Meeting April 26 & 27, 2012

Record of Discussion

On April 26 and 27, 2012, members of consumer and health associations joined staff from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for the fourth Consumer Association Roundtable (CAR) discussion. The objectives of this meeting were to provide information to CAR members about a number of issues, gather feedback from CAR members, and identify potential issues that could be addressed at future meetings.

Dr. Brian Evans, Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Food Safety Officer, chaired the roundtable meeting.

The discussion began with each member updating the group on news and progress since the last meeting, and outlining their organization’s current priorities. These included

• that some types of imported foods may be irradiated even when domestically produced foods may not be, therefore there was support for labelling irradiated food, to empower Canadian consumers to make food choices ;
• concern that the Government of Canada’s 2012 budgetary cutbacks may affect food safety and result in inconsistent labelling and recall procedures;
• the need for more information and better resourced consultation about upcoming changes to the food labelling regulations; and
• support for a national food strategy focused on protecting consumer choice, security of supply and a national nutrition policy.

Impact of the Government of Canada’s 2012 budget announcement on the CFIA

Budget 2012 identified an investment of $51 million over two years for key food safety initiatives. Through Budget 2011, the Government invested $100 million to modernize food inspection. And, in the previous four budgets, the CFIA received additional investments to improve the food safety system and hire new inspectors.

As previously shared with the Roundtable by the teleconference organized for April 13, 2012. Like all government departments and agencies, the CFIA is contributing to the Government’s Deficit Reduction Action Plan. The overall aim of the Agency’s savings proposal of $56 million over three years is to

• focus on programs important to Canadians,
• modify programs to reflect current scientific knowledge, and
• improve service and simplify requirements for industry.

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• Consumers need clarification that the CFIA budget cuts will not impact inspection or food safety.
• It is necessary to explain the impact of the cuts to consumers separately from manufacturers.

Integrity and Redress Secretariat

Catherine Airth, the CFIA Chief Redress and Safety Officer, was introduced to CAR members. She provided information about the new Complaints and Appeals Office (CAO) within the CFIA. The complaints and appeals process is part of the CFIA’s transformational agenda, which focuses on improving service delivery and transparency. The complaints and appeals initiative provides a more transparent and accessible way for stakeholders to register complaints and appeals.

The CFIA consulted with other government organizations to identify best practices in complaints and appeals processes.

The objectives of the CAO are

• to provide a “single window approach,” meaning that all complaints and appeals would come through one office
• to clearly define the mechanism for external stakeholders to make a complaint
• to proactively resolve issues before they escalate
• to use data analysis to identify systemic issues and to find the right tools to address those issues
• to improve stakeholder engagement/relations

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• Many Canadians have never heard of the CFIA; therefore, it may be necessary to do more active self-promotion. Some people are bypassing the CFIA and going straight to their MPs with food-related concerns.
• Some CAR members expressed willingness to help get the message out about this new office.
• Many people who come to the CFIA with a complaint never learn the outcome; there is a need to report the results of complaints. Currently, people are told that that they must request this information through the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) mechanism, because of confidentiality requirements. The Office is working with CFIA operational colleagues to help resolve this issue.
• Support for the “single window approach”.

Dietitians of Canada’s views on meeting consumer demands

The presentation by the Dietitians of Canada (DC) was based on a brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in February 2012. DC calls for coordinated action to promote and support healthy eating, with national leadership and cross-sector collaboration to address the following priorities:

• equitable access to adequate, healthy and safe food;
• supportive environments for healthy eating; and
• comprehensive surveillance and monitoring of food, diet and health.

