Meeting October 20 & 21, 2011

Record of Discussion

On October 20 and 21, 2011, members of consumer and health associations joined staff from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for the third Consumer Association Roundtable (CAR) discussion.

The meeting’s objectives were

• to present and exchange views and opinions on information and consultation items,
• to continue conversations on previous topics, and
• to determine potential items that could be addressed in future meetings.

Dr. Brian Evans, Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Food Safety Officer of Canada, chaired the roundtable meeting. He talked about organizational changes at the CFIA since the CAR’s last meeting in June 2011. He also informed members of the recent launching of Shared Services Canada.

The discussion began with updates from each member about their organization and their current priorities. Thoughts were expressed about the following:

• the support for irradiated foods as a choice for Canadian consumers
• commendation for the CFIA on their risk management efforts with regards to the imported foods from Japan’s nuclear affected areas
• concerns about some segments of the population supporting non-pasteurized milk
• anticipation about the amendment to the Food and Drug Regulations in August 2012, regarding labeling and the desire that the amendment be communicated in plain language to consumers (some members expressed the desire to be involved in developing the communications plan)
• reaffirmation of the need for access to healthy foods for people with financial difficulties and for vulnerable populations
• the support for an appropriate process for communicating recalls so that consumers know what to eat and when it is safe to continue buying products
• interest in monitoring and enforcement regarding nanomaterials
• support for the Truth in Labelingcampaign in the United States
• exploration of smartphone applications with regard to providing consumers with product information

CFIA provided updates on recent developments on four issues and the Roundtable provided feedback to presenters.

Low-level presence policy

Members were given a draft policy on three possible approaches to manage the presence of unintended, low levels of unauthorized genetically modified (GM) crops in imported grain, seed, food and feed products. These crops are authorized for commercial use or sale in one or more countries but not yet authorized in the country of import.

Once a GM crop is authorized for use in a country, trace amounts of that crop may become mixed with other varieties or crops in that country. This can happen during cultivation, harvest, transportation, storage or processing. Even when best management practices are strictly followed, it is difficult to completely prevent this from occurring. As a result, a GM crop may be present at low levels in the grain, seed, food and feed products that are exported from that country.

The update provided CAR members with three proposed approaches to handling low-level presence in Canadian foods, agricultural commodities and seed.

1. apply an action level for low-level presence products imported into Canada,
2. apply an interim threshold for low-level presence products where a data package has been submitted to Canadian authorities by the product developer; or
3. apply case-by-case thresholds for low-level presence in products imported into Canada.

Members were asked for their comments on which options, either alone or together, would produce the best possible outcome for handling low-level presence. It was noted that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had launched an email consultation on September 7, 2011 and the face-to-face consultations were an adjunct to that process.

Preliminary comments included

• a recommendation to expand the public’s knowledge of low-level presence
• support for the thresholds options, assuming thresholds would be considered based on allergenicity and threshold decisions are clearly defined
• a caution to recognize that preventing low-level presence should be the responsibility and liability of producers, not just a concern for the government or consumers

Japan’s nuclear incident and imported foods

The CAR was presented with information regarding the food safety actions the CFIA took due to the earthquake in Japan on March 11, 2011. The earthquake caused damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, raising concern over radiation levels of imported products from affected regions. Members were also presented with information on the CFIA’s continual monitoring of the situation.

Members indicated strong satisfaction with the way the CFIA handled, and continues to handle, this situation.

CFIA Statement of Rights and Service (Consumers Guide)

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) uses the following principles to govern its interaction with producers, consumers, industry and other stakeholders:

• transparency,
• accountability, and
• service

The statement of rights and service was developed to formally establish those principles.

The guide for producers, consumers and other stakeholders provides basic information as to what the Agency is responsible for, and the types of information and services consumers should expect to receive.

CAR members had the opportunity to provide input on the statement of rights and services. Members were asked if the language of the document was clear and whether it would help consumers in their communication with the CFIA.

Comments included

• a general consensus of the suitability of the document
• satisfaction that the purpose of the document is to be helpful and to assist consumers with directing them to appropriate avenues if they have contacted the CFIA
• CFIA to ensure that labels are truthful and that fraudulent information is corrected

Ministerial Advisory Board and Expert Advisory Panel

Dr. Evans provided the roundtable with information on a number of activities that are underway to better integrate stakeholder perspectives with the CFIA.

The Ministerial Advisory Board was established last year to provide the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with strategic advice regarding health and food considerations, coming from a variety of backgrounds.

The Expert Advisory Committee held its inaugural meeting on June 24. The mandate of this committee is to provide the CFIA with objective professional and technical advice on key issues related to the evolution of its three business lines: food safety, animal health and plant health.

At the first meeting, the Committee was given a brief overview of the CFIA's operating environment, including its structure and spending. The discussion then focused on the CFIA's strategic overview and corporate risk profile. Members offered suggestions to further develop the overview and profile.

The Expert Advisory Committee met again in the fall, to provide input on the CFIA’s program frameworks for food, plant and animal health.

