Basmati rice that boasts of being “proudly Canadian”. A plant-based oat drink that includes the word “Canada” in its brand name with no indication of the actual origin of the ingredients. A package of peppers with the address of an Ontario farm on the front, then, in small print, the words “Product of Mexico” on the back. A red cabbage advertised in the supermarket with a fleur-de-lis label and the words “product from here”, which also includes the words “product from the United States”.
Scanning the labels is grueling. In 2021, my partner and me recorded all the food we bought: these are 2400 items that we put in our grocery basket and in our cupboards or our refrigerator.
And despite a hundred hours dedicated to this consignment – including dozens of turning and turning the packaging – we have to admit that we ended the experience with even more questions. Our project diary doesn’t lie: it was the countless mentions of “local” that left us the most bewildered, as it was often near impossible to verify. How far can this marketing go without being fraudulent?
Between marketing…
Proximity is indeed increasingly put forward as a marketing argument, but it is not framed by rules or designations. Paradoxically, the food sector has never been so globalized.
And never has consumer attention been so fragmented. “In grocery stores, they have two seconds to grab the consumer’s attention, arouse desire in them, then encourage them to make the gesture of stretching their arm to put the product in their basket,” explains the expert. in Food Marketing Jordan LeBel.
For this professor at Concordia University, there is no doubt: “Local has replaced organic as an element of seduction. It’s this kind of marketing that allows food companies to “justify a 15% price premium with this kind of element,” LeBel believes.
But we do not find the same rigor or the same supervision with regard to the designation “local products” as with regard to the designation “organic”.
The standard remains rather in “a gray area”, also notes Pierre-Claude Lafond, associate professor of law at the University of Montreal. The consumer law specialist believes that the same “test” should apply to the food sector. “The Supreme Court of Canada determined in the Time judgment that you have to put yourself in the head of a credulous and inexperienced consumer when you want to determine whether a representation is false,” he explains.
The impression left by a logo or a statement must correspond to reality. “If a product grew in Guatemala, but is packaged in Quebec, does it correspond to your idea of a ‘local’ product? Probably not. »
Another example: A package of frozen cherries displays the words “CANADA A” prominently on the front. Behind, it is inscribed in smaller “product of Greece”. Is this a fraudulent statement? Not within the meaning of the law, since the first mention concerns the category or classification (including in particular the size, color and absence of defect) and the second, the exact origin of the product. “Should we assume that the consumer knows or should know? We are still in a zone of doubt here,” said Mr. Lafond.
It would thus be necessary to be able to decipher the mentions and mentally record all that distinguishes marketing from verifiable assertions. The amount of knowledge required to do this is simply insane, says Jordan LeBel: “We put too much responsibility on the shoulders of the consumer. »
And again, if we agreed on at least one definition of the word “local”! Who knows for example that, until 2019, for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the terms “local” and “locally grown” meant that the food had to have been produced in the same municipality or within 50 km of where it was sold? Or that the mandatory information, such as the country of origin, must be at least 1.6 mm thick on the packaging, which is considered “legible”?
“I am against the idea that it is only the consumer who is responsible for informing himself. Today’s consumer is not stupid, but he is drowned in a sea of information and is very pressed for time”, also says Mr. Lafond.
… and applicable rules
There are of course some levers in the federal and provincial laws to ensure the origin of our food.
The CFIA has the mandate to monitor the veracity of certain indications on the labels, such as “made in Canada”, or “product of Canada”, or even “made from Canadian and imported ingredients”.
In Quebec, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ) is responsible for products destined for the province’s markets. The Food Products Act prohibits in particular any “indication that is inexact, false, misleading or likely to create confusion for the buyer as to origin”.
In reality, however, their respective inspection programs are mainly based on “risk”, the two bodies tell us. “We prioritize the safety aspect, to reduce food poisoning or the effects of allergens. There are not many sick people, which means that we are doing our job, ”explains Marie-Eve Rousseau, team leader in integrated risk management at MAPAQ.
I am against the idea that it is only the consumer who is responsible for informing himself. Today’s consumer is not dumb, but he is awash in a sea of information and very pressed for time.
“The CFIA does not have inspectors dedicated exclusively to this work,” it is also said. This agency under the aegis of the Federal Minister of Health receives an average of 3,200 complaints each year which relate to food, affirms a spokesperson at the Homework. Between 2011 and 2021, only 78 complaints directly targeted “product of Canada” indications, i.e. less than ten per year.
MAPAQ also inspects randomly, “proactively”, but responds to complaints as a priority. “Up to 30% of food recalls are related to labeling issues,” says Ms.me Rousseau.
However, on the one hand, “the local name does not exist as such in the regulations,” she adds. And on the other hand, most of the 1,430 complaints received over the past four years were more concerned with other aspects: falsified expiry dates, fears that one product had been substituted by another, absence of labels.
Few frauds or few investigations?
In fact, few outright provenance frauds have been documented by governments. Of more than 100 CFIA food fraud prosecutions since its inception, just 10 have involved false country-of-origin labeling, including three since 2016.
The case of Mucci Farms, a large company that has its own greenhouses but also imports vegetables, was the most resounding. He was fined $1.5 million for selling tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers mostly from Mexico, but with a label saying “product of Canada”. AMCO, another agribusiness in the same region of southern Ontario, was also ordered to pay $210,000 for similar reasons.
In Quebec, producer Vegkiss inc. de Lanaudière was charged in 2019 to have sold broccoli from California falsely labeled “Product of Canada”. The case is still before the court.
Last April, the Sustainable Development Commissioner severely blamed MAPAQ and Aliments Québec in a report. The provincial ministry gives part of the responsibility for promoting Quebec foods to this private voluntary organization. In total, the MAPAQ paid him more than 26 million dollars, including nearly 20 million for the year 2020-2021 alone.
This is because the little blue logo is now very recognized by consumers: “We did a survey in June 2021 and 70% of respondents knew one of the brands”, says Isabelle Roy, the new general manager of Foods Quebec.
Companies must first join the organization and then apply for product-by-product verification. The number of such requests more than doubled (115%) between 2019 and 2020, a surge attributed to the pandemic, according to Ms.me Roy.
But the verification is not “adequate,” said commissioner Paul Lanoie. “No supporting document to validate a real supply in Quebec is requested” from suppliers, he lamented.
“The report may look big, but we were aware of the shortcomings mentioned and we had already put measures in place,” says Ms.me Roy. One of the problems came from, among other things, a transfer of incomplete product sheets to a new IT platform, she explains.
The commissioner also noted that less than 1.5% of the products had been checked. From now on, 5% of all products will be checked, says the general manager of Aliments Québec, a target that will rise to 10% next year. “Out of 25,000 products and 1,500 companies, that’s a lot,” she notes.
MAPAQ also says it is ready to implement “an enhanced labeling surveillance strategy”, the details of which are not yet public, says Ms.me Rousseau. Insofar as François Legault’s government strongly encourages buying local, particularly with the $12 Challenge campaign, “you have to be consistent and able to recognize it,” she says.
“If we don’t legislate, the industry will do what it wants. […] It is a question of fairness towards consumers, but also towards companies, which do not want to be in competition with another which only pretends to sell local, ”also explains Pierre-Claude Lafond.
“Governments are late,” also believes Jordan LeBel. It invites us to consider the “local” notion beyond a simple distance in kilometers between our table and the producer or processor. “The notion of ‘local’ should include an appreciation of the ecosystem of social relations. »