Health Committee on Feb. 21st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to thank the witnesses for coming forward. We have a very important session ahead of us, talking about food labelling, as we narrow down on the final days of testimony before we go into drafting and issuing our report on childhood obesity.

I want to thank you for coming. It's very good that you are here. I see that Sally Brown is back again. Sally, don't you just wear out sometimes? It's good that you're here.

We also have, from the Department of Health, Janet Beauvais. It's good to have you here. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Debra Bryanton. From the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, that's Sally. From McCain Foods Canada, we have Fred Schaeffer. It's good to have you here. From the Centre for Science in the Public Interest , we have Bill Jeffery. It's good to have you all here.

We'll start with Ms. Beauvais. The floor is yours.

[Janet Beauvais, Director General, Health Products and Food Branch, Food Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Janet Beauvais, director general of the food directorate at Health Canada. I'm pleased to be here with you again today to speak further about nutrition labelling in Canada and how nutrition labelling can assist Canadians in making healthy food choices.

Health Canada’s food directorate is responsible for establishing policies and standards relating to the safety and nutritional quality of food. We are also responsible for the health and safety aspects of the labelling and advertising of foods sold in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for enforcing these policies and standards.

In 1998 voluntary nutrition labelling was put in place in Canada. In combination with nutrient content claims such as low fat or reduced calories, this labelling became a powerful incentive for industry and led to increased access to a number of reformulated products. However, the labels of most products with less favourable nutrient profiles continued to stay silent about their nutrient content, leaving consumers with limited information upon which to make comparisons between products.

After extensive consultations with stakeholders, mandatory nutrition labelling regulations came into effect for most prepackaged foods in Canada on December 12, 2005. Under these new regulations, information about the caloric value and the nutrient content of a food must be conveyed in a standardized format, known as the nutrition facts panel.

Consumer research has indicated that the consistent look of the nutrition facts table facilitates comparisons between products and makes nutrition information easier to find and use. It was envisioned that the provision of mandatory nutrition information would not only help consumers make healthier food choices, but would further act as an incentive for the food industry to produce healthier products. Evidence is mounting that the intended effect is taking place. For example, since the requirement to list trans fat became mandatory under the new regulations in December 2005, a great number of food companies have reformulated their products to remove trans fat, and trans fat consumption has dropped by at least 41%.

The regulations also contain provisions for the use of over 40 nutrient content claims on the package. These claims allow industry to make declarations on a product’s label about its caloric or nutrient content, for example, low fat, so that manufacturers can highlight a particular nutrient content of the product.

While very informative, the mandatory nutrition labelling system does not make a judgment about the overall nutritional value of a food. In order for it to be used properly, consumers must be educated about, and dedicated to, making healthier food choices. This is why in many countries, including Canada, better choice slogans, symbols, or logos have started to appear on the principal display panel of some food labels as a quick way of providing information to consumers on some aspect of the nutritional value of the food. This is referred to as a healthier or wiser choice slogan, symbol, logo, or endorsement.

The conditions for displaying these label identifiers, logos, or symbols are set by endorsing organizations such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation with its Health Check program, which I'm sure we'll hear further about today, or by the manufacturer itself when it’s a corporate initiative, such as PepsiCo's Smart Spot. These conditions vary from one program to another. They vary within programs. They vary from one food category to another, such as crackers or beverages, and are dependent upon the objectives of the endorsing organization. For example, in the case of a corporate initiative, the goal is often to highlight a certain nutritional profile of a company’s products. I would note that none of these programs has been endorsed by Health Canada.

As it is difficult to make a simple judgment about a food overall, especially foods that have both positive and negative nutritional characteristics, these logos often only refer to limited nutritional characteristics of the food. For example, a logo might indicate that the product is low in fat but not indicate that the product is high in sodium. Health Canada continues to recommend that consumers use the nutrition facts table to get complete nutrient information.

The proliferation of these third-party logos is a new phenomenon in Canada, and concerns have been raised regarding the risk of creating confusion among consumers. Some countries, such as Australia, are now investigating the establishment of basic rules to govern these practices and ensure some consistency in order to prevent consumer confusion.

As the committee heard recently, the United Kingdom has developed a unique labelling system, known as signposting, that goes one step further than the Canadian nutrition facts table by providing a judgment around the nutritional value of foods. It is important to note, however, that unlike Canada, the United Kingdom does not have mandatory nutrition labelling for most pre-packaged foods.

By providing information on calorie content and the 13 nutrients, including fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, and a range of other nutrients, Canada’s current labelling requirements allow for more meaningful and fulsome comparison among products than the four-nutrient traffic light labelling system used in the United Kingdom.

As previously mentioned, Canada’s mandatory nutrition labelling regulations have been in force for just over a year. Since the regulations came into effect, Canadians have become increasingly knowledgeable about how to use labels to make informed decisions.

According to the Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition’s recent 2006 Tracking Nutrition Trends survey, 77% of Canadians get nutrition information from the product labels. In addition, in 2006, 67% of Canadians reported that they were able to find what they were looking for and they attached credibility to these labels. However, not surprisingly, with its recent introduction into regulation, some Canadians are still finding it difficult to understand and read the new nutrition facts table.

Could nutrition labelling be further simplified by setting parameters that would allow the voluntary addition of a colour code for nutrients or other such logos? Without adequate time for government to conduct consumer research on this type of expanded nutrition labelling, such as logos or symbols, I cannot answer that question.

Let me conclude by saying that the mandatory nutrition facts table, in addition to nutrient content claims and combined with education on their use, offers a significant public health opportunity to improve the nutritional health and well-being of Canadians. Health Canada will be continuing to monitor the use of nutrition labelling and the nutrition facts table to ensure that it's achieving its desired objectives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Now we move on to Debra Bryanton from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Debra Bryanton, Executive Director, Food Safety, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for another opportunity to appear before the committee in its examination of childhood obesity. We appreciate being part of these important discussions and again would like to commend the committee for taking on this important topic.

My name is Debra Bryanton. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's food safety directorate.

As we're here to support Health Canada, I will keep my remarks brief. In September I briefly reviewed the CFIA's role in enforcement and compliance regarding the nutrition labelling regulations and today will provide some further details on that role, with the aim of clarifying the two distinct roles that Health Canada and the agency have with respect to nutrition labelling.

As Janet noted earlier, Health Canada is responsible for setting food labelling regulations and policies respecting consumer health, food safety, and nutrition. CFIA is responsible for enforcing those regulations, as well as for setting non-health and safety labelling provisions; for example, those that serve to inform consumers and prevent misleading practices.

As the committee is aware, the CFIA verifies compliance with 13 federal acts and their respective regulations, including the Food and Drugs Act. We work in partnership with other stakeholders to carry out this mandate, and of course one of our key partners is Health Canada.

Nutrition labelling regulations became mandatory for large companies as of December 12, 2005, and will be mandatory for small companies by December 12, 2007.

CFIA has taken a staged approach to the implementation of these regulations. Our initial enforcement approach focuses on increasing the awareness of industry, particularly in their role of making the nutrition facts table available and accessible in their application of the regulations. We also apply an appropriate level of enforcement action on products that include nutrients of greater public health significance--for example, trans fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, and sodium--and we follow up on foods that are mislabelled. We also investigate complaints, and we work closely with industry associations to achieve voluntary compliance where possible.

After December 12 of this year, when all companies will be expected to comply with the nutrition labelling provisions, our approach will continue to be educational in nature, similar to how it was with the larger companies in the first year, in assisting the smaller companies to implement the regulatory requirements in their first year of implementation.

The CFIA's role regarding the issue of childhood obesity is complementary to that of Health Canada's. We will continue to support Health Canada and our health partners in tackling this issue and other important public health concerns.

I would now be pleased to answer any of the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much for being here. I'm sure there will be questions.

Now to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Sally Brown, I see you brought Carol Dombrow, a nutritional consultant, with you. The floor is yours.

[Sally Brown, Chief Executive Officer, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Carol is here in case you ask me tough questions.

I have five goals for today. I am going to explain why we have launched the Health Check program, and how it works.

I will highlight some key differences between the Health Check program and the current industry program to demonstrate that Health Check has been broadly accepted by both industry and consumers. I will differentiate between the Canadian and the U.K. environments for food labelling programs and propose how Canada can move forward by supporting Canada's existing pre-eminent food information program.

All that in 10 minutes.

So why did we start Health Check? It was started in response to consumer demand for a simple way to choose healthier products. For us at HSFC the rationale was that poor nutrition, especially a high-fat diet, is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Heart disease and stroke share common diet-related risk factors with many other chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and kidney disease. So it's important to recognize it is not a heart-smart program; it is really a program for healthy eating, not for heart-healthy eating.

