HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

Á

1105

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

His Excellency Svend Nielsen (Ambassador, Royal Danish Embassy)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. John Gould (President, New York Fries)

Á

1125

The Chair

Á

1130

Mr. Bruce Holub (Professor, Department of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph)

Á

1135

Á

1140

The Chair

Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health)

Á

1145

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Á

1155

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. John Gould

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. John Gould

Mr. Rob Merrifield

His Excellency Svend Nielsen

Â

1200

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Bruce Holub

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Bruce Holub

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Bruce Holub

Mr. John Gould

His Excellency Svend Nielsen

Mr. John Gould

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. John Gould

Mr. Rob Merrifield

His Excellency Svend Nielsen

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Â

1210

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Holub

The Chair

Hon. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. David Kilgour

The Chair

Hon. Gilbert Normand (Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, Lib.)

Mr. Bruce Holub

The Chair

Hon. David Kilgour

Â

1215

Hon. Gilbert Normand

Mr. John Gould

The Chair

Hon. David Kilgour

Mr. John Gould

Hon. David Kilgour

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Bruce Holub

Â

1220

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Bruce Holub

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Gould

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

His Excellency Svend Nielsen

Mr. Pat Martin

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)

Â

1225

Mr. John Gould

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. John Gould

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. John Gould

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. John Gould

Hon. Susan Whelan

Â

1230

The Chair

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, CPC)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Bruce Holub

Miss Deborah Grey

Â

1235

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. John Gould

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Â

1240

Hon. Don Boudria

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Bruce Holub

The Chair

His Excellency Svend Nielsen

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Â

1245

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Holub

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. John Gould

Â

1255

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bruce Holub

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. John Gould

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. John Gould

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. John Gould

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

·

1300

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. John Gould

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. John Gould

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Bruce Holub

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Holub

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Holub

Ms. Mary L'Abbé (Director, Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 014

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    It's my pleasure to welcome you to the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the health effects and alternatives to the consuming of trans fatty acids.

    I welcome the regular members of the committee. Today we have Mr. Pat Martin, a member from Winnipeg, who is the instigator of the interest we have in this particular subject matter. Welcome, Mr. Martin.

    We have several witnesses today. Our first witness will be His Excellency Svend Nielsen, Ambassador from the Royal Danish Embassy.

    Ambassador Nielsen, you have the floor.

    His Excellency Svend Nielsen (Ambassador, Royal Danish Embassy): Thank you.

    First of all, I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me. I am very honoured and very pleased to be at this committee.

    I would also say that for a Dane it's a little bit of an unusual thing. We have a habit of protecting our civil servants a little more than you do here in Canada, so our experience in facing parliamentary committees is fairly limited, but I will do my best.

    I will give you a background on what has happened in Denmark and the content of the act we now have on the table.

    As per January 1, 2004, Denmark does not allow any foodstuff to contain more than 2% of industrially produced trans fatty acids per 100 grams of oil and fat. The Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries issued an order in March 2003 setting the maximum limits for the content of trans fatty acids in oil and fats, both as foodstuff and as ingredients in processed foodstuff.

    The debate leading Denmark to become the first country in the world to take such measures has been focused on the protection of consumers and the concern to protect public health. I'll give you some of the key elements in the debate leading up to that decision.

    The Danish debate started about the same time that it did in North America and the rest of Europe. In 1994 the Danish Nutrition Council published a report on the adverse effects on health from the consumption of trans fatty acids. The report was furthermore published in a number of international journals with peer review. The report became the starting point for what is now our legislation. The report caused political attention from the very beginning, as did the parallel debate in other parts of the world, including debate in Canada.

    The Danish government soon decided that another regulation on the content of trans fatty acids in oil and fats should be initiated as proposed. It proposed an order that set the limits for the maximum content of trans fatty acids in foodstuff. As you know, Denmark is a member of the EU, which obliged us to send any legislation that might act as an indirect trade barrier to the European Commission for review. The legislation is based on what is considered justified on scientific grounds by the European Commission. Denmark can enact the legislation.

    Accordingly, the Danish Nutrition Council report was, together with the order of proposal, sent to the European Commission back in 1996. The Commission initially turned down the request on the grounds of lack of sufficient scientific evidence on the adverse effects of industrially produced trans fatty acids on health.

    The public debate in Denmark, however, continued and focused on the protection of consumers. This debate caused the Danish industry to voluntarily start reducing the content of trans fatty acids. Furthermore, the Danish Nutrition Council managed to conclude a voluntary agreement with the margarine industry to reduce the content of trans fatty acids in margarine produced in Denmark. Trans fatty acids in margarine were, at that point in time, the largest source of trans fatty acids in the diet of the Danes.

    After the first report in 1994 was published, a number of studies were published outside Denmark. They all confirmed and supplemented the Danish findings. The international findings resulted in an updated report from the Danish Nutrition Council, published in 2001. This second report further confirmed the adverse effects of trans fatty acids on health.

Á  (1110)  

    This caused a strong and increasing political desire for a rapid phase-out of industrially produced trans fatty acids, and a new proposal setting limits for the content of trans fatty acids was drafted and sent to the commission in 2002. This time, the legislation was not met with any objection from the commission. The second edition of the report from the Danish Nutrition Council, which is called Influence of Trans Fatty Acids on Health, with the extended scientific evidence, may well have contributed to convince the commission that the regulation was not suggested to limit trade, but only motivated by the concern for public health. The fact that the United States and Canada, with their requirement for labelling, had also recognized the adverse health effects may also have influenced the European Commission.

    Based on the comments made by other member states, however, Denmark decided to increase the allowance for trans fatty acids from the originally proposed 1% to 2% of the oils and fats. Subsequently, the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries enacted the order, which was issued on March 11, 2003. The order instructed the industry to start reducing the content of trans fatty acids from June 1, 2003, to two grams per 100 grams of oil and fats and to five grams of oil and fats included in processed foodstuff, which also contains ingredients other than oil and fat and which were produced by the food industry for retail outlets, catering establishments, restaurants, institutes, and bakeries. From January 1, 2004, the maximum is now limited to two grams per 100 grams for all foodstuff.

    In order to maintain the incentive for reducing the content below the initial suggested limit of one gram per 100 grams, the industry is further allowed to label the products with content below one gram as free of trans fatty acids. It's important to underline that the order does not apply to the naturally occurring content of trans fatty acids in animal fat.

    I'd like to tell you about the political debate in Denmark. The political intention to phase out industrially produced trans fatty acids was actually shared across the political spectrum in our Parliament and was not affected by the shift of government we had during the process. The process was initiated under a Social Democratic government in the 1990s, and the final proposal was enacted under a Liberal-Conservative government, which took office in Denmark in November 2001. Both governments argued for the order to protect consumers and public health and agreed that the interests of some companies should not be given priority at the expense of the consumers and public health.

    The decision was mainly based on the following arguments. There was a strong suspicion of harmful effects of industrially produced trans fatty acids on health. There was no finding whatsoever of beneficial effects of industrially produced trans fatty acids on health. Certain popular food products contain very big amounts of industrially produced trans fatty acids. Finally, the removal of trans fatty acids did not influence the taste of the products.

    When the final order was presented at a press conference, the Danish Minister of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries said the following:

The report on the influence of trans fatty acids on health shows that trans fatty acids are an unacceptable risk for health. The report gives us an obligation and indisputable basis to act. The order will of course create a new restriction from the industry, but we will not put the interests of the industry above public health.

    I'd now like to talk about the reaction from the industry.

Á  (1115)  

    The industry and their organization kept relatively quiet in the media during the process, except for some comments made by the Danish food and drinks federation, which is a section under the biggest association for Danish industry that we have. The association was for limiting the use of trans fatty acids, but it believed the limit set by the Danish order was too low. The individual companies, however, chose a passive approach in public, which, in my view, can be explained by several factors.

    The Danish industry was already ahead of other European industries in reducing their content of trans fatty acids, prior to the initiation of the order, and therefore faced fewer difficulties in changing the production than otherwise might have been the case. Furthermore, the industry might have foreseen that the phasing out of trans fatty acid can become a global trend, which can give Danish producers a first-mover advantage.

    The industry might have kept quiet because public pressure in Denmark was very high and the industry could not dispute the legislation or the scientific evidence without being discredited in public. In addition, some companies might have counted on the European Commission to protest the order as indirect trade discrimination, which would have made the Danish order illegal.

    The limited response from the industry was also true when it came to multinational companies. Nestlé Denmark said they had expected the European Commission to protest the proposal. However, today, after the implementation of the order, Nestlé Denmark, as an importer of products from Nestlé factories throughout Europe, says that Nestlé Europe, in order to keep producing for the Danish market, has actually been changing the European Nestlé recipes so as to accommodate the limits set by the Danish order.

    Only in a few instances has product been removed from the Danish market. However, in the future, some products might not be launched in the Danish market due to the limits of our order.

    The multinational company Storck, in Germany, which is known for the candy Werther's Original, decided to change all products throughout the world so as not to include more than the trans fatty acid allowed in the Danish order.

    Another example is McDonald's, which has changed to different oil in the Danish restaurants in order to comply with the limits of trans fatty acids. Experienced consumers--I happen not to be one--at McDonald's in Denmark had experienced no change in the taste of the fries.

    I have a few concluding remarks.

    The order has hence already had effect outside Denmark. I hope that Denmark is setting an example that can contribute to reduction in the use of industrially produced trans fatty acids on a global scale.

    I'm glad to convey the message that after years of debate in Denmark and the development of scientific evidence, the actual initiation of the order has in fact been relatively simple.

    The final order did not meet any noteworthy resistance from the industry or from the European Commission. On the contrary, strong political backing and support from the media and consumers have eased the process considerably.

    I have handed in to your office the text of the Danish order, the text of my presentation here, and also the report that was made by the Danish Nutrition Council, so you have that in your files.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for sharing that information with us. It's really quite exciting what you've accomplished in your country. Thank you, Ambassador.

    Our next witness is the president of New York Fries, Mr. John Gould.

