Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 60 - Evidence - Meeting of December 6, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 6, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. to examine and report on issues relating to agriculture and forestry generally (topic: restrictions on marketing whole wheat, whole grain and white bread in relation to the definition of unhealthy food for children).
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I’m Senator Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island and chair of the committee.
Today the committee is looking at the restrictions on marketing whole wheat, whole grain and white bread in relation to the definition of unhealthy food for children under its general order of reference.
Before we hear from the witnesses, I will ask the senators to introduce themselves. We’ll start with the deputy chair, Senator Maltais.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. Good morning.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: Today we have what we call a spot study. We have a general order of reference that allows us to look at very specific topics related to agriculture. To give context to Canadians watching online, this committee is holding the spot study into concerns that have been expressed by agricultural stakeholders relating to the development of regulations that will support Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, basically prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children that was introduced by former Senator Nancy Greene Raine. The legislation would require Health Canada to define what is an unhealthy food.
At a recent stakeholder consultation meeting on November 5, Health Canada further outlined its proposed definition of what is an unhealthy food for children. The regulatory definition has caused concerns for agricultural stakeholders, so that is why we’re holding this hearing today. I look forward to having the comments from our stakeholders who are present and from the Health Canada folks who will be on the second panel.
With that, I’m going to introduce the first panel after I acknowledge that we’ve had a another senator join us. Introduce yourself, please.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: With us today, from the Baking Association of Canada, we have Mr. Paul Hetherington, Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. John Papanikolaou, Vice-President of Nutrition Science & Regulatory Affairs; and from the Canadian National Millers Association, Mr. Gordon Harrison, President. From the Grain Growers of Canada, we have Mr. Jeff Nielsen, President, and Mr. William Van Tassel, Director.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. The witnesses will now make their presentations.
Paul Hetherington, President and Chief Executive Officer, Baking Association of Canada: Good morning. We have a number of issues with Bill S-228 and the accompanying regulations. But most significant is that we’ll classify almost the entire whole grain, whole wheat and white bread category as unhealthy for children based on a non-scientific rule of thumb for sodium content.
We believe declaring breads as unhealthy will exacerbate nutrient deficiencies, especially those already of concern for children. Furthermore, we believe understanding the nutritional consequences of the avoidance of these foods is essential and must be understood by all before Bill S-228 receives Royal Assent.
Health Canada has stated it has undertaken a review of all nutrients provided by bread. However, this review is not public. We are of the opinion this nutritional review is so foundational to the intent of Bill S-228 that it must be released for public study. A copy of our request to Health Canada has been provided to the clerk.
To speak further on the nutritional implications, I am joined this morning by Mr. Papanikolaou, Vice-President, Nutrition Science & Regulatory Affairs at nutritional strategies. I’ll turn my time over to him.
John Papanikolaou, Vice-President, Nutrition Science & Regulatory Affairs, Baking Association of Canada: Honourable senators of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to address you today. In addition to my comments, I have also submitted a letter to the Senate via the committee clerk.
As a researcher and author of peer-reviewed scientific papers that have explored grain foods in the diets of children, I am pleased to be able to provide an overview of evidence-based research on the importance of including breads in the diets of Canadian children.
While Bill S-228 aims to protect children’s health by prohibiting the marketing of specific food and beverages to children, I am concerned that adding white bread and whole wheat breads to the list of foods subject to marketing restrictions due to the sodium content contradicts current dietary guidance to make half your grains whole and may lead to unintended nutrient intake and diet quality consequences.
In addition, misperceptions may evolve that breads are non-nutrient-dense foods. If breads are defined as unhealthy, this may also have negative nutrient implications for other populations, including women of childbearing age where grain foods present an important source of folic acid, via fortification practices to help prevent neural tube defects in newborns.
Over the last year, I have been collaborating with researchers at the University of Saskatchewan where data from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey is being analyzed. From this work we know that breads provide nutrient density in the diet of children 2 to 13 years of age. For about 10 per cent of all calories and 14 per cent of sodium in the diet, breads contribute 21 per cent of dietary folate, 19 per cent of iron, 18 per cent of dietary fibre, 18 per cent of thiamine, 13 per cent of niacin and 11 per cent of riboflavin in the total diet of children. Bread’s nutrient contribution in children’s total diets outweighs the contribution of sodium.
Additionally, I have collaborated on a research project which has published in Nutrition Journal in 2017. The study identified the most commonly consumed grain food patterns in U.S. children 2 to 18 years old using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The objective was to compare nutrient intakes and diet quality of children consuming various grain food patterns to those not consuming grain foods. Seven grain food patterns were identified, one of which was yeast breads and rolls, plus one dietary pattern where children did not consume any of the main grain food groups. When specifically considering the results for the yeast breads and rolls results indicated that children consuming this grain food pattern had greater dieter fibre, iron, thiamine, dietary folate, magnesium, and zinc intake per day compared to children avoiding grains. No significant differences were seen when comparing sodium intake in children consuming a yeast breads and rolls grain pattern relative to children avoiding grain foods.
Children consuming yeast breads and rolls also had better diet quality versus the no grain group, as measured a by the USDA’s Healthy Eating Index. Therefore data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that yeast breads and rolls helps to contribute to nutrient intakes, including shortfall nutrients and overall diet quality in children.
Similar results were seen when repeating this work with Canadian data. Canadian children consuming several grain food patterns, including breads, had higher intakes of folate, fibre, niacin, thiamine, calcium and magnesium, demonstrating the important role grain food like breads play in the diet. No associations were seen between any of the grain food patterns, including breads, identified in these children and body mass index.
Grain foods, including breads, contribute a meaningful level of folic acid in the diets of Canadians. Since mandatory folic acid fortification in 1998, the Public Health Agency of Canada attributes a 46 per cent reduction of neural tube defects in seven provinces, resulting from fortifying select grain foods with folic acid and recommending the use of folic acid supplements by all women who could become pregnant. Promoting a decrease in the consumption of foods made from grains like breads could result in the unintended consequence of decreasing folate in all Canadians, and particularly for women of childbearing age.
In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published the ten great public health achievements and included mandatory folic acid fortification of cereal grain products as one of them. As part of maternal and infant health, the CDC stated that mandatory folic acid fortification of cereal grains labelled as enriched in neural tube defects and prevented an estimated 10,000 neural tube defect affected pregnancies.
Of concern, a recent study published earlier this year from the University of North Carolina, University of Colorado and North Carolina Division of Public Health demonstrated that women with restricted carbohydrate intake in the year before conception were 30 per cent more likely to have an infant with a neural tube defect. Thus, listing breads and other nutrient-dense grains products as part of foods subject to marketing restrictions may lead to unintended nutrient and public health outcomes in many Canadian women during childbearing years.
In summary, breads provide nutrient density in the diets of Canadian children. For about 10 per cent of energy and 14 per cent of sodium, breads contribute 21 per cent of folate, 19 per cent of iron, 18 per cent of fibre, 18 per cent of thiamine, 13 per cent of niacin and 11 per cent of riboflavin in the total diet. Eliminating breads from the diet may have unintended nutrient intake consequences in Canadian children.
Research completed to date in Canada and the U.S. shows that cumulatively a variety of grain foods consumed by children, including various types of breads, help contribute to a shortfall or under consumed nutrients in the total diet.
Lastly, grain foods, including breads, contribute a meaningful level of folic acid in the diets of Canadians. Creating an environment where breads are restricted from marketing to children may lead to misperceptions that breads are not a nutrient-dense part of a dietary pattern. This may also promote the adherence of low-carbohydrate diets in other populations, including women of childbearing age, which could increase the risk of neural tube defects.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to answers your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Jeff Nielsen, President, Grain Growers of Canada: Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to present on this important issue. I’m chair of Grain Growers of Canada and I run a family-owned farm in south-central Alberta near Olds growing high-quality wheat, malt barley and canola. I’m joined by my fellow director, William Van Tassel of Quebec.
The Chair: Could you slow down a little bit? The translators are having trouble keeping up.
Mr. Nielsen: As the united voice of Canada’s grain farmers, Grain Growers represents 65,000 grain producers from coast to coast. We are pleased to be here today to speak on this important topic, and thank you, Senator Griffin and this committee, for taking the time to study the potential unintended consequences of Bill S-228.
