HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 13, 2004

À

1005

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Mrs. Joyce Reynolds (Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association)

À

1010

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Croitoru (President and Chief Executive Officer, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada)

À

1015

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ellis (Vice-President, Communications and Public Affairs, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd.)

À

1020

The Chair

Mr. David Barlow (Chief Operating Officer, Harvey's Restaurant, Cara Operations Ltd.)

À

1025

The Chair

Ms. Sally Brown (Chief Executive Officer, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada)

À

1030

À

1035

The Chair

Mr. Bill Jeffery (National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest)

À

1040

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC)

À

1045

Ms. Nancy Croitoru

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Nancy Croitoru

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Nancy Croitoru

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Nancy Croitoru

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Rob Merrifield

À

1050

Mr. David Barlow

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. David Barlow

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. David Barlow

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Richard Ellis

À

1055

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Mr. David Barlow

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Richard Ellis

Á

1100

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Á

1105

Ms. Sally Brown

Hon. Don Boudria

Ms. Carol Dombrow (Nutrition Consultant, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada)

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Richard Ellis

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Richard Ellis

Ms. Carol Dombrow

Mr. Richard Ellis

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Á

1110

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Richard Ellis

Á

1115

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield)

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield)

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Richard Ellis

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. David Barlow

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. David Barlow

Á

1120

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. David Barlow

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield)

Mrs. Joyce Reynolds

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield)

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC)

Ms. Sally Brown

Á

1125

Mr. John Duncan

Mrs. Joyce Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Ellis

Á

1130

Mr. David Barlow

Ms. Jill Holroyd (Vice-President, Research and Communications, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association)

Ms. Nancy Croitoru

Á

1135

Mr. Fred Schaeffer (Chief Operating Officer, Kraft Canada, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ellis

The Chair

Mr. David Barlow

Á

1140

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. David Barlow

The Chair

Mr. Fred Schaeffer

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Croitoru

The Chair

Ms. Jill Holroyd

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Bill Jeffery

The Chair

Ms. Sally Brown

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

Á

1150

Mr. Richard Ellis

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

Á

1155

Mr. Fred Schaeffer

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. Bill Jeffery

Â

1200

The Chair

Ms. Sally Brown

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 016

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 13, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À  (1005)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Health in which we are going to consider the subject matter of Bill C-398, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act on food labelling, and the subject of trans fatty acids in food.

    We welcome our witnesses, and we'll proceed with the usual format. We're calling this a round table because we have quite a number of people here, but essentially the format is that the witnesses present their positions and then we move into questions and answers and it becomes a little more free flowing.

    Your agenda has the Centre for Science in the Public Interest first, but I don't see Mr. Jeffery here, so we'll begin with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. I believe Ms. Reynolds is going to present.

    Ms. Reynolds, the floor is yours.

    Mrs. Joyce Reynolds (Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The CRFA welcomes the opportunity to share our perspective on the issue of nutrition labelling and to highlight some of the positive steps that are being taken by the food service industry.

    In January 2003 the CRFA established a nutrition and fitness round table of senior food service industry executives. The round table is working on a number of initiatives to better meet the information needs of consumers and to raise awareness about the importance of a balanced diet and physical activity.

    For example, CRFA is an active participant in the federal-provincial pan-Canadian healthy living strategy. We are also taking part in related discussions on social marketing initiatives aimed at Canadian consumers. We recently began discussions with Health Canada officials in the provinces on proactive, industry-wide initiatives, and we look forward to providing the committee with details at a later date.

    At the company level much activity is taking place to provide more information and more menu options to consumers. For example, Pizza Pizza has eliminated trans fat from their dough and introduced whole wheat dough. They're reducing the sodium of their sauce by 40% and working on reducing sodium in their cheese. They have reduced the amount of dough in their crust, and this week they launched three new salad choices.

    There are hundreds of similar initiatives underway across the industry. There is much more to say on this topic, but I want to move to the specific challenges presented by Bill C-398.

    Now, this bill would apply to companies with annual food service sales of $10 million or more, but the reality is sales volume has very little to do with a company's ability to provide accurate and consistent nutrition information to consumers.

    In order to provide this information, a food service operation must have standardized recipes, a standardized menu, standardized suppliers, and standardized portion sizes, and only a small segment of the companies with sales over $10 million would meet these criteria. The majority of companies that fall within the scope of Bill C-398 are multi-concept operations with vastly different and frequently changing menus and regional suppliers.

    They are contract caterers offering customized food service to business, industry, and government; fine-dining restaurant companies specializing in regional cuisine; casual restaurants in neighbourhood pubs with various menu themes; hotel chains with myriad restaurant concepts with special event menus. The companies that do meet the criteria of standardized menus, recipes, suppliers, and portion sizes, as Mr. Wappel pointed out last week, are already providing nutrition information for consumers on their websites, in-store brochures, posters, and 1-800 numbers.

    While Bill C-398 focuses on calories, restaurant operators are committed to meeting the needs of customers with many other dietary concerns. Many people today are on diets that restrict carbohydrates, fat, salt, or sugar, for example. Others have food intolerances or life-threatening allergies to certain ingredients, and lately we've been hearing about the benefits of low-glycemic diets.

    Listing calories on menu boards, as Bill C-398 would require, would tell only part of the story. The other difficulties with this approach are, first of all, that customers in quick-service restaurants often customize their orders. They determine the toppings on their hamburger or salad. They determine the bread for their sandwich or the toppings for their pizza. Those choices can have a significant impact on calorie counts and render calorie information on a menu board inaccurate.

    Second, posting the number of calories on a menu board is not as straightforward as it sounds, for restaurant owners or consumers. For example, a menu board now has one price for a bagel, even though there may be 15 varieties. Bill C-398 would require them to somehow find space to post the calorie count for all 15 varieties of bagels, not to mention the butter, the various flavours of cream cheese, and other toppings.

    Not only would it mean entirely new menu boards for many restaurateurs, but it would do far more to confuse customers than to education and inform.

    Ultimately the one-size-fits-all approach advocated by Bill C-398 would leave consumers with less information and less choice than they have now.

    CRFA's nutrition and fitness round table is addressing the objectives of Bill C-398 by developing voluntary guidelines for chains with standardized menus, recipes, portion sizes, and suppliers. This will standardize the nutrition information available to consumers and make it more accessible.

    Given the diversity within our industry, it is not an easy undertaking, but the leaders in our industry believe they have a role to play in this regard.

    In closing, let me reiterate that the food service industry is committed to better meeting the information needs of consumers and using our cross-Canada network to raise awareness among Canadians about the importance of a balanced diet and physical activity.

    We look forward to moving ahead with our nutrition information initiatives and to continuing our dialogue with government on this important issue.

    Thank you.

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Reynolds.

    Next, from the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, we have Nancy Croitoru, president and chief executive officer.

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru (President and Chief Executive Officer, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): Good morning. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of Parliament, I'd like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to appear here today.

    FCPMC, the organization I represent, is comprised of food and consumer products companies from across Canada. Our industry touches Canadian lives every day through the many products we make and the approximately 365,000 people we employ. Our industry is governed by no less than 442 federal and provincial pieces of legislation and thousands of regulations.

    We understand the importance to consumers of food labelling and commend Health Canada's work on developing the new nutrition labelling guidelines. I'm a dietician by training, and from a professional point of view, I'm very pleased that Canadians are becoming more knowledgeable about the importance of nutrition. We absolutely support encouraging a balanced diet as an important aspect of overall health and well-being.

    With that as background, I would now like to make a few points about percentage ingredients labelling. As a matter of principle, we believe that all food labelling and advertising claims must be truthful, accurate, and not misleading to consumers. We adhere to a host of legislative and regulatory requirements, such as the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, both of which guard against misleading claims and ensure consumers have the right information to make their food choices.

    Subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act states that manufacturers cannot inaccurately portray foods' “character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety”. Therefore, ingredients must be listed in descending order of quantity on food labels to help consumers make food choices that meet their personal needs. You can see on the board over there an example of a label where ingredients are listed in descending order.

    Furthermore, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ensures that food manufacturers are in compliance. In addition, by December 2005, new mandatory nutrition labelling regulations will provide consumers with a wealth of nutritional data on prepackaged foods that are available in Canada. Labels will include nutritional facts about calorie content and 13 specified nutrients. The second board over here shows a sample of the nutrition labels that will appear on all packaged products.

    In order to help Canadians make the most of this information, our industry has been working with the Dieticians of Canada and the Canadian Diabetes Association on a public education program called Healthy Eating Is In Store For You. This program teaches consumers how to read and use food labels. Through this program and the current label requirements, we believe that Canadians are getting the crucial health and safety information they need.

    Listing the percentage of ingredients is not a health and safety issue, and it would rob companies of their ability to innovate. By indicating what percentage of an ingredient is in the product, it will allow the product to be copied easily.

    For example, reducing fat or salts in foods and making them actually taste good requires significant R and D investment. If, after all the time, money, and work invested, companies must then advertise on the label their secret formulas, would they continue to want to innovate? The net effect would be less innovation in the Canadian food industry. It may mean we would not have orange juice with calcium, for those who need calcium, or the wide array of low-fat or low-salt foods that would benefit the health of Canadians. This is a factor that we think should not be lightly dismissed.

    To show how absurd the proposed regulations are, let's look at Cream of Wheat. I draw your attention to the third board over there. This product has been on the market for over 100 years. Did anyone ever expect cream to be in the product? Is per cent ingredient labelling necessary for Canadians to tell them that there's 0% cream in Cream of Wheat? Should our resources be spent on changing product names to “Creamy Texture of Wheat”? We believe government and industry need to focus on health and safety concerns that are far more important and will benefit Canadians.

    I would like to make one additional point on nutritional labelling. The new labels will include information on trans fats. There's a growing body of scientific evidence that trans fatty acids represent a health risk to consumers. Several companies have already taken steps to reduce or eliminate trans fats from their products. Having said that, there are technical challenges associated with removing trans fats. In some cases, it has taken four years to reformulate, and in others it may take more or less time.

À  (1015)  

    As our members continue to work on ways to reduce or eliminate trans fats, webelieve that labelling on food products will give consumers the information they need tomake healthy choices about the foods they decide to eat.

    Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared remarks. We will be happy to answer anyquestions.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    From McDonald's Restaurants of Canada, we have Mr. Richard Ellis.

    Mr. Ellis.

    Mr. Richard Ellis (Vice-President, Communications and Public Affairs, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'm very pleased to be here this morning to talk about the subjectmatter of Bill C-398 and menu board nutrition labelling. At McDonald's Canada, we're not against the intent of the bill. I want to be very clear about this. We believe, at this point, it's simply notnecessary.

    Since the 1970s, at McDonald's, we have provided our customers with comprehensive nutritionalinformation via our “Food Facts” document, which contains full nutrition andingredient listings for every product we sell. In our package, you'll see it marked as exhibit A.

    Last year we reached out directly to Health Canada to devise workable solutions to thiscomplicated issue. Let me outline some of the strategic changes we have made to theMcDonald's experience as a result of these discussions.

    Our detailed nutrition information has always been readily available at point of purchase,so our customers can make informed decisions. We continue tomake it very easy for our customers to access this information.

    In January of this year we launched our balanced lifestyles program. This was designed to provideadditional menu choice, customer education, and the promotion ofphysical activity at and through McDonald's. A key component of this program, of course, is theexpansion of our nutrition information.

    In the year 2000 we put complete nutrition and ingredient information on our public website. Wethen launched, earlier this year, our online nutrition calculator on our website, which allows our customers tocalculate full and complete nutrition information for any meal combination they may choose.

    Based on direct feedback from the former Minister of Health, we expanded ourlisting of nutrition and ingredient information to include in-restaurant posters thatare placed in front of the counter, so our customers can calculate the nutrition counts of meals before ordering. It's marked as exhibit D.

    We launched our new two-sided tray liners earlier this year. With our new tray liners, we putfull nutritional education and information in front of our customers. On the recommendation of Health Canada, our first one was to educate our customers on how to read the nutrition facts label, as Ms. Croitoru pointed out.

    As part of our balanced lifestyles program, we have also discontinued themarketing of “super sizing” at McDonald's. We have introduced our Happy Meal Choices program,which includes fruit juice, milk, chocolate milk, apple slices, and a grilled cheese sandwich optionfor children.

    We also sit with others, such as the Cara corporation, on the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association'snutrition and fitness round table. We feel that industry efforts surpass thoseproposed by Bill C-398 because they provide more complete information.

    At McDonald's we offer our customers choice: choice in what they eat andchoice in how they eat it. Our Made for You program is routinely used bymore than 30% of our customers every day to personalize their meals. Whencustomizing your order, as we know, menu board labelling simply doesn't work.

    A 2002 study for the Ipsos World Monitor showed that in the eyes of consumers,more nutrition information is not necessarily better information. ExhibitG, for example, shows what our beverage menu board would look like. This presents anoverwhelming amount of information for our customers in a format that isn'tclear. These challenges would be even more significant at our drive-throughs, wherethe menu board is scaled down to facilitate even speedier ordering.

    Only one in ten meals in Canada is eaten outside of the home. We feel ourfocus on consumer education goes well beyond the decisions people take inour restaurants. Rather, we feel that we are helping to educate Canadians to make informed decisions nomatter where they eat.

    On the subject of TFAs, we continue to look at ways to reduce trans fats from our menu, as many other corporations do. In the meantime, we have moved to voluntarily list TFAs well before the legislated schedule, even though theseregulations do not yet apply to our industry.

    Every day more than 76,000 Canadians come to work attheir local McDonald's. Like any other quick-service restaurant, our customers—2 million of them each day—want an effortless and fast dining experience. We don't apologize for that.

    McDonald's Canada and our franchisees take full responsibility as a leading Canadianemployer and a major food service operator. We take those responsibilities very seriously. The exhaustivenutritional information programs we already have in place in our restaurants work. We believe further action, in the form of cumbersome and costly regulation, isnot in the best interests of Canadians.

    Madam Chairman, I thank you, and I would be happy to take any questions.

À  (1020)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis.

    We'll now move to Cara Operations, Mr. David Barlow.

    Mr. David Barlow (Chief Operating Officer, Harvey's Restaurant, Cara Operations Ltd.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'm chief operating officer for Harvey's Restaurants, a division of Cara Operations, Canada's largest integrated food service company. We operate other brands: Kelsey's, Montana's, Second Cup, Swiss Chalet, Milestone's, and also an airline service division serving 55 airlines.

    My time this morning will be spent in three areas, mostly regarding QSR, with some comments that also apply to full-service restaurants.

    First, as to why the proposed change to menu boards and our menus is impractical, in quick-service restaurants we have limited menu board space, as is the case with full-service brands on their menus. At QSR we actually have about 219 inches of length to fully convey our offerings--choice, price, and so on. The combination of our offerings have thousands of potential configurations. I'm told that a Harvey's hamburger topped your way has over 326,000 combinations. Our drive-through menu boards are even smaller, and a significant number of our guests are choosing this channel of service or takeout.

    The QSR consumer particularly demands convenience, simplicity of process, menu visibility, and speed. All consumers demand simplicity of message. How can we maintain simplicity including the proposed information?

    Full-service brands offer an inordinate amount of variety and customization. Channels like airline services also have no chance to accommodate the requirement. The industry is built upon, and will continue to be built upon, choice and variety.

    The second point I want to make is about what we are doing to ensure that information is available to consumers visiting or considering visiting our restaurants. We provide nutrition and allergy information in all of our QSR restaurants and also in some of our full-service restaurants, and we are including trans fat information in the future. Separate nutritional information will be provided on Cara brands, recognizing that we cannot be responsible, however, for a myriad of supply ingredient adjustments.

    We make available all of the same information on our websites--www.harveys.ca and the equivalent at Swiss Chalet, for example. We will identify the availability of the information on menus, takeout bags, tray liners, and so on. Like McDonald's, we, as Mr. Ellis commented, are part of the CRFA nutrition and fitness round table and are working to assist all food service companies to change practices and proactively find industry solutions to the issue of fitness and nutrition for Canadians.

    Finally, what are we doing to ensure our restaurants cater to the consumers' need for choice and balanced offerings? Apart from the previously mentioned availability of information, we are reformulating key products to reduce trans fats. We offer interchangeable combinations--at Harvey's, for example, take a sandwich and your choice of water and salad, or any other drink and side offering. We ensure that we have balanced offerings: grilled hamburgers, chicken and vegetable burgers, salads, choices of beverage, and more. All Cara divisions are reformulating to remove or reduce trans fats. Our full-service restaurant team members are trained to enable any combination of choice the guest requires.

    In conclusion, Madam Chair, we believe the proposed legislation is unworkable and unnecessary. The industry is proactively and collaboratively addressing the concerns of consumers and their well-being.

    Thank you. That concludes my remarks.

À  (1025)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

    Our next witness is from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Ms. Sally Brown.

    Ms. Sally Brown (Chief Executive Officer, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to all.

    I'm accompanied today by Carol Dombrow, who is a nutrition consultant for the foundation.

    The mission of the Heart and Stroke Foundation is to improve the health of Canadians by preventing and reducing disability and death from heart disease and stroke through research, health promotion, and advocacy.

    I'd like to start off by commending Tom Wappel and Pat Martin for introducing these two bills. Certainly they're provocative bills, but they propose some innovative solutions to the growing health burden that obesity and indeed cardiovascular disease are placing on Canadians, and we need some innovative ideas. I thank the committee members for agreeing to study the subject matter raised in these bills.

    Madam Chair, obesity is a serious health issue for Canadians. A recent study found that between 1985 and 2000, excess weight and obesity accounted for approximately 57,000 deaths. In fact, the number of overweight- and obesity-related deaths increased by 72% between 1985 and 2000, which is a startling statistic. Moreover, the death toll from diet-related disease is much higher than this. Obesity is a concern to the foundation, as it is a major contributor to heart disease. As you know, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Canada, accounting for almost 75,000 deaths annually.

    In order to address the obesity burden, we need to look at two factors: physical inactivity and factors that contribute to unhealthy diets. In short, we cannot forget that the healthy weight equation is both energy intake and energy expended. The solution therefore requires a two-pronged approach and a comprehensive approach on both of those fronts.

    This past February, the Heart and Stroke Foundation released a report card called “Fat is the New Tobacco”. We highlighted rates of excess weight and obesity in Canada, which have risen to the point where they can be compared with smoking rates of 30 years ago. In the early 1970s, 47% of us smoked. Today, 47% of us are overweight or obese.

    Tobacco control is an example of the efficacy of a comprehensive approach where we have learned that no single intervention can combat the burden imposed by tobacco use. We also learned that it's not simply an issue of individual awareness and risk reduction. It's also about policy changes needed at every level of government. So there are many lessons learned from tobacco.

    Much of what we learned in combatting tobacco can be applied to obesity control, to the improvement of cardiovascular health. On the diet side—and that's what we're speaking of today, so that's what I'm going to speak to—a number of measures have been proposed by various national and international organizations and are either under consideration or have actually been acted upon in other jurisdictions, including restricting or banning junk food advertising to children, modification of the food supply, improving labelling and consumer information, restricting distribution in schools and hospitals of unhealthy food products, and even taxing unhealthy food products and providing tax incentives for healthy ones. We encourage your committee and the government to explore all of these options. They're all worthy.

    Let me stress that while there are many lessons to be learned from tobacco, the obesity issue is more complex and the role of industry is very different. We believe that health groups and governments can and must work collaboratively with the food industry. At the foundation we've been working successfully with the food industry for many years through our Health Check program. However, with due respect to my industry colleagues here, if public health needs are not met through collaborative measures, governments must be ready to play a proactive role in aspects of food production that can impact health. Canadians seem to agree. A recent public opinion poll found that 56% of Canadians believe that governments need to play a major role in addressing the obesity problem in Canada.

