Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 27 - Evidence - February 19, 2015
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 19, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:28 a.m. to continue its study on the increasing incidence of obesity in Canada: causes, consequences, and the way forward.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I am Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee. I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Ontario.
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant, Saskatchewan.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you and welcome, witnesses. I will call you in the following order: Ms. Tanaka, I will ask you to go first, then Ms. Reynolds, and then Ms. Cloutier. We will have each of you do your presentations, and then I will open the floor up to my colleagues for questions.
With that, I would like to invite Ms. Phyllis Tanaka, who is Senior Adviser, Food and Nutrition, Public and Regulatory Affairs, Food and Consumer Products of Canada, to make her presentation.
Phyllis Tanaka, Senior Advisor, Food and Nutrition, Public and Regulatory Affairs, Food and Consumer Products of Canada: Food and Consumer Products of Canada welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the committee's investigation into the increasing incidence of obesity in Canada, causes, consequences and way forward.
FCPC is the largest industry association representing food, beverage and consumer product corporations in Canada. FCPC food and beverage member companies manufacture and sell food and beverage products to Canadians.
Obesity is a complex global issue, and an Obesity Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Panel noted the following key points in a 2007 Canadian Medical Association Journal publication. First, the cause of obesity is both complex and multifactorial. At the simplest level, obesity results from long-term positive energy balance — the interaction between energy intake and energy expenditure. Second, the rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity over the past 20 years is a result of environmental and cultural influences. Third, sweeping prevention and intervention strategies are required to slow and hopefully reverse the alarming increase in obesity prevalence in Canada and globally.
The panel captured the serious consequences of not addressing obesity: increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, coronary artery diseases, stroke, osteoarthritis and certain forms of cancer, and an increased burden on the health care system. Based on a 1997 assessment, the cost of obesity in Canada was conservatively estimated at $2 billion.
More recently, a 2014 McKinsey Global Institute publication entitled Overcoming Obesity: An Initial Economic Analysis re-affirmed the immediacy and the complexity of the matter and the consequences if this global epidemic is not reversed, noting that a comprehensive program of multiple interventions involving all societal stakeholders is required. No single solution approach will impact on the prevalence of obesity. The Canadian Obesity Network makes similar comments on their website.
Food and beverage manufacturers are amongst the stakeholders that need to be involved, and I would confirm today that the food and beverage manufacturing industry is involved.
FCPC food and beverage member companies provide Canadians with a diversity of product choices in the marketplace. They offer products reduced in sodium, saturated and trans fats and sugars, for example. They offer products with added nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D and fibre. They offer choice. Canadians can choose from a wide variety of products on the retail shelf in support of shaping a healthy dietary pattern.
Further, FCPC members continue to invest in new product development and reformulation, cognizant of both the evolving science related to food nutrition and health and consumer preferences.
Historically, as a significant stakeholder in matters related to food nutrition and health, FCPC and its member companies have taken active roles in advancing some public policy. For example, we participated in the Trans Fat Task Force and in the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada consultations. More recently, I was a member of the Ontario government-appointed Healthy Kids Panel that resulted in the report No Time to Wait: The Healthy Kids Strategy.
We remain a committed partner to Health Canada on the Nutrition Facts Education Campaign. We know that understanding the Nutrition Facts table is cornerstone to consumers making informed choices. This campaign is an excellent example of what can be accomplished through public-private partnerships.
Through the Ontario Healthy Kids Panel consultation process, FCPC became aware of a program that emulates a multi-stakeholder comprehensive approach. EPODE began as a 2003 pilot project in a community in France designed to reduce childhood obesity rates. It succeeded. EPODE, which incorporates a whole community approach, exists in numerous European countries and is expanding. EPODE is built on four pillars: a strong political commitment; resources, including public-private partnerships; support services; and a sound evidence-based evaluation process.
Based on recommendations in the panel report, the Ontario government implemented an EPODE framed community initiative known as the Healthy Kids Community Challenge as one of its first strategies.
In a submission to the Ontario government on the panel report, FCPC applauded the government for moving forward with the EPODE recommendation. FCPC concurs with the points made by authors noted earlier. Only a well thought out, comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach will suffice if we are to change the trajectory of obesity.
In closing, FCPC offers the following recommendations on policy interventions designed to address obesity: They must be evidence-based; they must be science-based; they must be effective and feasible; there must be an evidence- based causal link between the intervention and the desired outcome; and they must be built on existing programs utilizing best practices and wisdom gained from past experiences. Finally, they must be multi-stakeholder in approach.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I will turn to Ms. Reynolds, who is Executive Vice-President, Government Affairs with Restaurants Canada.
Joyce Reynolds, Executive Vice-President, Government Affairs, Restaurants Canada: Thank you.
There is a saying in our business: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.'' With an important issue such as obesity, it's essential that the restaurant sector be included in the healthy living policy table. So I thank you for the invitation to be here today.
Our key message is that we should be seen as an important part of the healthy living solution.
I'm going to go through the deck, some of it quite quickly. I'm on the second page now, and I want to give you a couple of words about Restaurants Canada.
I'm proud to represent an important Canadian industry that touches the lives of Canadians through customers, employees, and suppliers in virtually every community, rural and urban, across the country. We have over 30,000 members. They include quick and full service restaurants, hotels, social and contract caterers, clubs, coffee shops and pubs, as well as institutions such as hospitals, schools and offices.
As part of our commitment to support improving the health of Canadians, our board of directors approved a healthy living strategy. The vision is on page 3, and then you'll find on pages 4 and 5 the guiding principles that underpin this strategy.
Moving on to slide 6, when we surveyed our members a few years ago to find out how important the obesity issue is to their businesses, what they're doing to promote and encourage healthy living, and how consumers are responding, we found that 80 per cent considered the issue important or somewhat important to their business.
We asked our members to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements. The first statement was that healthy living is a top priority for the food service industry, and we gave examples offering healthy menu choices, providing nutritional information and promoting physical activity. Sixty-eight per cent agreed or strongly agreed that it is a top priority.
Moving on to the next slide: 72 per cent of members indicated that at their restaurant individual dietary preferences and requirements are accommodated.
Moving on to the next slide: Only 12 per cent disagreed that restaurants play an important role in building healthy communities and neighbourhoods, with 64 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing.
The next slide: "Healthy'' does not equate to "unprofitable,'' according to 63 per cent of respondents. However, 18 per cent indicated that putting healthy food items on menus is not profitable for their business.
I'm now on slide 11. Only 38 per cent of member respondents indicated that their customers were asking them to add healthy options to their menus.
Slide 12: However, 65 per cent of member respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had a responsibility to offer menu choices so their customers can make healthier food choices.