Additional points raised in the presentation were as follows:

• There is a need for strong national leadership in surveillance and monitoring of nutrient levels in food and of patterns of food and nutrient supplement consumption in Canada. This understanding is essential for risk analysis, policy development, plans and changes that impact the Canadian food supply
• DC is pleased that Health Canada’s Community Health Survey (CCHS) is planning to repeat the Nutrition Cycle (dietary assessment) in 2015.
• DC has some concerns that the Government of Canada’s 2012 budget cuts will affect Statistics Canada’s ability to analyze data and publish reports from nutrition surveys.
• DC continues to lobby for reducing sodium levels in food (as recommended by Health Canada’s Sodium Working Group, in which DC participated).
• There is a need to monitor and enforce non–health-and-safety aspects of food regulations; for example, labelling standards and readability, health claims, addition of nutrients to foods (that is, discretionary fortification—DC noted that they are opposed to fortification of the food supply, other than mandatory fortification for public health purposes)

Comments and discussion included the following:

• CAR members generally agreed that there is need for
  • the federal Government to take action to reduce sodium levels in food
  • more public information, education and awareness about products that are high in sodium; and
  • more public information, education and awareness about how health promotion and disease prevention are affected by food and nutrition (for example, how health care costs  are impacted by food system changes, how stroke treatment costs relate to high sodium levels)

Inspection/verification of nutrient addition requirements

While some products require mandatory fortification (for example, milk must be fortified with vitamins A and D), there is a category of foods for which fortification is voluntary (for example, cereal or juices). The CFIA is responsible for assessing micro-risks and nutrient risks for those foods in the voluntary fortification category (for example, the risk that nutrient values have been declared inaccurately which could lead to harmful over consumption). The CFIA’s program operations also ensure that fortified foods are sampled frequently enough. Furthermore, inspectors perform assessments at the plant level, following CODEX guidelines.

Comments and discussion from CAR members included the following:

• Members commend the CFIA for publishing executive summaries of risk assessment reports and providing the full risk assessment report to those who request it.
• Members are satisfied with the sampling that takes place at the plant level to ensure that manufacturers are meeting their regulatory obligations.
• Members appreciate Health Canada working with industry to communicate changes in regulations that relate to fortification requirements.

Food/natural food products transition presented by Health Canada

A small proportion of products—such as vitamin water, energy bars, and energy drinks—are regulated as Natural Health Products (NHPs) but are packaged, perceived, and consumed as foods. Products that look like food and are consumed as food will now be regulated as food under the Food and Drugs Act. The labelling requirements will ensure that Canadians have consistent nutritional information that will allow them to make informed choices. Of the 50,000 products in Canada’s natural health product market, two percent qualify as food products.

Over the next few years, these products will be required to carry a nutritional facts table and adhere to allergy labelling regulations. The transition to the new classification is based on a risk-based approach to protecting health and safety, operational and procedural fairness, and minimal disturbance to commerce.

Products that will transition from being classified as NHPs to food products will be provided with a temporary market authorization (TMA) that will allow them to remain on the market. This authorization will give manufacturers time to adjust to the new regulations. Companies are expected to collect data and information during this period to address gaps; this will allow Health Canada to make more informed regulatory decisions at the end of the TMA period. The transition process is expected to end by December 2012.

Comments and discussion from CAR members included the following:

• Members saw merit in the CFIA and Health Canada for making this shift.
• Members identified a need to be transparent about which products will have a TMA.
• Members suggested that retailers that carry both types of products voluntarily distinguish between NHPs and food products.
• Members identified the need to clearly explain TMAs to consumers.

Food safety legislation and regulatory modernization

Food safety legislation

Representatives from Health Canada and the CFIA spoke to the Roundtable about the need to modernize the Food and Drug Act to meet the needs of modern Canadian consumers and industry. They highlighted the fact that Canada’s food safety environment is changing and that although Canada’s current food safety system effectively protects Canadians, and consumers generally consider food in Canada to be safe, there is always room for improvement. The new legislation will update the authorizations required for regulated parties across all food and will lead to consistent, multi-commodity delivery of inspection and enforcement activities. This new legislation will be comprehensive, up-to-date and will apply equally to all food; it will address emerging challenges and new realities (for example, increased imports). The legislation should be introduced in Parliament before the end of June 2012.

Regulatory modernization

The CFIA initiated a broad regulatory framework modernization initiative in December 2011, when it released a discussion paper designed to elicit feedback from stakeholders. Through this initiative, the CFIA will strengthen its regulatory framework to address gaps, weaknesses and inconsistencies. The new regulatory framework will also reduce overlap and redundancy, and will provide regulated parties with clear expectations and flexibility in how to meet those expectations.