    I'm going to turn briefly to the two important issues on the agenda today: labelling and trans fats.

    Improved food labelling is important to facilitate healthy food choices. I think we all agree. However, we do acknowledge that the public education campaigns are also necessary to help Canadians interpret this nutrition information and make healthy choices. In our experience, labelling can be effective. As I mentioned, the Heart and Stroke Foundation has a program known as Health Check that has proven to be successful as a tool that supports healthy food choices for consumers. The Health Check logo now appears on more than 400 food products that must meet certain nutrition criteria, depending on the food category they're in.

À  (1030)  

     Research indicates that 64% of consumers would purchase a product displaying the Health Check logo over products not displaying the logo.

    We congratulate Health Canada for its recent labelling initiatives; however, we need to seriously examine how we can provide nutrition information in different settings, as Mr. Wappel's bill suggests. We need labelling for prepared food that is sold in the larger food franchises. That a large food franchise should list calories on its menu board and other information in its printed menus is an important idea worthy of consideration. Although I know Mr. Ellis indicated that only one in ten meals is eaten outside of the home, we have to remember that on any given day, 30% of kids living in North America visit a fast food restaurant, and 41% of Canadian food dollars are spent outside of grocery stores. So it's a sector we can't ignore.

    How we define what constitutes a large food franchise is a question the committee needs to consider carefully. We should also look at what's feasible and implementable.

    Let me turn to the issue of trans fatty acids. Last week's committee hearings demonstrated the promise of reducing trans fats in food. Denmark has set a fantastic example for the rest of the world. Furthermore, the Danish ambassador told us that the food industry in Denmark has benefited from this proactive approach and is now at a competitive advantage should it decide to enter foreign markets that are considering similar legislation.

    We note that McDonald's has complied with the legislation in Denmark, and here in Canada, New York Fries already has trans-fat-free fries. Voortman's cookies and McCain's fries are also trans fat free. So there are many examples.

    Let me be clear: at the foundation we know that the scientific link between trans fat and coronary heart disease is clear. There's no safe level of trans fat consumption. The risk of heart disease increases with trans fat consumption. That's why we need to seriously consider Mr. Pat Martin's bill and the Danish example. We must do this even if we do not know exactly what the optimal level of trans fat should be. Is it 2% or is it something else?

    We know that any reduction will provide some form of health benefit in light of the negative health impacts posed by trans fat consumption. We believe we need to adopt a precautionary principle, which is very common in the environmental movement and others. We need to act now, even in the absence of complete evidence regarding an optimal level. In the meantime, we can undertake the research to determine the most appropriate exact level.

    In conclusion, it will take concerted effort by all levels of government, the food industry, health organizations, research institutions, and individuals to stem the tide of obesity--just as it did with tobacco. Let me reiterate that by using a comprehensive approach we will address the obesity and cardiovascular disease burden, and food labelling and the reduction of trans fats are important components of this broader solution.

    We believe that consumers would be well served if processed food manufacturers and quick-service restaurants followed the Danish example and reduced trans fats in their food. It would also be beneficial if large quick-service restaurants put calorie counts on their menu boards.

    We urge the committee to seriously consider the key thrusts of these two bills.

    Thank you.

À  (1035)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.

    We'll move on to Mr. Jeffery from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest.

    Mr. Bill Jeffery (National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I should start off by apologizing. I was a few minutes late for today's meeting. But as the committee clerk knows, our organization is a recognized observer and a delegate to the Codex Alimentarius Food Labelling Committee, which is a subsidiary body of the United Nations that sets standards for international trade in food, and I've been in Montreal all week attending a meeting. I have to go back as soon as I'm done here. And my wife and I are buying a house today. So it has been a busy week.

    The Centre for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit consumer health organization specializing in nutrition issues, with offices in Ottawa and Washington, D.C. Our advocacy work in Canada is supported entirely by subscriptions to our newsletter. We have about 100,000 subscribers to the Canadian edition. Unfortunately, we don't have a French edition. We've calculated that on average the magazine goes into the homes of 1,150 constituents in each riding in English Canada.

    Since 1997 CSPI has urged Health Canada to mandate nutrition labelling for pre-packaged foods. As the committee knows, the final regulations were published in January 2003.

    More recently, CSPI led the formation of the Alliance for Food Label Reform, which is a coalition of health and citizens' groups, 29 of them, which collectively represent about two million Canadians, all with the aim of advocating on behalf of Mr. Wappel's bill.

    The total amount of diet-related disease in this country is enormous. According to Health Canada, it costs the Canadian economy approximately $6.3 billion annually. We've calculated, by extrapolating from published data, that this could amount to as many as 25,000 premature deaths annually. Rising obesity rates and the aging baby boom population are likely to further increase those preventable costs to our health care system and strain our children's and grandchildren's capacity to finance it.

    The information to be disclosed under Bill C-398 cannot be determined by the consumer either before or after the purchase without laboratory equipment or expertise. Information on labels and menus is the only way to ensure that it can be usefully delivered to consumers, largely because the important information often pertains to less healthful aspects of products--for instance, that a product is high in saturated fat content or low in real fruit juice--and that's the type of information companies are often reluctant to emphasize.

    Even after 15 years of voluntary nutritional labelling on pre-packaged foods, from 1988 to 2003, Health Canada observed that only half of all products provide nutrition information at all. Of those, very few reported all of the nutrients that are important from a public health perspective, particularly saturated fat and sodium, and some manufacturers actively provided dangerously misleading information; for instance, touting that a product is low in fat while concealing the fact that it's dangerously high in levels of sodium, for people who have sodium-sensitive hypertension. During this period, the information required by Bill C-398 could have been provided voluntarily by the restaurant and food industry, but in most cases it was not.

    In the year 2000 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers estimated that mandatory nutrition labelling of pre-packaged foods would produce economic savings of over $5 billion during the next two decades, which is an average of a quarter of a billion dollars per year. Those tremendous economic benefits simply could not have been achieved under a voluntary labelling system.

    Food labelling by itself, of course, as many of the members of this committee have noted in recent days, is not a 100% solution for completely eliminating diet-related disease. This is more a testament to the size of the diet-related disease problem in Canada. I should say, though, by way of an analogy, that seat belts can't eliminate all traffic fatalities, nor can speed limits. Label reforms must be part of a comprehensive approach, for instance, of the nascent pan-Canadian healthy living strategy or similar to the comprehensive strategy that the federal and other governments have been using to tackle tobacco-related disease.

    Even so, mandatory nutrition labelling on pre-packaged foods is calculated to reduce diet-related disease by approximately 4% to 7%, but to do so in an extremely efficient way.

À  (1040)  

     For instance, according to figures provided by Health Canada, mandatory labelling on pre-packaged foods--and that's a subject of the regulations that have already been passed--are expected to impose on average a non-recurring cost of approximately one-fifth of 1% of food sales for a single year during the phase-in period. Because the requirements of Bill C-398 require much less chemical analysis for fewer nutrients and fewer companies, the measures proposed there may be considerably less expensive. Moreover, the health care savings and productivity gains predicted to accrue from those labels—the new labels for pre-packaged foods—are expected to be in the order of $5 billion spread out over the next two decades, which amounts to a 2000% return on investment, compared to the cost of modifying the labels.

    I'd like to speak a little bit about balancing freedoms because it was raised by some of the committee members, and I'm sure it's a matter of some interest for the food companies represented here.

    The spared human suffering and the predicted economic payoff with mandatory nutritional labelling should not be lightly ignored or dismissed on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Whatever trite human liberty might be lost by insisting that a few food companies meet a duty to provide objective information about their products should be weighed against the grave loss in human life due to preventable disease, that is, death and disability, and lost productivity for the economy overall if food companies are relieved of that duty to disclose information relevant to product choices.

    In conclusion, mandatory objective nutrition ingredient information on food labels and basic nutrition disclosures on menus will both facilitate consumer choice on the basis of health and create market incentives for companies to make healthier foods, thereby benefiting even people who don't read labels. The information mandated by Bill C-398 attempts to ensure that there are some objective, useful benchmarks available for consumers faced with label and advertising environments that, at considerably greater expense to consumers, muddy the waters with irrelevant or misleading marketing information.

    I hope the committee's report will recommend either that a revised version of Bill C-398 be returned to the House or that the Minister of Health direct Health Canada officials to prepare legislation or regulations to accomplish the objectives sought in that bill.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jeffery.

    We've now heard from our presenting groups, and we'll move on to questions.

    I'll ask Mr. Merrifield if he plans to share his time or use it himself, or use that part of it he wishes to and leave the last few minutes to somebody else.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Yes, I'll use the initial part, and if I have any time left over I'll give it to Mr. Duncan.

    I don't think anyone around the table is arguing the merits of the two pieces of legislation that are being proposed.

    As far as Bill C-398 and the ideal of giving more information to the consumer, no one is going to argue that. The problem becomes whether it is going to achieve the ultimate goal, which is that we have an obese society that perhaps needs to be more aware of what that's doing to their lives.

    I'm a little concerned about the approach in saying that all we need to do is label and that will fix the problem. I think we're in a very fast-paced society. So much of our information is information overload. If our information on labelling isn't accurate and isn't valuable and seen as valuable to the consumer, then it's of no purpose. I'm much more concerned with making sure that the upcoming generation of our students in school—we see one-third or more of this group are at an obese rate—are educated in the school system and understand what they're doing to their lives and the future of their lives.

    So I'm really interested in...I think it was Jill Holroyd who mentioned that she has a program. I wonder if that program has come into the school system and what you're doing at that level. Or was it Nancy? Maybe it was, I'm sorry.

À  (1045)  

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru: Thank you.

    We have a number of programs. Our members, first of all, individually, have many education programs in the schools in terms of nutrition education and, as Sally mentioned, physical fitness. It is much more complex than the whole issue of obesity, and the two really go hand in hand.

    In addition, the program we have with Dietitians of Canada and the Canadian Diabetes Association has been extremely effective. We are educating health professionals to educate consumers as well as educators who—

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is that right across Canada, in every province?

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru: It's right across Canada, yes.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is there any resistance to that? Are you part of the curriculum, part of the makeup of the curriculum? How are you having an impact on it?

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru: It's not integrated into the curriculum per se, but it is right across the country and there's no resistance to it. There is actually a lot of interest in that program.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: And that's only one side of it. It's educating them on the nutrition as well as getting them a little more active on the physical fitness side of it. We mentioned this at committee last week, suggesting that we have to become much more aggressive with that.

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru: I'd also like to note on that point that our industry is actually devising a proactive program on obesity right now--physical fitness and nutrition information--across the country. We've met with Minister Bennett and we've met with Minister Keyes to discuss our program. We have a lot of interest, as well as a whole bunch of health professional organizations.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I just want to open it up by saying that I think that's hitting the nail more on the head than perhaps this broad stroke of just listing calories beside every piece of food that we buy and thinking that's going to solve the problem.

    But getting back to the other one, which is the trans fats, I was a little alarmed at some of the testimony we heard a week or so ago on trans fats. I'm just wondering how following the lead of Denmark would look, from an industry perspective, in terms of banning trans fats or bringing them down to 2%.

    I know McDonald's is in Denmark. You've done it there. So why wouldn't we do it here?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: If I may respond, back in September 2002 McDonald's Canada, in conjunction with McDonald's U.S., announced the goal to phase out TFAs by the end of 2003, and we missed that goal. But that doesn't mean we don't remain fully committed to reducing and/or eliminating TFAs from our restaurants. In fact, we're looking very carefully at doing it.

    We can't make changes that won't stick, if you will, and as you know it's a complicated scientific issue, really, to retrofit, if you will, a restaurant and company of the sheer size of ours. That's why we moved to the position of voluntarily communicating, via some of the materials I shared with the committee earlier, all the information on TFAs in all of our menu items.

    But we continue to move toward the reduction and/or elimination of TFAs at McDonald's. That is clear. It's a commitment we have made and a commitment we will see. It's just, frankly, taking us more time than we had anticipated.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: See, that's the problem I have. The idea of just putting trans fats on a label is not good enough from my perspective because of the damage we see being done because of them. So you put trans fats on there. But most consumers don't know the difference between a trans fat and semi-hydrogenated fat, and what's good for you and what's not good for you as far as cholesterol and fat labels are concerned. That's my concern, that we have to move much more aggressively.

    Perhaps some of the others would comment on why you're not moving or whether you are moving, and what kinds of complexities you're finding with banning or getting rid of trans fats.

À  (1050)  

    Mr. David Barlow: Madam Chair, if I may, on behalf of Cara, just like with McDonald's, there is an enormous amount of activity, but it's not something you change overnight. There are some--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let me understand. What are the hurdles? What are the problems?

    Mr. David Barlow: We have one particular product--it doesn't matter what it is--and the instantaneous elimination would mean we would no longer have the product. The product would not hold. It would not cook. So what we're going to have to do--and we are doing so aggressively with the suppliers involved in making that product--is find out how we can do that.

    Now, we have it down to a point that we can take 71% out reasonably quickly. From what I hear from you, that's not satisfactory. So it's a scientific solution. You go back to the drawing board and make that change, and then you go back to the drawing board to go further.

    I don't think anybody is disputing the overall goal, but if you try to do it tonight at midnight, what's going to happen is you're going to be impeding the consumer's ability to choose.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So what's a realistic timeframe?

    Mr. David Barlow: Mr. Merrifield, I'm loath to give you a date because I just don't have any support for it at the moment. That doesn't mean to say we're not committed. I just don't have a date to give you, because we're working with the full manufacturing supply chain to come up with the fastest possible time to do it.

    The fact that I can say to you that we have a 71% solution should be evidence that we're moving extremely quickly on the initiative, with all urgency and with all resources.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: Could I further comment?

    I won't speak on behalf of Cara, but similar to Cara, McDonald's, as I was saying earlier, is a very large organization. I want to be very clear that our commitment to making the move on TFAs is very, very clear and stands. It's just taking us more time to do so.

    But I have a couple of supporting points, if I may. Number one, imagine how many different suppliers are corralled to fulfil McDonald's commitment to reaching more than two million people every day. Every supplier needs to be part of the mix. To that end, working with our largest poultry supplier here in Canada, we were able to move to a dramatically reduced TFA product for the parfrying of our chicken thighs. That, again, is only one example of where we're going and how we're making progress.

    It is taking longer than we had anticipated and longer than we had committed to, but I want to be clear that we are moving things forward.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm simply thinking of a hamburger. Is it in the meat product? Is it in the bread part of it? I mean, where does the problem lie with removing the trans fats? Which side of it is a problem, or is it both?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: I would be lying, Mr. Merrifield, if I said I was a scientific expert on the subject of TFAs, although I know some things. TFAs are present in many different products--as we know, in a lot of baked goods. But they are also in oil and in the process of deep frying potato products to make things like french fries or hash browns or things of that nature. It's quite varied.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: New York Fries were here last week and said there wasn't a problem. They had it done in a day.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: I can't comment on New York Fries and their business. I can say that at McDonald's we've taken it very seriously. We would not have made the commitment that we ended up, frankly, defaulting on in terms of time if we did not think we would be able to make that change. Our commitment to that change remains in place today.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I was only trying to get a grasp on where it is you're having the biggest difficulty. When I see we have one of the largest fry companies in the country being able to do it now in Canada...yet you're a very large supplier. You've done it in Denmark. I'm wondering where the roadblock is, what the difficulties are.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: We operate on a North American/Canadian supplier network, for obvious reasons. It is because of the sheer size of our company. So decisions like these sometimes do take time to implement, as my colleague from Cara mentioned for his company.

    Those are some of the time challenges we're wrestling with in order to move it forward.

    We're a very large company, and a lot of people come to McDonald's because they enjoy what we serve. But like every other company, we need to ensure that our products are as good as they can be. In the case of McDonald's, we make things that people eat. We have to make sure that the integrity, the quality, and, yes, the taste of those products remains intact while meeting the requirements for offering more healthful options as they relate to TFAs.

À  (1055)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield. We'll hear now from Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you in advance for indulging me, on this my 42nd birthday.

    I have three questions for the witnesses. The first is directed to Richard Ellis, the second, to David Barlow and the third to Nancy.

    I take it that your respective businesses are not very supportive of Tom Wappel's bill and I'm trying to understand the reason, because you seem to have made a case to us this morning for adopting this bill.

    If I go to McDonald's and read the menu, I'm likely to get the very same information that you shared with us this morning. Correct? If we take Tom Wappel's bill and look at the provisions in proposed section 5.2(1)(a)(i) and (ii) respecting printed menus, we note a stipulation that printed menus must indicate such things as the number of calories per serving, along with the amount of sodium and the sum of saturated fat plus trans fat expressed as a percentage of the recommended daily intake. Aside from trans fats, I believe you already disclose this information.

    Is that a correct assumption on my part? Therefore, based on the information that you already provide, with the exception of trans fats, disclosing this type of information is not beyond the realm of possibility, since you are already supplying it. Is that a fair analysis, in so far as the section of the bill respecting printed menus is concerned?

[English]

    Mr. David Barlow: Let me respond, if I can, and I'll be repeating some of the comments I made previously.

    We have advocated that we have a certain amount of fairly comprehensive information available, as many organizations in the industry do, and we continue to make it available and we continue to tell people it's available. The challenge is to display all of this information on a menu board, where you have a few moments to convey to a guest what your total offering is, the product, in a simplistic fashion, so that they can buy it on their terms and move along with their day. To complicate a menu board, in our particular case, where we have 219 inches in our restaurants to convey all of our offering, is impractical. What we do say, however, is that we'll make these available both in hard copy and also in website form.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I see. However, if my understanding of the bill is correct—and the bill's mover will correct me if I'm wrong—when menu options are set out only on a menu board, another type of information is required. I believe this is set out in 5.2(1)(b) of the bill.

    I'm trying to understand why it's not possible to provide this information on printed menus, that is on menu handed out to the consumer. Let me phrase my question another way. I would appreciate getting a very specific answer.

    In the bill tabled by my colleague Mr. Wappel, the proposed section 5.2 sets out the information that must be disclosed in the case of printed menus. You represent McDonald's, where I occasionally eat, I confess. What kind of information would the bill require you to disclose that you in fact cannot disclose to consumers?

    Different regulations would apply in the case of options set out on a menu board. Which provision in particular poses a problem for you?

[English]

    Mr. Richard Ellis: From the point of view of McDonald's, to answer your question, we don't have a problem with the communication of the details of the bill and what the bill requires. In fact, as you pointed out, you're holding something that does make that available. If you refer to the larger document, the poster that I think you have open there, you'll see that this document again lists everything that is required, including TFAs, and that document was designed by us, as I said in my remarks, to be displayed in front of the counter—because that's what Health Canada asked us to do—in order to make sure our customers have a chance to visit it, to get the information they require or that they may wish to have before they place their order.

    With regard to public dissemination and the transparency of information, Mr. Ménard, we have absolutely no problem with that. As my colleague from Cara pointed out, it's using the menu board to facilitate that information exchange, which we don't see as doable or useful to our customers at McDonald's. We're a customer-driven company. The customer is boss, as they say, and those are the people we look to to make adjustments to our business. And in doing the poster we are putting in front of the counter, we are trying to make sure that our customers have all of the information in a way that works best for them as well.

Á  (1100)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: However, if I understood correctly—and I'm sure Mr. Wappel will have some questions for you—with respect to menu boards, the bill states that if menu options are only set out on a menu board, which is the case in certain restaurants, or if the food is sold only from a vending machine, the only information that must be disclosed is the number of calories per serving. That requirement seems to present a problem for you, because of the possible combination of ingredients.

    Would it be fair to say that this is the main sticking point, as far as you're concerned?

