Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 13th, 2009

[Laurie Nicol, Executive Director, Ontario Independent Meat Processors]

Thank you, and I guess it's now good evening.

Thank you for inviting me to make this presentation before the food safety committee. My name is Laurie Nicol. I'm the executive director of the Ontario Independent Meat Processors Association.

Our organization has been representing meat and poultry processors, retailers, and wholesalers operating in Ontario for over 30 years. We currently represent 180 members. They are family owned and operated businesses across Ontario that are both federally and provincially regulated. Many of these businesses are located in the ridings of members I've noticed around the table.

Our members are primarily inspected by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, or OMAFRA, under Ontario meat regulation 31/05 of the Food Safety and Quality Act. I should also mention that these facilities are also subject to the Food and Drugs Act of Canada.

Our organization is a strong supporter of Ontario's provincial food safety regulations, because this makes sense for many of our members who target domestic, in-province business only.

Ontario is fortunate to have a very diversified livestock production industry. Ontario has the highest number of meat processors, both abattoirs and further processors, in all of Canada. In a study conducted for the OIMP in 2008, it was forecast that Ontario's provincial meat and poultry industry represent $2.2 billion in sales.

Currently, OMAFRA licenses 154 provincial abattoirs and 418 free-standing meat plants. A free-standing meat plant is a business that produces ready-to-eat products through cooking, curing, and fermenting, or one that is involved in low-risk activities, such as grinding, boning, and packaging, with wholesale distribution.

Food safety is the number one priority. It's hard to believe that in Canada today we still have provinces that have not implemented mandatory meat inspection programs, and that food animals are slaughtered for human consumption without inspection.

Our Canadian government has a responsibility for food safety oversight, whether it be for meat, fruits and vegetables, or baked items.

Food items from countries with lower standards continue to enter Canada's marketplace, while Ontario's provincially licensed, highly regulated plants are restricted to trade within the province. On the other side, our Canadian government has imposed higher standards regarding SRM regulations, and the survival of our provincial abattoirs that are processing Ontario's beef continues to be threatened by the high cost of complying with these regulations.

Regulations do not ensure food safety, yet they provide the protocols under which we produce safe food products. Food safety is a shared responsibility, and it begins with everyone understanding their role in ensuring that the products we grow, process, purchase, cook, and ultimately eat are handled properly throughout.

Ontario has the strongest recognized provincial meat inspection program in all of Canada. Our plants are not operating at a lesser food safety standard than large multinational federal facilities, as indicated in recent public statements.

Most of Ontario's provincially licensed establishments are family-run businesses that possess unique characteristics not found in plants designed for large-volume production and export markets. These smaller businesses operate at a more personal level. Generally, the owners can be found on the plant floor controlling activity. The family structure leads to more cohesive management and better control of day-to-day production issues, quality, and food safety outcomes. Outcome-based goals and objectives are common in our industry, and food safety is no exception.

The commitment to food safety in Ontario meat plants has continued to evolve and strengthen over the past four decades. Meat inspection in Ontario first began in 1965 for the provincial plants with red meat, and by 1969, inspection was mandatory in abattoirs throughout Ontario. In 1982 the regulation was expanded to include white meat. These regulations were the first step in a series of initiatives that have brought Ontario to a leadership role in food safety in the provincial meat industry.

In 1991 legislation was passed that required that all animals slaughtered and offered for sale must be inspected.

In 1992 our organization and OMAFRA developed a meat industry training course to educate operators on the requirements under the regulation. This was also used as training material for provincial meat inspectors.

In 2000 there was a first attempt at establishing a national standard for the meat industry. Both the Ontario government and our organization participated in the working group to develop a national meat and poultry code.

In 2001 Ontario's Food Safety and Quality Act was enacted. It formed the framework for the development of the enhanced meat regulation that is currently in existence.

In 2003 our organization co-authored a food handler training course that became the recognized standard for mandatory food handler training in provincially licensed meat plants.

Due to the fact that the CFIA could not provide HACCP certification for non-federally registered meat plants, Ontario developed the HACCP advantage program based on Codex Alimentarius standards, which was launched in 2004.

In 2004 a very public review of Ontario's meat inspection program was conducted by Justice Haines. Many of the recommendations were already under development, as Ontario has continually updated its regulatory standards.

In 2005 the Ontario meat regulation 31/05 was introduced and formed the basis of solid prerequisite programs, which are commonly referred to under the HACCP programs. These standards included requirements for written programs, record keeping, temperature control, cleaning and sanitizing standards, and personal practices, which lay the groundwork for further development of enhanced food safety programs. To ensure the effectiveness of Ontario's meat regulation, our provincial government has licensing requirements, with compliance and enforcement tools; veterinarian-based inspection in abattoirs; a further processing inspection program; an external independent audit program; water sampling programs; microbial sampling; baseline studies; and an inspection legend that readily identifies Ontario inspected meat products.

In 2005 CFIA initiated a meat inspection system review, a second attempt to integrate a national standard with provincial government participation. This led to the development of the draft Canadian meat hygiene standard, with anticipated stakeholder consultations to take place in the summer of 2007, but which came to a halt in 2008.

Despite all the improvements and investments that Ontario—both government and industry—has made to strengthen its provincial meat inspection program and food safety systems, Ontario continues to battle market access limitation from the Ontario retailers and the food service community, and we're not able to recognize any interprovincial opportunities.

Now, for some of our recommendations, we do support and need a standardized domestic food safety program across Canada based on food safety outcomes.

We respectfully request that the federal government recognize, through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that Ontario meat regulation 31/05 meets the federal meat regulation in the food safety standards and that Ontario's HACCP advantage program be recognized as equivalent.

Lastly, food safety is a permanent and critical part of the culture in our meat processing businesses. We need more ongoing training for inspectors and industry to ensure delivery of uniform programs at a national level, and we need to do a better job at educating consumers about their role in food safety.

I thank you for the opportunity, and I would welcome any questions afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the Beef Information Centre. We have Ms. Lisa Mina and Marin Pavlic.

[Lisa Mina, Executive Director, Consumer Marketing, Beef Information Centre]

We would like to begin by thanking you for inviting us to appear today to provide the Beef Information Centre's view on food safety in Canada. I'm the executive director of consumer marketing, and Marin Pavlic is BIC's food safety program manager.

We have filed an English copy with the committee clerk.

The Beef Information Centre, established in 1973, is the beef market development division of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Our mission is to maximize demand for Canadian beef and to optimize the value of Canadian beef products in Canada and the United States. To achieve its mission, BIC focuses on several market drivers, including product perception, a Canadian beef advantage, and food safety. We are a national organization, representing approximately 86,000 beef producers in Canada.

BIC's commitment to food safety education, for the consumer and throughout the supply chain, is extensive, proactive, and long-standing. We keep a careful eye on consumer attitudes and behaviours and work across the supply chain with processors, retailers, and food service operators. Key influencers such as media and health professionals are also our stakeholders. Where CCA focuses on cattle production and trade issues, the BIC focuses on beef from the time it leaves the processing plant to the time it reaches the consumer.

The Canadian public is a key stakeholder in our food safety education efforts. We are a founding member of the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education. Since January 2008, we have reached over 30,000 Canadians with food safety education resources, including the “Food Safety at Home” booklet, which provides information on how to reduce the risk of food-borne illness.

For several years, we have played a leadership role in promoting the use of thermometers to ensure proper cooking temperatures, which is a pillar of safe food handling. In 2008, BIC had over 50,000 web visits per month, all of which resulted in access to food safety information.

To support supply chain partners, BIC provides a range of food safety education resources. For example, at retail, the Good Retail Practices Meat Manual offers meat operational processes and programs that drive meat quality and safety. The Developing Food Safety Systems manual provides information on implementing a HACCP-based food safety program. Most important, the Canadian food safety system itself, from gate to plate, is a critical pillar of the Canadian beef advantage.

Currently, for our discussion on food safety in Canada, we would like to take this opportunity to make four recommendations around food safety. The first recommendation is to encourage the Canadian government to play a more pronounced role in public education of Canada's food safety systems and consumer safe food handling. The 2007 CFIA report titled, “Canadians' Perception of the Safety of Canada's Food Supply” indicates that Canadians generally have confidence in the safety of the food supply; however, they demonstrate low awareness of what regulations exist, how they are complied with, and who is responsible for their enforcement. On a quarterly basis, BIC tracks consumer confidence in the safety of beef. Canadian beef safety ratings continue to be high. As of March 2009, 87% of Canadians gave beef a safety rating of 5 to 10 out of 10; however, we believe that consumer confidence in beef safety can still increase with enhanced education of Canada's food safety system by the Government of Canada. Food safety is everyone's responsibility, from farm to fork. The consumer is an important part of the food safety supply chain, especially when estimates suggest that about half of all cases of food-borne illness in Canada are due to improper food handling at home. The continued investment in national multi-stakeholder organizations with a mandate for food safety education, such as the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education is very important.

The second recommendation for consideration has to do with labelling. In the past, mandatory safe food handling labels were introduced for ground meat. In principle, we support the concept of mandatory safe food handling information for ground meats because it can provide useful guidance on proper internal cooking temperatures. Many retailers already provide this information to consumers on a voluntary basis. A mandatory approach to safe food handling information, however, must not single out certain meat products or create the impression that there are two types of food: those that are hazardous and those that are not. In reality, sound, safe food handling practices are important when handling all foods.

