
Food and Drugs Act
Bill to Amend--Third Reading--Debate
December 3, 2024
Moved third reading of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children).
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading as Senate sponsor of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), also known by its short title as the child health protection act.
Bill C-252 amends the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the advertising of prescribed foods to children under 13 years of age, foods that contain more than prescribed levels of sugars, saturated fat or sodium. The term “advertising” is broadly defined in the Food and Drugs Act to include:
. . . any representation by any means whatever for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the sale or disposal of any food, drug, cosmetic or device;
Bill C-252 serves as enabling legislation. The details of the prescribed foods, thresholds and scope will be determined by the accompanying regulations, which have been in development for several years. This policy direction has been a Minister of Health commitment since 2015. Health Canada consulted extensively between 2016 and 2019 as well as in the spring of 2023 after the proposed restrictions were available. They consulted with health industry stakeholders and members of the public. Further consultations will be undertaken ahead if this bill is passed.
Bill C-252 is an important step for this country to take to protect the health and well-being of our youngest citizens. In its preface, the bill recognizes the increasing incidence of childhood obesity and its impact on children’s health, and the bill reflects a commitment to addressing this growing public health crisis by targeting one of its key drivers: the marketing of ultra-processed foods to children.
As we begin third reading of this bill, we now have the benefit of testimony at committee from a substantial number of witnesses — 18 in all — who provided valuable information on every aspect of this bill. Our witnesses from Health Canada and the research and health community enhanced our understanding of how ultra-processed food and high levels of sugars, fats and sodium affect children’s health as well as how advertising has a powerful impact on children’s food choices and consumption patterns. Additionally, they presented and confirmed the evidence that self-regulation by the food and beverage industry has not been effective when it comes to reducing children’s exposure to harmful marketing.
I want to thank all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their superb engagement on this bill, and I want to thank all witnesses for their testimony. As well, many thanks to the bill’s sponsor, Quebec member of Parliament Patricia Lattanzio, for bringing it forward.
Nutritional science provides us with a vast amount of evidence about the impact of food constituents, good and bad. According to Health Canada, on the topic of sodium:
. . . too much can lead to high blood pressure, an important risk factor for stroke and heart disease. Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death in Canada, after cancer.
And further:
It is estimated that over 30% of high blood pressure cases in Canada are due to high sodium intake. High dietary sodium has also been linked to an increased risk of osteoporosis, stomach cancer and severity of asthma.
When it comes to saturated fat, too much can cause cholesterol to build in one’s arteries. According to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, “Saturated fat can raise bad . . . cholesterol,” which is a risk factor for heart disease and stroke.
When it comes to sugar, according to the Heart and Stroke Foundation:
Excess sugar consumption is associated with adverse health effects including heart disease, stroke, obesity, diabetes, high blood cholesterol, cancer and dental cavities.
None of this would be problematic if Canadians did not consume these food constituents in significant quantities. But sadly, they do. Canadian diets are, in fact, dominated by ultra‑processed foods, which are high in salt, sugars and saturated fats, which, in turn, are associated with a higher risk of mortality and increased risk of the conditions I just mentioned.
As well, ultra-processed food consumption in Canada is highest in children aged 9 to 13, making up nearly 60% of their diets, according to a brief submitted to our committee by the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition. This has contributed in particular to the alarming rise in childhood obesity in this country, as documented in many sources, for us, most notably, in a study undertaken by our very own Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology back in 2016, which investigated the rise of childhood obesity and its impact, including on the mental health and well-being of children. By the way, that committee report, endorsed by the full Senate, also recommended that the government prohibit the advertising of food and beverages to children. What a far-sighted chamber this is.
Let me now turn to the topic of advertising to children.
As referenced in the preamble to Bill C-252 and supported by committee witnesses, children are particularly vulnerable to marketing and its persuasive influence over their food preferences and consumption.
Children under the age of 5 are generally not able to distinguish between advertising and programming, and most do not understand the selling purpose of advertising until they reach the age of 8 years old. By the age of 12, they understand that ads are designed to sell products, but may not yet be aware of the persuasive intent of advertisements. The more children are exposed to food advertising, the more likely they are to ask their parents to buy or to themselves consume the advertised foods.
This is concerning, since Canadian and international studies have consistently found that the vast majority of food products advertised to children are poor in nutrients and are energy-dense. In fact, over 90% of food and beverage ads viewed by kids on television and online are for ultra-processed foods or foods containing high amounts of sugar, saturated fat or sodium, according to the brief submitted by the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition.
