Canada-U.S. Tariffs | CBC News Interactive
Canada-U.S. Tariffs | CBC News Interactive
Everything you want to know about the Canada-U.S. tariffs in one place.
You're viewing a single thread.
For years I've been thinking about forcing a change to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act mentioned here by issuing a charter challenge. My stance would be that not forcing company's to list all countries of origin and the percentage of material and labour that they make up denies me the information I need to make an informed decision. I have a right to this information so that I can express my support for or against areas of influence that affect my life. Anybody think this would work?
It would be impractical, I think.
Some foods have over 20 ingredients in them, and many products have ingredients or materials that exchanged hands multiple times before it's manufactured.
Currently, Made in... Product of... Packaged in... All have defined parameters.
Do I think this can be made better or more transparent? Sure. But unlikely as granular as you're suggesting.
In today's political climate, it would simply make sense (and dollars) for retailers and manufacturers to be more open about where products come from.
Ultimately, consumers will spend money how and where they want, and these companies follow that money.
I understand the many inputs that are involved but if you take the accounting side of things it would take nothing to identify a % for each country involved. The difficulty you suggest sounds more like a marketing complaint. Company's have all been only to quick lately to demonstrate how convenient it is to change their packaging.
if you take the accounting side of things it would take nothing to identify a % for each country involved
That would be true, only if things remained constant on the manufacturer's side.
Just to give an example of something I just experienced.
I was looking for a single ingredient product: popcorn kernels.
The package had no country of origin, but the store had labelled it as Canadian (sticker next to the price). I know the brand is Canadian, but that doesn't help if I'm looking for products that are produced in Canada.
To make a long story short, I contacted the customer support line to inquire about the origin of this specific, one-ingredient product and the answer they gave was basically:
"We do our best to source local whenever possible, but certain factors sometimes force us to seek products from outside the country."
So, my "Canadian" popcorn kernels were processed in Canada, but the corn was American. Next month, they may be using domestic corn, then a month later it could come from South America.
The same company had labelled tropical frozen fruit as "Canadian", when I know damn well we don't grow pineapple and mangoes in Canada.
In that context, how they handle label changes could end up being a significant challenge that only gets worse as you increase the number of ingredients, since every single ingredient could come with those same logistical challenges.
To me, this would give manufacturers and retailer more of an excuse to inflate prices.
I think that in the interim, manufacturers should do their best to label the country of origin and/or whether a product is "made", "produced", "packaged", "designed", or "assembled" in Canada. And retailers should also be more specific about what their maple leave stickers actually mean.
Although I think the volatility of sourcing is probably not a factor in most business (I'm not just talking food), I agree as with everything there would be details to work out. A reasonable exception with regard to information on packaging could be accommodated with a posting on their website. This whole packaging issue has recently been exposed as BS given how quickly and efficiently company's recently changed packaging and labeling in order to deceive their customers. From my perspective I've had enough of corporate crybabies. Thanks for your thoughts and example.
issuing a charter challenge.
What article would the current standard be violating?
I'm a lazy, not so bright contrarian who doesn't know the details enough to have formed a sensible defense. What I do know is that I have a right to express my beliefs through my patronage and I'm currently being inhibited in that effort by the intentional obfuscation of the information I need.
Well, you're the one who brought up the charter, so I hoped you would have an idea of specifically how the current standard is violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. IANAL, but as I see it:
What I do know is that I have a right to express my beliefs through my patronage
Sure, no arguments here. Section 2(b): 2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
and I’m currently being inhibited in that effort by the intentional obfuscation of the information I need.
This is the problem. I'm not sure there's any reason, in the charter or in other law, that a private business has to publicly disclose the origin of their raw materials. Yes, at certain stages they have to disclose to the government, potentially for health & safety, imports/tariffs, etc. And I do believe that labeling requires a manufacturer/distributor to be listed so there is a corporation who can be held responsible for the final product. However, where a company sources their ingredients could almost certainly be considered a trade secret, and outside of new legislation, I can't see manufacturers being forced to disclose this.
Thank you for adding more substance to my rant. Is the reason for a private business not to disclose the origin of their inputs exactly that by not doing so it deprives me of my right to express my beliefs? Obviously any existing laws or regulations are exactly where I am trying to force change. I don't agree with the protections offered under trade secrets as I am only suggesting they are forced to add a list of countries and only a percentage of the inputs they represent. In addition I'm already tired of corporations hiding too much under the "trade secret" banner. In general I have not been a fan of corporate governance for some time and feel it is time to bring them to heal. I know this opens up a whole can of worms but I would argue it to the end. Thanks again for your thoughts.