All three Prairie provinces have a rich food and agri-food heritage. Food and beverage processing sales across the Prairies were $32 billion in 2021, representing approximately 25 per cent of Canada’s total food production that year. In Alberta, “food processors are active in meat products, grain and oilseed milling, snack foods, functional foods, natural health products, beverages, and more,” according to Invest Alberta. The province has a strong agritech ecosystem and a labour force with vast technical expertise. The Institute of Cellular Agriculture, created in conjunction with New Harvest Canada and Cult Food Science, will be located at the University of Alberta’s Agri-Food Discovery Place in Edmonton.

Alberta

Sustainability is a priority in the Prairies’ food innovation landscape, and Calgary’s Earthware Reusables, Inc., is one of many companies focused on eco-friendly solutions for the food industry. The company offers a return-for-reuse container service and is currently developing durable and UV-resistant hemp reinforced polypropylene composite for vacuum forming of reusable food containers.

“Our incredible growth is set to multiply exponentially this year with a new business model made possible by an agreement with the Alberta Bottle Depot Association,” says John MacInnes, founder of Earthware. “This is the big break that we needed to hit our vision of scaling to 1 million containers in circulation by 2025.”

Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan is the world’s largest pulse sector, making Regina a natural choice as headquarters of the Protein Industries Canada (PIC) supercluster. Additionally, the provincial government reports there are more than 300 food and beverage processing companies in Saskatchewan producing cereal, meat, dairy and bakery products, plus food ingredients. Saskatchewan’s tech sector is also booming, driven in part by the agtech market. In fact, says Innovation Saskatchewan, the province’s technology sector generated $10 billion in revenue and represented 5.6 per cent of the province’s total GDP.

BetterCart Analytics, based in Saskatoon, offers an AI-driven competitive pricing intelligence solution designed for food and beverage manufacturers and grocery chains. The company offers real-time, hyper-local price analytics and competitive intelligence that helps companies increase profit margins, operational efficiencies, and ROI.

“Seventy per cent of CPG manufacturers operate without analytics,” says Melanie Morrison, founder and CEO of BetterCart Analytics. “As a result, the industry is in need of innovation, especially when it comes to the development of pricing technologies. Our mission is to help those companies that have limited access to pricing data and competitive intelligence so they can digitally transform, execute data-driven pricing decisions, and unleash their competitive advantage.”

Manitoba

Food and beverage processing is the largest manufacturing sector in Manitoba, comprising more than 30 per cent of the province’s total manufacturing sales in 2022. Manitoba also boasts 24 world-class agri-food research and development centres focused on everything from plant-based proteins to digital transformation.

TheoryMesh is helping food businesses achieve sustainability goals with digital solutions. The Winnipeg-based company employs blockchain applications to ensure traceability and transparency in the supply chain and is currently working to create a beef and dairy supply chain that connects from feed to consumer while providing data-driven insights designed to drive efficiency and sustainability.

“Improving the food supply chain is an imperative to feed the world and reduce the impact of agriculture and food waste on the environment,” says TheoryMesh CEO Chris Bunio. “Our company has moved quickly in less than two years to create solutions, which address critical needs in the market. We will continue scaling the company and expand our customer reach to Europe, Africa, and Asia.” 

Hubba Khatoon is regional innovation director for the Prairies for the Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN). CFIN funds foodtech projects, stimulates collaboration, and fosters a growing community of F&B professionals. Visit CFIN at www.cfin-rcia.ca.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

In 2022, CCME released “A Roadmap to Strengthen the Management of Single-use and Disposable Plastics”. The Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations, which was published in June 2022, prohibits the manufacture, import and sale of single-use plastics (e.g. checkout bags, cutlery, foodservice ware, ring carriers, stir sticks and straws). In November 2023, the Federal Court overturned the ban on single-use plastic based on the decision that the classification of plastics was too broad to be listed on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In April 2023, the Recycled Content and Labelling for Plastic Products Regulations were proposed alongside the release of a paper outlining reporting requirements to the Federal Plastics Registry. The proposed regulations would require minimum levels of recycled post-consumer plastics in packaging (food contact packaging excluded except for beverage containers) and require accurate information on recyclability labelling and restrictions on the use of the term, ‘compostable.’ Provinces and territories are looking to expand recycling collection programs to support these regulations, which include developing and implementing extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies. The EPR approach makes the producer responsible for the collection and management of packaging at the end of life. The Federal Plastics Registry will require producers of certain categories of plastics to submit annual reports with information on plastic product resin types and amount of plastic waste sent to disposal.

P2 Notice

To continue bringing forward new measures to manage plastic waste, the federal government introduced a consultation document regarding a proposed pollution prevention notice (P2 notice) to reduce the environmental impact of primary food plastic packaging. The notice would require large grocery retailers in Canada to prepare, implement, and report on a pollution prevention plan to reduce plastic waste and shift to a circular economy. The goal of the P2 notice is to reduce primary plastic food packaging by eliminating unnecessary/hard-to-recycle items. All companies along the entire value chain (retailers, producers, and brand owners) would need to work together to meet the P2 notice objectives. Initial input from stakeholders on the consultation document ended on August 30, 2023. The government is analyzing the comments and continues to welcome additional feedback as the P2 notice is developed. A draft P2 notice will be issued for public comment before finalization.

The many new policies and regulations are complex with nuances that are providing real challenges to the food industry. These challenges are being addressed by designing packages for recycling or reuse, improving recycling system infrastructure, and increasing the availability of more recycled food-grade plastic resin. The P2 notice is part of federal government’s ambitious Action Plan of Zero Plastic Waste. Collaborative effort along with support from all levels of government, industry and citizens is needed to achieve a circular economy with less plastic waste.

Carol Zweep is the research lead, packaging, at Conestoga Food Research & Innovation Lab, Conestoga College.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

It is a bit perplexing to see federal food standards in both the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR), and those IbR by Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR), particularly when they cover the same food. This is because Canada had several federal food regulations in the past. Since food standards are also tethered to food additive rules, it becomes a more complex process to consolidate standards. The current FDR differentiates the use of food additives based on whether a food is standardized or unstandardized. Chutney is unstandardized under FDR but standardized by SFCR. This means chutney may include food additives that are permitted in unstandardized food, but pickles may only include those permitted in pickles.

New compositional standards

The proposed approach to modernizing food standards involves the creation of Canadian Food Compositional Standards, which would be IbR by FDR, and administered by CFIA in regard to a food’s composition, strength, potency, purity, quality or other property of standardized foods. Health Canada would retain health and safety criteria for foods in FDR. The dream of consolidating federal food standards has been around since CFIA’s creation in 1997. The proposed plan would not result in a single reference document. FDR would retain rules related to analytical criteria and nutrient composition and Canadian Food Compositional Standards would include the trade and commerce criteria.

Food additives

Health Canada is also working towards reconfiguring food additive rules. The current 15 food additive tables (collectively the Lists of Permitted Food Additives) that are IbR by 15 marketing authorizations (MAs) would be consolidated in an IbR document directly under FDR. The 15 MAs would be repealed and vestigial tables that have been codified in FDR since 2012 would be repealed. The food additive tables would be updated in tandem with the changes to food standards.

Division 16 of FDR, which sets out the core framework for food additive rules, would be modified to include other food additive related rules, such as those around sweetness and colour additive. The use of food additives would be defined as an adulteration except if in compliance with Division 16, FDR. The definition of ‘food additive’ would also be amended. Currently, ‘essential oils, oleoresins and natural extractives’ are considered food additives. This will change. Only ‘spices, seasonings and flavouring preparations’ would be exempt. This establishes that only ‘natural extractives’ used for flavouring wouldn’t be considered as food additive.

Food additives are currently required to meet applicable specifications in the Food Chemicals Codex, Combined Compendium of Food Additive Specifications or that defined in B.01.045, FDR, for certain food colours. This is limiting, as several newer food additives, such as modified vinegar, do not have specifications in these references. To overcome this, Health Canada proposes to create an IbR Table of Food Additive Specifications to allow a more efficient and clear approach to amending the food additive rules in the future.

Health Canada has also proposed to modernize Official Methods and how they may be used in ensuring compliance with FDR for certain microbiological, chemical, physical and/or nutritional requirements. Three new microbiological IbRs are proposed—Table of Microbiological Criteria for Food; Table of Microbiological Reference Methods for Food; and Canadian Requirements for Determining the Equivalence of Food Microbiological Methods of Analysis. A new IbR Table of Chemical, Physical and Nutritional Characteristics of Food will include a more flexible approach in selecting suitable methods for compliance assurance purposes. Some of the current methods are dated, such as Official Method FO-1 from 1981 that speaks to protein quality determinations. Changes here would impact food standards and even nutrient content claim considerations.

The totality of the proposed amendments to FDR, SFCR and the documents IbR represent decades of pent-up regulatory housekeeping needs. But brace yourself, as more is on the way.

Gary Gnirss is a partner and president of Legal Suites, specializing in regulatory software and services. Contact him at president@legalsuites.com.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

Food risk refers to the likelihood of harm occurring due to consuming a particular food product. Food risk assessment involves identifying potential hazards, evaluating their likelihood and severity, and implementing measures to mitigate them.

Food fraud involves the intentional deception for economic gain, where food products are adulterated, mislabelled, or misrepresented. This deception can occur at any stage of the supply chain and may involve dilution, substitution, or addition of unauthorized substances.

A food threat typically refers to deliberate acts or intentional contamination of food with harmful agents, such as toxins, chemicals, or biological agents, with the intent to cause harm to consumers, disrupt food supplies, or instil fear.

Food vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of the food supply chain to various risks, threats, and vulnerabilities that may compromise its integrity, safety, and security. This includes weaknesses in infrastructure, processes, and control systems that can be exploited by malicious actors or natural events.

All of these food risks work in interacting ways. The cinnamon and apple sauce incident certainly struck fear into many consumers’ minds. It was a case of fraud because lead chromate was used as an adulterant to increase the weight of cinnamon for sale.

Assessing risk

Risk assessment methodology requires an approach similar to HACCP hazard identification and risk assessment but may require extension of the boundaries of the assessment. It is up to individual organizations to determine what the boundaries of control can be. For some, those boundaries extend one supplier back. With access to blockchain traceability, boundaries of control can extend potentially even farther back all the way to the primary producer.

Within supply chain mapping, each node in the map can be assessed for possible hazards, followed by strategic planning within the quality management system for identification, mitigation, and elimination of each hazard.

Part of the challenge is that there is not a one size fits all response to risk assessment. If we were the apple sauce manufacturer, how would we assess the risk on the cinnamon? We must use a systems-based approach and multiple directions to comprehensively reduce or eliminate risk.

Supplier verification is common in all HACCP-based food safety management. Performing third-party audits or inspections can be part of that, but can an auditor observe a fraudulent action at the time of occurrence? Certificates of analysis are another important part of risk assessment. Extending blockchain traceability to these certifications could be critical. It’s not uncommon for these certificates to be performed on very low frequency on certain commodities because of the high cost of analysis. I’ve personally seen certificates of analysis results being pushed forward to new lots without new assessments.

Integrity of the transportation and shipping of products is also essential. Purchase orders and bills of lading used to be only text based, but it is now possible to put physical images of shipments into this documentation for identification on receipt. Tamper evident and traceable shipping seals are becoming common. The Use of RFID tagging on shipments is also becoming commonplace, so that shipments travel exactly to the specified destination.

Possible tests

Should we instead focus on incoming goods testing especially to prevent fraud? Cinnamon, for example, is prone to fraudulent substitution by other brown plant materials. DNA fingerprint assessment would the prime method in such cases. However, DNA testing would not pick up lead or other heavy metals contamination that would be measured by atomic emission spectroscopy. Are there better methods such as FTIR, which will speed systems? Each FTIR requires calibration to the commodity, but this could be an important approach. It would be costly to require these assessments on every lot though.

One part of risk assessment is exposure evaluation. It’s not uncommon for companies to look at minor ingredients and validate against the certificate of analysis, then assume that hazard exposure is low because of the dilution effect of ingredients. It’s common to find low levels of lead in commodities from agricultural contamination. In the case of the apple sauce, exposure was higher than assumed because of reliance on convenience food for small children. These affected children were consuming the product with higher than anticipated frequency. Dilution effects for hazard reduction are a slippery slope and should be avoided.

Our perception of risk is changing. In the risk assessment process, piracy, global conflict, climate change and environmental disaster are impacting the integrity of food systems. Using case studies such as the apple sauce recall allows us to plan better for future incidents.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

For brands with limited human resources, services are provided by third-party sales and store support agencies. However, they view the category through a sales, distribution, and merchandising lens. Therefore, it’s important for brands to visit stores regularly.

