The Guardian (Charlottetown)

Down a multicultu­ral food path, with consequenc­es

- BY SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS Sylvain Charlebois is aenior fellow with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, dean of the faculty of management and a professor in the faculty of agricultur­e at Dalhousie University.

The new principles Health Canada will use for its next food guide signal a complete revamp of our rainbow of food groups.

It appears a plant-based diet will be strongly encouraged. We might even see a focus on more plant-based proteins like beans, lentils, nuts and tofu in the next Canada’s Food Guide. This would represent a significan­t departure from what we’ve seen in the guide since its establishm­ent in the 1940s.

Health Canada also suggests other significan­t changes, making many traditiona­l agricultur­e sectors anxious.

While the guide’s current format of groups and colours has proven convenient and simple, the proposed changes aim for a nutrition-based approach. That will likely group proteins and apply to all dietary needs, vegan or vegetarian lifestyles included.

It probably won’t abandon outright the main staples that Canadian consumers have embraced for decades, but the food guide will look and feel different. The next version will acknowledg­e, at last, that Canada has a dynamic, heterogeno­us food market. It will also encourage Canadians to drink more water, and entice them to cook more and eat together. That’s all good news.

The current food guide clearly has baggage. The first guide, in 1942, was intended to build demand for Canadian commoditie­s during the Second World War. Concerns about food security were acute and Canada sought to be a food-sovereign nation. Agricultur­al embargoes were frequent.

But things have changed and we have a more open food economy. The shift in food geopolitic­s means consumers have different choices and expectatio­ns.

In the past, things went too far when commodity-driven recommenda­tions were incorporat­ed into the guide, supported by questionab­le science. For example, encouragin­g adult Canadians to have two cups of milk a day is just absurd. We’re one of few countries still advocating this.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada may not like this but Canada in 2017 is a different place. Many immigrants don’t drink milk. Many consumers suffer from intoleranc­es and allergies. And we have many more choices than Canadians had in 1942.

This time, Health Canada did the right thing: it listened to Canadians. More than 20,000 Canadians have responded to requests for food guide suggestion­s, making the process more open and democratic than ever. Parents, teachers, physical education profession­als and fitness enthusiast­s, culinary experts, and many more communityb­ased groups, including food banks, got involved. This is exactly what was needed.

The principles suggested by Health Canada show they want a food guide primarily for Canadians. However, that guide may be at odds with some agricultur­al policies.

Canada’s protection­ist supply management system of quotas and tariffs shows that our dairy sector, for example, is vital to the agricultur­al economy and must be protected. The dairy sector’s economic contributi­on over the years has been unparallel­ed. However, Canadian per capita milk consumptio­n has dropped significan­tly over the last few decades. The new food guide could lead Canadians even further from milk, compromisi­ng the welfare of many farms. The same effects will be felt in the cattle industry.

As we necessaril­y put consumers first, we also need to reflect on what will happen to Canadian farming. The next food guide will make the disconnect between Canadian agricultur­al policies and food consumptio­n much more obvious. The new food policy framework, being considered by Agricultur­e Canada, must address this gap.

In the end, though, what matters most is how the guide resonates with citizens and how it can be used. This won’t be easy. The current version is really a tool for elementary schools, not for consumers looking for answers.

Perhaps we’ll need two guides: one for health profession­als and one for regular consumers. Both would be designed to achieve similar outcomes, with messages articulate­d differentl­y.

For consumers, the economics of food should also be recognized. Food is expensive, and all consumers must be made aware of their options.

Revamping our rainbow of food groups is obviously a multifacet­ed undertakin­g.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada