:
I'll just summarize some of my thoughts here, and then I'll leave it for the rest of this bill.
It's nothing against the author of the bill. I have great respect for the author of the bill; and for those who are going to vote for it, that's their business. However, if you look at what this bill is doing and what it will do, it is going to create probably the largest loophole in the 10 years I've been in Parliament to allow things to be in or things to be out, and members of Parliament will have no idea why one product or one company is allowed to advertise and another company is not allowed to advertise. If they have a full government relations team, if they have a full team of lobbyists, maybe they will, or maybe they won't. The sponsorship side has been taken out just since this bill was introduced. Now it's just left to advertising. When we talk to advertisers, they say that digital advertisers aren't even interested in doing this, but Health Canada is working with them.
It's probably quite obvious that the government will vote for this bill, and that's their business, but I just think when we do this and we leave it up to regulation, as we did and we had a good discussion at the last meeting that this will be done by regulation, we don't have a definition of “unhealthy food”. We never did get that. There are many things that have not been completed. The officials who were here at our last meeting could not give us an idea about what “unhealthy” or “healthy” would be, that it would be dealt with after the passing of the bill, and so on.
We're abdicating our role as parliamentarians when we allow such a massive loophole to be created that will be completely passed without any oversight at all, from the purview of members of Parliament. In addition to that, you could also argue, what's the point of a member of Parliament? We're sitting here basically voting for the biggest loophole ever, that just says, “Hey, bureaucrats”—and nothing against public servants—“public servants, you go ahead and do the whole thing.”
My only opinion on that is that there are so many dollars at stake, and we just asked the simple question about how much this will cost to implement, but we don't have an answer, primarily because we have no idea what we're trying to implement. That would be a starting point. Nonetheless, be that as it may, we know the votes and we know the way it is.
Again, I'm all for a healthy lifestyle, exercise, a balanced diet, and so on. I have kids of my own. I get that. I understand the idea of this bill, but from a practical standpoint, as it may or may not be passed today, it accomplishes very few of those goals. Nothing against Timbits, but the mere fact that kids will still have hockey jerseys on them saying “Timbits hockey” really misses the point of what maybe the bill was trying to accomplish.
Anyhow, I may be all right, or I may be all wrong, but I've had my say. That's what my job is.
:
Thank you very much, Chair, for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the issues surrounding highly sweetened, high-alcoholic beverages sold in large-format, single-serve containers.
Health Canada is concerned about the health risk posed by these types of alcoholic beverages. These products have been specifically designed to appeal to young people and can contain up to four standard alcoholic drinks in a single-serve container. This can promote over-consumption with serious risks to health and safety.
Taking action on this issue is a priority for the department. On March 19, Health Canada issued a notice of intent outlining a regulatory proposal to amend the Food and Drugs Act and regulations to restrict the amount of alcohol in these types of products. We intend to limit the number of standard alcoholic drinks contained in alcoholic beverages that are highly sweetened, high in alcohol, and sold in large-volume single-serve containers, by consulting on two specific issues.
First, we are seeking input on the mechanism to restrict the amount of alcohol. This could be achieved by limiting the maximum size of the container or by limiting the percentage of alcohol in a single-serve container.
Second, we are seeking views on the sweetness threshold that would trigger those restrictions. This proposal is not intended to capture liqueurs, dessert wines, and other sweet alcoholic beverages that are sold in resealable containers.
This consultation is open until May 8.
We have been actively engaging with our provincial and territorial governments. This is important, given that the oversight of alcohol is shared by federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
We are also seeking stakeholder views on other measures around advertising, marketing, and labelling that could be taken to reduce the risk related to these products.
In fact, just this morning Health Canada convened a meeting with the provinces and territories on this issue and discussed the scope of the problem within their jurisdictions. We are also monitoring actions proposed by the Quebec government and will also be convening a meeting with governments, health stakeholders, and industry at the end of this month.
Input from public consultations and experts will be carefully considered as we develop our regulatory approach. We are aiming to introduce new regulations in the fall of 2018.
To effectively manage the risk associated with these types of products, it is important to understand that the oversight of alcohol is shared by federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
At the federal level, the food and drug regulations contain standards for different categories of alcohol, such as beer, wine, and spirits. The Food and Drugs Act also contains general prohibitions against deceptive marketing of foods, including alcoholic beverages.
Provinces and territories control how alcoholic beverages are accessed and sold and can also set out additional requirements around labelling and advertising.
Alcohol beverage marketing is largely self-regulated and is primarily governed by the code for broadcast advertising of alcoholic beverages set by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. The code imposes content restrictions on alcohol broadcasting advertising, including restrictions on advertising to youth and on the promotion of alcohol consumption. Compliance with the CRTC advertising rules is under the purview of Advertising Standards Canada. However, the CRTC code is voluntary and does not have the force of law.
Given the committee's interest in the issue of caffeine and alcohol, I would also like to take a moment to clarify a few details regarding caffeine in these types of beverages.
First of all, the product that was linked to the tragic incident in Quebec was reported in the media as an alcoholic, caffeinated energy drink. This is incorrect.
Second, under the food and drug regulations, Health Canada does not permit the addition of caffeine to alcoholic beverages other than caffeine that is naturally present in flavouring ingredients such as coffee, chocolate, and guarana. The amount of caffeine that these flavouring ingredients contribute to an alcoholic beverage is very low.
For example, a serving of coffee contains up to 180 mg of caffeine in an eight-ounce cup. When CFIA tested samples of the Quebec product, the amount of caffeine was found to be very low, less than 5 mg per can.
Third, caffeinated energy drinks can only be sold under certain conditions. For example, they cannot contain any alcohol and they must carry precautionary warnings. These warnings include a statement on the label that identifies the product as a high source of caffeine, a warning not to mix with alcohol, and a statement that the product is not recommended for children or for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.
In conclusion, Health Canada is very concerned about the amount of alcohol found in these highly sweetened beverages sold in single-serve containers and aggressively marketed in a way that appeals to young people and promotes over-consumption.
