FAQs

At Clover Leaf, we pride ourselves on our extensive knowledge of seafood and our willingness to provide information. Here are a few frequently asked questions. Please select a category and click on a question below.

Questions - Process and Practices

What does 'dolphin friendly' mean?
What are "Genetically Modified Organisms" (GMO's)?
Are any of your products 'Made in China'?
Why does Clover Leaf process salmon from USA as well as Canada?
Why are the Clover Leaf flavoured tuna cans labeled upside down?
What is Clover Leaf’s 'dolphin friendly' policy?
Are Clover Leaf products susceptible to listeria or listeriosis?

Answers

1) What does 'dolphin friendly' mean?

Dolphin friendly is defined by the following: - Drift nets are not used. - There are no purse seine sets made on dolphins through an entire fishing trip. - An observer from the National Marine Fishery Service and/or the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission certifies fishing vessels and trips in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Fishing methods considered dolphin friendly are long line, pole and line, and the purse seine method in the Eastern Tropical Pacific with certification only. All of Clover Leaf's tuna products on the shelf today are certified dolphin friendly and the labels on our products proudly don the “dolphin friendly” indication symbol.

2) What are "Genetically Modified Organisms" (GMO's)?

Leanne Hachey of CBC News Online, summed it up best in her article: "The fuss over genetically modified food" What's for dinner? It used to be the answer to that household mantra was an issue for debate among family members only. Not any more. Now scientists, advocacy groups, economists, trade experts, geneticists -- and let's not leave out the politicians -- all want a say in what's being served up for dinner. The food fuss revolves around one phrase: genetic modification. Two camps have dug their trenches deep on either side of that phrase. One side argues that genetic modification of food enhances the quality and nutritional value of already-existing foods as well as generating new ways to produce that food. The other side questions the technology's safety and long-term effects, arguing Canadians simply don't know what they're putting in their mouths. Where it all began The term 'genetically modified' (G-M) is an offspring of another term: biotechnology. A word that's been around for about 30 years, biotechnology was coined in the shadow of new techniques that allowed scientists to modify the genetic material in living cells. Basically, that means monkeying with biological processes to produce substances that, arguably, benefit things like agriculture, medicine and the environment. If you know how to cut-and-paste, you've figured out genetic modification. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) describes it like this: it all begins with a cell made up of chromosomes; the chromosomes are made up of DNA and are organized into sections called genes; genes determine the characteristics of an organism. These genes can be 'cut' from one organism and 'pasted' into another. On the one hand…. Several foods we eat every day are products of this process - tomatoes that ripen on the vine and maintain their texture and tough skin for several weeks, for instance. A potato plant developed to resist a beetle known to attack it is another example. In the latter case, the G-M version eliminates the need for chemical pesticides. Proponents of G-M foods argue using biotechnology in the production of food products has many benefits: it speeds up the process of breeding plants and animals with desired characteristics; can be used to introduce traits that a product wouldn't traditionally have; can improve the nutritional value of products; and can produce cheaper and more environmentally-friendly fertilizers. And, say the supporters, all of this is done safely. Bart Bilmer, an officer of biotechnology at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, reinforces this. He says before hitting the shelves, all foods go through rigorous tests to ensure they're up to snuff. The standard for 'safe' is the food that's already being sold in grocery stores. It's called the principle of substantial equivalence. And there's no doubt in Bilmer's mind that it's a system that's working and working well. "We have one of the safest food supplies in the world," he says. When asked if the foods Canadians pack for lunch are safe to eat, Bilmer gave a one-word answer: "absolutely." On the other hand…. Advocacy groups, like the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace, don't see things quite the same way. They cite studies done by groups such as the British Medical Association which argue G-M foods could have dire consequences to our health. To the groups on this side of the issue, that 'could' provides more than enough reason to proceed with extreme caution, something they say isn't being done at present. Those on this side of the debate say there are a number of problems with Canada's current approach to G-M foods. To begin, they argue the notion of substantial equivalence is not a standard they trust. They want a new testing system independent from the industry. As well, G-M critics say enough time hasn't passed to study the long-term effects of the foods. Without knowing, argues Jennifer Story of the Council of Canadians, Canadians are "part of this giant experiment involving a radical and frontier science". When asked if she's convinced the food Canadians pack for lunch are safe to eat, Story had a three-word answer: "not at all". The Dish in Europe People on the same side of the issue as Story say Canada needs to take a page out of the book Europe used in handling the G-M issue. And that means erring on the side of caution. In Europe, barely a week goes by without some headline about G-M foods or, rather, "Frankenfoods" as they've been dubbed by the European media. The Church of England, even Prince