    Mr. Gould, you have the floor.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. John Gould (President, New York Fries): Madam Chair, members present, et al., I've been asked to address this committee regarding our experiences in switching from partially hydrogenated oil containing transfats to a non-hydrogenated product.

    If I may, I'll give you a bit of background on New York Fries. We are a Canadian owned and operated company, with 175 units in Canada, one in Seoul, South Korea, a third to be opened in Brisbane, Australia, and three in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. If these sound like odd geographical choices, they are. However, I think it would take less time to explain our switch to a non-transfat product than it would to describe our geographical choices.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. John Gould: The question typically goes like, “So there are no New York Fries in New York, actually, but there are three in the Middle East”, is pretty much the answer.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. John Gould: This August will be our 20th year in business. We have survived, and indeed prospered, using the philosophy that if we could make a better product than we do now, we would. For the record, New York Fries cuts fresh potatoes daily at each of its stores, leaving the skin on. We've always used a vegetable oil, mostly canola—and no frozen product, or no heat lamps. As you might have guessed, fries are our core product, a product that almost every other operator in the industry also sells. So it's safe to say that had we not been head and shoulders above the competition, we would have been out of business.

    It's also worth noting that french fries are the number one prepared food item outside the house in North America—and by considerable margin, beating its nearest competitor by almost two to one.

    Over the last couple of years, the media and in some cases government assault on the fast food or QSR business has intensified. The concerns range from obesity in our children to the nutritional value of the products we sell and of course the long-term health implications. In the U.S., teenagers have sued McDonald's—unsuccessfully—for making them fat. Lawyers who were previously so successful in taking on the tobacco giants have decided to turn their sights to this business as their next battleground.

    Scientists in Sweden were so keen to tell the world that acrylamides cause cancer, and that baking bread, cooking rice, or frying almost anything causes acrylamides to form, that they failed to go through the proper testing and medical practices to determine what harmful levels might be. As an aside to that, it turned out that they had jumped the gun.

    The point is that you would quite literally have had to have been living under a rock, especially if you work in this industry, not to notice the negative press. This heightened awareness among consumers has been a top priority for management at my office for some time. It's not lost on us that when the industry is criticized, often french fries are literally pictured front and centre.

    While we consider ours a specialty product, as the type of fry that you should eat when you eat fries, that positioning doesn't happen on its own. You have to actually be the fry they should eat, and get that message across. If what we do isn't managed and marketed properly, we could just as easily be the poster child for everything that is wrong in our diet, rather than a place to go when you want good fries. To use an overworked phrase, perception is reality these days.

    This forced a review of all of our practices at New York Fries to ensure that we remained relevant to our customer in the long term. Among other things, it led to a complete redesign of our front counter, to highlight the fact that we use fresh potatoes daily and that in fact many of our toppings are also fresh. We added a menu item called “Veggie Works” and, significantly, started work testing alternative oils in our corporate stores.

    A lot of the negative press that I mentioned earlier we thought was either erroneous or trendy, like the Atkins diet. There was not much we could do about that anyway. But transfats and their negative impact on the individual's health was real, and it was not going to go away. I have made the assumption that most of you here know more about the science relating to transfats and its potential effects on health than I do, so I will focus instead on the issues we faced in making the change, and what I think the challenges might be for the food industry at large.

    We first tested canola-based, transfat-free oil at one of our corporate stores in Toronto in 2002, with inconclusive results. When we started doing a little more research on transfats in the summer of 2003, it soon became clear to us that it was not a matter of if we switched to non-hydrogenated oil, but when. If we were to be guided by our own philosophy and expected to remain as the best in the category, it was up to us to lead the sector, and to do it soon. There were a few non-hydrogenated oils commercially available, so we knew that it was possible, but there were still questions of cost, durability, and, most importantly, taste.

Á  (1125)  

    We have a very loyal following in our business, and as mentioned earlier, fries are what we do; we can't mess with taste.

    We experimented with another canola-based oil in three of our corporate stores in Toronto in the late summer of 2003 and through the fall, and after a few months we knew we had a product we could live with. Our then supplier brought us a sunflower oil they'd been developing, and that too was put into testing. This was a considerably more expensive product, but it was promised it would last longer than the product we were using currently, and perhaps slightly less of it would be absorbed into the potato: all good.

    By this time the negative coverage on the transfat issue had escalated considerably. Our staff was getting more and more questions regarding the content of our oil, and as a result, many of our franchisees were also asking us what we were doing about it.

    Voortman Cookies had been all over the airwaves for their decision to remove transfats from their products by the end of March 2004. In fact, they were getting tremendous press for something they planned to do in six months, so I wanted to switch and do it soon.

    Our initial results from the sunflower oil were fantastic. The oil was lighter and so were the fries. Our customers in the main noticed no difference; if anything, those who spoke up thought they were better. We still needed time to fully assess the quality of the oil and to determine its lasting qualities, but we were otherwise satisfied we could produce a first-class product without including transfats.

    The issue was cost. We waited long enough to prove that the new oil was more durable than our existing oil but without knowing exactly by how much. This was the best product we'd tried, and as previously mentioned, it wasn't a matter of “if” but “when”, so we made the announcement and switched to sunflower oil in all our Canadian stores by the end of March.

    Even with the extra life, as of yesterday, having done April's statements, I can say our food cost is up over 1% as a result of this change. While that might not sound like a lot, consider that the average store makes a 10% to 14% profit, so that 1% effectively reduces profit by as much as 10%. Our payback will come only with increased sales volume from educated consumers making a conscious decision to buy quality over quantity.

    There can be no denying that our new product is dramatically improved. In fact, our fat profile now resembles that of olive oil. Not only did we remove the transfats, our saturated fats went down by 33%, while mono-unsaturated fats, the good fat, increased by over 50%. Ultimately, we do believe that this upfront cost will return dividends down the road.

    Apart from the cost and the time necessary to test new oils for taste, our switch to a zero transfat product was relatively easy. We are our own manufacturing facility. We start with whole potatoes, cut them on site, and cook them from raw to done in various stages. In other words, we control the entire process. Almost all other operators receive precooked frozen product, so obviously switching to a non-transfat product at the individual units isn't going to solve the problem for them; it has to be changed at the source.

    Without providing a definitive answer, I can only assume that one of the barriers to change for the food service industry as a whole would be the enormous demand put on the current industry for non-hydrogenated oil, that and of course their own need to satisfy taste and cost concerns. For the packaged food industry, those products found in grocery stores like cookies, bread, and a multitude of other products, change represents a bigger challenge. In addition to these basic issues, their chief concern is shelf life. As well, large food companies have so many products that reformulation is a massive undertaking.

    In the end, like with most things, it comes down to supply and demand: the greater the demand, the higher the priority in the industry to supply. Eventually our oil prices should come down as non-hydrogenated oil becomes more widely accepted and available.

    I'll finish by saying it's ironic that the food industry was responding to recommendations from health authorities in the mid-eighties to reduce saturated and animal fats in our food supply. The best solution at the time was to reformulate products by using partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Who knew?

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gould.

    Our next witness is from the University of Guelph, where he is a professor of nutritional sciences, Mr. Bruce Holub.

    Mr. Holub.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Bruce Holub (Professor, Department of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph): Madam Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Health, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the invitation to appear before your committee today.

    With your permission, I'll offer ten minutes of introductory comments directed towards health concerns in relation to the consumption of trans fatty acids in the Canadian diet from numerous food sources.

    First, I would like to point out to your committee that approximately 25 years ago I was appointed to serve on a special ad hoc committee on the composition of special margarines and address the presence of trans fatty acids in such products under the advisory of the health protection branch, Health and Welfare Canada. Our report was completed in Ottawa in December 1979 and was released by the Minister of Supply and Services in 1980--and I have copies of the report here.

    The committee documented the unique properties of trans fatty acids as produced by commercial processing known as hydrogenation; it pointed out that the properties of trans fatty acids, both biologically and physically, more closely resemble those of saturated fatty acids than those of natural unsaturated fatty acids. Furthermore, our committee noted evidence in the scientific literature even at that time for the blood-cholesterol-elevating effects of trans fatty acids and increased risk of heart disease in controlled human studies.

    The recommendations of the ad hoc committee at that time, 25 years ago, indicated the need to reduce the trans fatty acid content of Canadian foods and recommended that the bureau of nutritional sciences within the health protection branch should conduct or sponsor a major review of the area within five years of our report. To the best of my knowledge, such a review was never conducted.

    Approximately 90% of the trans fatty acids consumed in a typical Canadian diet are consumed as processed and fast foods, often labelled and marketed as “cholesterol-free” and “low in saturated fat”. These terms are appealing to consumers, many of whom think that such foods have somehow been scrutinized to ensure they are likely to benefit the health of Canadians, including offering a lowered risk of heart disease, rather than having a potentially deleterious effect.

    The commercial hydrogenation industry uses a liquid vegetable oil such as soybean oil or canola oil that is cholesterol-free and low in saturated fat to begin with and subjects it to a commercial process known as partial hydrogenation. This produces a vegetable shortening or partially hydrogenated vegetable oil that is now in solid rather than liquid form and is still cholesterol-free and low in saturated fat, yet it is greatly enriched in trans fatty acids, mostly trans-isomers of the mono-unsaturated type. This hardened high-trans-mono-unsaturated fat is appreciated by the food industry for the highly extended shelf life it provides for processed foods as well as the stability of such fats for prolonged frying in fast-food operations. As well, there are marketing issues, cost issues, hardness, taste, plus other factors that render such fats attractive to the food industry.

    Health Canada and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. approved the inclusion of transfats in processed and fried foods and allowed marketing of these as cholesterol-free and low in saturated fat without mandatory declaration of “trans” on such products for the consumer. As a result, there has been a marked surge during the past few years in the appearance of foods containing trans fatty acids, such that margarines now represent only about 20% of the total transfats consumed in a typical Canadian diet.

    Many population studies, including the well-known nurses' health study, conducted on over 80,000 women with a 14-year follow-up from the Harvard Medical School as published in The New England Journal of Medicine, have indicated a marked increase in heart disease in relation to increasing transfat intakes. Trans fatty acids have been recognized as a major risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease--which means heart attacks, fatal and non-fatal--such that each gram of transfat in the diet, that is, 1,000 milligrams, increases the risk of heart disease by approximately 20%. Furthermore, the nurses' health study indicated that gram for gram, transfats pose about a thirteenfold greater risk of heart disease as compared to saturated fat.

    By the way, dietary cholesterol as consumed in eggs and to a lesser extent in meats at the level of 0.4 grams per day on average in this country, shows a small relationship to the risk of heart disease, in direct contrast to transfats. Unfortunately, surveys have indicated that 85% of Canadians consider--erroneously--that dietary or food cholesterol is the major factor that affects their blood cholesterol levels and the risk of heart disease.

    We and others have analyzed a wide variety of processed and fast-food products on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border over the past many years for trans fatty acid contents. For example, two frozen breakfast waffles, cholesterol-free, often contribute about 4.5 grams of transfat in the morning alone, as compared to eggs, which are transfat-free and contain approximately 0.4 grams of cholesterol.

Á  (1135)  

    A small serving of potato chips often contributes five grams of trans fatty acid per serving, bearing in mind that the official serving size often represents only a portion of the whole small bag, which many of our young people consume in its entirety.

    In addition to a wide variety of processed foods and fast foods, numerous snack foods, ranging from crackers, to doughnuts, to cookies, microwavable popcorns, processed food snacks, etc., often contain up to 25% to 40% of the total fat as transfat. A wide variety of foods targeted in marketing, TV ads, and sales in our schools, the YM-YWCAs, etc., for our young children are very rich sources of trans fatty acids.

    Canadian assessments have indicated that the average trans fatty acid intake per person in this country is approximately 8.4 grams, 8,400 milligrams per person per day, or 3.7% of our total dietary energy intake. The highest consumption is among our young people, where, for example, young adult males 18 to 34 years of age have average trans fatty acid intakes of 12.5 grams per person per day, with some consuming up to 39 grams per person per day.

    Unfortunately, one of the richest dietary sources of trans fatty acid in the Canadian food supply is mothers' breast milk. The average Canadian woman shows 7.2% on average of her total milk fat as trans fatty acid, with some lactating women in this country showing levels of 17% of the total milk fat as transfat, reflecting her intakes as high as 20.3 grams per person per day.

    Transfat content in the bodies and milk of pregnant and lactating women directly reflects their dietary consumption of transfat in the foods they consume. There is scientific evidence that high transfat intakes may potentially have deleterious effects on the metabolism of the physiologically essential omega-3 fatty acids during pregnancy in terms of growth and development of our infants.

    Controlled intervention trials have indicated that transfats increased the risk of heart disease in part by increasing the levels of LDL cholesterol in the blood, as found for saturated fats. However, transfats are of greater dietary risk than saturates, since they also lower the HDL cholesterol, the so-called “good cholesterol”, in the blood, and increase a highly atherogenic fraction of blood known as lipoprotein(a), whereas saturated fats do not exhibit these two latter deleterious affects.

    Health Canada should be commended for finally taking steps to insist upon the mandatory declaration of trans fatty acid contents on food labels. Corresponding information needs to be available to control the high intake of trans fatty acid in restaurant and fast foods.

    It is of considerable concern that the legislation for mandatory labeling of transfat on processed food products in this country will allow foods directed at children age two and under to be exempt from any mandatory declarations of trans fatty acid contents. This is particularly disturbing in view of the analysis that we have conducted on a wide range of baby products, showing, for example, that some popular baby biscuits contain up to 35% of the total fat present as trans fatty acids.

    Upon analyzing a wide variety of products within a particular commodity group over the years, we have regularly found that some products within a given category are free of or low in transfat, in contrast to others, which are very high. In other words, trans fatty acids, as found in vegetable shortenings and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, do not have to be used by the food industry as food components.

    It needs to be borne in mind that banning commercial hydrogenation of a vegetable oil resulting in the generation of a partially hydrogenated product that is rich in trans-isomers of mono-unsaturated fatty acids would likely markedly reduce our intakes.

    It should be noted that a total ban on all transfat in foods is unrealistic, since there is some natural biohydrogenation by microbes in the digestive tracks of ruminant animals such as cows and beef cattle, such that the fats from these natural sources often contain 3% to 4% of the total fat as transfat.

    It is also noted that if one were to perform complete 100% hydrogenation of a canola oil or a soybean oil, the final transfat-free product would be mostly a saturated fat known as stearic acid, which has 18 carbons. Eighteen-carbon saturated fatty acid, stearic acid, has been found not to increase blood cholesterol levels in controlled human trials. Mixtures of stearic acid, for example with transfat-free liquid vegetable oils, would allow for one of many options in providing transfat-free components for processed foods.

Á  (1140)  

    While the labelling of processed foods is commendable and appreciated, it needs to be pointed out that continued labelling for cholesterol in milligram units, where the gram quantities of cholesterol are multiplied by 1,000 from grams to milligrams, is unfair to the health-conscious consumer, if and when transfat contents are to be given in gram units. It is extremely important to ensure that the food labelling for cholesterol, if provided, needs to be in the same numerical units as for trans fatty acids--i.e., both in milligrams or both in grams.

    The nurses' health study showed that each gram of transfat was associated also with an 8% increased risk for type 2 diabetes over 14 years. At a per capita intake of Canadian adults of 8.4 grams per day transfat, it can be calculated that the transfats alone may well be contributing to a 156% higher risk for coronary heart disease in this country, and a 66% higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

    Canada has one of the highest intakes of trans fatty acids in the world, up to tenfold that of many other countries.

    I thank you for your attention.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Holub.

    From the Department of Health, we have Ms. Karen Dodds, acting associate assistant deputy minister of the health products and food branch.

    Ms. Dodds.

[Translation]

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is truly a pleasure for me to be here today with my colleague, Dr. Mary L'Abbé, to discuss with you trans fatty acids in food.

[English]

    Let me say it is actually very satisfying to have reached a stage where all of the witnesses agree that the science certainly shows that trans fatty acids pose a health risk. This is a nice evolution.

    It specifically increases the risk of coronary heart disease. So there is much interest in why these transfats are in foods and what can be done, interest in what action we can take at Health Canada, and what action the food industry can take to eliminate them or certainly reduce their levels in food.

    There is quite a bit of detail in my remarks, but I will try to explain the technical terminology.

[Translation]

    I will be very happy to answer your questions.

[English]

    Transfat or trans fatty acids are formed during the partial hydrogenation of unsaturated fats. Vegetable oils contain high levels of unsaturated fats in their liquid when they're at room temperature. The oils are hydrogenated in order to make them solid or semi-solid at room temperature. Then the partially hydrogenated oils are used to make baking and frying shortenings, and margarine and other spreads, all of which are solid at room temperature.

    Before the 1970s and 1980s, as other witnesses have said, animal fats such as butter and lard were the traditional sources of solid fats used in cooking and baking in northern countries. However, these fats, the animal fats, contain high levels of saturated fatty acids. During the 1970s, it was recognized that consumption of animal fats, rich in saturated fat and cholesterol, promotes the risk of heart disease.

    Expert committees around the world recommended that intake of such fats be reduced. Again, as a colleague has said, this resulted in a switch from animal fats to partially hydrogenated oils in baking and frying applications. In addition, consumption of butter was declining and being replaced by margarines prepared from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

[Translation]

    Solid fats are critical to what is called food functionality. In baked foods, they contribute to tenderness and flakiness. In addition, they increase the shelf life of the product.

[English]

    It was only in the early 1990s that you started to see really a scientific consensus growing that trans fatty acids raised LDL cholesterol, the so-called “bad cholesterol”, and at the same time lowered HDL cholesterol, the so-called “good cholesterol”. Dietary saturated fatty acids, the alternative solid fats, on the other hand, raised both the good and the bad cholesterol. It was therefore concluded that dietary trans fatty acids may pose a greater risk to health than saturated fatty acids.

    In 2002 the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine reported that trans fatty acid intake increased risk of coronary heart disease. They did not set a tolerable upper intake level for trans fatty acids because they concluded that any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increased the risk of coronary heart disease. So their report recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.

    As has been said, Canadian consumption of transfat is among the highest in the world, and it's one of the reasons why we pushed to include labelling of transfat on our nutrition label. The high intake is due to the widespread use of canola and soybean oils, which must be hydrogenated for use in shortenings and some margarines. Over 60% of the transfat consumed by Canadians comes from processed foods such as bakery products, fast foods, and snack foods, and 11% comes from margarines.

Á  (1145)  

[Translation]

    There has been a trend in Canada to develop zero trans margarines in response to reports of the negative health effects of trans fatty acids. Margarines with zero levels of trans fats are widely available in Canada. However, very few processed foods are made with non-hydrogenated oils.

[English]

    In January of last year we became the first country to require the mandatory declaration of trans fatty acid content of foods on the labels of most prepackaged foods. The new nutrition labelling regulations will require the declaration of transfat content on the labels of most prepackaged foods by December 12, 2005.

    But many products already have the new labels with transfat included. Some companies moved quickly to adopt the new labels, and in the regulations we specified that if industry wanted to use new health claims, they had to simultaneously use the new nutrition label.

    In July of last year, the United States announced that it would require a mandatory declaration of transfat on food labels as of January 2006.

    The mandatory labelling of transfat is intended to assist consumers in making healthy food choices, enabling them to limit their intake of transfat. In addition, we certainly recognize that labelling of transfat would act as an incentive for the food industry to lower the transfat content of foods.

[Translation]

    As His Excellency, the Ambassador mentioned, Denmark introduced regulations limiting the trans fatty acid content of fats and oils sold directly to the consumer or when used as ingredients in foods to 2%, as of June 1, 2003.

[English]

    So far, Canada has not chosen to impose a regulatory limit for transfat, as has been done in Denmark, since every indication that we have now points to the effectiveness of labelling and consumer awareness as drivers for industry to reduce transfats in their foods.