Recently, Restaurants Canada surveyed our chain members to track their progress in supporting healthy living since our last survey in 2010, and to date we have preliminary results from 16 chain restaurants representing 10,300 restaurants. These respondents range from a 6-unit restaurant chain to a 3,600-unit restaurant chain, from quick service to fine dining, with the number of items on their menus varying from 50 to 500. Every single respondent has indicated that they have introduced or reformulated menu items since our last survey to support the goals of improving diets or reducing obesity. Ninety-four per cent reported changes to menus to reduce sodium, 100 per cent to reduce calories, and 75 per cent to add grains and fibre.
Chains provided hundreds of examples of menu items they have changed: Soup, sauces, gravies, baked goods, subs, tortillas, pizzas, breakfast sandwiches and entrées. For example, one improved the healthiness of their macaroni and cheese by using less cheese and therefore less saturated fat and sodium and by adding vegetables like butternut squash. Another created a vegan pad Thai with root vegetable noodles and Thai vinaigrette that is sugar free and gluten free.
Slide 14 indicates that 87.5 per cent of responding chain members have made changes to serving sizes. Some offer half-size portions or a range of portion sizes. Some pizza operators are offering a thin crust version of their pizza with less cheese and toppings. Many report scaling back the portions of meats, cheeses and starches to reduce calories while adding more vegetables, with one saying that customers are becoming more accepting of meat in a secondary role on the plate. In fact, one casual table service chain said, "A big plate of fries is not necessarily seen as value-added, so we are putting less fries on the plate but higher quality fries.''
The next slide: By far the biggest challenge respondents identify in bringing healthy products to market was consumer uptake and acceptance. The availability of healthier options may drive consumers to a particular restaurant, but they continue to choose the more indulgent food items. Our members have reported having more success with reformulations and reductions without increased promotion around health. One member reported a healthy item on his menu that was selling well, but sales plummeted when he labelled it as a healthy option. Another wrote: "We don't have a challenge bringing items to market. The challenge is getting consumers to buy them. Our mix of salads and other healthy choices is less than 2 per cent of sales.''
Functionality and taste issues were also identified as challenges. Needing to work collaboratively with supplier chains to create healthier base products, not having to special order healthy items from suppliers, and generating enough sales to be able to use enough volume to ensure freshness were also identified as issues.
So what we see as a challenge for our industry is convincing consumers that you can have lighter fare without sacrificing flavour or satisfaction. One high-end restaurant chain owner wrote that his guests are increasingly seeking out food that will nourish them rather than simply provide a momentary sense of enjoyment.
Moving on to slide 16 —
The Chair: You're just about at your time limit. I will give you a couple more minutes.
Ms. Reynolds: I did want to talk about our industry being very engaged in helping Canadians expend calories. Our industry spends millions of dollars a year on activity-based sponsorship and promotions. We are also fundraising for summer camps, playgrounds, Special Olympics, Kiwanis Boys & Girls Clubs, healthy eating workshops, et cetera.
I wanted to talk about the provision of nutrition information, which is on slide 18. I will skip over it, but you can see that a majority provide information to consumers about the nutrition components of their menus. I will leave the informed dining to questions, possibly.
I will wrap up by saying that we have a lot that we can bring to the table; our use of technology and we're innovative. We want to be part of the solution.
We're happy to answer questions about the other sections of this presentation. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a clarification on slide 6. The numbers add up to 108 per cent.
Ms. Reynolds: I will look into that when I get back to find out how that could be.
The Chair: It's not urgent, but if there is a significant issue from that, please let the clerk know.
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you.
The Chair: I can now turn to the Food Processing and Consumer Products Council. We're very pleased to have with us Ms. Sylvie Cloutier, President and CEO. With her is Annick Van Campenhout, Chief Executive, Council for Food Progress Initiatives.
[Translation]
Sylvie Cloutier, President and CEO, Food Processing and Consumer Products Council: Thank you very much. I will do my presentation in French.
So, quickly, the Council of Food Processing and Consumer Products — CTAC — is the main food industry association in Quebec. We have more than 500 members, representing roughly 80 per cent of the sales figures. Food processing, as you probably know, is the largest manufacturing sector in Quebec and Canada.
I am not here to repeat what Ms. Tanaka and Ms. Reynolds said. CTAC has always been very involved in all the federal and provincial committees and consultations.
Over the years, our members have asked us for support. We have worked hard on developing solutions with the industry. First, long before the trans-fat regulations came out, we developed a guide to help the industry work on its products and reduce trans fats in food processing.
A few years later, we developed a sodium reduction guide. We brought you some copies of it. Again, this guide was developed in collaboration with universities and researchers, and we helped — and continue to help — the industry. We support it in its efforts to improve the food supply.
A few years ago, we were asked to look at international best practices. We commissioned a study on everything being used as best practices in favour of the industry, to help the industry come together around a common project to improve the food supply. A few years ago, we created the Council for Food Progress Initiatives and the Melior program. It is an association we created on behalf of Quebec's industry, but is completely detached from us now. I wanted to talk about this project today, because the project is expanding quite significantly. We are getting more and more members who are committed to improving the food supply. My colleague, Ms. Van Campenhout, is here today to talk about the Melior program.
Thank you.
Annick Van Campenhout, Chief Executive Officer, Council for Food Progress Initiatives, Food Processing and Consumer Products Council: I will also do my presentation in French. Thank you for having us. I am here to talk about improving the food supply.
The industry came together around a project inspired by what is happening in France. France implemented a voluntary charter for committing to improving the nutritional offer. We looked at this project and brought it to Quebec and adapted it to Quebec's realities, for Quebec's industries. Around the table we invited representatives from the entire agri-food sector, and from the Department of Health, in order to validate what we were doing.
We called the nutritional offer improvement program "Melior'' — after the French word "améliorer,'' or "to improve.'' It is clear that we are not talking about health products, but indeed improved products. We are aiming to reduce salt, sugar, and fat, and to make portions smaller.
This program is voluntary. The companies commit to improving their products. The industry is coming together, but not in a haphazard way. Each sector is going at its own pace and according to its own product. Cheese is not a potato chip, and a soda drink is not deli meat. Each has to approach this according to its own commercial and industrial realities.
I can tell you today, and you will see this in my presentation, that the entire industry is on board with this project, from the distributors to the processors to the farmers. The restaurants are committed to it as well. In fact, the Pacini restaurant chain has changed the nutritional composition of all its sauces, and 18 of its sauces were completely overhauled. They contain a lot less salt; one tonne less salt, in fact.
A process and a target were put in place. I will answer your questions about this, but it is important to understand that the industry took charge. It doesn't always say so. At first, Pacini didn't say anything because the consumer did not necessarily want to hear it. The idea is to change the product without necessarily telling the consumer, but the consumer's arteries will know.
A program was implemented and the industry took charge of the changes. The distributors were also involved. The three major food chains in Quebec made commitments.
I will gladly answer your questions in greater detail, but we have a process for that.
[English]
The Chair: I will now turn to my colleagues for questions.