[English]

    Mr. Richard Ellis: That is one reluctance, because as restaurants that are more and more responsive for all of the reasons that our colleagues from the Heart and Stroke Foundation mentioned in their presentation, if we are to respond responsibly to Canadian consumers on this important issue, the foundation on which Bill C-398 was based, that means we have to dramatically adjust the way we conduct our business, and we've done so. We have done so by making it far easier now for our customers to adjust what they purchase at McDonald's and what they eat at McDonald's. That means putting strictly caloric quantities on our menu board would be very difficult to do because there is so much personalization, if you will, of McDonald's food items. That's why we've gone to the steps that we've taken in order to make the information available that we can. Things like our nutrition calculators that are online, etc., allow people to customize their orders.

    The fundamental challenge, as my colleague from Cara pointed out too, is with the dissemination of the information on the menu board itself.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for one last question?

[English]

    It's my birthday.

    The Chair: I know it's your birthday. We'll give you a chance to talk a little more later. Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

    We'll go now to Mr. Boudria, who will be followed by Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Wappel.

[Translation]

    Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): No doubt Mr. Ménard was curious about whether a birthday cake contains any genetically engineered ingredients.

    Regarding the subject-matter of Mr. Wappel's bill, if I understood correctly, he is willing to be flexible, in terms of the formula set out in the bill. Each separate comma shouldn't become a sticking point.

    If the bill provided for a system of some sort where details could be worked out by way of regulations made by the Governor in Council, I wouldn't have a problem with that, because a regulatory process would be in place. In the past, I chaired the Cabinet committee that handled that responsibility. Generally speaking, this process works well, except when it comes to keeping genetically engineered products out of baby food. Aside from that, I think it generally works well.

    I believe my question to Ms. Brown had to do specifically with transgenic acids.

[English]

    Are you aware of the report that was provided to our committee by the ambassador the other day? I think you alluded to his testimony.

    He said in his report, and I read it from page 28, that in early life, particularly for babies, this has terrible side effects. Grandpa here is very interested in this stuff. I read—again I don't want to pick on one company, but it's the one I have in front of me—that, for instance, one food product, namely Chicken McNuggets, has four grams of trans fat. If you eat that with fries you'd get two—that's six—and ten in one day would increase your heart attack potential by 40%.

    You're 60% of the way there with one snack. How do you react to those figures and what it could do to the mother? Add to that the nursing baby that Grandpa wants to know about. Could you react to that?

Á  (1105)  

    Ms. Sally Brown: If you don't mind, I'll have our nutrition consultant, Carol Dombrow, answer.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Am I understanding this correctly in the first place?

    Ms. Carol Dombrow (Nutrition Consultant, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada): That for sure is one of the reasons the Heart and Stroke Foundation is in favour of looking at trans fatty acids: it does have an impact on your heart health. You're interested from a mother-child perspective, but I think generally it has an impact, and that's the reason we're interested in looking at this bill.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Again, I'm looking at some of these menu items. It's difficult for me to understand why in baking a muffin, one variety of muffin has very little in the way of trans fats--I'm looking at the same menu--and another kind of muffin seems to have a huge quantity, as much as two grams for a blueberry muffin and almost none for a carrot muffin. How can one explain that? What's the logic behind it? Can someone explain why you would require ten times the amount of trans fats to do one kind of muffin rather than another?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: Ms. Dombrow, I'll go first, and then you are welcome to chime in as you wish.

    In the particular instance you're referring to, Mr. Boudria, we have at McDonald's, for all of the reasons Ms. Dombrow just outlined, worked very diligently over the past number of years to provide our customers with choice as it relates to fat. You're comparing apples and oranges a bit, if you'll pardon the expression, because we offer a light, low-fat muffin and then we offer other muffins.

    Hon. Don Boudria: No, I'm sorry, that's not what I'm referring to. I deliberately picked two muffins that were high in fat content, namely carrot and blueberry. There is another one with no fat. I didn't pick that one because it would have made the example more complicated for you. I deliberately took two that had a high fat content, but one of them has almost ten times the amount of trans fats the other has, and both have high fat content. That's what I can't understand.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: My apologies, sir. I thought you were referring to the low-fat muffin versus the regular.

    As the question relates to the two products you are talking about very specifically, it really comes down to the different elements and ingredients that are found in those two products. I don't have any other, more scientific information—I welcome it, Ms. Dombrow, if you do—about why the amount of trans fat in one muffin would be higher than that in others, except for the ingredient mixture that goes into each one. A bran muffin, obviously, as we know, is very different from a blueberry muffin. Perhaps there is something in the blueberries and/or the bran and all the processes that go into making that individual product that increases the amount of TFA.

    Ms. Carol Dombrow: I'm not sure I can answer why one has more trans fat than the other, apart from the actual ingredients they use, but I think this points to the whole issue of having labelling. As a consumer you would go to the restaurant and wouldn't be able to discriminate one from the other.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: Addressing that exact point, if I may add, Mr. Boudria was referring to the new in-restaurant poster we have placed in front of our counter, so that if you are coming into McDonald's you may do exactly as you've outlined.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Let me ask one last question in case I start running out of time.

    We hear—

    The Chair: You are out of time. You are a minute and a half over.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I'm sorry.

    The Chair: We have to move to Mr. Martin. You will have another chance.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

    My point of view is that it's not okay to put poison in our food just because it's properly labelled. That is the premise I'm starting from, just so you are aware of it. All the evidence and all the scientific research we've seen is that trans fats are toxic. That's not a word I use to be romantic or to exaggerate. They're toxic and they poison people. My view is they should be eliminated.

    I want to focus specifically, because Mr. Ellis is here. I have two press releases from your organization, one from the United States and one from Canada. In September 2002 McDonald's “announced today a significant reduction of trans fatty acids...in all of its 13,000 restaurants....” That's the American one. The Canadian version says a full implementation of the reduction of trans fatty acids will be complete in early 2003. The American one actually says February 2003.

    You have spent a great deal of time and energy promoting this idea, or leading both countries to believe there would be a significant reduction in trans fatty acids by a certain date. Then you failed to achieve that, as you admitted today. But as the court documents in the United States say, you've spent a total of $457.50 to get the word out to the public that you've not changed the oil.

    It's my view that you are poisoning another generation of children by stealth and by misrepresentation here. You let the public believe you were changing the oils. That idea spread around, frankly; it percolated and resonated with people. The general feeling is that it is now healthier to eat at McDonald's than it was. That's the general feeling, but it's not the case.

    Consumer Reports magazine say that McDonald's and Burger King's french fries contain the highest amounts of trans fat per serving of any food ever examined by their organization—that was in November 2003—five grams for your company and 6.5 grams for Burger King. The difference is that Burger King never claimed they were changing their products, but you did. You are claiming you can now eat healthily at McDonald's with all your alternate choices here, but eating responsibly at your restaurant is like going to a strip club for the iced tea. People don't go to a strip club for the iced tea and they don't go to McDonald's for a salad. They go there for the fries and the burgers.

    Cargill Grain has developed your alternate oil. What is stopping you from implementing use of this Cargill-generated oil that would be dramatically trans-fat-reduced, and why this misrepresentation right across the country that your fries are healthier when they clearly aren't?

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. Richard Ellis: I read with interest perhaps more detail on your position, Mr. Martin, in the Winnipeg Sun this morning.

    And with respect, I agree with neither your interpretation of what McDonald's has done nor your example about where one might go for iced tea.

    That said, I want to be very clear--and I don't mean to be light about it--that the things you're suggesting are clearly not accurate. I'll go back to--

    Mr. Pat Martin: Specifically what things are not accurate?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: --where I started, if I may. In my remarks, I said very clearly, and we as a company have said very clearly, that we made a public commitment to do so in 2003, and we missed--

    Mr. Pat Martin: And when you failed to, you took it right off your websites and let it dangle out there that you.... For all the world knows, you've carried through with the commitment you made that by February 2003 you'd be trans-fat-free. No effort was made to--

    Mr. Richard Ellis: No, sir, that's not accurate.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, this is what the court case in the United States is about. A company called BanTransFats.com, Inc. has gotten leave to go to federal court on the basis that you did nothing to correct the misinformation, that you let the public believe you had dramatically reduced the trans fat in your french fries when you have not.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: I am not prepared to discuss the details of a lawsuit from McDonald's U.S. It's a different company from McDonald's Canada. I can talk to you specifically about what we have done and what we will continue to do here in this country. As I said very clearly, we remain fully committed to doing what we originally communicated.

    And you're absolutely right, we--

    Mr. Pat Martin: You failed to reach your deadline.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: --absolutely failed to meet the deadline, the timing requirement, that we original put out.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: Will you commit--

    Mr. Richard Ellis: If I may finish--

    Mr. Pat Martin: --to putting out an information campaign equal to the information campaign--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield): We'll have to move on. I think he got the point here.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: We've been very clear.

    Mr. Pat Martin: But will you commit to spending an equal amount of energy telling people that you did not do anything to change your trans fat levels?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: That's been done, sir.

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's been done?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield): Mr. Wappel.

    Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much for coming.

    I want to thank the industry for what it's doing. I want to thank the industry for moving ahead on providing more and better information for consumers. I think we're all interested in that, and I would be very surprised if anyone would admit that they weren't. I want to honestly and sincerely encourage you to continue to provide that information.

    You may or may not have seen the healthy breakfast I had this morning, with the muffin and everything. I know there were fats in there, I know there were trans fats in there, but I enjoyed it. I've eaten in all of your restaurants many times, and I will continue to do so.

    Mr. Ellis, allow me to begin where Mr. Ménard left off. I think you referred--please correct me if I'm wrong--to exhibits D and F in the same breath that you discussed the subject matter of my bill. Is it your opinion that my bill would have required McDonald's to post this information on its menu boards?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: No.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: Exactly.

    What would my bill have required McDonald's and Cara Operations at Harvey's to post on its menu boards?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: As I understand the bill, Mr. Wappel, it would require us to list the caloric quantities of all of our menu items on the menu board.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: Only the calories, nothing else. Isn't that right?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: That's right, sir.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: All right.

    So why are we getting into menu boards in the same sentence as all kinds of nutritional information that my bill did not require you to put on menu boards? Are you trying to confuse us or are you confused?

