The Safe Food for Canadians Action Plan was unveiled on May 17. The plan will strengthen food safety rules, improve inspection, renew commitment to service and provide more information for consumers.

Through the action plan the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) will launch a number of significant food safety enhancements over the next two years, says the federal government.

Most notably, the CFIA will work with consumer groups and industry to develop new regulations that will bring into force the Safe Food for Canadians Act, passed in November 2012.

As a first step, the CFIA is strengthening some of its beef safety rules and has implemented new mandatory requirements that will strengthen the control of E. coli in federally registered beef plants.

Requirements can be found in the CFIA’s, Meat and Poultry Products Manual. In the manual, the Policy on the Control of E. coli O157:H7/NM Contamination in Raw Beef Products says its purpose is:

• to provide clear guidance to industry and inspection staff on the measures required to control Escherichia coli O157:H7/NM in raw beef products; and
• to reflect the risk-based approach taken by the CFIA to address the risk posed by this pathogen.

Tenderized cuts

Also, by July 2, 2013, federally registered plants that produce mechanically tenderized beef cuts, such as steaks or roasts, will be required to label those products as tenderized and with cooking instructions.

While these actions are specific to federally registered plants, Health Canada also intends to propose broader mandatory labels to identify beef that has been mechanically tenderized at retail outlets like supermarkets. This voluntary practice has been in place since 2012.

This spring, the CFIA will launch a review of the food regulations in Canada that will need to be revised in order to bring the Safe Food for Canadians Act into force. The government says it expects this process to take up to two years.

Active consumer and stakeholder engagement in the process will be important to the success of efforts to bring the new legislation into force. Consumer groups and stakeholders will have that opportunity at an upcoming food safety regulatory forum in June.

As such, your operation has not only examined every possible entry point for contamination, but it also actively manages the prevention of physical, biological and chemical hazards.

In essence, your company is doing everything it can to prevent health risks and costly food recalls that could last for decades when it comes to damage to your brand reputation. But what about your suppliers? In particular, how does your uniform rental company measure up when it comes to food safety?

If you do your research, you might be surprised to learn that there continues to be a lag in the uniform rental industry, as far as best practices go in food safety. By and large, uniform rental services – even the big brands – have been slow to realize the full extent of the issue: that any contaminant is enough to compromise food products, and that such hazards can come from anywhere in the uniform rental service chain, if the proper care isn’t taken.

Most uniform companies do include food safety processes in their offerings. They recognize that safety is important enough to use the right laundering chemicals or to separate food-processing garments from other uniforms in their plant. But these measures are just minimum requirements, according to international safety standards. There is a bigger picture.

Food safety checklist for your uniform supplier

If you’re unsure as to where your uniform rental supplier stands on the food safety continuum, here are three features you should look for:

1. ISO registration

In addition to having ISO 9001 certification, which deals with quality management systems, you should look for ISO 22000:2005. As you probably know, ISO 22000 certifies food safety management systems.

For uniform rental companies, this standard ensures everyone on the premises, not just the delivery personnel, is trained, and that everyone is communicating regularly to ensure processes are followed consistently.

Another important feature of ISO 22000:2005 certification is that it ensures management’s commitment to food safety as a whole, and not just clean clothes. This element matters because, as you know, it’s not enough to simply manage the mechanical part of the process, there’s a human element that also needs to be addressed. Everyone needs to be aware and trained about food safety.

2. Traceable and verified processes

In addition to compliance with international standards, you should look for a uniform rental supplier who actively documents every step of their process, from pick up to delivery.

This is an important feature because it allows your team to ensure the uniform rental company is doing what its says it is doing. It also assures both parties that there is a paper trail should any improvements need to be made or any issues arise in the future.

3. Validated claims

Finally, you should ensure that your uniform rental company is being third-party audited against a recognized standard. This means that certification can be revoked if the supplier is not complying – an important measure for ensuring the same constant vigilance that you demonstrate in your business.

As an added benefit, a third-party audit will reduce your company’s headache of having to audit the supplier yourself.

Next steps?

If you have gone through this checklist and realize that your uniform rental company doesn’t measure up, call and talk to them about your expectations. As a customer – especially one in the food industry – you should feel empowered to demand these features from your uniform supplier.  After all, food safety is that important.

Chad Laframboise is Operations manager at Northern Uniform, the first uniform rental company in North America to be ISO 22000:2005 certified. Contact him at Chad@NorthernUniform.com

Through the SLIM program, funding will go towards helping Saskatchewan processors adopt best practices, new technologies and processes. By finding efficiencies and improving production in processing facilities, the government hopes to grow value-added agrifood processing in the province.

The program will also provide funding for eligible processors to conduct lean gap analysis and identify process improvements, as well as the technology, facility improvements and training needed to improve productivity and efficiency.

Interested applicants can find more information at www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/growingforward2

That’s why the organization has resubmitted an application – the first application was submitted more than 10 years ago – to Health Canada to allow ground beef to be irradiated in Canada.

The CCA’s first application, reports the CalgaryHerald.com, was “stalled in the bureaucracy.”

Effective technology

The CCA says irradiation can be an effective technology, which Canada has already approved for use on other foods such as potatoes, onions, wheat flour, spices and dehydrated seasonings.

It’s also used as a normal course of business in 50 countries around the world to improve food safety for consumers.