The public health risks associated with these products can only be effectively mitigated through a combination of measures by federal, provincial, and territorial governments. We are taking action, and together we can reduce the risks to the health and safety of Canadians.
The department is also looking forward to the outcomes of this committee's study.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for allowing me to appear by video conference. I am very grateful to you, especially in these moments when time is extremely precious.
I will start by introducing Éduc'alcool briefly.
Éduc'alcool is a non-profit organization that has been working for 27 years to improve the relationship with alcohol of Quebeckers who choose to drink. You probably know our motto: "Moderation tastes better." The latter has become a saying in Quebec, and we are working hard to make it a way of life.
We also step in to influence the settings where alcohol is consumed. That's what it's all about today.
First of all, let me say that it is extremely regrettable that it took the death of a young girl for us to meet today to discuss this subject. Yet it was a death foretold. Since last July, warnings have been issued here and there, including by Éduc'alcool, to indicate that sugary, alcoholic beverages were dangerous. They are dangerous in their very essence, as we will see later. Now, we must look forward and hope that the death of Athéna Gervais will not have been in vain.
I want to point out that sugary, alcoholic beverages are not just alcohol and are not harmless drinks. In fact, they are dangerous drinks. Their level of danger isn't related to the percentage of alcohol or the amount of sugar, guarana, stimulant or anything chemical. I urge you not to get caught up in a discussion about the percentage or quantity of one product or another. The danger of sugary, alcoholic beverages comes from their very DNA, from conception to marketing, from packaging to promotion, from their price to point of sale. In these products, everything, absolutely everything, from A to Z, and even more, is fundamentally dangerous. The consequences are there. In 11 months, 2,300 young people aged 12 to 24 were received in Quebec's emergency departments for acute alcohol poisoning. A fifth of them were under 18 years old.
I will be very clear with you: you must not content yourselves with half measures. If the decisions taken in Ottawa or Quebec—I am talking about Quebec because I don't know the situation in the other provinces—are unclear, if they are not radical and clear, they will be skirted around by manufacturers. If you like, during the question period, I can list the many ways manufacturers of these products will managed to get around all the acts and the regulations that aren't crystal clear. If the rules are like jell-O, they will be bypassed.
We must also be consistent. Health Canada can't, on the one hand, state on its website that these beverages are dangerous and, on the other, allow them. Either they're dangerous or they're not. In this case, the products are dangerous.
You'll tell me that in the history of humanity, there have always been mixtures of alcohol and sweet or stimulating products. Irish coffee is alcohol and caffeine. Brazilian coffee is the same thing. Rum and Coke is a mix of rum, an alcohol, and Coca-Cola, a sweet and stimulating drink. As for mimosas, they are made of Champagne and orange juice. There have always been mixtures of alcohol and sugary or stimulating drinks, and there has never been a need for warnings about them. Why? Because they aren't deceptive drinks.
However, the sugary, alcoholic beverages we are talking about are dangerous because they mask the taste and effect of alcohol. People drink them without knowing that they are consuming alcohol. Stimulants mean that they don't receive messages that the body sends when they have had too much alcohol to drink.
Beer isn't a deceptive drink. Beer tastes like beer. The same goes for wine, Scotch and cider, but this isn't the case for sugary, alcoholic drinks. They are a public danger and must therefore be banned, period.
Of course, you're going to tell me that banning them won't prevent people from making mixes, and that's true, but when people make their own mixes, they know what they're putting in their glass. There isn't masking going on.
Our first recommendation is to ban the production and sale of sugary, alcoholic drinks containing stimulants, regardless of the level of alcohol, sugar or stimulants. These mixes shouldn't be on the market, period.
If, despite everything, you decide to authorize them, at the very least, make sure that you limit the ways in which consumers are misled, especially young people. Whether consumers of these products are young or not, lovers of one taste or another, it remains that these products are misleading, and it must be ensured that the people who consume them do not need to hold a diploma in nutrition or be licensed chemists to know what they are consuming.
Our second recommendation is that any premixed products be sold and marketed only in containers—reclosable or not, it doesn't matter—containing 13.5 grams of alcohol. So we're talking about a content equivalent to a standard glass. If anyone wants to drink more, they can buy two, three or four. There shouldn't be a single can containing the equivalent of four glasses of alcohol, as is the case now. The equivalent of a standard glass of alcohol per container is what we recommend.
Lastly, the target must be adults. The federal government has jurisdiction over packaging and labelling. However, premixed sugary, alcoholic drinks are marketed in packaging with labelling and lettering that clearly targets the very young. You need only look at one of these cans to realize that the product isn't intended for seniors. The number of young people who get this product, consume it and become addicted is huge. This problem isn't arising in the homes of the elderly, I assure you. Lettering, packaging and colours need to target adults. It's fundamental. This doesn't mean that the packaging has to be ugly, repulsive or hideous, even if it might be relevant, given what it contains. At the very least, it must be ensured that these products can't target young consumers in any way.
Our third recommendation is that the packaging, labelling and lettering for these products be clearly designed to target adult consumers and that it not be possible to market them before authorization is granted and assurance is given that only adults will be targeted.
That said, the federal government isn't the only party involved. The Quebec government also has its part to play. Some time ago, it took a step in the right direction—although it was quite insufficient, I'll tell you right off the bat—by establishing advertising and promotion controls and prohibiting the sale of products containing more than 7% alcohol anywhere but at Société des alcools du Québec stores. Unfortunately, it flatly refused to introduce a minimum price for these drinks. The minimum price was established by scientists: $1.70 per standard glass, regardless of the nature of the product. It is an effective measure to protect the young and the most vulnerable.
I will end there by inviting you to take action, and quickly, without dithering, without making too many nuances. Otherwise, there may be other cases like Athéna Gervais's, and if there is another, this time, no one can say that they didn't know.
Thank you very much.
My name is Catherine Paradis, and I am a Senior Research and Policy Analyst at the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or CCSA for short.
