Canadian Food Producers ‘Burdened’ by Regulations: Survey

(Montreal Gazette – Sara Schmidt, Postmedia News)

Canadian producers think governments overreact to food safety incidences and overburden them with rules to prevent the spread of diseases on their farms, a newly released government survey has found.

Producers from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia – representing a broad range of agricultural products – also delivered a blunt message to consumers about imports during 10 focus groups commissioned by Agriculture Canada. The sessions were held earlier this year to get their views on agricultural issues, including competitiveness, sustainability and food safety.

“Generally speaking, producers felt that bio-security regulations and protocols were putting an unnecessary burden on producers, particularly smaller ones,” according to a summary of the focus groups led by Ekos Research Associates Inc. “Those who were being most affected by these measures felt that governments and retail industry giants had overreacted in the face of Mad Cow and other food safety incidences, as well as bowing to pressure from the United States and other countries.” Read more here.

Proposed Rules Would Allow Metric Only Labeling for Some Products

(PhysOrg.com)

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued two publications calling for the amendment of labeling laws to allow the voluntary use of only metric units on some consumer products. NIST researchers suggest that adoption of metric labeling will lead to greater agreement between state and federal labeling laws and simplify domestic and international commerce.

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) specifies the type of information that must appear on a consumer product label, including the kind of product, name of the manufacturer or responsible party, and net contents. Products that aren’t covered by the federal law are regulated by the states, which generally follow the guidance of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations (UPLR), a publication produced by NIST and the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The rules in the UPLR are recommended regulations that only become law if and when adopted by individual states.

In 1992, NIST and the NCWM supported Congress’s decision to amend the FPLA to allow manufacturers to label their products with U.S. customary units (inch/pound/pint, etc.) and metric units (centimeter / kilogram / liter, etc.), known as dual unit labeling. Since then, NIST and the NCWM have been working with the states to help them adopt laws that would permit metric only labeling of products under their jurisdiction. Forty-eight states have adopted this approach.

However, some manufacturers worry that the option to label products solely with metric units will confuse consumers and that it will force manufacturers to redesign product packaging.

To allay these concerns, NIST Metric Program coordinator Elizabeth Gentry notes that many products, especially wine and distilled spirits, have been sold with metric-only labels since the early 1980s. A study by her group found that 193 of 1,137 products surveyed in 19 retail stores were labeled with metric units only. More than half of those products were made or distributed by U.S. companies. Moreover, she notes that, under the proposal, use of metric only labeling would be voluntary, as would packaging modifications.

Gentry says there is nothing compelling manufacturers to change package sizing simply because they have the option to use only metric units on their labels. Manufacturers would be free to continue including U.S. customary units (inch/pound/pint, etc.) in the dual unit labeling scheme. The proposed changes to the FPLA would not apply to unit pricing, advertising, recipes, nutrition labeling or other general pricing information.

“We’re suggesting these changes to the FPLA in response to requests by U.S. manufacturers and consumers,” says Gentry. “Manufacturers want to take control of the limited space on their packaging and giving them the option of using only metric units will offer manufacturers more flexibility.”

More information: Download NIST’s guide to Voluntary Metric Labeling here.

‘Product of Canada’: Here We Go Again

(Lexology – Ronald L. Doering, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP)

The new “Product of Canada” guidelines came into effect on December 31, 2008, and were published as the new paragraph 4.19 in the Guide to Food Labelling: “a food product may claim ‘Product of Canada’ when all or virtually all major ingredients, processing and labour used to make the food product are Canadian.” The Guide defines the standard as 98%. It became clear within a matter of months that the standard was too restrictive and that the former producer and processor consensus of 85% would be more workable.

At a meeting of more than 50 representatives of the Canadian food processing industry on April 19, 2010, Minister of State for Agriculture the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn announced new consultations on the issue but limited the exercise to a consideration of “exempting specific ingredients which are difficult to source in Canada”, i.e., sugar, vinegar and salt.

Who were the interests pushing for these three exemptions? Why not simply lower the threshold to 85%? Emails to officials to get some clarity on these questions remain unanswered.

By selecting without explanation three ingredients, officials have managed to create a minefield when an easy solution was there for the taking. This clumsy consultation, compounded by resort to an awkward computer questionnaire technique, is picking winners and losers while doing nothing to enlighten the consumer. Read more here.