Senator Eggleton: Interestingly, yesterday The Lancet medical journal released a six-part study on obesity. It said researchers noted that no country out of the 187 that studied it reversed its obesity epidemic. They go on to say:
. . . today's food environments exploit people's biological (e.g., innate preference for sweetened foods), psychological (eg, marketing techniques), and social and economic (eg, convenience and cost) vulnerabilities, making it easier for them to eat unhealthy foods.
The quote goes on to say:
It's time to realise that this vicious cycle of supply and demand for unhealthy foods can be broken with 'smart food policies' by governments alongside joint efforts from industry and civil society to create healthier food systems.
They're suggesting that you've been a key part of the problem, but you need to be a key part of the solution going forward. And I could well ask: Where have you been for 30 years? You cite the little things you're doing, yet this epidemic of obesity has been growing enormously in that period of time.
Let me focus on one thing in my questioning, and that is sodium. There are other things I'm concerned about in food, but I'll focus on sodium for the questions. I'll start with restaurants.
According to a study out of the University of Toronto, food served at chain restaurants in Canada stayed the same over three years. You give all these statistics, but from 2010 to 2013, they don't think it's improved at all. They said it did improve in some. They compared sodium levels in more than 2,100 foods based on nutrition data from websites of 61 restaurants with 20 or more locations across Canada. More than 22 per cent of sandwiches, wraps, ribs, pasta and entrees with meat or seafood exceeded the UL for sodium at sit-down restaurants. They're saying the industry has pledged to lower sodium many times, but it has failed to do so.
There is another study from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. We had their director before us previously. They found that sodium levels in most foods remained the same or increased. The number of products meeting Health Canada's targets only increased slightly since 2009. They found that sodium levels were reduced in one third of 171 products that they began tracking in 2009, but in two thirds, the foods remained unchanged or increased during that period of time.
The federal government had previously put in place a task force in 2010 but then decided to leave it all up to the industry to implement it. But it isn't happening according to this study.
This is the final part before I put the questions to you. In Britain, they've had a much more aggressive effort at it. In fact, they have reduced sodium levels quite substantially, but this has involved both government and industry working closely together. In fact, the government has kept industry's feet to the fire.
Would you support a very close relationship between government and industry in trying to deal with the sodium problem and dealing with many of the other problems here? Just leaving it voluntarily isn't working.
Ms. Reynolds: With the first study that you referenced, in 30 per cent of menu items there was a reduction in sodium. Only 16 per cent had an increase in sodium. The study was from 2010 to 2013, and our members started reducing sodium before 2010.
With regard to what's going on in Britain, yes, there has been some success there. But you have to understand that Britain's starting point, and what they've done with their aggressive programs, has reduced the sodium to where we are right now in Canada. They are in uncharted territory and we're in uncharted territory with regard to reductions at this point in terms of sodium.
When you ask where we have been for the last 30 years, I would say in the last 10 years there has been tremendous change in terms of the evolution of menus. You can go into almost any restaurant now, and if you're interested in finding a healthy food item, it's available to you. There are choices available today that weren't available in years past.
Ms. Tanaka: I'm quite familiar with the sodium matter, actually. I sat on the federal Sodium Working Group when it was first implemented, so I've been involved in addressing this for a while. FCPC and its members have continued a dialogue with Health Canada as our members continue to work towards the guidance benchmarks that were set up by Health Canada out of the Sodium Working Group report.
I am not sure I know what dates Bill Jeffery used to do a comparison to see what was going on in the food supply, but that's a very relevant point. In fact, the next point for an assessment of the sodium success story, as I think it will prove to be, isn't until 2016, and that's when Health Canada will be doing a review. They will be going out and taking a proper assessment of what is out there in the food supply.
That, along with what will be done this year in 2015, will be to get a handle on what the dietary intake of the population is. Those two factors will come into play in assessing how far we've progressed. So until those are done, I would believe that we need to not take the message that we failed so seriously, because I don't think we're there yet. I know from the work with my member companies that they're working hard on continuing to reduce sodium in the food supply.
I would like to restate one point. In fact, I have a great graph back at the office that shows that the U.K. experience is just that. They have brought their sodium levels down to our starting point when we started the sodium reduction strategy. In fact, that's what we've named it. We're working in uncharted territory. The challenges associated with reducing sodium further are significant, and that needs to be factored in when we compare it to the U.K. story.
[Translation]
Ms. Cloutier: I will not repeat what my colleagues said. However, I will add that the industry did indeed take charge of this about a decade ago, maybe even 15 or 20 years ago. The industries adopted measures for gradually reducing sodium.
At the request of the industry, we developed manuals to help them work — on sodium, but also on trans fats, and we are currently working on a manual for sugar — and which seeks to help the industry improve its food supply and move in the right direction.
The arrival of the Melior program is the culmination of the industry coming together, which will help us in our work and provide support to those who wish to improve their food supply. We are working with professionals, experts, research centres, and everyone working on improving the food supply. Today some might say that nothing has been done about this in the past 30 years, but I am here to prove the contrary.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Well, we can debate these studies for a while, but the independent studies are saying something different.
Let me ask you about advertising to children of unhealthy foods. We've had some discussion about that. In Quebec, they do have a prohibition on television advertising. Again, there was supposed to be some voluntary food industry work on this, but there is no evidence that it has been effective at all, except perhaps in Quebec. Could you comment on this question of targeting children in terms of advertising? The Lancet also referred to that. There is the advertising on television, and there is the Internet and kids also getting information in that way. Could you comment on this question of advertising and promoting of unhealthy products to children?
[Translation]
Ms. Cloutier: As you just said, this is not allowed in Quebec; ads on the Internet among other things are strictly monitored. It is not a problem.
As far as the Melior program is concerned, it is important to note that the people who adhere to the voluntary commitment charter are not able to promote their commitment on their products. We don't want to be like other programs and put meaningless logos on products. We do not want to mislead the consumer and tell him that an improved product can be consumed in larger quantities.
That way, the commitment is really made within the industry. A company that gets involved has to make improvements to its full range of products. It cannot put a logo on its product for the sake of it. This is work that is done in isolation, with the industry, research centres, researchers, and no advertising is done on the products to show that the company adhered to the commitment charter. There is nothing disingenuous about this.
[English]
Ms. Tanaka: I would like to speak to what happens in other parts of Canada. In particular, there is a voluntary initiative under way that has been in place for a while with Canada's food industry to provide guidance on what can and cannot be advertised and marketed to children under 12 years of age.
One of the things that does need to be factored into discussions on this issue is to your point about the Internet. Governments do have a limited range of ability to reach out and control, and the Internet is one of the things that is not as easily controlled. With an initiative like the voluntary one that I'm speaking to, the Canadian children's beverage advertising and marketing initiative, there are significant food industry players around that table. They engage in setting up voluntary guidelines not just in Canada but also in Europe and the States. They do have a way to reach out and make decisions, and they have made decisions to limit what is allowed on the Internet as well on television.