The unintended consequences are the real reason that groups like Grain Growers have raised concerns with the bill. We firmly believe that Senator Nancy Greene Raine did not intend for the bill to see labelling of 99 per cent of quality Canadian bread as unhealthy. Such a label would have significant detrimental effects that would be felt in households across Canada and around the world.
As an export-dependent industry, grain farmers work hard and deserve the solid reputation we enjoy in markets around the world. On grocery shelves from Vietnam to Spain to Peru, Canada’s brands stand for high-quality and healthy foods. That brand has helped drive demand for Canadian bread, pasta, durum and — wheat around the world. According to Statistics Canada, exports of wheat, the most common bread grain, adds almost $6 billion to the Canadian economy each year.
A lot of hard would work has gone into opening these markets and that trust, hard work done by industry and government alike and hard work that will be put at risk by the unintended consequences of this bill.
The unfortunate reality is that activists have already used myths and misinformation to attack grain farmers and the grain value chain and the government’s labelling of bread as unhealthy will give those activists significant ammunition.
As incomes in developing nations increase and populations become more health conscious, seeing a label of unhealthy on Canadian bread is only going to steer our customers to our competitors. Our industry already faces a heavy burden from non-tariff barriers from other countries. The last thing we need is one from our own country.
[Translation]
William Van Tassel, Director, Grain Growers of Canada: Thank you very much for this invitation. I am from Quebec, so I feel the need to thank you in French, especially the senators who represent Quebec.
[English]
As Jeff noted, I am William Van Tassel and I farm 1,100 acres of wheat, canola, soya and malt barley in Lac Saint-Jean, Quebec.
Farmers like Jeff and I take pride in producing some of the world’s safest and healthiest grains. Many studies have shown that enriched bread provides important nutrients and dietary fibre that children and adults alike need as part of a balanced diet. Bread is one of our oldest food sources and some believe it is the basis of modern civilization. Most cultures have a grain staple in their diets, and the reason is simple: bread is plentiful, healthy and affordable.
In addition to the international competitiveness concerns which Jeff outlined, grain farmers are alarmed by the potential unintended consequences on Canadians of labelling bread unhealthy. Public institutions like schools, daycares and hospitals rely on Health Canada guidelines to provide cost-effective, healthy meals to children in their care. The removal of nutrient-rich, high-fibre bread from their options will be a significant blow. School lunch programs run by dedicated volunteers need staples that keep kids learning all day long. Daycares need to feed hundreds of picky toddlers starting to learn healthy eating habits.
That is why Grain Growers are calling on the Senate to amend Bill S-228 and remove the ambiguous and problematic term “unhealthy” from the legislation. Senator Greene Raine wanted to ensure that children are provided with the best environment to make healthy food choices, and so do we.
Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. As you will note, there has been reference to the bill, but it’s actually the regulatory regime that we’re studying today. I’ll remind senators of that for their questions. There are 12 senators here to ask questions.
Gordon Harrison, President, Canadian National Millers Association: May I make one quick comment? There are two and they are quick. You have my letter of November 23. The first point I’d like to make is that Bill S-228 and the regulation isn’t really necessary to accomplish the advertising restrictions that have been proposed by Bill S-228. All of the regulatory authority that would be required is already within the Food and Drugs Act, and I’ve explained in my letter where it resides. We’d be pleased to explain that if anyone is concerned.
The second point is that what is in Bill S-228 and the regulations proposed pursuant to Bill S-228 isn’t really what the minister was asked to do. The minister was asked to emulate what has been done in Quebec. Quebec has a much more thoughtful framework for triage of advertising, and we should look at that first. If this is deemed necessary for Canadians, then we should look at what was done in Quebec and how it is a much fairer approach, in my opinion.
Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m being more strict on the time today because we have a big panel and we have a full complement of senators here today.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you for your testimony, gentlemen. My first question goes to Mr. Papanikolaou. How much sugar is in bread? You listed all the vitamins, but what can you tell us about the quantity of sugar in bread?
[English]
Mr. Papanikolaou: We’ve done work in the U.S. where we’ve seen that, in children, breads contribute less than 5 per cent of total sugar to the diet. Sugar content of bread is minimal.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: That is not my question. Here it is again: in the ordinary white bread that I use for my two pieces of toast in the morning, how much sugar is there? I am not talking about for children. I am 74, so I am quite old. How much sugar is there in bread?
[English]
Mr. Papanikolaou: In one loaf of bread, I don’t have the data in front of me. I would assume there would be less than 4 grams of sugar per serving of bread.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Okay.
[English]
Mr. Papanikolaou: Varieties will differ, but in general there would be less than 4, and 4 is actually going on the high end.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: If I understand correctly, according to Bill S-228, the advertising must indicate that bread could be harmful for children. How about pizza dough? You see that product advertised on television all the time.
[English]
Mr. Papanikolaou: Pizza dough, in terms of overall nutrition? Again, if you look at pizza, you can’t just look at the dough. You have to look at the total ingredients of the pizza. There are pizzas that are loaded with a variety of high-fat ingredients like meats, for example, which are high in sodium and fat. Those are large contributors of nutrients to avoid in diet. If I can refer to a study we’ve been completing where we look at sandwich consumption, we found — and this has been submitted to a journal for publication — in sandwiches, it doesn’t matter you use whole wheat, whole grain or enriched white bread. It’s the ingredients within the sandwich that can affect the total calories, fat, saturated fat and added sugars. We were able to identify commonly consumed sandwiches in the population. For example, a typical sandwich in the U.S. diet, as this is a U.S. study, contributed over 1,300 milligrams of sodium in one sandwich. 537 calories in one sandwich. We did some modelling where we looked at changing the ingredients within the sandwich but keeping the bread the same. Let’s keep the whole grain breads and enriched white breads. We found it didn’t matter what type of bread you used, but rather the ingredients within the sandwich that influenced the nutrient profile. In kids, we were able to reduce sodium by more than 30, 40 per cent in some cases in some of the models just by changing the ingredients and looking at portion sizes.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Should we be putting the warning “harmful for children” in a big yellow square on pizza boxes?
[English]
Mr. Papanikolaou: I would disagree with that. I would not put something like that on, because there’s no evidence to support that.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: We have a large crowd here. Can you come with your best question in the first round, and if you have a second question we’ll put you on the second round.
Senator Mercer: I don’t know if it’s my best one, but I’ll combine the two I have. It seems to me that we’re attacking motherhood here. My mother told me to eat bread, it was good for me.
I want to know: Have you been able to anticipate the damage that this would have on your world market if we proceed with this? We are the breadbasket of the world. We continue to feed the world with our grain. Has there been any damage, or is there likely to be damage, with the retail market? You have to turn around and sell your products to large grocery stores and market your product, and they themselves make their wholesale bread. Do you anticipate any damage if this were to pass?
Mr. Hetherington: Yes. That has not been calculated yet, senator, simply because the boundaries and scope of the regulations have yet to be defined. What is on the table, to our understanding, is interventions with regard to the advertising of the product, to the packaging of the product and store placement. One of the questions I’ve been asked lately by my retail members is those wonderful storefront displays, like the small bakery on the corner does this time of year with the ginger bread houses and Santa cookies, will that be allowed? That’s how far and how broad the scope is currently. Certainly there is a significant potential for damage, going back to your word, but the scope of that has not been defined yet simply because the regulations have not yet been fully vetted.
Mr. Nielsen: If we had something like this in place for our Canadian consumers for our children here in Canada, it would have repercussions around the world. We have missions that go out with Cereals Canada and Cigi representing our wheat products. If they were to hear something like this is being done at home, they would be wondering why they would be serving Canadian wheat to their families in those countries we sell to.
Senator R. Black: If you’re unsuccessful in making these changes and “unhealthy” is placed on bread, how could the development of new wheat varieties and research and development change things? Is it possible to do research and innovation that would change unhealthy to healthy? That’s just a question.