The Canadian Meat Council, says the CalgaryHerald.com, also wrote a letter to Health Canada last December urging it to approve the use of irradiation.

The ability of irradiation to reduce E.coli O157 and other pathogenic E.coli is well established, says the CCA. When combined with food safety interventions already in use, irradiation could essentially eliminate E.coli-related illness associated with ground beef.

The CCA believes this is reason enough to support making this choice available to Canadians who wish to purchase irradiated food products.

Consumer resistance?

But back in the late 1990s, says the CalgaryHerald.com, consumer resistance was strong. It’s why Health Canada abandoned the approval process, even after it had received many applications from industry groups seeking approval of the process for meat, poultry and seafood.

And, says the CalgaryHerald.com, Health Canada abandoned the process in spite of evidence showing that irradiation of ground beef, chicken, prawns and mangoes was safe and effective at killing pathogens including E. coli.

Beef irradiation can be performed using electricity to create energy which can destroy harmful bacteria. This process, called E-beam, is routinely used in the U.S. where irradiated beef products have been available to consumers since 2000.

The Health Canada scientific review process has confirmed that irradiation causes minor changes to food, similar to cooking, and does not lead to any change in beef that would have an adverse effect on human health or that would significantly diminish its nutritional value.

The World Health Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have endorsed the safety of irradiated foods.

Market and trend analysis

The first step at this level would be to understand what the learning is from the white papers. From the market analysis white paper we should be seeking to understand what external forces are at work and what market trends are resulting from those forces. There are several tools that can be used. First, there is what is called a PEST analysis. What are the political, economic, social and technological forces at work and how are they affecting the food sector globally and in Canada? There is also the five forces analysis tool. Who are our customers, our competition, potential new entrants, the threat of substitute products, and who are our suppliers? And what is happening relating to each of those forces? In addition, this white paper should allow us to better understand what consumer trends are emerging, and what trends are emerging in the retail grocery, foodservice, food processing, and agriculture/fisheries levels of the value chain.

This will get us to the point where we can focus on what we need to do to make Canada Food Inc. the best food sector in the world (our sector vision) and a dominant player that is sustainably competitive (our mission).

Likewise, we need to look at the benchmarking white paper to understand, within the global market, where our strengths and weaknesses lie and what the opportunities and challenges are for us to succeed. In other words, do a SWOT analysis. This should be done at the overall “corporate” level for the entire Canadian food sector, and should be broken down into the “business units”: red meats, poultry, seafood/aquaculture, dairy, horticulture, grains/oilseeds/pulses, beverages, and complex manufactured foods.

Sustainability

We also need to look at the sustainability white paper using a similar type of SWOT analysis, but looking at how we need to manage our sector in a more environmentally sustainable manner, given that our resource base is at the heart of our sector.

This step in the strategic learning process needs to be done by a combination of business leaders from the sector at all levels of the food supply chain, and covering all of the “business units” referred to above. It must also involve government leaders from some mix of agriculture and food, industry and international trade ministries, since policies related to the sector lie in all of those ministries and may need some adjustments as well. This would be the “corporate board of directors” plus “senior management” from all of the business units.

Brand strategies

Out of all of this analysis, we should be able to start developing the strategies that need to be carried out in order for us to be successful. This starts with some overall “corporate” strategies for Canada Food Inc. related to needs and possibilities that exist for the whole food sector. These corporate strategies need to be supplemented with “business unit” strategies to take advantage of opportunities that exist most at a commodity sector level. These sector strategies need to support the national strategies as well, so there needs to be some consistency of what we are trying to do while allowing variation, as needed, at the commodity sector level. These “business unit” strategies need to be done at the sector level, and cover all of the “brands” that exist there. For example, the red meat business unit needs to have strategies for red meats, but the “brands,” i.e. beef, pork, lamb, etc., also need to ensure that they have strategies that are in line with the red meat strategies and the corporate level strategies, but that contain the flexibility needed to adapt them to “brand” needs. Again, all levels of the chain need to take part collectively in this exercise.

I will acknowledge that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada did take some steps in this direction with the creation of the Sector Roundtables. I’m not sure what the results have been in this regard, but those roundtables may provide forums that could be used to carry out what I’ve just outlined.

This really takes us to the align step in the process, but I will leave it there for now. In my next article I will talk about the align and execute steps.

Gary Fread is president of Fread & Associates Ltd., consultants to the food industry. He has spent 25 years in management positions in the food processing industry, with a background in sales, logistics, purchasing and technical areas. He has worked with Procter & Gamble, Campbell Soup and Morrison Lamothe, and is the past president and CEO of the Guelph Food Technology Centre. He is active in many food industry associations and organizations, serving on the boards of several. Contact him at gfread@sympatico.ca

The Toronto-based company will:

• Offer low- or no-calorie beverage options in every market in Canada by 2015. The company currently offers approximately 350 beverage products in Canada, with more than 70 of these being either low- and no-calorie drinks.
• Provide transparent nutrition information on the front of all packages by 2015. Some of the most popular packages of products will also include messaging to consumers about nutrition and physical activity. The company already features calorie information on the front of all of its Canadian packaging.
• Continue to support the ParticipACTION program to encourage teens to get active through community-based organizations. Coca-Cola Canada has committed $10 million over 10 years towards this ongoing project.
• Continue to commit to responsible marketing in regard to children aged 12 and under. The company says it does not buy advertising targeted at audiences comprised of more than 35 per cent children under 12, and strictly adheres to Advertising Standards Canada’s Children’s Advertising Initiative.

