Thank you.
Last week before the transport committee I spoke about just-in-time delivery. My apologies for being, almost, quite late.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.
To date, our association has not prepared a formal submission. My comments today are intended to provide a broader perspective of elements of a national food policy that are already in existence and that need to be taken into account in consideration of what could be a more clearly defined new national policy.
In preparing my comments, I revisited the ministerial mandate letter addressed to Minister MacAulay in early 2016. That letter identified the following priorities, among others: attracting “investment” and creating “good jobs in food processing”; supporting “discovery science and innovation in the sector”; and developing “a food policy that promotes healthy living and safe food by putting more healthy, high-quality food, produced by Canadian ranchers and farmers, on the tables of families across the country”.
The current consultation on a national food policy translated that into the four themes of “improving Canadians' access to affordable, nutritious, and safe food”; “increasing Canadians' ability to make healthy and safe food choices”; “using environmentally sustainable practices to ensure Canadians have a long-term, reliable, and abundant supply of food”; and “ensuring Canadian farmers and food processors are able to adapt to changing conditions to provide more safe and healthy food to consumers in Canada and around the world”. These priorities and themes are not necessarily aligned, could possibly conflict with one another, and may actually not represent what is happening in Canada today.
I worked to try to capture seven or eight points that speak to this idea of looking more broadly at context and perspective. I really wasn't able to do a very good job of it, to deliver in seven minutes. I'll be able to touch on a few, and I will be preparing a written submission to the committee, to follow.
First, I would like to offer a comment about more food on the tables of families across the country, one of the themes. Canadians are actually being encouraged by Health Canada and non-government advisers to eat less food while making healthier choices and changing their dietary behaviour. This, combined with Canada's rapidly aging population and slow population growth—which is about 1.1% a year—suggests that we are going to see little growth in demand for food, in contrast with some of these objectives of the national policy. The rate of growth of Canada's capacity to grow and process food will actually outstrip growth in demand domestically.
The words “safe food” appear three times in the seven points I have mentioned so far. It should interest members of this committee to know that an organization called the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition—of which CNMA is a member—has been calling for the development and adoption of a national food safety strategy for over a decade. Mr. Albert Chambers, who is the executive director of the coalition, has requested an opportunity to appear before this committee, and I encourage you to invite him.
The key point is that a national food safety strategy is probably an integral part of a national food policy. The references to safe food might lead readers of the consultation document to conclude that we don't have a safe food supply today and we need to invest more resources in improving food safety. A key point I wish to make is that the food sector has been strongly advocating not just a strategy but modern, science-based food inspection and food safety legislation.
In the context of considering a national food policy, there is an urgent need to reconcile the messages being provided to Canadian consumers on the subject of food safety. CFIA and the Public Health Agency of Canada have on their website, and continue to tell consumers, that four million consumers will suffer a food-borne illness in Canada annually. That's one in nine residents of Canada who will have a food-borne illness. The actual number, based on surveillance that's been going on for several years, is less than 25,000. Food-borne illness is one of the least likely causes of death in Canada. At the same time, we're telling consumers here and in other markets that we have an enviable record of food safety and a reliable food supply that will always be safe. Also, I should add that consumers in Canada are spending billions of dollars annually on food safety, because the food producers and manufacturers are spending those dollars in getting food to market.
Where Canadian regulators and agencies need to invest more resources is in the education of consumers about safe food storage, handling, and cooking. Farmers, food processors, and retailers do not have control over what happens in home kitchens. That is where a great deal of work needs to be done.
We also need to reconcile the federal government messages about nutrition and health. There is insufficient time to speak to it, but I would ask members of the committee to note that Health Canada is in the process of changing the number of food labelling requirements that will depict some foods as good foods and some foods as bad foods. Historically, our sector has taken the view that all foods are nutritious and make a contribution to health and nutrition, but this is changing with proposals that are neither evidence-based nor science-based coming from Health Canada at this time.
In fact, if adopted, the new dietary guidelines will discourage consumers from eating enriched white bread, hamburger buns, hot dog buns, and other bakery products made with enriched flour. The folic acid that is added to enriched flour by regulation since 1998 has reduced neural tube defects, otherwise known as spina bifida and hydrocephalus, in Canada by 50% annually since the year 2000. This is a population health outcome lobbied for and advocated by our industry in conjunction with the Baking Association of Canada and others. These kinds of subtle things need to be taken into account.
Finally, other proposed regulatory amendments that are out there will prohibit the advertising of food to children, “children” being defined as those under 17 years of age. If these are adopted in Canada, a 16-year-old will be able to drive a car and make his or her own choices about health care decisions but will be prohibited from receiving advertising about food.
These are real proposals that are out there now. They are accessible on Health Canada's website. My colleague Paul Hetherington, president of the Baking Association of Canada, would be delighted to appear, I'm sure, to explain the implications.
Overall, I think what we have to understand is that a great deal of work has been done by industry and government on elements of a robust food regulatory framework, advertising standards, and food safety in the supply chain. All of these elements are present; they need to be drawn into the consideration of developing a policy.
Thank you.