Charles, have waded into the debate -- both denouncing the production of G-M crops. Ever responsive to consumer demands, the European Union has taken a strong stance on this issue, going so far as to propose a moratorium on approving G-M foods. Britain has gone one step further, putting a moratorium on the commercial growth of G-M crops until the spring of 2003, allowing time for a panel of independent scientists to examine the issue. These responses are the outcome of a grassroots campaign. Various scares, most predominantly the one best-known as Mad Cow disease, have consumers in Europe wary of food genetically altered to kill pests or resist herbicides. Another study, in which the results of a Scottish biochemist - Arpad Pusztai - showed genetically-modified potatoes to be harmful to rats, has compounded their concerns. Toxicologists who studied Pusztai's findings could not pinpoint a direct cause-effect relationship. Despite this, consumers told stores they refused to buy G-M foods. Stores responded by refusing to carry them. Two British food companies have even dropped G-M ingredients from their products. Nestlé U.K and Unilever U.K made the announcement this spring. The North American arms of these companies haven't followed suit. That's not all that surprising for one simple reason: there's an unmistakable rift in the policies toward G-M foods between this side of the Atlantic and the other. Some call it the Atlantic divide. Supporters argue North America's approach is more progressive, skeptics argue it's less safe. Whatever the case, the Atlantic divide can be boiled down to two things. The first is all about experience: this side of the Atlantic hasn't seen a scare comparable to Mad Cow disease. The second is all about dollars: North Americans expect their food to be cheap. And while the Atlantic may divide the approach to G-M foods, it doesn'+D37t stop the two sides from butting heads. A matter of money The European Union's moratorium on approving G-M foods, and the dropping of G-M ingredients by two major British food companies has a direct impact on Canadian farmers. It could mean problems selling any food that falls under the G-M label. Canadian farmers charge the fuss over G-M foods is merely a convenient trade barrier. And make no mistake about it, there's big money in food. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the industry - and that means everyone from farmers to suppliers to grocers and restaurant workers -- hauled in about $91 billion in domestic and retail sales in 1997. That makes agri-foods one of Canada's top five industries, accounting for 8.5 per cent of the Canadian Gross Domestic Product. But Canadians aren't the only ones eating the food grown or bred on Canadian soil. In 1997, Canada's 280,000 farmers exported a record $22.3 billion in agri-food products. In that same year, grains were the biggest bulk-exported agri-product, followed by meats, live animals and bulk oilseeds. As such an integral commodity, Canadian politicians want to protect their farmers' products. But there are others involved on the global scene. American politicians have their own farmers' interests at heart, as do European politicians and....you get the point. It's for that very reason talks at the World Trade Organization in November of 1999 are likely to involve some heated debate about food exports. What makes the issue tricky is the Atlantic divide. Europe's bargaining position on the issue is known: G-M foods aren't welcome. And that doesn't sit well with Canadian farmers. To label or not to label The fuss over food doesn't stop at process. It extends to whether that process is disclosed. As it stands, Canada has adopted both a mandatory and voluntary labelling policy. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, mandatory labelling applies to all foods that have been changed nutritionally or compositionally, or to alert consumers of possible allergens. That doesn't mean, though, that G-M foods will be labelled. If it can be shown through tests that the nutrition or composition of such foods remains unchanged, no special label is required. Even though labels are not required, they are allowed, but only when 'truthful and not misleading'. A good example is the "Fat Free" claim made on some products. Another example would be the voluntary move taken by one company to label its East Coast potato 'derived from plant biotechnology'. Because of the fuzziness surrounding voluntary labelling, it's been determined more clear-cut rules are needed. To address this, a joint project between government and industry is underway to develop a standard for the voluntary labelling of foods derived from biotechnology. For G-M critics, action on such labelling hasn't come fast enough. In fact, they say voluntary labelling isn't good enough and they're calling for mandatory labelling on any product derived from biotechnology. They argue there's no such thing as too much information, especially when it comes to the health of Canadians. Besides calling for mandatory labelling on all G-M products, critics have also called for a moratorium on the production of any G-M food, at least until it can be unequivocally determined there are no long-term effects. Food for thought One side says the foods on the shelves of Canada's grocery stores are safe. The other side says they're not so sure. Both sides agree consumers may be confused with the information out there but don't agree on how to address that confusion. One side says the answer lies in voluntary labels, the other says mandatory ones are the bare minimum. Whatever the case, it's a debate that makes us consider the role technology has in our lives. What makes this debate unique is that every meal we eat is at its very core. And that fact means one thing: it's an issue to be hashed out not only around policy tables, but dinner tables. Source - http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/foodfight/hachey.html Leanne Hachey CBC NEWS ONLINE