Most Canadians consider nutrition to be important when they buy food, but they find the information confusing, as has been said, even after the advent of mandatory nutrition labelling. For many vulnerable populations, they just can't decipher that label. Shoppers are always in a hurry. They've told us they want something to help them make a decision quickly. According to our research, 92% of Canadians support one standard symbol.

How does Health Check work? Well, it provides consumers with a visual logo, as you can see on this can of beans. It's a quick visual reference on the food packaging. The awareness of Health Check is sitting at about 67% of principal grocery shoppers.

The logo guarantees that the food meets the specific nutrition criteria of Canada's Food Guide. It's based on guidelines and nutrition recommendations for general healthy eating, as I mentioned. It's comprehensive. It encompasses, in one check mark, the nutrition criteria for salt, fat, fibre, protein, and vitamins. Industry programs, as you've heard, often look only at one or two of those criteria, not all of them, and the proposed traffic light system in the U.K. is also nutrient specific.

Regarding the cost recovery model for HSFC, it is not a fundraiser. The money that companies pay to belong to Health Check goes right back into the program to build it. There are nominal fees to cover the product review, the operating and promotional costs, but a small company can join for $300. The fees are not a barrier to participation and are not seen that way by the companies, nor do they increase the cost of the food item.

Health Check was developed in consultation with Health Canada and CFIA.

We've been strong and active supporters, through Health Check, of the government's food guide and the nutrition labelling legislation. This support, along with our recent trans fat work and our partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society and the fruit and vegetable growers on the “five to ten a day” campaign, is part of our strong mission focus on healthy eating and a belief that we can help the consumers.

We're currently in the process of developing criteria for sugar in light of the new food guide and will be reviewing all of our criteria to ensure continued alignment with the guide. Health Check is influencing Canada's food supply. There are now over 1,000 products in the program--including McCain's Old South line of orange juice, we're happy to say--in 70 different categories, representing over 100 companies. It's doubled its size in the last year.

It is a truly national program. In fact the Health Check system was started. in Quebec.

Health Check is not only successful in helping consumers choose healthier products, it has helped make the products healthier. Many leading brands have reformulated to meet our nutrition criteria, and I've brought two of them here. It includes Campbell's, Heinz, Maple Leaf, and Dare. These reformulations took the companies over a year to do, and they're very committed to the program. For example, Campbell's recently reformulated 25 of their 40 soups to fit into the program. They had to reduce the amount of salt by about 20% to do so.

We frankly need stricter criteria for salt in Canada, and we would like to work with Health Canada to establish these standards. We don't do it alone, we do it with Health Canada. They're not our standards, they're Canada's standards.

Health Check is growing. Retail outlets are now coming onboard. Sobeys, Canada's number two grocery retailer, joined in 2006 with their private label, the Compliments line of products. Their objective is to eventually have over 300 of their products in Health Check. Two more retailers are joining Health Check this year.

Health Check has recently expanded into food services such as Swiss Chalet, because 40% of our food dollar is spent outside the home, as you all know and have heard before. HSFC signed a contract this week with the British Columbia government to roll out a Health Check restaurant model in British Columbia restaurants.

Our research has shown that consumers expect such programs to be run by a health authority, and if it's not Health Canada, then it's a group like the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Many consumers are suspicious of the food information programs established by food manufacturers.

I draw your attention to the handout, at the bottom of page three, which compares the industry food information programs with the Health Check program on several elements. I'm not going to go through it. I think I've spoken to most of them, but it's been a good summary up to now.

Page four in your handout shows the different labels that are now in place in Canada. We hope it shows you why it is that the consumer is getting confused. Not only are there a growing number of programs, but to the consumer a check mark is a check mark. We're actually getting calls from our donors who are irate that our check mark is appearing on Diet Pepsi. The consumer sees a check mark as a check mark.

Health Check is already Canada's pre-eminent food information program. It was the first into the field, and it's the largest by far. The second largest program has 200 or less products. We're at least five times larger than one of the industry programs. We're the only third-party unbiased program. We're non-exclusive, well recognized, and our criteria are totally transparent. The food industry itself has embraced Health Check. Over 100 food manufacturing companies, large and small, and three retail chains will soon be onboard, and we're moving into food service. Consumers trust us, and 87% say they trust us compared to as low as 19% for the food industry programs. Health Check incorporates, simplifies, and full supports Canada's Food Guide.

I thought I'd take one minute to outline the comparison between the U.K. and the Canadian situations.

In the U.K. there's no mandatory food labelling. There are a plethora of industry programs. There is no Health Check equivalent. The government is introducing the traffic light proposal. Consumer confusion is extremely high, and there's growing industry and government animosity as a result of the introduction of the traffic light proposal.

In Canada we have mandatory labelling. There are currently only a few industry programs. We have Health Check, which, as I said, is a large and respected non-biased program. This government is exploring where it should go on food labelling, but there is a risk of growing confusion if the government doesn't act. As I mentioned, instead of industry and government animosity, there is a strong industry support of Health Check. Obviously it's not universal or there wouldn't be other programs, but in all the companies that have moved to another label, they've had discussions with us first, and that's very important to understand. They didn't join because not all of their products would fit, and they wanted all or nothing.

In conclusion, it is our belief that Canada does not need the U.K. traffic light program or any equivalent. Our environments are, thankfully, very different because of wise decisions that governments have made in Canada about food labelling. Canada has a pre-eminent program that consumers trust and that the food industry has widely embraced.

Health Check complements nutrition labelling, it doesn't undermine it. We believe government should publicly and strongly support Health Check/Visez santé as the standard for other programs to emulate, and promote it on the food guide website and other places. An overwhelming number of Canadian consumers want a trusted, simple, standardized symbol.

We're not asking the government to mandate exclusivity, nor to give us any money. We're just saying this is one program, based on what you declare is healthy eating, established in consultation with the government, that 97% of consumers say they trust.

We're saying we have a window of opportunity before the market gets flooded with a plethora of programs, as is happening in the U.K., an opportunity to not confound and confuse the consumers even more. Worse than confusion will be consumer skepticism of the value of any of the check marks, and that's why we feel we have to strongly back the Health Check mark, because it is so well respected, and we can't afford to have that respect eroded on behalf of consumers.

Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Carol and I will answer all of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move on to the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. Bill Jeffery, the floor is yours.

[Bill Jeffery, National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since, like some of the other members of the committee, I'm a repeat attender, I'll dispense with the introductory comments about the Centre for Science in the Public Interest beyond saying that we have 100,000 subscribers to our newsletter and we don't take funding from industry or government.

Current mandatory nutrition labelling regulations for prepackaged foods were predicted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to reduce the burden of diet-related disease by approximately 4% by producing $5 billion in cumulative economic benefits in the coming two decades at a non-recurring cost of about one-fifth of 1% of food sales for a single year during the phase-in period. By our calculations, that's a 2,000% return on investment.

The impact of the new mandatory nutrition labelling rules has not yet been formally assessed in Canada. While cause and effect relationships are difficult to establish, American consumer research has shown that many consumers use the U.S. Nutrition Facts panel, and that nutritional labelling use is associated with healthier diets. That said, the effectiveness of nutrition facts labelling could be amplified in Canada by supplementing the labels with information such as a front-of-package traffic light system that requires fewer mathematical calculations and less time to interpret.

Such a system would also provide stronger incentives for food companies to reformulate their products to benefit from a healthier designation. Of course, nutrition label information that is now mandated by regulation in Canada, coupled with sensible nutrition criteria, would serve as the basis for the symbol designations. The use of a symbol could accommodate the menu space limitations that appeared, for instance, to underlie the restaurant industry's opposition to menu labelling provisions in Bill C-283 in November 2006.

The appeal of the front-of-package nutrition symbols is that they translate key nutrition information now in small print on food packages into easily recognizable universal symbols. This is even more important for chain restaurant foods where fine print is often available only on corporate websites, if at all.

Front label symbols that alert consumers to the healthfulness of foods: “We must make the healthy choice the easy choice” is a slogan popularized by the World Health Organization and used by the Minister of Health, Tony Clement. By simply glancing at the front label of a food package, consumers could immediately know roughly how healthful a food is.

In the absence of a Health Canada endorsed traffic light labelling system, food companies and others have developed their own front label symbols to indicate that a particular product is healthful, or at least better than some other foods. Indeed, some companies see consumers' confusion about how to structure a healthy diet as a marketing opportunity and use symbols to designate more healthful items to encourage shoppers to buy those products.