The CCSA was created by an act of Parliament to provide national leadership to address substance use in Canada. A trusted counsel, we provide national guidance to decision-makers all over the country by harnessing the power of research, curating knowledge, and bringing together diverse perspectives.
One of my roles at the CCSA is chairing the Postsecondary Education Partnership–Alcohol Harms, or PEP-AH, which brings together more than a third of Canada's post-secondary institutions. In this capacity, I have been working since 2014 to gain a better understanding of the student drinking culture on campuses across the country.
Unfortunately, I appear before you today in the wake of a heartbreaking tragedy, the death of Athéna Gervais, who was found lifeless in a stream behind her high school after drinking at least one can of the beverage FCKDUP during the lunch hour.
While the situation in Quebec has highlighted the link between the consumption of highly sweetened alcoholic beverages—so-called alcopop—and the health of young people, numerous American studies have shown that the availability of these products was also associated with various legal problems, including assault, mischief, uncivil conduct, drinking and driving, and underage drinking.
I am here this afternoon representing the CCSA and PEP-AH for two reasons. First, I want to share with you our recommendation for restricting access to alcopop. Second, I'd like to propose three points that should be addressed in order to better control the sale of alcohol in Canada, more generally.
Before arriving at a recommendation, the CCSA carried out research and asked several questions. The first question that came to mind was this. Why are highly sweetened alcoholic drinks, which are so clearly harmful and dangerous, so popular with young people?
Australian researchers had already asked themselves that very question. They demonstrated that the main reasons young people consume this type of product are sugary taste, of course, but also and above all, price.
In fact, economic availability is one of the main determinants of alcohol consumption and its associated problems. Studies have shown that the higher the price of alcohol, the lower the incidence of alcohol consumption and its associated issues. Inversely, the lower the price of alcohol, the higher the consumption of alcohol and its associated issues.
At the time of Athéna Gervais' death, the price of sugary alcoholic drinks in Quebec was as low as 74¢ per standard serving, which is far below the recommended reference price of $1.71.
In Canada, it is generally accepted that the economic availability, as well as the physical availability—that is, the number of points of purchase and their days and hours of operation—of alcoholic drinks are the responsibility of the provincial and territorial governments.
However, via its excise tax, the federal government has the power to ensure that alcohol is not sold at reduced prices. Until now, sweet and alcoholic beverages, which are produced through the fermentation of malt, have been taxed as though they were beer—the alcoholic beverage with the lowest tax. If sweetened alcoholic beverages were produced from spirits, their sale price would be higher. It is worth remembering that, under the Food and Drugs Act, alcohol products are subject to the specific requirements of their manufacturing methods. This means that Health Canada could impose manufacturing methods on producers of highly sweetened alcoholic beverages.
That brings me to our recommendation.
The CCSA recommends that Health Canada require the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages having a sweetness threshold of more than 5% to manufacture their products from ethyl alcohol rather than alcohol obtained from the fermentation of malt. I realize this recommendation might come as a surprise, but it would maximize public health and safety benefits, while not disadvantaging the alcohol sector as a whole.
Allow me to explain.
First off, were highly sweetened alcoholic beverages to be manufactured from ethyl alcohol, they would automatically be subject to the excise tax imposed on spirits, rather than that imposed on beer. For example, a can of FCKDUP made from ethyl alcohol would be subject to a tax of 82¢ per can, rather than the current malt alcohol tax of 18¢. In other words, these products' economic availability would be reduced.
Second, were highly sweetened alcoholic beverages to be manufactured from ethyl alcohol, they could not be sold at convenience stores, grocery stores, or Beer Store locations. They would be available only at publicly owned outlets such as the LCBO in Ontario and the SAQ in Quebec. As a result, their physical availability would be significantly restricted.
Finally, by adopting the sweetness threshold as the determining criterion for the type of alcohol to use in the production of highly sweetened alcoholic beverages, Health Canada would guarantee that the new Food and Drugs Regulations would apply exclusively to highly sweetened alcoholic beverages and would not impact other product categories, including strong beer.
The idea of placing highly sweetened alcoholic beverages in a higher taxation category has been explored and, in some cases, implemented in other regions of the world, notably Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, as well as a number of U.S. states.
In countries where data is available, results suggest that, following the reclassification of highly sweetened alcoholic beverages as spirits, the consumption of these products was significantly reduced. Once the new tax was adopted in Australia, it led to a 28% drop in the sales of these products. In the United Kingdom, after highly sweetened alcoholic beverages were classified as distilled spirits, the price of these products increased dramatically and sales dropped 43% over four years.
With that recommendation put forward, the CCSA would like to take the opportunity presented by this consultation to issue a reminder that alcohol is no ordinary commodity.
In a few weeks, the CCSA and the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research will release a report on Canadian substance use costs and harms. The report will reveal that alcohol-related costs are now higher than the costs associated with all other substances, including cannabis, opioids, and even tobacco.
This illustrates that alcohol should be made available in a responsible and ethical manner in order to reduce alcohol consumption and its associated problems.
To accomplish this, the CCSA proposes that three distinct areas be addressed by the government: the advertising of alcoholic beverages, the labelling of alcoholic beverages, and the National Alcohol Strategy.
The advertising of alcoholic beverages through traditional media influences the consumption of alcohol, particularly among young people. Over the past few years, the industry has turned to social media, where content is user-generated and therefore more effective because it gives the impression that it was produced by a real person, such as a peer, another young person, or a friend.
Currently in Canada, the only code governing the advertising of alcoholic beverages is the CRTC code—the Code for Broadcast Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages—which is outdated and somewhat obsolete, having last been updated in 1996. That means the code is older than the young people consuming the very products we are talking about.
In addition, advertising on web platforms slightly violates CRTC rules. A recent study we conducted with fellow researchers at the University of Victoria found that, on the Facebook and Instagram pages of the most popular student bars, an average of seven of the 17 CRTC rules were violated.
