with many people over there. There are over 5,000 people who work at the CFIA right now. There's a tremendous amount of resources being invested in the CFIA currently. I believe there are already some resources there that we can take to create this agency.
The problem I see is that the CFIA is just not designed to deal with the public. I don't mean from a scientific standpoint. We're dealing with managing perceptions and fear, and this is the key component of what we're talking about here. It has nothing to do with science. The science-based approach is in the CFIA's mission statement right now, so they have it down pat, but what we need to do is create some sort of an agency that can actually deal with the perceptions and fears of the public. There are a lot of irrational decisions being made right now. We're losing control.
We went out and measured perception in 2006 when the spinach recall came out, when there was the outbreak of E. coli. We asked questions to about 1,000 respondents, and we got some answers. In 2006 roughly about 90% of the population were still concerned about the safety of spinach. Now moving forward to--
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
If you don't mind, I just want to compare both.
Three years after...with Maple Leaf, we asked 1,000 consumers whether they had consumed Maple Leaf products since the recall. Six months after the recall, 40% of consumers said they had not since the recall.
There are two problems there. First, 40% is a big number. Second, we asked if, knowingly, they had eaten Maple Leaf products. Most consumers don't even know that they're eating Maple Leaf products. Part of the point is that we need to educate the public on food channels, distribution channels, on how things work in the food industry. Most consumers don't understand how agriculture and agri-food works.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you very much.
You say that the twofold mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is a problem. There are many people here who agree with you. You also say that in your opinion, an independent agency should be created. Now I am not sure that I understood everything in the article because Mr. Anderson read it very quickly, but I won't ask you the question right away. You can answer when I have finished asking all of my questions.
Would the creation of an independent agency mean the outright elimination of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? You may answer with a yes or a no.