Existing symbols include PepsiCo's Smart Spot, Kraft's Sensible Solution, President's Choice's PC Blue Menu, and General Mills' Goodness Corner. These private systems all allow manufacturers to effectively promote their healthier products to consumers, but on the basis of self-chosen nutritional criteria. While those programs may be useful, they may also be deceptive, and because they have differing and sometimes weak criteria, taken together they may end up being more confusing than helpful to consumers.

For instance, according to The Globe and Mail nutrition columnist, Leslie Beck:

Packages of Kraft Dinner, President's Choice Rice Chips, Gatorade and Diet Pepsi are stamped with “good for you” decals, but health foods they're not...And many products would not meet the Heart and Stroke Foundation's nutrient criteria. According to Carol Dombrow, nutrition consultant for the Heart and Stroke Foundation, roughly 50 per cent of PepsiCo's Smart Spot products, for example, would not meet Health Check criteria.

The United States Institute of Medicine, in its report, Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity, stated:

While representing an important step to draw attention to more nutritious products, the array of categories, icons, and other graphics, as well as the different standards employed by these companies may introduce some confusion, particularly for young consumers, thereby raising the need for developing and regulating standard and consistent approaches...The FDA has not yet fully explored its potential role for providing leadership and experience to food companies in order to develop and enforce an industry-wide rating system and graphic representation on food labels that is appealing to children and youth to convey the nutritional quality of foods and beverages.

Action by Health Canada would bring consistent and reliable information to the marketplace and help consumers choose more helpful diets. A significant amount of U.S. research has already pointed to the potential value of front-of-pack nutrition and symbol systems, and last November the Select Standing Committee on Health of the British Columbia legislature recommended that its own government “develop warning labels alerting consumers to high fat, sugar, and salt foods, such as a red-amber-green system, and/or a calorie-load-per-serving system”.

You heard testimony earlier in the week about the U.K. signposting system. There are two other systems that I think merit the committee's attention. One is called the Swedish keyhole system. It identifies more healthful food choices within particular food categories like pizza, cheese, margarine, and so on. The approach differs significantly from the U.K. system of traffic lights, which calls for the use of colour-coded symbols, green, yellow, and red, on all foods, not just those that are relatively healthful within a specific food category.

The Swedish system, while useful, does not identify which foods are less healthy, and since 1989 the Swedish national food administration has allowed more nutritious foods within particular food categories to be labelled with a green keyhole system. One major Swedish retailer, ICA, has used the keyhole system and reports that in 2003 and 2004 sales for keyhole products rose by over 15%.

There is also one promising private system in the U.S. that merits special attention, the Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain star designation system. It established the star system for processed foods, in which some products receive no stars, one, two, or three stars, on a shelf marker next to the item price or on a sign. One star indicates a good choice, two stars indicate a better choice, and three stars indicate the healthiest choice. One advantage of this approach is that it is not binary but allows Hannaford to depict a gradation from less to more healthy. On the other hand, one may question the particular criteria and cut-offs used.

In the end, three-quarters of products sold received no stars because they're not especially healthful, as explained in a point-of-sale brochure. Such products as General Mills' Count Chocula, Cookie Crisp, and Trix cereals do not qualify for any of Hannaford's stars because of their high sugar content, yet those cereals carry the American Heart Association's heart check logo--as distinct from the Health Check logo here--on their labels because they are low in fat and cholesterol. Such inconsistent messages can only confuse consumers.

In conclusion, Health Canada should conduct a study of front-of-label nutrition traffic light systems by soliciting comments from scientists, health and communication experts, industry, and consumers on how best to rate and communicate to consumers through the use of symbols on food packages the nutritional quality of foods. It should also engage in consumer research to identify the program that would best help consumers choose healthful diets. Work already completed by the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Swedish government, supermarket chains, food manufacturers, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation and others could help inform this effort. Once Health Canada identifies the appropriate nutrition criteria and symbols, with explanatory words if necessary, it could determine whether the system should be voluntary or mandatory, although we strongly favour a mandatory system. Health Canada should also determine whether company and non-profit labelling programs that are inconsistent with the official labelling program are misleading and should be ended.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Now we will hear from industry. We have McCain Foods here, Fred Schaeffer.

[Fred Schaeffer, President and Chief Executive Officer, McCain Foods Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I appreciate the invitation to be with you here today.

For those I have not met, my name is Fred Schaeffer. I'm the president and CEO of McCain Foods Canada, as well as the current chair of Food and Consumer Products of Canada, the largest association in Canada representing the food and consumer products industry.