This shows the urgent need to review Canada's regulations respecting the promotion and advertising of alcohol, as well as their enforcement.
Now I will turn to labelling.
There is a broad consensus that nutrition information should be provided on a wider range of food products, including alcoholic beverages. For the sake of their health and safety, people should know how many drinks they are consuming. Were Canada to proceed with labelling of alcoholic beverages, standard drink labels could help consumers overcome the challenge of accurately monitoring their consumption in terms of standard drinks. Such labelling would contribute to a culture of moderation, because the labels would supplement other interventions of proven effectiveness that require the monitoring of personal alcohol intake.
In order to help consumers estimate their alcohol intake and be aware of the nutrient value, including the number of calories, of the alcoholic beverages they consume, there is an urgent need to review the way alcoholic beverages are labelled.
Finally, I'd like to discuss the National Alcohol Strategy.
Reducing alcohol-related harm in Canada requires a collaborative, multi-faceted, and long-term approach. The approach needs to deploy social marketing, community education, regulation, and enforcement activities, as well as other tactics.
To address this need, in 2007, the CCSA partnered with Health Canada and the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission to co-chair an expert working group, which developed 41 recommendations for a national alcohol strategy. Several initiatives stemming from these recommendations have been completed, while others are currently under way. Nevertheless, 11 years have passed since the Strategy was developed. Today, we are asking you to encourage all partners, including Health Canada, to pursue their involvement and invest in updating the Strategy.
In conclusion, the CCSA recommends that the physical and economic availability of highly sweetened alcoholic beverages be restricted through amendments to the Food and Drugs Act or by requiring that these beverages be produced from ethyl alcohol and classified as spirits rather than beer.
From a broader perspective of protecting the health and safety of Canadians, the CCSA proposes that the regulations governing the advertising and labelling of alcoholic beverages be reviewed and that the National Alcohol Strategy be updated.
Thank you for listening.
Mr. Sacy and Ms. Paradis, thank you both for your compelling presentations.
The purpose of the committee's study is to identify lasting solutions that the government can implement. Some recommendations were put forward back in 2007, as you mentioned. I'd also like to thank you for bringing up the fact that the CRTC rules date back to 1996.
There is no denying that, in 2018, we still have a problem. It is clear that manufacturers of these products care about only one thing: making money. It is true that, in an effort to respond swiftly and responsibly, a convenience store owner voluntarily pulled certain alcoholic beverages off his shelves because, in his view, they should never have existed. The fact remains, those products did wind up on store shelves.
What emerged clearly from our discussion with the Health Canada officials who were here before you is that the federal and provincial governments have been passing the buck back and forth. That's nothing new. What I really care about is achieving some regulatory consistency. I would like to see some consistency around product availability and drinking age, for instance. Quebec's regulations should, at least, be as stringent as Ontario's or those of another province.
You've studied the problem. What kinds of regulatory measures do you want to see from the federal government?
Of course, the provinces should be able to retain some autonomy, but there are major differences across their regimes.
As far as alcohol consumption goes, it is clear that provincial borders are porous. Young people engage in certain activities. We were talking earlier about spring break. Quebec's spring break isn't at the same time as that of other provinces. Young people go off on organized trips and drinking is commonplace.
Could you tell us, in very specific terms, how the federal government should deal with situations like these? Would you care to go first, Mr. Sacy? Then, I'd like to hear from Ms. Paradis.
:
I can't really disagree, if you want to make the cans smaller. If you want to reduce the alcohol percentage from 11.9% to 5%, they can do that through regulation.
I find it ironic, though.... It's a terrible tragedy, and I should have first stated that. I feel sad for the child involved and the family. It's a terrible situation.
That being said, I find it ironic, though, given our last bill, which we just passed here, that it leaves all the work up to regulation by Health Canada, and yet five minutes later Health Canada is here and they're saying, “We have the regulation, but now we need your help to change it.” The regulation, however, never caught the issue. That's my opinion on it.
What I will say is, we can change the issues around the alcohol and the cans, etc., but if you talk to a police officer, and I know many, the shape of a can or the colouring on the can is not the issue among our youth. The issues among our youth are drugs: hards drugs, illicit drugs, illegal drugs.
I'll go back to one example. Years ago on the health committee I was talking to a group of dentists. The dentists will still prescribe T3s to children under 18; they'll prescribe other drugs to children who are under the age of 18. You don't hear much about that. They give away Naloxone kits in Ontario for free because kids go to parties and overdose, and they shoot themselves with Naloxone kits.
The issue we're talking about here today is obviously 100% serious. However, there are so many other ills in society today that would be of greater significance by multiple factors, and issues around this.
I made issue about access for kids, or the desirability among kids. Talk to any parent with teenagers, and I'm not sure these are the issues. The parents are scared to death about their kids taking OxyContin, cocaine, crystal meth, carfentanil, marijuana, hashish, and these are quite a lot more accessible than a king can of beer in a liquor store. You could go down the street here to the bus stop by the mall and get any drug in the world you'd ever want for a fraction of the cost of a king can, as far as I can tell.
I understand we have issues here. The other issue that I think Health Canada will be tasked with and that is of significance is how many drinks there are—
Okay, we're over time. I'll conclude another time.
:
If I may, I will try to answer you on this.
If you want to be assassinated, just say so and promote the idea.
In Quebec in 1977 or 1978, wine was made available overnight, going from the 400 SAQ stores to 13,800 grocery stores, and it didn't create any problems in that regard. Why? It's because wine tastes like wine; beer tastes like beer.
Of course, when we talk about these products that don't taste like alcohol, this is the reason they should be at least limited to the state-owned stores, because all they sell is alcohol, on the one hand.
Second, this young woman would have never gone to a state-owned liquor store. They never go there anyway. Why? It's not because the grocery stores are horrible guys who sell to minors and have no social conscience. They don't go there because they have nothing to do there. They can't even walk three steps before being kicked out. When you go to a depanneur or a grocery store, you may go there to buy any other thing.
