Evidence of meeting #22 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay, Madam Gagnon.
Please reply very quickly on that question, and then we'll move on.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Very quickly, we are at a point where we've gone through an extensive consultation. You've had opinions tabled stating that people didn't feel it was the type of consultation that was needed. At the same time, you need to appreciate many people have had input into this, very well placed, who have had lots to say to us.
I can only say to you that the process that was undertaken has been under way now since 2005. We're just at the final placement of coming out with a food guide. It's something that—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
No, that's okay. I think we got the understanding there.
I'm sorry, your time is gone. You'll have to get back to it in the second round.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming.
Obviously the food guide has been of interest at the committee, which suggests it is of interest to a lot of Canadians. Having this discussion is valuable because there are concerns that have come up at committee and among those at the table. We also recognize that decisions have to be made in the end anyway. You have to come to a conclusion and put out the best product you can with the input with which you've been provided, and I'm sure that is happening.
I have two questions.
One, why are we revising the food guide? Presumably things that were healthy thirty years ago or healthy twenty years ago are healthy at present and will be healthy in the future.
Also, how does our food guide compare with those of other OECD countries as far as recommended calorie intake, food portions, the food groups, and all those sorts of things are concerned? How does it compare with the United States? How does it compare with the U.K. or France or Australia?
If you could, please answer those questions.
Also, on your website, are there links to those other jurisdictions that allow Canadians to compare the various food guides in different countries?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Let me start with the last one. No, there aren't, but it's a very interesting suggestion.
The first question was about why we are revising the food guide. In fact, we didn't enter into that lightly. We actually did a very comprehensive review of the 1992 food guide to assess, one, whether it was still solid in terms of the new dietary reference intake material; and two, whether it was a food guide that was performing to the degree that people understood what its messages were.
We had quite a comprehensive review, and through that review we heard there were many challenges. It was because of the many challenges that people had in understanding; because we had the new work out of the Institute of Medicine, the dietary reference intake work; because there was new science that looks at associating foods, food patterns, chronic disease outcome—for all of those reasons—that we initiated the revision of Canada's Food Guide.
How do we compare to other countries? We look at the food guides of other countries. I've brought a couple of the graphics along with me. We anchor very closely to ask how we compare, say, to the U.S. and their food pyramid. I would say there are many similarities and there are many differences, and I'd like to think we're improving on what other countries have done. We have learned from some of the feedback that has been given around the food patterns that have been issued. That's what is leading us to try to strengthen this particular iteration.
Janet, do you have anything?
4:15 p.m.
Janet Pronk Acting Director, Policy and Standard Setting, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Department of Health
No, I don't. I think you've covered most of the points here. One of the main reasons beyond the scientific aspect was to make sure the messages in the food guide were coherent and ones that people could implement. Certainly, when we reviewed the 1992 food guide, we heard there were many issues associated with that ability to implement the guidance in the 1992 food guide.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Perhaps you may want to consider that if someone is actually keen enough to go to the website to see the food guide, they may be keen enough to compare Canada's Food Guide with that of other countries, and maybe a comparison can be made on the website. Perhaps this would be helpful and add more flexibility to the understanding Canadians have of the food guide.
Mr. Chair, those are my questions.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Thank you very much.
I'd like to ask a couple of questions.
One is for Ms. Bush. You mentioned the performance of the food guide, and we heard earlier that there was no sort of effort to monitor the impacts of the food guide. Can you explain to us why that is so?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Okay, I think it's a very good question.
Let me go back. It's important for you to know that for over 30 years we didn't even known what Canadians eat in this country. We haven't had the data to tell us what Canadians are eating. In the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey, we had good data on what Canadians are eating for the first time.
So in terms of assessing the impact or usefulness of a food guide to change behaviour, you ask, what behaviour? The behaviour you're looking at. So what does the food pattern look like? I always say I'm going to be reincarnated on the tobacco file or the physical activity file, because it's so much easier. It's a case of you don't smoke or you do smoke; you're physically active or you're physically inactive.
With the food guide, and with food patterns and food consumption behaviours, and identifying and measuring the impact of the food guide on those behaviours, it's not a quick screener. You're really looking at what is the impact on behaviour and does it change people in a direction that you want to take?
So it's a more complex evaluation. It's not to say there haven't been evaluations undertaken in academia and elsewhere that looked at it and said what and how the food guide performs. We actually undertook this in our review. At the very least, we wanted to know if people understand what the 1992 food guide is saying to them. What is it they're challenged with? And from that, we learned.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Is that when you received the information you referred to in 2004? Was that the point at which you said, okay, something's not working here? The obesity levels are rising in Canadians. Was there a correlation?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
No. Just to anchor this, the food guide was under review. In January 2004 we said, let's all look at what we've learned from the review, and then let's agree that we need to revise. So that was the timeframe and how this evolved.