Comments and discussion from CAR members included the following:

• Members appreciate the modernization process.
• Members would like to be informed about any changes to food regulations that relate to allergen labelling.
• Members would like a conference call to discuss the specifics of the new bill following introduction.

Food labelling review

The purpose of the food labelling review presentation was to gather feedback and to inform Roundtable members on the intent of the review, the consultation process, and their role in the process.

All foods, CFIA food labelling frameworks and regulatory program design, and delivery systems will be reviewed. The objective of the review is to develop a modernized risk- and outcomes-based food labelling system that fits with the CFIA’s priorities. Consultation will focus on the following key areas:

• regulations (for example, standards of identity and legibility of labels)
• partnerships/roles and responsibilities (for example, clarifying roles of industry, government and consumers in promoting compliance)
• service delivery (for example, importer licensing, inspection modernization)
• policy and program development (for example, policy development models)
• information management/information technology (IM/IT) (for example, a shift from multiple commodity-based systems to systems that make it easier to create reports and set priorities and inform the public)

Comments and discussion from CAR members included the following:

• Members were concerned about the short timelines for the consultation project; CFIA representatives assured them that timelines are flexible and can be adjusted, if needed.
• CFIA representatives clarified that the review would not alter policies around, for example, fortification.
• Members suggested that the next roundtable focus mainly on food labelling.
• Members were concerned that consultations held over the summer months may not get a large response.
• Members expressed a need for informed input rather than reaction to the proposal; CAR members should be involved in the information gathering process.
• Members suggested that, as part of this process, all stakeholders (consumers as well as industry) need to meet and discuss food labelling.

Alternative service delivery policy initiative

Alternative service deliveries are partnerships or other arrangements that allow a service that would normally be delivered by the CFIA to be delivered by another party. The CFIA currently has around 50 alternative service delivery arrangements. Consultations are needed to help develop ways to ensure that the alternative service models are standardized and are delivered consistently. The CFIA is inviting anyone to participate, on behalf of themselves or an organization. The consultations will be web-based and will end June 24, 2012. However, more time will be provided to those who need it.

Comments and discussion from CAR members included the following:

• CFIA representatives clarified that alternative service deliverers do not set quality standards; they follow CFIA standards.
• Members are unable to download completed online feedback forms before submitting them. CFIA representatives offered to provide participants with PDF forms to fill out for their own records.
• Members were concerned that online and written consultations may be more time-consuming for participants than in-person consultations.
• Members were concerned that CFIA not be over reliant on online consultations and leave some citizens unengaged.
• Members were concerned that online consultations may exclude many citizens who are not as engaged with web-based interaction.

Pathogen reduction in meat and poultry (baseline surveys)

In February 2009, Federal, Provincial and Territorial (FPT) Ministers of Agriculture recognized the Pathogen Reduction Initiative as a priority for strengthening the Canadian food safety system. A FPT working group has been established under the FPT Food Safety Committee and is composed of representatives of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Agriculture Canada, and provincial ministers of agriculture and health. This presentation focused on the need to set benchmark levels for pathogens in meat and poultry and targets for pathogen reduction. This initiative will build on and complement the progress that industry and governments have already made in implementing HACCP and on-farm food safety programs to improve meat and poultry safety. The initiative also includes a review of pathogen reduction initiatives from the United States, European Union, New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries.

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• Some members felt that irradiation is an important and necessary intervention to reduce pathogens.
• Some discussion on how many Canadians would support food irradiation.
• There is a need to determine baseline estimates of the prevalence and concentrations of pathogens.

CFIA web usability

CAR members were updated about the recent enhancements to the CFIA website and social media tools; these changes were designed make CFIA programs and communication more transparent and more accessible. The CFIA has successfully improved its web-based operations, but there is still a need to provide better transparency. The CFIA is in the process of researching and analyzing better ways to improve online service. CFIA’s strategies are

• to be a trusted online information source;
• to provide easier access to meet consumers’ needs; and
• to include web communications about the CFIA’s daily work.

