The food guide takes years to change each time we make revisions to it. It is a very intensive process. I hope I wasn't giving the impression that it would be referenced. I was just underscoring the point that it would be aligned with that.
Take, for example, the consumption of whole foods, like fresh fruits and vegetables, milk and dairy, and nutritious products like whole grains. It's all something that we recommend people have as part of their daily intake. Those products would not be included in something that we would prevent advertising for.
Conversely, as I noted, if we say “unprocessed”, milk would not be included in that. Frozen vegetables and canned vegetables that have no added sugar, salt or fat would not be included in that. I wanted to underscore that the “unprocessed” term may not necessarily capture what people intend to capture.
Again, the food guide is another source document that has a lot of evidence that's supported. What we propose is that it be a nutrient-based model, so you would have types of products and then you would have nutrient levels. If they were beyond those nutrient levels, because they would be the ones that are deemed to potentially contribute to a diet that would not be healthy, they would be the products that are included.
There would be a science-based process to go along with that. There's a cost-benefit analysis that goes with that. There's the consultation process.
I'll offer one option that we consulted on previously on this side of things. We were looking at whether or not “added”—as in “added to foods”—would be the terminology. It would be “products without added X, Y and Z”, and you could define those in the other terms.
However, the science changes, and wiring things in at the act level makes it very complicated to change. There's a process for regulations. They are not quick either. They usually take a couple of years, but at least, if something changes, there is a way to modify them.