Both health and sustainability are stated public policy objectives in Canada, but food information rules and practices may not be optimal to support their achievement. In the absence of a stated consensus on the purposes of public information about food, the information provided is frequently determined by the marketers of product. No institution or agency has responsibility for determining the overall coherence of consumer food messages relative to these broader social goals of health and sustainability. Individual firms provide information that shows their products to best advantage, which may contradict what is provided about the product by another firm or government agency. Individual consumers do not have the resources to determine easily the completeness of any firm's messages, particularly in light of the size of food industry advertising budgets. Government rules confound this problem because there is also little coherence between the parts of government that have responsibility for point of purchase, advertising rules, and labelling. The healthy eating messages of health departments are often competing with contradictory messages permitted by the regulatory framework of other arms of government. Investments in programs that successfully promote environmental stewardship in agriculture are undercut in the market because consumers cannot support OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2011, 4 2147 those efforts with their dollars. This problem exists despite the emergence of "citizen-consumers" who have a broader approach to food purchasing than individual maximization. Only recently have some health professionals and sustainable agriculture proponents turned their attention to these factors and designed interventions that take them into account. In this paper, which builds upon earlier work by MacRae [1], we outline key short, medium and long term initiatives to facilitate the citizen-consumer phenomenon and better support consumers in their efforts to promote health and sustainability in the Canadian food system.

Interest in purchasing local food from suppliers who follow sustainable practices is growing in Canada. Such suppliers wish to have their products recognized in the market so that price premiums might be received, and new markets developed. In response, the organization Local Food Plus (LFP) developed standards and a certification process to authenticate local and sustainable claims. LFP provides certification seals, and labeling provisions for qualifying producers and processors. However, given preexisting national food labeling rules, it is not evident that existing regulations permit such claims. Using LFP as a case, this study examined whether current federal labeling rules might impede the marketing of local and sustainable claims. Key findings include that the use of the terms natural, sustainable, and local in panel language and on shelf-talkers could be contested; and that the absence of specific regulation of numerous pertinent terms means they can only be assessed against general fraud prevention regulations, resulting in case-by-case determinations of compliance. Sustainability food label approvals in Canada, based on these general provisions, have not always been favorable to sustainable producers and firms. Existing regulation of these potentially contested terms appears to be out of step with other policy-related developments at the federal level and / or conceptual developments in the field. Proposals are made for amending existing rules to better support local and sustainable claims.

No abstract

Both health and sustainability are stated public policy objectives in Canada, but food information rules and practices may not be optimal to support their achievement. In the absence of a stated consensus on the purposes of public information about food, the information provided is frequently determined by the marketers of product. No institution or agency has responsibility for determining the overall coherence of consumer food messages relative to these broader social goals of health and sustainability. Individual firms provide information that shows their products to best advantage, which may contradict what is provided about the product by another firm or government agency. Individual consumers do not have the resources to determine easily the completeness of any firm's messages, particularly in light of the size of food industry advertising budgets. Government rules confound this problem because there is also little coherence between the parts of government that have responsibility for point of purchase, advertising rules, and labelling. The healthy eating messages of health departments are often competing with contradictory messages permitted by the regulatory framework of other arms of government. Investments in programs that successfully promote environmental stewardship in agriculture are undercut in the market because consumers cannot support