On the other hand, let's face it. Everywhere on planet Earth when there is research on drinking patterns and drinking habits, all research starts at the age of 15. If you ask people “who drinks, how much do you drink, etc.”, all research starts at the age of 15, not because it's legal to buy alcohol at the age of 15—it's illegal everywhere—but everybody knows that one way or the other, at the age of 15 most of them have already tried alcohol, either because an adult bought it for them, or they stole it, or whatever. It's just that they have access to it, and this is why they need to be protected.
Last but not least, and it's quite important, when we talk about a reasonable price—we said $1.70 and Catherine said $1.71, but let's not discuss one cent, for we can settle that wherever you want—the main thing is that the price should be fair.
Please, let nobody tells us that if we increase the price too much we will have contraband and booze-levying, etc. It is true, but what we're talking about here is the minimum price; we're not talking about raising the price of all products. Just never go below what we are talking about
I'm Jan Westcott, the President and CEO of Spirits Canada. To my colleague, C.J. Helie, our Executive Vice-President, go all of the hard questions, just so we're clear.
Thank you very much for taking time to hear us. We'd like to share our views and experiences related to the sale of certain beverage alcohol products, products somewhat loosely referred to as highly sweetened, high-alcohol beverages sold in single-serve containers for immediate consumption.
Spirits Canada is the sole national organization representing Canadian spirits manufacturers, marketers, exporters, and consumers. Spirits Canada members adhere to a strict industry code of responsible advertising and marketing. Our code of conduct was recently updated to explicitly include all forms of digital activities, including social media sites. Our social responsibility code is rather comprehensive and deals with all aspects of the business, including those related to mixing or promoting alcohol with energy drinks, therapeutic claims, or appeal to youth.
We have provided the clerk with some copies of our entire code of conduct for referral by those interested.
The issue, of course, is that not all alcohol producers or marketers adopt such high standards of behaviour. In fact, some companies view themselves as market disrupters and build their entire business plan on bringing products into the market that push the envelope, and then choose to advertise and promote them in a manner inconsistent with established norms of socially responsible behaviour.
I'd like to begin my detailed comments with the issue of caffeine and its association and use in beverage alcohol.
Unlike the case in many other jurisdictions, products described as either caffeinated beverage alcohol products or alcoholic energy drinks have not been a significant health or safety problem in Canada.
Almost a decade ago, Health Canada, alcohol manufacturers, and provincial liquor boards came together to adopt a range of measures within their respective spheres of responsibility and competence to address this emerging health threat at its very inception. I won't go into all the collaboration and hard work and good will demonstrated by all parties in that challenging period, but I think it's important to summarize a few of the key outcomes.
One is that Health Canada banned the sale of alcoholic energy drinks in Canada.
Two, the Canadian Association of Liquor Jurisdictions—all the liquor boards—and individual liquor boards adopted a maximum voluntary limit of 30 milligrams of caffeine per serving in any alcoholic beverage. To be clear, no caffeine whatsoever can be added to an alcoholic beverage in Canada unless any level of caffeine is due to the use of an ingredient with naturally occurring caffeine, such as chocolate, coffee, tea, carbonated beverages such as a cola—the classic rum and cola, for example.
Three, we undertook education and server training efforts to discourage the self-mixing by consumers of energy drinks and alcohol by individual consumers in their homes or in bars, and we forbade the use of any of our brands in any joint promotion with an energy drink.
The results of these measures have been very effective. Laboratory testing of products reported in the media as caffeinated alcohol products has shown them to contain very little caffeine whatsoever.
It seems clear, however, that there have been a number of beverage alcohol drinks available in Canada in recent years that convey the impression that they are in fact alcoholic energy drinks. It's also clear from our perspective that CFIA and provincial regulators chose to take very little enforcement action against such false and misleading claims, despite numerous representations by both us and other interested parties.
Canadian consumers have seen on liquor board shelves—and more typically private store shelves—products using the same brand name and imagery as energy drinks, products with labels and packages with performance claims such as “a source of energy”, or have seen claims that a company's alcoholic beverage had “the kick of an energy drink” on a corporate website.
The unfortunate consequence of the lack of effective enforcement against such false and misleading claims, in addition to the fraud perpetrated on the consumer, is that its effect has been to undermine concerted communication efforts to warn consumers of the health risks associated with the mixing of energy drinks with alcohol.
The presence of such products on the shelves of liquor stores conveys the impression that alcoholic energy drinks are in fact legal and authorized for sale in Canada and thus safe for Canadians to drink. They're not.
Many health officials have identified a distinction between products such as Four Loko and...I'm just going to call it the Freddy, because I'm not going to say that here, versus other higher-alcohol products with relatively high sugar levels.
As we have just discussed, and contrary to some media reports, it is not the elevated levels of caffeine that are the real concern.
World-renowned icewines, Canadian icewines, and many spirituous liqueurs also have elevated sugar and alcohol levels but do not raise elevated health risks.
We should perhaps take a few moments to talk about the manufacturing processes used to produce these products, the ones that are of concern to health officials.
Historically, the only cost-effective method on a commercial scale to produce pure and more concentrated alcohol.... By the way, my colleague from the CCSA misspoke a bit. Ethanol is ethanol is ethanol. It doesn't matter whether you make beer first, whether you make wine first, or whether you make spirits. We in fact start with beer. Ethanol is ethanol.
Historically, the only cost-effective method on a commercial scale to produce a pure and more concentrated alcohol than that obtained solely through the fermentation of grapes, fruits, or cereal grains, which is our case, was distillation. You couldn't do it any other way except distillation.
However, with the very considerable incentives to have products classified as either a beer, a cider, or wine, for policy purposes manufacturers have looked to mimic the effects of distillation through other means, and they've been very successful in achieving this. Producers can now treat their fermented base goods to one or more non-traditional additional processes, such as reverse osmosis, crystallization, ion exchange, centrifugation, and ultra-filtration, to obtain a neutral, higher-alcohol product.