Timing

Conducting store surveys prior to retailer category reviews affords the opportunity to share insights that can influence customer decisions.

Category overview

Since category sets are dynamic, regular store surveys capture a live snapshot of the landscape. Assess whether the category is well developed by evaluating brand assortment, sku count, sizes, flavours, pricing, and private label presence. Identifying underdeveloped categories and gaps in the retailer’s portfolio can open doors for a compelling offering.

Competitive landscape

Getting a handle on the competition is critical for brand success. Compare the points of parity and points of difference with your product offering, packaging, positioning, placement, pricing, and promotions.

Private label

Suss out whether there are opportunities to supply the retailer with store brand items. How prominent is private label and what percentage of the category does it currently represent? Does the program cover all the tiers: value, national brand equivalent, premium and gourmet?

Packaging

How well does your brand’s design stand out on shelf adjacent to competitors? Are flavours clearly differentiated to make it easy for shoppers? Is the container size appropriate for shelf spacing, or are oversized products relegated to the top or bottom shelf? Also scan other areas of the store for packaging innovations.

Pricing

Evaluate the pricing landscape to determine if your products are in line, over or under priced. Review promotional activity, noting the depth, duration and frequency of discounts and what types of offers are most common in the category.

Merchandising

Examine how the category is merchandised. Check where your brand is positioned in the planogram and if it’s easy for shoppers to find. Are brands blocked or split into segments? If retail-ready packaging is commonplace, consider offering it too.

Quality assurance

Cues picked up in store can flag a potential quality problem.

Distribution

Out-of-stocks are sales killers. Check on-shelf product availability and ensure there are no missing shelf labels.

Retailer strategies

Every retailer operates and merchandises their stores differently, so it’s important to visit every banner. It enables brand owners to gain insights about brand positioning, target customer, product offering, the role of store brands, merchandising, pricing, marketing, etc.

Shopper insights

Being in store opens up the possibility of observing and engaging with shoppers to gain insights into their decision-making process.

Walk the entire store

It’s also important to look outside your category, examining other store departments like fresh, frozen, and centre store. Doing so can unlock potential by spotting gaps in the offering and opportunities for new listings, cross-merchandising and cross-promotions.

It is highly beneficial to cast a critical eye over your own brand and product portfolio. Store surveys allow you to do just that. Observations reveal useful information to apply to product life cycle management, sku rationalization, new product development, packaging design, branding, and marketing initiatives.

Ultimately, store surveys enable brand owners to capitalize on new opportunities and resolve issues that threaten listings, thereby contributing to sales growth.

As a CPG food consultant, Birgit Blain helps clients think strategically to build a sustainable brand. Her experience includes 17 years with Loblaw Brands and President’s Choice. Contact her at birgit@bbandassoc.com.

Quebec has a long history of excellence in food and beverage manufacturing. As the largest manufacturing sector in the province’s economy, the food industry generated $36.7 billion in manufacturing shipments in 2022, representing approx. 3000 food companies, and 75,000 jobs in the province. Quebec is the second-largest food processing province in Canada, primarily in meat processing ($7.8 billion), dairy processing ($7.4 billion), and beverages ($5.4 billion).

In recent years, Quebec’s food industry is focusing on foodtech-driven solutions, buoyed by provincial government initiatives. In 2020, the government announced $2.4 billion in funding to foster innovative, digital transformation, and the adoption of new technologies and processes such as automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence. As a result, Quebec is the number-one province for R&D investments in terms of per cent of GDP, drawing an additional $8 billion in venture capital financing for the food sector between 2017 and 2021. Montreal is recognized worldwide for its artificial intelligence ecosystem and its scientific community, which includes Mila, the Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, the largest concentrations of deep learning academic researchers globally with more than 1200 researchers specializing in machine learning.

The Foodarom Group

Saint-Hubert-based Foodarom Group (owned by Glanbia Nutritionals) has been an innovator of custom flavours since 2006. The company received funding through the Canadian Food Innovation Network’s (CFIN’s) Food Innovation Challenge in 2022 to develop a natural antimicrobial for eliminating multi-resistant fungal contaminants found in concentrated fruit syrups and purées.

“We are targeting the problem of food waste, which is predominant in all modern industries in all modern countries,” explains Guillaume Brault, R&D scientist leader at Foodarom, noting that “[products with] very high sugar, cane syrup, jams, fruit syrups, have a lot of long-term stability problems with yeasts and moulds.”

Relocalize

Montreal’s Relocalize also received CFIN funding for its project to demonstrate the world’s first autonomous micro-factory for food and beverage. The project will “demonstrate the decarbonization, cost reduction and product improvement benefits of hyper-local food,” says Wayne McIntyre, co-founder and CEO of Relocalize. McIntyre adds the company’s mission is “to make packaged food and beverage products better, greener, and more affordable.”

Still Good Foods

Another company tackling food waste and greenhouse gas emissions is Montreal-based Still Good Foods. It works with local food and beverage partners to upcycle ingredients that are by-products of the manufacturing process, are “still good” and nutritious, and transform them into flour, baking mixes, cookies, granola etc. Since launching in 2019, Still Good Foods has transformed more than 1.4 million lb of spent grain, and almost 450,000 lb of fruit, vegetables, and pulp.

Meatleo

According to TRACXN, which tracks startups globally, there are almost 50 foodtech startups in Montreal alone. Just outside the city in Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville is Meatleo, a foodtech developing cultivated beef through a proprietary precision fermentation process. Meatleo founder, president, and CEO Pierre Normandin writes on the company’s site, “Cultured meat and Meatleo could make a significant contribution to addressing a huge need to improve animal welfare, substantially reduce greenhouse gases and increase food security (from sourcing to reducing the risk of zoonotic diseases). An opportunity like I’ve rarely seen.”

Julie Daigle is regional innovation director for Quebec for the Canadian Food Innovation Network, a national organization stimulating innovation across the Canadian food sector. Contact her at julie@cfin-rcia.ca.

The federal government’s plastic reduction agenda began with a ban on single-use plastics. Companies are required to reduce plastics, especially hard-to-recycle ones, and eliminate can and bottle ring carriers, checkout bags, cutlery, foodservice ware, stir sticks and straws. The Single Use Plastic Prohibition Regulation allowed a change to Canadian Environmental Protection Act’s (CEPA’s) Toxic Substances List and included Manufactured Plastics in it. However, the legislation was overturned by the Federal Court in November 2023.

The regulation and the repeal for the plastics ban hinged on the word, ‘toxicity’. The meaning of toxicity for food safety practitioners is different from how it is defined under CEPA. Food safety practitioners see a chemical hazard as something potentially injurious to human consumers. Under CEPA, the term, ‘toxicity,’ extends to chemicals and materials with the potential for enduring environmental harm.

Under section 64 in CEPA, the definition is, “a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.”

In food safety, using CODEX Alimentarius’s glossary, the words, ‘toxin’ or ‘toxic,’ only emerge with relation to pesticides and veterinary chemicals. Hazards are “a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect.” Toxins can be acute, causing short-term immediate impacts, or they can be long term and chronic where exposure is small.

Plastics approved for food contact use are not inherently toxic to human health and have had been evaluated by Health Canada for safe use. The issue is not plastic in its standard form. Microplastics are emerging as a major area of concern for human health, as well as a concern in environmental contamination. Researchers are investigating the potential toxicity and long-term effects of microplastics. The science in this field is relatively new. Environmental microplastics were only first described in the early 2000s. Pubmed’s academic literature database indicates very minor uses of the term, ‘microplastics,’ in research literature before 2011. However, the term was referenced in almost 4000 articles in 2023. The science on microplastics has not yet created any direct causal links to toxicity, but many strong theories are being investigated.

This reframing of risk assessment, where human health is aligned with environmental health and sustainability, will have major implications for food safety management systems. Food safety practitioners who have followed its history can appreciate this potential movement. Threat assessment or TACCP came into force within the United States when terrorist threats to the food system and deliberate adulteration became a hazard. BRCGS has a standard for ethical trade and responsible sourcing. GFSI has developed a Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative to benchmark social compliance. It has set requirements such as no forced and prison labour, no child labour, freedom of association and rights to collective bargaining for workers, no discrimination and abuse, application of health and safety systems, application of building and fire safety codes, fair wages and employment practices, fair working hours, and ability to grieve working conditions. GFSI indicates they will have an environmental standard coming out in the near future. Encouraging or mandating food companies to consider environmental consequences as part of their quality management and supplier strategy is very likely in the future.

The food industry has an authentic need for plastics, and other lightweight barrier materials. Food safety and shelf-life extension are intrinsically tied to plastics use. The successful environmental transition to this is better plastics materials and better use and repurposing of existing plastics. Fortunately, we are seeing investments in this area.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the February/March 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

As background, cost recovery is “the practice of establishing and collecting user fees for regulatory activities,” as described by Health Canada. In the case of NHPs, the proposed fees have also been earmarked to pay for an oversight system that Health Canada does not yet have in place, and to recover costs of the review process itself. Therefore, while framed as a cost ‘recovery,’ Health Canada seemed to be proposing that industry pay for establishing an updated and far more expensive regulatory program.

In response to Health Canada’s proposal, industry engaged in a grassroots campaign that highlighted inconsistencies with the purpose, and disproportionality of the quantum of fees. Upon receiving thousands of comments, Health Canada has indicated its intention to reopen its consultation with stakeholders. These developments are important for the food industry; it’s critical that food companies appreciate the potential consequences if Health Canada proceeds largely as proposed, as well as the importance of active industry participation in the consultation process.

Cost recovery

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) imposes fees for certain services it provides to the food industry under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. Health Canada does not currently have a cost recovery framework for its activities related to foods, but it has the legal authority to impose cost recovery for services it provides the food industry, in a similar manner to those proposed for NHPs.

Certain foods and food ingredients require Health Canada approval, and thus could be subject to cost recovery in the future. Pre-market approvals by Health Canada’s Food Directorate are required for, among other things:

• supplemental food ingredients;
• novel foods and ingredients;
• food additives; and
• temporary marketing authorization letters.

Health Canada also provides industry with novelty opinions for foods, and letters of no objection for processing aids. Given the time and resources required to review the safety and acceptability of these sorts of products, it is not alarmist to fear that Health Canada could consider similar NHP-like cost recovery for food approvals and reviews and seek to both recover costs of providing approval services, and fund investments into regulatory programs not yet in place.

For finished food manufacturers, the impact of expanded cost recovery in the food industry may not be immediately evident. However, fees for approval of certain ingredients are likely to be passed on to food manufacturers, in the form of increased ingredient costs. Further, cost recovery for supplemental food ingredients, novel ingredients and food additives is likely to reduce ingredient innovation and availability, as it could further disincentive companies from seeking Canadian approvals, which do not grant exclusivity in the Canadian marketplace. Therefore, companies may think twice before spending additional resources on approvals that may also benefit competitors.

Ultimately, while we don’t yet know the final form that Health Canada’s cost recovery for NHPs will take, it is certain to have a direct impact on the NHP and dietary supplement industry in Canada. If the broader food industry does not pay attention and remains silent, it could face many of the same challenges the dietary supplement industry is facing today.

Lewis Retik is a partner and William Bjornsson is an associate in the Ottawa office of Gowling WLG, specializing in food and drug regulatory law. Contact them at lewis.retik@gowlingwlg.com and william.bjornsson@gowlingwlg.com.

This Food Law column was originally published in the February/March 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

Biodegradation describes the process of breaking material down into natural substances within a certain timeframe after disposal. When biodegradation occurs under different conditions, different terms are used, such as composting, anaerobic digestion, and biodegradation in soil and in marine water.

A variety of bio-based materials can be used for packaging. Cellulose is derived from cotton, trees, hemp, and wood pulp. It can be made into bag applications for dried fruits, biscuits, rice, dried beans, pasta, tea leaves, coffee beans, sweets, and herbs. Mushroom packaging can be made by mixing fungus sprouts or mycelia with seedlings or other residues from agriculture. Mycelium is lightweight and easy to mold. Its properties are similar to Styrofoam. Bagasse is a pulpy residue left over from crushed sugarcane stalks. It can be made into foodservice packaging. Coconut husk can be pressed and formed into packaging, which can often look like cardboard. Chitin is the polysaccharide found in the shells of shrimps and other crustaceans. Chitin with fibroin (an insoluble protein found in silkworms) makes a plastic-like material that can be used to develop a biodegradable alternative for food packaging. A biodegradable and edible product can be made from brown seaweed extract and calcium chloride to create a gel-like material. It can be used to replace plastic bottles with an edible water container.

