Regulation – Food In Canada

Feds delay B.C.’s open-net salmon farms closure until 2029, offer five-year renewals

ncaleb — Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:26:20 +0000

With entrenched views on all sides of the salmon-farming debate in British Columbia, the federal government cast the issue five years down the road on Wednesday, saying aquaculture must move to land by 2029.

The government had promised to phase out the farms by next year, but Fisheries Minister Diane Lebouthillier announced she would allow aquaculture farms to renew their licences in a “responsible, realistic and achievable transition” away from the ocean farms.

Conservation and some Indigenous groups that have been lobbying Ottawa to make good on the 2019 commitment to phase out open net-pen salmon farms by 2025, said they were pleased with the decision to force the operations on land, but expressed concern with the extended time frame.

Industry representatives and B.C. Indigenous nations involved in salmon farming reacted with concern and disappointment, saying the government has created an environment of uncertainty that could cause economic harm to coastal and Indigenous communities.

“I will expect that the salmon farming industry will probably react negatively, but my message to them is engage us,” Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal energy and natural resources minister, said in an interview.

“Engage us in a conversation about how we can actually make closed containment systems cost effective,” said Wilkinson, a former minister of fisheries.

Lebouthillier has been consulting with many groups about the transition plan involving 79 salmon farms off the B.C. coast after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged during the 2019 election that his government would phase out open ocean-pen farming.

The government said part of its aquaculture future program will include the introduction of nine-year licences for closed containment salmon farm operations, either marine- or land-based.

Wilkinson said the government is sending the message that it must move to protect declining wild salmon stocks, particularly in times when scientific debate is examining the possible impact of the farms on wild salmon.

“I’m not a scientist but I recognize the significance of the scientific debate, and in an era where these stocks are crashing, it behooves us to act with caution and not to wait until we actually don’t have anything left to save,” said Wilkinson, who announced the government’s decision in 2019 to phase out the ocean-based salmon farms.

Indigenous leaders and industry representatives reacted with disappointment on Wednesday, saying the government is making a decision rooted in politics and not science.

“Instead of embracing a balanced pathway towards economic opportunity, increasing healthy and affordable homegrown food, recognizing an exceptional level of Indigenous collaboration and economic reconciliation and incrementally greater environmental protection, it has embraced a position that reflects unaccountable and extreme activist voices,” Timothy Kennedy, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance president, said in a statement.

The federal minister called the government’s plan realistic, reasonable and achievable, but it really is “unrealistic, unreasonable and unachievable,” he said.

The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, which says the industry supports about 4,700 jobs and generates more than $1 billion annually, said the five-year transition plan will hurt coastal communities.

“Salmon farming in B.C. has been a vital sector contributing significantly to Canada’s economy and food security,” Brian Kingzett, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association executive director, said in a statement. “However, the political conditions on the licences increase the uncertainty for aquaculture in B.C. and Canada.”

Isaiah Robinson, deputy chief of the Kitasoo Xai’xais Nation on B.C.’s Central Coast, said Ottawa is making a decision about the livelihoods of his people “based off of wealthy billionaires, politicians and activists.”

Robinson made the comments at a Vancouver news conference with the leaders of several Indigenous nations who are involved in salmon farming.

“They’re attempting to once again dictate our future as Indigenous people,” he said.

The plan to remove open net-pen salmon farms from B.C. coastal waters is supported by most First Nations in the province, said Bob Chamberlin, who represents more than 100 B.C. nations as the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance chairman.

“It benefits all British Columbians and so this is a very important day for wild salmon, but I think it’s a big day for reconciliation across the province,” he said at a news conference.

The Watershed Watch Salmon Society said it was pleased to hear the federal government will remove salmon farms from ocean waters, but has concerns about the five-year wait.

“We are relieved that the federal government is sticking to their commitment to remove the farms, but five years is too long for the phaseout period,” executive director Aaron Hill said in a statement. “That’s five more years of bombarding wild salmon with parasites and viruses from factory fish farms.”

Lebouthtillier said while wild Pacific salmon are an iconic species important to First Nations, and commercial and recreational fishermen, aquaculture represents food security and its supply to consumers is surpassing wild fishing around the world.

“If we want to protect wild species, want to move forward, we have to use aquaculture,” she said.

Lebouthtillier said the future involves safely increasing aquaculture without harming wild salmon.

Former fisheries minister Joyce Murray, who attended Wednesday’s news conference in Vancouver with Wilkinson, said salmon farming can amplify and release parasites and alien diseases into ocean waters infecting wild Pacific salmon on their migration routes.

“This transition is an opportunity to build sustainable economic alternatives with affected communities and to support our government’s critical work and rebuilding vital salmon stocks and fisheries throughout,” she said.

Health Canada proposes to remove BVO from permitted food additives list

ncaleb — Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:36:16 +0000

Health Canada recently completed an updated safety assessment of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) based on new and previously reviewed information. Although Health Canada did not identify an immediate health concern with the current permitted use of BVO as a food additive, the outcome of the assessment does not support BVO’s continued use as a food additive. So, Health Canada is proposing to remove BVO from the List of permitted food additives with other accepted uses.

Health Canada is considering providing a one-year transition period to allow impacted beverages to be reformulated and relabelled, since the updated safety assessment did not find an immediate health concern with the current permitted use of BVO as a food additive.

As set out in Item B.3 of the List of permitted food additives with other accepted uses, BVO is currently permitted for use as a density adjusting agent at a maximum level of 15 ppm in beverages containing citrus or spruce oils, as consumed.

The modification to the list and the transition period will be announced soon. In the meantime, Health Canada invites industry stakeholders to offer feedback. It’ll accept feedback until July 30, 2024. For details, click here.

Packaging: Collaborating and supporting Canada’s Zero Plastic Waste Plan

ncaleb — Thu, 23 May 2024 15:50:34 +0000

In the past several years, there have been numerous Canadian government initiatives to address plastic waste. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) put forward a Canada-wide Strategy and Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste in 2018 and 2019 that takes a circular economy approach to plastics. This plan was adopted by federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Keeping all plastics in the economy and out of the environment will involve activities such as prevention, collection, clean-up, and value recovery.

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.

Regulatory Affairs: A bit of housekeeping

ncaleb — Thu, 23 May 2024 15:45:21 +0000

In November 2023, proposed regulations were published in Canada Gazette I, which would see a significant reconsolidation of federal food compositional standards, modernization of food additive rules and its associated documents incorporated by reference (IbR), and modernization of analytical methods.

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.

Loblaw joins grocery code of conduct: Walmart and Costco yet to commit

Food in Canada — Fri, 17 May 2024 13:02:25 +0000

Loblaw Cos. Ltd. recently announced that it’s ready to sign on to the grocery code of conduct.