We need to champion a voluntary approach that involves industry and government working together, and we continue to do that. The one I've mentioned is based on being a living document. They want to sit down and continue to work with government and NGOs to make sure its effective. I support that approach. I think it can be very successful, and it has been to date.
Ms. Reynolds: Our members are in compliance with the voluntary initiative.
Senator Seidman: I would like, Ms. Cloutier, to focus on the Melior project. I think it's a fascinating example of what positive things can be done.
I would like to start with a survey, which I think is also fascinating, that you conducted at the end of 2014. It showed that 60 per cent of Quebecers were willing to choose an improved product, and 29 per cent said they were willing to trade a regular product for an improved product, and that would make them more loyal to the brand, which I think is an interesting thing for industry to know.
A lot of very interesting things came out of that survey, and I think it might be important for our committee to have that information. The overview of that is in your submission to us, but if you have anything in terms of a more detailed report, the committee would be pleased to receive it through the clerk. I think it offers valuable information about the kinds of policy changes or leadership that can be taken in ways that populations are open to changing their habits.
The other point it made is that 49 per cent think that labels could be more informative.
I would like to move to more specifics about the program and how it's working, if you might give us that information. What is the reception that it has received among your members, and what proportion of your members are actually participating in it?
Ms. Cloutier: I will start and let Ms. Van Campenhout go with the rest of the answer.
The survey was done, and we have a copy here. We can provide the clerk with an emailed copy so you can get access to it. It was an independent survey done in the last year, and it has a lot of very valuable information for industry and for consumers.
With regard to Melior, as you probably know, we did a major study worldwide to see what was out there and what was working and not working. We came up with a French Canadian or Quebec version of a French program, and the reception is very good. I don't want to name anyone specifically, but I can tell you that, in the last year, one of the major retailers in Canada organized a meeting with their suppliers, so food processors, and basically said, "If you still want to be on our shelves, you will have to go the way that Melior is going. We will give more space to any product that has worked on improving the product itself.''
It's not a program reserved for our members. It's basically a program open to any Quebec or Canadian companies. The response has been very good. So we're working hard to promote the program and the criteria. Annick can give you all the detail. The food industry has nothing to do with the program itself. We launched the initiative, but it's something completely separate from us, so they have a very thorough process. There is no one from the industry around the table. When they submit changes they have to go through a process with a committee. There is someone from Health Canada and from the department of health in Quebec on the committee, but it has been very difficult for some. They often had to come back with a chart to make sure that they would be accepted. Then for everyone that is accepted there is a thorough process to follow, whatever they have put on their chart, to make sure that they are delivering on the goods. I will let Annick give you some details on the process.
The Chair: We can't go through your entire study, so perhaps we can receive a summary subsequent to the event.
Would you have some quick comments?
Senator Seidman: I'm looking for data or progress reports showing the impact it has had on the percentage of healthy foods available in Quebec. Second, has the program had any impact on consumer consumption trends since you started in 2011? That's what I'm interested in.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: This program was implemented four years ago. In the first year, we conducted a poll. You should know that Melior is in touch with consumers and the industry. The first poll indicated that consumers wanted to change their diet — we are talking about four years ago — but they weren't prepared to change their habits; it was too hard, it was complicated.
We did an independent poll every year. This year, we saw a difference for the first time because people made it quite clear that they were prepared to change their habits and switch brands; they were prepared to switch from the cereal brand they were used to buying to a brand that would be better for their health, a product that contained less sugar or salt. In the space of four years, with the Melior program and through these polls, we saw a difference.
We saw a difference in the companies as well. Four years ago, I had to go to the companies to sell them on the idea of the Melior program and explain that this was a tool for setting the parameters for their supply improvement process, an external support that would help confirm that a company made changes and worked on improving the supply, and that that is what they wanted to do. Now, companies are coming to me saying that they want to do something, asking for tools and a method for responding to the needs of their clients, who are asking them to do better.
I didn't expect to see those results in the space of four years. I'm not saying it's thanks to Melior. I'm just saying that that is the trend we observed. I am talking about Quebec because for now, the program runs only in Quebec. We are working on expanding it to the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we are clearly seeing a change, both in the consumer and in the industry. This is measurable and palpable in our polls.
If you like, I can send you all the polls we have done in the past four years.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: I'm probably on the far end of the spectrum when it comes to mandating people's choice.
Ms. Reynolds, how realistic is it for restaurants to do all of these things that you're saying? Most of them don't have a dietitian. Many of them are mom and pop restaurants. It's okay if you're in a big city and you have instant access, but if you're from a small area and you have a diner, then you put on the menu what people would like.
I hear what you're saying. I think that consumers are changing, but I don't think that it's the food processers or anyone who is actually — what they're responding to is changing consumer wishes. You're in this to make money, everyone. Is it more important for the focus to be on educating people as to food choices and harm, or is it to be on government intervention to push restaurants and producers to do the right thing?
Ms. Reynolds: We are consumer-driven industry. Our survey results, included in the deck, show that there is an interest from consumers, and we are seeing some change.
We're a very diverse industry, so it really depends on the type of operation. Some consumers are more open than others. I have a slide on this as well; many people go to the restaurant for a treat. It's an indulgence. They save up for it, yet we also have people that go to restaurants quite regularly. Those who go regularly — they go to the chain restaurants — are very familiar with the nutritionals that are provided. They're making demands for healthier items and I think our industry is responding, but it's very dependent on the type of establishment and how far they can move consumers along.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: I would like to interject. In my own experience with restaurant owners, and having seen the process of a restaurant owner, a chain of restaurants that has made improvements, I can say that I agree with you. The small restaurant works with its local clientele. I totally agree with you. Nonetheless, I also want to provide an example which ties in with the Melior program. It is the story of the chicken and the egg. Your question is whether or not the government should intervene. Any intervention should centre on education, of course. However, it takes a generation and a half, maybe two before anything changes, especially when it comes to health.
What is more, we have to start somewhere. Let's talk about the Melior program. I want to point out that I'm not promoting the program so much as its underlying philosophy or process. It's a question of wanting to start somewhere. We are at point A, which is not great for health and we want to improve things.
I would like to give the example of an economic development corporation in Quebec that came to see me about setting up a project to have all the restaurants on the main street, including small restaurants, improve the food choices on their menus.
These are projects that fall under Melior. This is not just about distributors or processors, but about an underlying philosophy whereby businesses, like this economic development corporation that wants people to be better off and healthier, make a commitment to promote this project to restaurants.
You can see that it is possible to broaden the scope and to be creative in promoting better food choices.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have a question for Ms. Tanaka. In your presentation, you mention obesity at the simplest level, results from long-term positive energy balance. Can you tell me what that means? The words "positive'' and "obesity'' don't seem to go together very well.
Ms. Tanaka: It means there is more energy going in than there is energy going out.
The Chair: The plus side of the equation.
Senator Enverga: You mentioned that the lower the obesity, the lower the cost to our health care system.