Pilot Project on Food Traceability Proves Successful

(Food in Canada)

17 participants in an Ontario-based pilot project meet all the criteria

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has deemed a pilot project on facility level traceability a highly successful endeavour. The Food Safety Initiative (FSI) – Traceability Pilot Project, which included 20 small to medium size operations, began in June 2007. The Agriculture Policy Framework, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative, provided the funding.

The aim of the pilot project, says OMAFRA, was to:

• Demonstrate implementation of facility level traceability in a variety of agri-food operations across the province (one-step-forward, one-step-back traceability);

• Increase the provincial agri-food industry’s understanding and adoption of traceability;

• Collect data on the operational and economic costs and benefits of facility level traceability; and

• Use learnings to develop educational materials on facility level traceability and provide training opportunities to stakeholders .

The 20 operations included nine on-farm operations (from cattle to greenhouse vegetables) and 11 food-processing operations (from cheese manufacturing and meat processing to wineries). The pilot facilities did also receive some help. OMAFRA says they received 75 per cent of eligible costs up to a maximum of $20,000. Read more here.

Confectioners Give Cautious Backing to EU Labelling Vote

(FoodNavigator.com – Jane Byrne)

Representatives of Europe wide confectionery, biscuit and chocolate makers have given a cautious backing to the much-anticipated EU parliament vote on amendments to the proposed food information regulation, which has come out in favour of industry supported GDAs.

David Zimmer, secretary general of Caobisco, in a statement issued to ConfectioneryNews.com, said that while the body is closely reviewing the details of the vote and its implications for its members he said that it is encouraging that the EP has recognised the limitations of the traffic lights approach to labelling.

Ever since the proposal for the new regulation was published in January 2008 there has been hot debate in Brussels and across member states about the best mandatory system for displaying nutritional information.

Although a host of formats already exist across the bloc, two have dominated discussions: the food industry-developed Guidance Daily Amount (GDA) scheme, and the colour-coded traffic-light scheme. Read more here.

Related: What ‘Natural’ Means in Food Regulations

Unsafe By Definition? GM/GE-Free Product Labeling

(Consumer Reports)

What it is: GM/GE refers to genetically modified or genetically engineered products. GM/GE processes may be useful because they can transfer certain traits and properties from one organism to another. For example, soybeans can be given a gene that protects them from the herbicide that’s sprayed on the field to kill weeds.

Why it’s news: There are currently no mandatory government labeling requirements for GM/GE products. Growers and product makers are allowed to label their goods as GM-free or GE-free. At an international meeting on food labeling in Quebec City, Canada in early May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration came out against a proposal to allow countries to adopt different approaches to labeling of GE/GM foods, as long as they are in line with existing U.N. guidelines. Read more here.

‘Product of Canada’ Label Disappearing From Processed Foods

(Christina Spencer — Ottawa Sun)

The way Mark Loney sees it, there can’t be many food products more patriotic than a jam marketed under the brand name CANADA’S.

CANADA’S Pure Saskatoon Jam is crammed with juicy Saskatoon berries, processed and packaged by a Saskatchewan company, then sold through Loney’s Cloverleaf Grocery in northwestern Ontario.

Yet when federal rules on food-labelling were updated in late 2008, “we had to take ‘Product of Canada’ off all our stuff,” he says. The reason: small amounts of sugar and citric acid in the jam weren’t produced in Canada.

Loney’s experience isn’t unusual. Food producers of all sizes have felt the pinch of federal regulations that say a food can only be labelled “Product of Canada” if its contents are 98% Canadian-sourced and processed here. Read more…

Tories to Loosen Food-Labelling Rules

(Canwest News Service)

The Conservative government is set to water down its “Product of Canada” food-labelling rule after tightening it up just a year ago.

The standard, which came into effect in 2009, requires 98 per cent of ingredients in “Product of Canada” items to be Canadian. But not long after Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared that the move was vital to “better reflect the true origin of products,” the government is laying the groundwork for loosening the threshold.

Following complaints from many food processors and local farmers, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is holding consultations that likely will result in exemptions to allow products made with some imported ingredients or produce to be marketed as a “Product of Canada” or labelled “Made in Canada.”

The exemptions, touted recently by Minister of State for Agriculture Jean-Pierre Blackburn, will focus on ingredients that are not readily available from Canadian sources, such as sugar and vinegar.

This means products such as a box of cookies made from imported sugar and Canadian flour, milk, eggs and butter could still be marketed as a product of Canada. Read more here.

Canadian Government May Loosen ‘Product of Canada’ Rules

(FoodNavigator-USA.com – Caroline Scott-Thomas)

The Canadian government may loosen the labeling rules for food products to qualify as ‘Products of Canada’, to allow for ingredients that are difficult to source in Canada. Minister of State for Agriculture Jean-Pierre Blackburn said on Monday that the government was committed to concluding consultations with industry and consumers about the labeling of Canadian processed foods.

The present rule, put in place by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008, only allows foods that contain at least 98% Canadian-produced ingredients to be labeled ‘Product of Canada’. The law was meant to close a loophole that allowed any product to be labeled ‘Product of Canada’ as long as at least 51% of the production cost was met in Canada. This meant that some, or indeed all, of the ingredients could be produced elsewhere.

But many food manufacturers have argued that the new rule unfairly limits the number of products that can claim to be Canadian. Read more here.

Health Canada Seeks Public Input on Changing Regulations for Food Colouring

(Health Canada via The Canadian Press)

Health Canada is seeking public input on proposed changes to improve labelling requirements for colouring agents in food products. A consultation forum will be posted on the Health Canada website and open for comments from February 18 until May 4, the federal department said Thursday.

Canadian Food and Drug Regulations currently allow manufacturers to use the general term "colour" to specify one or more food colours. For the majority of prepackaged foods, manufacturers may voluntarily declare individual colours by name at their own discretion.

"However, there is some evidence suggesting a link between consumption of certain food colours and adverse reactions in sensitive individuals," the department said in a release. "More recently, certain food colour mixtures have been associated with behavioural effects in children. For these reasons, Health Canada considers it prudent to improve labelling requirements for food colours."

Proposed changes would eliminate the option of using the general term "colour" and require that individual colours be identified on food ingredient labels, enabling consumers to make informed choices that could reduce adverse reactions.

Health Canada said it will update progress on the issue once the consultation period has ended.

Comments on proposals may be submitted by regular mail to:

Bureau of Chemical Safety
251 Sir Frederick Banting Drive
Health Canada, Tunney's Pasture
Address Locator: 2203B
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L2

To comment electronically, email bcs-bipc@hc-sc.gc.ca, using the words "Food Colour Labelling" in the subject box.

USDA Instructions on Label Verification for Imported Meat and Poultry

(World Trade Interactive)

The Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued Feb. 2 a directive providing instructions to its import inspection personnel on performing label verification procedures when reinspecting imported meat and poultry products. LVPs are conducted to ensure that foreign establishments exporting these products to the U.S. adhere to the labeling requirements in the federal meat and poultry regulations.

Among the instructions provided by this directive are the following.

• Labels must be in English and mechanically printed, stenciled or stamped directly on the shipping container or on a self-adhesive label affixed to the shipping container.

• Shipping containers (e.g., boxes, bags, barrels, crates or other receptacles or coverings that contain fully labeled immediate containers) must be labeled with the name of the country of origin (preceded by “product of”), the establishment number assigned by the foreign meat inspection system and certified to FSIS, a unique shipping mark used to link the product to the foreign health certificate, and any applicable special handling statements. In addition, there must be sufficient space on the main and end panel for the U.S. mark of inspection. (This requirement is not applicable to product from Canada since the U.S. mark of inspection is applied to the health certificate and import application.)

• If shipping containers hold product packaged in immediate containers, those immediate containers must bear all of the mandatory label features, which include the name or a descriptive designation of the product, an ingredients statement (if needed), the foreign establishment number, any needed handling statements, the net quantity of the contents (if needed), the manufacturer’s or distributor’s name and address, any required nutrition labeling, the name of the country of origin (preceded by the words “product of”), and safe handling instructions for raw and partially cooked meat and poultry products that have not undergone further processing that would render them ready-to-eat and are destined for the consuming public.

Read more here.

Canadian Pork Producers Call for Equivalent Food Labelling Rules

(Farmscape – Bruce Cochrane)

The chair of Manitoba Pork Council reports a growing number of Canadian pork producers believe Ottawa needs to impose the same labelling rules on U.S. pork entering Canada as is required for Canadian product entering the U.S.

A delegation representing Manitoba Pork Council visited Minneapolis last week and is in Des Moines this week for a series of trade advocacy meetings and to discuss issues of common concern with their U.S. counterparts.

Pork Council chair Karl Kynoch says Canadian pork producers are increasingly concerned with the fact that, while U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling has made it more difficult to move Canadian product into the U.S., American product continues to flow freely into Canada. Read more here.

CSPI Urges FDA to End “Food Labelling Chaos”

(Food in Canada)

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) – Washington has asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stop “egregious…false claims, ingredient obfuscations and other labelling shenanigans” on food products. The CSPI sent the U.S. FDA a report documenting specific examples late last year.

In a release, the CSPI notes that under the Obama Administration, the FDA is sending more warning letters to food manufacturers about misleading labelling. But, says the CSPI, major food manufacturers continue to confuse or defraud consumers about the health effects, ingredients or “natural”-ness of their products. Read more here.

WTO Agrees to Rule on Legality of U.S. Food-Labeling Policies

(Bloomberg – Jennifer M. Freedman)

World Trade Organization judges agreed to decide whether U.S. country-of-origin labeling provisions violate global trade rules and unfairly harm agricultural trade, as Canada and Mexico allege. The U.S. requires food processors to identify the countries where cattle, hogs and some fresh produce originate. Canada and Mexico say the provisions impose unfair and unnecessary costs on their exports, reducing their competitiveness. […]

The Country of Origin Labeling Legislation, or COOL, has caused many U.S. pork-processing companies to stop buying animals born in Canada and has cost the country’s pork industry millions of dollars, according to the Canadian Pork Council, a federation of nine provincial pork industry associations. COOL has cost Canadian cattle producers more than C$250 million in lower beef prices and higher expenses, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association says. Read more here.

Tougher 'Made in Canada' Regs Kick In

(Embassy – Jeff Davis)

As Canadians rang in the new year, the government rolled out a series of stringent new regulatory controls governing what can – and cannot – be labelled a product of Canada. And while the government says the new rules aim simply to better protect and inform Canadian consumers, some see this as a protectionist move aimed to counteract similar country of origin labelling rules recently enacted in the United States.

Under the new regime, which came into effect December 31, a food product can only be labelled "Product in Canada" if all or virtually all of its contents, as well as processing and labour, are Canadian. A few exceptions are permitted for minor ingredients such as spices, additives and vitamins, but foreign content is not to exceed two per cent.

The new regulations set the bar much higher than the previous law, which dated back to the 1980s. Under the old regime, a food product could be labelled "Made in Canada" if 51% of its production costs were incurred in Canada.

"Our new guidelines are designed to redefine Canadian food content labels to better reflect the true origins of products in today's global marketplace," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper when announcing the new regulations in May. "Our government is tightening the definitions of these familiar labels so Canadians know exactly what they're getting, and get exactly what they want."

The new regulatory regime also changed the rules regarding products labelled "Made in Canada." Now, the made-in-Canada statement must be qualified by adding "from domestic and imported ingredients" or "from imported ingredients."

The new regulations are not mandatory, which means companies can choose not to identify where a product comes from. However, if they want to identify something as a product of Canada, for example if they feel it will increase sales, they must abide by the new rules. Read more here.

Spam, Still Mystery Meat, Escapes Food-Label Rules

(Bloomberg – Alan Bjerga and Tony C. Dreibus)

U.S. rules requiring meat and fresh produce to be labeled by national origin are falling short of lawmakers’ aims, leaving shoppers in the dark about where mixed vegetables, steaks and Spam come from, some lawmakers say.

Six years after being adopted by Congress, country-of-origin labeling [took effect last week]. Concern about unsafe imports from China and Canada helped overcome food industry efforts to delay the measures. They will cost companies $2.5 billion in the first year, with retailers spending more to market beef, pork and lamb, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says.

Industry groups say expenses will be even higher.

Some lawmakers and consumer advocates say loopholes will let meatpackers blur the distinction between foreign and domestic meat. Mixed vegetables are exempt from the requirements, as are processed foods ranging from roasted peanuts to Spam, the canned luncheon meat made by Hormel Foods Corp. More regulations may be needed, the lawmakers say. Click here for the complete article.