Mr. Van Tassel: I could start and then Gordon could continue. When you do wheat breeding — I’m a farmer but I’ve been funding wheat breeding for a while and following it — you won’t touch the sodium side. I don’t believe you can do the breeding you want but you won’t be able to change that there. You will have to ask the millers and bakers because no breeding will change the need to put in sodium, salt, to help the yeast raise bread.
Mr. Harrison: We believe genetics will not substantially alter the nutritional attributes of new varieties, and research has shown that key nutrients have not changed substantially over many years. There are other benefits of breeding that are for another day.
Mr. Hetherington: Sodium is fundamental to the chemistry of baking. It has a lot of functional characteristics. I’m not going to dive into that because of the chair’s concern of time, but it is functional in the chemistry of baking.
Senator Oh: My question is on income growing and the economic impact. If this new restriction is implemented, can you tell us how it will affect the job security and incomes of those in the industry, such as bakers, grain growers and millers, who your organizations represent? Is there any country in the world that has already implemented what we are doing?
Mr. Hetherington: Tackling the last question first, not that I’m aware of with any country. Moving to this extent with regard to sodium reduction target for bread. With regard to the other economic impacts, following up on comments made previously, we haven’t assessed it yet because we don’t know the full boundary of the regulations. We know that when we’ve participated in other initiatives such as the trans fat task force and sodium working group, both of which I was on, those recommendations were then taken and used by other levels of government, other government-based purchasers, as part of the criteria for their purchasing behaviour. History has shown that if the Government of Canada makes a declaration or issues guidance, it is not in isolation. It is then used throughout the Canadian economy as a foundation for future nutrient guidance.
Mr. Nielsen: We export around 23 million metric tonnes of wheat. Those customers will be questioning the quality of that wheat if we have restrictions here at home. Canadian farmers export 90 per cent of our products. It’s key for all farmers to have that export market. There’s no dollar value put on that. It would be devastating.
Senator C. Deacon: This meeting isn’t about Bill S-228 but that’s all we’re hearing. Bill S-228 restricts advertising to kids. It doesn’t do anything more than that. First, how much advertising is done to kids?
Second, as it relates to bread products, is it a concern that the sodium intake of kids in Canada is demonstrated to be well above the recommended upper limits from the WHO and others?
If you agree with that, what solutions do you have to help Health Canada deal with the fact that sodium intake is such a problem in our culture and is such a problem in our kids’ diets? There’s an issue about serving size and daily amounts. This is not about labelling wheat or bread as an unhealthy product but finding a solution to sodium intake. What solutions and recommendations do you have? Is there a way that we can help Health Canada here?
Mr. Harrison: Yes, there is. First, Bill S-228 is about being unhealthy, which is part of the bill. It’s not about advertising alone. Second, it’s about marketing, which is an error in the drafting of the bill. Third, Paul will tell us about how much work has already been done voluntarily to reduce sodium. We have reduced that by a substantial percentage already.
Senator C. Deacon: Can we do more?
Mr. Harrison: Probably not more functionally in making the products. Paul has made that point. The important question is: How do we help Health Canada?
Again, it is not necessary to have regulation pursuant to Bill S-228 to do what is proposed and to do what the minister was asked to do. Health Canada has all the regulatory authority to do that. Health Canada has all the guidance and federal regulatory policy to develop regulation that restricts advertising to children, if “children” are properly defined and if the criteria designating advertisement to children is followed. Those are set out in the Quebec law and guidance to industry.
I trust I’ve answered your question but tell us about sodium reduction.
Mr. Hetherington: We’ve been engaged on sodium reduction since 2010, when the Sodium Working Group first started. Since that time, based on our own data and research — and it’s been supported by third-party research — we’ve been able to reduce sodium in white and whole-wheat bread by about 14 per cent.
The industry recognizes and participates in the establishment of sodium reduction targets. The sodium reduction targets for breads, for example, is 338 milligrams per 100 grams. That’s a very aggressive target — world-leading, actually.
The challenge we have now, though, is the target established and the non-scientific target, a rule of thumb target that’s been established in Bill S-228 for bread, is 190 milligrams. That is 40 per cent lower than the sodium reduction target under the voluntary sodium reduction plan as promoted by Health Canada.
We have a bread at home that meets that criteria, namely, 330 milligrams per 100 grams. We have then looked for a product that would qualify under the restrictions as proposed. We have found one. That’s via research of our own database and other databases —
Senator C. Deacon: That’s not in Bill S-228 but in the guidelines being developed by Health Canada?
Mr. Hetherington: This is all part of the declaration of “unhealthy” that comes out of that. I would argue the baking industry has made substantial investments and substantial efforts. We continue to do so. We’re looking at some of the nomenclature of agreements that will help reduce further sodium reduction. The challenge we have now is the non-scientific measure — that is, 190 milligrams per 100 grams — which will lead to a declaration that breads are unhealthy for children. That is something we simply cannot support.
Senator C. Deacon: Are the World Health Organization guidelines worth considering following?
Mr. Hetherington: I’m not familiar if the WHO has guidelines of 190 milligrams per 100 grams for children.
Senator C. Deacon: In general, do you believe that?
Mr. Hetherington: With regard to the overall nutrient in the diet, yes.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: I have to begin by saying I don’t want you to use Senator Nancy Greene Raine’s name in vain. She is a retired senator and she is absolutely 100 per cent on board with this legislation. We must be careful not to say this doesn’t meet her expectations or this isn’t what she wanted. I hear that over and over again, and I think that’s unfair. She is 100 per cent on board with this legislation. Her legislation, Bill S-228, is about only one thing and that’s advertising to kids, as Senator Deacon said. It’s only about one thing, advertising to kids and, as it’s now amended, advertising to kids under 13 years of age. Now we get into the regulation issue, which is what you’re talking about.
I think it’s really challenging to confuse the issues. What Health Canada decides to do with the health food guide and front-of-package labelling has nothing to do with this legislation.
You just made reference, for example, to the World Health Organization and their document that talks about reducing the exposure of children to the power of marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans fatty acids, sugars and salts.
Mr. Hetherington, you began your presentation by referring to what you call the non-scientific rule of thumb for salt control. There is no doubt that we are receiving letters on a regular basis and full support, for example, from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. There is a lot of science about sodium and the role of sodium in people’s diets. Is it possible for you to produce breads that are both healthy and satisfy certain requirements? We all know, for example, about synthetic fruit strips that are produced as snacks for kids and are 100 per cent sugar, but they add vitamin C and call them healthy. You can have very processed bread but take out all the natural vitamins and minerals and then re-add synthetic vitamins and minerals and call it healthy.
My question to you is this: Is it possible for the industry to produce bread that has those vitamins and minerals naturally occurring, as opposed to being processed, taken out, and reintroduced in a synthetic way?
Mr. Papanikolaou: We’re currently exploring that opportunity, but the science is still in its infancy. One of the things I keep hearing about are the problems associated with sodium consumption. We’re working with the American Heart Association. Emerging data shows a bigger problem, namely, the lack of potassium in the diet. Potassium has been highlighted a nutrient of public health concern in both Canada and the U.S. Increasing potassium intake counter affects some of the effects of sodium. Increasing vegetable consumption is very important and would solve a lot of problems for many Canadians and Americans regarding sodium intakes.
Back to your question, we’re exploring ways with Kansas University researchers, looking at doing manipulations with the soil for potassium. That is, are there ways to get more potassium in the soil that could then be transferred to the plant? However, that’s still very exploratory.
Mr. Hetherington: If I could respond, I have a couple of comments with respect to the senator’s remarks. First, we believe breads are healthy right now. I would leave that there.
With regards to the comment about the non-scientific measure, I am confident in saying that, because those are Health Canada’s own words. This is a rule of thumb which they’re using for regulatory criteria. We provided comments to this committee back in September to that effect. I didn’t repeat that in our submission this time. I could again, if you like, showing numerous occurrences where Health Canada has referred to the 5 and 15 criteria daily value as a rule of thumb. That’s a non-scientific measure. In response, senator, we are confident in that statement.
