The idea of more labelling on food to provide consumers with information upon which to determine what is best to eat seems very logical.
But like most things in our world, the issue of additional labelling is not a simple black and white one where more is automatically better.
Earlier this year, Health Canada launched a consultation period for its proposed new front-of-packaging labelling. The proposal is part of Health Canada’s Healthy Eating Strategy and it would include placing new warning labels on the front of products sold in Canada for foods that are high in saturated fats, sugars, and sodium.
This appears like a brilliant idea, at least on the surface.
So too did the idea of Country of Origin Labelling (COOL), which ended up creating a major point of conflict between Canada and the United States.
The Americans saw COOL as an avenue to allow their consumers to make informed choices in terms of supporting American livestock producers, choosing beef, pork, and other foods with the US label attached.
The idea seems so simple, providing a simple label to help consumers make a choice to support domestic producers.
But is beef from an animal born in Canada, but sold as a feeder calf to an American feedlot, a product that originated in Canada or in the U.S.?
Should consumers know what country the product was processed in, so they can opt to support all those processing jobs, regardless of where the meat was actually raised?
Imagine a mixed meat product, such as bologna or salami. Is the meat from a single country? Do the spices and fillers have to be from the same country to have a specific label?
Suddenly COOL is a great idea in theory which becomes cumbersome and ineffective when you delve into its ramifications.
Health Canada’s new initiative may prove to fall into the same massive pitfall.
On its surface, foods which are high in saturated fats, sugars, and sodium may seem wise to avoid, and so labelling would be an asset to consumers.
The problem is a little information can sometimes be worse than no information.
“Our concern is that many Canadians would actually put that product back down if they see a warning label on it. So it would impact our markets domestically,” said David Wiens, chair of Dairy Farmers of Manitoba (DFM) during one of
the group’s four spring meetings held in Headingley, MB on Apr. 4, in a recent story at www.producer.com.
Such labelling only works if the consumer fully understands that high levels of certain things are present, but do not automatically signal the food should be avoided.
The Producer story points out sodium is used in the aging of cheese. Other products such as flavoured milks and yogurts would also see labels placed on them; however products like soda with aspartame would not.
We have consumed cheeses and yogurts for generations and their nutritional benefits are well known, even if they are high in salts or sugars.
The situation is one of consumers understanding that balance is required. Thick slabs of cheddar cheese with every meal might not be the wisest choice.
Excess in most foods is not the healthiest choice, but, of course, that sort of information is beyond the purview of labelling.
That is why any labelling, and its potential to simply confuse consumers into questionable decisions, has to be carefully understood before implementation.
Calvin Daniels is Editor with Yorkton This Week.