Anybody can answer this question: What is the daily recommended intake for salt, trans fats and sugars? Are there any standards? I know there is a lot of information in the pamphlets we have, but can you tell me in a plain figure?
The Chair: Just give him some quick examples because they are all listed.
Ms. Tanaka: As far as sodium goes, there is a recommendation that the daily population average should be aiming towards 2,300 milligrams, which is the goalpost during the process that's going on.
As far as trans fats go, as little as possible is the government recommendation.
In terms of calories, 2,000 calories is used as the reference point for the average adult. When you're setting the Nutrition Facts table, for instance, 2,000 is the reference point. That doesn't mean that's what we should all be eating. That's the average reference point, and the rest depends on your age and activity level.
Senator Enverga: How about sugar?
Ms. Tanaka: There is no recommended amount of sugar. The Institute of Medicine report that the federal government uses as a reference point sets 25 per cent for added sugars as a reference point.
Senator Enverga: Can you quantify that?
The Chair: We had that in our testimony from the U.S. experts who gave us a detailed summary.
Ms. Tanaka: Twenty-five per cent based on the 2,000 calories as your reference point.
The Chair: They've given you the accurate figures and they're all listed in the documents.
Senator Enverga: I'm asking because I'd like to know if your members are following these guidelines. Would you say, for example, one soft drink, how much sugar would it have? Do your members follow the guidelines?
Ms. Tanaka: The guidelines I'm referring to are the dietary guidelines for a healthy dietary pattern. That's what an individual uses to make their dietary choices.
Senator Enverga: The soft drink makers and canned goods makers, how much sugar and salt do they use? Would you be able to say?
Ms. Cloutier: They indicate that on their products. If you eat the whole can, you're eating 20 per cent of the daily sodium you should be taking. They will give you indications on the labels. If you eat the whole thing, it's 10 per cent or 20 per cent of what you should intake daily in sodium or other products.
The Chair: Let's clarify this. Ms. Tanaka you clearly indicated what Health Canada listed, and Ms. Cloutier you stated clearly that on each product there is a label that tells you in each of these categories what it constitutes as a percentage of the normal daily recommended amount.
Senator Enverga: We want clear labelling for all these products. If you have two cans of soft drinks, does that mean it's bad for you? Is there a quicker way instead of reading all the numbers? Maybe one star could mean enough for one day or two stars. Would you be able to put that on the label of every product?
Ms. Tanaka: If you're looking for ways to help individuals develop a healthy dietary pattern, a couple of tools exist. One is called Canada's Food Guide, which the industry supports. It is a way to help shape a healthy dietary pattern.
The other tool is the Nutrition Facts table, which has, as we pointed out, the key nutrient contents listed as well as the per cent daily value. This helps a person to understand how much of a particular nutrient the product contributes to their daily intake. We have great tools in Canada to help Canadians make decisions.
Senator Enverga: Would you suggest that all these nutrition guides be placed prominently in every restaurant or even in supermarkets. For example, two cans would be enough for the whole day. Would you suggest that?
The Chair: Are you suggesting that?
Ms. Tanaka: I'm not suggesting anything.
Ms. Cloutier: I'm not either.
Ms. Reynolds: I will be happy to talk about transparency in terms of nutrition information in restaurants.
Senator Merchant: I know the chair would like us to stop speaking about this, but I do have a little information for you, senator. I was reading a health book over the weekend. It suggested that the daily consumption of sugar for a man ought to be 19 grams. I got a 355 millilitre can of cola, and it had 42 grams of sugar in it. I would like to know whether on the label you suggest that is whatever excessive percentage of our daily allowance that the one can contains. You suggested there are percentages on the labels that indicate what percentage you're getting. What is on the cola can that has more than twice the number of grams of sugar?
The Chair: There is no Health Canada standard for sugar. That's what I was referring to. There is the issue that no more than 25 per cent should be added sugar as a general thing going around these days. That's what I was referring to.
On your specific comment about somebody recommending 19 grams and the amount on a can of cola, does anyone wish to answer?
Ms. Tanaka: I will clarify the point around per cent daily value. It's listed on a nutrition facts table for the nutrients where, through a scientific process that was headed by both Canadian and American scientists in the Institute of Medicine, they established the nutrients where they had sufficient information to say, "We know what the daily value is for good health.''
Sugar was not one of those because there is no evidence to show that there is a reason to limit sugar because of sugar per se. The link between sugar and any discussions is around the fact that overconsumption of sugar may be an overconsumption of calories without the benefit of added nutrients. That's the only link. Sugar per se does not have a daily value because the scientists can't find research to say there is a need for one.
Senator Merchant: I would like to ask one other question. Maybe this is not a good parallel to draw — smoking cigarettes. What finally seems to have worked is that the government took a very active role. It has been suggested that taxation is a way to help the consumer make some choices as well.
With advertising, too, they stopped advertising in skating rinks. You couldn't put cigarette ads there anymore.
Do you talk about what could happen, and how do you feel about the government getting more involved in controlling what is happening?
Ms. Tanaka: I'd like to go back to the essence of the remarks I made at the beginning, which is to state that there are lots of potential interventions to deal with this issue of obesity, and it is an epidemic, both globally and within Canada. In fact, in the one report that I referred to, the McKinsey group report, they list 73 different interventions that they looked at closely to see how they impact.
The bottom line remains that no single intervention is of value in itself, and every community, whether it's the federal government, a province or a small village in France needs to step back and look at their community, their environment, and develop a specific whole-community approach for their population to address this issue.
Singling out individual points I don't think helps because I don't think any single intervention is going to work in and of itself. Each has to be looked at carefully and assessed to see if it can be affective. Taxation, for one, has been tried in other parts of the world, in some with little success. Some stopped altogether because there was no success.
From my perspective, we still need to step back and say, "What can we do within our respective communities?''
For the Ontario government, when they set up their EPODE community programs, that's one thing they did. They went to the specific communities around Ontario, and it isn't one cookie-cutter program. It is using the principles of EPODE to develop a community program that works for that community.
That's my take on what needs to be looked at.
Ms. Cloutier: I would just add that education would be, for me, the number one priority. If you have to invest dollars somewhere, it's not in taxation. It would be in education.
The Chair: I'd like to get you to clarify one other issue around the sugar. There still seems to be some confusion around the table on sugar.
We heard that there are two types of sugar being considered: sugars that are naturally in the food and the specifically added sugars. Can you confirm that those are the two principle issues currently being debated around the sugar issue?
Ms. Tanaka: Yes.
Senator Wallace: As has been said, it makes a lot of sense that education is a key issue in all of this, and it's important for consumers to have that education. But even more than that — and education may be part of this — I would say it comes down to the issue of choice. Consumers want to choose. At least, I'll speak for myself. I want to choose what goes into my mouth. I want to know what is in the food that I'm eating.