Dr. Evans indicated that the Board and the Committee are interested in meeting with CAR members in the future. Other existing consultative groups that the CFIA participates in would also like to meet with the CAR including

• the Value Chain Roundtable (an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada sub-committee), and
• the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education.

Roundtable members have an opportunity to decide if they would like to meet these other groups at a later date.

The People’s Food Policy Presentation on a national food strategy

Members of the People’s Food Policy presented their organization’s project, which brought 3500 citizens from across Canada together for discussions on a potential food policy for Canada.

They asked Canadians what they felt should be included in the policy, gathering a diverse multi-dimensional perspective on the issue. The report, Resetting the Table, focused on food sovereignty; that is, the “people’s right to obtain healthy and culturally appropriate foods that were produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems”

The report’s four top priorities are

• ensure that food is eaten as close as possible to where it is produced
• support food providers in a widespread shift to ecological production
• enact a strong federal poverty elimination and prevention program with measurable targets and timelines
• create a nationally-funded children and food strategy

Comments included

• questions of who should be responsible for food safety education
• the need to raise awareness on the issue of capacity for small - and medium - sized enterprises to meet regulatory expectations
• how a competitive food market, as well as other tools, can be an asset to maintaining safe foods and food standards

Food Safety Action Plan (FSAP) targeted surveys, with a specific look at the report on allergens in infant formulas and food

The targeted surveys and the report 2009-2010 Undeclared Allergens in Infant Formulas and Foods was presented. The CFIA uses targeted surveys like this to test various foods for specific hazards. They are a complementary approach to the CFIA’s regular program and inspection activities.

The survey on undeclared allergens in infant formula and food was done to determine if undeclared priority allergens and/or gluten sources are present in samples of infant formulas and food products aimed at infants. The information gathered

• allows the CFIA to intervene if needed, and
• it is used as an indicator of potential food safety concerns relating to undeclared allergens in the infant formulas and food products tested.

Comments included

• overall satisfaction that the surveys were being conducted as a proactive measure and not a reactive one
• overall satisfaction that children’s foods are being studied
• suggestion for future studies to test for undeclared sulphites in beer, as well as caramel
• the ease of access with regards to the language of the executive summary report
• suggestions to provide follow-up reports on products found to have allergens
• discussion over whether to highlight the report to members of the various CAR organizations (consumers may be confused by the report because it was felt they are only interested in specifically knowing which products pose harm to their families, whereas this survey has the objective to find whether allergens are present in children’s foods)
• a suggestion to provide a full context of the report when presenting it to consumers, to make them aware that the report does not present which products may be safe and which products may be harmful

Overview of CFIA allergen labelling activities

Information on the role of the CFIA in allergen labelling was provided:

The CFIA contributes to Health Canada’s policy development and verifies compliance with federal food legislation.

The presentation highlighted new regulations, which will come into force on August 4, 2012, that include mandatory listing of added priority allergens, gluten sources and sulphites. These must be listed either in the ingredient list in a “contains” statement in simple, plain English and French.

Comments included

• a request to know what the scope and scale of the CFIA’s enforcement capacity is, as well as the costs involved with compliance and enforcement
• a request to review the legibility of a product’s list of ingredients in order to verify accessibility to information (font size, highlighting, etc.)
• a request to review the list of ingredients guidelines and compare them with requirements of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
• cautionary advice regarding the drawbacks to having too much information presented on a product’s package
• exploration of smartphone applications with regard to providing consumers with product information.

Information: roles and responsibilities of the CFIA and Health Canada

Health Canada and the CFIA explained their roles and responsibilities in managing the Canadian food safety system. It was noted that Canada’s food safety system is a shared responsibility among various partners and stakeholders.

The presentation highlighted not only CFIA and Health Canada responsibilities but also those of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Health Canada is responsible for establishing policies, regulations and standards related to the safety and nutritional quality of all food sold in Canada. The CFIA, as the largest science-based regulatory agency in Canada, is responsible for delivering all federally-mandated programs for food inspection, plant and animal health, and consumer protection, as it relates to food.

Comments included

• discussions around the government’s expressed intent to consolidate food legislation as per the 2011 federal budget
• the CAR’s interest in being involved in the consultative process before new food legislation is mandated

Food Safety investigations and recalls

The Office of Food Safety and Recall presented information on the food safety investigation and recall process. The recall process includes seven stages.

1. the trigger
2. food safety investigation
3. health risk assessment
4. recall decision making
5. recall implementation
6. recall effectiveness verification
7. corrective action and follow up

Members were also presented with the allergen recall template, which aims to share recall information in detailed, plain language accompanied, when possible, with product images.