    Mr. Richard Ellis: No, I don't think either of us is confused, or at least I hope not. That was certainly not my intention, with all due respect, sir.

    As I said in my opening comments, we have been providing full and complete nutrition information very similar to what you have in front of you on that poster, although that has been updated to include the voluntary dissemination of facts on TFAs since the 1970s.

    As I also said in my opening comments--and this, I think, goes to demonstrate McDonald's commitment to this issue and to working on revitalizing our business to act responsibly on that issue--we consulted with Health Canada on what to do. The former minister and members of her staff asked us to do a number of things, and that poster is a direct reflection of some of those conversations.

    We feel, sir, that providing more information in a readable format is not a bad thing to do. We have always been completely open and honest and exhaustive in terms of the way we have communicated what's in our food.

    Not everybody likes our food, but for those who do--

    Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Ellis, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have very limited time and I'd like to concentrate on menu boards for this round of questioning, nothing but menu boards.

    You've indicated that a hamburger has 250 calories, right in your documentation. Harvey's original hamburger is on its chart, Mr. Barlow, and it says it has 357 calories.

    Now, Mr. Barlow, you and your company have printed this chart notwithstanding that a customer could ask for an original hamburger and, according to you, have tens of thousands of choices depending on what kinds of toppings they put on it. That didn't stop you from printing this document that shows what an original hamburger has in its original form, which is 357 calories.

    My question is, since you're already doing this, since you're already compiling this information, why is it so difficult to put beside the price, 357 calories?

    Mr. David Barlow: Because as I said earlier in the session, we don't think it's practical.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: Why?

    Mr. David Barlow: I was going to go on, sir, and explain it.

    We have a limited amount of space in all of our restaurants, so to put further information on and confuse the guest, who already finds himself in a confused position with the amount of information already put on our menu boards in a limited amount of space, we feel makes it impractical when we have the information available in hard copy and we have the information available on website.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Tom Wappel: But we're not talking about all kinds of information. We're talking about original hamburger--$3.99, 357 calories. You can't possibly sit here and say you don't have enough room on your menu board to put 357 calories beside the price.

    Mr. David Barlow: To put information in a meaningful fashion that would indeed be meaningful to consumers we feel would be a burden and it wouldn't be easily and readily accepted or understood by the consumer. And we find it unnecessary, since we're already providing the information in double form.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield): Mrs. Reynolds wanted to answer that as well.

    Mrs. Joyce Reynolds: I want to say you'll notice on that brochure there's also information on all the different condiments and side orders and options that are also available. To put up only a single hamburger may be misleading when you go into a Harvey's restaurant and you may decide to put mayonnaise, ketchup, mustard, and a myriad of toppings on the hamburger or on the sandwich.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: A customer--and it seems everybody thinks customers are ignorant--would know it would be more calories, not less, if you add things.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rob Merrifield): Your time is gone, Mr. Wappel.

    Mr. Duncan.

    Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Thank you very much.

    I'll change the subject a bit and go back, I think, to some of your testimony, Ms. Brown. You got into the area of tax policy, I believe. And if I heard you correctly, you were talking about how taxation could be used to reward or penalize healthy or unhealthy food choices. You didn't actually spend much time qualifying that.

    I'm aware through my lifetime that there have been many instances where what we have considered to be healthy food choices have suddenly been declared by science and research to be unhealthy, and lo and behold a few years later they have been declared healthy again.

    I don't want anyone to suggest that this is the case in the trans fatty issue--I'm separating it from that--but I consider this to be a very dangerous area for government to get into from the standpoint of.... I don't think that delineating food choice with tax policy is something that's conceivable.That would be very dangerous territory and would inevitably lead to a degree of subjectivity that would be problematical.

    I would ask, have you thought about this very much or was that only a generic statement?

    Ms. Sally Brown: I think we start from the premise that tax policy can create huge incentives and disincentives. It's very true, the reduction in tobacco use as taxes went up on cigarettes was phenomenal. It was maybe the single most important measure for a long time that was put on tobacco. This says to us that taxing should not be ruled out either on the food side or on the healthy living side. It might be easier to apply on the active living side, with respect to looking at reducing the taxes, reducing user fees for bicycles, for bicycle paths, and that sort of thing. It's something that needs to be looked at.

    We responded with an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail, which was on their website two weeks ago, to the article in The Globe and Mail with respect to the Ontario government's decision not to proceed with their taxing of food. We indicated that, yes, it's complex, and it's not something to be done quickly. One has to look at whether it would be regressive, but nonetheless it is something that we feel has not been seriously considered in this country, is being seriously considered in other jurisdictions, and we shouldn't pull it off the table. At the moment, that's what we're saying.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. John Duncan: I have a question for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, and it relates to the whole issue of jurisdiction, because I think we need to think about this. I'm sure you have an opinion. My question is, which level of government has jurisdiction over nutritional labelling or information in the restaurant industry? The suggestion is that the federal government actually has no jurisdiction in that arena. I'm wondering if you have an opinion.

    Mrs. Joyce Reynolds: I can respond to that.

    In terms of food safety, food premises inspections are undertaken by the provinces and in many cases delegated to the municipalities. What we have is a real hodge-podge patchwork of regulations where we have mandatory training standards in one jurisdiction that differ from another's. So you have a situation where a multi-jurisdictional company is required to have different training programs in place in different parts of the country.

    But in terms of the CFIA, one area where they provide regulatory inspections in our industry is the whole accuracy in menu area. If a company were to have a picture on their menu that showed nine pieces of shrimp and they actually only provided five pieces of shrimp, it would be a CFIA inspector who would say they're misrepresenting the information they provide to the public.

    One of the concerns, obviously, about this bill is the whole area of enforcement. If companies aren't able to do it, I don't know how government would be able to enforce the legislation. It would be hard for a great many of the companies covered in this bill that don't have the portion-standardized menu items. How can government protect the industry from lawsuits if, in a full-service restaurant, an employee puts an extra dollop on the meal? We're talking about an industry where the human element is very significant. It's very different from a manufacturing environment. To provide inaccurate information may do more of a disservice to consumers than to provide information at all in some situations.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

    Monsieur Jobin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Thank you to all of the witnesses for coming here.

    Twenty years ago, there would more than likely have been some smokers here in this room. As the representative of the Heart and Stroke Association was saying, fat is today's tobacco. It's important for people to be health conscious and to watch what they eat. It's important for the health of Canada and for the health of Canadians. The Prime Minister addressed the issue quite clearly in his Speech from the Throne. Nutrition can help to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

    Recently, a television report focussed on the growing problem of obesity among young people in the United States and in Canada. I don't want to single out only the fast food industry, but I do think it's part of the problem.

    All Canadians need to be made aware of this problem. Food labelling is one solution, but other steps are needed as well. I believe that through a concerted effort, we can save the lives of young people because their health is at serious risk. Physical activity is one solution, while proper nutrition is another.

    Are today's participants truly willing to improve food's nutritional content so that young people grow up to be healthy adults? Today's youth are suffering from obesity problems and they are probably mortgaging their future health, a situation that will weigh very heavily on Canada's health care system down the road.

[English]

    Mr. Richard Ellis: I'd like to respond, if I may. Thank you for the question. I can only speak on behalf of McDonald's, although I know others in our industry are taking similar moves.

    With respect to your specific question on the seriousness with which we are trying to make a difference in terms of our youngest customers, in January of this year we launched a whole new suite of items with regard to the McDonald's Happy Meal, which is the traditional meal in a bag for our youngest customers, for children. In the past the Happy Meal bag contained either a hamburger or a cheeseburger, a small pop, a small order of french fries, and a toy.

    We've revised that now--again, operating on the understanding that McDonald's is all about providing choice for our customers, even our youngest ones--to include not only the hamburger or cheeseburger options but also a grilled cheese sandwich option. Instead of or in addition to the small order of french fries, we now have what we call apple dippers, which are apple slices that can be used in conjunction with a caramel apple-dipping sauce, if that's what a mom or a dad wants for their child. Instead of just pop we now offer milk, chocolate milk, 100% orange juice, or 100% apple juice. These are the types of changes we're making to give more choices to parents when they come to McDonald's with their youngsters.

    But if I could just add very quickly, the commitment is not just related to food, as you pointed out. You know that at McDonald's we have our icon, the little clown named Ronald McDonald. It sounds quite silly, but this icon is much loved by kids, as we know, so what we've done is to create simple things like our Ronald McDonald school show. It travels to schools where he is invited and/or permitted. The school show is about getting active. So we believe, as I said in the beginning, in balancing menu choice with education and the promotion of physical activity.

    Obviously, as a large marketer in this country, we have tried to use our marketing presence to encourage families to be physically active as well as to provide them with more choice when it relates to food.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. David Barlow: Madam Chair, may I add to this? I think it's a good question, are we serious? I think there are three indicators. One is that, as Mr. Ellis says, we're providing much more choice, and this will continue. A second indicator is that we're all reformulating our products as fast as we can. Is it fast enough? Well, clearly not, but we're aggressively reformulating our products. The third indicator is that we're prepared to make and have continued to make the information available in a variety of forms. So to your question, are we serious, I say absolutely, we're serious, and I think we're indicating that by our behaviour.

    Ms. Jill Holroyd (Vice-President, Research and Communications, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association): On behalf of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, I think the commitment you're hearing from these companies extends to companies right across Canada, as evidenced by the industry leaders who are part of our nutrition and fitness round table studying this very issue.

    We realize, in talking as competitors coming together at the table, that we have a tremendous network through which to reach consumers. Not only do we have a commitment to providing healthier food options to them and making more information available, but we also have a commitment to use that network to educate, inform, and market to them the benefits of a more balanced lifestyle, healthy diet, physical activity.

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru: The consumer and packaged food industry is extremely proactive in this area, and we have four basic pillars we're working on. One is products, that is, product innovation for new and healthier products, including nutrition labelling in terms of education, obviously. We continue to review nutrient profiles for our products for levels of fat, trans fat, and salt, making sure portion sizes are reasonable; we're focusing on that.

