Thank you.
I'd like to follow up on what Bill just said.
Bill, I understand that certainly PepsiCo had tried to do that. The new wave president there tried to assign three levels to foods--decadent foods, healthier foods, healthy foods. It was a red light, amber light, green light, based on fat content, sugar, salt, and whatever.
I couldn't agree with you more about the food guide and I couldn't agree with you more about that chart on the back of the stuff. I'm a physician and I never have a clue what it means. I think that if we're going to give a simple message to people that we do have a preference that they eat healthier things, and that we're going to attack it somehow by trying to make sure the healthier things are cheaper, then we have to demonstrate to Canadians in everything we do, whether it's environmental or nutritional or health impact or in some way, that we do have a preference.
Could the panel comment on this? If there was an expert panel that could help us with a red light, amber light, green light approach, and if you put the GST on the red light products, are these things we could do at the same time? As I've heard the witnesses say, we have to do something about getting green light products into schools, like the apple program in the U.K. The ancient meddler in my riding, Fiona Nelson, always says that when she was a kindergarten teacher 40 years ago, she could order how much milk the kids needed in the morning and it just showed up in the classroom the next day. We've somehow gone backwards from getting kids what they need--and I guess we certainly hear about the distance thing.
Tell me what the expert panel is looking at on the physical activity piece. What's their mandate?
Also, could we have an expert panel in this country that just decided whether stuff was red or orange or green light and we put GST on the red?