Bioplastics

Bioplastics are a type of plastic that is bio-based and biodegradable. Two examples of bioplastics are polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). PLA is a type of polyester made from fermented starch from corn, cassava, maize, sugarcane, or sugar beet pulp. PHA is a polyester synthesized directly by fermentation of a carbon substrate inside a micro-organism. PLA and PHA are used as conventional plastic packaging alternatives. PLA is often used for plastic films, bottles, food and deli containers, salad boxes, coffee cups, and compostable cutlery. PHA is used for single-use packaging for foods, beverages, and consumer products.

Not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable. Bio-based plastics are defined as materials for which at least a portion of the material is produced from renewable raw materials. Common commodity plastics like polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, and polypropylene have been manufactured from fermentation byproducts of biological feedstocks such as sugarcane, sugar beets, and corn. Although bio-based, these plastics are chemically identical to petrochemical-based plastics and therefore not biodegradable.

There are environmental benefits for using bio-based packaging. Bio-based packaging is made from renewable plant sources. Unlike petroleum-based materials, feedstocks from plant-based materials remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during their growing phase, thus reducing the carbon footprint of the material. Plant-based products can help reduce landfill waste by offering recycling and composability options. Plant-based alternatives to traditional plastics, along with improved collection infrastructure, can prevent litter from ending up in water bodies.

Bio-based packaging is under constant development with the objective of overcoming resource depletion and counteracting plastics pollution. Transparency about environmentally friendly packaging will allow consumers to make informed purchasing and disposal decisions. Package functionality and end-of-life disposal should be considered during the innovation process. New tech for the production of bio-based materials using urban, agricultural, and food waste as feedstock will establish a sustainable production value chain for the future design of bio-based packaging.

Carol Zweep is food consulting manager for NSF. Contact her at czweep@nsf.org.

This column was originally published in the November/December 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

While Health Canada has not formally amended simulated meat and poultry rules, they have altered their course on how protein ratings may be determined. The current rules governing simulated meat and poultry are not food standards, but they lay out nutritional requirements involving a protein rating and the content of fat, vitamins, and minerals. A protein rating is to be determined by Official Method #1 (FO-1), which was last updated on October 15, 1981. A protein rating is based on the protein efficiency ratio (PER) of the protein source. Unless there are published and representative PER values for a protein source, which are not so common these days, the only remedy is to determine PER by FO-1. This is based on an animal study, measuring growth (grams gain per gram of protein) in contrast to a standard protein diet based on casein. If a manufacturer is developing a vegan simulated meat or poultry product, it raises some interesting questions!

In late 2020, Health Canada and CFIA announced that they will accept either a PER method based on FO-1 or a PDCAAS (protein digestibility corrected amino acid score) method, with the intention to eventually update FDR. The PDCAAS method is used to calculate an estimated PER value, which is then used to calculate the protein rating based on the amount of protein per reasonable daily intake of food. The PDCAAS method considers the fecal true digestibility percentage of the protein source, which can be based on published values. Those values are derived from animal studies. The PDCAAS method offer some advantages over FO-1, as it is more adaptable, particularly when the protein content is based on multiple sources.

Challenging definition

In the past, one of the biggest concerns with simulated meat and poultry was the definition—“has the appearance of a meat/poultry product”. Tempeh by its nature could resemble meat and tofu strips could look like chicken. The question was who decides the product ‘has the appearance of meat/poultry’. CFIA’s updated guidance attempts to provide a more predicable approach to this question. The revised guidelines make it clear as to which food products must meet comprehensive nutritional and labelling requirements (i.e. include the word, “simulated,” in the name as well as the statement, “contains no meat/poultry.”).

In the updated guidance, CFIA acknowledges that while some foods may have certain visual characteristics (e.g. colour, texture, shape) that are similar to meat/poultry products, that alone is not a factor for them to be called simulated meat/poultry. As unstandardized foods, these products would be identified by a common name meeting the new definition in B.01.001, FDR,, and also CFIA’s new rules on the true nature of food.

Appearance, however, is still a factor. If a product is made to look like pork ribs, it is likely going to be classified as simulated meat. Terms like ‘burger’, ‘loaf,’ ‘patty,’ ‘jerky,’ and ‘sausage’ can, however, be used to describe a non-simulated meat/poultry product as long as it is not mistaken for a meat/poultry product. If the label of such products implies it has a relationship to meat/poultry products, it will likely be considered as simulated meat. However, it would be ok to label non-simulated foods as ‘chicken flavoured.’ For clarity, non-simulated meat/poultry products are not expected to contain products of slaughter but may contain other animal products such as eggs or milk.

Having simulated meat/poultry rules is a good thing, as it establishes nutritional equivalency. Similar rules, however, do not apply to other commodities such as simulated fish, eggs and dairy foods. If such foods are represented as being nutritionally equivalent to their counterparts, it could be considered as a misrepresentation.

One drawback of these kind of simulated foods is that there are no provisions for fortification. Health Canada is, however, considering further amendments to FDR to provide a broader range of discretionary fortification for conventional foods. For now, at least the old simulated meat/poultry rules provide manufacturers options and CFIA’s guidance provides relief for those foods, which were not intended to be captured as simulated meat/poultry products.

Gary Gnirss is a partner and president of Legal Suites, specializing in regulatory software and services. Contact him at president@legalsuites.com.

Having traceability at all stages of seafood processing means being able to document a product’s path from catch through to final customer. In other words, a seafood company can prove a product’s provenance, sustainability, and safety at each step in the process. Traceability also enables businesses to demonstrate responsible sourcing practices and compliance with government regulations, which gives consumers more confidence in the business.

Unfortunately, mislabelling and fraud have become common in the seafood sector in practices such as species substitution, incorrect weights for products, and misrepresentation of a product’s origin. Without some form of transparent traceability system, companies may face health and contamination concerns, as well as legal measures such as fines or other penalties.

Governments and organizations are working to improve label accuracy through certifications and standardization. There are technologies for tracking products, such as barcodes, QR codes, and other digital markers, but because of their format, they have traditionally had limited use in the seafood sector. New technology coming onto the market hopes to address those barriers, and boost their use, while adding greater automation to the seafood processing sector.

ThisFish

Vancouver, B.C.-based ThisFish, which now operates globally, provides TallyVision, an artificial intelligence solution for seafood traceability and production workflows designed to boost business efficiency, transparency, and compliance in seafood supply chains. The company’s software, combined with sensors and industrial hardware, such as scanners, digital scales, and computer vision technology, help seafood processing plants automate data collection and digitize information systems to produce real-time insights that can be used to improve traceability and quality control, while reducing waste. The software also provides for the use of QR code labels, allowing customers to track seafood through retailing and processing back to the farm or fishing vessel that harvested it.

Index Biosystems

Toronto’s Index Biosystems offers a different route toward traceability. The company uses biotechnology to turn baker’s yeast into microscopic biotags to trace products through the supply chain. In August 2022, Index Biosystems received funding through the Canadian Food Innovation Network’s (CFIN’s) Innovation Booster program to pilot a project with its automated biotag application system to tag and trace grain.

Mabel Systems

Another company offering fisheries and seafood processors help to both manage inventory and trace the movement of products through the supply chain is Sydney, N.S.-based Mabel Systems. Mabel provides a data capture platform that allows seafood companies to digitize receiving and production, giving them more control over inventory, food safety, and demand forecasting, while allowing for accurate, real-time tracking of products. When combined with hardware such as advanced computer vision technology, the software allows processors to easily share information with retail customers, consumers, and regulators.

As more fish and seafood companies turn to innovative technology for improving efficiencies and compliance while alleviating concerns about fraud and mislabelling, consumers will continue to benefit with fully traceable products and more information about the sector.

Nestor Gomez is chief technology officer for the Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN), a national, member-based organization stimulating transformative and transferrable innovation across the Canadian food sector. Visit CFIN at www.cfin-rcia.ca.

According to the World Bank’s World Integrated Trade Solution data from 2021, Canada imported over $22 billion worth of food products. Given the sheer volume, it’s just not possible to look at every product entering the country.

CFIA guidelines

Many products receive offshore pre-inspection, which is done within the exporting country, and not by CFIA. This is in place to reduce the number of rejected shipments in transit and at the border. Import compliance is first verified even before product leaves the exporter’s loading dock. Importers are required to file documentation with CFIA’s Automated Import Reference Service. This system identifies regulations that are necessary for a vast range of commodities and processed products. It also provides Harmonized System codes for statistics, trade, and taxation purposes. Documentation is prepared to accompany the shipment confirming regulations have been met in the receiving country. Depending on the product and the exporting country, in some cases, product is precleared at the point of export, and therefore subject to very low re-inspection rates on arrival in Canada. This occurs mostly with highly trusted countries of export, such as the United States, and for low-risk products like shelf stable and canned goods.

Many shipments are visually screened by CFIA upon arrival in Canada to ensure the contents are matching the bills of lading, and that they comply with Canadian regulations. Due to the sheer volume of foods, it is impossible to do a full inspection on every container. According to the CFIA Blueprint for Imports Guidance, between five and eight per cent of shipments are manually inspected, and the rest by automation. Manual inspection could imply a rapid visual inspection, or more rarely, an organoleptic inspection with full evaluation of product and packaging. This all suggests there is a realistic potential for non-compliant product to get through the system.

While it’s not likely the case in the caffeinated sports beverage case, there have been many incidents where individuals use their personal exemption for importing products, and bring in small quantities, which they then sell at small-scale retail stores or online. There are also importers who play the risk, anticipating that their product will be automatically evaluated on arrival at the border, rather than getting a full inspection.

What occurred with the non-compliant energy drinks is an element of tort law, where there was a breach of regulations. Within tort, negligence happens when a company makes a mistake or omission in compliance, but otherwise, has the plan of doing right within the regulatory system. Being non-compliant with full knowledge that they’re circumventing regulations is breaching the regulation with intent and has a different set of penalties in tort law. The import system has many prompts and reminders regarding regulations, such as labelling, composition, permitted and non-permitted ingredients, language of labels, and Nutrition Facts requirements, suggesting that this particular case of non-compliance is not a matter of negligence.

Course correction

When companies are found in non-compliance, usually corrective action is the first step from CFIA. This reflects on a continuous improvement mindset that most non-compliance is negligence, where a company made a mistake or omission within a complex regulatory system but is otherwise demonstrating commitment to good standards of compliance. When non-compliance with intent occurs, establishments can be subject to a range of penalties. This can include license suspensions or cancellations or revocation of certifications, such as organic. In some other cases, annotated monetary penalties may be applied, which are a form of regulatory fine. In the most severe cases, criminal charges can be laid against establishments and the management for intentionally disregarding regulations.

At the point of publication, no fines or penalties have been published for this incident. However, CFIA is known for doing detailed enforcement proceedings, which take time. Time will tell if this was a case of massive negligence, or a calculated risk done with intent to circumvent regulations.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

Protein is a complex nutrient that few people understand. It’s not as simple as buying products with high protein claims and tallying up how many grams are consumed. I would like to share learnings from a research study and metabolic trial in which I participated, conducted by the University of Toronto Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education.

Our body requires daily protein intake to support the immune system and maintain bodily functions such as:

• maintenance of muscle size, strength and function;
• building new muscle;
• tissue growth;
• regulation of the metabolism, digestion, blood sugar, calcium absorption, appetite, sleep, and mood; and
• production of hemoglobin, hormones, collagen, and energy.

Protein is a macronutrient comprising 20 unique amino acids with different functions. Eleven amino acids are produced by our body. However, the remaining nine cannot be produced at a rate sufficient to support bodily needs. Those nine, referred to as essential amino acids (EAAs) are histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine.

Muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is the process of the body utilizing amino acids from food protein to build muscle protein. The process is necessary to build new protein and offset muscle protein breakdown by repairing and replacing old or damaged proteins to maintain muscle quality and quantity. This is particularly important as we age to counteract muscle loss, known as sarcopenia.

The 3 T’s of protein consumption—total, type and timing—are of prime importance to optimize protein intake.

Total daily consumption

The recommended daily protein intake varies depending on age, sex, weight, height, activity level, muscle quality and quantity and health goals.

According to the University of Toronto research group and stable isotope tracer studies they have conducted, current recommended daily allowances (RDAs) of 1.2 g per kg of body weight and estimated average requirements (EARs) of 0.8 g per kg of body weight, are not sufficient. Daily recommendations for most active adults range from 1.5 g to 2 g per kg of body weight.

Type of protein

Animal sources—meat, fish, eggs, and dairy—provide all essential amino acids, including a good source of leucine to enhance muscle remodelling.