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• Members were pleased to see progress in improving CFIA’s web content.
• Members suggested that CFIA needs to start thinking about how it will provide a meta data standard to identify and aggregate content.
• Members asked for a standardized method of content presentation about incidents (such as allergic reactions).
• Members asked that the CFIA limit the number of email updates on an individual recall when possible.
• Members want to collaborate with the CFIA to reach out to the public through social media.

Inspection modernization

In 2011, the government budgeted $100 million over five years to strengthen food inspection in Canada. Although Canada has one of the best food inspection systems in the world, the intent is to provide Canadians with a stronger, more comprehensive food inspection system that integrates the latest science and best practices in an evolving global food environment. The CFIA is drafting a food inspection model that proposes to merge the existing eight food inspection programs into one. The CAR was asked for feedback to help prepare this draft.

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• It is important to communicate to consumers how this initiative will not reduce inspection efforts.
• Proper training is needed to make sure that the wisdom of current inspectors is passed to the new generation of inspectors.
• It would help to remove as much of the paperwork burden as possible for inspectors and industry.
• Removing unnecessary paperwork reduces costs paid for by consumers, as long as food safety is ensured and the specialized information needs of consumers are met.

Imported food regulations

The CFIA takes a proactive approach to monitoring food imported into Canada. The Agency is increasing targeted oversights for imports, including the non-federally registered sector (NFRS), to meet the needs of the growing and diverse body of Canadian consumers who are dipping into niche-markets. The Food Safety Action Plan (FSAP) focuses on three main areas:

• licensing importers, monitoring preventative controls, and testing products before they enter Canada;
• monitoring border activities (through “border blitzes”); and
• conducting regulatory inspections in Canada.

NFRS importers (currently around 25,000 importers) will now be required to hold a licence, implement a preventative food safety control plan (PFSCP), develop a recall plan, maintain records that can be accessed at a Canadian address, and notify the CFIA within 24 hours of discovering unsafe food.

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• Members commended the CFIA for transparency in this process.
• Members acknowledged that this process will benefit the allergy community, which will now have safer access to imported foods.
• Members were concerned that “grey markets” (such as the confectionary industry) will still exist even with these new initiatives.
• Members suggested that it was important to determine whether there are benefits to assisting smaller-sized importers and, if so to consider and recommend alternatives to adapt to change.

Compliance enforcement for small- and medium-sized businesses

At the request of Roundtable members, the CFIA presented on compliance enforcement for small- and medium-sized businesses in Canada. The CFIA takes a graduated approach to enforcement and enforces compliance in a way that is consistent with its priorities and strategies, regardless of the size of the enterprise. The Compliance and Enforcement Operational Policy (CEOP), adopted in 2010, operates through principles of fairness, impartiality, transparency, and risk management.

Comments from CAR members included the following:

• Members are concerned that enforcement and compliance may be too stringent for small enterprises within the “local” food industry, which are being over-burdened with paper-work. For example, the CFIA was clear that both small and large enterprises must meet the same compliance requirements. But, the CFIA also makes sure that regulated parties are aware of and understand requirements by working with them and providing support where possible.
• Members agreed the government should look for cost-effective ways to ensure security of domestic supplies of food, including assisting domestic producers to find solutions to ensure food safety and be competitive with global competitors.

Going forward

Roundtable members identified new agenda items and considerations that may be put forward at the next meeting:

• Roundtable members have been invited to take part in the Stakeholder Advisory Council within the CFIA, and will consider it.
• The next meeting in the Fall of 2012 will focus on labelling review initiatives.
• The Fall meeting will provide an opportunity for the CAR to meet with the Minister’s Advisory Board, which will be meeting in November 2012.
• Thought should be given to the upcoming two-year cycle of the CAR, and whether members are interested in continuing to participate in CAR activities. The CAR members have been asked to express, in writing, whether they are interested in continuing to be a member of the CFIA Consumer Association Roundtable.