    The second pillar is public education; we have all kinds of public education programs. As I mentioned earlier, we're beginning a proactive program in the whole area of obesity in terms of nutrition education and physical fitness.

    Third, there are advertising and marketing practices. Our members focus on advertising and marketing, ensuring they adhere to the voluntary advertising standards of Canada. They promote eating habits that are balanced in all of the communication they make and promote media literacy amongst children so children can evaluate the advertising, understand it, and be critical of it.

    And finally, there are workplace initiatives in terms of what you do with your employees at work. It's not just about communicating; it's also about setting examples. Your employees are ambassadors, and employers offer incentives for enrolment in physical activity programs for employees of the companies and implement programs that encourage their employees to be active in the workplace.

    I have Fred Schaeffer with me, the chief operating officer of Kraft. Perhaps he can speak to some of the specific initiatives Kraft has undertaken.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Fred Schaeffer (Chief Operating Officer, Kraft Canada, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): Thank you.

    Yes, Kraft also believes in making sure we do the right thing for our consumers, including our youngest consumers. We attack it from several angles. As Nancy said, there's a product issue we try to go after to ensure we offer the best range of products possible to our consumers--all consumers.

    Second is advertising practices and how we market our products.

    The third important area is programs. We recently completed a program with YTV that encourages kids to get up and try new things, whether it be exercise or new, healthier types of foods. We try to approach them in an environment they're familiar with, like YTV.

    Finally, we also try to attack it from a parent's standpoint. Within our website we give all kinds of tips to parents on not only the types of foods that are appropriate for kids but also how to prepare the right kinds of foods, how to get your kids to eat more fruits and vegetables, and fun kinds of tips that would encourage kids to consume more foods of the nutritional profile we think would be appropriate for them.

    We think there's a holistic approach you can take to marketing not only to kids but to the parents of those kids, and it's from that holistic approach that you get the best results.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Jobin.

    I thought, with the committee's agreement, we might go now to the two people who sponsored these two bills, Mr. Martin and Mr. Wappel. I think Mr. Boudria had a short question he wanted to ask as well.

    We'll start with Mr. Martin on the opposite side.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Maybe Mr. Boudria would appreciate it if I started where he left off as the grandfather who actually raised this issue in the House of Commons earlier this week. He asked, even if this government was only willing to label, why were baby foods exempt from the labelling? That was a concern, and I think he got some satisfaction on that.

    I'll start with children. What's really shocking to a lot of us is that we have doctors saying they have 10- and 12-year-old children coming to them with high cholesterol, their arteries clogged from trans fats or in part through trans fats. There's no safe level of trans fats, and to simplify things and cut to the chase, I'll say the big debate here is whether labelling is the way to go or whether eliminating them is the way to go.

    We have four or five minutes, and it will probably take that up if I get the views from each of the organizations. Given what Denmark has done, given that the EU has now signalled they intend to follow Denmark's example, and given that New Zealand has just called for our private member's bill to eliminate it in that country, would it not create a level playing field from a business point of view to just get the stuff out of the food supply system? From the advocacy and health point of view, could we just go around the table?

    The Chair: We can have the advocacy people respond to what they've heard.

    Mr. Ellis.

    Mr. Richard Ellis: Thank you.

    In response, Mr. Martin, to your thoughts and to your question, I'll say the combination of the two things, meaning the dissemination or the transparency of information about what is in our food as it relates to everything under the Food and Drugs Act...but in particular with respect to your question on TFAs, that coupled with...and I think we've heard from industry today that an ongoing commitment to reduce and/or eliminate TFAs from our products is the best way to go. That's a simple and short answer, but I think it's to the point: it's a combination of both things.

    The Chair: Mr. Barlow.

    Mr. David Barlow: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I don't disagree with Mr. Ellis. We've discussed it internally. We have a fairly complex organization with many brands, and obviously many products, but I think the organization has stated, internally thus far, that we're committed to the removal of TFAs.

    Obviously, it's proving more difficult than we had originally thought, as is evidenced from other people in the industry. It doesn't lessen our commitment. We will take big steps now. We might have to take smaller steps later, but we're certainly committed to go in that direction, and we're certainly committed to keep whatever information we have public.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: Can you see the possibility of an unfair competitive advantage if you took those steps and cleaned up your products with trans fats but other producers were still allowed to use them and gained a market share advantage cost-wise?

    Mr. David Barlow: I hadn't actually considered that, although I think there needs to be equity in all of these things. We can only guide ourselves by our own purview and our own values. The values of our organization, and clearly of the McDonald's organization, are stated. They're clear and they're out there. On behalf of that, I can certainly speak for our organization. Certainly, in all of these things, there's a need for equity across the industry and across all channels.

    The Chair: Mr. Schaeffer.

    Mr. Fred Schaeffer: Thank you.

    If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of the packaged foods industry, I might say that we're probably in violent agreement on the overwhelming evidence on trans fat. We all agree on less trans fat and that eliminating trans fat is the right thing to do.

    In discussions with my peers, and also as the head of a Canadian manufacturing company, I can tell you it is a mad rush to eliminate trans fats as quickly as possible. If you were a fly on the wall at many of the meetings I have with our folks...we are literally working day and night to try to eliminate trans fat as quickly as possible. We're spending a significant amount of money, in the magnitude of millions and millions of dollars, to do it as quickly as possible.

    I think the consumer has spoken on the issue. Our job is to satisfy the needs of the consumer. I believe, frankly, if we don't take aggressive action to get trans fats out of our products, we will be disadvantaged in the marketplace. I can only speak on behalf of my company in that regard. Our effort is to get trans fats out as quickly as possible.

    That being said, it is a complicated issue. I believe we have some of the best food scientists, certainly in North America, working on the issue. Some things are easier, some things are not. We're finding it particularly challenging for ingredients that require the stabilization and texture that hydrogenated oils or trans fatty acids provide. Those types of things are taking us longer than some of the other types of initiatives, but we're committed to work on all of those initiatives. We have people working on it, as I said, to get things done as quickly as is humanly possible.

    The Chair: Ms. Croitoru.

    Ms. Nancy Croitoru: To add to what Fred said, from an industry perspective, the industry completely supports it as well. We support Health Canada's initiatives and their direction on this.

    I think it's important to take into consideration Health Canada's considerations in terms of finding the best solution. That is really what we need to think about, because we don't want to introduce yet another problem with the elimination of trans fat. As an industry, we are working closely with Health Canada, supporting the reduction, and ultimately the elimination, of trans fats, but we need to be sure it's done in a systematic, scientific, and careful manner.

    The Chair: Ms. Holroyd.

    Ms. Jill Holroyd: Thank you. I don't know what's left to say, other than to reiterate that the entire restaurant industry is committed to the elimination or reduction of trans fats in their products and are working hand in hand with their suppliers, like the Krafts of the world, to do that as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Martin talked about advantages or disadvantages in the marketplace. I think with consumer pressure coming to bear on this issue being stronger every day, the companies that don't remove are going to be at the disadvantage. There's not really a price issue as such; it's a consumer issue and consumer acceptance issue.

    The challenges for the industry are really different, depending on your operation. You have two large chain restaurant national operations that are in close negotiation with their suppliers on the issue. You have other restaurants that are small operations that have trans fat in their products, but until the full labelling regime is in place for packaged goods, they would have trouble even disclosing that to their customers, because the full labelling regime isn't in place from the supply side.

    So if that comes on board, more information will be available to consumers, hand in hand with the education approach that Health Canada is taking. As an industry, we believe that's the best approach, a combination of information and education to deal with the issue.

    I think it has been touched on, but my colleague is reminding me that the challenge is finding workable alternatives to whatever ingredient is causing the trans fat, be it the blueberries, or whatever, in the muffins. So we continue to work on all fronts in that regard.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Mr. Jeffery.

    Mr. Bill Jeffery: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Certainly removing trans fat from the food supply and labelling are two very important things, and they can work together.

    I should say, just by parenthetical comment, that there are a number of other strategies that have to be taken in order to make some kind of significant dent in the food supply, and there was some discussion earlier and in previous committee meetings about food tax policy. A lot of food is taxed now, but there's not a clear, coherent principle on it.

    But with regard to the specific question, I should say I'm surprised at the characterization of food industry efforts to remove trans fat from the food supply as being a mad dash or a mad rush. This report, “Action Towards Healthy Eating”, is a Health and Welfare Canada report from 1990, and recommendation F4 to the food industry is “Moderate the incorporation of trans-fatty acids into food products.” As far as I know, since then, trans fatty acids have actually increased quite significantly in the food supply, to the point where it has created a significant public health problem.

    I want to get back to nutrition labelling, because it seems to me there is a fair amount of support in this committee for removing trans fatty acids from the food supply, and there have been some questions about labelling. One of the functions of Mr. Wappel's bill would be to ensure that there's comprehensive labelling so that if trans fatty acids are removed from a food, consumers will know whether saturated fats have replaced them. That's a very critical function of it, and with respect to Mr. Wappel's bill as well, it addresses a number of other nutrients and ingredients that have very important public health effects that are recognized not just by Health Canada, of course, but by the World Health Organization, in a seminal expert scientific report that was released last year.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jeffery.

    Ms. Brown.

    Ms. Sally Brown: Thank you.

    I think with respect to trans fats in particular, labelling will not be enough. Too many people don't read labels. There is a need to actually eliminate the trans fats in food. Whether there's a need for legislation, there may indeed be, if with some products where the trans fat level is reduced significantly, which looks like good news, the level of trans fats remains still well above a minimal level, since we know that none is the best. So I think we do need to look at a level that is considered acceptable, that's as close to zero as we can get. But in addition, I agree with Jeff, there cannot be substitution.

    I guess where I would disagree with the food industry is that if removing trans fats quickly from some products means it makes the product unviable, then so be it. I think keeping a product around that is unhealthy, solely for the reason that you can't find an alternative to stabilize it.... Consumers have huge amounts of choice in almost every food product or food category. And I find it a bit worrisome that there would be a response that it's going to take us a long time with some products.