I would suggest to you that the information that's made available by the food industry is totally inadequate, both in restaurants and even with the nutritional tables that are on food products today. They're almost incomprehensible, except for the most sophisticated of consumers. I think that's where it has to start. Consumers, if they wish to take the time to understand what they are eating, should have that information made available to them in — I shouldn't say simple — a way that's easily understood and is not presented for the most sophisticated and those who have the most knowledge about the food industry, but ordinary people.
I would say that's lacking right now, and, to a large extent, I would look to you in the food industry as having been very slow in changing to provide that information. What would your response be?
Ms. Tanaka: I agree; consumers want choice. They want to be able to go to the grocery store and pick foods that they want to eat. I think the Nutrition Facts table is a good tool. I think that what we have to realize is that the table, in and of itself, is not enough. To Ms. Cloutier's point earlier, education is critical to anyone becoming an informed consumer. In fact, the nutrition facts education campaign that I mentioned in my presentation is an example of where industry and government have come together to perform that service to help consumers understand what is in the product they're buying. That, in tune with things like Canada's Food Guide, is a tool that the consumer can use to make informed choices. Health Canada has a wonderful Healthy Canadians website that can also be used by consumers.
So the tools are there, and the need is to help consumers realize that you do need to educate yourself on how to shape a healthy diet that fits your needs and your preferences.
Ms. Reynolds: I would agree that Canadians are interested in understanding what goes into the food they purchase. They're not interested in just calories and they're not interested in just sodium. They are interested in sugar. They are interested in carbohydrates. They are interested in fibre.
It is a real challenge to communicate this in a way that is very simple.
Another thing that happens in restaurants is that you eat foods in combination. The way consumers purchase their food today is highly customized. They choose the bread. They choose the cheese. They choose the condiment. They choose the side. They choose the beverage. There are so many different options. To be able to communicate to a consumer that "this is good and this is bad'' is very challenging. If there were an easy way to do it, I think some country somewhere would have figured it out.
Senator Wallace: There probably wasn't an easy way to put a spaceship on an asteroid either, but they figured that out.
Ms. Reynolds: I agree.
Senator Wallace: It can be done.
Ms. Reynolds: It's highly complex —
Senator Wallace: It's not rocket science.
Ms. Reynolds: — to provide information that is meaningful to consumers. Over my time at Restaurants Canada, we've been faced with legislative proposals to put GMOs, allergens, trans fat, saturated fat, sodium, calories and carbohydrates on menus and menu boards. It's very difficult, as you can imagine, to get that all up on a menu board or a menu. We want to make sure that consumers who want to have the information can get the information.
But I also have to clarify that in order to provide the information, you have to have a fairly high degree of standardization in terms of standardized recipes, standardized suppliers. For your average mom and pop restaurant, you are going to find that they don't have standardized recipes and will produce their menus based on the local products available to them on that given day. So they cannot provide that information. It's challenging.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: I would like to add something to this discussion with respect to consumers. This is a debate that took place within Melior.
Your grey hair tells me that you belong to the same generation as I do. Smoking was quite acceptable for our generation. We smoked for many years, until we were told that it was no longer acceptable. We smoked until we were provided with that information.
Similarly, I believe that we were part of a societal process and we were never told that consuming large quantities of salt is detrimental to your health. In the beginning, we and the industry were not given that information. The industry put salt in its products and consumers were happy with that. That was also the case for fats and sugar. Everything is fine; we are not told that it is detrimental.
The more advances in research, the more education, the more good information, then the more people's consumption habits will change. I think it will take education to help change habits.
[English]
Senator Wallace: The pace to many seems to be slower than it should be. That's the point. There are all kinds of complications and reasons. It doesn't matter what's in issue. We always get into all of those things. I understand that, but the change of pace is too slow.
You can look to the government to accelerate that change, but I believe in the food industry the onus is on you. You're the producers of the food. That's where the action should be taken. I would suggest that to you.
Senator Frum: I wanted to ask the panel about the Campbell's soup experience. Prior to 2011, they changed their product. We know the Canadian Stroke Network says that Canadians should consume 400 milligrams of sodium per single serving. Campbell's produced a soup that had 480 milligrams, so it was still more than recommended. After that failed to sell, they increased it to 650 milligrams a serving, so another 250 above what is recommended. That was after a good-faith effort on their part to give consumers a healthy choice, which the consumers then said they didn't want, and they didn't buy it.
I'm with Senator Stewart Olsen in terms of not believing that you need to leave options open to people and a voluntary method is preferable, but what does it say about the voluntary system in the industry, not on the part of industry but on the part of the consumers? Is it going to work if the will is not there on the part of the consumer?
Ms. Cloutier: I'll start and then let Ms. Tanaka answer the technical part, but just to respond to a question Senator Wallace asked also.
We saw the experience. We were looking at best practices in France with their program, and we discovered that the companies that were moving too fast on eliminating sugar or sodium just disappeared because consumers have developed a taste for salty foods or sugar. They are going very slowly simply because they're also bringing the taste of consumers to change.
I'm not going to talk about Campbell's because I don't represent them, but we can give you specific examples in private of companies who have been doing the same, companies who have been changing in the order of 2 per cent to 3 per cent per year for 10 to 15 years. The consumer would still buy the product but develop a taste for this new product.
They have been going slowly, but most of the companies have been changing their way of fabricating food, and they're going to the taste consumers have developed.
Ms. Tanaka: That is why I have carefully said that industry is moving forward based on both elements — research into food nutrition and health and consumer preference. It is a reality, and that is part of the equation. In fact, if you think back to the U.K. experience, that is, by the World Health Organization's own comments, considered a success story.
The original target that the U.K. had set to bring their sodium levels down had to be rejigged because there was no way they were going to get there, and it's still considered a success. The rate-limiting step is that along with making changes in food products, the consumer has to come along for the journey, and that takes time. It takes information and education.
Ms. Reynolds: I'd like to give an example of trans fat. Like Phyllis, I was on the trans fat task force, and that was a great success story. Our restaurants have met the task force guidelines. Part of that was that consumers were demanding that the products not have trans fat, and our industry responded very rapidly.
British Columbia is the only jurisdiction where there are trans fat regulations, and they're directed only at our sector. They look at all the labels of the products that our industry buys to make sure there is no trans fat in them, and there is an extremely high compliance rate.
We surveyed our chain members, and they've eliminated trans fat from their products. So, yes, consumer acceptance has a great deal to do with it.
Senator Frum: I guess the difference is that trans fat is unambiguously bad for you. There's no positive side to it, whereas sodium is more complicated. There are people who can consume a boatload of sodium and it won't affect them at all, and they like it.
I guess also the issue is in society in general, we have evolved our taste buds and we expect food to taste a certain way. To retrain generations of people's eating habits is a pretty daunting thing, particularly if for the vast majority of those people, in the case of the sodium, it's not going to harm them anyway.