Leucine is primarily metabolized by skeletal muscle. According to the leucine threshold hypothesis, our body needs from 2 to 2.5 g of leucine per meal to stimulate MPS.

Individual plant sources are incomplete proteins, as they only contain some of the essential amino acids in sufficient quantities. Therefore, consuming a variety of protein sources is beneficial.

Timing

The human body can only utilize a certain amount of protein for protein synthesis at any given time. Therefore, protein intake should be equally divided throughout the day. An additional protein rich serving before bedtime facilitates MPS during the night.

Do vegans get enough protein?

Vegans and flexitarians require a variety of plant-based protein sources to ensure they are getting all essential amino acids in appropriate amounts. Protein dense plant sources include soy, black beans, lentils, quinoa and mycoprotein from Fusarium venenatum fungus.

Regulatory requirements

Making protein claims is complicated, with restrictive and very specific requirements under Health Canada labelling regulations, which also apply to all forms of advertising. There are opportunities to make claims, such as ‘source of protein’ and ‘rich in protein,’ when the required conditions are met.

It’s important to note that statements, such as ‘high quality protein’ and ‘source of essential amino acids,’ are not permitted. However, if the food qualifies for a ‘source of protein’ claim, there is an option to declare the quantity of all nine essential amino acids, in grams per serving, outside the Nutrition Facts table.

Marketing opportunity

Products with ‘complete protein’ profiles raise the bar for protein enriched foods and have a compelling point of difference when supported by an educational marketing campaign.  

As a CPG food consultant, Birgit Blain helps clients think strategically to build a sustainable brand. Her experience includes 17 years with Loblaw Brands and President’s Choice. Contact her at birgit@bbandassoc.com or learn more at www.bbandassoc.com.

Also known as cultivated or bio-engineered food, cellular food technology produces proteins and ingredients through cell cultures harvested from animals, plants and micro-organisms and through precision fermentation or tissue engineering. While precision fermentation has been used for decades in Canada to produce ingredients such as rennet, a wide range of products using both cultivation techniques are poised to hit the Canadian market in coming years. That includes essential ingredients like collagen, flavour molecules and vitamins; products that are unable to be sourced locally, including chocolate, vanilla, and coffee beans; and value-added protein such as chicken nuggets, fish, and burgers.

According to Ontario Genomics, cellular food products could capture 22 per cent of the alternative protein market by 2035. As well as creating a sustainable, more resilient local supply chain, and creating approximately 86,000 new jobs by 2030, the technology represents a $12.5 billion opportunity for Canada.

The Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN) worked with Moncton, N.B.-based data science company Fiddlehead Technology to develop Canadian FoodTech Trends: Interest and Curiosity in Cellular Food Continues to Grow, a report providing insight into the potential adoption of cellular meat in Canada. The report examined interest in cellular meat, as well as the progress of and research and development in the sector by Canadian companies. What it found was that although Canada lags behind countries like the U.S. and Singapore, research and interest in cellular food has jumped dramatically since 2000. Here are the report’s top five findings:

1. Researchers are prioritizing cellular food

Food scientists and engineers worldwide are diving into the cellular food sector. Fiddlehead found that there were 22,800 academic papers related to cultivated meat published in the past five years, roughly the same number of papers published in total before 2000.

2. Patent applications for cellular meat are increasing

The U.S., where cellular meat recently hit the market, had 596 patent applications for cellular meat in 2022, compared to just 48 before 2000. By comparison, there were no Canadian patent applications for cellular meat before 2000, and just 22 by 2022. At the same time, the number of Canadian companies producing cellular meat continues to grow.

3. Consumer interest picking up

The U.S. media began to show interest in cellular meat in 2019. The Canadian media is still playing catch up. The good news is that the tone of articles in Canada is showing more positivity and less skepticism. Meanwhile, keyword internet search queries show Canadians are curious and interested in purchasing cellular meat. For instance, top queries from Canadians include “what is lab grown meat,” “can vegans eat lab grown meat,” and “where to buy lab grown meat.”

4. Regulatory hurdles still exist

While countries like the U.S. and Singapore already have regulatory approval for the sale of cellular meat, products for sale in Canada will need to go through the lengthy approval process for novel foods, as well as meeting requirements for food safety, labelling, marketing, and other existing regulations.

5. Scaling production will require investments and collaboration

The cost to establish and scale up Canadian-made supply chains and production will require significant investment and long-term alignment between companies, funders, and other partners.

Finally, the report revealed Canadians are ready to try new products that alleviate environmental and ethical concerns, both of which are addressed by cultivated meat. Marketing and public education will be crucial to familiarize consumers with cellular food.   

Dana McCauley is CEO of the Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN), a member-based organization stimulating innovation across the Canadian food sector.

This column was originally published in the October 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) published a Regulatory Framework Paper in April 2023, regarding recycled content and labelling. The recycled content requirements would exclude certain products, such as food-contact packaging other than beverage containers. The Framework notes that food-grade recycled resins are in limited supply for many types of food packaging. Beverage containers are included as “recycling processes producing food-grade PET and HDPE are relatively mature, and beverage bottles made from these resins have a proven ability to incorporate high levels of recycled content.”

The Framework also includes recyclability labelling requirements for all consumer-facing primary, secondary and e-commerce plastic packaging (including food) with limited exceptions. Regulated parties (e.g. manufactures, importers, brand owners) would be required to assess recyclability in each province or territory where the item is sold before placing the item on the market with the prescribed recyclability logo on the label. The Framework proposes a phased-in implementation, starting in 2026. However, the enacting regulations are not yet published, so the actual transition period is unknown. ECCC has indicated it will align as closely as possible to the compliance dates of Health Canada and CFIA’s food labelling co-ordination policy.

P2 Notice

In August, ECCC released a consultation for a pollution prevention planning notice (P2 Notice) for food-contact packaging, targeted at Canada’s largest grocery retailers. The P2 Notice is an alternative regulatory instrument aimed at reducing the environmental impact of food-contact packaging excluded from the recycled content requirements under the Framework. The P2 Notice would set targets related to recycled content; reduction, reuse, and redesign of primary food plastic packaging; and sale of products within reuse-refill systems, concentrated products, and products free of plastic packaging. Large grocery retailers would be required to prepare and implement a P2 plan to meet these targets. ECCC’s consultation notes these retailers are at the centre of the value chain and have the ability to engage with brands and suppliers to influence practices throughout the supply chain.

Proposed actions to reduce food plastic packaging must also be considered in light of the current food regulatory framework. The safety of food packaging materials is regulated under Part B Division 23 of the Food and Drug Regulations, and section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act, which has the effect of prohibiting the sale of food that may be harmful to the consumer, including due to its packaging.

There is currently no requirement for food packaging to obtain an approval. Companies may make a voluntary submission to obtain a letter of no objection if Health Canada considers the packaging acceptable from a food chemical safety perspective. Health Canada has, however, signalled its intent to move forward with a mandatory pre-market review program for food packaging materials as part of ECCC’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. The details of a mandatory program are not yet available, but Health Canada published revised guidelines for using recycled plastics in food packaging in March 2023 for determining safety and acceptability of post-consumer recycled plastics.

Food waste prevention

At the same time, there is growing consensus on the need to reduce food waste as another important step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food examined rising food costs in Canada, culminating in a report published in June 2023. One of the report recommendations was investigating eliminating best-before dates to reduce food waste, and ensuring plastic reduction requirements are attainable by extending the implementation timeline for a single-use plastics ban and ensuring commercially viable alternatives to plastics will be available in needed quantities.

Reducing plastic pollution is an important environmental priority, but it will have ripple effects. ECCC, Health Canada and CFIA must continue working collaboratively to ensure the Zero Plastic Waste Agenda doesn’t compromise food safety or lead to increasing food waste. 

Katrina Coughlin is a partner in the Ottawa office of Gowling WLG, specializing in food and drug regulatory law. Contact her at katrina.coughlin@gowlingwlg.com.

This column was originally published in the October 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

It’s important to reflect on the power of words in hazard and risk assessment. Media coverage of IARC’s assessment does not do justice to the science that was conducted, and the actual evidence presented.

IARC is a United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) agency tasked with monitoring cancer risks within the human environment. IARC uses a classification system with four levels. Group 1 is “Carcinogenic to Humans,” and this grouping has either sufficient evidence to prove carcinogenicity in humans, or strong evidence in humans supported by sufficient evidence in experimental animal models, along with a known mechanism for carcinogenicity.

Group 2 is split into two subgroups. Group 2A is “Probably carcinogenic to humans,” which has limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence in experimental animals or inadequate evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in animals along with a strong understanding of a mechanism of carcinogenesis, or limited evidence in both humans and animals but a similar molecular structure to a compound already listed in Groups 1 or 2A.

Group 2B is “Possibly carcinogenic to humans,” meaning there is limited evidence in humans and less than sufficient evidence in animals, or inadequate evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in animals or inadequate evidence in humans and less than sufficient evidence in animals but supporting evidence from mechanistic and other data.

Group 3 is “Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans,” and this group does not imply that compounds are not carcinogenic or safe, it just means that more research is required, because evidence is inadequate in humans and animals, the mechanisms do not support carcinogenicity, or the agent does not fall into normal classifications.

Risk vs. hazard

The power of words is vital. In almost all modern IARC monographs, there is a preamble that’s typically overlooked by media. The term, “carcinogenic risk,” in IARC monographs series is taken to mean that an agent is capable of causing cancer. The monographs evaluate cancer hazards despite the historical presence of the word, “risks,” in the title. Risk is not the same as hazard, but IARC has chosen to use the word, “risk,” in their documentation. A hazard is something that can cause harm, while risk is the likelihood and the impact that a hazard will cause harm. IARC does not actually evaluate risk, only hazard.

In the most recent IARC report, the basis of evidence was three observational studies using consumption data for artificially sweetened beverages as the proxy for aspartame consumption, then looking for causes of morbidity and mortality within that group. Liver cancers, in particular hepatocellular carcinoma, were observed with higher frequency in groups consuming larger amounts of artificially sweetened beverages. IARC’s report itself discusses how this observation is correlational, and not necessarily causative.

IARC works in tandem with the Joint Expert Committee for Food Additives (JECFA), a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and WHO joint committee focused on the risk assessment of food additives. JECFA not only looks at hazard, but also typical dietary intake and food applications to understand exposure to consumers. JECFA published a joint commentary, and notably, they chose to not change the acceptable daily intake of 0-40mg/kg body weight in humans, or the estimated equivalent of nine to 14 cans of aspartame sweetened soda per day, assuming no other dietary sources.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is most frequently caused by hepatitis infection, heavy alcohol consumption, cirrhosis, cigarette smoking, several genetic diseases and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis is typically caused by diabetes, high cholesterol, and blood triglycerides. Obesity and the stress it causes on the body may be a key factor. Artificially sweetened and calorie-reduced food products, often containing aspartame, are the default choices of many people experiencing obesity.

When you understand what IARC means from a technical perspective, the term, “possible carcinogen,” does not have the same foreboding as a media report claiming, “aspartame is a possible cancer risk”. IARC takes a precautionary stance in its communications.

Health Canada and FDA are not making any changes to how aspartame can be used following IARC’s report. 

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the October 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Labelling

Product restrictions are in place for edible cannabis. There are also packaging and labelling restrictions to ensure consumer safety. The maximum amount of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) allowed is 10 mg per package of edible cannabis. Regulations prohibit the addition of vitamins or minerals to edibles. The product must not contain nicotine or added alcohol. There are also limits on caffeine amounts. Edible cannabis cannot be sold or distributed as a product that requires refrigeration or in a hermetically sealed container with pH exceeding 4.6 and water activity exceeding 0.85 at 22 C.

Similar to the Canadian labelling regulations for food, bilingual mandatory information is required on edible cannabis packaging, including common name, net quantity, ingredient list, allergen declaration, nutrition facts table, and durable life date (if 90 days or less). Other information required for edible cannabis includes the standardized cannabis symbol, THC and CBD (cannabidiol) content, contact information of the license holder, class of cannabis, lot number, recommended storage conditions, packaging date, cannabis possession statement (equivalency to dried cannabis) and warning statement. Health and dietary claims cannot be made.

Regulation

There are specific regulations with regards to the packaging that is intended to reduce the accidental consumption and appeal of edible cannabis product to youth while still providing information to consumers. Plain packaging and labelling are required with restrictions on logos, colours, and branding. Specifically, the container must be a single uniform colour (no fluorescent or metallic hues), have smooth texture, no special features (i.e. heat-activated ink, sound, or scent emission), no inserts, pamphlet or tags, no windows, and no images. Child-resistant packaging must be used, and packaging must include a health warning message.