    A number of manufacturers have already announced that they are reformulating products in an effort to remove the partially hydrogenated fats, the main sources of transfat in the diet. We commend industries and companies that have done so. For example, two major companies, McCains and Voortmans, have announced plans to eliminate the transfat in their foods. Pepsico, which includes a number of snack food companies, such as Frito-Lay potato chips, has also announced its intent to reduce the transfat content of its foods as much as possible. Kraft has announced that Triskets and Oreos would be transfat-free.

    An important consideration in reducing the transfat content in foods is to not increase the levels of other fat components that have health implications equal to or worse than those of transfat. The message in the seventies to reduce your saturated fats caused an unanticipated change, the replacement of one bad fat with another bad fat. At this point, we want to make sure that we don't have that kind of situation happen again.

    There is a consensus within Health Canada that we must take a leadership role in working with industry to provide advice on how to improve the nutritional quality of fats and oils used in foods. An important first step has been to convene an expert panel to develop this advice.

[Translation]

    On April 6, 2004, Health Canada convened a meeting with the Expert Committee on Fats, Oils and Other Lipids.

[English]

    We obtained their input on fat reformulation strategies and viable alternatives to reduce the amount of transfat in the Canadian food supply to minimal levels. Our discussions with the committee centred around the following questions:

    What options are available for replacing transfats in processed foods?

    Would the alternatives provide the desired oil functionality, including such things as oxidative stability, frying stability, and flavour potential?

    What do we know about the health implications of the viable alternatives? Are they better, equal to, or worse than transfat? What are their effects on blood lipid risk factors? What are the effects with the use of liquid oils in deep-frying?

    What are the cost and availability issues?

    What will the consumer acceptability be of processed foods prepared from alternative sources?

    Whereas the members of the committee emphasized that solid fat is critical for food functionality, there are a number of alternatives to partially hydrogenated fats. For example, more fully hydrogenated solid fats would have virtually no transfat. Traditional oil seeds have been bred to have lower linoleic and linolenic acid levels to enhance oxidative stability. Tropical oils, which include palm oil, are viable alternatives. Blends can be made.

    Some of the above alternatives may be preferable to others; all of them have pros and cons. The most significant issue is that whereas the alternatives would result in a reduction in the amount of trans fatty acids, many of them will result in an increase in the amount of saturated fatty acids.

    Of note to Health Canada is the fact that despite the increased cardiovascular risk associated with saturated fatty acids, it appears that not all saturates elicit the same negative effects on blood lipids. For example, intakes of saturated fatty acids increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, compared to cis-polyunsaturates and cis-mono-unsaturates, but the risk is not as high as that for transfat.

    Health Canada will monitor the trans fatty acid content of the major sources of transfat in the diet to gauge the effectiveness of the nutrition labelling program and of its efforts to encourage the food industry to decrease the transfat content of their foods by the use of lower transfat alternatives.

    As has been said, foods sold in restaurants and other food service establishments are significant sources of transfat in the diet. As has also been said, our regulations do not require nutrition labelling of these foods. However, we have already had discussions with industry and will continue to work on a strategy to encourage the reduction of transfat in food served by restaurants and the food service establishments, and to provide nutrition information.

    When we talk about healthy eating and nutrition, we use regulatory approaches with industry, but we also work directly, with intermediaries and others, with Canadians on a healthy diet. Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating is one of the most popular government publications, and we encourage Canadians to follow Health Canada's guidelines for healthy eating. We advise Canadians seeking to reduce their intakes of transfat to avoid fried foods and baked goods unless there is an indication that their content of transfat has been reduced.

    Thank you.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dodds.

    We'll move on to the question-and-answer portion of our meeting. Mr. Merrifield, the lead critic for the official opposition, will be our first questioner.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): First of all, thank you for coming in. This is really valuable information. I don't think all of us were quite aware of this situation.

    I want to first of all ask the question—and maybe you've answered this one—how long have transfats been in the Canadian diet? How many years? Did it happen in the 1970s?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: As has been said, some transfats are naturally present in foods, so there's always been some exposure. I would say the increase started to show up in the 1970s through the 1980s. Health Canada has monitored the food supply, so we've seen the largest increase in the last few decades.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So in the last 30 to 35 years, you might say.

    What I'm trying to get my head around is do we have a labelling problem or do we have a legislative problem? I mean that in this sense: if transfats are as bad as this panel says, maybe Denmark is ahead of the curve and has it right. Maybe we shouldn't be allowing transfats in our diet at all, rather than the approach the department has been taking, which is just to put it on the labelling and encourage people to not eat those foods.

    I'm a little confused. The testimony of the department says that you recognize the risk here. Are you open to the idea of a private member's bill suggesting that we legislate against transfats?

Á  (1155)  

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: There certainly is now wide scientific consensus that transfats are bad for you. There is a health risk. That does not go back thirty years. It doesn't go back twenty years. It barely goes back ten years that you could say there really was a scientific consensus that transfats were bad for you. Indeed, even in terms of our labelling initiative to require transfat on the label, we certainly did meet with opposition from some sectors over including it.

    So I think there is now consensus that transfats are bad. There is also a consensus that we want to do what we can to minimize Canadians' consumption of transfat, and we will likely need a variety of approaches.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We need a variety of approaches, okay. The question I asked, though, is about one approach, which is to legislate against it. I think a private member's bill would take two years to eliminate transfats from Canadian diets. Is that achievable? And what would it look like in the industry?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: I don't know if it's achievable. It certainly would not be achievable without major disruption to current industry practices in Canada, and probably in North America, and without major disruption to consumers in their preferences.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. This actually goes to Mr. Gould's comments. You've done this as an industry already, no trans fats in fries.

    Mr. John Gould: Yes, we have no transfats in the fries.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: How long did it take you to do that?

    Mr. John Gould: I think we could have done it overnight, because the product was available to us, but that would have been a bit reckless. We had to test it for cost and durability--and taste, of course. But as I mentioned, we first tried a non-hydrogenated oil in 2002. It wasn't our best product available. And quite honestly, my awareness of the transfat issue, let alone that of the average consumer, wasn't nearly what it is today.

    We stepped up the pace last summer, and, reasonably, it took us six months to do it. But as I pointed out, we control the entire process, and I can't speak for the producers of the oil or the Nestlés of the world, for that matter, because of a couple of things. Our gravy contained a bit of transfat as well, and as of a month ago we started shipping a transfat-free gravy. Our cheese sauce from Nestlé still has some transfat in it. We're working hard and they're working hard to try to get it out, not just in response to us, because we're a relatively small customer in that department.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: My other question is, in Denmark, how long did it take for the transition to take place?

    His Excellency Svend Nielsen: It actually was a long process. We already had a dialogue with the industry from the beginning of the 1990s, and with some of the industries--the margarine industry, as I said--we actually made an agreement with them to gradually phase out the transfats on a voluntary basis.

    Some companies had not done any adaptation in their production, and from the moment the order was implemented until their products were on the street, it took most of them half a year to make the transition, because they were big companies. It was the whole flow of products within those companies. But they were, in a way, aware. Most of the companies were aware of the trend from the mid-1990s, so many of them I think had already been looking into what could be the alternatives for the products at that stage, without changing the process.

    On the labelling system, let me add that we actually started using a Canadian-style labelling system very seriously, and in general we pay a lot of attention to using the labelling system and have trust in our consumers. But in this particular situation here, our nutrition council, the consumer organization, and finally the government opposed the system, which they found was not able to give sufficiently clear and simple information to the consumers in this situation. They found this to be a complicated area. Some even used the slogan “You don't have to be a chemical engineer in order to choose what is a healthy food for you”.

    Therefore, after serious discussions we came to the conclusion that for this particular product it was necessary for the government to actually put a limit on it, and not rely on a labelling system. In particular, we found it was very difficult to have an effective labelling for the fast-food industry and for the consumers in that industry, who are often young people, teenagers. We didn't trust that it would work there, and that is exactly where you have the most severe health risk.

    So that was our motivation. It was not because we don't in general think that labelling is a useful tool, but in this instance we found that it was not sufficiently effective to protect the consumers.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's my concern. If we have the scientific evidence that transfats are causing the kind of damage this panel has suggested, then labelling will just confuse the population. I don't think there are a lot of people out there walking in the street who know the difference between saturated, unsaturated, partially hydrogenated, and so on, in all these different fats. If we know that a product is not in our best interest, we should be acting on it rather than just labelling something and saying it's dangerous to use it.

    Is 2% the appropriate number allowable? Maybe I'll ask Bruce that question.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: First of all, we've known about the potentially harmful effects of transfat in the Canadian diet for 25 years.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I see that.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: Since that time, government has allowed cholesterol-free food labelling--low in saturated in fats--in a wide variety of processed and fast foods over the last 25 years.

    On the proposed ban on transfat in foods, it is very reasonable, and I would support a ban on partial hydrogenation, at least to a fat product that has transfat. Second, we cannot ban hydrogenation, because, as was mentioned by the ADM and myself, 100% hydrogenation of a canola or soybean oil will give you a transfat-free saturated fatty acid that can be blended with some unsaturated oils.

    Third, a total ban on transfat in the Canadian food supply is unrealistic because of the natural biohydrogenation in the ruminant stomach.

    Could you repeat your question?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is the 2% appropriate?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: There's no level of transfat that is safe. From a public health perspective, if the average Canadian consumes 100 grams of fat, two grams of transfat can be expected. If you believe the nurses' health study on 80,000 women over 14 years, as reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and corresponding studies, two grams of transfat per day will increase the risk of heart disease by 40%.

    The Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. is proposing to have transfat-free labelling on products with 0.5 grams of transfat. That means a product that will increase the risk of heart disease by 10% will qualify for transfat-free labelling.

    Mr. John Gould: I have a question for Ambassador Nielsen. Is it 2% per 100 grams of fat, or is it 2% per 100-gram serving that might be 10% fat?

    His Excellency Svend Nielsen: According to the order, it is two grams per 100 grams of oil or fat.

    Mr. John Gould: So 100 grams of fat is an awful lot of fat. I think even the current laws in Canada and the U.S. on whether or not a product can be called transfat-free or zero transfat allow for 0.5 per 100 grams per serving.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are you saying that the laws in Canada right now as they exist would comply with the 2%?

    Mr. John Gould: To call yourself transfat-free, zero transfat, if I'm not mistaken.... I'd have to do the math on this, but the question is whether it's 2% of 100 grams of fat, or 2% of a 100-gram serving that might have 10 grams or 15 grams of fat in it.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's fine.

    His Excellency Svend Nielsen: I can only add that as I mentioned in the presentation, the government actually suggested a 1% limit. The reaction from the industry was that only one company would be able to produce products that would make it possible to keep that level. We felt we needed competition from different industries that could produce it. That was one of the reasons why it was increased to two grams in our final work.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Our next questioner is Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chair, there is a little joke going around, that is not very mean and that I would like to share with you. Some people believe that Canada greatly contributed to the reduction of trans fats when it recalled its ambassador to Denmark, but clearly this is not what I am going to be questioning our department about.

    I wish to fully understand the terms of the debate. In fact, we have the choice between a voluntary system and a compulsory one. It seems that the preference in Canada has been for the voluntary system and the compulsory one seems to frighten the Health Department.

    Why is it that the Health Department seems convinced that in adopting a bill such as that proposed by our colleague Pat, things might become too draconian and turn the industry's practices too quickly upside down? What are you basing your views upon and what do you fear at Health Canada?

    The Health Department is indeed at times a little bit quiverish. In the area of GMOs, you were somewhat quiverish, and it was the case as well with regard to drug advertising. Why is the Department of Health once more not being more courageous?

[English]

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: I think you have as witnesses representatives from two areas that have been at the forefront: Denmark, the only country that has set a level; and Canada, the first country to set mandatory nutrition labelling. The regulations only came into place last year, and will only be fully effective in 2005. So we're seeing some labelling of transfat now, but it will be mandatory in 2005. Denmark has chosen to take a different kind of regulatory approach.

    As I noted, it's not an easy issue. There are differences between the Canadian situation and, as I understand it, the situation in Denmark. A number of us have said that Canadians consume among the highest levels of transfat because we use a lot of canola and soybean oils, grown in Canada, in our food supply. We do not use the same level of animal fat as colleagues in Europe.

    On the alternatives, we want to be careful that when we replace transfat we're not replacing it with something as bad or potentially worse. We want to make sure the alternative is healthier.

    The other difference in the Canadian context--

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: It seems to me that what you are describing fits with the reverse logic of what Health Canada is doing. If Canada's population includes people who consume more, then we should abandon the voluntary approach and move towards a more compulsory system.

    In your presentation, you stated that it was as if trans fats had a preservation role to play in foods. Is there some way of removing them completely or of limiting them to 2% while at the same time having safe food preservation processes? If we remove the preservation element, there is no other justification for not being coercive.

    What I do not understand is why we do not move right away to a legislative approach. Putting this information at the disposal of consumers does nothing for health determinants nor for healthy consumption practices. Therefore, leaving aside the consumer practices argument, if we removed trans fats or reduced them to 2%, we could nevertheless preserve food, just as Denmark does. I find that there is not much rationale behind your arguments, except for the fact that it is a rather timid approach. In what way would this bring about disruption in industry practices? Explain this clearly to me.

[English]

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: There are many functions that fats play in food. One of the advantages of transfats is they are more stable and don't undergo what's called oxidative rancidity at the same rate as other fats. That is important in the Canadian food supply and food chain context, where we have higher levels of production, more centralized facilities, and larger distribution networks.

    Many of the products that have these kinds of fats right now can take many months to go through the distribution chain, from production through to consumption by a consumer. So one of the issues we know of in the Canadian context is that those replacement fats either need to have the same level of stability--and this obviously wasn't an issue for New York Fries because they're serving fresh product--or the food industry has to make adjustments to its supply chain.

  (1210)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Holub, are you convinced by the arguments given by Health Canada? Does the more quiverish, the more timid approach shown by Canada appear to you to be plausible? Do our climate, the distribution chain and the need to have fats that will last longer appear to you to be a rationale such that Canada must move towards labelling rather than legislation?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Holub.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I think the ideal approach would be to legislate a ban on the type of hydrogenation that leads to a fat product that has a significant amount of transfat. You want to cover the restaurant chains, which represent 30% of the transfat consumed in this country, compared to 60% from processed foods. Whether that's practical or not is outside my area of expertise. That is my recommendation, and I would support that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

    Our next questioner is Mr. Kilgour.

    Before you begin, Mr. Kilgour, I'll tell people when they're coming up. It will be Mr. Kilgour, Mr. Martin, Ms. Whelan, Ms. Grey, and then Mr. Boudria. Then, depending on whether we have any more requests from this side, it will be Mr. Normand.

    Hon. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast, Lib.): May I share my limited time with Mr. Normand?

    The Chair: It's only five minutes.

    Hon. David Kilgour: Yes. It would be two and a half minutes each.

    The Chair: Okay, sure.

    Are you going to begin?

    Hon. Gilbert Normand (Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, Lib.): I will speak French, if you permit me.

[Translation]

    When taking a measure aimed at the entire population, the primary purpose is to increase people's life expectancy. A few years ago, I went to Denmark and I was struck, especially since it was in the month of May, by all of the pretty women I saw walking about bra-less under their blouses. One or two years later, the World Health Organization did a study on breast cancer and Japan was used for comparison purposes. The study revealed that Denmark was indeed the country where the incidence of breast cancer in women was the lowest, whereas Japan is the country where it is highest, because Japanese women wear very tight bras. The conclusion thus reached is that bras, especially when they are too tight, make cause breast cancer. I would therefore like to know if Denmark has prohibited bras! But this is a real public health issue.

    All this to say that in the case of a decision such as this, I believe that we must use the most advanced scientific data.

    We for example know that salt can be harmful. In the past, people said it was good for everyone; today, we know that only 30% of the population is affected by salt with regard to high blood pressure.

    I would now have two questions to put to you, following up on this. The first is for Mr. Holub. Are we at present convinced that all individuals are affected by trans fats? Will genetics not tell us that certain categories of persons might be able to deal with trans fats and that others are unable to do so? That is my first question.

[English]

    Mr. Bruce Holub: In the nurses' health study, all women on the highest intake of transfats did not show cardiovascular disease. Obviously there's a significant amount of individual variability, but it is a major risk factor.

    If the goal of public health initiatives is to protect the masses as much as possible, then obviously we have to bring in recommendations that would cover the masses, even though there will be some individuals, for example, who smoke heavily and don't die of lung cancer.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Normand.

    Mr. Kilgour.

    Hon. David Kilgour: I'd like to—

  (1215)  

    Hon. Gilbert Normand: I have one more small question for Mr. Gould.

[Translation]

    Are you aware of the agricultural impact of the production of sunflower oil, for example, versus canola oil or soya oil? What impact might the use of sunflower oil versus other oils presently on the market have? In the future, could that have an impact?

    Mr. John Gould: I do not know.

[English]

    I don't know. I'm not a farmer. If you're asking if there are adverse effects from committing too much to growing sunflowers, as opposed to canola, I can't imagine why that would be the case, but I don't know.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Kilgour.

    Hon. David Kilgour: Time is short.

    Madam Chairperson, it's an excellent panel we're having today on a very important subject.

    To anybody who would like to reply, how many of you would like to see us go the route of Denmark, or should we let the companies do what New York Fries has done and allow the companies to decide?

    I know you've already partly spoken to this, but does anyone want to add anything to what has already been said?

    Mr. John Gould: I could perhaps propose an intermediate solution. I think the people who read labels can already deduce the transfat content on a product from the current labelling--that is, those people who are interested and who care enough to look. I don't think the labelling, in and of itself, is going to solve much of a problem.

    I think if you were to spend as much time and money educating the consumer as to the harmful effects of transfats as you might when trying to pass it into law, you might solve the problem. I'm not fully aware of the impact on all industries, including farmers, as to the consequences of legislating against it. I'm sure there's an impact.

    Certainly there should be a greater awareness among us of the problems with transfats. It might be the best short-term solution, while you debate other things.

    Hon. David Kilgour: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the members of the committee for allowing this study to take place today. I know that you had to move other very important issues off the agenda to allow this very important issue to come forward.

    Thank you to all of the guests, as well. What a wonderful overview you've given us of all of the different facets of this debate.

    I think it really can be rendered down to one simple question, though: Is labelling satisfactory to protect Canadians from the known health hazard of transfats? There's so much we could talk about, but I think that's the only question we really need to press today.

    It's no secret that it's my view that it isn't okay to put poison in our food as long as it's properly labelled, and I don't think it's exaggerating to call transfat poison. I'm not trying to be theatrical or romantic by calling it poison.

    Walter Willett, the chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard University, calls transfats “the biggest food-processing disaster in history”. Food scientists use the word “toxic” when they talk about transfats.

    I guess I would make you aware of one thing first: that Senator Wilbert Keon, the noted heart specialist, and Senator Yves Morin, who was the dean of the Laval University Faculty of Medicine, are going to jointly introduce this bill, as it stands, in the Senate later this week. I thought it would be interesting to people to be aware that scientists of that stature, who are also senators—one Tory and one Liberal—are cooperating in a cross-party initiative to promote the Danish model of regulating transfats, to the point that those would be virtually eliminated for all intents and purposes.

    In order to use the time effectively, I guess I would come back to the original question: Would anybody publicly state that we should be eliminating transfats rather than just labelling them?

    Dr. Holub?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I stated already, and will repeat, that I think we should seriously consider—and I would support—for the sake of the Canadian public, a ban on the type of hydrogenation, such as partial hydrogenation, that produces fat with a significant amount of transfat. Obviously, a total ban on all transfat, because of the ruminant stomach, is impractical, so one couldn't go there.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's correct.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: Obviously, I would also support a ban on hydrogenation, at least of the formation of stearic acid in the final product, if you go all the way to the use of blends in transfat products.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    Mr. Gould, if I could ask you specifically from an industry point of view.... I should make you aware that when I spoke to our Minister of Health recently, asking him if he would reconsider, his only reservation was that he thought there would be big opposition from industry.

