moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek to ensure that all manufacturers of foods and beverages be required to print "best before" and expiration dates clearly and legibly on the outside of the product packaging in a non-encoded format.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage each member to support Motion No. 217.
Simply put, this motion is about the integrity of Canadian food in terms of freshness information, quality and health safety, as well as the interests of food manufacturers.
Where safety is the primary concern, an expiration date is critical. Products which pass their expiration date must be removed from the shelves. This applies primarily to vitamin products and single source foods which supply basic nutrition such as infant formula. The problem in the latter case may be one of loss of vital nutritional quality which could seriously affect the health of infants.
I would like to focus, however, the remainder of my debate on the issue of best-before dates. But whether we speak of best-before or expiration dates, it is in the best interests of all that they meet the standards of quality and legibility. It is also important that these dates not appear in a coded format. They must be easy for consumers to interpret.
The motion represents in this sense a win-win situation for all parties concerned. It is an opportunity for the House to assume a leadership role on behalf of both the welfare of Canadian consumers and the competitive interests of Canadian industry.
At stake here is nothing less than the consumer confidence of a solid majority of Canadians. They would like to be assured that the foods and beverages they consume are safe, nutritious and wholesome. They would like to be assured that subtle and unseen defects in food quality are made known to them before more obvious, visible changes occur. They would like to be reassured that securing the integrity of Canadian food is given top priority by government.
The printing of best-before and expiry dates clearly and legibly on all products in a format easily understood by all is something Canadians should be able to claim as a right.
Currently food and beverage manufacturers are required to place best-before dates only on products with a shelf life or so-called durable life of 90 days or less, that is on most perishable goods. Yet as far back as 1987 consumers had expressed their wish to see date marking extended to canned and frozen foods which currently are often exempt from such requirements.
This consumer interest has not abated. A survey conducted in 1993 by the Grocery Products Manufacturers' Association of Canada showed that 97 per cent of consumers looked at best-before dates when buying a food product for the first time. Recent statistics therefore make the case for the motion before us more compelling and timely.
Many consumers groups including the Consumers' Association of Canada actively support the extension of date marking to all foods. The association has even gone one step further, supporting the view that prepackaged foods with a shelf life of less than 90 days should also bear a packaging date indicating when the product was first placed in its container and offered for sale.
Given the clear desire expressed by the consumers group for better, more comprehensive freshness information, and given that business thrives best when consumers wishes are met, one would expect the food industry's response to be one of voluntary compliance. This regrettably has not happened yet.
The Canadian industry's stance has to be revisited, particularly in light of the globalization of markets. It is known that European industries offer precisely what consumers want and expect where date marking is concerned.
The government, in the nation's interest should ask how would Canadian food products without the desired changes in date markings as alluded to earlier eventually compete with imported products? Industry representatives have cited cost, wastage of products and the need for consumer education as reasons for their opposition to a new date marking system.
These are valid arguments, but I would ask these business people to consider the possibility that if consumers are able to access imported foods bearing more detailed dating information they may simply purchase these imported items rather than those made in Canada.
In other words, these food industry representatives may ultimately do themselves a disservice by allowing cost associated with implementing a new dating system to prevent them from honouring consumers' wishes. A new date marking system would best ensure competitiveness that in the end would allow for recovery of attendant costs.
I am encouraged that industry officials who participated in a recent Food and Drugs Act regulatory review stated their commitment to respond to consumers' preferences. This is a positive sign. At the same time I am discouraged that manufacturers are not yet providing on a voluntary basis the information consumers want.
Since current Food and Drugs Act regulations are not meeting consumer demands this House should indicate its support for regulatory change. That quite simply is the purpose of this motion.
I would like to call to the attention of the House the three recent documents relevant to this motion that have been produced. This is a three volume document titled A Strategic Direction for Change-A Review of the Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. I have here two of the volumes. These were recently completed by the health protection branch of Health and Welfare Canada in consultation with the former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whose food labelling function has since been transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
The first two volumes of this thorough one-year review of the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act were released last November and December respectively. The proposed implementation plan, volume three, was released just last month. I am encouraged that the proposed implementation plan addresses some of the desired ends of the motion. However, I believe more can be done and soon.
The implementation plan is disappointing on several counts. It states that the government will only "support the use of best-before dating on other products with a durable life of more than 90 days on a voluntary basis".
The revocation of durable life date exemptions for commissary foods and prepackaged doughnuts are the only concrete
steps taken to extend the best-before requirements. This is not enough. These requirements must be extended to all products.
