Podcast: Why do people fear their food?

Clinton Monchuk: (00:07) 

From Canadian Food Focus, this is Ask a Farmer. I’m your host Clinton Monchuk, a Saskatchewan farmer. In this podcast, we talk to food experts to answer your questions about your food. 

Clinton Monchuk: (00:27) 

So with us today on the podcast, we have Timothy Caulfield. Timothy is a professor at the University of Alberta. Along with many different hats, we’re going to be talking a little bit about why people have some fear around their food. But before we get into that, I think everybody wants to know a little bit about you. I’m pretty sure majority have already heard your name, but just give us a little bit of an overview of who you are and, some of the work you do as an author, as a professor and personality on Netflix too. 

Timothy Caulfield: (00:57) 

Sure. I’m a Canada Research chair in health law policy at the University of Alberta. And to be honest with you, I really think of myself as an interdisciplinary researcher. I know I’m in the law faculty and with the School of Public Health. But I really do think of myself as an interdisciplinary researcher, and I look at science and health policy. My real passion is, you know, how is science represented in the public sphere? You know, what kind of evidence do we use to make decisions, you know, make health policy decisions, decisions about our food, you know, decisions about what kinds of therapies we want to use. So we bring a bunch of different methods to bear on those broad questions. And I’ve also been really lucky to get really involved with the media and writing for the popular press and doing books for the general public. Which is, you know, speaking of my passions, , that’s my real passion. I absolutely love writing, and I’ve also been involved in a number of documentary projects. So, you know, I love coming at this topic from every direction, and I love engaging with the public. 

Clinton Monchuk: (02:02) 

And this is why you’re such an excellent person to have on the program. We know that there’s a ton of information out there when it comes to food and just, you know, science in general. But why is it that we’re living in an era right now where we have all these different new technologies that are out there? The science is just being produced in masses. We’re knowing more about our food our health, and yet people are lacking the trust around that. Why do you think there’s a general lack of trust? Obviously this program’s more about food, but, we can see it in a whole different array of categories as well. And why is it that, you know, we’re living right now with this lack of trust? 

Timothy Caulfield: (02:47) 

It is a remarkable time, isn’t it? And so many paradoxes, which you’ve touched on. You know, we’ve never had as much information as we have right now about food, about health, about our environment, and we’ve never had such a great distribution of the good science. We always talk about the misinformation and the bunk, but people still have access now, like never before. I can remember being undergrad, right? , you know, having to go to the stacks to find science. People have access to that stuff now. And despite that, we are seeing this profound confusion. We’re seeing this profound polarization. We are seeing this decrease in trust. And I think it’s important to recognize, you know, big caveat there, that people still trust scientists. They still trust scientific institutions. They still trust farmers, . But, there’s no doubt that trust has, has come down. 

Timothy Caulfield: (03:41) 

And in some jurisdictions like the United States, it’s really come down, it’s really come down. I, I think a bunch of things are going on. Obviously fantastically complex, you know, social cultural phenomenon, but in all the listeners could probably guess this, right? I used to say different things, but now I think the two big things are social media and the degree to which this is about, about ideology. And the third thing I’m going to put on there is the role of prominent individuals. It used to be celebrities, but now you have a whole bunch of, you know, influencers that are really directing public discourse and not always in a science-based way. And all those three things work together. Social media, ideology, the role of prominent voices create this polarized, often ill-informed information environment that just doesn’t help anyone. 

Clinton Monchuk: (04:34) 

So do you feel that sometimes the science, as we learn more about the science, that it, it’s confusing? I think you talked about it, the social media just amplifies it, right? But is there, you know, science that will go one way and another way depending on new research that kind of makes people waiver a little bit, and does that create some level of lack of trust? 

Timothy Caulfield: (04:56) 

So the answer is yes. It’s not going to surprise you, , it’s not going to surprise you. There’s actually really interesting research on this that you may not be aware of. So they’ve actually studied that when the public sees conflicting recommendations, their trust goes down, and the likelihood that they’re going to believe and act on it goes down. Also, big caveat, hard to study that well of course, but there is at least some evidence that supports that. And I think it’s also intuitively it makes sense, right? That that happened. There are a bunch of lessons to take from that. First of all, I think we need to be more transparent about how science is uncertain, and it does evolve, and the recommendations are going to evolve. I think we also need to point to the reality, how we talk about this stuff in the public sphere. 