I'll structure my comments today around three topics. First, I'd like to provide my perspective on the significant efforts undertaken by the Canadian food industry to improve the health and wellness of the Canadian populous. Second, I would like to highlight some of the specific areas of focus and contribution made by McCain Foods in the area of health and wellness. Finally, I'd like to provide a perspective on the topic at hand, which is how to best move forward with some of the food labelling recommendations that may have come before this committee.

I'll start my comments by saying how proud I am to be part of the Canadian food industry. This is an industry that not only produces and distributes some of the safest and lowest-cost food products in the world, but it's also extremely responsive to our consumers' needs.

As an industry we employ roughly 350,000 Canadians and represent the single largest component of this country's manufacturing sector, producing over $80 billion in goods annually, with a quarter of that being destined for the export market. We are the largest purchaser of Canadian agricultural production--almost half of what's grown in Canada. We are the industry that believes in giving back to our communities. Our commitment to philanthropy can be underscored by the more than five million bags of groceries donated to food banks across Canada, as well as annual philanthropic contributions of more than $30 million.

We're also an industry that is committed to meeting the needs of our consumers. It is clear to me that our consumers want healthier, great-tasting foods. In fact, I believe that health and wellness is no longer a trend with our consumers, but rather a truth. When asked, 70% of consumers said they have made some changes to their diets in the last six months. When asked the type of changes they are making, consumers most often state that they are eating more fruits and vegetables and drinking more water. Consumers also tell us that they are reducing fat in their diets. This is clear evidence that there is demand for healthier, great-tasting foods.

It should not be surprising that with this kind of demand, our industry is responding. Today, eight out of ten food companies are working on healthier-for-you product options, with particular focus on reduced fat, sugar, and salt.

Industry efforts are not just limited to improving our products. Our industry is improving the visibility and knowledge of the nutritional content of our products, as well as promoting increased physical activity, which I hope you would agree is the other key element in the calories-in, calories-out balanced lifestyle equation.

On improving the visibility of the nutritional content our products, as you are no doubt aware and have heard today, the Canadian food industry has recently undergone a complete transformation of our packaging to now include the Canadian nutritional facts table. This facts table provides clear visibility to our consumers on calories and 13 different nutrients on both an absolute and percentage daily value basis. To quote from the Health Canada website, “This new nutrition labelling system, combined with public education, will help to reinforce information about healthy eating practices, increase understanding of the links between nutritional health and well-being, and help people reduce the risk of chronic nutrition-related diseases.”

The Canadian food industry has not only embraced the new nutritional labelling standards, but has also helped educate our consumers on the meaning of the facts panel by sponsoring such programs as Healthy Eating is in Store For You. Sponsorship of this educational program, in addition to 1-800 numbers and websites, helps educate Canadians on how to read the new nutritional facts table in order to make the right healthy food choices.

In addition to healthier food products and improved nutritional labelling, our industry has sought to educate Canadians on the benefits of combining increased physical activity with a healthy diet to achieve a balanced, healthy lifestyle. Our industry has invested millions of dollars in programs such as Long Live Kids, which are either fully sponsored by our industry or jointly sponsored with government and non-government organizations to educate both adults and children on the benefits of combining exercise with a healthy diet in order to live a healthy lifestyle.

In 2005 many members of our industry, including McCain Foods Canada, developed and signed a voluntary statement of commitment to show our support for healthy active living. The statement is based on the key areas identified by the World Health Organization where industry can contribute to healthy active living: products and choices, consumer information, advertising and marketing, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and workplace wellness. I have brought with me several copies of a brochure highlighting this effort, should the committee be interested in understanding our industry’s efforts in more detail.

The second portion of my remarks will be focused on the specific efforts of McCain Foods in the area of health and wellness.

We at McCain Foods Canada are aggressively working to improve the health and wellness of our consumers and employees. Our efforts are focused on improving the availability of healthier products, building awareness of healthy lifestyles among Canadians, and improving the health and wellness of our employees.

On the product front, I am pleased to report that by mid-year McCain Foods Canada will be using only non-hydrogenated oils in the production of our McCain-branded food service and retail potato products. This effort will remove approximately eight million pounds of trans and saturated fats from Canadians' diets annually.

While I'm on the subject of our potato products, I feel the urge to rectify a common misperception that french fries are inherently unhealthy foods. To state what might be blindingly obvious to some, but I can assure you not to all, french fries do indeed start from a potato. One small raw potato contains approximately 130 calories, has no fat or cholesterol, and is an excellent source of potassium and vitamin C, as well as being a source of iron and dietary fibre. An 85-gram serving of our oven-baked Superfries also contains 130 calories, is low in saturated fat, contains zero grams of trans fat or cholesterol, and is a source of potassium, vitamin C, iron, and dietary fibre.

In addition to making our french fries healthier for you, we have also introduced such healthier-for-you products as Cool Quenchers frozen fruit punches, with 50% less sugar, and McCain Smooth-eez, which have 2 servings of real fruit in every smoothie.

To help build awareness of healthier lifestyles, McCain Foods Canada has developed and broadcast several public-service-style spots that feature renowned cookbook author and authority on the art of eating and living well, Rose Reisman. These spots encourage Canadians to eat healthy foods, snack nutritiously, and exercise.

On the employee wellness front, McCain Foods has piloted an employee wellness program called McCain in Motion. This program encourages our employees to improve their physical fitness by increasing their activity. McCain in Motion is also a wellness education and awareness campaign. This program was initiated by our U.S. company, and McCain is currently in the process of rolling this out on a global basis.

The final topic I wanted to touch upon is McCain's view of the ever-expanding number of nutritional labelling programs that are proliferating around the globe. As you may be aware, McCain Foods is a Canadian-owned, privately held, $6 billion global manufacturer of predominantly frozen food products. We do business in 110 countries around the world. In each of the countries in which we do business, our approach to nutritional labelling is guided by local regulatory guidelines and legislation. In the absence of any clear regulation, McCain Foods, like most other consumer products companies, follows the conventional wisdom of local industry best practices.

In Canada, McCain Foods has embraced the mandatory nutritional labelling guidelines that include the use of the nutrition facts table. We also answer consumer questions regarding the nutritional properties of our products via our 1-800 number and our Internet portal, available on practically all of our retail products.

It's my understanding that one of the programs being evaluated by this committee is the so-called traffic light or stoplight program utilized by several companies, including McCain Foods in the United Kingdom. That program was adopted by our U.K. business unit as a result of two factors. First, there is no mandatory front-of-pack nutritional labelling program in Great Britain, as all programs are voluntary. Second, there was no clear industry best practice or consensus guiding front-of-package food nutritional labelling in Great Britain.

As a result, our Great Britain business decided to stick a foot in each pond by utilizing both the GDA and traffic light systems in a hybrid label in order to see what would work best for their consumers. In the future, should industry consensus and best practices emerge, it would be the intention of our Great Britain office to follow that consensus.

As for McCain Foods Canada's view of the use of a similar traffic light system based in this country, I can clearly state that we do not believe it would be in the best interest of our consumers. Frankly, we believe the current nutrition facts table is superior to the GB traffic light system in that it allows consumers to quickly and easily make informed choices, allows consumers to make meaningful comparisons between products, informs consumers on how to manage their total diet, and educates consumers about the nutritional content of foods. From the research I have seen from Great Britain, there does not appear to be a clear preference among consumers for a stoplight system.

Where should Canada be heading? I can only say that I believe off-the-shelf solutions from other jurisdictions with different public health profiles are not the answer. The current made-in-Canada solution seems to be meeting Canadian needs. In fact, according to research conducted by the Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition and Ipsos Reid, 77% of Canadians reported that they use the nutritional facts table as their source of information on food and nutrition, and nearly half of Canadians say that information provided on the nutritional facts table influences their decision of whether or not to buy a food or beverage product. In light of these results, any alternative labelling option should be carefully researched to ensure that it truly enhances and does not confuse the consumer's understanding of nutritional information and that it provides accurate and scientifically sound information.

Before we introduce new gimmicks to our consumers, I believe we should continue to spend our time, energy, and resources on encouraging Canadians to use, as well as on helping them understand how to use, the current nutritional facts table. In public policy, as in business, sometimes it is harder to stay the course and continue to support an existing strategy than it is to succumb to the temptation of something new.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much for the testimony.

We now will move to the questioning part of our meeting. We'll start with Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to our guests for their presentations. I can tell that each and every one of you takes a great deal of pride in your work and demonstrates a real interest and commitment to what you do.

Mr. Chairman, my first question is for Ms. Bryanton. Seeing as her agency is responsible for identifying non-compliant labelling, including any that is misleading, I'd like to know how many field inspectors are employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and what percentage of their time they spend reviewing labels?

[Debra Bryanton]

Thank you for the question.

