[ovao]

I'm usually the first to blast excess regulation, but note that this is only a labeling issue — the CFIA is not telling you what you cannot eat, but what a product can be described as. I can understand the appeal of a government mandating that a product for sale in that country, that is labeled as a 'meal replacement', have some reasonable distribution of macronutrients. The goal is to reasonably ensure that someone would not consume meal replacements that grossly lack nutrition a person actually needs to live.

The issue as I see it is that the definition of what would be considered reasonable today is not in line with the CFIA's. I don't see the intent of the regulations as unsound.