Date Marking The best before date marking on product labels with a short shelf life is a vital piece of information for consumers.

Transcription

1 February 28, 2017 Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) 1400 Merivale Road Tower 1 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y9 Canada Sent by to: CFIA-Modernisation-ACIA@inspection.gc.ca Re: Feedback on CFIA Food Labelling Modernization Initiative The Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) is Canada s largest trade association dedicated to the natural health and organic products industry. CHFA represents over 1,000 member businesses across Canada, which includes manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors and importers of natural health and organic products. The natural health product industry contributes $3 billion and the organic product industry contributes another $4 billion to the Canadian economy. CHFA is committed to promoting and protecting both. CHFA is pleased to provide a submission to CFIA s food labelling consultation on behalf of our members. These comments are provided in consideration of meeting the information needs of consumers while balancing the compliance burden for industry and optimizing international trade opportunities. Outlined below is CHFA s feedback for each element under CFIA s purview of food labelling that is of concern to our members. Date Marking The best before date marking on product labels with a short shelf life is a vital piece of information for consumers. CHFA supports the consistent application of the best before date format on labels so it is easy for consumers to understand. We support manufacturers having the ability to use all numerals for the date code (YYYY MM DD) or alternatively the current lettering system for the month. Should changes occur to allow both, we suggest CFIA implement consumer education on these changes. While not considered in the initiative, we ask that BB/MA as a short form for Best before/meileeur avant be allowed, especially for small packaging. Consumers easily recognize this short form and, if used consistently, it will further enhance consumer understanding. This shortened abbreviation is important for industry from a label space perspective. CHFA requires more clarity around which food products would be included in the proposal to expand expiry dates. The definition provided in the proposal is unclear if it would apply to all foods or a small

2 selection. CHFA would support expiry dates being added to products with a short shelf life (i.e. less than seven days) and where the product would be unfit for consumption following the date shown. In addition, we ask that CFIA allow industry to use alternative words in reference to expiry such as use by to complement international jurisdictions. CHFA supports the addition of a durable life date on food labels, as required today, for foods under a 90 day shelf life. CHFA does not support the mandatory inclusion of a best before date on labels for products who have a shelf life beyond 90 days. Instead, we recommend this practice remain voluntary. Including a best before date on many products with a longer shelf life could potentially encourage consumers to discard perfectly edible food and CHFA members are concerned with creating unnecessary food waste. In the spirit of providing consumers more information, the government should continue to allow industry to provide additional date information on food labels. Based on consumer and retailer demand, our members products provide freeze by date, churn date and sell by date as options, which we request continue to be acceptable under food labelling modernization. Some foods require special consideration, given how retailers handle them after they are received from manufacturers. Examples include butter received frozen and sold fresh making it difficult to add a date, and many bakery products which are similarly received frozen. In these cases, retailers include a best before date when they present product for sale and this is based on practices that have been in place for decades. Domicile/Country of Origin CHFA supports updating the domicile labelling requirements to reflect today s technology which makes it easier for consumers to contact companies. CHFA supports permitting companies to include one of the following: a telephone number, address, website or other means of communication. However, as this is investigated and moves forward, CHFA would not support the requirement of providing more than what has been tabled in this consultation. CHFA does not support the mandatory requirement for the domicile address to be the same as the address of the licence holder. For most imported foods today, the domicile address shown on packaging represents the manufacturer or the brand owner. In some cases, the manufacturer may work with a number of importers in Canada and it would be very burdensome to change labels depending on which importer is used for each shipment. If companies had to change labels to reflect the importer, it is likely the product would no longer be sold in Canada because of the high cost to manage. Further, consumers are more interested in knowing the manufacturer and brand owner rather than the importer and similarly the manufacturer may not wish for consumers to know the identity of their importer(s).