Ms. Reynolds: That's why we have to recognize that we can't move too quickly. We have to allow for consumers' palates to adjust over time. That's one of the reasons why the sodium advisory committee recommended milestones in terms of sodium reduction.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: I would like to add something about salt because, in fact, it is a preservative. I deal with companies specializing in cheeses or deli meats, for example. These companies have a minimum salt requirement that they cannot reduce because that could lead to the development of salmonella. We have to take such things into consideration in food processing.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I was listening very carefully on this Campbell's soup thing. Perhaps it was too far, too fast.
What we have to bear in mind is the industry built up these tastes. They're trying to compete with each other and create the bliss factor, whether it's sugar, salt or whatever. Certainly when I was a kid, we never had all these grand tastes. Now in order to get you to eat more than one chip at a time, they make sure that the taste is there. They've created this problem and I hope they will now be part of the solution.
When it came to solving the tobacco situation, though, the industry fought it all the way. I hope the industry in this case will be helpful and work together to try and find ways to bring down the obesity epidemic.
I want to ask about labelling. There are the required nutrition labels that we presently have on packages, and there is also front-of-package labelling. Front-of-package labelling in Canada you can see in a couple of ways. There is a thing called a Health Check that comes from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Loblaws has the President's Choice Blue Menu to indicate it's good for you, but we don't know about any standardized criteria being followed here. I'm wondering what your thoughts are about front-of-package labelling and a standardized approach.
At the same time, going back to the U.K., they may have come down to our level, but the focus of the government and the industry working together is the point I was trying to make there, that it really did work quite well, and hopefully we'll do more of that here for other things.
In the U.K., in terms of the nutritional labels, they've developed more of a green light/orange light/red light system to make it easier for people to read and understand the various things that they should consider in terms of the nutrition. Do you support these kinds of measures? What do you think of those?
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: I can speak about Loblaws and Metro. In Quebec at least, Metro has introduced a "smiles'' system. A big smile means that a product is healthier than a product with a small smile.
Loblaws has the Guiding Stars system. Having participated in the product rating process, I can tell you that it was done very seriously. Furthermore, it became the Melior program. We accredited the process. That is one of many ways.
Is it the best way? In the survey, some consumers told us that they take it into account, but only in part. They said that they do pay attention to it, but they prefer to read the ingredient list or nutritional label rather than relying on those indicators, which are only indicators that the consumer does not necessarily understand.
This system does play a role, but it has not yet been adopted by consumers, or at least not entirely.
[English]
Ms. Tanaka: I would like to concur that there is an over-simplicity attached to front-of-pack colour labelling. It's an emotive process. One of the facts that we have stated several times today is that education is at the core of helping individual Canadians make decisions around their dietary patterns. I think the Nutrition Facts education campaign that we have in place in Canada is very effective. The Nutrition Facts table can be a very effective tool, along with our other tools, as I've mentioned, Canada's Food Guide.
Yes, there are pros and cons with front-of-pack labelling that can be argued. You can get an argument on both sides of the story. But there is an over-simplicity to them, and they can be emotive, and they won't help a Canadian make informed decisions without education either.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Education is often seen as the great thing regarding just about everything. I have a fair bit of education about nutrition and I am the fattest senator in the Senate. I also go to fat farms at Duke University. I know a fair bit about nutrition.
I go into an environment that is salt free and added sugar free. I'm there for three weeks or a month. I come out quite fit and healthy. I come back into an environment where there are muffins, croissants, bottles of wine and other such things, and within a year I'm back up where I was. So I don't believe this Campbell's soup story, other than as a story.
If there are products around that are full of the stuff people like me shouldn't have because they're prediabetic, I'm going to eat it. I have no willpower in this area of food and drink, none whatsoever, and I think it's a crock what you're saying. The mom and\ pop restaurant stuff I have a little bit of sympathy for, but the rest of it is sort of a crock.
Unless the industry — voluntarily, as some senators would like; and "impositionly,'' as other senators would like — cut down on this stuff, it ain't gonna happen. I tell you: In three weeks, I don't miss it. My taste buds have changed significantly, and it doesn't take a lot of time; in fact, it probably happens within a two-week period. You drive down to Duke, and I'll tell you: You eat it at every fast food place down the way. You come back from Duke and they have given you a list of what to buy in those fast food places, and you stick to it.
I believe the food processing industry has a lot of sins to clean up on. I suspect you don't believe what I've just said, but I'd like to know what your response is.
The Chair: See if you can fashion a response that doesn't take the rest of the afternoon here, because there is an awful lot in that question that deals with the entire range of human nature. As chair, I'm going to limit you to see if you have any kind of specific comment to make, not the total analysis.
[Translation]
Ms. Cloutier: Everything you find that is not fresh — whether it is dairy products, yogurt, frozen vegetables — is part of the food industry. The food industry offers an infinite variety of products.
The only things that are not processed are fresh foods. Everything else has been processed and has passed through the food processing industry. We must be careful when we say that everything we eat is industrial and is bad. There are occasional foods and everyday foods. There are processed foods that have undergone very little processing. You can make that choice, just as you can choose high-fat foods.
The food industry provides just about everything that you find in the grocery store. It does not represent only occasional food. Today, when we talk about excessive sugar and salt, we are often talking about foods that could be considered occasional foods. For example, I am having a good day and I want to treat myself to a snack. I am in a chain restaurant, which I will not name, and I buy an occasional food. However, we must be careful, because the grocery stores are full of them. Everything you find in a grocery store that is not fresh is a product made by one of our companies in Quebec, Canada or elsewhere. We cannot lump everything together.
I really like occasional foods, but we have to make informed choices. We need to know how to distinguish between occasional foods and everyday foods.
[English]
The Chair: Do either of you wish to make any further comment?
Ms. Tanaka: Just a short comment on the human nature element of this.
I think all of us, under a restricted environment, can manage life a lot differently than in our real, day-to-day world, and that is why addressing obesity is not a straightforward, simple issue. The world we live in, the environment and the choices we make every day, or the choices available to us, are real, and this is a multifactorial issue that must be addressed in the context of the whole environment.
I think I could have fun at Duke University too, but when I came back home I'd be faced with the same challenges that you say you are faced with, that choice out there. What we have to do is find a way to help people deal with that.
Senator Seidman: Ms. Van Campenhout, I'd like to go back to continue our conversation, if I might, because you said something that was quite hopeful. In your work, you've noticed — I think you said in the last year or so — that consumers suddenly seem much more willing to change their patterns of consumption.
I'm sure there's an enormous amount of evidence and data on the subject of consumer behaviour patterns and all this, but one can hypothesize that there must be a growing awareness out there as the drumbeat gets louder and louder about these problems so that consumers are maybe paying more attention suddenly, and I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Your survey shows that a full 80 per cent are willing to change their behaviour patterns, their eating habits and their loyalty to brands if companies are willing to produce healthier foods. I think that's hopeful and interesting.
I would like to go back to the issue of ingredient labelling that keeps coming up here and the whole area of sugar. We had a pediatric endocrinologist here, Dr. Lustig, who said ingredient labelling should include all sweetener components. There's a huge issue around added sugar.