Packaging

The packaging in direct contact with edible cannabis must meet the Canadian Food Packaging Regulations The regulations prohibit the use of packaging that may impart any substances to the food, which may be harmful to the consumer. 

Another important consideration is the role packaging plays in the shelf life of the food product. Depending on the nature and sensitivity of the food, the packaging should have the appropriate barrier properties to oxygen and moisture to maintain the quality of the edible cannabis product for the duration of the product shelf life.

Plastic pollution is a global concern. With a mind to reduce the amount of packaging waste, the federal government is permitting flexible use of packaging materials. The use of innovative, environmentally friendly packaging within the regulatory constraints is encouraged.

Producers of edible cannabis are challenged with strict packaging and labelling regulations. Restrictions on the ability to brand, design, and market their product make it hard to distinguish them in the marketplace.

However, it is important to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to provide necessary information in order to safeguard consumers while still producing a quality product that has safe packaging. 

Carol Zweep is food consulting manager for NSF. Contact her at czweep@nsf.org. 

This column was originally published in the August/September 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

According to Second Harvest’s two-year Food Loss and Waste Implementation Project report, released in January 2023, 58 per cent of food produced for Canadians annually is either lost or wasted, with 47 per cent of that loss—totalling 16.77 million metric tonnes—occurring during manufacturing and processing.

The study also revealed that by working with advisors to reduce food loss and waste in their processes, food manufacturers were able to prevent 3.1 million kg per year of food from being wasted, and 100,295 kg of food to be redistributed. Not only did the companies significantly reduce their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, but they also collectively saved an average of $205,800 annually by retaining food that was being lost or wasted.

Where to start

Thanks to a growing number of Canadian foodtech companies, several solutions are available. For many manufacturers, it starts with an analysis of their internal processes and supply chain. Enviro-Stewards from Elmira, Ont., works with manufacturers to identify the root causes of food waste and loss and determine sustainable solutions. The company takes a holistic approach to assessing and implementing a plan that prevents waste, while conserving resources and improving financial performance.

Food waste-savvy tech

New technology, such as X-ray reclaim services from Plan Automation, is also making it easier to reduce food loss. Plan Automation allows manufacturers to ship potentially contaminated food and beverages to its Bolton, Ont., facility to scan for contaminants, thereby reducing the volume of wasted products. In 2022, the company inspected more than 2.5 million kg of products worth over $10 million, diverting it from landfill.

Meanwhile, digitized supply chain innovations provided by companies such as Bluicity (Grimsby, Ont.) are helping manufacturers manage their value chain more effectively and prevent waste due to improper handling. By using smart sensors and cloud-based algorithms, Bluicity proposes to monitor the movement of goods to provide manufacturers with automated, real-time data on factors such as temperature and humidity, allowing them to quickly take action to prevent food loss through spoilage.

Buddy system

In addition to adjusting their logistics and production processes, manufacturers attempting to lessen their food waste are turning to businesses offering collaborative ways to deal with edible product that is either leftover or not of any value as a sellable item. For instance, there’s now technology for dehydrating, fermenting, and processing, which can be applied to food waste to capture the nutritional and caloric value and turn the ‘waste’ into valuable ingredients.

TrendiTech, Burnaby, B.C., uses robotics and automation to upcycle wasted fruits and vegetables into a variety of nutrient-dense ingredients.

When some food waste is unavoidable, companies such as Ottawa’s Food Cycle Science are stepping in to offer advanced solutions for composting. The company is developing a large-scale, enzyme-enhanced composting unit that can be installed at QSR facilities. Their solution reduces the weight and volume of waste by up to 90 per cent and converts it into resources for enriching soil. This onsite, ‘one-bin system’ of large-scale food composters will allow restaurants to easily manage food waste.

“We understand the difficulties, costs and complexities our clients face when it comes to waste management,” explains CEO Brad Crepeau. “We believe that our technology can be adapted to also process bioplastics onsite, which would help to eliminate many of the challenges our customers face. This will make it easier for our clients, municipalities, and recycling and composting site operators to widely adopt and manage bioplastics.”

Resolving food waste is a complex topic, and one that food and beverage manufacturers do not need to address in a silo. There are many partners who can help you assess your food waste issues. There are also many tools to adopt that could help solve the problem.

As Crepeau says, “The challenges we face are multifaceted, and it will take many people with different backgrounds and perspectives to develop effective solutions. We need diverse partnerships to offer new and divergent ways of thinking and promote innovation.” 

Alexandra Barlow is vice-president, programs, Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN), a free, national, member-based organization stimulating innovation across the Canadian food sector. Contact her at alex@cfin-rcia.ca.

This column was originally published in the August/September 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Food labelling 

Current federal food labelling laws, such as the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR), and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR), focus on prepackaged products. Most consumer food labelling requirements were written with the idea that a food would be sold to consumers in a package in a physical store.

Currently, there are no rules requiring online vendors to provide food labelling information similar to the one on the actual packaging. Unless the online vendor voluntarily provides information, a consumer may not have access to sufficient data in terms of ingredients, allergens, and nutrition to make an informed purchase, as they would when making an in-store purchase. While some online vendors provide this information, it is not a universal practice. Inconsistency and the lack of uniformity in providing key information before a purchase can be frustrating for consumers.

You may wonder why CFIA is not making it mandatory for e-stores to provide label information like that on a physical package.

Regulatory challenges

In the long run, such regulatory modernization will be needed for uniformity. In the short term, industry, CFIA and Health Canada may not have sufficient information to create comprehensive and effective regulations. Further, the absence of online labelling information does not pose immediate health concerns as the required information will be on the packaged product.

CFIA and Health Canada will likely aim at learning more voluntary guidelines are being implemented. This is not an unusual approach to rule making. It is great if objectives can be attained by guidelines. If not, rules will follow. Similar considerations were in place prior to mandatory nutrition and allergen labelling.

Striving for consistency

One of the larger concerns with online retailers providing label information is the assurance that information on the website is consistent with what’s on the actual product label. I have found U.S. label on foods sold to Canadians online.

Also, when a formulation is updated, how quickly will the ingredient or allergen information on the website be updated? How can online information be more integrated to that on the current inventory of foods sold?

The goal is to provide consumers with reliable information. This, even in our highly technologically linked world, seems to have obstacles. Overcoming these obstacles might be more readily available to large retailers. Small online retailers might find themselves at a disadvantage. The voluntary guidelines, hopefully, will provide an easy-to-adopt framework for websites to share accurate information.

Marketing paradox

Canadian food laws also cover advertising. Concerns related to foods misrepresented on e-commerce platforms can be dealt with by current laws. Enforcement may, however, be more challenging for CFIA as they seem to be more active in a physical space. Online images of package food are often a hero shot. This is an image of the packaged product. It may not include mandatory information such as net contents or indicate if the food contains artificial flavours. There is nothing illegal about a hero shot, unless it misrepresents the food.

Claims, including nutrient content or health representations, are subject to the same rules as an any other food. Such claims fall under advertising. The manner in which supporting information is provided might be slightly different than that on a food label, as there are specific rules governing advertising. In general, what is prohibited on a label is prohibited in advertising.

Statistics Canada reported that in 2020 the sale of grocery and household items in Canada reached $3.9 billion. Canada Post reported that an average online shopper in 2022 placed 26 e-commerce orders. Online shopping is here to stay, so it’s important to have some guidelines around labelling of foods sold online. 

Gary Gnirss is a partner and president of Legal Suites Inc., specializing in regulatory software and services. Contact him at president@legalsuites.com.

This column was originally published in the August/September 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Biofermentation

Food products derived from the culture of cells in biofermentation systems have been produced for decades and approved for sale in Canada. Initially, the emphasis was on enzymes for food production, such as expression of rennet. Other examples include expression of leghemoglobin for use in vegan meat substitutes, or synthesis of fucosyllactose for toddler formulas. What is new is that animal cells are being cultured in mass quantity for the first time with the intent of using the cells as food, rather than using them as biofactories for proteins and molecules.

Given the high precision and control of biofermentation, a high degree of food safety is expected.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) held a joint task force on evaluating food safety issues of cell-based meat products. They released their initial findings in April 2023. Their emphasis was on a systematic approach to food safety. They anticipate cell-sourcing, cell growth and production, cell harvesting, and food processing to carry some risks.

Using a risk-based methodology, the FAO-WHO taskforce investigated consumer perceptions for naming cell-based meat products, noting that consistency of factual terms surrounding the tech will help build confidence in the product’s safety and quality.

Codex Alimentarius is also expected to have a framework for standard of identity related to cell-based meat by year end.

Procedures

In Canada, novel foods are evaluated by Health Canada and CFIA for safety prior to public release. Manufacturers, producers, importers, and other interested parties can apply for approval. It is up to the applicant to provide a comprehensive report evaluating the product’s safety considerations. This officially includes descriptions of the novel food and how the food will be used, typical dietary exposure, nutrition, toxicology, allergenicity, chemical considerations, and other food safety issues.

For novel plants, this would also include potential for gene flow to native species, potential for becoming a weed or invasive plant, and impact on biodiversity. For all novel foods, a method of analysis and detection must be provided in the application. It’s anticipated that Health Canada would use a synthesis of this methodology when evaluating cell-based meats and other cultured protein products.

Health Canada lists novel foods that have been approved, as well as foods that are deemed not novel. Currently, it has extensive decision-making processes for novel plant-based foods, and it’s anticipated a similar rigour will apply for novel cell-based meat.

Health Canada did a consultation process on labelling of plant-based meat substitutes, and simulated meats in 2020. It found Canadians wanted clarity on labelling requirements. Similarly, the labelling of cell-based meat and protein products will be vitally important for consumer confidence and acceptance.

The technology for cell-based meat is possible, and the technology is available right now. However, substantial research is needed to enhance the affordability of the product compared to conventional meat or other food protein sources.

Canadian companies and academic groups have formed the Cellular Agriculture Canada group to advocate for industry, including regulatory and food safety approvals. As production scales, there will be need for workforce training specific to this industry.

While cell-based meat is capturing a large proportion of attention, there are several Canadian companies who are looking at plant-based proteins to create better quality analogue products. These companies are not facing the same regulatory barriers for novelty as they have emphasized plant-based ingredients with histories of safe use. Instead, their primary regulatory barrier is labelling and general food safety. 

At the time of writing this article, no cell-based meat, dairy or seafood products were approved by Health Canada. 

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached via email at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

Food brands with a strong food safety culture are in a better position to prevent and overcome potentially expensive food safety and quality related disruptions, according to Paul Valder, a food safety and quality veteran and CEO of Culture Assurance Consulting (CAC). He leads a team of specialists who support food processors by performing risk assessments, developing food safety certification systems, and providing proprietary software.

Food safety culture

It is a mindset that starts at the top of an organization, with senior leadership driving it to permeate every department. Food safety and quality becomes a company-wide commitment, no longer relegated exclusively to QA or food safety teams. Every employee understands their role and is committed to ensuring food safety and quality, regardless of their title. The phrase, “if you see something, say something,” comes to mind. The result is a proactive approach to mitigate food safety and quality risks.

Benefits

Although food safety culture may not prevent issues from arising, it can reduce the scale and enable businesses to resolve issues more quickly, which yields numerous benefits, such as:

• reduced product recalls, quality issues and consumer complaints;
• reduced severity of issues when potential problems are flagged by employees before they escalate;
• minimized financial impact from lost sales, investigations, disposal costs, packaging re-works, legal fees, customer fees and penalties and repairing reputational damage;
• reduced food and packaging waste;
• higher audit success rates with fewer non-conformances;
• maintains positive company and brand reputations and minimizes damage;
• retains customers through improved service levels;
• higher employee retention because they are engaged and have a sense of company pride;
• builds and protects customer and consumer loyalty and trust in your brand; and
• differentiates your brand. 

With consumers increasingly concerned about the ingredients and safety of their food, there is an opportunity to publicize the steps your company takes to ensure your products are safe.

Key ingredients

Management must provide constant reinforcement and the required resources to facilitate an enduring food safety culture. Incorporating it in the recruiting process, measuring performance, incentivizing employees, and providing ongoing training is essential. Integrating food safety culture with strong company and brand values, and diligently adhering to those values, will strengthen your organization. Other critical components include a food safety and quality management system, supported by a robust software solution. Valder recommends implementation of a flexible, modular software system that enables customization of food safety and quality programs to suit business processes, and is capable of integrating with existing ERP systems to streamline, digitize and automate real-time reporting processes.