For us, the obesity issue is very significant. I would go back to December 2001 when, with Obesity Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, we held a two-day meeting in Toronto to look at what's going on with obesity and healthy weights. What's causing it? What needs to be done? How do we proceed?
We look at obesity and have a fairly significant interest in understanding it, quite apart from the food guide. For the food guide, we want to make sure that what we're doing is providing guidance that Canadians can follow so they can consume a pattern that's not going to deliver excess energy.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
I'd also like to ask you a question around the aboriginal community and obesity, which we've heard again and again is a significant issue, because obesity amongst aboriginal youth is much higher than among Canadian youth. I'd like to ask specifically about the consultation process that is occurring at the moment.
First, can we get a list of who's involved with the consultation process; and also, could you give us a bit of information on the needs assessment that was done?
4:20 p.m.
Lori Doran Acting Director, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Department of Health
Okay, sure. We can provide a list of the people who have been involved. We've engaged people at the needs assessment stage, we've assembled a nine-member advisory group, and we've also gone out to a broader group of stakeholders. We've provided other lists for the main guide process to the department to submit to this committee.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Right, you have that in your thing here.
I'll ask a specific question. Are the nutrient requirements, which seems to be a priority of the food guide, also a priority in the development of the tailored food guide for the aboriginal community?
4:25 p.m.
Acting Director, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Department of Health
The tailored food guide is based on the same dietary pattern as the main Canada's Food Guide. We don't have sufficient data that a different pattern is required. The pattern, as Mary has pointed out, is based on the dietary reference intakes that apply to all Canadians to ensure that all Canadians consume sufficient nutrients and are at lower risk for chronic disease and obesity.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to start with a brief preamble and leave a couple of minutes for answers.
First of all, I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming here to this committee. I'd like to congratulate you and thank you for the great work that you do on this file. This is a mammoth task, and I don't think anyone around this table thinks this is easy. We're simply trying to make some suggestions that will improve the health outcomes of Canadians.
I'll ask my questions all at once and then give you a chance to respond, Ms. Bush, or whoever chooses to respond.
Is this a fait acompli? Are you here today and saying that basically it's a done deal, the thing is put together, it's basically ready to go to printing; that this is all very interesting, but the new food guide is put together and ready to go?
I'm going to back up a bit, Mr. Chair, and say to Ms. Brulé that her comment that you can't blame obesity on the pyramid is certainly a point well taken.
If it's not a fait accompli, I'd urge you to make it as easy as possible. That's been my comment as the food guide has been brought up. Hopefully this is a user-friendly food guide.
My next question is, could you expand upon how you're going to get the message out? I heard you say something about something for the fridge, which is very fitting. Maybe it could be a pared-down highlights card of the consumer hard copy. Let's be honest, no one is going to read the consumer hard copy if it's any more than four pages long. I would ultimately like to see a laminated card that's double-sided, flashy, and delivers all the messages. That may not be possible, but a highlighted card that could be distributed in a general practitioner's office would be excellent.
How are you going to get the message out? That's my question. I'd urge a massive television campaign, and I think you'd have great success in disseminating the message through that medium.
My final question would be, have you considered having recipe books that comply with the Canada's Food Guide recommendations? Have Canadians submit recipes that might comply. There could be endless recipes, and people could just click on the web or buy it. Now, that's something I'd buy, a recipe book that would comply, but I'm not going to buy the consumer hard copy and go through all the different servings and portions.
Those are my questions. First, is it is fait accompli? Second, how will you get the message out? Are you considering these helpful ways of getting that message out?
Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I did know he was a good eater, but I didn't know he was a chef.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
The food guide is never finished until we receive concurrence from the minister, and we are just at that final, moving it through the department, taking a look at it stage. We've got one or two further pieces that we're investigating, but we're quite close. Is it finished? Is it nailed shut? No. Is it almost there? Yes.
To your easy as possible, user-friendly, let's be clear suggestion, one of the things we heard was that eight pages is too long, way too long. One of the things we had to do when we went around to regional meetings, and this is what we went out with, was put it together again properly, because nobody had put it together properly. That's exactly the kind of thing we learned.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
We're not looking at eight pages; I think we're looking at six. So it's a much shorter piece—
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Well, those extensions are exactly what we're looking at right now. Indeed, we're looking at the web as providing us a wonderful opportunity to get very focused.
I'll tell you what the challenge is here. We had a tear sheet in 1992. We went out and did our review. And what did everyone say to us? They said, I don't get it; you just don't give us enough information; and you use words like “moderate”, but you don't tell us what it means.
So what we did was take all of that and say we have to be better than this. We have to tell people a little bit more. We heard from people that they don't know how to even go about putting this together; that they're confused about servings. We've taken all of that into consideration, so that we can make this next cut one that answers all of that.
In terms of TV and extensions, we are, as we speak, looking first at the costs and second at what we can do. And third, part of what we learned from our consultation was that people said, you don't put this on prime time; you don't sell it; you don't move out the message; you have to do a better job. So yes, all of that is part and parcel of what we're looking at right now.