After six months of negotiations, Loblaw president and CEO Per Bank said the retailer is now ready to sign as long as other industry players do too. “The code now is fair, and it will not lead to higher prices,” he said in an interview.

The code has been developed by leaders in the food industry to create a more level playing field for suppliers and smaller retailers. But it appeared to come to a halt last December when Loblaw and Walmart Canada said they wouldn’t sign the voluntary code because they were concerned it would raise prices for shoppers.

Nick Henn, Loblaw’s chief legal officer, said the underlying principles of the code haven’t changed. “We felt that the words weren’t clear in lots of areas, and so we’ve spent some time with the working committee and the interim board, fixing those areas, improving the code and providing the clarity that we thought it lacked the last time around,” he said in an interview.

One important example was regarding the dispute resolution process, Henn said. Loblaw wanted to make clear when it would be appropriate for issues to go to an adjudicator, and when it wouldn’t — such as in the case of price negotiations between suppliers and retailers. “That was a big concern for us. And so with that no longer being an issue under the draft code, we’re much less concerned about the code leading to higher prices,” Henn said.

June 1, 2025, is the target date for the code to take effect, he said.

“We’ve worked very hard to get to where we are,” said Michael Graydon, CEO of the Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada Association and chairman of the interim board for the code.

Work can now continue establishing the office of the grocery code, said Graydon, adding he hopes it can begin “sooner rather than later.”

“We now have all the major grocers with the exception of one, and so some work needs to be done in regards to bringing them into the fold,” said Graydon, referring to Walmart. Costco has also had “some inquiries around certain aspects” of the code, he said, but he hopes they will also agree to participate.

Walmart Canada spokeswoman Sarah Kennedy said the company “just received the latest draft of the revised Grocery Code of Conduct, which was not previously shared with us.”

“We will review it and determine next steps,” she said in an emailed statement. “As we’ve said all along, we continue to be focused on our customers’ best interests.”

Over the past several months, calls to make the code mandatory have grown. In February, the House of Commons committee studying food prices told Loblaw and Walmart that if they wouldn’t agree to a voluntary code, the committee would recommend it be made law.

Federal agri-food minister Lawrence MacAulay and Quebec agriculture minister André Lamontagne issued a statement this week saying that with Loblaw now on board for the code, “we now call on the remaining large retailers to do what is in the best interests of Canadians and follow suit.”

In a post on X sharing the statement, MacAulay said until all the large retailers are on board, he’s still “looking at all available federal options.”

Bank recently said on an earnings conference call that he was “cautiously optimistic” an agreement could be reached.

The call on May 1 was the same day some Canadians said they were going to start boycotting all Loblaw-owned stores as frustration mounts over higher food prices and concentration in the grocery sector.

The boycott, organized by a Reddit group, is currently underway. The organizers posted several demands for their movement and the one at the top of the list was for Loblaw to sign the grocery code of conduct.

The negotiations over the code predated the boycott, said Bank, so the announcement “has nothing to do with their demands.” But he recently had a meeting with boycott organizer Emily Johnson, and said he’s sure she will be happy to hear that Loblaw has agreed to the code.

Though food inflation has been an industry-wide phenomenon, sparked by global pressures like the war in Ukraine, for many, Loblaw has become the poster child for food inflation in Canada.

The day after the boycott began, Bank and Loblaw chairman Galen Weston pushed back on what they called “misguided criticism” of the company.

“As a well-known company and Canada’s largest grocer, it is natural that Loblaw would be singled out as a focal point for media and government and of course consumer frustrations,” said Weston at the grocer’s annual meeting May 2.

BC’s food industry gains access to funding for traceability upgrades

Food in Canada — Tue, 14 May 2024 15:32:04 +0000

British Columbia’s producers, food processors and seafood businesses now have access to new funding to improve product tracing, meet consumer demands, and ensure public health safety.

Through the Traceability Adoption Program (TAP), these businesses can get financial support to upgrade their tracking systems. Through the program, they can purchase and install software and hardware, such as databases, barcode readers, label printers and other devices that help make product tracing more efficient and reliable. They can also hire experts who can support their businesses to effectively implement traceability systems in their facilities.

For example, B.C. producers and food processors can use the funding to switch from manual to computer-generated labelling, which saves time and increases quality control.

B.C. ranchers and abattoirs can purchase and install approved radio frequency identification (known as RFID) tag readers that track the movement of animals and other food products wherever they may be in the supply chain to help reduce administrative burden and streamline livestock operations.

The funding is part of the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, a $3.5-billion investment over five years (April 1, 2023, until March 31, 2028) to strengthen the agriculture sector. This includes $1 billion in federal programs and activities and $2.5 billion in cost-shared programs and activities that are funded 60 per cent federally and 40 per cent provincially or territorially.

In B.C., up to $530,000 is available through TAP, with individual applicants eligible for up to $20,000. The program is managed by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC and is open for applications starting May 9, 2024.

Health Canada exploring mandatory packaging program, concerned with use of recycled plastic in food packaging

ncaleb — Wed, 08 May 2024 20:11:45 +0000

Health Canada is considering developing a mandatory packaging program, said John Field, chief, Chemical Health Hazard Assessment Division, Health Canada, during a Food Plastics and Packaging Consultation event organized by Food and Beverage Ontario (FBO) in Vaughan earlier this week.

Currently, packaging materials intended for use with foods in Canada may be submitted voluntarily to Health Canada for a pre-market assessment of their chemical safety, per Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. However, Health Canada is actively considering regulatory changes that would make this form of assessments mandatory. Field told event attendees that public consultations on the proposed regulation may start next year.

Field’s comments were part of an overarching discussion on plastic reduction measures, including the P2 notice, Canada Plastic Pact’s Golden Design Rules (GDR), the various extended producer responsibility programs across Canada and the recently introduced Federal Plastics Registry. The event was attended by F&B processors, retailers, packaging firms, municipal waste teams, government representatives and other sector stakeholders. An open discussion gave participants the opportunity to voice their challenges when it came to food packaging. This consultation was a follow-up to a January discussion on the same topic by FBO.

Participants acknowledged it takes years and a lot of investment to change packaging lines. Given the regulatory inconsistencies across the country and the lack of plastic alternatives to meet the industry’s food safety and shelf-life requirements, manufacturers are concerned the investments won’t yield desired results. However, they’re committed to actively work towards a circular economy, meet consumer demands for sustainably produced food, and keep plastics as much as possible out of landfills without compromising food safety.

Lack of alternatives

While the Golden Design Rules recommends the use of monomaterials, it’s not recyclable across Canada. Plus, the thickness of the plastic needs to be increased to meet the self-life requirements of products like dry pasta, which means the amount of plastic in the packaging isn’t minimized.

Another concern raised during the consultation was the fact that biodegradable plastics, which typically cost three times more than flexible packaging, don’t comply with the Golden Design Rules. Also, there is no internationally recognized definition for biodegradable materials. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making it nearly impossible for large multinational F&B manufacturers to adopt such packaging.

Lack of consistency

The lack of consistency was a constant theme throughout the consultation. Attendees highlighted that packaging, which is deemed recyclable in Europe, isn’t in North America. They also shared their frustration with recycling programs in Canada that vary from municipality to municipality. Imagine creating packaging for each municipality and the associated costs!

Lack of consumer awareness

Food safety reasons notwithstanding, participants felt it was key to educate consumers about best recycling practices. For example, remove the non-recyclable films before recycling cardboard boxes. This will improve recycling rates as well as ensure we have higher-grade of recycled plastic for use. However, changing consumer behaviour isn’t possible overnight; it’ll take years of patient, ongoing education.

Lack of infrastructure

Another issue was the lack of infrastructure to back up Canada’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. There are challenges with sorting materials. As described by Doug Alexander, VP, sustainability and government relations, Belmont Food Group, Canada’s recycling system is a “catch-all” while in Europe materials are segregated by material and recycled through dedicated lines. It would be helpful to invest in technology that can automate recycling systems before demanding industry to make expensive changes that may not necessarily improve the state of plastic recycling in the country.

Toxins

A large part of the discussion centred around the lack of data to help determine the impact of microplastics on human health. Field said that at this point there are no consensus on how microplastics affect humans. He added that a lot of studies use spherical microplastics, a type of microplastics that humans aren’t exposed to. He suggested studies must be representative of what we, as humans, are exposed to. He admitted there’s evidence of toxicity in animal models but urged that most of them must be interpreted with caution.

Recycled plastic quality concerns

Field also shared Health Canada’s concerns with the use of recycled plastic in food packaging.

“We have a good handle on resins, the additives used and the amount of leeching, etc. But all bets are off when it comes to recycled plastic. We don’t have much info on how they behave. We don’t want them leeching chemicals into food. We’re looking at new risk management practices,” he explained.

At this point, there is zero science-based data to help determine how many types a plastic material can be safely reused in food packaging. The last thing one wants is a toxic package leeching chemicals into the food.

Despite all the concerns raised, the group was unanimous in its intention to create a circular plastic economy and avoid sending them to landfills.

As Alexander, who moderated the discussion said, “It’ll take time to divest ourselves from this addiction to plastics.” It’ll take years to build a society and culture that actively recycles and reuses products. Perhaps until then, it might be worthwhile for the industry to explore alternative measures like creating energy from waste, thereby keeping plastics out of landfills.

Federal govt. requires producers to take more responsibility for the plastic they put on the market

ncaleb — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +0000

The federal government launches the Federal Plastics Registry, a tool to compel plastic producers and other companies across the plastics value chain to help monitor and track plastic from the time it is produced up to its end of life. By better tracking plastic through its full life cycle, both governments and industry will be better equipped to address plastic waste and pollution through increased transparency and sound, robust, evidence-based decision-making.

The registry requires plastic resin manufacturers, producers of plastic products, and service providers to report each year on the quantity and types of plastic they put on the Canadian market and how that plastic moves through the economy. This tool will provide Canadians with reliable data that will identify opportunities for further action to reduce plastic waste and pollution, as well as help monitor progress over time. Reporting will be phased in over time and by sector. The categories covered by the registry include packaging, single-use and disposable products, construction, transportation, electronics and electrical equipment, tires, textiles and apparel, fishing and aquaculture equipment, and agriculture and horticulture equipment.

Producers of plastic products and service providers will also be required to report on the quantity of plastic collected and diverted, reused, repaired, remanufactured, refurbished, recycled, processed into chemicals, composted, incinerated, and landfilled. They will also be required to report on the amount of plastic waste generated on their industrial, commercial, and institutional premises.

Reporting to the Federal Plastics Registry will start in September 2025, requiring reporting on plastic placed on the market in three categories for the 2024 calendar year.

In 2026, reporting requirements for resin manufacturers and importers will be added, as well as reporting on plastic placed on the market for the remaining categories. In 2026, reporting on plastic waste generated at industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities, plastic collected at end-of-life, as well as plastic sent for diversion and disposal for some categories, will also be introduced.

In 2027, additional reporting requirements on plastics collected and sent for diversion and disposal for more categories will be added.

Through the Canada-wide Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to develop and maintain Canada-wide data on how plastic moves through the economy. The Federal Plastics Registry supports this commitment and publicly provides critical data to inform and support Canada’s shared plan to address plastic waste and pollution.

“Canadians expect the Government of Canada to take action to reduce plastic waste and pollution, and we are delivering on our commitment. The Federal Plastics Registry is a practical tool that will help track plastics across the economy, inform future actions, and measure progress to reduce plastic waste and pollution,” said Steven Guilbeault, Environment and Climate Change Minister.

Consumer Reports urges USDA to remove Lunchables from school lunches

ncaleb — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:51:14 +0000

Consumer Reports (CR) called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to remove Lunchables food kits from the National School Lunch Program. CR recently compared the nutritional profiles of two Lunchable kits served in schools and found they have even higher levels of sodium than the kits consumers can buy in the store. CR also tested 12 store-bought versions of Lunchables and similar kits and found several contained relatively high levels of lead and cadmium. All but one also tested positive for phthalates, chemicals found in plastic that have been linked to reproductive problems, diabetes, and certain cancers.

“Lunchables are not a healthy option for kids and shouldn’t be allowed on the menu as part of the National School Lunch Program,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports. “The Lunchables and similar lunch kits we tested contain concerning levels of sodium and harmful chemicals that can lead to serious health problems over time. The USDA should remove Lunchables from the National School Lunch Program and ensure that kids in schools have healthier options.”

The USDA currently allows two Lunchables kits — Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Stackers and Extra Cheesy Pizza — to be served to nearly 30 million children through the National School Lunch Program. To meet the program’s requirements, Kraft Heinz added more whole grains to the crackers and more protein to the Lunchable kits designed for schools compared to store-bought versions.

CR tested store-bought Lunchables and similar kits from Armour LunchMakers, Good & Gather, Greenfield Natural Meat, and Oscar Mayer and found lead, cadmium, or both in all. Lead and cadmium can cause developmental problems in children over time, even in small amounts. While none of the kits exceeded any federal limit, five of the 12 tested products would expose someone to 50 per cent or more of California’s maximum allowable level for lead or cadmium – currently the most protective standard.

CR also detected at least one type of phthalate in every kit it tested, except for Lunchables Extra Cheesy Pizza. Phthalates are known endocrine disruptors, compounds that may mimic or interfere with hormones in the body, which can contribute to an increased risk of reproductive problems, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. As with heavy metals, the goal should be to keep exposure as low as possible.

The sodium levels in the store-bought lunch and snack kits CR tested ranged from 460 to 740 mg per serving, that’s nearly a quarter to half of a child’s daily recommended limit for sodium. CR found the sodium levels of the Lunchables made for schools, which had a larger portion of meat, are higher than in the store-bought versions. The school version of the Turkey and Cheddar Lunchable for schools contained 930 mg of sodium compared to 740 mg in the store-bought version. Similarly, the Lunchable pizza kit for schools had 700 mg of sodium compared to 510 mg in the store version.

Eating foods with too much sodium can lead to high blood pressure and lead to hypertension, which is a risk factor for heart disease, stroke, and kidney damage. Kids with high sodium intakes are about 40 percent more likely to develop hypertension than those who have low sodium diets.

Alberta distillery to stop making 4-litre vodka jugs after minister raises concern

ncaleb — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:29:04 +0000

A distillery is halting production of discount four-litre vodka jugs after the Alberta minister responsible for the province’s liquor industry called out the product for not being responsibly priced.

T-Rex Distillery says public response has been mixed since photos of the jugs began circulating on social media, with about half praising the jugs for “innovation and convenience.”

Others expressed concern, including Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally, who says the low $49.95 price was “not very responsible” and that he was looking at intervening.

The Edmonton-area distillery says the jugs are a private-label product produced and bottled for a customer, Super Value Liquor, at its requested price.

Under current rules, Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis sets the wholesale price retailers must pay to purchase products, but T-Rex says there are no rules or guidelines provided by the agency as to how a product should be priced on shelves.

Federal laws regulate alcohol labelling and packaging across Canada, and Nally says the jugs are in compliance.

“What it’s not in compliance with is the spirit of Albertans,” he told reporters Monday. “We believe in responsible pricing, and that’s where I think it goes afoul.”

Nally’s ministry did not immediately clarify what specific steps the government might take on pricing.

The plastic jugs, which are similar to four-litre milk containers, have plain labels with the words “value” and “vodka” over a yellow background.

Sunny Bhullar, manager at Edmonton Super Value Liquor, said his store discounted the jugs down from $60.

“We make sure we are serving our customers in a responsible way,” said Bhullar in an interview.

He said the store aims to provide quality products for consumers looking to buy bulk and save money.

“Our marketing approach is we sell at a fair price,” he said.

Should Nally introduce minimum prices or a floor price, Bhullar said he would be concerned.

“In that scenario, it will be hard for independent stores to compete with the bigger chains,” he said.

T-Rex said in an email that its vodka jugs have been for sale for about a year. It also offers a T-Rex-branded version of the jug, primarily for wholesale purposes, such as for bars and restaurants.

The company said the vodka jugs were reviewed and approved by Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis and, as of Monday, T-Rex had not received any communications from the agency, the government or the minister.

“Albertan craft distilleries have suffered from a lack of responsible pricing for a while now and, in fact, there are multiple distilleries out there that are selling their spirits even cheaper than T-Rex,” the company said. “We have often voiced our concerns with the current system to AGLC.”

Nally made his comment before introducing an omnibus red-tape reduction bill that he said would clarify he has authority to set liquor prices.

Nally added, “If this bill passes, then this is exactly the type of thing that I will look into. I don’t think a four-litre plastic jug of vodka adds to the quality of the distillery industry that we have in this province. I don’t think that it is responsible pricing.”

Nally said that with the bill he hopes to make sure the rules reflect what happens in practice, since the AGLC, which is responsible for overseeing the liquor industry across the province, doesn’t increase prices without getting approval from the minister.

T-Rex said an “era of unsustainable prices” began when AGLC removed a few years ago a rule that required craft distilleries to produce at least 80 per cent of their own spirits in-house, and 20 per cent was allowed to be purchased or imported in bulk.

That means anyone can blend and sell bulk-purchased vodka without owning distilling equipment, said T-Rex. The company said it and other craft distilleries were forced to lower their prices to stay in business, especially after making investments in distillery equipment, which new companies don’t need to do.

The AGLC said it was not able to respond Monday to questions about regulations for the four-litre vodka jugs. It did not immediately respond later in the day when emailed questions about production rules for craft distilleries.

Share your thoughts on the Safe Food for Canadians Act

ncaleb — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:49:55 +0000

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) seeks feedback on the Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA). SFCA came fully into force on January 15, 2019. The Act requires ministers to review its provisions and operations every five years. CFIA is therefore carrying out a review.

It is asking consumer associations; food industry and industry associations; manufacturers/processors; distributors/retailers; importers; trading partners; academia and experts; other government departments and agencies, including provincial, territorial and municipal; and the general public to review key questions in the consultation document and submit their feedback.

The goal is to assess if improvements or changes are required to the provisions and operations of SFCA. The consultation review does not include examining specific provisions of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

Key topics for discussion
CFIA is seeking feedback to help determine if SFCA meets its objectives of:

improving food safety and consumer protection oversight across all food commodities;
having effective, streamlined and strengthened legislative authorities across food commodities; and
enhancing market access opportunities for the Canadian food industry

The consultation process will be open until May 27, 2024.

Quebecers warned that new language rules could lead to fewer products, higher prices

ncaleb — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 03:02:00 +0000

Popular consumer products risk disappearing from stores across Quebec — and those that remain could be more expensive — because of the province’s French-language reform, says an association that represents thousands of foreign businesses.

The costs and inconveniences around the application of draft regulations could push certain manufacturers out of the Quebec market, Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of the International Trademark Association, said in a recent interview.

“Companies will have to ask themselves the question, is it really relevant to be in the Quebec market,” said Sanz de Acedo, whose group represents 6,500 companies across 181 jurisdictions. Some firms, he added, might decide they’re better off pulling their products from the province, leaving consumers with less choice.

And if there are fewer products on the market, consumers will lose out, he said, because “that means certain companies will have more opportunity to raise their prices, because if there is less choice, the prices are higher.”

The draft regulations are a result of Quebec’s language reform, known as Bill 96, adopted in May 2022, which strengthens French-language requirements across many sectors of Quebec’s economy. Sanz de Acedo said his association is “concerned” about several aspects of the proposed rules, including the requirement that words engraved on products must be translated into French.

