It’s just like the rules on pot here in Holland.
Everyone is allowed to own a plant (3 even, I think), we’re all allowed to smoke it if we’d like.
But to process the product, is not allowed.
This meaning, that even though it’s allowed to smoke it you’re not allowed to cut and dry it.
1 Like
That’s pretty stupid. It’s like in the UK it’s not illegal to have seeds - but it is to grow them into plants. There are shops everywhere selling paraphernalia too because it’s not illegal to do that. 
Btw if you want to ship in canada just sell something else?. Theres a trick used here.
U can sell like ur shaker bottle for x amount and give ur product for free with it. Its okay cuz you dont sell it.
It can be a Huel sticker that u sell a certain amount. And the product that come with it is a donation.
It is possible to purchase Huel in the UK and take it into Canada? Do you know if anyone has tried and/or failed to do this? Or any reason why it couldn’t be done? Thanks.
The regulations are for selling I believe.
From what I have seen in different forums and threads, bringing some as your own should not be a problem.
For instance there are people taking Soylent accross the border of US to CAN regularly, without many issues.
As long as you keep your Huel sealed (not contaminated previously), and have just for personal use you should not have any issues with it.
Soylent has been relaunched in Canada without changing their formula after having “complied with all paperwork and regulatory requirements.”
Does this mean the same thing could be done for Huel, or are the issues with Huel different from those with Soylent?
1 Like
complying with paperwork doesn’t suddenly make your product compatible with the law - this is just PR fluff - they clearly did change the formula and even their customers noted the change in taste referring to it as Canadian or US flavour Soylent. One of their customers posted pictures of the US and Canada packs nutrition panels to show the changes between the two products.
I imagine the company would spin this as a Trumpism ‘Alternate Truth’ in that the fundamental ingredients haven’t changed much - just their proportions.
2 Likes
Bringing this back from the half-dead since I was also looking into trying some Huel while living in the province of Québec (East of Canada).
I looked at the chart you placed Phil_C and the irony is that both chart are basically displaying the same information, but differently. The US nutrition panel is basically only displaying the 90g (2/3 cup) option which is 400 calories and so on while the Canadian nutrition panel is displaying both the 90g (2/3 cup) and a 60g (1/2 cup), The Canadian 90g (2/3 cup) is basically the same as the US 90g (2/3 cup) with a variance of 1%-3%. That variance is not even “recognized” as a variance for the CFIA as the CFIA works in terms of “grades” such as below 5% being low, 6%-14% being moderate and 15%+ being a lot. You can remains and move below 5% OR in-between 6%-14% OR stay up above 15% and it’s all ok for the CFIA for a simple license renewal.
The way those charts are produced are a pure joke. I know because I have been doing graphic design for many kind of printing methods, including the ones involving packaging (and applying those chart) for over 12 years. The nutritional values are determined by outdated charts which results in an approximation of the actual realistic up-to-date value. Some companies are still using the early 2000’s nutritional charts for their ingredient which is basically when the CFIA was still an infant to Health Canada.
When I worked for a printing company who’s making the packaging (boxes) for some “healthy products”, it wasn’t rare that we would get a call from a representative of their PR division and they would ask us to drop or raise the % by 2-5% depending on the tendencies. For example, the raise of concern about sodium (which is everywhere) was an logistic hell where some companies even agreed to pay a big sum to scrap all fresh printed labels for new ones with either a drop of 2%-5% in the sodium or a drop in the volume printed (such as changing the 1 cup to 1/2 a cup or 1/4 a cup.)
All it takes for companies who have an existing license is to send a new copy of the nutritional chart to the CFIA via their automated system and way for a confirmation which come usually within 7 work days. Obviously, if there’s a drop from 15% sodium to 2%, there might be a call or an inquiry for the change, but 98% of the time there’s nothing of the sort unless it’s a new variant of a product.
The CFIA, like any health-related government run system in Canada is not working to “avoid upcoming” issues, but instead on “current active” issues. The CFIA is like a police without any police patrols. They only move out if there’s an alarm somewhere (or a tip) telling them to look up into a certain case. (This is why they are seen as a joke by many food manufacturers. I know some foreign companies who produce, for example, identical breads for 2 Canadian companies with different nutritional charts in a single place. From mid-night up to 8am, they produce bread for company A and, the rest, for company B with a different package bag. The (same) bread for company B cost $1.20 CAD more than the one sold with the packaging of company A. Same company, same machine and same ingredients for both breads.
So, what’s the solution most companies does to overcome the CFIA in Canada?
One word: Lobbying.
It’s the ugly nature of the democracy in Canada. Having to put someone to make friend in a big room filled with other people for the sake of racking agreements and having a “force” so that said someone can put a word with someone on a bigger desk that can sign a document so that the CFIA can analyses the situation and find a solution. At least, that’s the official (and legal) way of doing it.
1 Like
It is rather sad but not surprising that Huel marketing put up an excuse and a few commenters jumped on to blame government regulations.
Yes, to label a product as Meal Replacement in Canada require strict compliance to nutritional guideline. This is to protect the consumer as a meal replacement in Canada means you can live on the product without any other food.
