Summary of the Nutrition Discussion Group, Nov 19 2003

Participants:

Ellen Desjardins (OPHA/facilitator)
Cindy Scythes (OPHA)
Kathy Chan (TPH)
Lori Levere (OPHA)
Lisa Swimmer (TPH)
Marian Yusuf (TPH)
Connie Uetrecht (OPHA/TPH)
Mary-Jo Makarchuk (TPH/recorder)

OVERALL

General Comments

The group found that the proposed legislative changes are broad, far-reaching and difficult to understand without specific examples and regulations. Therefore, the group acknowledged that this discussion is only the beginning of developing a response for both OPHA and TPH and that participants in this discussion will need to do further work to study the proposed changes and discuss these changes with other like-minded stakeholders. Therefore, the notes to follow provide a summary of the informal group discussion that focused on the definition of food, categorization of products, as well as deception and the proposed options for Schedule A.

back to top

B7.2 Food (Definition)

General Comments

In general, the group agreed that the proposed definition of food is an improvement over the current definition in the Food and Drugs Act.

In particular, it was felt that the proposed definition will ensure that many functional foods (and foods currently found in health food stores) are classified as foods, so that they will be subject to the same regulations as foods with respect to the addition of vitamins and minerals (fortification) as well as health claims; this may result in:

• creating a more level playing field by closing loop-holes for manufacturers of 'health foods';

• preventing the potential for consumers to be mislead by unsubstantiated health claims;

• protecting consumers from potential nutrient imbalances caused be over-consumption of highly fortified foods and displacement of other foods from the diet (total diet approach).

The issue of enforcement is integral to this discussion. There are currently many items on store shelves that do not comply with regulations (e.g., CFIA is currently investigating sports nutritionals); this needs to be addressed somewhere. The group brought up some examples of products that may be difficult to classify, these include protein shakes, herbal teas, Body Smartsä (a Calcium-containing chewy candy), and popsicles with medicine

back to top

B7.1 Categorization of Products - General

General Comments

The proposal states that: "Ideally, products would be categorized based on the level of risk they present.", however, "it would not be necessary to define categories of products in the Act itself". This is too ambiguous; we believe that the categories of products or the criteria to define the categories needs to be entrenched in the legislation itself in order to ensure that the public health and safety of Canadians comes first and to increase transparency. A mechanism (e.g., committee) may still be required to classify specific products into the various categories.

Specific Recommendations

1. Categories of products or the criteria to define the categories must be entrenched in the legislation itself.

back to top

B6 Deception

General Comments

Generally the group agrees with what is being proposed with a few caveats/recommendations (see below).

Specific Recommendations

1. Sufficiently rigorous standards of evidence must be established.

2. Health Canada needs to have the scientific capacity to verify claims independently potentially through auditing research submitted by manufacturers and by conducting their own laboratory studies to verify research submitted as evidence.

3. The proposed legislation must cover images on packaging as well as print ads.

4. The process for approving a health claim on a product classified as high risk (e.g., human milk substitutes) should include a step where the evidence would be subject to peer review by a panel composed of external as well as internal experts and could also include a public consultation.

back to top

B10.3 Advertising (Schedule A)

General Comments

The group generally agreed with the proposed second option: to retain the Schedule A prohibition but establish clear criteria for a certain disease to be listed, and to allow certain types of claims such as risk reduction (e.g., sunscreen reducing risk of skin cancer).

Specific Recommendations

1. The regulations should specify that the Minister could authorize certain claims on a case-by-case basis when standards of evidence are met. This option will encourage people to seek medical help for serious conditions, will make the process of listing diseases less arbitrary and more transparent, will make enforcement more efficient, will protect Canadians from fraudulent claims and will allow for health claims to be made that are beneficial for public health.

back to top