    I very much admire your position in unilaterally and voluntarily eliminating transfats. In your industry sector, is it possible or is it feasible?

    Mr. John Gould: Again, I'm not sure that I'm totally qualified to answer that, but I can tell you that McDonald's has apparently removed it from their oil in Denmark, or is about to. They announced, I believe, almost two years ago that they were going to reduce substantially the amount of transfats, if not eliminate them, by the end of 2003. That didn't happen. I can only believe that it wasn't their marketing department that was holding them up, but that in fact there are some real barriers to making that change. It may just be protecting taste, though I can't imagine that it's the only problem. There are obviously some other issues there, because it is politically, if not in many other ways, the right thing to do in the food business. If it were that easy, everybody should be doing it.

    Finally, I should say that if we wanted to reduce the 30% contribution made by the fast food industry to transfats, more people should eat at New York Fries.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's for the record, the permanent record.

    The Chair: Mr. Nielsen wanted to comment on something that was said about Denmark and McDonald's, and then Ms. Dodds.

    His Excellency Svend Nielsen: Just to repeat, we seriously looked into the labelling system. We are using the labelling system in a number of instances. It was agreed across the board among all the political parties that in this situation, the labelling system was not sufficiently effective in protecting the consumer to the degree that we wanted—and, in particular, the consumers in the fast food industries. That was the main argument put forward; and for that reason, we chose, in this instance, to have a ban or limit on how much the content could be.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Ambassador.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: I'll make a few comments.

    As health officials, we've been clear, our goal would be to reduce, to the extent possible, the level of transfat in the food and the consumption of transfat by Canadians. The department has been very public that in terms of nutrition labelling for all nutrition labels in the whole of nutrition, the regulatory approach is not sufficient. It takes a lot of other instruments, public education being a key one. Nutrition labelling is one thing that helps the consumer understand, but the consumer needs a lot more information, things like your label pins and things. The media attention to transfat, from our perspective, is wonderful. It helps raise consumer awareness.

    From a regulatory perspective, we have done a few things. We have changed the rules about saying something's “cholesterol-free”. So with the new regulations, you won't be able to say something is cholesterol-free if it is indeed high in transfat. So we've eliminated some of those aspects of it.

    Our concern would be, as I've said, that in replacing transfat we know that what the replacement is does not pose greater health risks and that it is workable in the Canadian context. So company by company, they're going through those kinds of considerations.

    We knew that nutrition labels would be an instigator to industry to change their formulations. So it wasn't a “you must change your formulation”; it was really was “here's some incentive because you're going to have to declare transfat and you have to declare trans-plus fats under the new label system”.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dodds.

    Thank you, Mr. Martin.

    Our next questioner is Ms. Whelan.

    Hon. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I can't help but pick up on Ms. Dodds' comments about how important it is that we talk about nutrition and how important it is that we educate Canadians. I was out for dinner on Friday evening with some friends of mine. Their youngest child is in senior kindergarten and had just gone through two days prior what was healthy and what wasn't healthy. I was quite amazed by how much he could grasp, and what he could decide about what he wanted to order based on what was healthy and the food groups that were covered.

    I think this is key for Canadians' health, educating them on what the choices are and making sure they make the right choices and have the right information in front of them. I'm sitting here through this hearing today and I'm trying to understand. If I understand the Denmark legislation, it restricts transfat to only two grams in 100 grams of fat or oil. Maybe you can tell me, Mr. Gould, how many grams of fat are in an average serving of french fries.

  (1225)  

    Mr. John Gould: I could. Per 100 grams of product, it's about 13 grams of fat. I can tell you that the overall content--that is, the volume of fat--has not lessened by taking out the transfats. We've simply switched. We've lowered the saturated fats and we've raised the mono-unsaturated fats. But there's still fat in the product.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: So the 100 grams of product, is that a serving of french fries?

    Mr. John Gould: No. I think that would be a typical.... As I think the professor pointed out, that isn't necessarily what we.... I would say that would be equivalent to about half a regular size of our product.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: And just for discussion sake, do you know what the calorie content of that would be for that same 100 grams?

    Mr. John Gould: Don't quote me exactly on this, but 340, 375.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: No, but my point is that there's a lot of discussion out there by a lot of different experts in different health fields, and people pick up different magazines. You need to count calorie content, you need to count fat content, you need to look at size of servings, and you need to have a good understanding of it all, because you can make some very ill-informed decisions on what to eat in a day if you haven't taken into account the basic food groups and the different nutrients that you have, or the way we, as Canadians, prepare product.

    I'm a big fan of potatoes. I'm also a big fan of french fries. But I have to balance that out in my day with everything else that I'm eating to make sure that I'm not getting too many calories or not too much fat, so that I can have the green salad at the other meal to go with the french fries that I had at the meal prior. Like I said, I'm a big fan of french fries. I'm not trying to be critical. I'm trying to say there has to be that balance in how we eat.

    I think when we focus in only on one part of it... And I don't think we should allow large volumes of transfat, by any means, in our food. McDonald's said that it was going to reduce by half its content by 2003--not get rid of it, not eliminate it; the study I read just said reduce by half. I'm not sure if they've done that or not. They're not here to defend themselves, so I don't think it's fair to say they did or they didn't. But I think there needs to be a lot more discussion by this committee before we make any recommendations or decisions, because you said your early results of research were inconclusive.

    I'm wondering how much research each of these companies does--I think it's probably volumes of it--to try to make changes and to make switches and to make these things happen. I'm not sure how to average that, Mr. Gould. I don't know if you have any ideas, or maybe Ms. Dodds.

    Mr. John Gould: To your point earlier, I think the education process should begin now, and unlike whether or not you should have x number of calories or carbs in your diet or not have carbs in your diet, I think there is proof here that transfats should not be in your diet, and that message should be getting out now. I don't think you need to do a whole lot of study for that. In the meantime, while you study, you can at least start educating the consumer.

    I think this is different. I agree with you on balancing your diet, absolutely. But it isn't just in french fries that transfats are present. They're in cookies, they're in bread, they're in damn near everything you eat, and we know it to be a bad product.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: I understand that, but even Denmark didn't say “No transfats”; they said “two grams per 100 grams of fat”. To get to 100 grams of fat consumption, that's pretty high for an average consumer to end up with two grams. Certainly the more we can do to lessen that amount of transfat we consume every day is important, but I also think it's important that we have Canadians make healthy choices as they go forward.

    What I'd like to see is, for example, when the province was talking about adding the PST back onto meals under $4, I talked to a number of people who said “Why can't we have healthy meals where we take the GST and PST both off and we promote them as healthy meals in our different organizations and places?” A lot of people have turned to fast food. A lot of people have turned to prepared food because people are busy. Lifestyles have changed. I think we need to really promote that, and the healthier the food product is that we can get on the shelves and out to the consumers, the better we are.

    So I'm not saying don't eliminate transfats. Certainly the more we can do to eliminate transfat is great, but as a Canadian, I'd like to see Canadians have a better understanding of everything they're eating together and certainly understand the need to have that balance in their diet.

    I'd like Ms. Dodds to maybe just comment on Canada's Food Guide and how we promote that, and how we get that information out to Canadians.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Be very brief, because we're well over the time.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: As I said, Canada's Food Guide is certainly one of the most popular federal government publications. Health Canada works with a lot of intermediary groups. We tend to work with provincial colleagues, territorial colleagues, dieticians across Canada, school systems, and so on, to ensure that there is a multiplier effect in terms of translating the food guide from us into the hands of Canadians.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dodds.

    Our next questioner is Ms. Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, CPC): Thank you all for coming this morning. It's great.

    Susan, I noticed that you said 100 grams is quite a bit and we have to figure it out. I bet you it isn't much at all in terms of what we all wolf down every day.

    I'd like to ask a question. Maybe, Karen, you would be the best one to answer this, about a fat-free oil developed by Procter & Gamble, called Olestra, which was okayed in the U.S. in 1996--which is now, all of a sudden, eight years ago. I understand that Health Canada has declined that. Could you tell me something about it? I know nothing about this, so I'd appreciate an answer on that.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Olestra would be considered a novel food in Canada. We have regulations requiring that novel foods come to us before they--

    Miss Deborah Grey: What kind of food?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: A novel food.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Genetically modified foods are all considered novel foods, but foods that are novel for other reasons--and Olestra is an example of one--are also regulated by us.

    Miss Deborah Grey: How is it novel?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: How is it novel? It's a mixture of fats that aren't natural fats. They're synthetic fats.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Sort of like transfats?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: I don't have the details, and the details would be proprietary to Procter & Gamble. I don't know how much is in the public domain in the United States.

    Under our regulations right now, companies, before marketing in Canada, have to come to us to get a pre-market safety assessment.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Okay. Thank you.

    I'm interested in this labelling that the good cholesterol is okay and the saturated fats are okay, so we up all that, but then we don't put in the part about the transfats. Do you see us moving toward this mandatory labelling of it?

    I understand it's supposed to be voluntary, and we always hope everybody is going to be well-behaved.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Our new regulations, which were passed in January 2003, make new nutrition labelling mandatory as of December 2005. But at the same time, we said to industry, if they want to use one of the newly authorized health claims, they have to adopt the new nutritional labelling at the same time. Industry is also voluntarily adopting the new nutritional labels, so you're seeing some of it out there now.

    You see a line for fats, but you see a specific line for saturated fats. You see a specific line for transfat. The two must be totalled. As well, by regulation now, we've said you can't have the label saying “cholesterol-free” if the level of transfat is high or if the level of something else is high.

    Miss Deborah Grey: How many teenage kids do we know who are going to really be obsessed by that and say “shucks, I'd better not have this”? I mean, really, that's the trick, isn't it?

    I see New York Fries in the Southgate Mall in Edmonton all the time. I think it looks good, but I try, not very hard, to eliminate all that. I didn't know that until today, and I'm reasonably intelligent. You can't believe it, but the labels are there.

    Bruce, you're celebrating your 25th anniversary. How far have we come? You must scratch your head sometimes.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: The public tells me that you can go to Consumer Reports magazine and get rankings from good, bad, to ugly on camcorders, by brand name. The public asks me, in church basements—and I do plenty of them—to give them a heart attack risk score by brand name.

    Together with science, we could look at commercial products, knowing the composition. Expert scientists could pretty well agree on a heart attack risk score for a product per serving. For a score of one to ten, ten is high risk and one is low risk or no risk. It's easy to do.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Is there a possibility, Karen, of that happening, out of Health Canada? I don't mean for the kids, but for the food guide. We all grew up with the food guide. Now that all of us baby boomers are getting older and fatter, we should have the heart attack guide too. It would be a good thing.

  (1235)  

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Certainly, as your colleague, Ms. Whelan, said, education on nutrition is key.

    I've been a part of discussions with groups that have targeted coronary heart disease. I've also been a part of groups that have targeted obesity. I've also been a part of groups that have targeted cancer or diabetes. The nutrition label was meant to be very objective to help supply information that would help all of the above, because there are different dietary choices that are appropriate for people at different stages of life.

    We actually want our infants and young toddlers to consume a diet that's relatively high in fat. It's absolutely critical for them. We don't want people to take home the message for their young kids to avoid fat. The nutrition label was very much looked at as being objective, basic information, upon which Health Canada and other groups can build education platforms to help them with whatever the dietary issues are.

    Miss Deborah Grey: The question that begs to be asked is, is it working?

    Mr. John Gould: No, I don't think labelling is going to do a damn thing. I think the kids who come to our counter can go home and, in defence of our product, tell their mothers that we're now transfat-free. It's not really a sales message. We have to educate the kids.

    There are a number of things that come up as a result of this. I think legislation often provides a crutch for people who say now they know they can't do that, and it's all they have to know. As part of an overall balanced diet, you have to get off your butt, go outside, and exercise too.

    I think a lot of criticism has been levelled at the food industry, blaming it for problems in our kids. To simply legislate against some of those issues, with the food department alone, it doesn't tell them to get off their butts and do part of the overall package. I think education, in a broad sense, is really what's required.

    Do you remember 30 years ago, when you started ParticipAction? Where has that gone?

    The Chair: Thank you, Miss Grey.

    Our next questioner is Mr. Boudria.

    Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): I have a few brief questions.

    Madam Dodds, why is baby food exempt from labelling requirements? Did I hear that correctly?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Foods that are targeted for the population under two years of age are exempt from certain aspects of it. It may be a generalization. I'll ask my colleague, but I think the primary instigator was because we don't want that age group to reduce their intake of fat. It is absolutely critical for healthy development.

    Hon. Don Boudria: But if I understand it, the labelling requirement is not about fat, it's about transfats. As a grandfather, I have some difficulty with the proposition that my daughter can't know this. Why is that information not made available to her? What logical explanation could there be?

    While that's being thought on, can I ask a question to Professor Holub, Madam Chair?

    Is 12.5 grams the average intake for a young person?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: Yes, that's the average for our young people between the ages of 18 and 35.

    Hon. Don Boudria: And it increases the heart attack rate by 40%, roughly?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: Well, for every one gram...240%. So for our 18- to 35-year-olds, you can expect to be at a 240% higher risk of heart disease, based on their transfat intake today.

    Hon. Don Boudria: How many cigarettes per day would you have to smoke in order to create that much harm?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I think cigarettes aren't just a heart disease issue. We have to look at lung--

    Hon. Don Boudria: No, but just that much harm for a heart attack....

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I'm sorry, I don't have the math. I can't give it to you.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Would it be several packs a day?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: It will be several packs, on a good day.

    Hon. Don Boudria: In other words, we have a situation that creates the same amount of damage as several packages of cigarettes per day for heart disease.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: For heart disease, I would think it's in that category.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I see. That's fascinating.

    Do we know anything more about the labelling for baby food?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Again, those foods that are not just available to, but targeted to children under two, which is a very limited food sector, are actually exempt from nutrition labelling regulations at large. We can get more detailed information to you. But one of the things again is it is a narrow food industry. It's a niche market.

    We've had lots of discussions with the manufacturers of baby foods, toddler foods, who generally are very aware of health concerns. Baby foods are not eligible to put nutrient content claims or health claims on. So it's a very objective presentation. And because, from a nutritional perspective, the needs of that section of the population are so different from the adult section, it might be difficult translating a daily reference amount for sodium, for fat, for sugar from an adult population to such a young population.

  (1240)  

    Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Chair, the issue of transfat and the harm it can cause is a little different from the other elements of what would be in food labelling. Even if it's true that, for instance, you don't want to frighten people by including fat content generally, because there's a higher need for that for a baby--which is only logical, of course, given the specific mention of this one--why on earth can't someone explain to us why that's not on the labelling?

    I'm sorry, I just don't understand that at all. Perhaps we could get more information or perhaps more witnesses to explain this element to me, but if we don't do anything else, good grief, we have to do this.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: This is one point.

    When the Institute of Medicine's food and nutrition board reported on transfat and saturated fat, they didn't do any age-specific issues. Now, recall that the risk for transfat is an increased risk of cardiovascular disease because of raising good and bad cholesterol. In that Institute of Medicine report there is no note that doing that in young children has any long-term effect.

    I don't know whether Dr. Holub has more information on that.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Could I hear that from Dr. Holub? Do I have time?

    The Chair: Dr. Holub.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: We have done an analysis, without showing brand names, of a wide range of baby cereals and baby biscuits in this category to see.... There are baby biscuits that are transfat-free. They don't have to use transfat in baby biscuits. If there's mandatory confession on food labels, I suspect much of these high-transfat baby biscuits would be cleansed of transfat in a very short period of time.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Could we have a copy of that document?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I'm sorry, it has brand-name products, and I indicated I would not release brand names.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Okay, but perhaps without the brand names later....

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I could release it without the brand names later.

    Dr. Ratnayake, a distinguished scientist--I'm sure we all agree--at Health Canada has come out very strongly with his concern about transfat in babies and infants.

    I quote from his publications through Health Canada. It says: “The high level of isomeric”--and these are transfat--“fatty acids in the Canadian diet and human milk should prompt thorough investigation of their potentially adverse effects on both fetuses and young infants.” This is independent of heart disease.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I think the ambassador would like to comment on this as well.

    His Excellency Svend Nielsen: I would like to refer you to the report I mentioned that we have handed over to you, which is actually the basic report for our legislation. There is shown in that, on page 23, a correlation between the intake of fatty acids and the number of deaths from heart attacks. There could be other reasons, but there is a very strong correlation between those two.

    I can hand over another report concentrating on health issues. There is also a chapter there on the impacts on human fetus and newborns, which is quite disturbing, the facts say. That document I will hand over to the chair also.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boudria.

    Mr. Barrette.

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have one word in mind, “prevention”, and there are a couple of responsibilities I think we have. Is there a plan coming to address the issue of prevention and information for the public? Even if you have nice labels on everything you eat, if there is no sensibilisation or education for the public, they won't change anything. According to me, that's why this is a serious issue. Who should take the lead to do more than we're doing now, to prevent and to help?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: When Health Canada was developing the regulations and when they were approved last January, the department also made a commitment to an educational program on nutrition labelling and the issues related to nutrition and a healthy diet. As to the specific educational efforts on nutrition labelling, there has been a tool kit in place for quite a number of months now, one that is a generic one for the Canadian population writ large and another one that's actually targeted at aboriginal people. We certainly know from health status indicators in the aboriginal population that many of their indicators are not as good as those of the average Canadian, and special attention and special approaches are needed to address that. So there is an educational effort, multi-lined, underway on the nutrition labelling.

    Health Canada is also right now revising Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating. There has been about a year or more of work done looking at Canada's food guide. One of the conclusions I came to just in reviewing it was that it could be improved in terms of its usefulness. From a scientific perspective it still advises a sound diet; it's more in terms of asking “what are the messages and what are the tools to translate that into actions by Canadians” that it's really being looked at over the coming months.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette: Do you intend to--or maybe it's the committee's responsibility to invite you to--make a presentation of a full plan on the food guide?

    The Chair: Well, if we decided we wanted to have a presentation on that, we could. You might want to bring it up at the next planning meeting if you would like to have it.

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't know if we'd have time for another round, but I appreciate this opportunity.

    I wanted to build on what Mr. Boudria said. I've read in quite a bit of the literature that many people believe the widespread use of transfats is equal to the impact of tobacco and smoking in terms of public health hazards, the difference being that this is relatively simple to fix. It doesn't have the addiction element smoking has in getting people to quit, and it doesn't have the same agricultural impact that wiping out the tobacco farming industry has.

    But having said that, I'd like to go back to labelling. First of all, I find it astounding that baby food is exempt, because, again, our research shows that as much as 35% of the fat content in many common baby food products is transfat. If we're recommending two per 100 grams, this is 35% of the total in a jar; it's overwhelming. We have heart specialists telling us that 10- and 12-year-olds are coming in with their arteries clogged by high cholesterol, partly because transfats not only clog your arteries, but they also do away with the good cholesterol, which has a natural cleansing action. So it's not just that we have obese kids; we have kids with clogged arteries. It's astounding to me.

    On the labelling, if I could get people to comment on that, I'd appreciate it. Studies show that 70% of people don't read labels. Many of those who do can't understand the technical data on those labels. Maybe it's the socialist in me, but it's a class issue as well: low-income and poor people are less likely to pay attention to labels because they either can't afford to buy other products or they don't drive out to supermarkets because they don't have a car. They end up shopping at a corner grocery store and eating more processed foods than whole fresh vegetables, etc., which you might get at a SuperValu.

    I just can't understand how anybody can defend the idea that labelling will adequately help the public health of the whole population. It may help the public health of the middle-class, literate population that has the luxury to be able to shop differently, but by and large, in low-income neighbourhoods there's a disproportionate effect if we only rely on labelling, a disproportionate impact on the low-income and the poor. Those kids who stand at the bus stop near my house with a double supergulp from 7-Eleven on the way to school in the morning are ingesting amounts of transfats that will ultimately kill them.