In addition, last month Coca-Cola Canada launched an initiative to fight obesity through active, healthy living programs, as well as a national advertising campaign focusing on its efforts to promote health and wellbeing.

The company says it will measure its efforts on www.comingtogether.com, a digital platform with details of its global commitments, programs and successes.

Sterling Belliveau, minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, explains that coast communities want the jobs that the industry brings “but not at any cost.”

“By developing strong regulations and enforcement we will help the industry grow in a way that balances economic development and environmental protection,” says Belliveau.

Meinhard Doelle and William Lahey, Dalhousie University law professors and environmental law experts, will lead the work.

An advisory committee, which will represent stakeholders and community interests including the Mi’kmaq, Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Salmon Association, Nova Scotia Fisheries Sector Council, Ecology Action Centre and the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, will advise both Doelle and Lahey.

A scientific advisory committee, which is still to be assembled, will consider a full range of impacts, benefits and risks that should be addressed through regulation and will provide Doelle and Lahey with its report.

They will use a multi-phased process of public and stakeholder consultation, the first phase of which will begin this summer.

“Our members are committed to farming responsibly in Nova Scotia,” says Bruce Hancock, executive director of the Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia.

“We believe that clearly written regulations are an important part of sustainable expansion of aquaculture in Nova Scotia and will help build public confidence in our industry.”

It is anticipated the department will receive recommendations to develop regulations by the end of 2014.

“From our vantage point, aquaculture regulations are failing to protect Nova Scotian communities and the environment and thus we welcome a comprehensive review of the regulatory system and options going forward,” says Mark Butler, Policy director at Ecology Action Centre.

“There are sustainable opportunities in aquaculture, but they must not come at the expense of the ecosystem or other marine industries.”

The development of regulations for the aquaculture industry was part of the action plan from the province’s first aquaculture strategy, released in May 2012. The aquaculture industry generates about C$50 million annually.

Old Dutch Foods Ltd. says the plant and warehouse operations will cease as of Sept. 27, 2013.

The 216 employees are unionized, and their four-year contract expires on June 30. The MontrealGazette.com says the bulk of the workers are mechanics and warehouse workers who earn $25 an hour. In addition, 65 support staff make $18.50 an hour.

The company says the plant had reached the end of its economic life and it wasn’t feasible to renovate it or open a new generation snack facility in the area.

Going forward, the Quebec market will be supplied by other Old Dutch Foods plants in Canada. Sales operations will continue normally and it is anticipated that customers will not experience any supply disruption while this transition takes place.

CTV Montreal reports that the plant, which was built in Montreal’s south west in 1964 by Humpty Dumpty Inc., had operated continuously for over nearly five decades. In 2006, Old Dutch purchased Humpty Dumpty for $26.7M.

In the seven years since Humpty Dumpty changed hands, the new owners did not change the logo on the outside of the factory on Norman St., adds CTV Montreal.

Old Dutch has Canadian processing plants in Winnipeg, Calgary and Airdrie, Alta. as well as a recently expanded potato chip plant at Hartland, N.B., northwest of Fredericton. The company also operates U.S. plants in Minneapolis and Roseville, Minn.

The Old Dutch brand, whose following is largely in Western Canada, reports AlbertaFarmExpress.ca, Humpty Dumpty has a significant presence in the East, with products such as potato sticks, cheese sticks, corn chips, party mix, Ringolos, Cruncheez and ChedACorn.

CBC.ca reports that the Quebec government saw no signs that there were any problems at the plant. The site also reports that Industrial Policy Minister Elaine Zakaib says many factories in Quebec have not invested enough to modernize their facilities. She says Quebec is considering introducing measures that will encourage companies to spend more money on renovations.

Photo from Nearof!

It may sound impossible, but that’s one in three Canadian consumers.

That statistic comes from Food Banks Canada, who commissioned Angus Reid to conduct the survey.

The survey results are being released in time for Hunger Awareness Week, which is taking place this week from May 6-10. The aim is to raise awareness about the solvable issue of Hunger in Canada. Hunger hits much closer to home than many Canadians realize.

In fact, the survey found, one-in-five parents say they skip meals to ensure there is enough food for their children to eat; and 36 per cent of Canadians have resorted to buying less expensive food for themselves or their families in the past year due to financial struggles.

Food Banks Canada is asking Canadians to make a positive impact during Hunger Awareness Week. And there are three ways:

• Give it Up: Put food out of reach – challenge yourself to fast on May 8th.

• Give a Shout: Share your experience – show your support via Facebook, Twitter
(#HungerWeek) or blog about it.

• Give it Out: Donate food, funds or your time to a local food bank.

Partners

Farm Credit Canada (FCC) is also involved in Hunger Awareness Week. FCC and its partners are hoping to collect five million pounds of food for Canada’s food banks this year to mark the 10th anniversary of the FCC Drive Away Hunger program.

FCC’s program involves driving a tractor and trailer through various communities to collect food and cash donations. All donations go to Canadian food banks. Consumers can also visit www.driveawayhunger.ca to make a donation.

