Health committee  I don't know if this answers your question, but it gives us an opportunity to define a type of food and a level. So the word “prescribed” is used once to define a food category, and a second time to qualify the levels of fat, salt, or any other component of the food.

Health committee  Yes, that's right.

Health committee  Perhaps I will add this: If we left the word as just “foods”, that “no person shall advertise foods”. Then, the question is, “Which foods?” The way it's worded in the original clause, there's some vagueness to it. We don't know what “contribute” means. “Excess” would have a whole

Health committee  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

Health committee  It is. I think that's one way to define it. I have just a couple of points to make. Not all processed foods would have added sodium, sugars or saturated fats. Also, some types of processing actually contribute to food safety. For example, milk would be considered a processed prod

Health committee  I would have to think about that one. I'm sorry. I don't want to misspeak here, but we can check and see.

Health committee  Absolutely. The way the food policy is structured.... For example, we wouldn't see something that would be limited in this category but also recommended as part of the food guide, because it's the same basis of data we go by. Things like that—fruits, vegetables and whole foods—ar

Health committee  An example would be where you would have a very small quantity of something. Let's say if you have a type of jam, it might actually be high in natural sugars, but you have only a very small portion of that. You normally don't eat a tub of jam. That might be something.... That's j

Health committee  Yogourt is an excellent example of exactly this. When you go into the grocery store, half an entire aisle is yogourt. Some of those might be suitable to be part of a child's regular diet. Some of them may be very high in fat and very high in sugars as well, so maybe they would no

Health committee  Absolutely. The first part of the “prescribed” also allows for that. If you wanted to define “processed foods” or “whole foods” or other categories of foods up front and then look at nutrient levels, it gives the flexibility to do that as well. That's a very good example.

Health committee  Again, obviously a policy would have to be developed and the regulations would have to be developed, but, as an example, it's something that we use in front-of-pack labelling. We define what “high in” is for products, and there's a percentage of those nutrients in those products.

Health committee  Certainly we can do that, and the intent is not to confuse anyone through the process, but obviously in clause-by-clause the details can be re-detailed. What we're saying is that the proposal is to put something in at the level of legislation that's enabling the restriction of

Health committee  To add to that, that's the process that's been used for all the healthy eating strategy initiatives. Food labelling goes through that process. Front-of-pack labelling goes through that process. Where there is a pathway to make those regulations, it's understood that there's the

Health committee  I'll perhaps add that this is at the legislative level, so broad is good in one respect. Vague and subject to interpretation can often be a bit problematic, so again, it's excess to how we're defining what a children's diet is. That's why it gets a bit more complicated. Absolute

Health committee  I'll just add, that's part of the need to clarify the language. For example, in the proposed language, if it says something “contributes to” increased sugars, that could be almost anything that has sugar in it. The idea of being able to prescribe them, as Mr. Lee has said, is