This marketing appeals to children through product design, the use of cartoon or other characters, fantasy and adventure themes, humour, and other marketing techniques. Clearly, these techniques work, as children as young as 3 are brand-aware and are able to recognize or name food and beverage brands, according to a brief submitted to our committee.
Dr. Tom Warshawski, consultant pediatrician and Chair of the Childhood Healthy Living Foundation, said at committee:
Unfortunately, marketing ultra-processed food to kids works. Marketing influences children’s food preferences, prompts them to pester parents to purchase these foods and increases their consumption of these products. . . .
The increase in childhood obesity, the growing consumption of ultra-processed foods by children and the growth of pervasive marketing techniques, which now include online applications, have generated great concern in the health community, internationally and in this country, well over a decade ago, as well as a search for remedies.
Back in 2010, the World Health Organization, or WHO, called for global action to reduce such marketing to children and put forward 12 recommendations to guide its member states, including self-regulation and voluntary approaches. In July 2023, the organization changed its advice and now calls for comprehensive and mandatory policies. Why did they do that? Because powerful evidence has emerged about the continuing impact of marketing on children and the poor results of industry-led approaches. As stated by the WHO last July:
Aggressive and pervasive marketing of foods and beverages high in fats, sugars and salt to children is responsible for unhealthy dietary choices. . . . Calls to responsible marketing practices have not had a meaningful impact. Governments should establish strong and comprehensive regulations.
Considering the irrefutable evidence, a number of jurisdictions have taken up mandatory and regulatory initiatives to restrict advertising to children: Mexico, Argentina, Chile, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal and Norway. For example, the U.K. has prohibited such advertising on television between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m., and also online advertising.
Of course, the most important example by far that we have of mandatory initiatives is Quebec, which has had legislation under their Consumer Protection Act since 1980 that prohibits commercial advertising of all products and services directed at children under the age of 13. It’s quite remarkable that Quebec in 1980 was so far ahead of developments that took shape years later. What a far-sighted province that is.
The Quebec law has survived serious court challenge. In a landmark 1989 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec law that restricted advertising to children was valid and justified under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Further, the court said:
The objective of regulating commercial advertising directed at children accords with a general goal of consumer protection legislation — to protect a group that is most vulnerable to commercial manipulation. Children are not as equipped as adults to evaluate the persuasive force of advertising. . . . children up to the age of thirteen are manipulated by commercial advertising . . .
Note the words “manipulated by commercial advertising.” Colleagues, let us keep these words of our highest court in mind as we deliberate on this bill.
Outside Quebec, restrictions on advertising to children have been guided by industry self-regulation. From 2007 to 2020, food and beverage companies established a voluntary program for restricting food and beverage advertising to children, which was replaced with a new code in 2023.
These efforts received much comment from our witnesses at committee. Let me quote Professor Monique Potvin Kent of the University of Ottawa, a renowned expert in this field. She stated at committee on November 20:
Since 2005, I’ve conducted a huge volume of research —
— she told us it was over 60 studies —
— that has evaluated the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which is the self-regulatory code that was recently disbanded. In every study, I concluded that this code is insufficiently protecting children from unhealthy food marketing. Research around the world — in the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand — has come to similar conclusions. Self-regulation is not effective for reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing.
In one major study of children’s television ad viewing, Professor Potvin Kent found that companies that were participating in this industry initiative, that had signed onto the restrictive code, were more likely to advertise less healthy foods to children than those that were not participating in the industry program.
More precisely, 80% of the food and beverage promotions of the companies part of the initiative were less healthy in terms of levels of fat, sugars, sodium and so on, compared to 55% of the promotions of the companies that were not part of it.
These findings are truly disturbing, and we are talking about vulnerable children.
To repeat an unmistakable conclusion, research in Canada and globally has repeatedly shown that industry self-regulation is not effective in protecting children from exposure to certain food and beverage advertising.
Colleagues, from what I’ve seen and heard from the health community and from my own study of this topic, we cannot expect the newly adopted industry code — there is a new code as of last year from the industry named the Code for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children — to achieve better outcomes than previous efforts in spite of the enthusiasm for the code shown by the industry witnesses who testified at committee last week.
Let me make a few points about this industry code, drawing upon the code itself and the evidence of the health sector and expert witnesses at committee. First, the new code does not have a child health lens, as does Bill C-252. In fact, the code does not mention “children’s health” even once. Therefore, we must assume that the industry code has other objectives that have nothing to do with children’s health.
The scope of the code excludes many marketing techniques —