Health Committee on March 1st, 2011

[Véronique Provencher]

This is a good question. Actually, it is true that it is difficult because, once again, we are classifying food by dividing what is good for our health from what is not. To some extent, that is actually the danger in wanting to put too many labels on things, to put foods that seem to be healthy on a pedestal, while completely banishing or banning other foods. So that is something we have to pay specific attention to.

Up to now, the studies that we are beginning to conduct on the traffic light method are suggesting that the practice helps to inform people about the benefits of food for their health and to determine if one item is nutritionally better than another. But the practice still does not seem to influence people's ultimate choices or to have any direct impact on the buying behaviour of consumers.

People will not necessarily automatically choose food that they perceive as being better for their health. We also have to take into account issues such as price, taste and purchasing habits. The decision to buy is a complex one and the same applies to consumption because many other factors also come into play.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

In your opinion, do we see the same thing here, with the various logos and health claims that we see on products? When all is said and done, does that really influence the consumer?

[Véronique Provencher]

In fact, I think that that could create confusion in a way. For example, when we mention "low fat" or "no trans fats", it basically indicates a positive quality in the food. However, if we put the same label on food that is higher in calorie content, such as cookies or other kinds of snacks, it could give the impression that, since there are no trans fats or saturated fats, we can eat as much as we want because it is good for the health. This skews the accepted standard, and people tell themselves that, because it's healthier, they can afford to eat a little more of it.

This is more or less the idea that has come out of our work. It is possible to objectively denote the food value of one kind of food as compared to another, but we must be careful with making inferences about the claims. This is not ill will on the part of people and it does not mean that they are not intelligent, it is simply because we have 50,000 decisions to make on a daily basis and we must sometimes make very quick choices. So that can be an influencing factor.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Duhamel, you mentioned criteria that could be compared, systematic criteria, if you will. How can we establish criteria like that? Would it be easy to do? How much time would it take to sit people down around a table and come to an agreement on standards?

We have seen think tanks on trans fats—Mr. Hunter referred to them—and think tanks on salt. All this takes time, because we have the industry, we have consumers and we have experts. Various points of view must be considered when it comes to establishing comparable standards.

Is it possible to do that? If it is, how do you think we could go about it?

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

Regarding the "how" of it, I would rather let the Health Canada officials give you the proper answer, because they are generally the ones who have to deal with the problem.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Give us some clues.

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

The beauty of this problem is its relative simplicity. We have agreed to some extent about standard servings for certain kinds of comparable products. For people suffering from diabetes, there are standard servings according to the type of food. So we already have precedents we could rely on to find and identify standard servings. Making sure that everyone agrees is an extra step, but, as I was saying, there is already a precedent. All we would have to do afterwards would be to agree to implement standard servings. This is very different from the problem with trans fats when we had to find substitute products, or with other types of products where we absolutely must find another alternative. This is not a situation where an alternative must be found. We just have to agree on how to implement the precedent.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

For example, could it take a week to change the servings shown on the cereal containers that you brought?

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

I do not want to speak for the agrifood industry or about any imperatives they have.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

No, but if everyone agrees to say a cup, then we go with the cup.

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

It would be interesting to use what is currently being done with other groups. I come back to the example of the diabetics because, for them, it is really important to have a basis for comparison. They already have their concept of a standard serving. The Canadian Food Guide already provides the size of a standard serving, a standard serving of cereal, for example. It should be enough to bring everyone around the table and to agree that we are going to use the same standard servings. This is not a scientific issue, far from it. Everyone just needs to have the will to agree.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

For example, Mr. Sherwood, would it be...

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you, Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Would it be easy to establish a standard serving for...

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

That's it. Thank you.

Ms. Leslie, you have seven minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here.

My questions are for Mr. Duhamel and Mr. Provencher.

First, Monsieur Duhamel, I heard you say at the end of your presentation that your position on natural health products and beverages is.... Actually, that's what I have written down here: “is...”.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Can you tell me what your position is? Perhaps you can take this chance to explain it a little more fully.

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

Our position is quite clear on that, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer that question and to provide the committee with our statement on it. We would like to see natural health products that are sold as food to be labelled as food and evaluated as food. They are food products and are sold as food products, and it's very hard for the consumer to see the difference between a bottle like this one--

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's a natural health product.

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

No, it's considered food and beverage; it has a nutritional label on it.

This one here doesn't.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

So that's a natural health product. All right.

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

Let's take this one here, so that we have two comparables. They are sold in the same vending machines. It's very difficult to rate the difference and to make a comparison. If you want to know what you're having or what you're drinking, it's very hard to make the comparison; it's hard even for a health professional, so we're asking for everything that is sold as food and meant to be consumed as food to be labelled under and subjected to the same law, which is the Food and Drugs Act in Canada.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Just so I understand, you're saying that it's for things that are sold as food. Beverages, for example, are clearly sold as food--

[Paul-Guy Duhamel]

Well, these are the examples that I have here.