Product of Canada has to mean what it says

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recently consulted with industry about changing the rules for "Product of Canada" food labels.

Let us hope that they decide to retain the existing high standards, because lowering them would be bad for farmers and consumers.

Ironically, it could even be bad for the food processors who are asking for the changes.

The federal regulations for these food labels were introduced in 2008 after an extended lobbying campaign by consumer groups. Prior to that, processors merely had to incur 51 per cent of their costs in Canada to qualify; ingredients could come from anywhere.

A parliamentary committee recommended that this be changed so that the new standard would be 85 per cent Canadian ingredients. But the Conservative government went considerably further and now some food processors are complaining. 

The current rules provide three categories for Canadian "food nationality." These are defined by the parts of the supply chain, the factories and/or farms, that are actually in Canada.

The way the system works is that products in the lowest category received only nominal processing here, and the label simply notes this.

A label for jam might state, for example, "Packaged in Canada" if the jam was produced in bulk in the U.S. but placed into jars in Ontario.

The higher "Made in Canada" category applies where a Canadian factory does the key processing.

For example, jam labels might read "Made in Canada from domestic and imported ingredients" if an Ontario jam factory used berries from New Brunswick and cane sugar from the Caribbean. This allows Canadian factories to receive credit for their work, regardless of where the ingredients come from.

The most demanding designation is "Product of Canada." This only applies when the factory lies within Canada and at least 98 per cent of the ingredients come from here, too. This is the designation that much of the current fuss is about.

Jam could qualify if it used New Brunswick fruit and Alberta beet sugar. This designation recognizes that the whole supply chain — factory and farms — is Canadian.

More imports?

These rules don't restrict manufacturing in any way. What they do influence is a food's labelling, marketing and image.

So, what's the concern? Apparently, some firms think the "Product of Canada" standard is too demanding. They want the rule to allow a lower percentage of Canadian ingredients, or exclude generic items like sugar from the calculation.

That way, they could use more imports and still qualify for the label.

For example, during an interview with the CBC, the president of an ice cream producer noted that cocoa beans and sugar cane only grow in tropical countries. Therefore, she argued, she should be allowed to use imported cocoa and sugar in her ice cream and still call it "Product of Canada."

Curious, I looked at her firm's chocolate ice cream. The packages already proclaim "Proud Canadian Company" and "100 per cent Canadian Milk."

They could also add "Made in Canada from domestic and imported ingredients" if they wished.

But wouldn't it be peculiar to put "Product of Canada" on their "Dutch Chocolate" ice cream, or on anything for that matter that emphasizes a tropical ingredient?

Farm to fork

This individual example illustrates several broad reasons why the "Product of Canada" definition should not be relaxed.

First of all, the processing factory is just part of a larger food supply chain that runs from farm to fork.

Indeed, the ice cream maker effectively confirms on its website that even a small ingredient can change how a food tastes. It states that "Dutch cocoa gives this ice cream its distinctive chocolate taste." (The "Dutch" in this case refers to the "Dutching" process for making the cocoa less acidic, not necessarily the country it came from.)

So while "Made in Canada" tells us the factory was domestic, "Product of Canada" signals that all of the supply chain was as well.

Watering down that distinction would do a disservice to our farmers.

Weaker rules would also disadvantage consumers. For some shoppers, an ingredient's lineage contributes to its perceived quality.

That is why some advertisers mention terms like "Dutch chocolate" or "German engineering" as they can evoke positive mental images.

Likewise, food from a Canadian farm, rather than from another country's, may be preferable to certain consumers — even if it tastes the same.

The strict "Product of Canada" standard provides useful information for those shoppers. If we allowed ingredients to be Canadian-if-possible-but-possibly-not-Canadian, it would obscure the facts those shoppers are seeking.

As Canadian as maple syrup

A tough standard means that some products might never qualify for the Product of Canada designation. Some ingredients simply can't grow here.

But using that as an excuse is missing the point.

For example, there are some very good chocolate makers in our country. But since their cocoa beans originate from tropical trees, their chocolate will never be "Canadian" in the same way as maple syrup taken from trees growing in Canada.

"Made in Canada," yes, but not "Product of Canada."

Ultimately, changing the rules would also be a strategic mistake for food processors.

It's natural that Canadian businesses want to reduce their costs. Many of their foreign competitors have greater economies of scale or cheaper labour.

A strong brand image helps firms to compete. Some shoppers willingly pay more for a brand name they trust.

But if shoppers felt the "Product of Canada" brand was diluted, those people would presumably be less interested in paying a premium for the domestic product.

Canadian firms then would have to compete more on price — and that would make their task harder.

So when the CFIA files their report in June, they might be able to tinker with the "Made in Canada" provisions.

But let's keep "Product of Canada" at its existing high level. Canadians deserve nothing less from their national brand.