Counter resistance

Change inevitably sparks pushback. Cultivating a food safety culture is no different. Excuses run the gamut from “don’t have the time and it’s QA’s job” to “it’s disruptive and too expensive”. 

Management may not comprehend the risks of inaction. Valder recommends developing a risk mitigation strategy to expose risk events, measure the impact on the business and prioritize required corrective actions.

Overcome financial hurdles

In today’s climate, food processors are stretched for time, resources, and finances more than ever before. To bridge the funding gap, Valder suggests taking advantage of government funding programs.

In short, investing in building a food safety culture is a no-brainer to protect your business, your brand, and your bottom line. 

As a CPG food consultant, Birgit Blain helps clients think strategically to build a sustainable brand. Her experience includes 17 years with Loblaw Brands and President’s Choice. Contact her at birgit@bbandassoc.com or learn more at www.bbandassoc.com.

Supply chain optimization

Automation and AI streamline supply chain processes, enabling companies to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively. For instance, Toronto-based McCain Foods has enriched and enhanced its demand planning and production forecast through its investment in Fiddlehead Technology (Moncton, N.B.), a company specializing in data science and machine learning solutions for the food and beverage industry. This has allowed McCain to better manage inventory, reduce its waste, costs, and carbon footprint.

TheoryMesh, Winnipeg, is growing its software as a service (SaaS) platform that captures data from across food supply chains and uses blockchain and machine learning for certification and traceability.

“Improving the food supply chain is an imperative to feed the world and reduce the impact of agriculture and food waste on the environment,” says TheoryMesh CEO Chris Bunio.

Improved product quality

Robotics and AI are being used by food companies to ensure product quality and safety. A notable example is A&L Canada Laboratories in London, Ont. It uses AI-driven image analysis to detect contaminants and defects in food products, ensuring they meet the highest safety standards. This technology reduces the risk of food-borne illnesses and enhances consumer trust in the industry. Additionally, food and beverage businesses are using robotics to automate the cleaning of food processing equipment, reducing the risk of contamination, and improving food safety.

Labour savings

By automating repetitive and physically demanding tasks, companies can save labour costs and improve working conditions for their employees. Robotics is becoming prevalent throughout all stages of food production, including for sorting, packaging, and material handling. Robots help reduce workplace injuries, increase efficiency, scale up production, and allow employees to perform less physically demanding and risky tasks.

With Canadian Food Innovation Network’s (CFIN’s) support, Cyberworks Robotics, Markham, Ont., is developing autonomous self-driving tow tugs for food distribution and production centres. The company is currently partnering on a pilot project to mitigate labour shortages, decrease operating costs, increase worker safety, and increase logistical efficiencies within facilities, without changes to their infrastructure.

“Our mission is to reduce costs to the consumer,” explains Vivek Burhanpurkar, CEO of Cyberworks. “We enable this by reducing labour shortages and labour costs for food and beverage companies by providing self-driving solutions for common tasks like operation of forklifts and floor scrubbers.”

Reducing waste

Industrial solutions based on automation and AI are used to reduce waste, water use and the reliance on plastics. Automated systems for packaging and processing, for instance, can reduce waste, while improving efficiency. Ottawa’s Food Cycle Science Corporation (FCS) is developing technology that combines the use of enzymes with automation of food waste biodegradation. The company uses sensors and automation in its FoodCycler technology to rapidly degrade biodegradable plastics and transform them, along with food waste, into a beneficial soil amendment that reduces reliance on artificial fertilizers and contributes to a circular food economy.

AI-driven technologies are revolutionizing all aspects of the industry, from new product development to supply chain management and sustainability efforts. Expect to see more companies investing in automation and AI to maintain their competitive edge.

Cost savings and price optimization

By using AI and machine learning, food businesses can make data-driven decisions, optimize pricing strategies, and improve overall profitability through:

Demand forecasting – analyzing data such as historical trends, identifying seasonality and weather patterns to predict demand.

Dynamic pricing – monitoring real-time market conditions, competitor pricing, and customer behaviour to adjust prices dynamically.

Personalized pricing – analyzing customer behaviour, preferences, and purchasing history to create personalized offers and targeted discounts.

Price elasticity modelling – estimating price elasticity, which measures the sensitivity of demand to changes in price.

Inventory management – helping to optimize inventory levels by analyzing sales data, identifying patterns, and predicting future stock needs.

Promotion optimization – analyzing past promotional campaigns, customer responses, and competitor strategies to help businesses design effective promotions.

Competitor analysis – monitoring competitor prices, promotional activities, and product offerings in real-time so food businesses can make informed decisions on pricing and marketing strategies.

Cost optimization – identifying inefficiencies in the supply chain, production processes, and distribution networks, leading to cost savings.

Nestor Gomez is chief technology officer for the Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN), a national, free, member-based organization stimulating innovation across the Canadian food sector. Contact him at nestor@cfin-rcia.ca.

In 1995, a critical Auditor General report and continuing criticism by provinces and industry about overlaps and confusion in food inspection led the federal government to review the delivery of food inspection and related activities. This resulted in the creation of the Office of Food Inspection Systems (OFIS) with a mandate to consult Canadians, particularly the provinces and industry and consumer groups, and analyze options for change. OFIS carried out an extensive consultation and submitted four options to the federal government in November 1995. The options ranged from a modest recommendation that the four responsible departments co-ordinate better to the most radical change of creating a new legislated agency with a president (deputy minister) reporting directly to a federal minister. This agency will be responsible for enforcement along the whole food chain, from seeds, feeds, fertilizer, animal health and plant protection to all food commodities. Cabinet selected the agency option, brought 16 programs (and multiple statutes) under one roof, with the agency president reporting directly to the agriculture minister. Legislation was expedited and CFIA opened its doors on April 1, 1997.

During the consultations leading to the creation of CFIA, OFIS promised the next step toward consolidation would be a single, modernized food act. After further consultation and analysis, Bill C-81 was introduced in Parliament. The minister of the day chose not to proceed with the legislation as, in his opinion, proceeding would have given opposition parties opportunities to raise several controversial issues at the time, such as the regulation of organics, and the serious threat of the introduction of Mad Cow Disease into Canada.

Consolidating food law

It took many years before Canada had a partially consolidated food law regime with the Safe Food For Canadians Act. This act replaced the Meat Inspection Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. The Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) consolidated 14 sets of regulations and came into force in 2019, creating a more modernized and comprehensive system of licensing, and preventive controls requirements to address potential risks to food safety.

In the years since the promulgation of SFCR, a mountain of new directives, regulations, policies, and guidelines have been developed. As Katrina Coughlin, who practices agriculture and food law in the Ottawa offices of Gowling WLG, recently commented, “If you’re in the food industry, you’re always swimming in a sea of regulation.”

Looking back, Peter Brackenridge, an original OFIS member and later CFIA vice-president, notes from his interactions with other countries, “Canada is the envy of the world to have such a consolidated and modernized system; having the same agency responsible for animal health, plant health, feed regulation and food safety is still very rare. It has proven to be invaluable in dealing with critical issues, including zoonotic diseases such as BSE.” 

He notes that our Office of Food Safety and Recall has been recognized internationally as a model.

Recurring themes

Looking back over the last 20 years of this Food Law column, a number of interesting insights emerge. For example, considering the scope and depth of Canada’s food law, it is remarkable how little jurisprudence there is, a fact discussed in the 2017 article, “Sue the CFIA? Good Luck”. Food recalls, trade issues, consumer fraud, and organic food regulation were repeating topics. The relationship between science and politics (a profound confusion that still exists, as we all saw in the recent COVID-19 pandemic) was a recurrent topic, which we discussed in the 2008 column, “Politicizing science: Scientizing politics,” and the 2016 article, “Separate Science and Politics? Think Again”.

Several articles also promoted the concept of one health, which recognizes that the health of people is closely connected to the health of animals and our shared environment. The recent appointment of Dr. Harpreet Kochar as president of CFIA bodes well for the promotion of one health, as Dr. Kochar has been Canada’s chief veterinary officer and an associate deputy minister of health.

We’ve come a long way in 25 years. Our food law regime is not perfect, but I would argue it is second to none. 

Ronald L. Doering, BA, LL.B. MA, LL.D., is past president, CFIA. He is counsel in the Ottawa offices of Gowling WLG, and adjunct professor, Food Science, Carleton University. Contact him at ronald.doering@gowlings.com.

Clear pathways for manufacturers

Determining the risk category of a food is one of the top issues in the Listeria policy. Some food products allow Listeria growth during their shelf life, known as Category 1 product. Others have factors such as pH, water activity, thermal processes, freezing processes, inclusion of antimicrobial ingredients or processing aids, or novel processes, which make Listeria far less likely to be within the product and able to grow. These are known as Category 2 products. The 2023 policy includes comprehensive decision-making tools for manufacturers to understand where their product falls in the risk categories of 1, 2A and 2B. Once you know the risk, you can determine the level of attention and frequency required on environmental and product monitoring.

Effective preventive control

The 2023 policy establishes good manufacturing practices as essential for effective Listeria control. Management commitment, and effective implementation of the overarching HACCP or preventive control program, create the environment that allows good safety systems to work. While the policy does not name it, commitment to food safety culture is essential for effective Listeria control, as workers must feel implicated and have organizational support for applying preventive controls and participating in monitoring programs.

Environmental monitoring

Listeria is notorious because it can thrive in biofilms in refrigerated environments. Environmental monitoring is the swabbing of surfaces for presence of Listeria or other organisms. It’s typically done during manufacturing, usually three hours after start of operations, as this is when Listeria would rub off into product from biofilms in machines. It is also done immediately after pre-operation sanitation to monitor effectiveness of sanitation protocols. When determining priority swabbing locations, individuals designing testing protocols need to take time inspecting equipment and processes to look for places where food accumulates inconspicuously and cracks or crevices that are hard to clean. Direct food contact surfaces are top priority, including machines, belts, and conveyors. Secondary priority is for non-contact points where Listeria thrives and quickly cross contaminates, such as hoses, drains, and mops. Sampling guidance has been created for high- and low-risk products and non-food contact surfaces.

Product testing

The 2023 policy has clear tables for quantity of samples required for product testing. The high-risk action criteria is any detection of Listeria monocytogenes in a single or composite 5 x 25 g sample. Low-risk action criteria is enumeration at greater than 100 cfu/g in a 5 x 10 g sample evaluated separately. High-risk products are more likely to be sampled frequently, thus the allowance for compositing to mitigate costs. However, compositing may not allow for precise detection and, if flagged for positive results, would require repeated testing.

Frequency and methods of testing

In the 2023 policy, testing frequency is determined by a systematic evaluation of the risk, including efficacy of the preventive control program, risk category of the product, historical in-plant data, and size of the manufacturing lot. Consulting a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspector is essential in determining appropriate frequency. Analytical methods should be approved and listed in Health Canada’s Compendium of Analytical Methods.

Importance of process validation

Food manufacturers are required to validate their ingredient or process, using outcomes-based frameworks showing evidence that interventions are effective.

Trend analysis

In microbiological testing, it’s typical to see variation in samples. Statistical process control (SPC) allows for the tracking of trends over time, to visualize common cause and special cause variations. The new Listeria policy recommends, but does not indicate how to do, SPC. Organizations such as ASQ provide free educational tools for SPC. Control Charts and Pareto analysis are useful for prioritizing attention and observing loss of control.  

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached via email at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the June/July 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Shifting patterns in ice cream availability and consumption

Over the past few decades, the quantity of available ice cream in Canada has experienced a significant reduction, serving as a surrogate marker for individual ice cream consumption. Statistics Canada indicates that approximately 40 years ago, the average Canadian consumed around 12 L of ice cream per year. Presently, this figure has decreased to a mere 4.5 L, signifying a substantial shift in the demand landscape. Notably, the present level represents less than half of the per capita consumption recorded in 1970, when each Canadian had access to 12.71 L of ice cream annually. A similar trend is evident in the United States, indicating broader implications for North American ice cream markets.

Changing dietary preferences and health concerns

The observed decline in ice cream consumption may be attributed to evolving dietary preferences and health-related apprehensions. An increasing awareness of food allergies and intolerances has prompted individuals to reevaluate their consumption of ice cream, leading some to eschew traditional ice cream retail outlets altogether. Further, the perception of ice cream as a caloric indulgence, characterized by high sugar and fat content, has positioned it unfavourably among health-conscious consumers. The advent of healthier treat alternatives has further diminished ice cream’s allure, and the 2019 iteration of Canada’s food guide, with its reduced emphasis on dairy products, including ice cream, may have compounded these effects.