At the launch of its program, on May 7, the FCC donated $100,000 to Food Banks Canada. Half of the amount will be used by Food Banks Canada to support families and individuals who use its services, while the rest will be split between Hunger Awareness Week and the Rural Support Program.

This year FCC Drive Away Hunger tours will take place the week of Oct. 14 in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I. and Saskatchewan. Canadians can also visit the FCC’s field offices from May to Oct. 18 to drop off food and cash donations.

FCC’s partners include BDC, a national accounting and financial advisory firm; Parrish and Heimbecker Limited; and Windset Farms.

Food Banks Canada’s partners include Campbell Company of Canada, Canadian Pacific, General Mills Canada Corporation, Great-West Life, London Life and Canada Life, Investors Group Financial Services Inc., Kellogg Canada Inc., Loblaw Companies Ltd., Nutella, Sony Canada Charitable Foundation, Tork, and Trailer Wizards.

The program is an initiative of the Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement (IRDA) in Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Que., a non-profit research organization formed in 1998 by the provincial government and the Union des producteurs agricoles. Just over $13 million in funding is allotted to the initiative, about 80 per cent of which will come from the Quebec government.

The Platform for Innovation in Organic Agriculture is a platform for R&D and training in organic crop production for those involved in organic agriculture, as well as producers converting to organic production. Research will also help farmers engaged in sustainable agriculture.

“This platform is turning out to be a world-class facility that will allow the IRDA to increase its competitiveness in a growing sector and thus attract and retain top researchers,” said Pierre Duchesne, Quebec minister of Higher Education, Research and Science and Technology, during the inauguration. “Research, development and knowledge transfer in the field of organic crop production will draw on the expertise of our researchers and agricultural producers. Supporting excellence in research and innovation to benefit all Quebecers remains a priority.”

In that time, we’ve also seen two federal budgets come and go, both of which have contained changes to the SR&ED credit – Canada’s largest tax incentive plan – that food processing firms should be aware of.

Re-capping SR&ED

The SR&ED tax credit encourages Canadian businesses to invest in innovation, experimentation and technological advancement resulting in improved products and processes. With roughly $5 billion allocated by the federal and provincial governments, the SR&ED credit can be a bottom-line boon. Up to $0.66 of every $1 in wages on qualified SR&ED activities can be recovered. In other words, if you’ve spent $300,000 on qualified wages, that’s a possible refund of $200,000 to offset against taxes payable.

A claim can only be filed on eligible SR&ED expenditures that are made in Canada and meet three criteria: a scientific or technological advancement; uncertainty regarding whether or not the advancement will succeed; and evidence of qualified personnel with relevant work experience involved in the project. A SR&ED claim can even be made if the product or process wasn’t successful, as long as you can demonstrate that knowledge has been advanced in some shape or form.

In the world of food processing, eligible expenditures could include experimentation resulting in increased shelf life, reduction of calories in a brand’s product, or even the testing of designs meant to minimize packaging.

When Tablex developed its spring-loaded, pull-tab system used for shelving, or when Organika produced its organic virgin coconut oil, they likely would have been eligible to file a SR&ED claim.

Important changes in the federal budget

Both the 2012 and 2013 federal budgets haven’t been overly favourable for the SR&ED program, though they could have been much worse. Any companies that are labour and payroll intensive should take note of the fact that starting Jan. 1, 2013, only 80 per cent of subcontracted expenses can be claimed (down from 100 per cent). Overhead proxy percentage – the rate used to calculate overhead costs – has similarly been reduced to 60 per cent in 2013 and 55 per cent in 2014 (down from 65 per cent). Given these reductions, you could consider shifting your contract staff to employees and claim those overhead expenses using the proxy method to help maximize your SR&ED return.

You may also want to consider purchasing any capital equipment required for SR&ED projects, as 2013 marks the last year that capital equipment can be included in a SR&ED claim.

Finally, the general investment tax rate (ITC) of foreign and publicly owned companies will be reduced to 15 per cent in 2014 (down from 20 per cent). Qualifying Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs) can breathe a sigh of relief as the enhanced 35 per cent rate has fortunately remained untouched.

Looking Ahead

The Conference Board of Canada released an interesting study in December, 2012 called Competing for Bronze: Innovation Performance in the Canadian Food Industry. The report claimed that the Canadian food industry has become an “innovation laggard,” resulting in Canada losing ground in global food and drink export markets, especially when compared to Brazil and China. If this truly is the case, then SR&ED’s importance moving into 2014 is only going to increase.

Even though the federal budgets haven’t been favourable to SR&ED, the fact remains that the program is still a lucrative way of gaining a major competitive edge for companies who claim it successfully. It’s also a reason to invest in innovation – an incentive that could help turn the tide and transform Canada back into a leading global innovator.

Shawn Rosenzweig is a resident expert on SR&ED tax credits at Richter LLP (formerly SBLR LLP Chartered Accountants), having obtained cash and tax credits totaling over $3 million for his clients in the past year alone. As a partner at Richter’s Toronto office, he leads an established practice of entrepreneurial clients in manufacturing, food processing, real estate, distribution and professional services. He can be reached at srosenzweig@richter.ca

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) calls the report Risky Meat: A CSPI Field Guide to Meat & Poultry Safety.

The report came about after CSPI analyzed 12 years of documented foodborne illness outbreak data from the U.S. between 1998 and 2010. With that information, CSPI ranked meats and poultry according to how much risk they pose.

