David Panasiak – submission to Food Labelling & Policy Review 2
Q1. To what extent should the food regulatory system be used to meet
broader public health objectives?
FSANZ objectives already include protecting public health and safety and there
has been a greater focus on nutrition issues by the regulatory system since the
implementation of the current system commencing with the National Food
Authority in 1991. Prior to this, nutritional implications were not a part of the
assessment process. FSANZ already has a major focus on public health aspects
of food regulation.
You cannot regulate good health. In a free society, which cherishes individual
choice above all else, you can only provide sufficient information to make an
informed choice. That already exists in food labelling. Recent labelling reforms
including mandatory nutrition information have only added to this. Suggestions
that people do not understand this is not an indictment on the labelling, but on a
society that does educate people sufficiently to use the available information to
their best advantage.
Suggestions that complex information needs to be more accessible to people
only exemplifies too many people do not have sufficient knowledge to make
informed choices. The amount of choices most people have to make in their daily
lives is immense; however it is not a valid reason to make complex information
simple. For example, a using number of coloured dots on a label tries to simplify
a complex set of information too much. Such a system is subject to abuse by
well-meaning public health advocates to vilify certain nutrients and foods and not
to take into account that the whole of the diet and not just the individual
components is important. It is very easy to argue that the range of foods available
makes education of consumers difficult and that simple tools are required.
Q2. What is adequate information and to what extent does such information
need to be physically present on the label or be provided through other
means (eg education or website)?
Many other means of communicating information are available and provided that
they are available at the point of purchase then the information does not need to
be on a label.
Q3. How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured?
Accurate and consistent labelling can be ensured by adequate enforcement of
regulation. There is not much point regulating if it is not going to be enforced. The
emphasis of enforcement agencies with limited resources has been on the safety
and hygiene aspects of food manufacture and sale. That is an important priority
and this emphasis can be understood when a choice about how to use limited
resources to the best effect needs to be made. But it begs the question on why
regulate something that is not going to be enforced.
The Australian federal system and the splitting or responsibility between various
jurisdictions also makes national consistency difficult. Australia may have one set
of
David Panasiak – submission to Food Labelling & Policy Review 3
regulations but the decision on how to enforce them is divided among many
agencies, and then even more individuals. A single enforcement agency might
alleviate some of the problem, but individuals will always be involved and
interpret any set of regulations or instructions on how they should be enforced
differently.
Q4. What principles should guide decisions about government intervention
on food labelling?
The overriding principle should be the provision of sufficient information to make
an informed choice. Other aspects about safety, etc. should have already been
considered before a food product is able to be sold. However, all government
policy determines the shape of the market place. Agricultural policy determines
what foods are likely to be produced and this will influence the market place. The
whole of government approach is difficult to achieve when there are conflicting
priorities and also when the implications of certain decisions in apparently
unrelated areas can have unintended effects that may not be identified for a long
period of time if ever related to the outcomes.
Q5. What criteria should determine the appropriate tools for intervention?
This is difficult to answer. As stated above it is impossible to determine the
outcome of some seemingly unrelated areas. I don’t think there is a way of
determining how to intervene. As “they” say the road to hell is paved with good
intentions!
Q6. Is this a satisfactory spectrum for labelling requirements?
Safety is the most important issue. Many other issues like country of origin,
statements on the processing or treatment of the food and ingredients are
secondary to safety. However in a society that values free choice a number of
issues are taken into consideration by each individual on what to choose to eat.
The number of issues is as many as the number of individuals and it would be
impossible to regulate for all of these to be included on a food label.
Q7. In what ways could these misunderstandings and disagreements be
overcome?
There is no solution that would suit every need. It would be best to stick to issues
that everyone can agree on and make all other information voluntary. Appropriate
guidelines on the provision of accurate information may be required.
Q8. In what ways can food labelling be used to support health promotion
initiatives?
David Panasiak – submission to Food Labelling & Policy Review 4
Food labelling should not be seen as the easy solution for Governments to
health promotion initiatives. Appropriate education and information
campaigns are the appropriate means.
Q9. In what ways can disclosure of ingredients be improved?
Food labels should be able to make accurate health and nutrition claims. This is
further explored in Q12.
Q10. To what extent should health claims that can be objectively supported
by evidence be permitted?
Any claims that can be supported by the balance peer-reviewed evidence should
be permitted.
Q11. What are the practical implications and consequences of aligning the
regulations relating to health claims on foods and complementary
medicine products?
The major difference purposes of food consumption are pleasure and the
fulfilment of nutritional needs. By their very name medicines, complementary or
otherwise, are to treat or prevent disease states. However there is a cross over
and this divide is seen in western societies where it is not necessarily seen in
eastern societies. The term “diet related disease” is common in today’s language
and by its very nature suggests that the disease state is the result of poor dietary
choices and that the disease can be treated by the improvement of dietary
choices. Restriction of health claims to medicines diminishes the role of food and
diet in health outcomes. Good diet is an essential tool to good health and this
should be acknowledged.
The current policy on nutrition, health and related claims seems to place nutrition
function claims in the realm of health claims and although that is one valid
interpretation it can also restrict the foods which can make nutrition function
claims.
On the matter of the Trade Practices Act – food labels are subject to the TPA and
any breaches of this Act are not protected by compliance with relevant food
regulations.
Q12. Should specific health warnings (e.g., high level of sodium or saturated
fat per serve) and related health consequences be required?
This might reflect on the interpretation of what is misleading. Is it misleading to
accurately say that a food is low in fat when it is also high in sugar? On the face
of it the claim is accurate, but does the claim imply that the food is good for you
because it is low in fat? If so, is it equally misleading because the food is not
good for you because it is high in sugar. Of course this does not take into account
that the amount of the nature of the other foods the same individual consumes. If
these are high in fat and low in sugar then the rest of the diet may counteract the
good low level of fat and the high level of sugar in the food making the low fat
claim? The issue is too complex to decide.
However this does raise the question of whether or not a statement is misleading.
A statement like no added sugar may not be meaningful in a product naturally
high in sugars. Fortunately nutrition information panels allow consumers to see
this information and then make an informed choice. However what if the
component is not included in the nutrition information? For instance a statement
“No added MSG” may be accurate but may be made on products naturally high in
glutamate or that contains ingredients naturally high in glutamate. A survey
conducted by the Australian Glutamate Information Service on restaurant foods
making “No added MSG” claims found that some dishes making the claim
contained more glutamate than similar dishes making no such claim. In this case
making an informed choice is not possible. It is suggested that the use of
voluntary negative claims be made subject to providing information on whether
the subject of the claim may naturally occur in the produdct or its ingredients.
Q13. To what extent should the labelling requirements of the Food Standards
Code address additional consumer-related concerns, with no immediate
public health and safety impact?
Mandatory food labelling requirements should be limited to health and safety
issues. All other issues are too many and varied to be made mandatory. All other
aspects should be voluntary. The market place will determine what consumers
want on food labels.
Q14. What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types
of information?
As stated above, health and safety aspect should be the only mandatory labelling
requirements. However the debate on what constitutes health and safety aspects
will be a difficult one. Many individuals will think that any information they want to
see on a food label will have a health and safety reason.
Q15. What criteria should determine which, if any, foods are required to have
country of origin labelling?
If there is a health related aspect to the country of origin then it is the only
criterion that should be used.
Q16. How can confusion over this terminology in relation to food be
resolved?
The TPA definition of “product of” is quite clear that all components must be
come from the country in question and that any manufacturing is carried out in
this country. However, when it comes to “made in” this is not necessarily clear for
food products. Made in takes into account the relative costs of producing the
product and in the case of food that could be the packaging. It is more relevant to
give an indication of the origin of the major ingredients than basing the decision
of the cost of manufacture in the case of food. However, unless it is a health and
safety issue, perhaps relating to unsafe ingredients coming from a particular
country or region of a country, then it should not be made mandatory.
Q17. Is there a need to establish agreed definitions of terms such as
‘natural’, ‘lite’, ‘organic’, ‘free range’, ‘virgin’ (as regards olive oil),
‘kosher’ or ‘halal’? If so, should these definitions be included or
referenced in the Food Standards Code?
The use of these terms should already be covered by “false and misleading”
provisions of both Food Acts and the TPA. However, guidelines on how these
can be made without being either false or misleading should be made and
enforced uniformly.
Q18. What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such
information claims for the food label?
As stated above, guidelines should be available and any breaches that are either
false or misleading should be enforced.
Q19 In what ways can information disclosure about the use of these
technological developments in food production be improved given the
available state of scientific knowledge, manufacturing processes
involved and detection levels?
This question raises another issue on food labelling. The ACCC currently
requires that “free” means no detectable for example free of sugar mean no
detectable sugar. However with ever improving analytical techniques traces if
sugar in parts per billion can be detected in product thought to have been free of
sugars or any other substance that might be in question. While this strict
interpretation is accurate is it useful. Many other jurisdictions use the de minimis
interpretation where such low quantities have no significance. In fact the Codex
Alimentarius Commission sets threshold values for many of these and they are
reflected in the FSANZ Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims. The de minimis rule
provides a practical solution on disclosure.
Q20. Should alcohol products be regulated as a food? If so, should alcohol
products have the same labelling requirements as other foods (i.e., nutrition
panels and list of ingredients)? If not, how should alcohol products be regulated?
Alcoholic beverages have been always regulated as food. They have enjoyed
some exemptions and some additional restrictions. Apart from this observation, I
do not have an opinion.
Q21. Should minimum font sizes be specified for all wording?