Comments included

• satisfaction with using standardized document templates in order to prevent arbitrary changes
• discussion around best-before dates and the need to define the concept
• discussion about risk management over sharing Class II and III recalls because it may cause some confusion
• appreciation for some third-party retail food chains in using good industry practices preventing the sale of a recalled product at the point of sale
• ensure that labels are truthful and that fraudulent information is corrected

Communications and messaging: food safety recalls and allergen alerts

Roundtable members discussed the quality of food safety recalls and allergen alerts that are communicated to consumers. The discussion was broken into five themes that were discussed by members

• language
• website navigation
• targeting (and how information is sent out)
• use of photos in notices
• the need to be more transparent in follow ups

Comments included

• a cautionary note to maintain traditional methods of issuing recalls and alerts for those who are unable to access information through electronic means
• a suggestion to develop a way to communicate recalls and alerts to vulnerable populations (such as providing caregivers with tools to access important information), as well as those who manage food on a regular basis (such as daycares, food catering companies, and those who use group buying)
• mention of language issues on some product labelling and the need to access product information, and the CFIA’s responsive capacity to enforce language laws and convey information through a diverse set of languages
• taking active measures so that those who contact the CFIA get a timely follow up on their file

Highlighted ingredient names to describe characteristics of foods

On food labels and in advertisements, ingredient names are sometimes used to describe characteristics of foods, other than composition of flavour. Because the name of the ingredient is emphasized, whether in the common names of the food or in claims, this is considered to be “highlighting”.

Any “highlighting” of ingredients on food labels and in advertisements cannot be false or misleading. Members were invited to provide comments on when the use of ingredient names may mislead consumers into falsely thinking the product contains a given ingredient (for example, butter tarts do not necessarily contain butter, honey-dipped donuts do not necessarily contain honey, and some almond cookies contain apricot essence that mirrors the taste of almonds).

Comments included

• some members have received consumer complaints regarding misleading descriptions of foods
• concern when the product description on the front of the packaging does not correspond with the list of ingredients on the back of the product
• the difficulty in assessing names that describe characteristics of foods, since all situations are different (some descriptions are more obvious to consumers, while others may be misleading)
• concern over whether regulating ingredient names to describe characteristics of foods may limit innovation for producers
• expression of ingredient labelling being a high priority for some members
• acknowledgement that it is likely the manufacturers of these products who would be losing, because sales could decrease if people believe that the product includes an allergen

Country of origin labelling on wines blended in Canada and Canadian wines

Information was provided, and input sought, regarding the possible changes to the “country of origin” labelling requirements for wines blended in Canada or Canadian wines.

• Currently, a wine is able to claim that it is from a particular country if it consists of at least 75 percent of wine that originated from that country.
• If a blended wine is not 75 percent from one country, it can use the term “Cellared in Canada from domestic and/or imported wine,” which was agreed to in 1994. The term is still in use today. The lack of precision of this claim may mislead consumers as to the origin of the wine’s content.

Comments included

• dissatisfaction with the term “Cellared in [country of origin]”
• more appreciation for the terms “bottled in” or “blended in”
• some consent over the proposed term “Blended in Canada from Imported (and Canadian) Wines”
• some consent over the proposed term “Blended in Canada from [name of countries in descending order] wines”
• the expectation that when a label indicates that a product is from Canada, that a high percentage of the product’s contents is Canadian

Nanotechnology

The roundtable discussed the future use of nanomaterials in food. Currently, no foods containing nanomaterials have been approved by Health Canada. However, to be ready for that possibility, several government departments and agencies are researching nanomaterials.

Nanomaterials are any products, materials, substances, ingredients, devices, systems, or structures that

• may be at or within the nanoscale in at least one spatial dimension, or
• smaller or larger than the nanoscale in all spatial dimensions, and
• exhibit one or more nanoscale phenomena.

Existing regulatory frameworks have been determined to provide sufficient oversight for products that contain nanomaterials, although some strengthening may be necessary as further scientific information becomes available.

Comments included

• It is possible that nanomaterials may be entering the food supply as a result of their presence in the environment due to the manufacture of other non-food products that contain nanomaterials, which are already in the marketplace.
• There is a need to educate consumers about nanomaterials in products.

Irradiation

Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to a controlled amount of energy called "ionizing radiation." There are three different types of radiation allowed: gamma rays, X-rays and electron beam radiation.

Ionizing radiation can penetrate food, killing microorganisms without raising the temperature of the food significantly.

Food irradiation is used to

• prevent food poisoning by reducing the level of harmful bacteria and parasites in food that cause foodborne diseases, such as E. Coli O157:H7 in ground beef and Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry
• prevent spoilage by destroying bacteria, molds and yeast that cause food to spoil
• control insect and parasite infestation
• increase shelf life by slowing the ripening or sprouting in fresh fruits and vegetables

Roundtable members were given information regarding which products are currently being treated with ionizing radiation and how, and the benefits and drawbacks to irradiating foods.

Comments included

• the need to provide consumers with a choice of both irradiated and non-irradiated foods
• the potential to need to redefine the meaning of “fresh” in labels as a result of irradiating products
• a suggestion to convey a clear understanding about the unintended consequences of food irradiation

Going forward

Roundtable members identified three new agenda items that may be put forward in the next meeting

• enforcement and compliance capacity (with respect to small- and medium-sized enterprises)
• usability of the CFIA website (with regards to CFIA website navigation, recall statements, etc.)
• fortification of foods (for example, adding vitamins and minerals to food)