Risk rankings

The highest-risk category includes chicken and ground beef. The high-risk category includes beef (other), steak and turkey. The medium-risk category includes barbecue (beef or pork), deli meat, pork and roast beef. The low-risk category includes chicken nuggets, ham and sausage.

CSPI says each food’s risk of causing severe illness was determined by calculating the hospitalization rate from the pathogen-specific illnesses attributed to outbreaks in the food groups.

Some food pathogen combinations may cause many illnesses, but those illnesses are less likely to result in hospitalization.

Conversely, some food-pathogen combinations may be rare, but cause more severe symptoms requiring hospital treatment.

CSPI says its researchers identified meat and poultry categories based on the food terms used most frequently by state outbreak investigators in their reports to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The meat and poultry products covered in the CSPI’s report were altogether responsible for 1,714 outbreaks, with more than 33,000 illnesses. Those illnesses ranged from short-term gastrointestinal distress to severe cases requiring hospitalization. Some resulted in death.

Incomplete picture

To ensure a high degree of confidence in the findings, only those illnesses linked to outbreaks that were definitively attributed to a meat or poultry product were used for this report’s analysis.

Ultimately, the 33,372 illnesses used in this analysis represent only a small fraction of likely cases; however, they do represent the best data available.

The picture painted from reported outbreak data is, unfortunately, incomplete. While the CDC estimates that 48 million Americans contract some form of foodborne illness each year, the vast majority of illnesses are not known and therefore not captured in outbreak data, either because they are “sporadic” (not linked to an outbreak) or because they are not diagnosed or reported to public health authorities.

The CSPI says it’s important to note that outbreaks linked to meat and poultry have decreased over the period from 1998 to 2010. Since 1993, the meat and poultry industry, spurred by stricter regulatory oversight and litigation, has made changes in animal production, slaughter, and processing to reduce illnesses from Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, and other well-known hazards—but every outbreak of preventable illness and deaths shows that more work is needed.

Minimize risks

The aim of the report, says CSPI, is to help stakeholders throughout the food chain take steps to minimize the risks inherent in these foods:
• For consumers, knowing which of their favourite foods carry the greatest risks can help them take precautionary steps, such as safer handling and more thorough cooking.
• For producers and processors, information on which animal products are causing illness may provide crucial information for designing pre-harvest, slaughter, and processing systems that keep pathogens off meats and out of retail and consumer kitchens.
• For retailers and other foodservice providers, such as restaurants, cafeterias, and grocery stores, identifying storage and cooking practices that are linked to repeated outbreaks can help inform critically important food-handling practices.

CSPI found that Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, two pathogens that contaminate meat and poultry during slaughter and processing, were together responsible for one-third of all illnesses.

Reducing these hazards should be the focus of the meat and poultry industry and regulators.

Clostridium perfringens, a little-publicized pathogen that grows on cooked foods left at improper temperatures for too long, was responsible for another one-third of illnesses linked to meat and poultry. That pathogen is commonly associated with food handling errors that occur after cooking, making it a key issue for the foodservice industry and consumers.

Finally, nearly 20 per cent of illnesses were from an unknown pathogen, due in part to incomplete data collection by public health departments. Increasing the percentage of outbreaks where pathogens and foods are identified is an issue that state health departments should address.

Photos from CSPI

And beating consumers over the head with the scientific data doesn’t work.

That’s according to one of the scientists, Jeff LeJeune, who is working on how to let consumers know how to protect themselves and make food safety messages effective.

The scientists, LeJeune and Lydia Medeiros, are food safety experts at Ohio State University.

Power of persuasion

They are studying techniques from the fields of psychology and risk communications to find ways to communicate food safety messages that will actually persuade people to change the way they make decisions about food.

“The recurring theme is, ‘How do you motivate people to change their behaviors?’” says LeJeune. “What we’re finding is that it all depends on the audience.”

There is usually a trigger for people that will motivate them to get more information on a topic, adds Medeiros.

“For pregnant women, for example, it’s protecting the health of the baby,” she says.

Tailor the message

Messages about food safety need to be tailored to audiences depending on what’s motivating them to behave in a certain way, adds Medeiros.

Both LeJeune and Medeiros have done extensive research previously on food safety communication and education. And for this current research, the scientists are combining techniques they have used in past studies, conducting surveys as well as interviews and focus groups of consumers to gather subjective information.

The work they’ve done so far is a pilot project for a larger national study they plan to begin this fall.

Milk as an example

LeJeune and Medeiros for now are focusing on people’s milk-drinking habits, interviewing individuals to determine their motivations for choosing to drink either pasteurized or unpasteurized milk.

They also are looking at whether there are differences in these motivations between urban and rural populations.

Drinking unpasteurized or “raw” milk is considered by public health authorities to be hazardous because disease-causing bacteria can contaminate milk even from healthy dairy cows or from environmental contamination during collection and storage of milk.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, milk was a common cause of disease before the advent of pasteurization.

Many states, including Ohio, ban the sale of raw milk, but those who want to drink it often buy into a “herd-share”

Ohio State researchers Jeff LeJeune and Lydia Medeiros are trying to find ways to make food safety messages more effective. Photo by Ken Chamberlain, Ohio State University, CommTech

program and pick up their share of milk directly from the farm.