With regard to other communities to improve the overall health contribution of breads to the diet, there is ongoing work regarding that. The number one trend in industry is health and wellness and everyone’s striving for clean label. “Clean label” means we’re taking everything out of our product that is complicated in words and nobody can produce. That actually presents some challenges when you look at an issue such as sodium reduction because some of the opportunities or alternatives to sodium produce side effects which require other ingredients, which then are those complicated terminologies, oxides, or whatever.
The industry is working on it, and Mr. Papanikolaou outlined, there’s ongoing research in that area.
Senator Doyle: Bread is something that is generally packed or fortified with essential nutrients. We all hear that there are essential nutrients in bread. With the strict definition of “unhealthy,” will society be able to provide these essential nutrients to children who are losing it, or will presumably lose it, when we start this kind of campaign that we’re on right now? Isn’t it moot if we don’t first educate parents as to correcting their children’s diet? What will stop a child from eating bread in the home which the parents are eating? You have to have an education campaign for parents before all of this can be corrected for children. I think we’ve gone a little far on this. We’re getting too politically correct on these things. Instead of pursuing it the way we are, maybe we have to look at education campaigns for the people who really, really matter in this, which are the parents.
I know there’s not much of a question in there, but maybe I can have a comment.
Mr. Papanikolaou: Currently there is no data that looks at the effects or outcomes associated with eliminating a food like bread from the diet. That said, I am starting on a project in January 2019 along with U.S. researchers where we’re actually going to look at what it looks like in the diet of children and adults if we eliminate 50, 75, 100 per cent of bread. This would be new data to contribute to the scientific literature.
What I know is that, previously, we’ve done modelling studies where we’ve looked at, for example, eliminating refined grains in kids’ diets. We specifically looked at cereals. We found if kids completely eliminated all refined grain cereals, and only consumed whole-grain cereals, they lacked certain nutrients. In addition, when you eliminate foods you have to replace them with other foods. In many cases, we saw calories go up, total fat and added sugar go up. These are the unintended consequences I’m concerned about with such a proposal.
The dairy industry has gone through this, where there have been times when people have advocated for less dairy consumption. We’ve done that analysis, and that is the data that was published in 2011, where we’ve shown if you cut out dairy and replace it with non-dairy alternatives, you have nutrient recommendations fall for calcium, vitamin D and protein, and that becomes a big deal in terms of public health.
Mr. Hetherington: One response with regard to nutrition education campaign: Absolutely.
Senator Wallin: I guess I’ve been around this place long enough to understand that regulation and legislation go hand in hand. Legislation is the direction and regulation is the roadmap, so these things are crucial. We’ve seen it happen in fisheries legislation, environmental legislation, things that I’ve looked at directly. What cannot be done through the legislative front door, they do through the regulatory back door.
You gentlemen have all been quite polite, I think, calling these unintended consequences, perhaps regulatory overreach. Do you think it’s anything more than that?
Mr. Harrison: I would have to say, thank you for recognizing that they go hand in hand. What we’re hearing about and what we’re here about today is designating this wide range of grain-based foods as unhealthy. That’s scientifically unfounded. We object to it. It’s wrong. There are unintended consequences. I wish to add to the point that you have made, which is it is not necessary to have Bill S-228 designate foods as potentially unhealthy and giving Health Canada carte blanche to make those determinations. That’s not necessary. If Health Canada wishes to intervene with the full support and co-operation of industry, which this table has done over and over again, then it can be done under the existing authority in the Food and Drugs Act. This is all unnecessary. If we want to get moving in helping Health Canada to do this, there are other avenues. No one has said in our submissions we don’t want Health Canada to take a careful look at that. We all work a good portion of our days helping Health Canada and the CFIA deliver safe, healthy and nutritious foods.
We can’t get caught up in the fact that Bill S-228 doesn’t matter because it’s simple and everybody supports it. By the way, Health Canada’s proposals are contrary to Heart and Stroke’s own recommendations on their website.
They go hand in hand, but we don’t need this bill, which is not well done, I don’t mean to insult anyone, but from a legislative point of view it’s not well drafted. There are complications that will arise from that in the implementation. We could have done better. I’m sorry we weren’t here on the first day it was discussed. My fault. It’s not well done and we can do it better if we can do it differently.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a quick question. There seems to be two issues, the regulations and Bill S-228.
You held up as a model the rules for advertising in Quebec, which are designed to prevent advertising directed at children. Now, I understand that Bill S-228 also involves a prohibition on advertising directed at children under 13 years of age. Are there differences between the two? The bill prohibits advertising on bread and on other things for children. So it seems to me that it is similar to the Quebec legislation in that respect. Can you clarify?
[English]
Mr. Harrison: Having reviewed the Quebec law and guidance for the industry yesterday, I can comment. The Quebec law is dealing with advertising to all things to children, not just food. Quebec law does not designate with foods as unhealthy, it deals with the ethical question of advertising all things to children.
In Quebec law and the guidance to industry they have considered foods and the kind of advertising of foods that should not be directed at children. This is another aspect of the bill. This should be primarily at children, not at children generally. This is a distinction that has to be made if we continue to look at this bill.
Quebec law and guidance have taken into account a system of evaluating whether or not advertisement contravenes the intent of the law. It’s very clearly laid out, and there are circumstances under the Quebec model that advertising to children is considered to be eligible and okay. Those are clearly laid out. We don’t see that yet.
I actually think we have this backwards. If we were to start with what the minister was asked to do, not the senator, we would ask Health Canada: How would we implement this for food in a fair and balanced way to emulate what Quebec has done? Once we had a good idea of what the regulatory package looked like, we could see if it was even necessary to amend the Food and Drugs Act in order to do that.
This bill is about food only. It’s about marketing, it’s very broad. It’s not about advertising. That language is a problem in law, because marketing is not defined in the food and drugs Act, but advertising and labelling and selling are. I pointed that out in my letter. These are not comparable. Thank you for asking the question. My point is: We can do better and the Quebec framework has not been fully taken into account in what we see before us. Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: My question follows on from the one from Senator Miville-Dechêne. Have the regulations in Quebec had an impact on sales?
[English]
Mr. Hetherington: I have no information on that, senator.
Mr. Harrison: I don’t think we came with Quebec nutrient intake data broken out from national either, which I think is a more important question. We can take that under advisement and try and provide you with information.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator R. Black: We’re in the eleventh hour. We all acknowledge and recognize that. What is the minimum that you might wish to be done if we were to make a change?
Mr. Nielsen: From the Grain Growers’ viewpoint, it’s just the word “healthy.”
Mr. Harrison: Legally, you have to get rid of marketing and talk about advertising. The coming into force provisions are incorrect. They should be modelled after the Safe Food for Canadians Act and come into force when the Governor-in-Council believes it’s ready to implement regulations. There are technical aspects. I would be willing to discuss at length and then you can seek counsel from justice lawyers. There are fundamental things about the legislation that alter the Food and Drugs Act in ways that are inappropriate. Those are more complicated. “Unhealthy” is the bottom line.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I expect you would all agree that it is a challenge that the large majority of kids are exceeding the upper limits of salt intake as a rule. I think that’s broadly accepted as being an issue. This isn’t about eliminating bread. This is about trying to manage that and other problems in terms of kids eating unhealthy foods.
Have you studied the minimum amount of salt required in the baking process? First, is there research into that? You’ve said that you’ve reduced it, but there’s not much more room to go. Is there evidence to suggest there isn’t room to go, which is important to your argument.
How else can we work with Health Canada, if we are at the minimum limits, to find ways to help reduce salt intake with kids? It could be that simply more is allowed with breads because there’s a minimum that we can’t go past; the science is clear. You’re allowed a higher threshold with breads, but you aren’t with other products. The point is, I think we want to try and find solutions. The objective is a reasonable objective, namely, to stop marketing many things to kids, not to eliminate bread. That’s not the objective of this legislation.
Have you studied and is there evidence about the minimum amount of salt required to enable the baking process to be successful? Is there research into that?
The Chair: Senator Deacon, if you want an answer to those questions, we have to go now.
Mr. Hetherington: I don’t have the specifics. I can tell you, senator, research has been done looking at this. I recall in the U.K. for example, work was done looking at restrictions, but I cannot tell you that it was based on how low you can go. I believe it was based on achieving certain targets.
