Hide and Seek

Physicians, nutritionists, dieticians and health magazines all remind us that we should watch what we eat. Most of us would be healthier consuming less fat, less sodium, less sugar, and more fibre, more vitamins and more minerals than we already get in our diets. A 1999 national survey conducted by polling company Canadian Facts found that 90 per cent of respondents believe nutrition is extremely, very or quite important and 74 per cent believed that nutritional information should be provided on all food labels. Unfortunately, food labels aren’t much help to us these days -- the same survey found that only 34 per cent of Canadians believed that nutrition information on product labels is adequate.

Nearly half of all foods sold in Canadian retail stores have no nutrition information on their labels whatsoever. Many of these same brand-name products, when sold in the U.S., provide full nutrition information as required by U.S. federal law since 1994 and it seems that Australian consumers will have similar laws shortly. Currently, U.S. consumers can see that one brand of mayonnaise has 11 grams of fat per tablespoon, while the Canadian label for the same product says nothing. In Canada, many foods that do divulge some facts leave out the bad news (like the amount of sodium in some vegetable cocktails and low-fat noodles.

With most food labels either devoid of nutrition information or misleading about overall nutritional merits, it can be tough trying to monitor our intake of nutrients. Under Health Canada’s current rules, if, for example, a company is embarrassed about the half-day’s worth of saturated fat in a half-cup serving of ice cream, it can discreetly omit saturated fat from its nutrition label. The federal government only requires manufacturers to report amounts of nutrients if the manufacturer wishes to feature the nutrient on its product label. Even then, it usually only requires that one or two nutrients be disclosed.

For many people with disabilities, good nutrition labelling rules are even more important than they are for the general population. For some people with significant mobility disabilities, exercise might not be an option as a means of improving overall health. In those cases, good nutrition becomes much more critical.

Consumption of high amounts of fat, especially saturated and trans-fat can increase the risk of developing heart disease and certain forms of cancer, such as colo-rectal cancer. High sodium and cholesterol consumption can increase the risk of heart disease in many people. Low calcium consumption can increase the risk of developing osteoporosis. Added sugars, often called "empty calories," add few valuable nutrients (such as fibre and vitamins) to foods. We all need adequate intake of iron, especially menstruating women. Adequate consumption of fibre and many vitamins and minerals can reduce the incidence of heart disease, certain forms of cancer and a variety of other ailments.
While the most pressing problem is that manufacturers don’t report the quantities of enough nutrients, some present the opposite problem. For instance, some cereal manufacturers report amounts of so many nutrients (as many as 28), including nutrients that are of little public health concern, that consumers are over-loaded with useless information that draws their attention away from the important nutrients. Also, the mere appearance of a longer nutrient list may incorrectly give consumers the impression that the product is healthier than another product with a shorter list.

There are also problems with the formatting, print size and colour contrast currently used for reporting nutrition information on product labels. Some labels are simply too hard to see or comprise long strings of words and numbers that are too difficult to read, much less interpret or compare with a similar product. Some products, such as salad dressings and cooking oils, report the amounts of nutrients on the basis of a one-tablespoon serving size, while others use two tablespoons or two teaspoons. In so doing, a manufacturer may misleadingly portray its product as superior to a competitor’s larger serving size.

The amounts of most nutrients (except vitamins and minerals) voluntarily disclosed on food labels are reported as grams or milligrams per serving, which is often meaningless to most of us who don’t have the recommended daily intake figures at our fingertips. For instance, many of us don’t know whether 680 mg of salt is high or low. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer health organization, proposed that nutrient amounts be reported in both absolute amounts and also expressed as a per cent of the recommended daily intake to assist
consumers in planning their daily meals.