Mental models

The researchers are using the theoretical concept of “mental models” from the field of psychology when interviewing participants or leading focus groups.

The principle has been used in the past to approach other public health issues, as well as wildlife management and environmental issues.

“Everyone has a mental model for every decision they make,” explains Medeiros. “Just take crossing the street. Subconsciously, you assess whether it’s safe to cross, or if you should wait, or walk to the corner.”

LeJeune appreciates the approach.

“It gives us data, some science-based decision-making to use in developing messages,” he says. “It’s not just ‘Let’s throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.’”

Strongly held beliefs

Medeiros says she is intrigued by the part of the model that incorporates the concept of “strongly held beliefs.”

“When a person has very strongly held beliefs, they are the least receptive to a message that’s contrary to what they already believe,” she said. “They do not want to change their minds. That’s especially true with an issue like raw milk.”

So far in their study, the researchers are finding that people who drink raw milk and who also live in urban areas tend to have a strong distrust of institutional authorities that are charged with the safety of the food supply.

Interestingly, the same isn’t true of people who drink raw milk who live in rural areas.

“That says we should design different messages for these two populations,” says Medeiros. “If you’re addressing people who drink raw milk and live in the city, you’re not going to get your message across if you start with ‘I’m from the Ohio Department of Agriculture, and I’m here to tell you something.’”

However, that type of message may work better in rural areas and for people who drink pasteurized milk, both of whom tend to have a much higher level of trust in such authorities, she says.

Medeiros also has noticed anecdotally from the study’s focus groups that people who drink raw milk tend to believe they are very knowledgeable about milk-related food safety and nutrition information.

“But when we actually surveyed participants on their level of knowledge of food safety, almost everyone – whether they drink raw or pasteurized milk, or even if they have an R.D. (for registered dietitian) after their name – it is at about a C-minus level when it comes to food safety knowledge,” she says. “There’s not any real difference.”

That poses a problem for food safety communicators, says LeJeune.

If consumers think they’re already well-informed and knowledgeable, but really aren’t, they’re not going to seek out more information.

And whether an audience is receptive to new information is key, says Medeiros.

“If you can begin to influence a person’s attitudes through education and information, you can begin to influence their evaluation of their basic beliefs, and that’s the strongest indicator for behaviour change,” she says.

A new report out of the U.S. from Rabobank says that breakfast cereal consumption is declining because consumers are turning to other breakfast options.

The report, Cereal Killers: Five Trends Revolutionizing the American Breakfast, looks at the factors that are contributing to the decline and asks one clear question:

“Is breakfast cereal, a staple once characterized by strong innovation and competitive brand marketing, failing to meet the challenges of the 21st century consumer landscape?”

Nicholas Fereday, global senior analyst with Rabobank’s Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory group, adds that “Flat sales and declining volumes over the past decade indicate consumers are tiring of boxed cereals, lured away by more contemporary, aspirational and convenient morning eating options in other grocery aisles or restaurants.”

Five trends

In the report, Rabobank identifies five trends, or what it calls “cereal killers,” that are changing U.S. consumers’ breakfast habits:

1) “I’ll take that to go.” Breakfast is the new eating-out occasion.

2) “Snackfast.” Consistent with trends across all eating occasions, the rising culture of snacking is transforming breakfast into “snackfast” as consumers seek convenience and portability.

3) Beware of Greeks bearing yogurt! Protein is the latest superfood promising satiety and weight management.

4) The nutrition challenge. As politicians and pundits weigh in on what to eat, the cereal industry struggles to find the balance between regulation and self-regulation without alienating consumers. Consumers today are more interested in the nutritional profile of food than in past eras, and the cereal category has two hot-button issues – added sugars and marketing to children – which attract critics.

5) Boomers or bust? With declining birth rates, the growth of a key cereal-eating demographic, children, is slowing. Who will be left to munch on cereal in the future? If millennials are a lost cause, is it a case of Boomers or bust?

Strategies and innovation

Rabobank says that despite the trends reshaping the American breakfast meal, the cereal market still has potential.

In fact, there are several strategies breakfast cereal companies can use to grow their businesses and take advantage of trends currently undercutting their market.

Among the possible strategies cereal companies have are innovation and targeted marketing that emphasizes the importance of breakfast as the most important meal.

They can also:

• Renew the focus on innovation: Make bigger and better bets to generate new brand platforms, such as Kraft has done with Mio, Oscar Mayer Selects and Velveeta Skillets.

• Spend more on food ingredients relative to advertising budgets, learning from the success of fast growing companies such as Clif Bar & Company, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Whole Foods Markets, Inc. food does not have to be a least-cost formulation.

Re-write the marketing message

The breakfast cereal category pioneered marketing in the age of mass media, but Rabobank says it is struggling to find its voice and target customers in today’s age of multimedia and fragmented retail channels.

Equally, many current consumer food trends do not necessarily play well to cereal’s core strengths, as consumers move away from highly processed foods.

Nevertheless, Rabobank believes breakfast cereals remain a highly relevant platform for delivering many health and wellness positives, but that manufacturers need to rewrite their message to consumers regarding the relevance of their product.

“Despite the numerous health positives associated with breakfast cereal, some companies already appear to be exiting through the snack aisle. We are not predicting the end of this $10 billion market, rather, we believe that breakfast cereals can aspire to more than single-digit growth and erosion of market share,” says Fereday.

“To turn the tide, we suggest a renewed focus on innovation, a rebooting of the message to consumers, and, for children’s cereal, an embrace of what you are, even if that means new positioning in a different grocery aisle.”

Photo from Sargent College

There have been a few remedies provided in the FDR. A very old one is a Temporary Marketing Authorization (TMA). A TMA can be used to work around the prohibitive nature of the FDR. It is an instrument employed by Health Canada to allow the sale of a food that would otherwise be prohibited, while gathering the necessary information in support of possibly making regulatory amendments. There is, however, no assurance that the regulations will be amended.

In 1997 the FDR was amended to include Interim Marketing Authorizations (IMAs). These are regulatory instruments permitting Health Canada to allow the sale of a food while they make the necessary FDR amendments. There have been a number of IMAs issued related to food fortification. The first IMA was that related to the addition of calcium and vitamin D in orange juice. Prior to this fortified orange juice could not be sold as a food and was sold as a drug product – a calcium supplement. To this day, the FDR has not been formally amended to permit calcium and vitamin D in orange juice beverages. Many IMAs related to vitamin and mineral fortification are technically no longer in effect, as the amendments in 2008 put a two-year limit on their life expectancy. However, these are still acknowledged by Health Canada. The difference between an IMA and a TMA is that in the case of an IMA, Health Canada has already accepted that the FDR will be amended. In the case of a TMA they are “still thinking about it.”

In 2012 the FDA was amended to give Health Canada the authority to issue Marketing Authorizations (MAs). MAs can be issued for matters related to the addition of vitamins and minerals. The 2012 amendments also repealed the statutory provision for Health Canada to issue IMAs. The FDR still includes those provisions, but these are to be eventually repealed by the more formal Governor in Council (GIC) regulations.

To make life even more interesting, Health Canada was given the responsibility to transition the many food-form Natural Health Products (NHP) into the food regulatory framework by the end of 2012. Many of these NHP food forms included issues related to vitamin and mineral fortification. To address this, the ministry has dusted off the old provision and has issued TMAs like never before – everything from fortified water and fruit juice beverages, to energy drinks and even more conventional foods.

One of Health Canada’s priorities now is to set up MAs to govern food fortification. That process will likely not be very different from what has been done with food additives. For instance, Health Canada could define a class of fortification via an MA and then by Incorporation by Reference (IbR) include tables of foods that would be permitted to contain added vitamins and minerals. Those tables can then include foods already listed in the FDR and current IMAs.

If the TMA processes for foods that involve fortification are successful, they could eventually find themselves in those IbR tables. The FDR will also need to be amended by the more formal GIC regulatory process. This could include setting up the parameters of the type of fortification the ministry may be willing to consider. Of course this is speculation, as we will not see the structure of the new regulations until Health Canada has made them available.

The changes that are coming will be some of the most significant since those in the early 1940s. Be assured that Health Canada will retain its tight control over food fortification in Canada.

Gary Gnirss is a partner and president of Legal Suites Inc., specializing in regulatory software and services. Contact him at president@legalsuites.com

The province announced $7.6 million in carbon tax relief – $6 million of which will go toward greenhouse vegetable growers. The other $1.6 million is for flower growers.

The $7.6 million, reports the ChilliwackTimes.com, correlates to the amount of carbon tax B.C.’s greenhouse growers pay in a year.

The greenhouse growing industry has been telling government for years that the carbon tax is a challenge for the growth of the sector, says the ChilliwackTimes.com.

“Providing relief to the greenhouse sector recognizes that although it is not the only industry with competitiveness challenges, greenhouse growers are distinct from most others in that they need carbon dioxide and purposely produce it because it is essential for plant growth. Maintaining the affordability and competitiveness of locally produced agricultural products is essential,” says Peter Cummings, B.C. Greenhouse Growers’ Association president and chair.

The B.C. government says eligibility criteria will be similar to those for the 2012 temporary carbon tax relief grant program.

The grant will be available for 2013 and future years, and will be set at 80 per cent of the carbon tax paid on natural gas and propane used for heating and CO2 production.

The province says it also intends to introduce legislation this fall to provide a carbon tax exemption for farmers for the same coloured motor fuels and uses.

The carbon tax exemption for farmers and the carbon tax relief grants for greenhouse operators will provide a combined benefit of about $11 million annually to B.C.’s agriculture sector.

Photo from Greenster

Peter McAuslan, president, and Ellen Bounsall, vice-president Production, were the founders and majority shareholders of La Brasserie McAuslan and now will have no further role in the operations.

Further details of the deal were not released.

RJ Brewers, which acquired its initial stake in McAuslan in June 2008, said the deal will not change the way the companies operate, reports the MontrealGazette.com.

The brewer said both companies will continue to function independently and maintain their unique brand identities.

RJ Brewers brews the Belle Gueule, Cheval Blanc and Tremblay labels as well as a number of specialty beers including le Coup de Grisou and la Blonde d’Achouffe.

McAuslan Brewery brews the St-Ambroise brand of beers as well as Griffon Rousse and Griffon extra blonde.

McAuslan says its brewing company garnered numerous awards nationally and internationally for its beers. At the recent American Craft Brewers Conference in Washington, St. Ambroise Oatmeal Stout and St. Ambroise Barley Wine were listed as beers to taste in the All About Beer annual listing of the best beers in the world.

McAuslan Brewing was established in 1988 – at a time when Labatt, Molson and O’Keefe controlled 99 per cent of the market and there were no microbrewery beers. Today its ales St. Ambroise and Griffon are sold in eight provinces, the U.S., Australia and Switzerland.

Some of the bigger moves in shipment and market volumes reflected significant run-ups in inventories (dairy, seafood) or their depletion (confectionery), but there was real market contraction in the fresh baked goods sub-sector in response to continued high prices. Mergers and acquisitions tended to concentrate the focus of the purchasers, particularly in the meat sector, rather than diversify their products and markets. Capital investments consolidated distribution on a regional basis or developed production capacity for a North American or global market. New product development favoured higher-margin, better-for-you products and decadent indulgences.

Negotiations on the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership could loosen the supply management restrictions on dairy and poultry products this year. The December ruling of the World Trade Organization may reduce the U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) restrictions on our beef and pork exports. The consensus view of moderating commodity prices for 2013 should moderate retail price inflation allowing consumers to reset their expectations of a fair price for bread and meat.

Canadian food and beverage manufacturers, if they follow-through on their intentions, will increase their capital investments in construction, machinery and equipment by 24 per cent this year. Much depends on how consumers respond to weak but positive economic growth in Canada and the U.S. if current forecasts are correct. They may take the respite as an opportunity to cut household spending and grocery budgets to build up savings for a rainy day or invest their current savings in a kitchen renovation to make more meals at home.

To read more, and to order a copy of the report, contact Daniela Piccone at DPiccone@foodincanada.com, or at (416) 510-6773

Reuters reports that a bountiful harvest in Canada and sharply lower output from rival shipper Australia could add up to Canada’s biggest export volume in six years.

A projected 26 per cent decline in wheat production in Australia, the world’s second-biggest wheat exporter last year, ahead of Russia and Canada, will give Canadian supplies a larger foothold in Southeast Asia, a federal agriculture analyst said.

The U.S. was the number-1 wheat exporter last year.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) predicts that Canada will export 18.75 million tonnes of all wheat in the current 2012-13 crop year, the highest level since 2006-07. Much of that volume would have to move in the second half of the crop marketing year, which runs from Aug. 1 through July 31.

In the first five months through December, Canada has exported nearly 7.6 million tonnes of all wheat, up a modest six per cent year over year, according to Canadian Grain Commission data. The all-wheat category includes spring wheat, durum and winter wheat.

Traditional buyers of Canadian supplies such as Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have bought more Canadian wheat year over year, reports Reuters.

“All these companies buy from Australia, and one reason they’re buying from Canada this year, probably the main reason, is Australia had much lower production than last year,” said Stan Skrypetz, a wheat analyst with AAFC’s market analysis group in Winnipeg. “So they have to come in someplace else.”

Australia’s production estimate for 2012-13 edged higher to 22.077 million tonnes, but that would be about 26 per cent lower than the previous year.

Smaller crops in Australia and Russia, due to adverse weather, have also left India poised to export dramatically more wheat this year, but still less than half of Canada’s expected volumes.

The brisk Canadian export pace coincides with the first year of an open market in Western Canada, says the Reuters story, after the federal government passed a law that ended the Canadian Wheat Board’s marketing monopoly on Aug. 1.

It is unclear whether the marketing change – which allows farmers to sell to any buyer, not just through the entity now known as CWB – has contributed to the big export program, but it hasn’t hurt, John Duvenaud, who publishes the Wild Oats Grain Market Advisory, told Reuters.

The researchers, from the university’s wheat breeding program, successfully developed two new varieties that were recently approved by the Prairie Grain Development Committee, a federally regulated body.

Two new varieties

Dean Spaner, an ALES researcher, and his research team developed BW947 and PT765, two high yielding Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat lines with good resistance to stripe rust, a serious, new disease affecting wheat crops in Western Canada, especially Alberta.

PT765 also has improved resistance to Fusarium Head Blight, a disease of consequence for animal and human health in the harvested grain.

Both lines mature early, a significant characteristic for wheat growing in Alberta, especially north of Red Deer where the growing season is shorter, says the university.

“We only have 99 days (in our growing season in Alberta). Early maturity means you can harvest faster, you have less downgrading of the crop, less frost damage and less pre-harvest sprouting,” says Spaner.

CWRS wheat could be the highest quality wheat in the world because of its high protein content, kernel size and the ability of its dough to rise.

It is often used to supplement lower quality grains of wheat in industrial purposes. To be approved for registration, CWRS wheat must pass extremely stringent bread-making quality tests over a number of years.

Breakthrough

The registration of the two new lines is a breakthrough for the university’s wheat breeding program as they are the first two lines developed in Alberta and approved for release since 1997, when U of A wheat breeder Keith Briggs developed Alikat.

Previously, the U of A had developed and released three varieties since the faculty’s inception in 1915.

Canada has one of the most stringent regulatory systems in the world when it comes to releasing wheat varieties. It takes between eight and 12 years to develop a wheat cultivar. It must be field tested in roughly 50 environments in over five years and tested for many agronomic traits, including yield and maturity, as well as disease resistance and quality traits.

The lines are in the process of being commercialized and will likely be made available to prairie farmers in two to three years.