Timothy Caulfield: (05:38) 

You know, headlines that say eggs kill you, , you know, it’s not great. You know, it’s not great. And, you know, and we saw it with coffee too. Like I’m a big coffee fan, right? You, you see that back and forth with coffee. You see it with back and forth with alcohol and wine. It is confusing and it causes the public to kind of shut down a little bit, right? To say, oh, I’m just not going to listen to that. The other element here, and I’m sure you’re very familiar with this, is we’ve got to be careful not to over interpret the studies that inform those conclusions, right? Because often those are observational studies, they’re cohort studies, you know, its not causation studies that are leading to those really often dramatic conclusion. You know, there’s some really interesting research that talks about how the media loves those observational studies. 

Timothy Caulfield: (06:24) 

And again, it’s important to recognize observational studies can be valuable, but they don’t give you robust causation results, right? But the media loves them, right? Because they are often about chocolate and coffee and sex and things like that, right? So they’re headline grabbing conclusions. So I think that that’s the other lesson we can take from that back and forth that comes with it. One of the things I always say, you’re going to get, maybe get sick of me saying that on this podcast. You also want to remember to go back to that body of evidence, right? Research is going to go back and forth on a particular topic, but always take a step back and say, okay, what does the body of evidence say on this topic? And the body of evidence with food, you know, we know what a healthy diet looks like. We’ve known it for a long time. The cliches are true, right? Moderation, you know: healthy grains, fruits and vegetables, healthy proteins. You know, there’s really no magic. 

Clinton Monchuk: (07:17) 

You mentioned a little bit too on, on the causation versus correlation, right? Granted, they’re trying to make you like look at, you know, something totally outrageous, right? To say that correlation does not mean causation. But how many people really look into that science? Like, I feel like we’ve become a lazy society, right? 

Timothy Caulfield: (07:38) 

Let’s be kinder to society , and say that it’s a chaotic information environment, and it’s more difficult and people aren’t really invited to reflect, right? It’s this frantic information environment where they get headlines on their phone, right? So you’re right. You know, people don’t go, okay, wait a second. What kind of evidence is that? Is that just an anecdote? Is that just a testimonial? Is that just an observational study? People don’t do that as you know, and I want to be careful, some people do do that. But as you know, people read the headline and maybe they read the first paragraph and they don’t go to the, you know, 11th paragraph that says, you know, this was an observational study. If that quote is even there, sometimes it isn’t there. And the other interesting thing with food, and this is something I’ve actually wanted to, study, we’ve studied this in other domains. 

Timothy Caulfield: (08:27) 

With food, often it’s an article that is in a lifestyle magazine, or maybe it’s in an entertainment magazine or maybe it’s a sports star talking about their diet. So there really isn’t that space to do a scientific analysis. And we’ve done it in the context of stem cells. We’ve looked at that, I call it implicit hype, right? It’s not really a media venue where you’re going to get that kind of more thoughtful scientific analysis. But this reminds me of one of the tools that we all want to implement that I often talk about is this idea of pausing and reflecting on, on what’s really in that content. And if you just invite people to do that, just for a moment, you can make a real difference. 

Clinton Monchuk: (09:08) 

Yeah. And I know reading your book, the Tom Brady Factor, right? So every time he went to a Super Bowl, I’d hear about his diet over and over again. And then for whatever reason, I think, you know, people think maybe if I had adopted his diet, I’d be built like him. I think we’ve witnessed over time some of how people look to these quick fixes to heal their ailments or bring about some superior health in their own bodies. How has this manifested itself in food over time? And and why are some of the reasons that it’s taken place? 

Timothy Caulfield: (09:46) 

You’re so right. There’s so much to unpack in that question, and you’re spot on. I think, you know, first of all, so often it is that anecdote, right? It is that testimonial from a celebrity that can generate a lot of the traffic, can generate the momentum around a topic, right? And, we know good empirical evidence to back this up, that an anecdote, a testimonial can overwhelm our ability to think scientifically. Humans are, you know, some people have suggested we’re hardwired to respond to those stories. So when Tom Brady talks about his diet, first of all, that’s a celebrity, right? So it’s a bigger megaphone, a good-looking celebrity, right? So you’re going to remember it, that place or availability bias and it’s a narrative. It’s this story, it worked for him. You know, I’ll have thoughtful academic colleagues that will say, you know, well, it works for Tom Brady. 