The impact of COVID-19

The year 2020 witnessed a transient surge in ice cream demand, colloquially termed the “COVID ice cream bump,” wherein ice cream consumption spiked by over a litre per person within a single year, primarily attributed to in-home indulgence during pandemic-related lockdowns. Nevertheless, these levels have since returned to pre-pandemic figures, suggesting that the pandemic’s influence on ice cream consumption was fleeting.

Demographic shifts and market competition

Demographic changes are instrumental in shaping ice cream consumption patterns. With a decline in the number of children and the prevalence of smaller households, the conventional appeal of ice cream parlours as family destinations has diminished. Conversely, adults continue to enjoy occasional treats, albeit with greater health consciousness influencing their consumption behaviour. Additionally, the ice cream market faces heightened competition from an array of frozen dessert options, such as frozen yogurt, gelato, and sorbet, which cater to evolving consumer preferences. The diversification of ice cream offerings, featuring elaborate toppings and ingredients, further complicates consumer choices compared to the more straightforward options available in the past.

Modern lifestyles and pricing dynamics

The contemporary lifestyle, characterized by time constraints and a preference for convenience, may also contribute to the declining demand for ice cream, as consuming ice cream requires a significant investment of time and attention. Moreover, while overall consumer prices have risen since June 2022, ice cream prices have witnessed a surprising decline of 3.4 per cent since the onset of summer, as reported by Statistics Canada’s recent Consumer Price Index. Despite this favourable pricing trend, the demand for ice cream has yet to register a significant resurgence.

The declining demand for ice cream in Canada embodies a nuanced interplay of factors, encompassing shifting dietary preferences, health concerns, demographic dynamics, intensified market competition, and the brief impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is the summer, after all, so nothing wrong treating yourself with some ice cream.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is professor and senior director, Agri-food Analytics Lab, Dalhousie University.

Confectionery is often given as a gift or to celebrate special occasions, thus requiring premiumization. Product differentiation can be achieved through unique container shapes, designs and textures, as well as the use of attractive graphics.

Packaging design and materials are evolving to reflect the changing consumer demands for wellness and healthy lifestyles. Smaller portions are being offered to cater to consumers who want to indulge in moderation, and the packaging emphasizes using ingredients that are ‘clean’, natural, organic, and fair-trade.

With greater awareness of the impacts of plastic packaging waste on wildlife and the environment, it is not surprising the top trend for confectionery is sustainable packaging. Consumers are looking for eco-friendly packaging, and brand owners are responding. Alternative to traditional petroleum-based plastics is compostable/biodegradable and plant-based plastics. Also, the use of recyclable material and the integration of recycled content is increasing. Packaging reduction or light weighting are other means of reducing waste. Reusable and refillable packaging options are increasingly being offered as well.

Sustainability goals

Many large confectionery companies have set sustainability goals for their packaging. One of Nestle’s sustainability goals is to have 95 per cent of its packaging designed for recycling and reduce virgin plastic use by one-third by 2025. For example, Nestle UK has changed the foil wrappers for their Quality Street candy line to recyclable paper wrappers. Kit Kat packaging in Japan has replaced plastic wrap with sustainable matte paper that can also be made into origami. The Smarties brand now uses recyclable paper.

Mars also aims to contribute to a circular economy. They have replaced virgin plastic with a mix of recycled plastic in their Kind snack bar packaging.

Mondelez is driving toward net zero waste packaging with initiatives like reducing the box volume of Napolitain biscuits, removing hard-to-recycle PVC plastic windows from Cadbury Favourites boxes, and introducing a cardboard-only pack format for Cadbury Easter Inclusion Shell.

One must consider the implication of material and design changes to packaging. Does the new material have the same handling properties, heat seal properties, moisture, and oxygen barrier? Intensive work is put into the development of new materials and coatings. In some cases, changes in printing and the adaption of existing packaging equipment may be required. Product safety and quality are paramount. To this end, extensive prototype testing is performed along with evaluation throughout the supply chain. The product’s package integrity and shelf life must be evaluated to reflect real-life scenarios such as transportation and warehousing in various environments and retail and consumer handling.

Innovations

The increasing demand for sustainable, eco-friendly packaging materials and innovative packaging designs will drive the future of confectionery packaging. Brands will continue to develop new packaging materials that are biodegradable, compostable, or plant-based while exploring new packaging formats that can be recycled or reused.

Edible packaging is one potential innovation area for consumable wrapping or coatings around confectionery. It eliminates package waste and could provide additional functionality such as antimicrobials, vitamins, antioxidants, and nutrients. Incorporating nanotechnology into edible packaging could enhance its functionality. Smart packaging is another innovation area, which can provide real-time information about the product’s freshness, safety, and quality. This could include technologies such as RFID tags, QR codes, or NFC chips that allow consumers to track the product’s journey from farm to table.

By incorporating sustainable packaging, companies can meet changing consumer demands as well as contribute to a healthier planet.  

Carol Zweep is food consulting manager for NSF. Contact her at czweep@nsf.org.

The creation of CFIA was a profound achievement. It set the foundation for statutory changes that culminated in the consolidation of federal food laws under the Safe Food for Canadian Act (SFCA) and Safe Food for Canadian Regulations (SFCR).

Prior to CFIA, foods in Canada were governed by numerous federal departments. This hampered the delivery of predictable services to industry. It also was an obstacle to a single vision of food safety. While the ministers of agriculture and agri-food and health govern CFIA today, the agency provides a focal point for federal oversight of food safety and animal and plant health.

Federal food laws

It’s important to note that foods today are governed, federally, by both the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) and Food and Drugs Regulations (FDR), as well as the SFCA/SFCR. There is a bit of duplication of federal food standards in FDR and SFCR. This has not gone unnoticed. CFIA plans to modernize this framework. It is likely that in the not-so-distant future, food standards will be consolidated in a single document that will be incorporated by reference by both SFCR and FDR. This is part of the vision that led to the creation of CFIA.

While the establishment of CFIA in 1997 was a significant milestone, the impact of SFCA/SFCR on governance of food is unparalleled in Canadian history. SFCA received Royal assent only in November 2012. SFCR was registered in May 2018. The two came into force on January 15, 2019. The last of the transitional provisions under SFCR happened at the end of 2022 only.

It has indeed taken a long time to consolidate and modernize federal food laws, but the result is worth the grief and time, as Canada now has a much more robust food safety system.

Milestones

Over the lifespan of CFIA, there have been other major modernization milestones. Mandatory nutrition labelling came into force in 2003. These food labelling rules were some of the most prescriptive Canada has ever seen. A transition period of three to five years was offered. By 2007, prepackaged foods in Canada were required to include a nutrition facts table (NFt), when applicable. Enhanced food allergen, gluten source and sulphite labelling became law in 2011, but offered a two-year transition period. In 2016, nutrition, ingredient and allergen labelling were modernized. A five-year transition period was offered but it was extended until December 14, 2022 (with additional extension till December 14, 2023, for few straggling products) due to the pandemic. Then in 2022, another watershed period ushered in new rules for supplemented foods and front of package (FOP) nutrition symbols. The new FOP rules have a transition period, which ends on December 31, 2025.

In July 2022, CFIA finalized the Food Product Innovation rules.

The future of food regulations in Canada will have many new chapters.

CFIA has begun working on its food labelling modernization (FLM) initiative. Proposed rules were published in Canada Gazette I in June 2019. However, CFIA elected to complete only the “housekeeping” portions of the initiative due to COVID-19. CFIA plans to reintroduce FLM but hasn’t provided a timeline for that. It is important to remember SFCA/SFCR was designed to be the first step in modernizing food labelling, so expect more modernization.  

Gary Gnirss is a partner and president of Legal Suites Inc., specializing in regulatory software and services. Contact him at president@legalsuites.com.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

In the era of automated sensors, PLCs, and interconnected enterprise management systems, it’s tempting to collect every bit of data. But why collect them all? I’ve worked with companies interested in finding all the things they can measure, and they end up with spreadsheets of millions of numbers that merely fill up storage instead of creating action for quality. Observational data, when used strategically, should turn into visual tools that help inform decision-making. Meaningful and actionable measurements will have a positive impact on the product and help reduce errors and waste.

Meaningful measurements

Every measure should have a purpose for improving the product’s safety or quality. Each product and process have unique characteristics, so it’s important to have product developers, operations, machine operators, quality and food safety specialists, packaging, shipping, and consumer feedback teams communicate to identify where and how quality is achieved. Each of these members of the manufacturing team have different insights into how the system maintains or loses quality. It’s the food safety and quality manager’s role to make sure those conversations happen.

While it’s tempting to take as many measures as possible with automation, frequency must be coupled with ability to act. Real-time measurements are great if they are linked to some sort of control mechanism such as a SCADA controller that automatically adjusts the system, or a mechanism like optical sorter that removes non-conforming product. If a human needs to interpret and intervene in the quality control process, make sure the frequency of measurement corresponds to the ability to trace and control the affected product, and intervene appropriately.

Making sense of measurements

Statistical tools and spreadsheets, such as those shared publicly by ASQ (www.asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-tools), can help visualize data. Statistical process control charts are particularly useful. They allow for observation of the natural variation that occurs in food products and processes.

No system is perfect. There is always some variation, which is described as “common cause variation”. Special cause variation refers to a system that’s losing control. These terms were championed by statistician, Lloyd Nelson. The Nelson Rules help interpret when a process is losing control. Control charts can be used for all sorts of measures, from evaluation of ATP results in sanitation and monitoring microbiology total plate counts, frequency of different attributes or defects to tracking moisture and energy efficiency of operations. Some organizations will create spreadsheet templates or macro tools to help catalogue this data efficiently. Many ERP systems are building this type of analysis into their base programs.

Measuring in the qualitative space

Qualitative measures, such as colour, flavour, consumer attitudes, and workforce morale, contribute to quality. There are creative ways to convert qualitative measurements into numerical systems, such as frequency tables, colour space charts, or Likert scales.

Creating solutions

Automation can collect data for quality and food safety, and statistical tools can help visualize the information, but competent humans are the decision-makers. It’s important to use root cause methodology, take time to investigate and see the big picture of all the interconnected systems causing quality and food safety issues.

In root cause analysis, factors related to measurement, materials, personnel, environment, methods, and machines are investigated for their contributions to quality. Many quality practitioners also add finance and management to the root cause. Each of these factors is questioned and investigated objectively to find opportunities for improvement.

Humans are best suited to seeing the big picture and interconnected aspect of quality factors. Don’t let numbers overwhelm the system. Make sure your organization stays in control by using the right numbers and analyzing them well.  

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

In today’s highly competitive market, sales can be hard to come by, so every customer counts.

The stats

English and French are Canada’s two official languages. According to Statistics Canada, 21.4 per cent of Canadians, equating to almost 8 million consumers, choose French as their first official language. They don’t all live in Québec. Every province and territory have Francophone representation, totalling 1 million people outside Québec. An additional 2 million Canadians are English/French bilingual.

Québec is a huge market with a headcount of 8.5 million, representing 24 per cent of the Canadian population. It’s also a culinary mecca where food is celebrated.

Alienating the French-speaking demographic is short-sighted, and the absence of French demonstrates a lack of cultural sensitivity and respect.

It’s the law

As a key communication vehicle for brands, packaging needs to entice, inform, and sell, within the law. Health Canada food labelling regulations require mandatory information is presented in English and French, in equal prominence. What that means is that both languages must stand out equally. This is achieved by using the same fonts, type sizes and colours.

Further, Québec’s Charter of the French Language requires all labelling appear in French, and English text cannot be more prominent.

Accuracy is important, as the French-Canadian language has unique words and expressions. Hence international French is not appropriate. Close attention is needed to ensure the proper use of accents, capitalization, punctuation, and numeric values to avoid costly errors and miscommunication. Therefore, I highly recommend consulting with a certified translator.

A caveat

French is Québec’s only official language. The Québec government has taken great pains to ensure French is “the common language” for business and life, by strengthening the Charter of the French Language through recent amendments in Bill 96. 

This adds a layer of complexity when conducting business with the Québec market. The legislation extends beyond companies operating within Québec. It also affects businesses outside the province that market to Québecers. Think e-commerce.

Business documents including contracts, invoices, as well as marketing materials, websites and advertising must all be in French. As well, customer service activities, business services and employee relations must be provided in French.

Trademarks are also affected. Unregistered non-French trademarks are not permitted. This necessitates registration of English trademarks. Once registered, they can be used with the following provisos:

• there can be no corresponding registered French trademarks;
• descriptions or generic terms in English trademarks must be translated into French; and
•  signage and advertising that is “visible from outside premises” must have “markedly predominant French”.