In its brief to the government, the association uses the example of the interior drawer of a washing machine, where the various compartments are engraved in English for such things as detergents and softeners. Translating these markings, Sanz de Acedo said, are more complex than translating a user manual.

“Manufacturers would have to change their manufacturing moulds,” he said. “If a manufacturer has to change its manufacturing method exclusively for the Quebec market, that would entail considerable costs for a company.”

Sanz de Acedo said the companies he represents are also concerned about the obligation to translate descriptions on product packaging that are part of a registered trademark, and about the costs and deadlines associated with applying rules on commercial signage.

Businesses with storefronts in Quebec have until June 1, 2025, to ensure French occupies a space on signage that is “twice as large” as another language, according to a draft regulation published on Jan. 10.

Sanz de Acedo stressed that he supports the principle of protecting the French language. “I’m French,” he said. “I will always defend the interests of the French language.”

But he said the proposed rules could violate Canadian intellectual property law and World Trade Organization agreements signed by Canada, namely the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. As well, he said, the language reform “raises serious questions” about the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

Sanz de Acedo’s association is not alone in its reservations. In January, the Biden administration expressed concerns about “the potential consequences on American businesses” of the draft regulation as part of a meeting between senior officials from the United States and Canada.

Last week, Jean-François Roberge, minister responsible for the French language, told reporters that the government is taking all the comments about its proposed rules into consideration “so that the regulations are properly applied.”

“Ideally, all the services that are currently available remain available,” he said.

However, Roberge added, Quebecers have the right to be served in French, to have consumer products labelled in French so that Quebecers can understand what they are buying, and to know what is inside products. “I don’t think that is negotiable,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 26, 2024.

Canada concerned as final rule for ‘Product of USA’ meat labels announced

ncaleb — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:32:08 +0000

Canada’s federal government as well as organizations representing some the nation’s beef producers warn a decision south of the border about “Product of USA” labels on meat, poultry and eggs could disrupt supply chains.

The United States Department of Agriculture announced Monday a final rule on conditions for when voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” labels may be used, stating they will be allowed for meat, poultry and egg products only when they are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says in a news release the rule, which takes effect in 2026, will ensure that when consumers see the label, they can know that every step involved, from birth to processing, was done in America.

But Canada’s Agriculture Minister, Lawrence MacAulay, and International Trade Minister Mary Ng say in a joint statement they’re disappointed the rule does not appear to take into account concerns they’ve raised related to the “unique and important trading relationship” between the two countries.

They say the “meat and livestock sectors in Canada and the United States work closely together” and that Canada intends to raise the issue during the agriculture ministers trilateral meeting with United States and Mexico scheduled to take place in Colorado later this month.

The rule is a sharp change from current policy, which allows voluntary use of such labels on products from animals that have been imported from a foreign country and slaughtered in the U.S., as well also on meat that’s been imported and repackaged or further processed.

“Today’s announcement is a vital step toward consumer protection and builds on the Biden-Harris Administration’s work to bolster trust and fairness in the marketplace where smaller processors can compete,” Vilsack said in the news release after announcing the final rule Monday at the National Farmers Union Annual Convention in Phoenix, Ariz.

The USDA release said the final “Product of USA” rule is supported by petitions, as well as thousands of comments from stakeholders, and data from a nationwide consumer survey. It also said the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim will continue to be voluntary.
The joint statement from MacAulay and Ng said Canada is “reviewing the final rule carefully.”

“Our indispensable relationship allows producers, processors and consumers on both sides of the border to benefit from efficient, stable and competitive markets, while ensuring a reliable supply of high-quality products,” the statement said. “Canada remains concerned about any measures that may cause disruptions to the highly integrated North American meat and livestock supply chains.”

A statement from the Canadian Cattle Association, which represents beef farms and feedlots, called the rule “the most onerous standard in the world.”

“It is crucial to address any issues that threaten or diminish cattle and beef trade between Canada and the U.S.,” CCA president Nathan Phinney said in the statement. “We are very concerned that the rule will lead to discrimination against live cattle imports and undermine the beneficial integration of the North American supply chain.”

The voluntary labeling rules are different from country-of-origin labels, known as COOL, which required companies to disclose where animals supplying beef and pork are born, raised and slaughtered. That requirement was rolled back in 2015, after international trade disputes and a ruling from the World Trade Organization.
-With files from AP

Associations recommend changes to compositional standards of grain, bakery products

ncaleb — Thu, 07 Mar 2024 18:27:52 +0000

The Baking Association of Canada, the Canadian National Millers Association and the Canadian Pasta Manufacturers Association are asking the federal government to change compositional standards of some grain and bakery products.

This is in response to Health Canada’s consultation request about its proposal to modernize regulatory frameworks governing food additives and compositional standards, microbiological criteria and methods of analysis for food.

In their response, the associations voice support to “proposed changes that would repeal the food compositional standards from the Food and Drugs Regulations and move them into a Food Compositional Standards Document, which would be incorporated by reference into the Food and Drugs Regulations on an ambulatory basis.”

However, they urge the federal government to adopt a co-development approach for fostering a more inclusive, transparent, and effective decision-making process.

They also request the government to consider exempting naturally occurring contaminants from paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Food and Drugs Act, as “grain products naturally contain certain contaminants that are inherent to the environment.”

“Our request is grounded in the premise that these contaminants, similarly to microorganisms found in food, are inevitable and, within a tolerable limit, pose no harm to human health,” the joint submission said.

The associations recommend new compositional standards for semolina and durum flour and whole grain whole wheat flour in order to distinguish it from whole wheat flour. They also recommend removing Vitamin B White Flour (Canada Approved) from the list of compositional standards, as it has become obsolete.

To read the full submission, click here.

NHP cost recovery: Canary in the coal mine?

ncaleb — Thu, 22 Feb 2024 18:21:21 +0000

On May 12, 2023, Health Canada published a cost recovery proposal for natural health products (NHPs). The dietary supplement industry’s response has been overwhelmingly critical of the proposal for a variety of reasons. In the meantime, many of our food clients have asked whether this proposal has any impact on the food industry, even if indirectly. The short answer is an overwhelming “yes”. The food industry should watch closely. If Health Canada successfully implements any or all of the elements of its proposal for NHPs, it is reasonable to expect that similar proposals by Health Canada may impact food companies in the future.

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.

Say no to a bad deal: CPC calls for revisions to CPTPP

ncaleb — Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:00 +0000

The Canadian Pork Council (CPC) will join the “Say No to a Bad Deal” coalition, which is advocating for renegotiations of the United Kingdom’s ascension to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

This move comes in response to Great Britain’s decision to pause trade negotiations.

Say No to a Bad Deal is a coalition of agriculture industry leaders and stakeholders that aims to remind the federal government of its responsibility to prioritize the best interests of Canadian farmers and ranchers.

“The CPC is proud to join the Say No to a Bad Deal coalition, and we are calling for renegotiations of the CPTPP before Canada approves the United Kingdom’s ascension,” said Rene Roy, chair of the Canadian Pork Council. “We have been patient and proposed solutions to safeguard the interests of Canadian farmers and ranchers, yet our concerns remain unaddressed. Setting a precedent for non-tariff trade barriers within CPTPP must be avoided to protect our industry. Great Britain’s refusal to truly engage Canada in the current negotiations poses significant risks to Canada’s agricultural sector, and it is crucial we address these concerns head-on before the U.K. joins a trade deal of which we are a founding member. Fair trade is not a buzzword; it is the cornerstone of sustainable economic growth and prosperity. For Canadian farmers, particularly pork producers, fair trade means access to global markets under mutually beneficial terms. It guarantees that our products can compete fairly, fostering growth and stability in our industry and for the country.”

Canadian pork producers rely heavily on international markets for their livelihoods, with 70 per cent of production destined for export markets.

“By joining forces with the Say No to a Bad Deal coalition, we are sending a clear message: Canadian farmers demand nothing short of fair and just trade agreements that set them up for success and support our industry’s growth and prosperity,” Roy added.

Regulatory Affairs: Where’s the meat?

ncaleb — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:07:10 +0000

In October, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) updated its guidance for simulated meat and poultry products after more than 40 years. The rules governing simulated meat and poultry products are found in Division 14 and 22 of the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR). They were last amended in 1982.

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.

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

Codex adopts new food safety, quality standards

ncaleb — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 16:10:51 +0000

For the first time after the COVID-19 pandemic, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) concludes with a physical report adoption, marking the end of the 60^th anniversary of the first CAC in 1963.

The 46^th session of CAC adopted a series of new food safety and quality standards including: the new Guidelines for the Control of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Raw Beef, Fresh Leafy Vegetables, Raw Milk and Raw Milk Cheeses, and Sprouts; the Guidelines for the Safe Use and Reuse of Water in Food Production and Processing; and Revisions to the Standard for Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1986). A new Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxins Contamination in Cassava and Cassava-based Products was also adopted, as well as Principles and Guidelines on the Use of Remote Audit and Inspection in Regulatory Frameworks and Revisions to General Guidelines on Sampling (CXG 50-2004).

Report adoption was over in seven hours, with CAC chair, Steve Wearne (U.K.), commending delegates for their efforts in facilitating the adoption and for their work throughout the week.

“This was an extraordinary piece of team work.” said Corinna Hawkes, Codex secretary ad interim “From the chairperson and vice chairpersons of CAC to members and observers, they all had a role in making this meeting very successful”.

In closing the meeting, former CAC chair, Guilherme da Costa, recognized CAC chair, Steve Wearne, and the three vice-chairs, Allan Azegele (Kenya), Raj Rajasekar (New Zealand) and Diego Varela (Chile) for their contributions to Codex Alimentarius.

Join the discussion: Health Canada seeks feedback on regulations for special dietary foods

ncaleb — Fri, 01 Dec 2023 14:29:08 +0000

Health Canada is seeking comments on a proposal to modernize the regulations for foods for special dietary use and infant foods, regulated under Divisions 24 and 25 of the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR). This will inform the development of regulations for these foods.

Health Canada is seeking input from all interested stakeholders, including:

consumers;
industry stakeholders and associated organizations;
health professionals and associated organizations;
all levels of government;
academics and researchers; and
non-governmental organizations.

They’re seeking input on:

the proposed modernized framework;
the proposed requirements for infant formula, prepackaged human milk, medical foods, conventional infant foods, gluten-free foods, formulated nutritional foods and foods for use in weight reduction diets; and
the proposal for shortage provisions applicable to all foods for a special dietary purpose.

You ca either e-mail bns-bsn@hc-sc.gc.ca with your ideas or comments or send a letter with your ideas and input to: Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Mail stop 2203E, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9.

The input gathered through this process will be used to help develop regulations for these foods.

Food Law: The packaging dilemma

ncaleb — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 15:20:56 +0000

The Government of Canada has taken action towards reducing plastic pollution through its Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. While the goal of reducing plastic pollution is important, requirements impacting plastic food-contact packaging must also be considered in light of food safety and waste.

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.

Labelling reforms, environmental concerns in focus at inaugural food law summit

ncaleb — Thu, 26 Oct 2023 18:43:55 +0000

The Canadian Institute held its inaugural Advanced Summit on Food Law and Regulation Canada, October 4-5, 2023, bringing together professionals from across the industry, including food companies, law firms and government.

The Summit examined the existing regulatory framework for foods in Canada, as well as the opportunities and challenges arising from industry innovation and an evolving regulatory landscape. The co-chairs observed that regulators and business both need to work to understand each other in order for there to be better regulations and better compliance. To that end, officials from Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) participated in panel discussions on current and anticipated legal and regulatory developments. They were also able to take in presentations by those from within industry, on topics ranging from labelling to recalls, and plant-based foods to cell-cultivated products.

Attendees had the opportunity to hear about the experiences and perspectives of individuals from leading Canadian food companies, such as Maple Leaf Foods, Ferrero Canada, Nestle Health Sciences, Cargill, The Kraft Heinz Company, Kellanova (the recent spin-off of Kellogg Canada) and Smucker Foods of Canada. The discussions highlighted the multitude of recent and prospective labelling reforms, including the 2016 nutrition labelling reforms, nutritional symbol labelling, specific labelling requirements for supplemented foods and possible changes to allergen declarations and food standards of identity (potentially impacting common names).

Another labelling consideration that is top of mind for many companies is the proposed recycling symbols under Canada’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. The proposed labelling requirements are just one element of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) strategy to reduce plastic waste and move towards a circular economy and lifestyle approach to plastics. In addition, ECCC, Health Canada and CFIA are evaluating regulatory and non-regulatory controls to minimize use of and exposure to Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) (so-called ‘forever chemicals’), which can be found in food packaging (among other products). These targeted environmental regulatory changes can interplay with a company’s ESG strategy and reporting, another important topic covered during the Summit.

While the focus of the conference was food law and regulation, there was a recognition that such matters are not solely the purview of the legal team – food law considerations permeate the business, making cross-functional collaboration critical within organizations. As just one example, the Summit included a panel on advertising food to children, which is currently regulated in Quebec and is the subject of its own Code for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children administered by Ad Standards. The current framework was compared to Health Canada’s proposed policy on restricting food advertising primarily directed at children and Bill C-252: Child Health Protection Act current working its way through parliament.

The Summit highlighted the broad scope of legal and regulatory challenges that the food industry must manage, while also developing innovative products for consumers and operating in the context of increased focus on environmental and social concerns in modern food supply. With the industry becoming ever-more complex, cross-functional and cross-industry collaboration will be vital to the continued success of Canadian food businesses.

Katrina Coughlin is a partner in the Ottawa office of Gowling WLG, specializing in food and drug regulatory law.

California first U.S. state to ban food additives

ncaleb — Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:28:39 +0000

California is the first U.S. state to ban four chemicals used in well-known candies and other foods and drinks because of their link to certain health problems.Governor Newsom signed a law banning the red dye No. 3 chemical used as food colouring for products like Peeps, the marshmallow treat most associated with Easter. The chemical has been linked to cancer and has been banned from makeup for more than 30 years.The law also bans brominated vegetable oil, which is used in some store brand sodas, and potassium bromate and propylparaben, two chemicals used in baked goods.

Newsom said in a signing statement that the additives addressed in the bill are already banned in various other countries. All four chemicals are banned in foods in the European Union.

“Signing this into law is a positive step forward on these four food additives until the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and establishes national updated safety levels for these additives,” Newsom’s statement said.

Just Born, the company that makes Peeps, has said it has been looking for other dye options for its products.

The bill was authored by Assembly member Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Los Angeles.

“The Governor’s signature represents a huge step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply,” Gabriel said in a statement.

The law doesn’t take effect until 2027, which Newsom said should give companies plenty of time to adapt to the new rules.

Regulatory Affairs: The grey zone of food labelling for e-commerce

ncaleb — Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:55:35 +0000

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recently shared the results of a consultation process about voluntary guidelines for foods sold through e-commerce. This consultation was conducted in May-June 2022. CFIA and Health Canada are reviewing the feedback to develop voluntary guidelines.

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.

Food Law: Reflecting on 25 years of food law in Canada

ncaleb — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 14:51:17 +0000

This spring marks the 26^th anniversary of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the 20^th anniversary of this Food Law column. So, this is a good time to reflect on how our food law regime has developed over the last quarter century.

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.

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

New restrictions on advertising to children come into effect

ncaleb — Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:39:54 +0000

Following its introduction in June 2021, the Code and Guide for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children is effective from June 28.

Developed over two years by the Association of Canadian Advertisers (ACA), Food, Health and Consumer Products Canada (FHCP), Canadian Beverage Association (CBA) and Restaurants Canada, together with government and a diverse group of stakeholders, the Code and Guide fulfils the objectives of government in restricting advertising of food and beverage product to children.

The Code and Guide sets rules for advertisers of food and beverage products, requiring a responsible approach to child audiences.

Under this new standard, only food and beverages that meet specified nutrition criteria may be advertised in a manner that is primarily directed to children under the age of 13.

“It is easily one of the strongest, most comprehensive such programs in the world, and stands poised to dramatically reduce the exposure of children to child-directed food and beverage advertising,” said Ron Lund, president and CEO of ACA.

“Its restriction is unequivocal,” adds registered dietitian Michi Furuya Chang, senior vice-president, Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs at FHCP. “Advertising for a food or beverage product may not be primarily directed to persons under 13 years of age unless the product satisfies the child advertising nutrition criteria.”

Beginning June 28, 2023, Ad Standards will fully implement its robust preclearance regime to the Code and Guide. Ad Standards Canada is an independent non-profit organization that has been responsible for upholding the standards of the advertising industry for over 60 years. Advertisers are encouraged to submit all food and beverage advertisings that might reasonably be seen as primarily directed to children, in any media, for review and preclearance by Ad Standards to ensure compliance.

In determining whether an advertisement is primarily directed to children, Ad Standards will consider:

the nature and intended purpose of the food or beverage product advertised;
the manner of presenting the advertisement; and
the time and place it is shown.

Preclearance is available for all advertisers, and not just members of Ad Standards or any of the stakeholders responsible for the development of the Code and Guide.

“It is important to understand that this is an industry-wide code,” said Krista Scaldwell, CBA’s president. “The new preclearance and enforcement system will apply to all advertisers and for all media. The new restrictions are another example of the food and beverage sectors’ commitment to our consumers.”

Ad Standards will enforce the Code and Guide through a complaints-based mechanism applicable to all advertisers. For ads that were precleared under the Code and Guide by Ad Standards, the complainant will be advised that these ads are compliant, and no further action will be taken. For more information, see Ad Standards website.

CFIA seeks feedback on modernizing food standards strategy

ncaleb — Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:18:56 +0000

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada are proposing to modernize the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR) framework by using incorporation by reference for food compositional standards.

CFIA believes this would allow the agency to maintain and update the standards in a “transparent, timely and efficient manner.” The proposed regulatory amendments are expected to be pre-published in Canada Gazette, Part I, in fall 2023.

After the legislative amendments are complete, CFIA intends to review and modernize the food standards that are incorporated by reference into FDR and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

To determine the demand for changes to food standards and to maximize the efficiency of the modernization, CFIA is seeking feedback to inform the principles and the process that will be followed to modernize these standards.

This consultation is being conducted to understand the volume and complexity of future requests for modifications to food compositional standards from stakeholders, and to solicit comments regarding the proposals to modernize the food standards, including how CFIA would use the following approaches:

screen modification requests for completeness based on clear criteria to expedite processing;
prioritize accepted requests that address industry issues;
clearly communicate CFIA’s decisions regarding next steps for requestors; and
consolidate requests based on commodity groups or sub-groups to maximize efficiency during proposal development and engagement.

So share your thoughts on “a strategy for modernizing food compositional standards“. Complete the online questionnaire or email cfia.StandardsGradesModernization-Normesclassment.acia@inspection.gc.ca.

Upside Foods ‘cell-cultivated chicken’ label earns USDA approval

ncaleb — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 15:08:35 +0000

Upside Foods obtains label approval for its cultivated chicken from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The company is now working with USDA to obtain a Grant of Inspection (GOI) for its engineering, production, and innovation centre, which is the last piece of regulatory approval the company needs to commercially produce and sell its cultivated chicken in the United States. The label uses the term “cell-cultivated chicken.”

As a cultivated meat product grown directly from real animal cells, Upside’s chicken is subject to the same labelling requirements as conventionally produced meat products.

“The USDA’s approval of our label marks a major step forward towards our goal of creating a more humane and sustainable food system,” said Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and Founder of Upside Foods.

Animated icons shaping children’s preference for unhealthy foods

ncaleb — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 14:50:17 +0000

From goofy SpongeBob SquarePants to cackling Count Chocula, new research points the finger at the lovable cartoon characters as supervillains in enticing children to choose junk foods.

In the first Canadian study of its kind, University of Ottawa researchers examined whether cartoon characters used in food marketing influenced children’s food preferences, and teased out whether the type of character made a difference.

“We know that children are particularly vulnerable to the cute cartoon animals and superheroes that advertisers use to entice kids to pester their parents to buy food products,” says Dr. Monique Potvin Kent, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and lead author of the study. “This study demonstrates the impact this marketing technique has on kids, and it’s not good news.”

Researchers showed food ads to 1,341 Canadian kids, aged nine to 12, and measured their intentions to eat, buy or pester their parents for it. They analyzed the impact on kids of two types of cartoon characters used to promote food products: licensed cartoon characters from popular media, such as Disney princesses, and spokes characters developed by food and beverage companies, such as Lucky the Leprechaun from Lucky Charms.

While spokes characters had the greatest influence, the most striking finding was the sway all characters had over kids, leading researchers to recommend the government restrict all characters in food advertising to children.

“There’s a direct link between the cartoons in food marketing directed at kids and the lure of the unhealthy foods that can cause long-term health issues. This needs to stop to protect the health of Canadian children,” Kent says.

Funded by Heart & Stroke, the research is relevant now, as Health Canada has opened public consultations that will inform the development of food marketing-related regulations by winter 2024.

“We are happy to see Health Canada is moving forward and it is important that strong and comprehensive regulations be put in place as quickly as possible. Our kids are worth it,” said Doug Roth, CEO, Heart & Stroke.

Regulatory Affairs: 25 years and counting

ncaleb — Thu, 18 May 2023 15:31:44 +0000

I have been writing this column for 25 years. One of my first articles was about the creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in April 1997. Happy 26^th anniversary, CFIA!

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.

Proposed Canadian grocery code lays out process to resolve disputes, impose sanctions

ncaleb — Thu, 04 May 2023 13:58:04 +0000

Efforts to craft a Canadian grocery code of conduct have reached a major milestone with a proposed final version that includes a process to resolve disputes and impose sanctions on systemic violators of the code.

However, the language in a copy of the proposed code obtained by The Canadian Press appears to stop short of imposing fines on companies that fail to adhere to its principles.

Still, Michael Graydon, co-chair of the steering committee overseeing the industry-developed code, said the voluntary code has a number of potential deterrence measures to encourage compliance, such as potentially publicizing “consistent bad behaviour.”

“It has teeth. Are they as sharp as some may like? Maybe not,” said Graydon, also the CEO of supplier industry group Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada. “But if we get alignment and co-operation, we may not need to have to resort to fines anyways.”

The grocery code is about creating more balance in industry’s supplier-retailer relationships, Graydon said.

“This is not rocket science,” he said. “This is just good business practice.”

The industry committee working on the grocery code was established in response to contentious fees being charged to suppliers by large grocery retailers, which have significant bargaining power due to their scale.

The code is intended to address long-standing issues such as arbitrary fees, cost increases imposed without notice and late payments.

“Parties to the code have an obligation to negotiate with one another in good faith and conduct business in the spirit of fair and ethical dealing,” the copy of the proposed code reads. “Parties to the code may not alter contracts unilaterally.”

Gary Sands, senior vice-president of public policy for the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, said the code aims to treat all industry members equally.

“There’s no distinction made as to whether you’re a small player or a big player,” he said. “Everyone’s treated equally.”

A consultation process on the proposed code is open to food industry members until May 30.

Diane J. Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada, which represents the country’s largest grocers, said it’s important for the code to allow grocery retailers to continue to offer consumers “a wide assortment of products at competitive prices.”

Grocers want to ensure the code will “ultimately benefit consumers,” she said.

They want the code to be “easy to understand and comply with, favouring simplicity and fairness over detailed rules and unnecessary complexity,” Brisebois said in an emailed statement.

She said this would safeguard against unnecessary red tape costs that would negatively impact stakeholders in the grocery supply chain and ultimately Canadian consumers.

The issue of supplier-grocer disputes came to a head in 2020 when Walmart Canada announced a fee hike that prompted United Grocers, a national buying group that represents Metro, to tell suppliers it expected the same.

Within months, Loblaw Companies moved in the same direction, telling suppliers the cost of getting products on shelves would rise to help fund improvements to the grocer’s in-store and digital operations.

Industry observers at the time cautioned that the trend of big grocers using their market weight to impose fees without negotiations could lead to less competition, higher food costs and fewer brands on store shelves.

The industry-led grocery code of conduct was proposed as a way to address those issues and to ensure smaller, independent grocers have fair access to goods.

Health Canada proposes restrictions on advertising of food and beverages to children

ncaleb — Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:14:58 +0000

Health Canada intends to amend the Food and Drug Regulations to restrict advertising to children of foods that contribute to excess intakes of sodium, sugars and saturated fat.

It proposes a targeted approach to introducing restrictions, focusing on television and digital media first. This approach prioritizes media where children spend much of their time and where they are highly exposed to food advertising, including ads that air during a children’s program or on a children’s website.

To inform this work, Health Canada has been monitoring the nature and extent of advertising of food and beverages to children in Canada. The data demonstrates television continues to be a large source of exposure to food advertising. Most children report seeing ads for fast food, snacks, sugary drinks, desserts/treats, and sugary cereals at least once a week. Overall, it found the average child and teen viewed more than 1,700 food and beverage ads on television in 2019, which translates to an average of nearly five ads per day. Further, with the growth of digital media and the use of mobile devices, children are also significantly exposed to online ads.

Prior to releasing the policy update, extensive consultations and engagement were undertaken with industry and partners between 2016 and 2019. Following the consultations, Health Canada continued reviewing international initiatives and new evidence, as well as the results of its monitoring activities, to determine how to best support healthier eating and drinking habits for children in Canada.

The new update represents an important first step in restricting the advertising of certain foods and beverages to children to help protect them from the risks of an unhealthy diet. This policy will form the basis for draft regulations that will be published around winter 2024 for public consultation.

Health Canada is seeking your feedback on this policy update. Please contact Health Canada at bpiia-bpaii@hc-sc.gc.ca with any questions or comments by June 12, 2023.

Food Law: Health Canada proposes a new pre-market submission process for supplemented foods

ncaleb — Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:47:01 +0000

Health Canada is proposing a new pre-market submission process for supplemented foods. Once finalized, this guidance will support the addition of new food categories and new ingredients to the supplemented food regime in Canada.

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.