Timothy Caulfield: (10:35) 

You know, how can you argue with that? Well, you can argue with that. It’s an anecdote. It’s not science, right? So, you have that whole aspect going on, and then you can see, you know, people will often still say to me, I don’t believe celebrities have that much of an impact. Look at the gluten-free trend. And, you know, I’m obsessed with this trend. I followed it from the very beginning, and it was created by celebrities, right? It was, you know, Miley Cyrus, Gwyneth Paltrow, other athletes have adopted sports, and they talk about it. That gluten-free trend still exists. I know it’s not the sexy diet now, it’s not the the hot button diet. But it still exists, and there’s no evidence to support the idea that it’s inherently healthier. Yes, if you’re a celiac, yes if you have non celiac gluten sensitivity, and there’s some other health conditions where we’re getting emerging evidence, it might be beneficial. 

Timothy Caulfield: (11:29) 

But that’s not how it’s marketed. It’s marketed as if it’s inherently healthier and you’re going to lose weight, no evidence to support either one of those things. And it’s really built on the back of it, this entire industry, built on the back of what really was a pop culture representation of this area. Then layer on top of that, the last thing that you said, right around this desire for a quick fix, a desire for a simple answer. I’ve been studying diets and following diets for decades. Has there ever been ever a trendy new diet that actually worked long term? Every diet works short term, right? Everyone loses weight for a little while. Name one that has worked, you know, sustained weight loss. None of them, you know? Yeah, I know there are individuals out there that say “oh, this worked for me”. But on a population level, the answer is no. Right? And still we see every 18 months, every two years, there’s a new trendy diet, right? And it’s just phenomenal. What does it say about human nature, right? 

Clinton Monchuk: (12:30) 

Yeah, exactly. And you could go even further, and I know you like to talk about Gwyneth Paltrow, like I think she’s an absolutely excellent actress, but obviously when she’s talking about some of the different health trends or some of the different things, she’s got a vested interest in some of these things that she’s trying to market. I don’t understand why people don’t see through some of that, right? Like, it’s a product that you’re trying to market. You put these names like a superfood, right? Or this is going to cleanse you from this or that, but there’s no backing for it, right? But yet it takes off. And it’s just interesting to watch some of that and just how that creates almost their own businesses, right? 

Timothy Caulfield: (13:10) 

It is fascinating, and you raise a very interesting paradox that is out there in the universe. And this is the idea of, of conflict of interest. So a lot of people will say that they’re drawn to alternative medicine and Gwyneth Paltrow and alternative ways of eating because they can’t trust big food. They can’t trust big pharma. There are all these conflicts of interest at play, but they ignore the conflicts of interest that are embedded, that are inherent in the other individuals that are, you know, the alternate perspectives, right? They pick their conflict of interest that they’re going to be upset about. Yes, big food. I hate that phrase, big pharma, I hate that. But there are problems there, right? One could argue the conflicts of interest are even more profound with these other actors because, but for the selling of these products, their industry wouldn’t exist, right? Yeah. So yeah, Gwyneth Paltrow, you know, she recently was talking about how she has long Covid and that she, you know, she disses conventional medicine, and then she starts talking about all these modalities that she’s using, and then right underneath her, her post are, she’s selling these products. She’s selling, you know, supplements, she’s selling, you know, essential oils. It’s a profound conflict of interest that is often ignored by those who are attracted to those modalities. 

Clinton Monchuk: (14:40) 

And this brings us to our fun farm fact. From a survey done by the Canadian Center for Food Integrity. This survey was taken in 2022 and surveyed just shy of 3000 Canadians. And within the survey, it actually said that 97% of Canadians were either moderately or very trustworthy of labels placed on food packaging. On one hand it’s good, right? Because there’s a lot of good information from ingredients to, you know, the different calories, protein, fat, like all that sort of stuff. But it does bring a little bit of an issue when we start talking, and again, you mentioned in your book, things like GMO-free water or gluten-free water, right? How does that play out on the labeling side? Like, do you feel that some of that just opens up? Because it, to be fair, the CFIA can’t go out and monitor every single package, right? To make sure that they’re 100% truthful or not misleading. And it’s really upon us to send in those requests to say, okay, this is, you know, this is bogus, right? This isn’t true. What do you think about the trust that actually exists for labels with Canadians? 