3) Are any of your products 'Made in China'?

Clover Leaf has a long standing history of supplying Canadians with high quality products. Our products follow a rigorous Quality Assurance review process to ensure compliance with our demanding standards.

While Clover Leaf does obtain certain products such as Smoked Oysters, Pacific Oysters, Smoked Mussels, and Mandarins from China these products must also adhere to and meet our quality standards. We have a longstanding relationship with our approved facilities in China and are regularly audit them for compliance to our strict quality codes. We continue to be very proud of these facilities and the products they produce as they continue to deliver consistent high quality products deserving of the Clover Leaf brand.

Our Quality Assurance Department practices a multi level inspection protocol which includes regular plant audits, sample collection prior to and following arrival in Canada as well as routinely submitting samples to third party accredited laboratories to ensure compliance.

Clover Leaf Seafoods is confident that our products meet the most stringent internationally recognized food safety regulations and are confident that the additional procedures we have in place will ensure the continued safety of our products.

4) Why does Clover Leaf process salmon from USA as well as Canada?

Clover Leaf does not own any salmon processing facilities. However, in order to meet the market demand for Clover Leaf canned salmon, stocks are sourced from both USA and Canada. All of Clover Leaf’s Sockeye, Pink and Keta Salmon are caught wild in the Pacific Ocean. Factors such as catch location, water depth and temperature, and diet of the fish, can affect the appearance, colour, odour, flavour, and/or texture of the fish. However, all Clover Leaf products are packed and processed with the same rigid high quality specifications that you have come to expect.

5) Why are the Clover Leaf flavoured tuna cans labeled upside down?

The can is labelled in this way so the corresponding sticker can be placed on the flat part of the container that has no easy peel pull-tab.

6) What is Clover Leaf’s 'dolphin friendly' policy?

Clover Leaf Seafoods remains fully committed to a 100% dolphin friendly policy. This policy guarantees the following: -Clover Leaf Seafoods will not purchase tuna from vessels that net fish associated with dolphins. Our purchasing agreements require certification of dolphin friendly fishing practices from all tuna suppliers. For more information, click here.

7) Are Clover Leaf products susceptible to listeria or listeriosis?

No, Clover Leaf shelf stable canned and pouch products are not susceptible to listeria or listeriosis. Shelf stable cans and pouches are put through a retorting process, which means cooked at very high temperatures, long enough to kill any and all bacteria. This includes completely eliminating any risk of Listeria monocytogenes (pronounced mono-cy-ta-jen-eez). In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommend consumption of shelf-stable canned fish, seafood, meat and fruit products as a means of avoiding the risk of food-borne illnesses such a listeriosis (pron. lis-teery-osis). For more information on food-borne illnesses please visit: http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/dfbmd/disease_listing/listeriosis_gi.htm

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/food-aliment/listeria-eng.php