    Senator Morin's comment when he got involved was that if we ban transfats, it will save lives; it's as simple as that. How do we defend labelling over simply eliminating the stuff from our food system?

  (1250)  

    The Chair: I think Ms. Dodds has told us about four times so far her defence of labelling. I don't think we need to hear that again.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I guess I just wanted to talk.

    The Chair: Pardon me?

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: I have not put forward that labelling is the solution. Indeed, I have been explicit in saying we recognize that labelling is not the solution.

    The Chair: But to be fair, I have to say you have not made any indication, other than about providing more education to the public, that Health Canada has any plans to do anything of the ilk Denmark has already done.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: But I did indicate in my opening remarks that we're working with industry and we're working with the expert committee on fats and oils on what the alternatives are and how we can work to reduce the levels in the Canadian food supply.

    Regulation is never a simple solution. You then have to enforce it, and our colleague said no foods have been recalled. You need to work with the expert committee. Part of the thinking is yes, the large companies have been clear with us: they plan to reduce or eliminate transfat. They will help do some of the research, they will give us some of the alternatives, and we can then work with other sectors, the mom-and-pop restaurants.

    We work with our provincial and territorial colleagues in terms of disseminating best practices. What are the preferable oils to use in the food supply?

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I think Dr. Holub wanted to comment.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: Australia removed transfats from margarines in 1996. Within weeks there was a significant reduction of transfat levels in the bodies of Australians, so the benefits happen very quickly, within weeks if not days.

    The Chair: Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Martin.

    I had a couple of points to make. There are people who--I don't know--are not as healthy or maybe have to constantly worry about weight gain, and they do a lot of label reading. There are other people....

    I don't think Mr. Boudria spends a whole lot of time reading labels.

    Hon. Don Boudria: You'd be surprised. Your colleague has a terrible weight problem. I've twice reduced my weight by about 50 pounds.

    The Chair: I didn't know that.

    In any case, there are people who don't read labels, and I think it's 70% of the population.

    Let's take cookies as an example. If you're a mother with children, they fire you if you don't have an ongoing supply of cookies in the cupboard. I wonder how many on the market today are without transfats. My guess is very few. I think there are one or two brands of baby cookies, and there are now Voortman cookies. Those are not my favourite.

    I was on the plane the other night, and they brought three kinds of snacks for you to choose from. I picked the one I wanted. It was unbelievably high in transfats.

    What I'm saying is if you depend on people to read labels, which is a reach in the first place, in my view, the fact is there isn't a nice selection of foods to choose from, whether they know there are transfats in there or not. If the shelf in the grocery store or the basket on the airplane is dominated by food that is high in transfats, you're not going to win. You can educate all you like, but if the choices out there in snack food, desserts, breads, and a variety of other things are all heavy in transfats, what good does it do?

    I don't know quite how to express this. In my view, Health Canada is always trying to educate people. But a lot of people just want to eat. They don't want to be educated. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, if you know what I mean. So it seems to me that we can victimize Canadians by making them choose from snack food that is high in transfats or we can do something to reduce the transfat in the choices they're going to make.

    Mr. John Gould: Madam Chairman, I think you're underestimating the power of education and maybe overestimating the amount of education that is currently in place on this particular subject.

    The bottom line is if a company is losing customers because they want transfat-free products, they'll switch by themselves. You don't have to tell them twice. They will find a way to do it. That has been our choice, and we are promoting that fact. I suspect there are a number of other operators in the food courts where we operate that would like to do the same thing. If more of their customers were asking for transfat-free products, they would offer them.

    The reality is that the subject is just hitting the road. In spite of the fact that Dr. Holub has known about it for 25 years, the average consumer in Canada still doesn't know what the hell it is. If there were a broader education base on the issue, then the consumer would do all the demanding necessary for business to make the change on its own.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: I think Ms. Whelan has a quick question, and then Mr. Boudria.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: Following up on Mr. Martin's point, how do we get more products on the market that have no transfat? Certainly we can pass legislation, and that can have an immediate effect, as Mr. Holub said. But I think it's important that Canadians know that those choices are already out there, such as New York Fries and hopefully others.

    What is the resistance to our doing that? I understand that it's not just about labelling. Ms. Dodds said it's about the entire approach. I'm really concerned about the research that needs to be done by some companies and the time element for that. I'd like to hear from Agriculture Canada as well, because of the impact on other industries, which was raised earlier. At the same time, I'd like to see us promote the health of Canadians and educate them.

    I think Mr. Martin is quite correct, as is our chair and others, that a large part of the population won't read labels. So how do we make sure that they have those same avenues out there? That is why I go back to my healthy meal promotion. It would encourage people to choose healthy meals because they would cost less. It would be targeted directly at the poor of our society.

    Mr. Holub, you've been doing research for a long time. How long would it take to get these companies to do the research and to make the necessary changes so that they can deal with the taste of the product? I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I know that there are research labs and all these other places. I'd just like to get an idea of how we could have an educational campaign and maybe a legislation change at the same time. What's the timeframe to implement that? I think it's important that we deal with the health of Canadians in all the ways we can as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I had a visitor, a CEO from a major U.S. food company, come to me many years ago and say “These transfats are bad, they're bad fats, but until we're forced to do something about it, we're not going to do anything”. Legislation would force them; it would happen. They have the technology, they have the alternatives. They just need to get up off their fatty asses, as the strongest legislation has suggested, and do it.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    Hon. Susan Whelan: Mr. Holub, I don't think that's really fair. Mr. Gould from New York Fries has already done that. I have relatives who work in the food industry. I know they do research on a regular basis for lower fat, lower calorie foods, what's going into the food, how do they take certain things out of the food, how do they comply with Health Canada. Maybe that person from years ago doesn't exist in today's market any more.

    My question is, what is the time element to test a food? That's what I'm after. Is it a year? Is it six months? Is it three months? What's the time element to make those kinds of changes? Maybe Mr. Gould would be better to answer that, because you just did the research in your institution. I don't know.

    Mr. John Gould: Ours wasn't done in a lab. But I suggest that probably within the timeline suggested for the labelling you could probably get most, if not all, of the research done.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: So 2006.

    Mr. John Gould: January 2006.

    It's a question of changing the processes. Most of these companies are hard at work on that very issue right now. The Nestlés of the world are doing just that.

    Hon. Susan Whelan: So in the meantime I suppose we should do the promotion. If the government were to do more promotion on encouraging Canadians to choose products that don't have transfat in them, it would encourage companies to get out there a little quicker than 2006 and give Canadians a bigger choice. At the same time, I think we need to look at what type of legislation down the road, or maybe sooner rather than later. I don't think labelling is going to do it for everybody, as we've heard.

    Mr. John Gould: The company we buy oil from does not have enough product this season to supply a company much larger than ourselves, but that's a seasonal thing. Next year that could change if the requirement were there.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Whelan.

[Translation]

    Hon. Don Boudria: Do I have time for a last question?

[English]

    The Chair: A quick one for you, and then Ms. Grey.

[Translation]

    Hon. Don Boudria: Very well.

    Every year we spend millions of dollars on cigarette package labelling in order to convince people to not smoke. However, according to what I have seen, adolescents are smoking in greater and greater numbers. Considering that cigarette package labelling has had benefits, but that these have been limited, why is it that we believe that in the case of these products labelling will solve all of the problems? The fact that our anti-smoking campaigns have not been a total and absolute success must be telling us that labelling will not be enough to solve the problem.

·  (1300)  

[English]

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Again, I come back to labelling. Clearly it is not the only solution. It needs other approaches. With tobacco and the public health labels on tobacco, you have one product and one disease. Tobacco and cancer is quite clear. With healthy eating, we are looking to try to give Canadians information so that they can minimize their risk of coronary heart disease, so that they can minimize their risk of diabetes, so that they can minimize their risk of obesity, so that they can promote health. And that is not one label and that is not one kind or two kinds of messages; it is comprehensive. It probably takes a combination of the overall education campaign on a healthy diet with disease-specific campaigns as well.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.

    I wanted to ask about canola oil. You said you use sunflower oil?

    Mr. John Gould: We do.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Canola oil I know is cyclical in the agricultural industry.

    I don't get the part about hydrogenated versus partially hydrogenated. In my books, canola oil is terrific. But if you partially hydrogenate it, then does it make it bad?

    Mr. John Gould: Yes.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Could we just keep it good and make these changes? Because if it's good to start with, why wreck it? Can you still make fries with it if it's not partially hydrogenated?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: I was at a show in Vancouver last week, and there were frozen breakfast waffles there by a supplier using Canada's oil, canola oil, transfat-free, in direct contrast to much of the frozen breakfast waffles in this country, which have two grams or three grams of transfat and likely increase the risk of heart disease when consumed every morning.

    The Chair: So it's possible.

    Mr. Bruce Holub: They used canola oil, and it tasted just as good as the alternative.

    The Chair: Why do they use that process? Is it to prolong shelf life?

    Mr. Bruce Holub: Yes, and mouth feel and taste.

    Ms. Mary L'Abbé (Director, Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): The hydrogenation forms an oil that has a multitude of new characteristics. Some of them are concerned with stability and shelf life, but often it's the dough texture, if you're making pastries, and often it's stability. Canola oil is very good, an excellent oil, one of the best for heart health qualities, and I think we're very proud of that in Canada, but those very good aspects of canola oil are also those that make it more susceptible to the formation of transfats when it's hydrogenated. So what we gain in one aspect becomes a liability when you hydrogenate it.

    The Chair: I want to thank my colleagues for their questions and their participation.

    I want to thank our witnesses, Ambassador Nielsen, Mr. Gould, Dr. Holub, and Ms. Dodds and Madame L'Abbé from the health department, for this broad-ranging discussion.

    Lastly, I want to thank Mr. Martin for leading the charge on this subject.

    Thank you for joining us today for this discussion.

    This meeting is now adjourned.