Are you aware of any jurisdictions that require all components of food sweetening agents to be listed in the ingredients? If that's the case, are you aware of any change in consumer patterns based on that?
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: That is the case for some European countries, like France. I am not going to comment on the requirement, but I know that the industry, however, did move to include that information on labels. We are talking about sweeteners. I cannot tell you about the results, because I do not have them here. If you would like them, I can find them for you fairly easily. France has established a monitoring centre for nutritional quality known as OQALI. We would very much like to do the same thing here. This centre provides, among other things, a lot of data about the impact of better food on the health of the population. That is extremely important.
The Melior program has a component that is geared to companies. A company that undertakes to reduce sugar must not replace this ingredient with a sweetener. The more salt you eat, the more you crave it, and it is the same for sugar. This phenomenon has been clearly demonstrated. Under the Melior program, a sweetener cannot replace sugar because that practice is not acceptable for us.
Depending on the area and the country in which you live, and looking at the same brand — I have a cereal in mind that I will not name — why is it that this same brand, from the same global supplier, with the same branding, has 50 per cent less sugar and 20 per cent less salt in Europe than in Canada? I am asking you the question. That is not normal. That means that the industry operates according to the population and the tastes of that population. It is along the same lines as what I was saying earlier when I spoke about the chicken and the egg. The industry responds to consumers and the consumer waits for the industry.
Something must be done. What we are proposing, with Melior, is to take action and to put in place something, a project that has limits but that also has an impact.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Who should step in and do something?
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: All stakeholders in society should take action. My response is somewhat generic. The government is participating in the project through education. The industry is collaborating by changing products. Of course, there is an economic reality that determines the industry's priorities. If the consumer asks, it will receive. If tomorrow morning, for example, no one drinks Coca Cola, Coca Cola will close its doors. The example may be somewhat simplistic, but that is what happens.
Many new products are put on the shelves. If consumers do not consume them, they will be removed from the shelves.
I would add that a 20 per cent change is not discernable by taste buds. The industry can thus reduce sodium and sugar by up to 20 per cent. That has been scientifically proven.
[English]
Senator Seidman: You offered data that you may have. Is it on changes in consumer patterns? In that case, I would really like to see that data. If you could send it to the clerk, that would be very welcome.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Campenhout: Certainly. There is a large amount of data. I can give you the link to that. I don't know what data you need. The centre in France has a lot of data. In France, the voluntary charters were implemented in 2005. For 10 years they have been collecting data on the changes in items stocked, the changes in the industry and the changes in consumer habits. All this data is found on the OQALI site. I can send you the information.
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to risk entering this discussion. In actual fact, I think today we've heard some very important overall observations coupled with lines of evidence that support the general directions that have emerged.
First of all, one of the critical things that Ms. Cloutier explicitly stated is that change takes time or moves forward slowly. Others have made comments that support that. I don't want to accuse you. I heard from witnesses today the idea that in this area change may take some time. That emerged from a number of questions that were asked, and specifically Senator Frum's question using a particular company example. That is that there is evidence that change in societal attitudes can occur but in some areas, such as the area of food, it may take a lot longer than some people would like it to.
I will take one example, and Senator Eggleton referred specifically to the bliss point. We know that an enormous amount of research went into establishing what is commonly known as the bliss point. It's not just taste. Feel and all kinds of things go into that. Whether or not that is singularly responsible for the change in the food composition that leads us to where we are today, I will not make that statement, but there is clear evidence of the importance of that development in terms of human reaction to food.
It would, however, again suggest that it would be possible to move forward deliberately, but not in a precipitous way, to bring about change over time in public attitude, especially if the public attitude itself in terms of desire, as Senator Nancy Ruth has said, is evolving in that direction. I know that there have been quasi-references between the issue of obesity and the tobacco issue and how we could learn from the tobacco issue. In actual fact, what we were dealing with there is very different in terms of food, in the human dimension.
However, there may be something to take from that. It may not be perhaps in the same way, but the fact is that attitudes have changed. Overall they have changed dramatically, but it took quite a long period of time to do. If we can learn that deliberate activity over time can bring about a large societal change, then perhaps that's the thing that we really need to look at.
We have seen, as well — and again, I think it was Senator Frum who used or commented on the use of the trans fat as an example — that when society recognizes that a particular component of its diet has a very clear definitive health risk outcome, both the industry and society changed. Probably society changed and then industry changed in that order, but there is another kind of lesson there.
The additional thing with regard to the difference between tobacco and the issue of food is that, to the best of my knowledge, there are only exceedingly limited examples where smoking anything is of any real value to human beings, and there is on the other side a very significant negative impact to a large amount of society. Food, however, is an essential and it's coupled, in terms of its access, with changes in society and how society operates. Senator Nancy Ruth has given us a good example of those kinds of things.
With regard to the additional issue of labelling, I think very clearly we're hearing a sense that there can be symbols. I know you have suggested that the colour code is too simplistic, but in actual fact we're dealing with a very significant social issue here and simplicity will be an outcome. Senator Wallace referred to the labels. My understanding is that labels are being proposed now for certain areas of products that are on the shelves. I've heard it said that if they're imposed there will be no room for the name of the product left on the container because of the detail that is going there. The fact is that the average person isn't going to read that and understand what it means anyway.
So somewhere between listing the entire chemical composition down to the molecule of everything we consume, to the ultimate ridiculously simple kind of concept, there has to be some sort of symbol so a reasonable person could move through a large range of products, or in a restaurant or whatever, and quickly pick up some reasonable kind of sense of where that would go.
I think, Ms. Reynolds, you very carefully and I thought very reasonably described the difficulties in the restaurant business with this kind of issue and the range of establishments that are called restaurants in terms of how to deal with this. In those cases, maybe there is some way of coming up with a symbol for an entire plate. In actual fact, the mom and pop places are not usually highly diverse in their product offerings. They don't change every day, usually, and there are a lot of things that Canadians like as a regular part of their diet, especially at the smaller locations.
I know some indicators are being worked on in that regard because, as you again correctly pointed out, there are lots of things on that plate, and you can't reasonably expect a person to look at the menu and then go to a flip chart showing for that particular item there are these hundreds of things you should consider and these are the amounts.
I thought what we got today was a very good discussion that didn't just say that this is a complex issue and therefore there is nothing we can do. I think you all gave us some very important inputs into our thinking with regard to how we may ultimately be able to make some suggestions forward.
Finally, I think one of the absolute keys is to recognize the overall change in this area, without destroying either the industrial base of society or society itself, is to recognize it's going to take a little time to bring about an overall issue. At the same time, I think our senators have elicited through their questions some areas in which we expect there will be development of information that is useful to us as Canadians in terms of acting as consumers in this particular area.
I want to thank my colleagues for their questions today and thank you for not only the way you answered our questions but the content of the answers that you gave us today.
(The committee adjourned.)