Also with breads, to correct my friend Mr. Harrison, work is continuing with regards to sodium reductions and different breads have different sodium levels. Part of it simply has to do with the nature of the product. For example, a baguette would have a higher sodium value than a normal white bread. The reason is the moisture has been baked out to form that wonderful crust we all enjoy. You concentrate all the ingredients, including the sodium, whereas in the white bread it’s more dispersed.
The work continues, senator. I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that the work isn’t continuing and that industry isn’t looking at sodium reduction. However, there are limits because of the functional nature of sodium.
Senator C. Deacon: I expect so.
Senator Seidman: To clear the record again, we’re kind of past the eleventh hour in the process of the rules and regulations here, as both the House of Commons and the Senate have passed Bill S-228. The bill is passed. All we’re voting on in the Senate now is the message from the House of Commons. That’s it. The two amendments are one, reducing the age from 17 to 13; and, two, a five-year review. That’s all we’re voting on, not the word “unhealthy.” That’s already passed.
It’s a matter of rules and process and procedures.
Mr. Harrison: Thank you for that.
Senator Seidman: I think you need to understand that. It’s all about the regulations. I totally agree with my colleagues here. What can we do to minimize what you call the so-called unintended consequences in the regulations?
Mr. Harrison: It’s not about the regulations. The bill is up for amendment, as I understand it. Sorry, you’ve been asked for concurrence on what the house has said.
Senator Seidman: Yes; concurrence on those two issues only.
Mr. Harrison: All right. I can’t compensate for the fact that the bill was poorly drafted, that we object to “unhealthy,” and that the regulations foresee designating these products as unhealthy. That is an error.
With respect, if there are no procedural avenues for you to pursue to make sensible amendments to the bill that will deal with our issues and with the legislative and regulatory obligations that we have and to make regulations workable — if you’re not prepared and have no procedural avenues to do that — you shouldn’t pass the bill. If you wish to do it as well, I would urge you to consider any —
Senator Seidman: But the bill has passed, so I don’t understand your request. I’m asking you a really practical question about what we could do in the regulations.
Mr. Harrison: I would be asking you to make other recommendations back to the house to say we may accept your amendments but we wish to draw to your attention that perhaps we should do this as well. That’s all I’m suggesting.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I have a quick question for Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Van Tassel, representing the grain producers. In Canada, are the seeds used to make flour genetically modified? Not at all? Are you sure? Someone told us the opposite two weeks ago.
Mr. Van Tassel: We have no genetically modified wheat. A few grains were found in the west but that was an error. No wheat is genetically modified. We can assure you of that. The same goes for oats and barley.
Senator Maltais: I will take you at your word; nothing is modified. No seeds in Canada are genetically modified?
Mr. Van Tassel: As I said, seeds for wheat, barley or oats are not genetically modified. However, some canola, soy and corn seeds are genetically modified, yes. However, that is not the case with wheat, because, these days, when you are talking about wheat, you are also talking about bread. So there are none.
Senator Maltais: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: My question goes to Mr. Hetherington. Education and regulations aside, can you tell us whether it is possible to produce bread that would avoid the consequences of these regulations and that would make the “unhealthy” designation go away?
[English]
Mr. Hetherington: If you’re asking, senator, whether or not it’s able to produce a bread with a sodium level under 190 grams per 100 grams, the answer is yes. We have found one, as I said earlier. The question is: Can you produce that in a capacity to feed a national population? The answer is: Based on the information we have right now, no.
I would also add the one bread we did find was $8 a loaf. That goes back to my previous comments about the functional challenges.
The Chair: Thank you, panellists. It’s a big panel and there’s a lot of people around the table to ask questions, but we got to a second round.
I really appreciate everybody’s co-operation in this, and I think we’ve had a good discussion. We’re going to take a pause and we’ll bring on the second panel.
We have a much smaller panel this time. We have two officials from Health Canada. We have Karen McIntyre, the Director General of the food directorate, and also Health Products and Food Branch; and we have David K. Lee, the Chief Regulatory Officer for the Health Products and Food Branch. Welcome, folks.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to be here today for this spot study.
Karen McIntyre, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and honoured members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak with you this morning on the government’s proposed regulatory approach for Bill S-228, the proposed child health protection act. I’m Director General of the Food Directorate, which is responsible for leading the development of these regulations.
I’m pleased to be here today with my colleague David Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer with the department’s Health Products and Food Branch.
The focus of my presentation this morning will be to provide you with an overview of the proposed regulatory approach for Bill S-228.
I would also like to take this opportunity today to explain how we have clarified our regulatory approach to address specific concerns that have been brought to Health Canada’s attention about the perceived scope of the food captured under the proposed regulations.
To start, I would like to provide some context on why the government is pursuing these restrictions.
Canada is facing an undeniable and growing burden of chronic disease. What is even more concerning is that these diseases that used to only be seen in adults are now starting to appear in our children. Recent estimates indicate that nearly a third of Canadian children are overweight or obese. Children with obesity are at a higher risk for asthma, bone and joint problems, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.
These chronic diseases are largely preventable. Poor diets are a primary cause of chronic disease in Canada. Only one in ten children eat enough vegetables and fruit in their diets. Many children exceed the recommended limits for sugars, sodium and saturated fats.
Children are uniquely vulnerable to the influences of marketing. Evidence over the last 20 years clearly shows that advertising targeted to children directly influences their food preferences and holds significant power in food purchasing decisions within families.
Children are exposed to marketing throughout the day through television, print, digital platforms and in multiple settings, including schools, recreational centres and community events.
Some estimates suggest that Canadian children are exposed to over 25 million food and beverage advertisements a year on their favourite websites and 90 per cent of those ads are for foods that are high in sugar, sodium and/or saturated fat.
In its 2016 report entitled Obesity in Canada, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology recommended that the government pursue a number of measures to tackle obesity, including restrictions on advertising of food and beverages to children.
Not surprisingly, the advertising of unhealthy food to children has also been identified by authoritative health organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine, as a major contributor to childhood obesity.
Protecting the health of children is a priority for the Government of Canada. The Minister of Health’s 2015 and 2017 mandate letters committed to introducing new restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy food and beverages to children, similar to those already in place in Quebec.
The objective of the restrictions is to reduce the risks to children’s health by decreasing their exposure to child-directed advertisements of foods that contribute to excess consumption of nutrients of concern, such as sodium, sugar and saturated fat.
I want to underscore that the focus is on restricting advertising to children under 13 years of age. The government is not proposing to restrict advertising to adults, and we are not proposing to restrict the sale of foods or their availability on grocery store shelves.
On September 27, the Honourable Senator Greene Raine introduced Senate public Bill S-228, the child health protection act, in the Senate. The development of the regulatory approach under Bill S-228 is being informed by scientific evidence, expert advice, Quebec’s experience and, importantly, input from stakeholders.
In June 2017, Health Canada undertook a 75-day consultation with Canadians on the proposed regulatory approach. We received over 1,100 responses from across sectors, including members of the public, health organizations, food, broadcasting and advertising industry associations, as well as sport organizations.
In addition to this broad consultation, we have also engaged with and heard from industry and health stakeholders, through multiple bilateral discussions over the course of the past year with Health Canada officials.
An update on our policy direction for proposed restrictions were published online in early May 2018 and presented through a webinar to stakeholders.
This update explained the factor for determining if advertising is directed at children, which are the physical settings, the medium of communication and the appeal of an ad to children. This approach aligns with the Quebec approach.
The May update also explained the nutrient criteria for advertising restrictions. Lastly, it confirmed Health Canada’s intent to exempt children’s sports sponsorships.
On November 5, 2018, Health Canada officials met with industry stakeholders to discuss the proposed restrictions on marketing to children in more detail. Industry expressed some concerns regarding the proposed approach to use nutritional criteria as the first step in determining which foods are subject to the regulations, thereby capturing a broad scope of foods.
It was never our intention to categorize a broad range of foods as unhealthy. I would like to take this opportunity to explain how we have amended our approach to address this concern without compromising the objectives of the legislation.
