Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Federal regulation of local and sustainable food claims in Canada: a case study of Local Food Plus

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 pre-existing 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should be noted, however, that a smaller, regional producer is not innately more environmentally friendly than a factory farm operation (Born and Purcell 2006).

  2. Local Food Plus was previously named Local Flavour Plus.

  3. There are significant linkages between the two organizations, given that LFP president Lori Stablbrand had been sitting on The Food Alliance Stewardship Council.

  4. Outlined by Kneen (1995, p. 26) as, “exporters at one end to retailers at the other, and including the manufacturers of farm “inputs” like hybrid seeds and agro-toxins.”

  5. Nonprofit, third-party certification organizations, such as LFP, are different from privately owned certification systems, such as EurepGAP. The latter is profit orientated and claims to benefit all stakeholders, including the consumer (see http://www.eurepgap.org/Languages/English/about.html). Unfortunately, EurepGAP tends to benefit retailers and passes liability down the supply chain to farmers (Campbell 2005; Campbell et al. 2006). Nonprofit, third-party organizations, such as LFP, attempt to promote sustainable agricultural systems that benefit all stakeholders more or less equally (see http://www.localfoodplus.ca/why_local_sustainable_food.htm ).

  6. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/.

  7. It’s worth noting that, similar to many emerging projects particularly in the global South, LFP is attempting to minimize the costs of inspection and certification for producers by spreading those costs across supply chains (thereby charging producers less than other programmes) and by accepting existing certifications that meet LFP requirements rather than redo the inspection and certification process.

  8. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/about.htm.

  9. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/why_local_sustainable_food.htm.

  10. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/certification_categories2.htm.

  11. With the exception of border towns that can use parts of neighboring provinces as their local catchment area, if that is part of historical commercial patterns.

  12. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/why_local_sustainable_food.htm.

  13. The second author was a central participant in earlier negotiations with federal regulators about the labeling of organic foods.

  14. Questions unaddressed in the Guide to Food Labeling and Advertising were directed to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Information Representatives.

  15. For many issues, both the CFIA and HC would review problems and proposals, but for simplicity, we refer only to the CFIA.

  16. Panel language is information that is placed within a panel on a label that provides explanatory information on the product at hand.

  17. A shelf talker is advertisement material, often in the form of a card that is placed adjacent to a commodity on the store shelf.

  18. Firms are usually advised to submit proposed panels to the CFIA for a pre-market assessment that determines compliance with existing rules.

  19. The CFIA argued, with some justification, that pesticide-free conditions could not be achieved and so was misleading because, within the program, producers were allowed to apply pesticides outside the growing season (e.g., for spring and fall cleanup, pre-plant, and post-harvest).

  20. The second author was a participant in the national IPM project and attended the meeting at which this situation was discussed. The decision was even more difficult to swallow for some project participants because the term ecological had been permitted on the label of an earlier regional initiative sponsored by World Wildlife Fund Canada that was eventually absorbed in the national project.

  21. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/general_standards_farmers.htm.

  22. This labeling policy was introduced after the creation of the 2003 Guide to Food Labeling and Advertising; therefore, it is not within the guide, but can be found within the CFIA “Information Bulletins” at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/retdet/bulletins/bulletinse.shtml.

  23. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/why_local_sustainable_food.htm.

  24. http://www.localfoodplus.ca/certification_categories2.htm.

  25. The prohibition against genetically engineered (GE) animal feed is likely to be suspended for an unspecified period of time because of the current difficulties sourcing non-GE feed at an affordable price.

  26. Note that some code development was coordinated by the Canadian Federation of Human Societies. Codes can be found at http://www.livestockwelfare.com/codes.htm (accessed Dec. 6, 2008).

  27. See http://www.fao.org/SARD/en/sard/2001/index.html.

Abbreviations

BCSPCA:

British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

CARC:

Canadian Agri-food Research Council

CFIA:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CPLA:

Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization

FDA:

Food and Drugs Act (Canada)

GHG:

Greenhouse Gas

GE:

Genetically engineered

GMO:

Genetically modified organism

HC:

Health Canada

IPM:

Integrated pest management

LFP:

Local Food Plus

NFACC:

National Farm Animal Care Council

NGO:

Nongovernmental organization

References

  • Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC). 2001. Agriculture in harmony with nature: AAFC’s sustainable development strategy 2001–2004. Ottawa: Minster of Public Works and Government Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, and K. Warner. 2003. Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alteri, M. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, C., and S. Maxwell. 2001. Rethinking rural development. Development Policy Review 19: 395–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barham, E. 2002. Towards a theory of value-based labeling. Agriculture and Human Values 19(4): 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, S. 2004. Fighting global warming at the farmers’ market. Toronto: Foodshare Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, B., and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning, Education and Research 26: 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L., and C. Bain. 2004. New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociology 69: 321–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. 2005. The rise and rise of EurepGAP: European re(invention) of colonial food relations? International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 13: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H., C. McLeod, and C. Rosin. 2006. Auditing sustainability: The impact of EurepGAP in New Zealand. In Sociological perspective of organic agriculture, ed. G.C. Holt, and M. Reed, 157–173. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2003a. 2003 Guide to food labeling and advertising. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/toce.shtml. Accessed 6 Dec 2008.

  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2003b. Fair labeling practices. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/labetie.shtml. Accessed 6 Nov 2008.

  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2005. Consultation paper on humane and natural livestock production. Ottawa: CFIA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB). 2006. Organic productions systems: General principles and management standards. CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006. Gatineau, QC: CGSB.

  • Canadian Organic Growers. 2007. Local and regional food economies in Canada: Status report. Report to Agriculture and Agrifood Canada. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agrifood Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, J. 2003. Sustainability labeling schemes: The logic of their claims and their functions for stakeholders. Business Strategy and the Environment 12: 254–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H. 2007. Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario. Agriculture and Human Values 24(3): 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H., and P. McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the state system: The rise and fall of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 19: 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallastegui, I.G. 2002. The use of eco-labels: A review of the literature. European Environment 12: 316–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S. 2006. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haliwell, B. 2002. Home grown: The case for local food in a global market. WorldWatch Institute Paper 163. Washington, DC: WorldWatch Institute.

  • Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2005. Third party certification in global agrifood systems. Food Policy 30: 354–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C.C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, G.C., and M. Reed (eds.). 2006. Sociological perspectives of organic agriculture. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, A. 1943. An agricultural testament. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, A. 1947. The soil and health: A study of organic agriculture. New York: Devin-Adair.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.H., and P. Allen. 2006. Beyond organic: Consumer interest in new labeling schemes in the central coast of California. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30: 439–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery, B., C. Morris, H. Buller, D. Maye, and M. Kneafsey. 2005. Product process and place: An examination of food marketing and labeling schemes in Europe and North America. European Urban and Regional Studies 12: 116–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, F.H. 1911 (reissued 1990). Farmers of forty centuries: Permanent agriculture in China, Korea and Japan. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.

  • Kloppenburg, J., G.W. Stevenson, and J. Hendrickson. 1996. Coming into the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13(1): 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneen, B. 1995. From land to mouth: Understanding the food system, 2nd ed. Toronto: NC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, T., and M. Heasman. 2004. Food wars: The global battle for minds, mouths and markets. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S. 2006. Networks of agri-environmental action. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 22–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, O. 2006. What farmers’ markets say about the Post-Organic Movement in Ireland. In Sociological perspectives of organic agriculture, ed. G.C. Holt, and M. Reed, 18–36. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pirog, R., T. Van Pelt, K. Enshayan, and E. Cook. 2001. Food, fuel, and freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan, M. 2001. Naturally (The organic-industrial complex). New York Times Magazine, May 13.

  • Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, R., P. Antunes, G. Baptista, P. Mateus, and L. Madruga. 2006. Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes. Ecological Economics 60: 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selfa, T., and J. Qazi. 2005. Place, taste, or face-to-face? Understanding producer–consumer networks in “local” food systems in Washington State. Agriculture and Human Values 22(4): 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K.D. 2007. Agroecology in action: Extending alternative agriculture through social networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojtkowski, P. 2006. Introduction to agroecology: Principles and practices. Binghamton, NY: Hawthorn Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Fiona N. Louden & Rod J. MacRae

Authors
  1. Fiona N. Louden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rod J. MacRae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rod J. MacRae.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Louden, F.N., MacRae, R.J. Federal regulation of local and sustainable food claims in Canada: a case study of Local Food Plus. Agric Hum Values 27, 177–188 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9209-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9209-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation