Update on Food Labelling Modernization

Transcription

1 Update on Food Labelling Modernization Presented to: Atlantic Region Food Regulatory Workshop Presented: November 30, 2017 Presented by : Canadian Food Inpsection Agency RDIMS#:

2 Purpose To update you on the Food Labelling Modernization initiative Background Phase III engagement What we heard Next steps 2

3 Background Food Labelling Modernization (FLM) launched in 2013, aims to modernize across 4 key areas: (1) Regulations, (2) Service Delivery, (3) Program and Policy Development, (4) Roles and Responsibilities Broad engagement over several phases: o Phase I issues identification ( ) 2,300 engaged o Phase II options for modernization (2015) 1,600 engaged o Phase III key proposals ( ) 2,500 engaged Changes since the launch of FLM: o Regulations Health Canada s changes to Nutrition Labelling, List of Ingredients and Colour Canada Gazette (CG) II in Dec 2016 Proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) CG I in January 2017 o Service Delivery o Online Labelling Tool o Ask CFIA 3

4 Phase III Key Proposals During Phase III engagement, CFIA proposed to implement a modernized food labelling system categorized into two streams:» modernizing regulations, and» a new approach to truthful and not misleading food labelling The proposals reflected the results of past consultations and took into account the needs of consumers and industry. The proposals were based on:» Issues gathering - what we heard from stakeholders» International standards such as Codex Alimentarius» Alignment with Health Canada direction» Alignment with trading partners 4

5 Highlights of FLM Phase III Consultations Engaged on key proposals From Dec 1, 2016 to March 14, webinars - over 1600 participants (industry, consumers) Online Questionnaire Feedback Health Professionals 5% Other 11% 24 consumer face-to-face sessions across Canada 1023 completed online questionnaires 22 external bilateral meetings, with industry and partners. Government 8% Industry and Associations 23% Consumers and Consumer Associations 53% 5

6 6 Highlights of Stakeholder Feedback Industry generally supportive of proposals that facilitate innovation and flexibility such as incorporation by reference of standards. It supports more outcome-based approaches to labelling regulations. Industry raised considerations on a number of proposals, including those that impact available label space and use of CFIA licence holder in company contact information. General consumer support on regulatory proposals including best before date, legibility, contacting food companies, origin of imported foods, percent declaration for highlighted ingredients. General support for implementing a risk-based model for truthful and not misleading labelling which allows a greater role for industry and consumers. Considerations raised on implementation. Support in seeing CFIA and Health Canada work closely together to align and coordinate food labelling initiatives and coming into force dates.

7 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Date Marking Current requirements for best before, expiry date, and packaged on dates are inconsistent across foods and their purpose is not always clear to consumers. Moreover, the format is confusing to consumers in the absence of the year. Proposal: Align Canadian requirements with proposed draft revisions under Codex: Expiration Date declared when food must be consumed before a certain date to ensure its safety, e.g. infant formula. Best Before Date when Expiration Date is not required, e.g. bread, or canned soup The day, month and year shall always appear, and when only numbers are used to declare the date, the sequence must be given by appropriate abbreviations What we Heard: Support for improving consumer understanding of date marks by adding the year, increasing the flexibility in format for industry and aligning the requirements with international standards Industry also provided some suggestions (e.g. use of abbreviation BB/MA) 7

8 Legibility Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Requirements such as type size and placement of information are inconsistent across all foods and may pose compliance challenges for industry. Proposal For common name, company information and date marking, introduce consistent requirements for lettering height, use of upper and lower case, and contrast. What we Heard Overall support for the intent of improving the legibility of labelling information Variation in response on best way to achieve this: Consumers support clear rules, while industry supports a more outcome based approach 8

9 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Food Company Information Food products must currently declare the dealer name and address on labels. Only the company name, city and province OR city and country, are required and consumers cannot easily contact companies about their foods. Proposal Require the name of the CFIA license holder and one of: a telephone number, address, website or other means of communication What we Heard Support for requiring additional modern means for consumers to contact companies Consumers indicated that postal address is not useful for communicating quickly with companies Challenges with the proposal for CFIA license holder as the contact listed on the food label 9

10 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Origin of Imported Food Consumers want to know where their food originates. Currently, only required on certain foods (ex. meat, fish, dairy, fresh and processed fruit and vegetables) Proposal Require Product of (name the country) on all wholly imported food products. Consistent with Codex, the final place where substantial processing occurs would be the country of origin What we Heard Support from consumers and some industry sectors Concerns from importers with products from multiple origins 10

11 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Key Ingredients Emphasized Through Claims or Pictures Claims often highlight the presence of key ingredients, which could mislead consumers as to the actual quantities and make it difficult to compare similar products Proposal Require any key or premium ingredients highlighted through words or pictures to be declared as a percentage in the ingredient list What we Heard Strong support from consumers and some industry members Other parts of industry raised concerns of revealing proprietary information, impact to space, etc. Strong support from stakeholders on proposal to declare flavour or flavoured when flavouring is used instead of the actual ingredients 11