We have amended our approach to make it clear that foods that are not advertised to children are not subject to the regulations. The revised decision model for determining if advertising is restricted will start by asking the question: Is this food advertised to children? Rather than: Does this food exceed the nutrient criteria for advertising restrictions?
Whether or not the advertisement is directed at children will continue to be determined based on the setting, for example, schools; the medium, for example, TV; and child appeal, including child-targeted characteristics and techniques.
Only when the advertisement is directed at children would determination need to be made as to whether the food exceeds the nutrient criteria for advertising restrictions.
We have had recent discussions with some of our key stakeholders and they have indicated that this change would clarify the approach.
Next, I will talk about how we propose to determine which foods cannot be advertised to children because they exceed those nutrient criteria for advertising restrictions.
We are proposing that advertising restrictions apply to those foods that contain added sodium, added fat or free sugars where the total levels of sodium, saturated fat or sugars are above the low-in thresholds.
Health Canada is proposing to use low-in thresholds because our modelling clearly shows that it takes few foods above low-in levels of sodium, sugar or saturated fat for children to exceed the recommended limits for health.
The fact is there is little room in a healthy diet for foods with free sugars, added saturated fat or added sodium.
We know that 93 per cent of children aged 4 to 8 years old consume beyond the tolerable upper intake level of sodium. We also know that advertising is incredibly persuasive in influencing children’s choices, so it is important that only those foods that we want children to eat more of be promoted to them.
With that in mind, the proposed nutrient model was designed to align with the new food guide. Foods recommended to be eaten regularly by children will not be subject to advertising restrictions.
Our proposed nutrient model will minimize children’s exposure to foods that contribute to excess intakes of nutrients associated with increased risk of chronic disease and obesity.
Over the coming weeks, Health Canada officials will be holding a series of sector-specific meetings with industry, as well as key health stakeholders, to review the guidance document in support of these proposed new regulations.
I trust that this presentation provides clarity on Health Canada’s position as well as how only those food products that are advertised specifically to children are scoped into the proposed regulations.
I would again like to thank the committee for this opportunity to clarify elements of the government’s proposal for restricting advertising to children. We are happy to answer any further questions that you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a couple of quick clarifications.
First, you mentioned that you had some recent discussions with some key industry stakeholders. Would that have included any of the people who were on the previous panel or any other groups?
Ms. McIntyre: We spoke with some of the key associations of which those companies would be members.
The Chair: You said, “We are proposing that advertising restrictions apply to those foods that contain added sodium, added fat or free sugars where the total levels of sodium, saturated fat or sugars are above the low-in thresholds.” Is this new or was that still on the table, say, in the November consultation?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes. That is not changed; that is not new.
The Chair: Okay. I have one further question for clarification.
Recently, we received correspondence from the department that stakeholders would be informed of a policy change. The policy change is the one you’ve just enunciated today?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes; that’s true.
The Chair: We have a questioner’s list.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, Senator Maltais, for yielding your spot to me. I want to follow up with questions that the chair asked.
Several times in your presentation, you talked about key industry stakeholders that you consulted. More specifically, have you talked to agricultural representatives? That is, people who actually work in the agricultural sector to produce the products that we’re talking about and who might be affected by this regulation, namely farmers, the people who produce the products?
Ms. McIntyre: We have been as inclusive as possible in terms of reaching out to our key industry stakeholders. In fact, the November 5 meeting that we held was a face-to-face meeting held in Ottawa. We had about 50 stakeholders there that represented all the different sectors, whether it was food manufacturing, the advertising groups, theatres, cinemas — everybody that we felt could be impacted by these regulations.
Senator Mercer: You still didn’t answer. Were there any farmers there?
Ms. McIntyre: There would not have been any specific farmers there, no, but there were people who were representative in terms of the baking industry and grains. Yes, they were there.
Senator Mercer: I would suggest that you didn’t consult with everybody — that is, the people who produce the product and who build the reputation in this country as the breadbasket of the world. You didn’t consult with everybody. You have to consult with the people who produce the product.
Ms. McIntyre: That is not the extent of our consultations. This is just one of. We’re doing a lot more. When we go out to Part 1 in our formal consultation process, that’s open to every Canadian.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ms. McIntyre, you have often highlighted the Quebec policy for advertising in terms of nutrition of children. Have you evaluated the results?
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: Yes. There have been some studies in Quebec that have looked at the impacts of those regulations.
For example, there are some studies that show that there have been positive impacts on purchasing behaviours as children grow into adults. One study found that French-speaking households in Quebec were significantly less likely to purchase fast food compared to English-speaking households in Quebec and Ontario. Another study was done in 2011 that found that a francophone young adult is 38 per cent less likely to purchase fast food in a given week if he or she lived in Quebec as opposed to if they lived in Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: We know that junk food causes obesity, with all the problems that come with it.
In the advertising and the regulations you are preparing, should we not also mention that, instead of eating junk food, you have to exercise? In some advertising in Quebec, I see parents insisting that their children eat their vegetables, but also that they go outside to play. They are urged to leave their tablets and their computers alone and go outside to play. Could we not include in these regulations and advertising the idea that exercising and good nutrition go together?
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: Your point is well taken, senator. This is important. Restricting advertising of unhealthy foods to children is not the only tool that we have. Obesity is complex, as you are pointing out. Nutrition is a complex science. This is why we have developed a Healthy Eating Strategy. This is a suite of tools and interventions that are all meant to work collectively to improve the health of Canadians and children.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: A huge number of families with one or two children live in condominium buildings with 20 or 30 floors. The kids come home from school. Do you think they want to go back down to exercise after dinner, on the asphalt, in the parking lot and the traffic? I don’t think so.
The advertising must not just focus on the children, but on the parents too. It should invite the parents to exercise with their children. It will save a lot on diabetes medication. Parents must be targeted too, so that they encourage their children to exercise. Surely we can put that in the regulations somewhere.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. McIntyre. Just to recap, because it seems to me that there’s an awful lot of confusion here mixed in at the same time. Unfortunately, Bill S-228 has taken quite a long time to get through both houses, and it seems to have naturally coincided with your front-of-package labelling and changes to the food guide. As a result, we’ve lumped a lot of things together here, it seems to me.
You have amended your approach, and I think that’s really important, to make it clear that foods which are not advertised to children are not subject to the regulations, and that has to do with the nutrient criteria advertising. Do you think this then responds directly to the testimony that we heard from the previous witnesses around their fears for the bread industry?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes, I do. I think it’s really important that we clarify. This is not the intent. We are not categorizing foods as being unhealthy or healthy. In fact, Health Canada’s eating messages don’t focus on individual foods but, rather, the contribution of foods to an overall healthy eating pattern. For example, Health Canada recommends that Canadians eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains and protein foods regularly, and nutritious foods should not contribute to excess consumption of saturated fats, sodium and sugar. We’re recommending that people choose foods that have little to no added sodium, sugars and saturated fats and to use the nutrition facts table to compare products and choose those that are lower in those critical nutrients.
We know that kids eat too much of these nutrients and they’re strongly influenced by advertising. It makes them want to buy these products or makes them want to encourage their parents to buy these products for them. As I mentioned previously, the majority of these foods which are marketed to children are very high in saturated fats, sodium and sugar. The objective of these regulations is really to reduce the risks to children’s health by decreasing their exposure to child-directed advertising of foods by reducing their consumption of these key nutrients. These regulations are really about the protection of children and putting in place regulations that will prohibit advertising to a very susceptible population.
Senator Oh: Ms. McIntyre, Bill S-228 was reduced from 17 down to 13 years of age. At what age do you think it is most important to prohibit the advertising of unhealthy food to children?
Ms. McIntyre: The reason we changed the age from 17 to 13 was to better align. This is what is in place in Quebec now, so we have decided to use the same age restriction, and that is under 13 years of age. This is where we think it is critical in terms of restricting advertising.
Senator Oh: At what age does bread help children grow? What is the most important age for the intake?
Ms. McIntyre: In terms of a number between 1 and 13, I really can’t say. I don’t have information or data to answer that question.
David K. Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: One of the other changes that was introduced, and I think Senator Seidman referred to this, is that there’s going to be a five-year monitoring period, especially because we’re lowering the age to really find out whether there will be a difference in the advertising patterns and what the age groups will look like. We’ll keep looking at that.