In fact other parts of the plan state that in the course of drafting new regulations, the health protection branch will merely review current practices and consider requiring, dates on low acid or previously frozen foods. The words supporting, reviewing and considering, though well-intentioned, do not spell action to the consumer. Consumers want action, and now. To wait until October 1995 for prepublication of the new Food and Drugs Act regulations, as the proposed implementation plan calls for, will not give timely justice to the issue.
Admittedly there are some who would argue that they would not like to see yet another regulatory burden placed on Canadian businesses. This motion makes the case that this so-called regulatory burden would in fact be a regulatory blessing not only to consumers but to businesses as well. We have a responsibility as a nation to champion the causes of both private and corporate citizens.
Fellow members, recognize that limiting manufacturers' obligations to print best-before expiry dates shifts the burden of making informed purchases to the consumers. Recognize that Canada has an obligation to ensure its consumers are able to access superior products, preferably those manufactured in Canada, in their markets. Recognize as well that we, elected representatives, have an obligation to institute regulations which protect private and corporate interests. Recognize further that we have a duty to regulate in the national interest.
Permit me therefore to cite a specific example of an instance in which a better date marking system could benefit Canadian consumers. A man goes to a grocery store and purchases a jar of tomato sauce. The jar does not display a best-before date as it has a shelf life longer than 90 days if unopened.
One night the man opens the jar, pours out half of its contents and returns the remainder to his refrigerator. Several days later he re-opens the jar and notices that its contents have a foul odour. He examines the jar thoroughly to see whether its label contains any shelf life information. He finds none. What he does find is a cryptic string of numbers and letters on a remote corner of the label. The code reads: STD 10 305 N3 E500.
He calls a phone number on the label to determine what it means and is told by the operator that the code indicates the jar was processed on the 305th day of 1993. Who would know that, Mr. Speaker? I did not. Its contents if unopen are good from one to one and a half years. However, once opened the sauce has a durable life of just five to seven days but only if the product is kept refrigerated.
The man is angry that he has wasted half a jar of the product. He is angry that he had no way of knowing how long it would retain its freshness without making a phone call. He wonders if other products in his cabinet may be subject to similar spoilage. In essence, he wants to know why manufacturers do not provide more detailed date information about their products in a format consumers can both recognize easily and understand fully. This example is a true to life story as brought to my attention by one of my constituents in Winnipeg North.
It is important to note that there are many other products such as carbonated soft drinks whose durable life is deemed to be longer than 90 days but is shorter than many consumers suspect, just a few months in many cases. As if to acknowledge that fact, Pepsi corporation recently instituted a voluntary date marking system for its diet canned and bottled soft drinks in the United States.
In the absence of such markings, what is to prevent consumers from stocking up on these products only to find they have spoiled in just a few weeks? It is common practice after all for supermarkets to sell particular items at a discount when their stock on those items begins to gather dust.
Again, this underscores the need to extend the practice of best before dating to all foods and beverages regardless of their shelf lives. What I and many consumers would like to see is a standardized label. Consumer groups informed the health protection branch that labels should be consumer friendly, that is clear, understandable and difficult to overlook.
At this time manufacturers of foods with durable lives of less than 90 days are only required to express best before dates as a stream of letters and numbers. The code begins with the last two digits of the year followed by the month expressed as an abbreviation and then the date. The words "best before" must precede the information given.
Presently a container of milk with a best before date of April 12, 1994 would bear the legend "best before 94Al12". The fact is this code may not be comprehensible to other Canadians. What does Al mean? Does 12 mean the twelfth day of the month or the twelfth day of the year? A standard letter, one of a particular colour, shape and size which consumers could immediately locate on all foods and read rather than decipher would provide an anchor for the eyes.
In my own experience I have found containers of milk or juice whose best before dates are smeared, printed in faint or small type or hidden away on a remote part of the product packaging.
It is laudable when government departments undertake an extensive process of consultation with an eye toward improving the regulatory framework of a particular piece of legislation, but
the proposed implementation plan for regulatory reform under the Food and Drugs Act in my opinion could go even further with date marking requirements.
Knowledge, it is often said, is power. We should move to make certain that food manufacturers give consumers the power to make good choices, informed decisions about the foods they buy, bring home and serve to their families.
I urge all members of this House to register their support for motion M-217. Let us demonstrate to the food industry and in effect to all Canadian industries that we in government expect our businesses to remain accountable to the public at large, particularly when discharge of accountability means a return on investments many times over.
At stake here is consumer confidence in the integrity of Canadian food products and the competitiveness of Canadian food producers. We need to make it clear that meeting consumer demands is good business for Canadian business.
