Reconfigure requirements for precaution
Ban categories of additives and aids with no value in a sustainable diet context
Restrictions on cosmetic perfection in food advertising
Trade restrictions
Reconfigure requirements for precaution
When assessments are based on industry submitted data, and the testing protocols are limited and based on OECD requirements that favour commercialization, assessors will not be receiving data and analysis rooted in precaution. Precaution has always been about both degree of certainty of harm, and degree of benefit of the questionable product or practice. As discussed in numerous places in this change area, the benefits of many permitted additives, processing aids and packaging materials are questionable within a sustainable diet framework. There is also a debate about whether precautionary assessment requires changes to testing and assessment protocols, or just changes to assessor and administrative interpretation of the data (cf. Soule, 2004). In my view, both are required. As discussed in the overall Introduction to this action area, precaution is technical, epistemological and values-based. It can be explained by statistical choices, testing requirements, and by worldviews. Given the limitations of science education (see Goal 3, Public research), most assessors in North America are not disposed epistemologically to precaution. Yet, in Europe, precaution is more robust (if not always well applied by member states), with guidances and applications (see also Garnett and Parsons, 2017) across a number of areas. Of particular pertinence is work on applying the precautionary principle to the chemicals sector (Milieu Ltd, the T.M.C. Asser Institute and Pace, 2017).
Consistent with proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act (see Pesticides, Substitution this change area), the Precautionary Principle means that appropriate preventive measures are to be taken where there is reason to believe that a product is likely to cause harm, even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between the product and its effects. The objective is to reduce reliance on, risk of harm from and use of questionable products, which means that the value of products in a sustainable diet scenario must also be assessed against possible harm. During an evaluation or re-evaluation, officials should evaluate the risk of harm of the product having regard to the precautionary principle, and applicants must provide persuasive evidence that the risk of harm and the value of the product are acceptable within a sustainable diet context. In some cases, assessors will also need to examine whether a substitute product is less harmful and / or more beneficial to that proposed by an applicant.
The CEPA preamble contains language on precaution, ""where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". Since this was written, the language of cost-effectiveness has been downplayed in many European jurisdictions. Regardless of the precise language, neither the Food and Drugs Act nor the Safe Food for Canadians Act name precaution as part of the legislative mandate and functions associated with the Acts. Language to effect the principle must be added as amendments to both bills.
Such language then triggers changes to regulations and regulatory protocols. European experiences can guide the changes, but many documents are internal to departments and guide day to day decision making, including the testing requirements of applicants, and the interpretations of statistical treatment of data (see Introduction to this change area). Since Type II statistical errors are often the big concern (in most cases relevant to this discussion, concluding there is no negative effect of an additive or aid when there is one), regulators may have to require larger sample sizes or increases to the significance level, as these are the main ways of avoiding Type II errors. Both of these requirements applicants will likely oppose, since they increase time and costs, and often reveal problems with product. Retraining of assessors in precautionary interpretation may be required.
With a more robust precautionary regime, assessments and re-evaluations will likely result in fewer products on the market (see next proposal).
Ban categories of additives and aids with no value in a sustainable diet context
Most additives and aids have no nutritional value. If they facilitate consumption of nutritious food in a sustainable context, without creating individual and population - level risks, and don't encourage consumer deskilling, they're worth keeping. But there are also alternative measures that processors can take to substitute for additives and aids that are eliminated. The alternatives are typically less convenient and sometimes more expensive and may require changes to manufacturing, but such a transition can be important within a sustainable diet framework.
At this stage, many cosmetic additives (colourants and glazes) have already been banned. Perhaps the only colouring agents that remain, consistent with the organic PSL, are natural agents such as turmeric, annatto, paprika, chlorphyll (and not versions containing emulsifiers) but nothing synthetic. The most problematic remaining additive categories are likely anti-caking agents, bleaching agents and emulsifiers.
Anti-caking substances are used in foods susceptible to clumping, including table salt, spices, milk powder, flour, sugar and other pantry items. They facilitate shelf extension, buying in bulk and keeping products for long periods because they prevent hardening when powders attract moisture. There is some evidence that they can compromise some nutritional constituents under some circumstances (cf. on vitamin C, Lipasek et al., 2011). Agents with aluminum are of concern for people who don't efficiently excrete ingested aluminum.
Although Canada does not use the US FDA Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) regulatory approach, it requires there be substantial safe consumption of a material prior to 1958 to warrant such a designation. A GRAS designation can indicate that an anti-caking agent is acceptable. Cellulose, corn starch and rice hulls have been used in industrial processes. New rice products appear to hold promise as replacement for silicon dioxide and tricalcium phosphate (and other rice products may prove to be good emulsifiers, dough conditioners and binding agents) (Grebow, 2019). The classic home anti-caking strategies for salt and sugar are coffee beans, dry beans, dry bread and white rice, and apple in brown sugar.