Senator Oh: School exercise is very important. Not only just intake. I think you might have to look at physical exercise in schools. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Congratulations to the members of the other panel and to your team for the working group’s progress on reducing salt in bread. Do you have any evidence as to the minimum amounts? Have you seen research on the minimum amounts of salt that could be used in bread? Are we at the lower threshold now?
Have you looked at ways to examine the overall nutritional value of a product? I’m looking at the claims that this is about eliminating bread. This isn’t about eliminating bread. That’s very clear. Have you looked at the overall nutritional value of a given category of products and said it’s worth having more salt, more whatever, in this category in order for the consumers to get these other nutritional benefits, whereas in this category of product there are no nutritional benefits, and so any amount is too much? Have you spent time looking at that question?
Ms. McIntyre: To answer your second question, no. The purpose of these regulations is to restrict advertising of foods that contain those key nutrients. It’s not about promoting positive nutrients. We have other tools in Health Canada that we use to promote healthy foods, for example, Canada’s Food Guide.
Senator C. Deacon: Are you aware of what the minimum thresholds are for salt?
Ms. McIntyre: No. Since 2010, we have had a voluntary sodium reduction program and we’ve established voluntary targets for companies to reach in terms of reducing sodium in 94 categories of products. These targets were developed in consultation with industry, so we believe that they can meet them.
Senator C. Deacon: But there’s no evidence to show that they can nor to show that they’re either really weak or really aggressive targets?
Ms. McIntyre: Well, we believe that those targets are achievable. We had some progress. We published a report earlier this year in terms of how companies met those targets in those 94 categories of food. Although the progress wasn’t remarkable, there was some progress made in terms of reaching the targets.
At this point, we’re looking at those, we’re consulting with specific industry sectors to understand why they couldn’t meet the targets and to adjust our targets going into the future. We will be consulting on new targets for the processed food industry, and not just for the processed food industry but also for restaurants.
Senator Wallin: This week, I think many of us would have seen on the national news a report that said the price of food for the average Canadian home is going up by $411. They cited the vegetable part of the basket as being most troubling, in part because of weather concerns, and in large part because greenhouses in Canada are now growing marijuana and not vegetables.
I wonder whether you take into consideration in your preparation of regulations, et cetera, the availability of food, the differences that you see in rural Canada and urban Canada and the affordability of food.
We talked about bread with lower sodium content being $8 a loaf. That’s really not realistic for any family that’s trying to send sandwiches to school for their kids. What role does availability and affordability play in your determination of a regulation?
Ms. McIntyre: Food affordability is a very important point and it does impact, obviously, the effectiveness of regulations that are put in place. In terms of developing the regulations, affordability of food is not a consideration that we take into account as part of our mandate when promoting healthy eating and protecting children.
There are other programs within government that do that. For example, there’s Nutrition North, which is a program that helps to ensure that healthy, affordable foods are available, particularly in Northern and remote communities. There are other programs out there that are designed to address the affordability question, but within our particular mandate, we’re not looking at that.
Senator Wallin: It’s not just an issue in the North.
Ms. McIntyre: I understand.
Senator Wallin: I can’t believe that these things are not considered, including availability.
Mr. Lee: In terms of the regulatory-making process, we’re just beginning, so we’ve brought in a number of the associations and companies to talk it through as one of the aspects that we have to fulfil. It’s Treasury Board and cabinet that will make the regulation, not the minister.
Our accountability is going to be gathering up evidence from all the sectors and I expect the sectors will tell us what the impacts will be and we’ll have to bring those considerations in. In terms of affecting the policy, though, we do have to stay with the job that’s been given to the Governor-in-Council and articulate those foods that would be harmful in consumption.
Senator Wallin: To follow up on Senator Deacon’s question, do you think bread is unhealthy?
Ms. McIntyre: No, that’s certainly not what we’re saying at all. We’re not trying to categorize foods as healthy or unhealthy.
Mr. Lee: It’s an important message from Health Canada that it’s not to categorize bread as unhealthy. There is no declaration that would be made.
Senator Wallin: And no science?
Mr. Lee: It’s based on science telling us which substances — sodium, sugar and saturated fat — kids shouldn’t consume more of. So we don’t use them to increase the purchasing. That’s all this rule does. It doesn’t block people from selling or making bread or consuming it. It just doesn’t advertise it to the children and lets the parents make the decision. Advertise to the parents; you can do that. It’s the children. That’s what the intent is.
Ms. McIntyre: The other important point I would like to raise is that the term “unhealthy” is used in the bill and it will be defined in the regulations, but that’s the only place you’re going to see it. You’re never going to see the word “unhealthy” associated with a product. You’re not going to see it in the grocery stores and consumers are not going to see it with any of the products scoped in these regulations.
Senator Wallin: Except that anybody else, such as a competitor or anyone else who wanted to talk about it, would have a justification for using that word because it is there.
The Chair: We have to move on. I think you made your point.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. McIntyre. To review, if I understand correctly, you are going to study the context in which a product is advertised. If the product’s advertising is not directed at children, basically, it will not be considered a product that will be blocked or called unhealthy. That is how I understand it.
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: It has to be targeted at children.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Right. In your presentation you say: “Foods recommended to be eaten regularly by children will not be subject to advertising restrictions.” That is clear. In Canada’s Food Guide at the moment, we make choices based on servings of the food that we must eat during the day. It gives examples such as bread, bagels, flat bread, rice, cereal, pasta, and so on. It’s a guide. Basically that is not going to change, am I right?
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: Just to clarify, you’re asking whether nothing will change in the food guide?
Senator Gagné: Well, the way all the products are categorized, you find bread, bagels, flatbreads, pita, rice and cereals, et cetera. Those are part of the food guide. That will not change?
Ms. McIntyre: That’s correct, yes. We’re recommending foods that contain whole grains.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I want to fully understand what you said, because people have talked to us a lot about specific labelling. Does that mean that the food that cannot be advertised to children will not have those new labels, or are these two completely separate issues?
Mr. Lee: Yes, that’s correct.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am answering my own question. I’m sorry, but that is because there are two issues here.
I want to share some concerns with you. We have talked a lot about wheat and grain this morning, but dairy producers are very concerned by Bill S-228. Will milk with added calcium be declared to be an healthy product that cannot be advertised to children? I am thinking of processed milk and cheese. It is a major concern, because it is a very major industry, just like yogurt. These are products that historically have been considered good for the health because of their calcium content and everything else they contain. Could you clarify that question? It is causing a lot of concern.
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: Certainly. As I mentioned in my remarks, the nutrient criteria that we’re looking at only apply to added salt, sugar, and saturated fats; it does not apply to things like calcium. It is only those nutrients that we know, if consumed in excess of recommended limits, will contribute to obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases. If saturated fat, or sugar, or sodium is not added, then the product would not be subject to the regulations.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So the product could be advertised to children?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: As long as the sugar is not added?
Ms. McIntyre: As long as the sugar is not added. Obviously, there are naturally present sugars in yogurts and naturally present fats in yogurts, but we’re not concerned about that. It’s the added ingredients.
Senator Doyle: How do our efforts in Canada with regard to our regulatory approach on advertising and targeted advertising toward children compare with what’s going on in the U.S. or Europe? Is there anything that we have to learn from them and anything that we should be doing that they are doing with regard to regulations on targeting children and advertising? Are we running neck and neck here? Are we way behind? Do we have much to learn in that regard from Europe or the U.S.?
Ms. McIntyre: We’ve certainly looked internationally to see what other countries are doing. This is always very important when we look at developing new regulations.
Across the world, advertising restrictions can vary in terms of their scope and extent. Chile and the U.K., for example, place mandatory restrictions on a wide range of media forms and formats used to advertise to children, including television, radio, the Internet, print media, billboards, et cetera. Other countries such as Ireland, Mexico and South Korea focus their restrictions on specific media like the TV and cinema and have voluntary restrictions on other forms of advertising like digital and print media.
