Health Committee on Dec. 5th, 2011

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

The more effective approach then, from my perspective, is educating people. I still don't see how, if you reduce the sodium in something, people aren't just going to reach for the salt shaker at the table to make up for it. I guess my question would be this. Is a legislated reduction really going to be that effective, or do we need to move more towards educating people on the danger of a high sodium diet?

[Catherine MacLeod]

Certainly the government is not looking at a regulatory solution. It's a voluntary approach that focuses very much, as you indicated, on the importance of education and awareness. That's really a foundational component of the approach going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

Now we'll go to Dr. Sellah.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today, as well as the media representatives, whom we sometimes forget.

I know that pursuant to the regulations, since 2007 it is mandatory that nutrition facts tables be placed on all prepackaged foods. These tables provide information on the calories contained in the food, as well as on 13 nutrients such as fats, carbohydrates, cholesterol, sodium, proteins and certain vitamins and minerals. However, I feel that the nutrition facts table does not distinguish between those substances that should be minimized in our diet, such as saturated fats, sodium and sugar, and those that should be maximized, such as fibre, protein, vitamins and minerals.

Has any consideration been given to this by Health Canada? And do you think that Canadians are generally well-versed in the differences among the various types of fats and carbohydrates and why some are better then others in the diet?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to answer that?

[Catherine MacLeod]

I'll ask Dr. Hutchinson to respond to that question, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Hutchinson.

[Dr. Hasan Hutchinson]

Thank you very much.

You're right, of course, that it has been fully implemented since 2007. We're coming up to its fifth year soon. Next year we'll be five years in, and Health Canada is certainly committed to doing a review of the regulatory actions with respect to the nutrition facts table.

Those are certainly matters that will be looked at, including whether people are understanding what is meant by the nutrition facts table, whether there should be more nutrients added to it or some taken away, or whether the daily value is the appropriate value. All of those are part of a comprehensive approach we're going to be taking to assess the nutrition facts table in this next year.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Chair, I will continue on the topic of sound nutrition.

Doctor, could you talk to us briefly about the results of the campaign you launched on food and consumer products in Canada, the objective of which was to promote education in that area?

[Dr. Hasan Hutchinson]

Thank you very much.

We have had lots of preliminary results as well. As I mentioned earlier, we launched this about a year ago. It is a very multi-dimensional approach that we're taking. There are TV ads, radio ads, websites, on-package as well, so it's quite broad.

We have been trying to get an idea of the sort of effect we've had. With respect to the on-package, we wanted to have a target of 100 million impressions out there, and we know that we've actually been up to about 300 million impressions in the last year. So with respect to getting the message out there, that is happening. You'll find it on the back of all sorts of different products out there, and there is quite a comprehensive spectrum of different products.

I think I mentioned earlier that McDonald's was one of the companies that came in as well. On the backs of their tray liners they have put forward our messages about the nutrition facts table, and they've had over 90 million impressions on their tray liners distributed across Canada.

We know that Walmart has been running the ads on their in-store TVs for about two or three months.

We've had the Canadian Obesity Network, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and the Dietitians of Canada. We've had a number of different NGOs incorporate it into their websites. The Dietitians of Canada have also included it as part of their message in their new cookbook. So we really have had quite a reach.

Now, whether that reach has an effect is what we really want to know. We've done a lot there.

As well, what we were able to do in working with an industry association was to leverage their buying capacity for media. With respect to Health Canada, our financial input on that was about $600,000. Through their capacity to do media buys, that was leveraged up to about a $4-million media buy. On top of that of course, we have the on-package. We will get the estimates there, but that's worth millions of dollars as well. In terms of return on investment, we've probably put in about $600,000 for what is probably a $6-million campaign. From that perspective, it's been very good.

The other thing we sometimes get concerned about when we're working with industry is whether they are misusing our messages, but we have final sign-off on the messages. We did do some research with Nielsen, for instance, and we know it has had a fairly good recall—an 18% recall. The important part is that of those who recalled the message, 56% said they would make a behavioural change. I think that means we have the right message.

What we're working on now is the reach and the right media mix as we go forward into year two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Hutchinson, for the very interesting reply.

We'll now go to Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to explore something that hasn't been discussed, and that's the relationship between personal genetics versus diet and exercise. We all have that mythical Uncle Pete who lived to age 98 and smoked and drank every single day of his life; and then we have cousin Bill, who did everything right and died of a heart attack at age 55. That tells me there is a genetic predisposition to certain health outcomes.

I know this is a big topic, but can somebody address the issue of genetic predisposition versus active things that we can do? All I've heard today is that all of our health outcomes are totally under our control, but I don't think genetic science supports that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

That's a very good question, Mr. Sopuck.

Who would like to take that on?

Dr. Sherman.

[Dr. Philip Sherman]

It is a very good question, and I'll take it on as best I can.

You are absolutely correct. There is a genetic predisposition to body weight...very thin or very overweight. But the obesity epidemic has occurred in one generation, so there is basically a lot more going on than genetics. That isn't to underestimate genetics; it's a very powerful thing that is being looked at as we speak.

It's clear, though, that there are also other things, such as epigenetic changes, that could have an impact in one generation, for example, the impact on mothers and the baby in utero as a fetus, and in the first year of life. Those impacts can have great influence on how you turn out as a teenager and as an adult. It might be that this is why the early interventions you heard about are so critical.

CIHR is funding research on nutrigenomics and metabolomics, that is, the impact on mammals, including humans, in response to various foods and various constituents in foods. There is a great interest in that area, and Canadian researchers are at the forefront in the world in looking at nutrigenomics and metabolomics. Those are fields of research related to nutrition and health.

Did I confuse you with all of those big words?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

No, that's fine.

One thing we have to be cognizant of as we look back at our evolutionary history is that we have a genetic predisposition to really enjoy eating and storing fat. It's what our primate ancestors did, because they never got much fat. We obviously have a surplus of fat in our diets now, but we still have the ability to store fat. I think the same thing goes for salt. So you're up against some pretty powerful evolutionary forces that make us do what we do.

I heard comments about aboriginal communities and urban communities, but there are a vast number of communities that I didn't hear mentioned, and those are our rural and agricultural communities.

Can some of you address the health issues in those communities? I also include our natural resource communities in that category.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that question?

Ms. Elmslie.

[Kim Elmslie]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a really good question. Certainly the issues facing our rural communities differ in many ways from those in urban communities, as we all know. Health status there, depending on what rural community you happen to live in, may be quite different from that in urban communities.

We know, when we look across the country at health outcomes, that there are differences between urban and rural communities, and therefore we are looking differently at those communities and the types of interventions that work specifically for those communities. It's back to the adage that one size doesn't fit all. We need to consider access to health services in those communities; we need to consider the incentives for physical activity in those communities and how we, as a federal government, provide the research underpinnings and the information around what works when we're looking at chronic disease prevention in those communities.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Here is one last point. I represent a rural constituency, and thousands of my constituents are absolutely fanatical, mad gardeners. Exploring the relationship between growing your own food, which you can do on a surprisingly small amount of land, and the spiritual and health benefits of doing that is something that I think is worth looking at.

Is there anything in that regard that any of you, with your various organizations, have looked at?

I guess not.

[Kim Elmslie]

If you don't mind, Madam Chair, let me get back to you on that. Nothing specific is coming to mind, but it's a very interesting question, and I'd like to go back and talk to my colleagues about it.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I would really appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Well, thank you.

You haven't covered the issue, Mr. Sopuck, of hunting. You go out in the woods and you hunt your meat and you can your food. Growing up on a farm, I know the benefits of some of that as well.

We've come to the end of our list of questions from all sides of the House. I want to thank the witnesses for coming today. You've added greatly to what we're trying to do on the health committee.

I will adjourn the committee for today.