Correction to Food and Drug Regulations RIAS

Summary#

This is an erratum (correction) to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that accompanied the final rules called Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Nutrition Symbols, Other Labelling Provisions, Vitamin D and Hydrogenated Fats or Oils). The notice fixes a few footnotes and one cost figure in that analysis. It was published in the Canada Gazette on November 23, 2022 and refers back to the original RIAS published on July 20, 2022.

What it does#

• On page 3608, it corrects a footnote that had an incorrect dollar figure, replacing $37 with $49.
• On page 3608, it replaces a URL footnote with a formal citation for IBISWorld: "IBISWorld. (2021). Number of Households; Key metrics 2017-2021. Retrieved March 2022."
• On page 3612, it fixes the citation format for a journal article by Paraje, Colchero, Wlasiuk, Sota, and Popkin (2021) so the reference reads correctly.
• On page 3623, in the "Rationale" paragraph, it replaces a reported annual direct health care cost of $26.38 billion with $28.16 billion.
• These changes are corrections to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (the explanatory and evidence document). The erratum does not say the regulatory text of the rules themselves was changed.

Who's affected#

• People who read or rely on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement: researchers, policy analysts, journalists, public-health groups, and industry stakeholders.
• Anyone who used the specific figures or references in the original RIAS (for example, for cost estimates or citations).
• Most members of the public and businesses will not see any practical change to the labelling rules themselves from this erratum.

Why it matters#

• The corrected numbers and citations improve the accuracy of the evidence behind the regulatory analysis. That matters to people comparing costs and benefits or citing the RIAS.
• The change from $26.38 billion to $28.16 billion increases the reported annual direct health care cost for the listed chronic diseases, which could affect how large the health burden appears in analyses that rely on the RIAS.
• For everyday consumers and businesses, this is mainly an administrative correction to supporting documents rather than a change to the labelling rules themselves.