As you can see, we’ve looked at what’s available and what other countries are doing. It certainly varies to some extent.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much for your presentation. We heard an earlier speaker talk about the rule of thumb. Is that your low-in?
Ms. McIntyre: I’m not sure where that came from, but let me attempt to explain it because it’s not rule of thumb.
The policies and regulations that we develop are based on science. Science and evidence is very important to us. When we come up with 5 per cent, the low-in threshold, we did this because we’ve modelled what children eat. We know what children are eating based on our CCHS data. Based on that, we know there’s little room in the diet for additional saturated fats, sugar and sodium, particularly for children. We know that 5 per cent is solid in terms of making sure that children do not exceed recommended limits of saturated fat, sugars, and salt in their diets.
Senator R. Black: Will the regulations differentiate between advertising and marketing? Is there anything in your anticipated regulations or thinking now that would speak to one being over the other, or whatever?
Mr. Lee: Advertising is up at the act level as a defined term. That’s the term in the prohibition and the term that would guide us in the regulations. We won’t be reinventing anything. We take the direction straight from the act. It’s truly advertising that we’re using.
Senator R. Black: We’ve heard a lot from a number of our stakeholders since our November 5 meeting. Do you anticipate what the timeline is for future meetings as things get rolled out or put in place?
Ms. McIntyre: We’re starting to hold sector-specific meetings in the next few weeks. We’d be doing that up until Christmas and throughout January. We will be engaging fairly intensively with our key industry as well as our health stakeholders.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Ms. McIntyre, if I asked you for an overall assessment of the current situation, would you say that the government is forcing you to make rapid decisions on information that may or may not be complete, or sometimes even to turn a blind eye to the economic consequences for Canadian industries?
These decisions will have consequences for Canadian industries. That has to be considered as well.
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: No. We have solid evidence. Again, as I mentioned previously, when we put forward a regulatory proposal, we base it on scientific evidence. There’s no shortage of science to support the direction that we’re taking with these regulations. In terms of economic consequences, these are very important. This is an important consideration in terms of the Treasury Board directive on developing regulations. This is certainly taken into account. That is why it’s important that industry provide us with good and solid costing information, so we can take this into account in terms of understanding the costs to industry and weighing those out against the benefits to the public.
Mr. Lee: To supplement that, there is a rigorous process with every regulation that we move to Governor-in-Council to make a full economic impact assessment or a benefit assessment and look at the implications of the regulation. We’ll be working through the numbers with the sectors to make sure that we get a credible analysis, that we really understand what the impacts will be, including the associations that have represented today.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Wallin: This goes back to my earlier point. When you do an economic assessment and impact study are availability and affordability part of an economic impact?
Mr. Lee: In the sense that it will be represented to us, we’ll need to make account of it. The Treasury Board analysis is outlined very well. You’re supposed to look at the direct costs associated, although you can also factor in indirect costs associated with the measure and then the population health benefits that you will gain. That gets very particular. We will go into a whole number of issues to do that analysis. I expect it will be an extensive one.
Senator Seidman: I really appreciate your clarifications. It is helping to “deconfuse,” if I can use that word, the difference between front-of-package labelling, the Canada Health food guide and Bill S-228. I think that is important.
It seems to me you’re saying that you’re making it clear through the regulations, that bread or any other food product will not be labelled “unhealthy” as a result of Bill S-228. Despite the fact that it uses the term “unhealthy” in the legislation, there is no designation on any food product that this food is unhealthy?
Mr. Lee: That’s correct, senator. In fact, the presence of the word “unhealthy” where it is in Senator Greene Raine’s bill, is really to direct, as the Governor-in-Council makes regulations, the seeking of those additions to food or substances in food that create a harm. It’s really to direct us to that side. It was never meant to be declaratory or for us to categorically come out and say a particular food is unhealthy. That’s really not the function of that word at the legislative level, in our understanding.
Senator Seidman: The nutrient analysis applies only to food that’s advertised to kids under 13, because the message from the house changes the age category from 17 down to 13. So the application of that nutrient analysis is only on food that is advertised to kids under 13?
Ms. McIntyre: That’s correct.
Senator C. Deacon: What I hear is that you start by asking whether or not the food is advertised to children. You’ve now eliminated 99 per cent of breads from two studies I’ve found. Only 1 per cent of breads are advertised to kids, so 99 per cent fall outside of this. That’s a really big difference than what we were hearing. It’s actually the exact opposite of what we were hearing. I’m glad that problem’s been addressed. I think that’s a critical change because now Bill S-228 doesn’t affect it.
The conflation of a number of these issues is concerning, and I just wanted to clarify that.
Chair, I do think it’s worth our revisiting the product labelling and looking at it in a more detailed manner. I’m concerned about some of the things raised by Senator Wallin about availability and cost. Perhaps there will be an opportunity in the future to look at this in a more detailed manner and not just in a two-hour session.
The Chair: That’s a very good point, Senator Deacon. We picked one substance, bread, to focus on today, but we thought that was a way of getting at the issue and keeping it as simple as we could because it is very complex as you’ve noted.
Senator C. Deacon: With significant economic impact.
The Chair: Absolutely, it is a big field.
Senator R. Black: Just to follow up. I’m not sure I see the 99 per cent/1 per cent that you see. I would have to give that further consideration.
Senator C. Deacon: I’ll share that.
Senator R. Black: I want to know if, in the coming weeks, you will be inviting and having meetings with the bakers, millers and grain farmers of Canada and milk producers?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes.
Senator Wallin: So is it possible then, upon having those conversations, hearing some of the things we heard this morning, that regulations might change?
Ms. McIntyre: It’s not about the regulations that we’ll be consulting on. It will be about the guidance. We have drafted a guidance piece that really helps to explain how the regulations will be applied. This is getting into a lot of detail. We really want to understand the various sectors, what they think about it, where they think we need to tweak these guidelines so that they work.
Senator Wallin: Is “tweak” the same as “change”?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes, make changes too.
The Chair: Definitions are so important, aren’t they?
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ms. McIntyre, will the advertising you are preparing focus only on children? Since the parents are responsible for overseeing their kids’ nutrition, should they not be targeted by your advertising as well?
[English]
Ms. McIntyre: The regulations and the bill itself target children. It’s not directed at adults. It has nothing to do with advertising foods to adults. That’s not within the scope of the regulations.
You raise an important point about people understanding healthy eating. This is very important. It’s not just about what products are available on the shelves, but helping parents and families to understand what healthy eating looks like. This is why we’ve developed a suite of tools to help improve Canadians’ eating habits and their choices in the marketplace.
One of the other important tools of our healthy eating strategy is Canada’s Food Guide. This is where we will be promoting healthy eating.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would like to draw Ms. McIntyre’s attention to the fact that, in Quebec, advertising on healthy nutrition is aimed at parents as much as at children. Basically, parents do the shopping and prepare the meals. In my humble opinion, the parents must be made aware of all this just as much as the children. Could Canada not imitate Quebec in this respect? We do not always have Canada’s Food Guide at hand. So parents could be reminded about the importance of good nutrition for their children.
[English]
The Chair: Could you make the answer short, please.
Ms. McIntyre: Yes. I think you raise an important point in education. It’s not just government that has a role to play here. This is much broader, and I think this is another key point. There’s industry, our health stakeholders, our health professionals. It’s not just government, but everyone has a strong and a key role to play in terms of improving the health of Canadians through the food choices that they make.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much.
Senator Dagenais: You mentioned that you are continuing your consultations anyway. So do I deduce that you do not have all the information at hand?
[English]
Mr. Lee: Senator, the whole process of making the regulation is meant to clarify and gain more information at each step. We’re currently at a place where we are gathering enough information. We call it pre-consultation — in order to go to Canada Gazette, Part I. Then we will get more information after that, study it closely and then report back in to see if any changes need to be made. In that whole process, we will be gathering more and more information.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Senator Miville-Dechêne had asked about dairy. You had said cheese and yogurt wouldn’t be impacted, but I do know that salt is added to cheese. Will that be one that won’t be able to be advertised?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes. If there’s added sodium which exceeds those criteria for nutrients, then yes, they would be impacted and the same with sugar.
The Chair: We have time for one more question. Any takers? Terrific. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)