The agency has over 6,000 employees. Those 6,000 employees are engaged in our programs for animal health, plant health, and food safety and inspection. With regard to labelling programs specifically, we don't break out the FTEs that would be specific to a nutrition labelling program or other labelling programs as these activities are incorporated into more general food inspection programs. I would estimate that we have about 60 FTEs who are engaged in the verification of labels and label claims across the range of labelling requirements.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Do these inspectors only investigate complaints regarding labels, or do they do that as part of active surveillance?

[Debra Bryanton]

We have two programs within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under which there is a mandatory label pre-registration requirement. For our domestic and imported meat inspection program, labels are forwarded to the agency for assessment and review. All of those labels would be reviewed. As well, labels that come under our processed product regulations, which are primarily for canned and frozen fruits and vegetables, are also reviewed on a mandatory basis. For other program areas, when it comes to nutrition labelling in particular, the nutrition labelling provisions are complex. The approach we have used for enforcement of these regulations begins with an educational approach that is more persuasive than punitive in its early years.

We have worked with industry on tools to help industry sectors design labels and also to help industry understand our expectations when it comes to the information that should be available in verifying the accuracy of the information that is on the labels. With nutrition labelling becoming mandatory for the larger companies, we have done general reviews to see if the nutrition facts table is indeed being used and if claims associated with that label are accurate. In future years we will work on a sectoral basis, looking more in depth at particular sectors to verify, both at the plant level and in some cases through testing programs, whether the statements that are on labels are indeed correct.

We also follow up on complaints. Complaints can arise with regard to the changes that need to be made to labels. How quickly those changes need to be made depends on whether the violation has a more immediate health and safety potential, or if it's more related just to the formatting. If it presents a health and safety concern, we do require that the label be changed immediately.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to ask Ms. Beauvais about this study on page 7 of her presentation, which was also quoted by a representative of McCain Foods. I think it was Ipsos Reid that did the survey. It said that “...77% of Canadians get nutrition information from product labels. In addition...67% of Canadians reported that they were able to find what they were looking for...”.

Do you know the sample size of that study and the methodology? Was it a phone survey?

[Janet Beauvais]

I don't recall the exact sample size, but it was in the order of a few thousand, and it was done by phone. It's from the Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition, its Tracking Nutrition Trends Survey. It was basically a phone survey to ask Canadians about their habits.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Self-reporting?

[Janet Beauvais]

Self-reporting, yes.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I have to say that when I'm in the grocery store I see an awful lot of busy people filling their shopping baskets without even breaking stride. Some of them seem to be sprinting, and I don't think they're really stopping to look. But all of them know they should be looking at the labels for nutritional reasons. When they're being asked to self-report, they're going to think the questioner expects them to say, “Oh yes, I do that”, so they're going to say it. I personally don't believe this, particularly when it conflicts with recent literacy and numeracy surveys that show that half the Canadian population lacks sufficient skills to understand the current food labels--whether it's from the literacy or the numeracy perspective.

Don't you think you're at risk when you quote this study from the nutrition tracking survey?

[Janet Beauvais]

Yes, I think that conducting surveys is often difficult when they're self-reporting. At this point it's an opportunity to track changes in people's awareness over time. Whether the awareness translates into a different action is a separate question that needs to be approached in a different way.

We do see that people very often consult the labels when they buy a product for the first time. They may not consult it each time, or they may not consult it all the time, but once in a while they do. A large number of Canadians are consulting labels at some point during their shopping.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Schaeffer seems to be fairly happy with our nutrition labels as they have been introduced in the last couple of years, and he seems to be resisting the stoplight method. Am I correct?

[Fred Schaeffer]

Correct.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Have you considered a hybrid system whereby we retain the good work that has been done on our content labels, but we might inject small symbols such as a stoplight, maybe similar to the stoplight system used in the U.K.?

[Fred Schaeffer]

For me, I think the issue is not really about whether there is a second system that could be complementary, but what that second system is. For example, the reason we're not as thrilled about the U.K. system is that it doesn't allow comparison across categories, or even within categories. For example, if you take a low-fat cheese and a regular cheese, both rate high in fat within the stoplight system, yet one actually is a better choice than the other.

So it's a bit of “the devil is in the detail” on how you design your system versus things being good or bad. You have to make sure we're not confusing consumers and that we're allowing them to make meaningful comparisons. That is really the message I'm trying to leave with you today.