OTOH, a company is not required to label and market their product as such. Heul could have choose to label their product as “Protein Powder +” or Nutritional Drink like Boost have done for some of their powders. Huel choose not to presumably because of market segment/profit consideration, as a M/R allow them to target additional market (like medically supervised weight loss).
I will be happy to be wrong if Heul would like to put out an official reply saying so.
Huel do not label or market their products as meal replacement. they market it as food that can be used as a meal and do not suggest it can be used to replace all of your meals
1 Like
Hey, I’m not in Huel’s marketing team and can say that’s not quite right.
You’re right we could classify some of our products as supplements (Protein Powder +), however we run into the same issues plus a few more. This is because there are still strict regulations for supplements and Huel doesn’t meet all of them, for example we need to have less than 1mcg of vitamin D per serve and 0.3mg of copper per serve.
Easy fix then, specifically for canada, say that a serving of Huel is 100kcal and base the nutritional label on 20 servings per day.
1 Like
Then it’s no longer a meal, regardless, a supplement must contain at least 150kcal per serving. I’ve done a lot of work on the Canadian regulations and if there was an easy fix we would have done it by now.
2 Likes
Phil. No body said Huel is marketing their product as meal replacement in Canada, given Heul does not sell in Canada at all even though it is(was?) manufactured in Canada. Meal replacement classification was brought up by @Tim_Huel in the original answer to OP, in which Tim stated a reason Heul not being sold in Canada is because their products would be classified as meal replacement, and as meal replacement labelling has a very specific medical meaning in Canada, it would have to meet strict Canadian regulations. This “answer” prompted posters to voice their displeasure at Canadian regulatory rules in rather colorful terms.
My response to that is Heul is under no obligation to market their product as meal replacement. They could just market them as Protein supplement or nutritional drinks. Therefore Tim response is incomplete at best and misleading at worst.
@Dan_Huel. I am no expert and unlikely yourself I haven’t study the regulation in question.
A cursory search onlike yield Canadian section B.24.201(1) of the Food and Drung regulations link, which seems relevant to Nutritional Supplements.
According to the table linked, the requirement for Vitamin D is 0.25mcg min and 1mcg max per 100Kcal, not 1mcg max per serving as stated by you.
Huel 3.0 Powder, as far as I can tell from The Huel Powder Formula Explained, has 2-4mg and 400Kcal per serving, which would seem to be within the allowable range. Similar result for the Copper value, which according to regulation is between 0.15mg and 0.3mg per 100Kcal , again met by the random Huel 3.0 Powder that I cross-checked.
I could be reading the table wrong, and perhaps there are other regulatory road blocks, but the current explanation does not pass muster. Perhaps Heul should really take a 2nd look…
Don’t worry neither am I! We’ve worked with consultants who are though.
You’re absolutely right, to be honest I was being lazy and didn’t look at it properly. However, you might notice some other annoying regulations there, for example having to have a really specific omega-3:omega-6 ratio we don’t meet.
There’s no benefit to us not to launch in Canada, we’d love to!
@Dan_Huel Thanks for your engagement in meaningful discussion. It is refreshing.
About the omega-3:omega-6 ratio. After you pointed this out I did see on Food and Drug Regulations B.24.201(2)(c) it does state this ratio has to be within 10:1 to 4:1, and the Heul powder products seem to have exceeded on the good side, having a ratio closer to 2:1 or 1:1 - and according to the Al Gore many experts believe the closer ratios are more optimal for health.
So I am not sure why the Canadian regulation is written this way … I can only speculate it is based on outdated medical data and should hopefully be revised in the future.
As a Canada resident I do hope one day it would be possible for Huel be made available in Canada. While I live 10 minutes to the border and have a US package receiving address, many Canadian who are not in my fortunately situation would benefit with more available products in the meal replacement / nutritional complete protein supplement category.
Yeah I agree with you, that basically sums up the issue we have: the regulations haven’t caught up with the foods now avail ale.
Me too! From a marketing and logistics point of view there are a lot of similarities with the US so when we overcome the initial hurdle of getting a product approved we’ll be in a good place.
I’m also disappointed with this, as I just discovered the product through some advertisement on YouTube and I wanted to buy some. I’ve always been looking for healthy fast food done right.
@everyone: We might be able to make some change through this[1] platform if we word it properly. Having a request alone wouldn’t be enough, we would need to show a flaw. For example, someone here mentioned that they allow fast food companies that are unhealthy. We can also mention their outdated requirements and how everyone is different. If everyone could contribute in bullet-point of what is needed and add it to the list:
Points:
- Less healthy fast foods are allowed. Seems like lobbying is required
- Their requirements are outdated and may not be scientifically correct
- Every individual has different needs
- These facts show bias in the process
- All other countries in the world don’t do that
- Previous companies like soylent has to change their labels
@Dan_Huel ← Would is be ok with your forum guidelines if we posted a link here for such a petition and also bounced some ideas on the main points, or do you want us to do this somewhere else?
I think you could be more effective running a public petition to the Canadian House of Commons. You can do this as a written one or online (written requires at least 25 valid signatures or 500 for electronic petitions). Here’s the rub though, the signatures must be that of a Canadian citizen or a resident of Canada – so the majority of readers on this forum would not be able to help out in that respect – maybe on the US forum?