    I think leadership needs to be shown by the large food manufacturers that indeed this is such a critical issue with respect to trans fats that some products maybe shouldn't be on the market.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Boudria, a short one, and then on to Mr. Wappel.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I'm one who thinks that the fast food industry renders in a way a very useful service. Children, even adults but particularly children, go to those restaurants and it's a social event, an entertainment; it's fun. It would be a lot better if I didn't get a heart attack reading the menu. When I read here six grams of trans fats for Chicken McNuggets and fries, and I hear that the trans fats are being reduced, what was it like before it was reduced if it's at six now? Given that ten grams increases your heart attack rate by 40%, what was it like before?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Richard Ellis: I don't have the answer to that specific question about what it was like before, nor can I sit in front of you and guarantee that the Chicken McNugget product itself has been reduced through the new oil we've been using in parfrying that I talked about earlier. I just don't want to make a statement, Mr. Boudria, as I'm sure you can understand, that I can't be 100% confident in, because I realize this is important. I can go back, though, and reiterate, as I've said, and to agree with virtually everybody around this table that our commitment remains to continue the reduction and to move toward elimination.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Okay. But there was a period when the North American car industry made cars that lasted six years and they couldn't do it any better. Then people got fed up and they voted with their feet and went and bought an alternative product. Magically, the life expectancy is now doubled for the same companies that couldn't do it.

    You have a good thing going. I hope you don't wait for the same kind of thing to happen to your industry before you take really drastic measures in regard to this issue.

    That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

    The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Ellis, I have a comment for McDonald's. Then I'd like to go to Mr. Schaeffer, if I could.

    This is an observation in terms of why I'm in favour of mandatory nutritional labelling as opposed to voluntary labelling. If we take a look at your exhibit F, I notice that for french fries, you describe small, medium, and large french fries. Excellent. I have no complaints. However, when you go to triple-thick milkshakes, you have triple-thick vanilla milkshake, but there's only one size and it doesn't say small, medium, and large. It says the grams.

    I now know, having looked at something else, that this is in fact a small milkshake. Even though you break the french fries down to small, medium, and large, you don't break the milkshakes down to small, medium, and large.

    If I'm an avid searcher of information, I can go to your website and find out that a large triple-thick vanilla milkshake contains 1,108 calories. So one milkshake is more than half of the recommended daily calories for an adult in Canada. Yet that information is shown nowhere in “Food Facts”.

    Unless you happen to have--and maybe we will in the future, because it's coming--wireless web, where we can sit there just before we order and punch in all of the information to find out, oh, my goodness--yes, I like the triple milkshake, but I'd better get the small because my heart is not going to be able to take a triple milkshake a day when it's more than half the calories recommended for an adult for one day.

    That's a comment.

    To Mr. Schaeffer, have you had an opportunity at all to examine my own bill, Bill C-398?

    Could I draw your attention to and ask for your comments on proposed subsection 5.3(1)? This would refer directly to your industry. It would say that:

No person shall sell a prepackaged food, other than a food sold for immediate consumption, comprising more than one ingredient unless the list of ingredients on the label indicates the percentage by weight of

(a) the three most prevalent ingredients;

    Let me take jam. I used this example last week, three-fruit jam. You make three-fruit jam, I'm sure. If you don't, E.D. Smith or somebody you know does. What are your comments about this particular section asking that the label show the three most prevalent ingredients? Let's use a three-fruit jam as an example.

    It also asks a couple of other things.

    Could I have your general comments on that?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Fred Schaeffer: Sure. I guess I'll start by saying that everyone appreciates the intent. It's when you get into the execution of legislation or regulation that it sometimes becomes impractical, or it impacts on the industry.

    In principle, if you're asking for my opinion, I have four issues with this proposed legislation. One is simply the amount of information that is required on packaging. I'll put this under “need to know” versus “nice to know” information. If you take it to the extreme and ask consumers if they would like more information about their products, I think they'd consistently say yes. It's a bit of a motherhood and apple pie issue--what's not to like about more information?

    Taken to the extreme, however, you can imagine how much information could potentially be on a package. If you want to know everything from the type of seed that was originally planted into the ground, to all of the people who handled it throughout the chain, to the final product that comes through, it becomes practically impossible to communicate all of the information that could potentially be requested by a consumer.

    So it comes down to a matter of prioritization. What things are most critical for consumers to know? I think Kraft, as an industry, has fully supported mandatory nutritional labelling that provides what I think standards would say is the absolutely most important information.

    The second challenge I have, when it comes to the execution of the intent of the legislation, is the impact it could have on the proprietary nature of our products. When you hear about having to divulge what your products are to your competitors, that causes some concerns. The quid pro quo we've heard back is, “Can't you reverse-engineer those types of products anyway?” It becomes a matter of time. Investment needs to be made in research and development when we create products. In order to continue to invest capital in any business, you need a return on that capital. That return comes by having at some time a proprietary formula that is yours to keep and take to the marketplace. With this legislation, our concern is that that may work against us there.

    The third area I'd like to talk to you about as a business manager is simply diversion of focus. In any organization there are lots of things you try to focus on. Clearly, health, wellness, and food safety are our utmost focus. As we begin to get more legislation that talks about “nice to do” versus “must do” types of things, the more time we spend working on the “nice to do”, the less time we have to focus on the “must do”, which I characterize as food safety and health.

    Finally are cost and timing. From a cost standpoint, we tend to believe that if you do what's right for the consumer, the dollars will pay for it. Frankly, that's why it's at the end of the list. From a timing perspective--you talked about the practical implementation of this potential regulation--it could come in early 2006, if you think it could pass by the end of this year, when we'll have just completed mandatory nutritional labeling. One year after that we'll have to go back and completely redo all of our labels. It seems impractical to implement such a measure under the timing that's proposed.

    So while the intent is honourable, it once again comes to the question of implementation and how that may be implemented on our organization.

    Mr. Tom Wappel: I did propose two years, but the committee could propose ten years--there would go that objection.

    I'm just wondering, Madam Chair, since it's a round table, if Mr. Jeffery or Ms. Brown have any comments on the comments Mr. Schaeffer made.

    Mr. Bill Jeffery: I certainly do.

    It was an interesting characterization to distinguish between information that you would consider “nice to know” as opposed to “need to know”. I guess we would characterize quantitative ingredient declarations as a “need to know”, because from time immemorial some manufacturers--and I'm not saying yours--have increased their profits by adding filler ingredients in place of the valuable ingredients or, in this case, the healthful ingredients that consumers could reasonably be expected to want to know more about. We all know there are nutritional benefits to consuming more fruits and vegetables in terms of reducing risk of heart and cardiovascular disease and cancer and so on.

    I have a second point about the proprietary nature of the information. I should point out that there are at least 18 countries around the world that currently have percentage ingredient declaration standards: they include the entire European Union, Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand.

    It may interest you to know that this was a subject matter that was being discussed in the Codex food labelling committee meeting this week, as it has been for the past few years. Our delegation has become increasingly frustrated with this type of argument being raised, because it was always raised either by countries that don't currently have percentage ingredient declaration laws on the books, and therefore have no experience with it, or it was raised by particularly large, multinational companies that also have representative status on this body, that actually sell in the countries where the information is required. They already have to disclose it, yet they're saying it's infringing their intellectual property rights.

    I should say that this year, as part of our written submissions, we asked that the committee solicit an opinion from an intellectual property institute of the World Health Organization so that we can actually make decisions on the basis of a considered legal opinion rather than assertion of a legal right by those with a vested interest in it. I noted that delegations, for the most part, stopped making that argument.

    Finally, with regard to cost, this is a question that seems to be raised repeatedly with this, although I've never actually heard a particular cost estimate. So far as we can tell--Mr. Wappel and I have discussed this at length--it's information that's already in the possession of the manufacturer, so there's no analytical cost involved in it. For the most part, it's a matter of putting three or possibly four one-digit or two-digit numbers and a percentage sign on the label beside the name of the ingredient in the ingredient list. So there's certainly not a space requirement. There's a two-year implementation period, so there's an opportunity to do it the next time you modify your labels for marketing purposes. Quite frankly, I would appreciate it if you could give us a specific dollar value, if you have one, about what the cost is.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Ms. Brown.

    Ms. Sally Brown: Thank you.

    I guess I'd agree with Mr. Jeffery on the point with respect to the characterization of a “nice to have” and a “need to have”. I would have put it in the “need to have” category.

    With respect to the issue around the particular question you asked about the three-fruit jam, as a consumer I've always wondered why we don't know what percentage the top three ingredients have. I consider myself to be a fairly average consumer, so when I look at the ingredients, the first thing that pops into my mind is that it's nice to have them labelled, but if you can't tell the percentage they represent, it doesn't tell you as much as you probably need to know.

    I do agree, though, with the concern about how often food companies can be asked to change their labelling. It is very expensive. We know, even with the Health Check program this year, with the changes coming to labelling, to actually get into agreement and to then add a Health Check label requiring labels to be done all over again is a legitimate concern. I do see that.

    I guess those would be my comments.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the witnesses, not only for their work in the field they're working so hard in, but also as representatives, in one sense, of all the witnesses we've had over the past year who represent Canadians--consumers, business people, health experts. This is a very active committee, and I think these meetings, where Canadians come forward to give their expert opinion, is an example of democracy that most Canadians don't get to see. So thank you for being here as representatives of all the others as well.

    We don't know if this will be our last meeting, but all hints seem to be in that direction, so I'd like to thank my committee members for their diligent work since January.

    I would like to thank the people who are in the audience, many of whom actually work for the Department of Health or perhaps for one of the companies represented here today, and some who may be students who are here to observe and learn. You make our work meaningful to us as we come to our decisions.

    I would like to thank our clerk, Madam DePape, and our researchers, Sonya and Nancy, who have worked like Trojans for us. To our interpreters, thank you very much for your diligence and work, and to our console operators and our messengers, you make our work easy for us and we thank you very much.

    With that, I now declare this meeting adjourned.