Timothy Caulfield: (15:55) 

I’m surprised it’s that high. First of all, that’s really interesting figure. I would’ve guess it would be pretty high, but that’s a remarkably high figure. I totally agree with your analysis. A good news / bad– do we say bad news? A good news- caution? How about that way? Good news / caution side. So the good news is, you know, that I think that people do want to have this information. Now, you know this, you’ve probably seen the data. Do they really read it? Do they really act on it? is another question. I am, I get really upset about health halos which is what you’re touching on. And we’re seeing more and more health halos. We know health halos have a real impact. So I know your listeners know what I mean when I say health halos, but by that I mean these catchphrases that are used that are supposed to be a proxy for goodness. 

Timothy Caulfield: (16:39) 

And in fact, in my forthcoming book, I have a whole section on this. It’s the goodness illusion. Gluten free, non GMO, healthy, right? Chemical free, all these kinds, you know, toxin free, locally grown, right? There are a lot of really interesting health halos that people just, they don’t really dig into them. They assume that they’re evidence-based, and they assume that they’re virtuous when in fact, just scratching the service a little bit, the goodness illusion sort of dissipates on all the ones I’ve just talked about. So I do find it frustrating, and I think that those health halos play to that chaotic information environment that we were talking about before. People want a shortcut to goodness, right? They want a shortcut to decision making, and we can’t really blame them, right? Because they’re busy. And it’s so noisy out there that seeing that label, even the color green, as you know, can be a health halo. 

Timothy Caulfield: (17:38) 

But all of those, like locally grown is a really interesting one. It’s, and I talk about it in my forthcoming book because I’m kind of attracted to that idea. You know, we go to a farmer’s market every, by we I mean, my beautiful wife goes to a farmer’s market, every single weekend because we’re kind of attracted. But it’s actually very complicated, right? It is really complicated. Is buying locally really better for the environment? You know, what, you look at the evidence, that’s messy. Is locally grown even, does it even taste better? You know what? It’s really messy. I think we need to be careful not to be pulled into that goodness illusion because it can actually short circuit the goal that we’re actually trying to achieve. 

Clinton Monchuk: (18:22) 

So how does it work on the fear side then? Again, in your book, you talk a little bit about the fear associated with, you know, different decisions. And, and your book does a good job chronologically going through some of those steps that you take in a day and how you kind of determine whether or not you’re going to pick up your phone for a little while longer, or eat that or do this or that or the other. But what we’re finding is there’s a lot of fear around certain types of food. And I’ll use the example of GMOs, and Jimmy Kimmel had this great segment on one of his shows talking Yeah, it’s absolutely hilarious. Where he says, you know, we’re going to go to the local farmer’s market and just say, okay, do you consume GMOs? And everybody’s, “oh, no way, no way. And heck, I’m not going to do that. That’s bad, that’s bad.” Well, what’s a GMO? Well, nobody knew. So there was that inherent view that something is bad without really realizing what it even is. 

Timothy Caulfield: (19:19) 

That’s so true. So true. And that, that is a hilarious bit, but it really highlights the power of that label. Non GMO has become a truism as, it’s better for you, it’s healthier, right? And you probably know this, the topic of GMO is actually the topic where there is the biggest disconnect between experts in the public, more so than vaccines, more so than climate change. You know, the public, depending on what study that you look at and you’ve probably are really close to this data too. But somewhere between 40 and 50% of the public has a degree of hesitancy about GMOs, which is really remarkable in the context of health, by the way. Or I’m not talking about environment or corporate ownership. We’re talking about health. When you think about the almost complete scientific consensus that they’re safe from a health perspective, right? But non GMO has become this health halo where it’s supposed to signify better for you, healthier. And it is interesting because you have this almost market cascade that’s happened now. The market has just given up, right? And now you have, you know, Triscuits, which I love Triscuits. Can I say Triscuits? I am not sponsored by Triscuits. 

Clinton Monchuk: (20:30) 

It’s totally fine. We’re not sponsored. So it’s completely whatever you want to say. 