3 CHFA does not support mandatory labelling of country of origin on all food labels. The same product can be produced in a number of different countries, even overseen by the same parent company and achieving the same quality and taste consumers are accustomed to. To add a country of origin to these products will be a huge logistical challenge, costly for companies with no added benefit to the consumer and could severely affect a company s brand strategy and image. CHFA suggests that the country of origin definition be similar to the CODEX rule. We strongly encourage CFIA to consider that this definition be applied to Product of Canada. CFIA s current proposal would put Canadian companies at a huge disadvantage to imported foods. Canada being a multicultural nation and consumers seeking products from abroad, it is equally important for them to have the same information about Canadian-produced foods as imported products. Standardized Container Sizes CHFA supports deregulation of the standard container sizes proposed. In fact, CHFA calls on the government to deregulate all sizes found within the various food legislation and not just those set forth in this proposal. Consumers expect foods to be available in different sizes to meet their needs, making standardized sizes less relevant. Standardized sizes also obstruct competition and trade, which limits availability of products for consumers. If deregulation of all sizes is a concern for some industries, we support a structured deregulation process to accommodate any concerns. Highlighted Ingredients Consumers are well informed about the quantity of ingredients in foods. Here are a number of ways companies achieve this: The ingredient list on the label provides ingredients in descending order by weight. An ingredient shown near the end of the list and/or grouped with minor use ingredients such as flavour or salt is an indication that the ingredient is present only in small amounts. Consumers can see the product or will have access to photographs that portray the product and the ingredients it contains. Descriptive images and statements on product labels provides overall flavour and ingredient information, which is clarified by the ingredient list and its order. For the points described above, when a product emphasizes an ingredient through pictures, claims or the product name, CHFA does not support the mandatory ingredient declaration as a percentage. While the proposal does allow companies to avoid ingredient declarations by not highlighting ingredients, we are concerned that many companies will be forced to take this option and result in ambiguous product descriptions. As a consequence, consumers will have less understanding of what is in their food. We believe the measures outlined in the current food label already address this concern. By providing the percentages, this information will become difficult to determine and could become meaningless for consumers. As an example, a product indicating 10% versus 11% of an ingredient is

4 virtually the same with no discernible difference for the consumer. While consideration for concentrated or rehydrated products is included, how does one determine the exact percentage to use for these ingredients when ingredient companies do not provide sufficient information to calculate? Companies who make slight changes in their formula due to the need to adjust for fluctuation in raw material composition could be impacted by this requirement. Each change might mean updates will be needed for percentage declarations and, as a result, new labels would be required each time. Legibility/Type Sizes of Mandatory Information CHFA supports that mandatory information should be clear, prominent and legible for consumers to read under normal conditions of purchase and sale. The general standard has been to use 1/16 inch based on the lower case letter o and industry has adopted uppercase to achieve this result. As there is not enough space on most packaging to support upper and lower case lettering, CHFA does not support the current recommendation to set minimum type and require upper and lower case lettering. CFIA should instead focus on the key aspects of type that improve readability, specifically contrasting background, and ensuring there is enough kerning and leading. The need to make the common name ½ the type size of the largest text on the packaging is unnecessary. There are numerous clues on labels and packaging outside of the common name to help consumers determine the type of product they are purchasing. Examples include a photograph, the style of packaging and where the product is sold. Ingredient Class Name Improvements CHFA supports, in principle, the intent of CFIA to move ingredient class names to a referenced document that aligns with international standards. Industry must be provided considerable time to update labels, if required. In addition industry must be consulted prior to proposed changes being referenced in the document. Modified standardized names Modifying standard names has been an allowed practice for many standards, however not for all. CHFA supports allowing companies to modify standard names in a manner that makes it clear to consumers a product has been altered from the standard. Examples for this include identifying the exact change that has taken place or using other language to inform the consumer that the product is different. An example is the use of style or type, a practice in use today (e.g. Mayonnaise type dressing). Streamlining Regulation CHFA supports updating and streamlining regulations. General principles regarding the process for this should be introduced to ensure a fair process across the food industry that does not handicap one industry group over another and to ensure the consumer is not inadvertently misled.

5 CFIA Model for a Risk-Based Food Labelling System Overall, CHFA supports CFIA s risk-based approach to food labelling. We recommend CFIA continue to play a leading role in the lower risk category by providing guidance on appropriate standards and definitions for claims. While CHFA supports less oversight for the lower risk category, we do not support CFIA having no role in this category and leaving industry solely responsible. With government playing a strong role in standardizing labelling definitions, this will assure a fair and equitable marketplace, more educated consumers and, most importantly, consumers will have greater confidence in labels and advertising. Recommendations In closing, these changes, when combined with Health Canada s label changes, are significant for the food industry. Both departments should continue to work together to ensure industry is not burdened with multiple label revisions and increased costs to comply. CHFA is pleased to see both CFIA and Health Canada working together and hopes to see this unified approach to food labelling continue once enforcement for both initiatives takes place. As it is important for CFIA and Health Canada to get this right, CHFA also recommends that CFIA spend considerable time incorporating the proposed changes in various label mock-ups to ensure the desired outcome balances both consumer and industry needs and, more importantly, to ensure there are no unintended consequences. CHFA looks forward to seeing many of these suggestions in a What We Heard document and in future consultation documents. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, we would be happy to discuss or clarify. Sincerely, Helen Long President