Review of Health Canada’s Proposed Nutrition Label Changes

I commend Health Canada for their efforts to improve the food label.  As with anything, it takes time and a whole lot of experimenting to perfect anything so I do not want to come off being too critical of the changes, but some pieces I do not agree with.  I will start from the top, I agree with taking vitamin A and C off of the labels as the risk of deficiency for these nutrients is rare.  I find it interesting they are choosing to add potassium and vitamin D to labels though.  While I completely agree with their statement that Canadians are more deficient in both these nutrients, I find it bizarre to put it on labels of processed foods in particular for vitamin D.  Vitamin D is found naturally in fish and mushrooms.  Margarine, milk and non-dairy beverages are all fortified with vitamin D. Obviously, processed foods with these foods in them will have vitamin D and be indicated on the label.  I suppose if we are to look at it in the way that many labels will say they contain 0% vitamin D then maybe it will make people ponder where to get their vitamin D from and start looking.  What I hope doesn’t start to happen though is the food industry starting to fortify processed foods with vitamin D so they can say their product is a source of vitamin D.  What is interesting to note is the unprocessed natural food sources (like fish and mushrooms) will not have a label on them unless they are processed in some way.

Many whole foods are rich in potassium.  Fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat, fish, poultry, grains and nuts all contain potassium.  Potassium is also added to processed foods in place of sodium in low sodium products.  I am grateful that potassium has made the list to be added to the label. Canadians are not consuming enough potassium and a lot of Canadians are on medications that can cause the potassium level in their blood to increase, so this information is valuable.  Just like vitamin D, potassium is not listed on unprocessed fruits, vegetables, meat, fish or poultry as a label is not required.  If Canadians are deficient in potassium, wouldn’t it make sense to help educate them on what the best sources are in our diet?

Health Canada would like to split the nutrition label so the top half of the label lists nutrients we may want to eat less of (including fat and carbohydrates) and the bottom half of the label to include the nutrients we want to have more of.  The only part of this section I like is how they plan on listing added sugars separate.  This will help consumers identify how much is added versus natural.  I do wish they would actually use the word natural sugar so people understand that foods like fruit, vegetables, grains, and legumes do contain natural sugar.  I completely disagree with the assumption that we should put fat and carbohydrates (a fancy word for sugar) in a section to promote eating less of these nutrients.  While I appreciate that Health Canada is trying to say ‘watch how much you eat’ of these nutrients, I think this is only going to continue the already rampant trend that fat and carbs are evil. In reality, we need fat and carbohydrates to survive!  Telling people they should choose less of something can be misinterpreted as that thing being ‘bad’. A great example is nuts which are rich in healthy types of fat and are an essential part of a balanced diet.  This labeling will make nuts look like they are bad and shouldn’t be eaten.  However, a fat-free, sugar-free Twinkie full of non-food based ingredients will win out as a better alternative as it has very little fat and carbohydrates – which according to the label has ingredients we should be staying away from.

Another proposed change is a adding a definition of percent daily values at the bottom of the label so people can determine what high and low values mean. This is a good thing as this is a question many people do have.

The ingredient list is also getting a little makeover so it is easier to read and will be in larger print.  Ingredients are listed from most to least and that will continue.  What I do like about the change is they will be grouping added sugars together in all of its different forms.  This is great as processed foods can contain multiple sources of added sugar but it may not be apparent at a first glance.  Grouping them together will mean that sugar will show up closer to the top of the list if there are many different forms listed, as they will all add up and be presented as a whole.

What I would like to see is a grouping titled “non-food based ingredients and chemicals”.  This would be a very telling category and open our eyes as to what is really in our food supply, but sadly this category is not present.  Why isn’t this available Health Canada?

Finally, my biggest criticism of the label is the fact that only processed foods are required to have labels.  While whole unprocessed foods do not require labels.  This is ironic in my opinion.  The very foods we are trying to get Canadians to consume more of, we provide no nutrition information for.  I guess the assumption is that people know what nutrients are in vegetables, fruits, meats, fish and eggs.  How very presumptuous.  I can tell you, people are not generally aware of all the nutrients in foods and while we preach to shop the perimeter of the grocery store it would be beneficial for consumers to have the same information on whole foods available to them as all the processed foods down the aisles.  It is so ironic to me that there is so much information available yet the most obvious and basic fundamental information is not.  And we wonder why people are so confused about what to buy and what to eat…