Timothy Caulfield: (20:35) 

I love Triscuits. I’ve eaten them my whole, and now they’re non GMO you know? And so I actually tried to move away from eating them, but my love of Triscuits went over and I keep eating them. But that is totally marketing, you know, that the people that are making Triscuits know from a health perspective, there is no benefit. They’ve just sort of given in to the power of the non GMO market. And we also know, that if something is scarier place or a negativity bias more likely to have an impact, we’re more likely to remember it, more likely to act on it. And so many of these things play to the negativity bias, right? Are we ever going to break the non GMO myth? I don’t know. It’s fascinating. There is some evidence that the concern has gone down in some jurisdictions, but despite that, I think that people just feel like there’s nothing to lose. Let’s, you know, keep pushing this myth, and we’re going to market to it. But it is a really frustrating trend. The chemaphobia thing is also, I’m fascinated with the degree of people that don’t want chemicals in their life. I don’t know where they’re going to live. You know, I often joke, you may heard me say this before, you know, they want to live on the lip of a black hole, right? Where matter is being pulled asunder. Are chemicals there? I don’t know, maybe there’s no chemicals there. 

Clinton Monchuk: (21:48) 

And I think Dr. Joe Schwartz from Quebec actually talks a little bit about that too, with, you know, when you go through a, I think he has an apple, and all the different chemical compounds that you’re consuming, yet people, people want a clean label with no chemicals. Well, it’s kind of what comprises it . 

Timothy Caulfield: (22:06) 

We have this clean beauty movement that’s based on the same thing, and it’s just, it’s a huge movement. And that’s another health halo now, right? Clean beauty. People say, Tim, well, you’re being too glib. You know, people, when you say chemicals, what they really mean is they don’t want harmful synthetic chemicals. That’s what they mean when they say that. But the fact of the matter is that the word chemical has been transformed is the point, right? That’s the point that now has taken on this other meaning that is completely disconnected from the evidence, and it’s just about fear mongering. 

Clinton Monchuk: (22:37) 

So we talked about the GMOs and the new technologies coming forward around gene editing. So even more precise science around that. Do you feel like it almost sounds better, right? Gene editing versus genetic modification, but I’m not too sure what’s kind of your initial take on things like that? 

Timothy Caulfield: (22:57) 

Oh, great question! So here’s, I’ve been obviously following this really closely, and you get the sense from the biotech community and from the agricultural community that some, not everyone, but I’ve heard some people say, oh, it’s going to be better , people are going to be more accepting of it. I don’t think so. Maybe I’m becoming old and cynical, they’re just going to see it as GMO. They’re not going to make this nuanced differentiation between gene edited plants and you know, the old school GMO plants. I think they’re just going to see it as the same. Maybe I’m wrong, I hope I’m wrong. I hope this is an invitation. You know, maybe what we should do, let’s be positive, okay? Maybe this is an opportunity to re-engage this conversation and say, look, this is what’s really happening. You know, maybe that’s what we should do. But this debate has been going on for so long, and that non GMO rhetoric in general has won the day and so I’m a little bit pessimistic. 

Clinton Monchuk: (23:53) 

Yeah. So if you would have any advice to our listeners on how to overcome some of these, the negativities and the fears what would it be? 

Timothy Caulfield: (24:04) 

Okay. So look, even though I just said, oh, I’m , I’m so pessimistic about non GMOs, we do have evidence that talking about the science makes a difference. You know, and I know it feels like, what are you talking about, it makes no difference. It does make a difference! And I think we should think of it almost like a public health intervention where making a little change really does matter, right? So look, you’re not going to change the mind of that individual right in front of you, but if you keep talking about the science, you really can make a difference. The other thing I think is really important is teaching critical thinking skills and teaching them early, right? You teach those critical thinking skills. People are less likely to believe misinformation. They’ve actually done this in the context of GMOs by the way. 

Timothy Caulfield: (24:45) 

I don’t know if you’ve seen this research, again, hard to study it well. But if people come at it from a more science informed perspective, they’re less likely to believe that fear mongering around something like GMOs. So, absolutely. So, you know, talk about the science, critical thinking and debunking. It does make a difference. A topic like GMOs has just become so embedded culturally that it’s more challenging, but new ones are emerging. When you see those new ones emerge, get on it quickly, right? Get on it quickly, even if it seems absurd, it’s important to debunk it and to talk about the science . And there’s evidence that’s shown that works. I think early days in GMOs, maybe we weren’t, didn’t do a good enough job debunking the myths around it. And the other thing that happens often is this conflation between a health concern and environmental concern and the corporate ownership concern, right? They’re often all lumped together, and the general public sees that only as a health concern. So I think that that’s the other thing, you know, sort of separate them. And by the way, the science is uncertain throughout. I don’t want to make it sound like I’m saying that they’re clear about in environment and corporate ownership, but separate the concerns and debunk them.  