A consultative approach to this issue will ensure provision of meaningful and relevant information to Canadians.

[Marin Pavlic, Food Safety Manager, Beef Information Centre]

The third recommendation is for Health Canada to approve the use of irradiation of ground beef. Food irradiation is a proven food safety technology that destroys disease-causing bacteria in foods. It serves the same function as milk pasteurization and pressure cooking of canned foods. Food irradiation is endorsed by many groups, including the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Food irradiation has been approved for several decades for a handful of foods in Canada, such as potatoes to inhibit sprouting. In the United States, irradiation of ground beef was approved in 1997. Scientific research, accumulated over more than five decades, shows food irradiation reduces or eliminates disease-causing bacteria in food, does not make food radioactive, and leaves the nutritional value of foods essentially unchanged. It is important to stress that food irradiation is not a replacement for existing hygienic practices in food production but rather another important tool in safeguarding our food supply.

In 1998 the Canadian Cattlemen's Association submitted an initial petition to Health Canada to approve irradiation of fresh and frozen ground beef to minimize the risks associated with E. coli 0157:H7. Proposed changes to the Food and Drugs Act to allow irradiation of ground beef were published in Canada Gazette 1 on November 23, 2002. In 2008, a review of scientific literature showing the degree of effectiveness of irradiation against E. coli 0157:H7 and salmonella in ground beef was submitted to Health Canada.

The irradiation of ground beef in Canada can offer an option to consumers looking to reduce the potential for food-borne illness caused by bacteria, especially E. coli 0157:H7. We are hopeful the government will consider this technology.

[Lisa Mina]

Finally, we recommend that the government ensure sufficient resources to monitor and enforce meat product labels. While product labels in themselves are not a food safety issue, they are a gateway to consumer perception of safety. A 2008 BIC consumer survey indicated that 83% of Canadians express a preference for Canadian beef. The term “Canadian beef”, to them, was shorthand for a wealth of positive attributes, including that it tastes good, it's fresh, it's a product they trust, it's safe, and it's healthful. Hence, any labels or promotional material identifying beef as Canadian must be lawful and truthful. When misrepresentation of products occurs, the consumer may end up with a substandard experience, thus damaging the reputation of Canadian beef. Rigorous monitoring and enforcement of product labels play a role to maintain confidence in the perceived safety of food products, such as meat, in Canada.

To conclude, we are committed to food safety education with the consumer and the supply chain. We believe there is an important role for both industry and government to play. It is a shared responsibility. While Canada is a global leader in food safety, we believe Canada can raise the bar on food safety processes, regulations, public education, and the monitoring and enforcement of proper use of product labels.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, you have seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, folks, for coming.

First, I want to turn to the Canadian Meat Council on point 5. Part of this committee's effort is to look at the listeriosis issue as well. In point 5, you say:

During the listeriosis outbreak last summer, what our industry really needed was a voice and a face that Canadians could rely on, like we had during the BSE crisis and the SARS crisis.

You do go on to say that the government is doing a better job on H1N1.

Certainly some of us feel that because there was a potential election, and then an election on, and from an elite conference call that the minister was on—now that we've seen the notes the minister has provided this committee—it was very clear that the minister and the Prime Minister's Office seemed very concerned about the political damage and political spin. Do you think that was the reason there was inaction during the listeriosis crisis? Do you want to comment?

[James M. Laws]

I don't think it would be right for us to speculate on what that answer is.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have a point of order here, Mr. Laws. Sorry.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

As Mr. Storseth did earlier, I'll remind Mr. Easter that it's important to stick to the facts here. The facts are that there was not inaction. There was good action on this file. The minister was at press conferences, I think, every day for two weeks. Certainly I don't want him to mislead the witnesses and then expect them to answer a misleading question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Laws, go ahead.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just hold on, Mr. Chair. On the point of order, the facts are listed right here, Mr. Chair. I read them, and they are that during the listeriosis outbreak last summer--it doesn't say this in here, but I'll summarize it--the minister was missing in action.

We as a committee want to get to accountability and responsibility. The government may not have wanted to get to their responsibility during the listeriosis crisis, but I can tell you that we on this side do.

I think Mr. Laws was starting to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think everybody does. Do you want to let the witness answer the question?

[James M. Laws]

Well, I can say that I think we've been very happy with the government's actions lately on the H1N1 flu virus. That's the type of response we'd like to see in the future for other food safety events like this one. We believe it should be the Public Health Agency of Canada and/or Canada's Chief Veterinary Officer out there reassuring Canadians.