To this concentrated alcohol base, any flavour compound whatsoever can be added to produce a final beverage product, so a product like Four Loko or FCKDUP is born and, because it is at least ostensibly malt-based, is provided access to corner stores and, in some markets, to grocery stores, benefiting from a much lower tax and minimum price than those imposed on spirits products, the latter having been produced through distillation.
In Quebec, rather astonishingly, these products were actually subsidized by the government through a reduction in that province's specific tax on alcohol that was made available to smaller-scale local producers.
We note with sorrow that the Government of Quebec's own expert had advised them in 2015 to eliminate the subsidy, noting that “the specific tax on alcoholic beverages was implemented to take into account the negative externalities that alcohol consumption”—over-consumption—“can engender and such externalities”—people using them improperly—“exist for both small and large producers”. Whether you're a big producer or a small producer, how the consumer is using the product doesn't change.
Hopefully, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in the recent Comeau case that such protectionist schemes are unconstitutional, Quebec will withdraw such financial support for products like these.
At this point in the brand creation process, a producer would have a product that would normally be classified—at least in Canada—as a “flavoured malt beverage”—a “beer blend” under Quebec's alcomalt regulation.
The most dangerous health and safety issues associated with brands like Four Loko and FCKDUP are largely linked to corporate decisions that followed the creation of the “liquid” itself, as I described above.
First, there was the very unfortunate decision to package the product in a large-volume, single-serve, non-resealable container that encouraged immediate consumption of the entire contents, a package that contained more than four standard drinks. In Canada, we define a standard drink as one that contains 17.05 millilitres of pure alcohol, whether that alcohol comes from beer, wine, or spirits. Moreover, the recommended daily limit under Canada's low-risk drinking guidelines is for no more than two standard drinks for women, and three for men. Thus, a single container designed for immediate consumption contained more than the daily limit for either a man or a woman.
In closing, I wish to address the tragic circumstances related to the death of the young Quebec teenager. Details are still scarce, but we do wish to extend our sympathies to the family and friends of Ms. Gervais.
There were a number of errors that may have contributed to the final outcome, including by the producer, who now admits it was a mistake to introduce a product such as FCKDUP into the market; those retailers that not only listed the product, but in fact showcased and promoted the product in huge displays at deeply discounted prices; and, the provincial regulator, which chose not to enforce the relevant sections of the liquor advertising regulations that prohibit advertising that induces a person to consume alcoholic beverages in an irresponsible manner.
We have four specific recommendations—this keeps changing—as follows.
One, Health Canada should prohibit the use of the brand name of an authorized energy drink by any alcoholic beverage.
Two, in recognition of the opening of new sales channels outside liquor boards, Health Canada should formalize by regulation or industry guidance the maximum 30 milligrams per serving of caffeine in alcoholic beverages.
Three, all beverage alcohol labels and packages sold through private sales channels, including manufacturer on-site stores, should be subject to provincial regulatory review prior to entering the market.
Four, the elimination of exemptions for small producers for all federal or provincial health or safety regulations or policies should be eliminated. We note with concern, for example, that some differentiated health and safety standards have been proposed by Health Canada for smaller-scale recreational marijuana producers.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Luke Harford. I am the president of Beer Canada, the national voice of beer. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to provide input into the committee's study on premixed drinks combining high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar content.
As members of the committee are aware, Health Canada, on March 23, 2018, issued “a notice of intent to amend the Food and Drug Regulations to restrict the amount of alcohol...in highly sweetened alcoholic beverages sold in...single-serve container[s]”. Beer Canada is working alongside Health Canada to assist through the consultation process and will be making a submission by the May 8 deadline.
My comments today are drawn from what at this point we plan to submit to Health Canada.
Health Canada's proposal, as outlined in the notice of intent, attempts to address products that we believe could have and should have been restricted—or even prohibited—under existing provincial policies and regulations. For example, one of the alcohol beverages that triggered the notice of intent was being advertised on billboards and in stores as having four drinks in one can. As my colleague at Spirits Canada mentioned, Quebec currently has laws in place that prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages that induces a person to consume alcoholic beverages in an irresponsible manner. I have copies of one of the displays on a bus shelter that was advertising the product in question.
The Government of Quebec has also taken additional action. As noted in the notice of intent, Quebec has announced proposed legislative changes to ban the sale of mixed malt-based products with more than 7% alcohol from private stores. The product I referenced earlier, which was being promoted as having four drinks in one can, had an alcohol concentration of 11.9%.
Health Canada has made it clear that it does not intend to propose regulations that would inadvertently capture liqueurs, dessert wines, and other sweet alcoholic beverages sold in resealable containers. We have looked at a variety of attributes that, when combined, will address Health Canada's goal of reducing the health and safety risks associated with high-alcohol, highly sweetened beverages sold in single-serve containers, without inadvertently capturing non-problematic products.
Beer is generally low in sugar and alcohol content. The sugars derived from malt and barley and other grains provide the energy source the yeasts use to create alcohol and carbon dioxide during fermentation. The low-sugar characteristic is one of the attributes that will be used to define beer objectively under the modern definition of beer, which the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is committed to bringing forward by an amendment to the food and drug regulations this spring. This is an amendment that we have been working on with the government since 2013 and we hope to see completed by the end of the year.
The amended definition of beer will stipulate a maximum sugar threshold of 4% by weight for products labelled, packaged, advertised, and sold as beer in Canada. The sugar content, or sweetness of a product, is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. There are products that fall under a regulated standard of identities, such as icewines and liqueurs, that have high levels of sweetness and that have been produced, marketed, and retailed responsibly for generations. Health Canada acknowledges this in its notice of intent by proposing to tie the alcohol strength restrictions to other attributes, such as container type.