Clinton Monchuk: (25:57) 

We do a lot of farm tours, on my own farm and with Farm & Food Care. But one of the questions that usually comes out is, why do these companies make you grow their seeds? And, you know, as a farmer, I’m always taken a little aback when I say, nobody makes me grow these seeds, , I have so many different choices in my Rolodex of different, whether it’s different commodities. And even within those commodities, I have tons of different varieties and different companies to buy from. But I think you’re right, there’s that viewpoint that company X is making us grow this, and you don’t have a choice, but it’s nothing further from the truth. 

Timothy Caulfield: (26:36) 

Yeah, you’re right about that. And there’s this belief that GMOs benefits these big farms, right? That they’re the ones that are getting the greatest benefit and small farmers don’t want to use them, which again, isn’t true either. And even that little differentiation, I think would make a difference for some people in the public who want to support the smaller farmers. Maybe they want to support the family farm that’s local to them, and they don’t really understand the economics of the GMOs and the benefits to even small farmers of GMOs. So even that kind of education, I think makes a difference. And the other thing is, people like hearing from farmers, you know, I always talk about this when I present. I, you know, the imagery is fantastic. People trust farmers and they want to support them. 

Clinton Monchuk: (27:18) 

One last question that I have. Like I said, growing up we trusted so many people from the trust for law enforcement to doctors, to teachers, and all the way through to where we have just this wavering level of trust. Why ? why just why in general did we move this direction? It just seems so odd. 

Timothy Caulfield: (27:42) 

The other thing that’s odd is if you look at where trust is broken down, it often seems arbitrary. Like, why aren’t you trusting, you know, this community anymore, but you do trust the other community. Look, it’s obviously complex, but part of what’s going on is there are actors out there that benefit from creating distrust, right? You know, it happens in the political realm, right? So they want to create distrust of these institutions because they’re going to benefit from the creation of distrust. And social media has made it easier to do that, right? Where you can create an echo chamber that benefits from distrust. The other thing that I think is often underplayed doesn’t get enough attention is often those spreading misinformation about GMOs, about this fluoride, about vaccines I could go down the list. Their goal is to create distrust. Like you’re hearing it a lot right now. 

Timothy Caulfield: (28:32) 

Right now. “Well, we don’t trust the information about that. We don’t trust the actors, we don’t trust the institutions. That’s why we believe this stuff.” But we have to remember, misinformation is being spread to create distrust of those institutions, which allows more misinformation to be spread. And then the cycle starts to accelerate. You know, more misinformation means more distrust, which means more misinformation, and around and around that cycle goes. So part of the, the growth of distrust is because there has been, there’s so much misinformation out there inviting the public to distrust. And, and let’s not forget that there are often reasons to distrust, right? You know, there have been bad actors in the government, in public health, in the agricultural community, and those stories of bad actors are weaponized to create this idea that we should distrust everyone all the time. I could go on . I’ll stop there. That’s a dark way to end. 

Clinton Monchuk: (29:33) 

I think we could make two or three episodes out of this, but I think we’ll have to call quits here. And I do want to thank you for taking the time to be with us on the podcast today, Timothy, this has been excellent. We have a lot of conversations taking place in the agriculture community and the food community about food, and it’s always great to have an expert like yourself kind of shed some light on some of the different situations. So thank you very much for your time. 

Timothy Caulfield: (30:01) 

Well thanks for having me on. And thanks to the entire agricultural community for everything that you guys do. 

Clinton Monchuk: (30:14) 

I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to our Ask a Farmer podcast. We at Canadian Food Focus value the input from our listeners and ask that you share this podcast with your friends and family. Remember, this is a two-way street, so we seek your input for future segments that are of interest to you about food and farming. To do this, please click on the Ask us icon at the top of our website, canadianfoodfocus.org. While you’re there, feel free to follow our numerous social media links and sign up for our newsletter. This segment was produced and edited by Angela Larson, research and Writing by Dorothy Long and Penny Eaton. Music by Andy Ellison. I’m your host Clinton Monchuk. And from all of us here at Canadian Food Focus, we wish you good health and great eats. 

Episode Credits

Research and writing by Dorothy Long and Penny Eaton, Produced and edited by Angela Larson and Michael Jordon, Music by Andy Ellison-Track title: Gravel Road