We don't want to generate more waste if people throw out clumpy foods, but at this stage it is feasible to remove anti-caking substances, except those with a GRAS or equivalent designation, from products destined for the home market. Institutional and food service markets may still require other agents as a waste reduction strategy. Sugar and salt are over-consumed on a population level, so no anti-caking agents should be permitted for those in home markets, serving as part of food literacy strategy to reduce consumption by requiring householders to rely on traditional home strategies. This may require social marketing campaigns undertaken at the expense of manufacturers. Facilitating these transitions is the news that the anti-caking industry is moving (at least slowly) in the direction of sustainability and health, with growing interest in the natural foods market which requires use of different substances (Duran, 2016).
Many bleaching substances for flour and bakery will have been re-evaluated, and some likely removed from the market as a result. There are implications for home and commercial bakers, however, as bleaching substances hasten the aging process of the flour and facilitate certain kinds of baking techniques and end products. They also allow commercial bakers to use less flour and more sugar in certain products, which is highly problematic. There are alternatives to bleaching, including aging in air and microwaving. This category of additives should be eliminated unless there is a compelling reason for retaining the least problematic ones..
Many emulsifiers are often simplified chemicals derived from seaweeds, lecithins and other natural products, but there is some evidence that they interfere with the gut microbiome and promote inflammation, in part because of that simplication (Chassaing et al. 2015; Fahoum et al. 2016; Aponso et al. 2017; Shlot et al. 2018). The EU has done some re-evaluative work on certain emulsifiers and they have remained on the market, but on-going monitoring is required as new evidence emerges. The related question is the degree to which emulsifiers are important in household products. In essence, they replace the need for shaking and whisking. Separation is a natural process, but many consumers, because of deskilling, view it as evidence of problems with the product. To some extent, the natural foods industry has successfully informed consumers of this reality, with products like peanut butter and milk that are not emulsified or homogenized. So it should be feasible to reskill on a wider scale. There may however be issues for those whose ability to shake and whisk are compromised. This suggests the need to flip the market. Should evidence of problems with emulsifiers continue to emerge, the FDR should require that firms largely eliminate emulsifiers but keep limited lines of products with the safest of emulsifiers for those requiring them.
Some emulsifiers are modified food starch, and these products also serve as binders, thickeners, stabilizers, and gelling agents. The native starches are typically corn, cassava (tapioca), wheat, rice and potato, but their properties are often sub-optimal for use in many highly manipulated food items. They may be modified by physical, chemical or enzymatic processes to enhance the resistance of the starch to acid & alkali, shearing, high temperatures, and freezing and thawing cycles. Unmodified starches are not regulated as additives, nor are the modified starches. Instead, the chemicals that modify the starches are regulated. Although there are some questions about chemical modification, and potential allergenicity for some people, the bigger issue is how they have facilitated production, shelf-extension and consumption of many highly processed foods of minimal nutritional value, including candies, beverages, instant foods, sauces, gravies and dressings, and dessert fillings. In a sustainable diet scenario, consumption of these processed foods should be reduced, and reduced consumption can be facilitated by banning modified starches from their formulations to reduce their appeal to consumers. Manufacturers would have to reformulate recipes or stop manufacturing the product.
Some artificial sweeteners are also controversial, with mixed evidence of a range of problems (cf. Tandel, 2011). They clearly are beneficial for people with specific health conditions, but they may also be facilitating consumption of beverages with little to no nutritive value. The shift to more precautionary assessments may shed new light on which substances should be retained and which should be removed from the market.
Similarly, under a precautionary assessment regime, extraction chemicals would also be closely scrutinized. They help manufacturers generate higher yields of oil and flavourings, and decaffeinate tea and coffee but typically leave residues. Some oil extractants, such as hexane, are controversial because their use facilitates manufacturing processes that can reduce the quality of the oil. Certain extractants for flavours can also be used to create taste that hides the use of low quality food ingredients.
Restrictions on cosmetic perfection in food advertising
Part of the reason why cosmetic additives have appeal is the way food is advertised. For proposals on advertising restrictions, see Goal 1 Consumer Information Systems, Substitution, Advertising.
Trade restrictions
Products that are manufactured, but not permitted, in Canada for reasons related to lack of need or lack of compatibility with sustainability requirements should also not be permitted for export. This is to comply with Goal 10.