We are suggesting that Health Canada could exclude most of these traditional products by restricting the amount of alcohol in products that are over a certain sweetness threshold and do not fall under a standard of identity in the food and drug regulations. Given these conditions, Health Canada's approach could be to restrict the amount of alcohol in non-standard alcoholic beverages over a certain sweetness threshold, and that are sold in a single-serve container, without unduly restricting non-standard beverages that do not promote over-consumption or appeal to youth. Health Canada has advised that the product that triggered the notice of intent contained approximately 10% sugar. It may make sense to establish an alcohol-restriction threshold at this level of sweetness.
Health Canada aims to restrict the amount of alcohol in highly sweetened alcoholic beverages sold in single-serve containers, and is therefore looking for input on what level to set the alcohol strength restriction to. There has been some indication that Health Canada may look at establishing the restriction based on the number of standard drinks in a single-serve container.
A standard drink is an academic concept, a mathematical construct based on a 341-millilitre bottle of beer at 5% alcohol by volume. Internationally, there is no common, standard drink definition. In Canada, it's 13.5 grams of alcohol. In Australia, it's 10 grams. In the U.K., it's eight grams, and in the U.S., it's 14 grams. In Japan, it's 20 grams.
It is a reference amount of alcohol that provides the foundation for low-risk drinking guidelines for education. It says nothing about how an alcoholic beverage is typically consumed, and it assumes that the alcohol in every alcoholic beverage is consumed in the same manner and digested at the same rate.
An alternative approach would be to restrict the amount of alcohol permitted in a single-serve container to a maximum of 30 grams of alcohol. For comparison, the product that triggered the notice of intent contained roughly 53 grams of alcohol, so 70% more. At a 30-gram maximum, the 568-millilitre container this product was sold in would have had 7% alcohol, not 11.9%. In combination with narrowing the focus to highly sweetened and non-standard alcoholic beverages, these regulations could identify the maximum alcohol content permitted by size of single-serve container—so a range of different container sizes.
There has been some discussion on applying the restrictions only to malt-based or grain-based products. Setting a restriction based on the source of alcohol will be insufficient. It will restrict innovation among responsible manufacturers while being easily circumvented by those that are not. Alcohol can be extracted from a fruit-based product in much the same way as it can be extracted from a grain-based product. Cider and wine are examples. Health Canada will find itself no further ahead by setting a restriction based on the source of alcohol in a product.
It is Beer Canada's opinion that the products that triggered the notice of intent are already addressed or would more appropriately be addressed under provincial policies and regulations. Highly sweetened products are not a problem in and of themselves. For this reason, Health Canada is looking to combine high-sweetness attributes with additional criteria when setting a restriction on alcohol strength. In addition to sweetness criteria, the regulations should apply only to non-standard alcoholic products. This will prevent the regulations from capturing icewines, liqueurs, and other such products.
Bringing together the attributes of an alcoholic beverage being highly sweetened—for example, 10% sugar content—non-standard, and packaged in a single-serve container, the regulations could restrict alcohol strength to a maximum of 30 grams per single-serve container. Beer Canada believes that these attributes in combination will help to achieve the regulatory objectives of Health Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity today to share my views and concerns on the topic of premixed drinks combining alcohol, caffeine, and sugar.
I'd like to introduce myself. I am an Emergency Physician and Medical Toxicologist. I work at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal. I'm an assistant professor of medicine at McGill University. I'm a consultant in medical toxicology for the Quebec Poison Control Centre. I'm also a consultant at the coroner's office for the Province of Quebec. I'm the past president of the Canadian Association of Poison Control Centres. I appear today as an individual. The opinions expressed are personal.
The Government of Canada should be commended for addressing the health risks associated with the use of premixed drinks combining high alcohol, caffeine, and sugar. These drinks are associated with an unacceptable risk of toxicity when used by young people. The topic of alcohol abuse in Canada—more specifically, alcohol abuse in teenagers and young adults—is both complex and concerning.
The negative consequences of alcohol abuse in teenagers and young adults are very well documented. Impaired driving, risky behaviour, physical violence, and injuries from falls and motor vehicle accidents are just a few examples. Alcohol abuse has a long and unfortunate track record of leaving behind broken relationships, broken families, and broken lives. Every emergency physician I know across this country can testify to the negative consequences of alcohol abuse. We are in front-row seats to witness their occurrence.
Alcohol is everywhere in our lives. Wine is served at family reunions. Beer is available at sports events. Cocktails are enjoyed at social gatherings. Champagne is the symbol for celebration. As a result, inevitably, teenagers and young adults will sooner or later be exposed to alcohol, with a majority of teenagers experimenting with alcohol long before reaching the legal age for drinking. The question isn't whether or not teenagers will use alcohol; the real question is when and how they will. We must collectively take appropriate action to delay drinking in teenagers for as long as possible. We must also educate young people on drinking responsibly, with moderation.
Mixed drinks with high alcohol content are very unlikely to help us achieve these goals. Many emergency physicians, including me, feel that the growing popularity of mixed drinks with high alcohol content represents a significant public health problem, and their increasing prevalence on the Canadian market should be a cause for concern. Every year, thousands of teenagers and young adults are admitted for alcohol intoxication in emergency departments across the country. As you have heard, in 2017 alone more than 2,300 were admitted in the province of Quebec only, with one-fifth of them less than 18 years old. Although it is currently not possible to precisely evaluate the proportion of the emergency department visits that are related to the use of mixed drinks with high alcohol content, it is very likely significant.
The problems associated with mixed drinks combining alcohol, caffeine, and sugar have already been well identified by many experts here today. Let me summarize them again in six points, using plain language, describing the typical container: one, the can is too big; two, there's way too much alcohol in the can; three, the high sugar content masks the taste of alcohol; four, the can is too cheap; five, packaging and labelling is appealing to teenagers; and six, marketing strategies target young people.
The combination of large volume and high alcohol concentration means that the total amount of alcohol in each container is excessive. The amount of alcohol in one container can be equivalent to four standard drinks. That's enough alcohol to induce inebriation in an inexperienced drinker. The ingestion of two or three containers will send a teenager to the emergency department. The high sugar content and flavouring additives are appealing to young people and will mask the taste of alcohol. The sweet taste will exacerbate the tendency of rapid and uncontrolled drinking by young people with no drinking experience.