12 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Food Compositional Standards Many standards are outdated, stifle innovation and limit consumer offerings. In addition, the regulatory process makes it difficult to amend food standards in a timely manner to keep pace with market realities. Proposal IbR standards in the Food and Drug Regulations and Safe Food for Canadians Regulations; explore options to modernize Complete regulatory amendments on food compositional standards in the FDR where stakeholder consensus has been achieved, such as the modernized beer standards; What we Heard Overall support to move the food compositional standards into a document that is incorporated by reference (IbR) Overall agreement that current food compositional standards are outdated, and overall support to modernize them 12

13 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Modified Standardized Common Names A longstanding issue is the naming of foods that are similar to a standardized food but that do not meet the standard. To help consumers to recognize the food, its characteristics, use, and other features, the standardized name is included, with added modifiers Proposal develop regulations in the FDR for the use of modified standardized common names, with clear criteria guiding when a common name can include a reference to the standard, and appropriate modification What we Heard General support to modernize in this area Stakeholders supported aligning the rules with Codex and the US 13

14 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Streamlining and Removing Unnecessary Regulations Over time, numerous commodity specific labelling requirements were entrenched in regulations for a variety of reasons (e.g. health, safety, trade). These requirements can create unnecessary burden for industry and limit flexibility. Proposal To maintain commodity-specific requirements in the regulations only when these are needed for food safety and health, to align with international standards, or to prevent fraud; and To deregulate all others unless industry or consumers request that they be maintained. What we Heard Support to maintain commodity-specific requirements only when needed for food safety and health, to prevent fraud or to align with international standards Stakeholders asked to be consulted in the review of potential requirements to be removed or modified 14

15 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Standard Container Sizes Historically prescribed for a number of foods, ex: honey, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, etc. Over time, this requirement has limited industry innovation and consumer offerings. Proposal Remove the standard container sizes for some products Move the remaining standard container sizes to a compendium to be incorporated by reference, to facilitate changes in a timely manner, making it more responsive to changing needs What we Heard Majority stakeholder support to deregulate certain sizes and IbR the rest Comments on removal of some specific products Comments from some consumers that standard container sizes assist in comparing similar products and in making informed decisions, others suggest unit pricing sufficient 15

16 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard Test Market Authorization Over time, CFIA has witnessed a reliance on re-issuing of TMAs, beyond what is generally understood to be test marketing. These long term TMAs have created an administrative burden for both industry and government. Proposal Re-focus the use of TMAs on test marketing of a food that is new, and seek support to define a new food as either: a) A food new to Canada or b) A food new only to the company seeking the TMA What we Heard Industry noted that TMAs currently are critical for product development and innovation. Majority support to restrict the use of TMAs to foods which are new to Canada. Various stakeholders indicated the need to improve the regulatory framework/ process, before refocusing the use of TMAs 16

17 Phase III Key Proposals What we Heard New Approach for Truthful and Not Misleading Food Labelling Our current model is overly dependent on the CFIA developing policies on false or misleading claims. Oversight of these claims does not always consider the risks Proposal Realign roles to shift primary relationship to industry and consumers for lower risk consumer values claims What we Heard Majority support from stakeholders for a new approach for managing truthful and not misleading claims based on risk Some concerns regarding implementation 17

18 CFIA-HC Labelling Coordination Both Health Canada and the CFIA in the process of modernizing food regulations and are working in close collaboration: CFIA: Safe Foods for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) pre-published in CG I January 2017 Labelling mostly status quo with some exceptions (e.g. inspection legends) Food Labelling Modernization pre-regulatory proposals changes to a number of areas Health Canada: Nutrition Labelling, List of Ingredients, Colours finalized 2016 with 5 year transition ending December 2021 Healthy Eating Strategy Front of Pack Labelling (FOP), Partially Hydrogenated Oils (PHO), Marketing to Children 18

19 CFIA-HC Labelling Coordination During engagement, CFIA received comments about the impacts of labelling changes on industry Challenges were identified with respect to availability of guidance, timelines, and with the staggered nature of the various initiatives (not all final changes known at same time) Key elements to address challenges: Transition Period: key component to every regulatory package Implementation Plan: o CFIA implementation plan for HC s amendments to nutrition labelling, ingredient lists, colours that describes what to expect over the 5 year transition period o Similar plans to be developed for subsequent changes Guidance: o CFIA guidance anticipated in 2018 re: HC changes and SFCR 19

20 Next Steps Milestone / Activity Engage with National Industry Associations on Commodity Specific labelling Target Date Fall 2017 Post What We Heard Report Fall 2017 Implement FLM proposals, taking into account stakeholder feedback (includes regulatory amendments) Continue to work with Health Canada to coordinate approaches to minimize impacts on industry Ongoing Ongoing 20