COOL: Ag Secretary Admits Changes Needed, Rule Set To Go Into Effect Sept. 30

(Cattle Network)

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today joined a bipartisan group of 30 Senators in urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make modifications to its interim final rule for implementing Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). COOL is slated to go into effect September 30. Harkin is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the Committee that ushered the new farm bill into law.

“People want to know where their food comes from,” said Harkin. “Yet, USDA appears to be taking an overly broad approach to implementing this program, allowing certain food products to not be labeled as required by the farm bill. USDA’s rule also allows packers to just label all U.S. products jointly with other countries, limiting consumer choice. People are expecting to find meat labeled as exclusively U.S. product, not just hidden with everything else.

“I am encouraged by statements made by Agriculture Secretary Schafer that this implementation needed additional work, but with such a short amount of time left before this rule goes into effect, I am hopeful USDA will act quickly to implement these changes.” Find out more here.

Minister Ritz Releases Statement as Canada Tables its Official Comments on U.S. Mandatory Country-Of-Origin Labelling

(Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada)

Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz issued the following statement today as the Government of Canada tabled its official comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding its recently published interim final rule on implementation of the mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL).

“The Government of Canada is disappointed the U.S. is moving forward with the COOL legislation,” said Minister Ritz. “The possibility that this may discriminate against Canadian products is a concern, therefore, the Government of Canada is working with industry and the provinces and territories to minimize any impact on Canadian farmers and ranchers.”

“Trade between Canada and the U.S. has tripled since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and then the North American Free Trade Agreement,” Minister Ritz noted. “Reducing obstacles to trade has contributed to mutually-beneficial supply chains, making both countries more competitive domestically and internationally.”

The U.S. Congress passed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill) in June. This legislation requires the mandatory COOL rule for beef, lamb, pork, chicken and goat meat, along with perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng and macadamia nuts, to be implemented by September 30, 2008.

The implementation of the COOL rule for food products has happened in stages. Implementation for fish and shellfish was effective April 4, 2005. However, implementation for all other commodities was delayed until September 2008. As it did in 2003, 2005 and 2007, the Government of Canada today submitted comments to the U.S. Federal Register, outlining its views on the rule.

New Food Labelling Rules Call for Listing of Allergens, Gluten, Sulphites

(CBC News)

Federal Health Minister Tony Clement announced new food labelling regulations Wednesday which will force food manufacturers to list specific allergens, gluten sources and sulphites on the labels of the products they sell.

“Canadians want to know what it is in the packaged food that they eat. They have come to expect detailed information on every label of the products on the grocery store shelves,” Clement said at a press conference in Ottawa.

The upcoming changes will mean food labels will have to list any key ingredients in a food item that may have been created with an allergenic substance. Clement said that will include some ingredients that are currently listed as “spice” or “seasoning,” for example.

Any allergenic products used to create an ingredient will also have to be listed, Clement said. He used the example of gluten; labels will now have to specify where the gluten comes from, such as barley, wheat or rye.

“These changes will help Canadians manage these allergies and celiac disease,” said Clement. “We believe that better information can only lead to better nutrition, and better nutrition, of course, means better health.”

Even though the regulations have yet to be implemented, Clement called on the food industry to take action now. “While these food allergen regulations are being submitted, I’m making a request to the food industry now: improve their labelling for common allergens, sulphites and gluten sources.”

The proposed regulations follow Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s food and consumer product action plan announced last year.

Last week, federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz announced new labelling guidelines for food, which will ensure that all foods labelled as products of Canada will contain food that is both produced and processed here.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Clement also mentioned changes to the regulation of health products. He said pharmaceutical products will now be closely watched before and after they are approved for sale. He said that recent reports of adverse drug reactions have highlighted the fact that many new drugs only show serious side effects after they reach the market. The regulations are meant to stop that.

Minister Clement’s announcement is here. Health Canada is publishing its proposed regulatory amendments in Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 26, 2008 to allow for public comment. The background document is available here.

Product of Canada, Made in Canada

(Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

The Canadian Food Labelling Initiative was recently posted on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) web site and can be viewed here.

Modifications to the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising (2003 Guide) Section 4.19 Product of Canada, Made in Canada are available here, and An Industry Advisory – New Guidelines Defining Product of Canada and Made in Canada on food labels and advertising here.