These drinks are inexpensive and widely available. They can usually be bought for less than $5.00 per container, allowing easy and affordable access to alcohol for young people. Containers are made colourful. They are designed and labelled to maximize the effect on young people, using high-impact and provocative language. Marketing strategies targeting a young crowd were set up by the industry with few ethical considerations. The use of social media and the Internet, as well as advertisement on university campuses, are just a few examples.
Mr. Chairman, last October I was asked by CBC in Montreal to do an interview on the dangers of combining drinks with high alcohol content, and energy drinks with caffeine. I wanted to see for myself if these products were available and easy to buy, so I took a walk from my house to the convenience store in my neighbourhood. There, I bought a can of approximately 600 millilitres of a mixed drink containing 11.9% alcohol, and I paid $3.99. That store is located approximately 200 metres away from my 11-year-old daughter's school.
These drinks present a high risk for the young population, and the negative consequences are highly predictable. I would go as far as saying that the risks they present are unacceptable.
With regard to caffeine, we know that mixing caffeine with alcohol should be prohibited, and promoting their simultaneous use should be strongly discouraged. When mixed with alcohol, caffeine will energize the drinker. It will increase the desire to drink, increase the pace of drinking, and it will make the drinking experience more pleasurable. As a result, more alcohol will be ingested when used with caffeine, and the risk for harm will be increased.
While it is already illegal under the Food and Drugs Act to add caffeine in its chemical form directly to alcoholic beverages, the use of natural sources of caffeine such as extracts from the guarana plant are permitted and largely unregulated. It should be reminded that all plant extracts cannot be assumed to be safe just because they are natural.
I would like to propose the following amendments to the food and drug regulations.
One, the volume of a non-resealable container and its alcohol content should be limited to the equivalent of one standard drink.
Two, a minimum selling price for drinks containing alcohol should be established, with the objective of limiting access to teenagers.
Three, packaging and labelling of drinks containing alcohol should be regulated, with the objective of promoting responsible drinking.
Four, publicity and marketing activities for drinks containing alcohol aimed at teenagers should be prohibited.
Five, the amount of caffeine from natural extracts in drinks with alcohol should be regulated and monitored as well.
If you would allow me, I would like to take a few minutes towards the end of my intervention to talk to you about kind of my baby project, to a certain extent, when I was president of the CAPCC, a project called the Canadian surveillance system for poison information. As I stated previously, I was past president of the Canadian Association of Poison Control Centres.
My years at the head of the organization taught me the importance of product safety as well as post-marketing surveillance. Consumer products should be designed with safety in mind, and once they are put on the market, every effort should be made to collect information looking for possible risks for human health or safety.
Although not considered consumer products under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the same principles of safety and surveillance should also apply to mixed drinks with high alcohol content. An effective post-marketing surveillance strategy must be built on access to reliable information from different sources. That is not currently the case.
It's currently not possible to precisely evaluate the number of calls to Canadian poison centres or emergency department visits across the country that are related to the use of mixed drinks with high alcohol content. This information is just not currently collected.
Data collected by Canadian poison centres can be a valuable source of information. Poison centres have an important role in detecting and responding to major time-sensitive public health problems. Surveillance systems are required for post-marketing surveillance of consumer products like the one we are discussing today, as well as a very long list of others, including pharmaceutical and health products, controlled substances, industrial chemicals, as well as agents of concern for criminal acts and terrorism. Poison centre data is not currently aggregated, analyzed, and interpreted at a pan-Canadian level.
In fact Canada is the only G7 country that does not have an a national poison centre surveillance system that can provide evidence-based data to inform prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Let me reassure you that help is on the way. The Canadian surveillance system for poison information initiative was established in 2014 through collaboration between Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Association of Poison Control Centres. The surveillance system is currently being developed and will eventually offer the possibility of generating data in real time to better protect Canadians.
I would respectfully ask the members of the committee to take action in order to ensure that the Canadian surveillance system for poison information initiative is appropriately funded and sustained over time.
Once again, in conclusion, I would like to say that the Government of Canada should be commended for addressing the health risk associated with the use of mixed drinks with high alcohol content. I'm actually quite confident that your committee will have the leadership to take all the appropriate actions to better protect young Canadians.
Thank you very much for your attention.
[Translation]
I am ready for your comments and questions.
Thank you.
I want to thank the four of you for being here.
It is unfortunate that there had to be an accident for us to examine this issue.
We have listened to your testimony today, and to that of specialists and people from the industry. The more testimony we hear, the more we realize that the problem is much more serious that it seems at first glance. As you said, alcohol is present in our society, every day, and in every way possible. Not only is it present, but it is also promoted, and that includes various things such as our behaviour and gathering habits.
Ms. Paradis, who spoke earlier today, essentially said in concluding her presentation that the availability of alcohol to a large extent encourages excesses and uncontrolled consumption. I would like to draw a parallel. Our committee considered a bill to control the consumption of another product, tobacco. During our study, we discussed neutral packaging for cigarettes. It clearly says that cigarettes ultimately kill smokers. Alcohol is not necessarily deadly, but it can kill people more quickly than cigars and cigarettes can. And yet, although it is illegal to sell these alcoholic beverages to young people, they are on convenience store shelves and are readily accessible, whereas cigarette packages are hidden behind the counter and are not accessible to young people.
I don't know whether you also think that access should be reconsidered or that further precautions should be taken. People in the industry, whether they are from Beer Canada or elsewhere, defend their position. As one might expect, they want to make sure they have the right products in the right places. But why are these products so readily accessible to young people? You talked about young people stealing these products to consume them. If they wanted to steal cigarettes, it would be much harder.
Don't think that availability is an important problem? Mr. Westcott, Mr. Helie, and Mr. Harford, what are your thoughts on the availability of these products?
Mr. Laliberté, I will have another question for you later on.