We're very cognizant of the cost of label changes. Within our membership, there are large players and small players. Our members have a predisposition to buy locally. This gets complicated for those small producers who have the need, at great charge to them, to do the nutritional labelling and meet the requirements.
One of the issues is that the definition needs to be clearly communicated. The label is only one medium for communicating a message. The reason there seems to be a gap, or in some cases a misunderstanding on the part of consumers, is that there are some products that really aren't the 51%. There are products like a 20-ingredient chicken pot pie, where the ingredients may come from a variety of places. It really doesn't fit into the existing guidelines.
We were proposing that the “100% Canadian” should have its own separate branding and identity. This may be on the label or it may be communicated through any one of a number of mediums, as long as it means the same thing and meets with our trading partners' standards.