For nearly two years, Health Canada has been conducting a consultation on the subject of nutrition labelling. In the spring of 1998, the Department released a discussion paper, appointed an advisory committee and held a meeting with food industry and health organizations in Ottawa. In April of 1999, the Department circulated a questionnaire to the participants and others asking their opinions on four aspects of nutrition labelling: whether it should be mandatory or remain voluntary, which nutrients should be on labels, what the format should look like and what steps should be taken to educate consumers in the use of nutrition labelling.

Throughout the process, CSPI has been pressing Health Canada to require comprehensive nutrition labels on all foods, not just foods about which manufacturers wish to make marketing claims. In the late 1980s, the Washington office of CSPI spearheaded the successful campaign for the current strict U.S. Mandatory nutrition labelling law, the Nutrition Labelling and Education Act.

In 1997, CSPI began to assemble an impressive coalition of health organizations who shared their concerns about poor Canadian nutrition labelling rules.

Members of the Alliance for Food Label Reform include the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Home Care Association, CSPI and 12 other health and citizen groups representing nearly two million Canadian consumers, scientists and health professionals. The Alliance emphasized five recommendations for improving nutrition labelling rules and supported a federal NDP private member s motion and a Liberal back-bencher’s private member’s bill seeking to have those
principles carry the force of law. Both measures introduced in the House of Commons in 1998 stated that nutrition information should be:

* listed for all foods sold in Canadian retail stores (with narrow exceptions for very small businesses, very small packages, food used in religious services, restaurant meals, etc.);
* reported for all nutrients linked to chronic disease for which there are deficiencies or excesses that are cause for public health concern in the diets of Canadians (such as: calories, total fat, saturated fat (including trans fatty acids), cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrate, fibre, added sugars, protein, iron, calcium, folacin, vitamin A and vitamin C);
* communicated in a manner that is easy to read;
* based on standardized serving sizes; and
* presented in a way that helps consumers monitor their intake of nutrients in the context of their total daily diet.

Above all, the Alliance emphasized the first requirement, that nutrition labelling should be mandatory on all foods. Mandatory nutrition labelling is the only effective way to ensure that manufacturers will routinely disclose important health information and, by extension, the only effective way to ensure that manufacturers produce more healthful products.

When Health Canada’s written comment period closed in August 1999, CSPI learned that 120 non-profit health, consumer, educational, and provincial and municipal government agencies recommended that the federal government adopt mandatory nutrition labelling rules for all, or nearly all, foods. (About ten other non-profit organizations either did not address the issue or supported voluntary labelling practices.) Support for mandatory labelling came from groups like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the 17-group Alliance for Food Label Reform, the provincial governments of Ontario, B.C., Saskatchewan, P.E.I., and the municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton
and Toronto.

You can help the campaign for mandatory nutrition labelling by sending the attached coupon to Health Canada as soon as possible. Better yet, send a letter, fax, or e-mail your local Member of Parliament and attach one or two deficient food labels from your cupboard (unfortunately, you shouldn’t have trouble coming up with them). If you’d like to see CSPI’s detailed response to Health Canada’s nutrition labelling feedback form, go to www.cspinet.org/canada.

To: Minister of Health Allan Rock, M.P., P.C.
Room 441-S, Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
FAX: (613) 947-4276
E-MAIL: rocka@parl.gc.ca
From: ______________________________________

As a reader of ABILITIES MAGAZINE, I urge Health Canada to require all food companies to disclose the number of calories and the amount of total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, fibre, sodium, potassium, total carbohydrate, added sugars, protein, iron, calcium, folacin, and vitamins A and C on all food labels (whether or not they make a nutrient claim). Those numbers should be based on conventional serving sizes, presented in an easy-to-read format, and the label should make it easy for shoppers to see how each nutrient fits into a healthy daily diet.

Consumers need this information on all foods so that they can make the healthiest food choices. Manufacturers’ desires to control nutrition information to better promote their products should take a back seat to the health needs of consumers.

I support Bill C-455, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (nutrition information on foods), and urge Health Canada to stand up to food manufacturers... and stand up for consumers.