Alternatively, registered French trademarks can be used in lieu of English versions. As some of the wording in the statutes is vague, legal advice as to interpretation and risks is recommended.

Conducting business with Québec requires accommodations akin to dealing with a non-English-speaking country. All departments within a business are affected. Consider it to be a cost of doing business. Is the investment worth it? Brand owners must decide whether it aligns with their business goals and strategies. 

As a CPG food consultant, Birgit Blain helps clients think strategically to build a sustainable brand. Her experience includes 17 years with Loblaw Brands and President’s Choice. Contact her at birgit@bbandassoc.com or learn more at www.bbandassoc.com.

This column was originally published in the February/March 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

While these transformations have enabled greater efficiencies in the supply chain, they have unfortunately also expanded the sector’s attack surfaces, which has resulted in increased cyber threats. Just like other modern industries, the food supply chain utilizes a mix of legacy and modern solutions, including a reliance on third-party software. Perhaps the biggest problem today in any industry is the vulnerability of legacy systems, and the third-party systems out of our control.

The cyber threats most commonly seen being launched against the food supply industry are attempted ransomware attacks. The second most common are info stealers harvesting financial, customer and employee data from a company’s servers and endpoints. This data is then sold on dark web marketplaces.

Whether your organization is a food manufacturer, processor, retailer, or distributor, threat actors will capitalize on vulnerable IT systems and human nature to achieve their objectives. How do these threat actors typically gain access to organizations in the food supply chain’s network? This can be broken down into three categories:

1. Drive-by-attacks

Drive-by-Attacks are threats encountered when employees browse the web. For example, the SocGholish malware leverages compromised websites and uses false ‘out of date browser alerts’ to trick users into executing the malware. Another example, SolarMarker, employs search engine optimization poisoning to hijack search results when employees look for forms and templates when using a search engine.

2. Email

Perhaps the most common, email compromises are threats that arrive in email inboxes disguised as typical business communications with subject lines such as ‘Invoice’ or ‘Shipping.’ In order to bypass the email filters, these malware strains wrap malicious documents and other files in password-protected .zip archives. To increase their chance of successfully compromising a machine, the threat actors will hijack and replay older email threads, sometimes from known business contacts.

3. Remote exploits

This initial access is possible when machines with remotely exploitable vulnerabilities are exposed to the internet. Attackers launch exploits at the vulnerabilities, trying to gain access and, if successful, this can lead to a variety of malware being downloaded onto the victim’s IT environment, including information stealers and ransomware.

Protecting against bad actors

There are things that can be done, however, to protect your food supply business from bad actors. Proven best practices include implementing strong access control measures, especially for privileged users, and ensuring the vendors in your supply chain and their third-party vendors are protecting their own IT systems (there have been numerous successful attacks against companies due to hackers compromising their third-party vendors). To get more specific:

1. Endpoint monitoring

Deploy an endpoint detection and response (EDR) solution for 24/7 endpoint monitoring to workstations, ensure the endpoints leverage rules around user execution and Windows proxy execution.

2. Cybersecurity awareness training

Ensure your employees understand the dangers of phishing emails and business email compromise (BEC) attacks and malicious web browser downloads through phishing and security awareness training (PSAT). Training provided internally or by an experienced cybersecurity company should include:

• be suspicious of attachments from people you don’t know – additional care is required in cases where you must accept documents from the public (such as when hiring new employees and asking for candidates to submit their resume to you);
• inspect attachment file types by right clicking the file and selecting properties;
• documents emailed to you should never come as a LNK, ISO, or VBS files; and
• often these malicious files will be enclosed in a .zip file to bypass email filters.

It’s important, too, that your IT cybersecurity team should have a reporting process in place that does not punish users in case they accidentally click on a malicious link as punishing users discourages reporting.

3. Email filtering appliances

Email filtering appliances can help detect and stop spam/malicious email.

4. Network monitoring

Automatically block known malicious infrastructure and investigate suspicious packet behavior using a network detection and response solution to help disrupt cyberattacks before they lead to infections.

5. Vulnerability management

Adopt a comprehensive vulnerability management program so that you have an updated inventory for all your assets. Identify existing vulnerabilities and which ones can be exploited, and prioritize them based on the threat landscape. Different vulnerabilities have a different probability of being exploited with varying degrees of consequences. Knowing the types of vulnerabilities and the state of exploit maturity among threat actors can help prioritize patch management.

6. 24/7 managed detection and response

Establish an in-house managed detection and response (MDR) service internally for 24/7 security monitoring, threat hunting and threat containment expertise. Alternatively, engage the services of a cybersecurity company who provides 24/7 MDR Services to customers globally. The speed with which you can detect and contain a threat actor before they achieve their objectives is imperative in preventing business disruption.

A glaring example of what can happen when best practices are not fully in place happened to an international food producer in 2021, causing them to lose nearly two days of production and pay the $11 million ransom to protect customer data, followed by months of system clean up. A source close to that incident learned some valuable lessons from that event.

“It’s imperative that companies do not wait until an attack occurs to get your cybersecurity in place. Get executives involved so they understand the risks, and cover the basics such as employee security awareness training, IT hygiene, weekly reviews of the incident response plan, and aligning with a quality cybersecurity partner,” he said.

More recently, produce company Dole Plc was hit by a ransomware attack in February 2023 causing significant disruption to the company’s North American operations. Beyond the initial shortages of Dole produce on store shelves and associated price increases due to diminished supply, we may see a ripple effect on other food producers that incorporate Dole produce in their supply chains, leading to shortages and financial impact far beyond just Dole itself. Additionally, as news of the impact of these types of attacks is received by adversary countries, they will no doubt take note in their cyber warfare playbooks. Countries where sanctions have impacted the national food supply will likely view ransomware or simple destructive attacks against the food chain of the supporters of those sanctions to be retaliation in kind.

In summary, organizations must now view ransomware events as inevitable, and critical infrastructure stakeholders must consider themselves a primary target. They must prepare their teams, harden their networks and plan for their incident response in advance, the goal being to never pay a ransom, ever. By implementing a vulnerability management program and by having a proactive threat detection and response capability for your endpoints, log, network and cloud, you are able to deal with threats in real time, and kick bad guys out of your network when they strike. You should also be empowering your people by providing them with security awareness training, tying the mandatory training to bonuses, if needed. Finally, if you do have to break the glass, it’s worth having an incident response retainer in place in order to support the remediation of major incidents. While the cost of having robust and regularly tested backups, software patch management, endpoint protection, employee education and strong network controls may be significant, it is a mandatory cost of doing business in these times.

Greg Crowley is the chief information security officer for eSentire. Crowley is an accomplished executive with over 20 years in IT and cybersecurity with extensive experience in managing enterprise security and mitigating risk for global hybrid networks.

The supplemented food regulations that came into force last summer allow for the sale of certain categories of supplemented foods (e.g. bars, water-based beverages, chewing gum) supplemented with certain permitted ingredients (e.g. vitamins, minerals, amino acids, caffeine). It was supported by years of research under the temporary marketing authorization (TMA) regime. The ability to supplement foods is not a free for all—the categories, ingredients, and levels are limited, as set out in the Lists (the List of Permitted Supplemented Food Categories and the List of Permitted Supplemental Ingredients). Supplemented foods also have specific labelling requirements, including cautionary statements in some cases.

The draft guidance describes the process to request a change to the existing Lists. A submission must be filed, including a description of the requested change and scientific evidence that supports the safety of the change. If the requested change meets the requirements, the List will be updated.

With respect to safety of supplemental ingredients, the proposed process intends to address a range of ingredients, from plant extracts commonly used under the TMA regime to new ingredients. A significant breadth of data is identified to support the addition of a new substance or modification to an existing entry. The Food Directorate will consider scientific evaluations and approvals from other programs, such as the European Union Food Safety Authority, but will conduct its own assessment. As such, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to submit sufficient information for a complete assessment, including a full review of the potential risks and toxicological data.

The list of toxicological data that can be submitted closely resembles that evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in their toxicology monographs, and includes acute, short- and long-term toxicity; genotoxicity; reproductive and developmental toxicity; and pharmacokinetics studies. The Food Directorate expects these studies to be performed according to robust testing standards and are supportive of non-animal methods, provided they give results of comparable quality.

The draft guidance provides human clinical trials may be submitted, but with the limiting condition that trials primarily focused on the therapeutic effects of the ingredient will not be considered “sufficient for use in a safety evaluation”. Given the extent of the toxicological evidence contemplated, it would be valuable to stakeholders if the guidance included minimum evidence requirements, tailored to various levels of request complexity.

Considerably less information is provided on the data required to support a modification request. The applicant will be expected to provide an overview of anticipated intake across life stage and gender groups but is unclear how the Food Directorate will determine which supplemental ingredients may be permitted for use within a new food category and whether it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide safety evidence to support this decision.

Also, the draft guidance doesn’t include performance standards or timelines for the review of new submissions. The fact that the Lists are incorporated by reference, and can be changed without a formal regulatory process is beneficial, but reasonable and predictable performance standards for new submissions will be key to ensuring the framework is agile enough to encourage innovation and provide Canadians with safe access to new supplemented foods. Given how easy it is for Canadians to order online and legally import a variety of foods under personal exemptions, the Canadian regulatory regime needs to adapt to keep pace.

Dr. Kiah Barton is a scientific research advisor and Laura Gomez is a lawyer in Ottawa’s GowlingWLG food law group.

This column was originally published in the February/March 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

As a manufacturer, it may be worth reviewing your BBD practices using regulatory and food safety perspectives.

Definitions

The term, “best before date,” is commonly used with consumers and manufacturers. However, the regulated term in Canada is “durable life date” (DLD), derived from the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR) Definitions. Quoting from FDR, “Durable life means the period, commencing on the day on which a prepackaged product is packaged for retail sale, during which the product, when it is stored under conditions appropriate to that product, will retain, without any appreciable deterioration, its normal wholesomeness, palatability, nutritional value and any other qualities claimed for it by the manufacturer; (duree de conservation).” Expiry dates are a unique format of regulated DLD, specifically intended for foods for special dietary use like infant formula, fortifiers, and human milk substitutes. “Best before” is the term commonly applied by manufacturers, as it is better understood by consumers for being the threshold time for quality and safety.

Food products with a shelf life of less than 90 days are required to have a DLD on the package, except for prepackaged fresh fruit and vegetable products, prepackaged individual portions for food service or mobile vending, or prepackaged donuts. Products with shelf life longer than 90 days are not required to have a DLD. Typically, manufacturers use DLD coding to provide lot traceability because it can be used as a voluntary declaration for products longer than 90 days shelf life.

Setting up a durable life date

The responsibility is on the manufacturer for determining if a product requires a DLD and the typical shelf life. In general, shelf life can be categorized into four primary forms: pathogen outgrowth, microbial spoilage, loss of nutrition quality, or loss of organoleptic quality.

Using a risk-based approach, pathogen outgrowth is the greatest concern, followed by microbial spoilage, and this is most common for high and intermediate moisture foods. Manufacturers should be using sample programs, which hold and monitor the quality of product, and allow for observation of the shelf life. Manufacturers can retain their own samples and analyze for microbiological growth over a period. Alternatively, they can ask contract labs or Technology Access Centres to conduct shelf-life testing.

For products where the application of process controls and proper storage allow for extended shelf life, the concern may be nutritional and organoleptic or sensory property. This would include low moisture foods, frozen foods, or canned and hermetically sealed foods. Generally, the composition of the food changes minimally with respect to macronutrients and minerals. The primary concern for shelf life and “best before” declarations would be vitamins or a vitamin-based nutrient content claim as vitamins tend to be the most labile over time. This would be evaluated by a retained sample program, combined with nutrition chemistry testing at an accredited lab.

If the “best before” date is based on product quality, such as loss of colour, staling, or oxidation, sensory or organoleptic analysis is the most common way to determine shelf life. Here the risk to consumers is not related to food safety, but it’s based on the reputation of the company for delivering quality products. This can be evaluated by sensory difference or acceptability methods.

Different strategies

Grocers and other retailers use BBDs as part of their traceability and inventory control. Grocers want to purchase product with sufficient durability, so that they can have adequate time to sell the inventory.

If a product is using voluntary durable life declarations, there is the potential to use “packaged on” date coding. While this strategy could be helpful for consumers and retailers, it could also be misleading, as consumers do not have a clear perception of the typical time product is in distribution and retail channels before taking it home.

Using risk-based food safety knowledge and regulatory innovation can indeed improve food waste outcomes. 

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the February/March 2023 issue of Food in Canada.