I can certainly say that Dr. Brian Evans, during the BSE crisis, was incredible. If I were to get up there, that would be one thing. But you know, I'm a representative of the Meat Council. It should be Dr. Brian Evans, as a qualified person from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada up there making comments, not industry.

We certainly appreciate the government's action on H1N1.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. As I said, I think they seem to have come around, but we have to keep in mind that 22 people died last year, and there's a great effort not to.... The Weatherill investigation is, in my view, clearly a cover in terms of getting to responsibility and accountability, and we need to get there.

Anyway, on point number two....

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have a point of order.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, there's been absolutely no evidence that there's any type of cover-up with Ms. Weatherill's investigation. She was here. Other witnesses have said that she's had access to everything she wants. She hasn't needed the subpoena power because everyone has been cooperative. Mr. Easter is trying to create something here, again, that does not exist, and I think he should be honest about that when he's doing his questioning.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I guess you leave me no choice; I have to go to the facts of the matter. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Weatherill has no authority to subpoena witnesses and no authority to gain documents. She reports to the very minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, of one of the departments under investigation. Further, as was reported by Ms. Weatherill in response to this committee, we now know that six of the senior staff on her team are from four departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food, CFIA, the health authority, and Environment. Three of those departments are tied up in or are under investigation in the matter of listeriosis. Now, if you don't call that.... Then she reports to the minister, the very minister who's in charge, and he can decide. He said he will make the report public. As far as we know, to date she hasn't interviewed the minister.

So don't try to fool the Canadian public that this isn't an investigation to provide cover for the minister and the PMO, because it is.

My question on point number two is this. You say that you would like to create a Canada-U.S. food safety authority and also create a single meat inspection standard. I think Ms. Nicol talked about a uniform program at the national level within Canada. I don't know whether you both mean the same thing, but I think a lot of us on this committee are very concerned about, say, the small family sausage operation. If they have to meet Canadian Food Inspection Agency standards, they'll be out of business. Yet they provide safe, high-quality food. So we're very worried about one national standard, which will leave the playing field open to the big companies, such as Maple Leaf and so on, because they're the only ones that can afford it and also probably the only ones that have the staffing to handle the immense amount of paperwork required by CFIA.

Could I get comments back on what you really mean, Mr. Laws and Ms. Nicol? And how do we ensure that there are some of those small family operations...which provide high-quality product to the local market, primarily, as well?

[James M. Laws]

That's a very good question. Amongst federally inspected meat establishments, they're not all large. We have plenty of small ones as well. One that comes to mind has only 15 employees, for instance, so it's certainly not only because they're federally inspected that they would have difficulty necessarily meeting the standards. I'm sure Laurie could comment in that regard for the small players meeting the new, very good Ontario standards as well.

[Laurie Nicol]

In regard to your question, we have struggled with that, too, because we do represent small businesses; it has been a challenge. Yes, there is burdensome paperwork. But I think the world has evolved, and it is not only about the paperwork, it's about the due diligence. There are ways to achieve a food safety outcome. It may be a little different from the way the Canadian Food Inspection Agency wants you to do it, but the outcomes are the same.

That's where Ontario took the opportunity to actually develop a regulation that was outcome-based, and the national meat and poultry code had those parameters in there. We should never have to strive to export requirements when we're serving a domestic marketplace, but that doesn't mean that if we're making 10 pounds of fermented product, or 10,000 pounds, we should be operating at different standards. I think it's a matter of how you achieve those standards that may be a bit different in the different inspection programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Bellavance, seven minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I am about to say is for the Meat Council representatives. Each time you testify, you tell us not only about your opinions and your concerns, but you also provide us with suggested solutions and I appreciate that a great deal. it makes our work easier and allows us to find out about things that we did not know. You are the experts in your area, and you are allowing us to learn a lot about it. You bring up points that we can ask questions about. I have some like that for you now.

You mentioned the approval of antimicrobial interventions, and I would like you to give me some technical details about that. You say that you got approval for some antimicrobial agents in September 2008. Six years earlier, Schneider Foods had asked to be able to use sodium diacetate in combination with sodium or potassium lactate. Just a month after the crisis that caused 22 deaths, approval to use the product was suddenly granted.

First of all, I would like to know what these products are and why they are not accepted in Canada. I assume they are in the United States. Often a few details cause the public to be afraid. For example, are these products injected into the animal or are they added afterwards, during processing? Are they chemicals? Do they change the taste, the texture or the smell of the food?

[Martin Michaud]

Antimicrobial agents like this are generally used to prevent pathogenic bacteria like listeria from multiplying when the product is being stored. They are additives that are put into the meat during processing, not at slaughter. The additives prevent the pathogenic bacteria from multiplying. That is what keeps the product safe.