Prescribed font sizes were apart of the Food Standards prior to the review
conducted by the then National Food Authority in the early 1990s. Having worked
in the system prior to the NFA I can attest to the fact that the choice of letter size
was totally arbitrary. No research went into many of these decisions. A minimum
font size of 1.5 mm was required, but not only that the type of font was also
prescribed. The NFA undertook research on legibility and after public consultation
they decided only to regulate the size of mandatory warning statements. I wonder
if it is assumed that the current rules relate to the “average consumer” who ever
that might be. Case law will tell if the “average consumer” has been tested and
whether it adds value to the current requirements.
Q22. Are there ways of objectively testing legibility and readability? To what
extent should objective testing be required?
Many consumers might find reading food label difficult. There is always a balance
required between what manufacturers want to put on their labels and what they
must put on their labels. Unless you go to “plain packaging” as recently
suggested for cigarettes the amount of mandatory information willl be squeezed
in the available space left after the manufacture includes the word and
illustrations they feel differentiates their product from similar products on the
market. The less mandatory information required the more room it will have.
Q23. How best can the information on food labels be arranged to balance the
presentation of a range of information while minimising information
overload?
Research need to be undertaken on how much of the required information on
labels is actually used by consumers. It also need to be determined how much of
this is related to the safe consumption of the food and how much is not related to
safety and therefore absolutely necessary to appear on the label. Many other
means of obtaining information about a product are available.
Q24. In what ways can consumers be best informed to maximise their
understanding of the terms and figures used on food labels?
The manner in which food labelling is conducted has been imposed on
manufacturers. If these are not meaningful to, or understood by consumers, then
it means that the regulatory system has failed. Often this information is deemed
necessary by well-meaning experts who can easily understand the information
without testing this information on the general population.
Q25. What is an appropriate role for government in relation to use of pictorial
icons on food labels?
The government has not role in mandating pictorial icons on food labels. The
government has the responsibility to ensure consumers are able to understand
mandated information on food labels before making it mandatory.
Q26. What objectives should inform decisions relevant to the format of frontof-pack labelling?
The food industry has voluntarily undertaken front of pack labelling – there needs
to be no intervention. If the concept of mandatory nutrition labelling was flawed,
then that should be addressed by removing the requirement or replacing it with a
format understandable by all consumers but not by imposing a “traffic light”
system that provides no further information than is already available and just as
easily misinterpreted by consumers.
Q27. What is the case for food label information to be provided on foods
prepared and consumed in commercial (e.g., restaurants, take away
shops) or institutional (schools, pre-schools, worksites) premises? If
there is a case, what information would be considered essential?
Any information that is essential to the health of the consumer should be
mandatory and there should be regulation of voluntary information that could be
false or mislead consumers, e.g. “no added MSG” claims which might hide the
fact that the amount of glutamate present is significant whether or not is ahs been
specifically added.
Q28. To what degree should the Food Standards Code address food
advertising?
Any labelling requirements should apply equally to advertisements as already
exists in the Food Standards Code.
Q29. In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the
interpretation and administration of food labelling standards be improved?
1.
Allowing FSANZ to interpret the Food Standards Code as currently banned by
the Ministerial Council
Having a national enforcement agency not necessarily separate from FSANZ.
Q30. In what ways can consistency, especially within Australia, in the
enforcement of food labelling standards be improved?
1.
Allowing FSANZ to interpret the Food Standards Code as currently banned by
the Ministerial Council
Having a national enforcement agency not necessarily separate from FSANZ.
Q31. What are the strengths and weaknesses of placing the responsibility for
the interpretation, administration and enforcement of labelling standards
in Australia with a national authority applying Commonwealth law and
with compatible arrangements for New Zealand?
There are only strengths. Including this function in a renamed Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Authority can only help with the development of
enforceable food regulation.
Q32. If such an approach was adopted, what are the strengths and
weaknesses of such a national authority being an existing agency; or a
specific food labelling agency; or a specific unit within an existing
agency?
A separate agency to look at food labelling would only add to the complexity of
the current broken system. However including the function of enforcement of food
composition and labelling aspects within the agency currently know as FSANZ
would strengthen the system in two ways:
1.
It would ensure that FSANZ fully accounts for enforcement aspects of the
regulations they draft as they will be responsible for enforcing them. It also
means that the agency responsible for making regulation is the agency
responsible for interpreting the regulations for enforcement activity lessening the
chance of inappropriate interpretation.
1.
I would allow existing agencies who currently focus on food safety and hygiene
matters to continue to do so in their jurisdictions. This work is carried out
diligently and well by existing State, Territory and local government agencies.
Q33. If such an approach was adopted, what are appropriate mechanisms to
deal with the constitutional limits to the Commonwealth’s powers?
Arrangements similar to those for therapeutics may be possible.
Q34. What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining governments’
primary responsibility for administering food labelling regulations?
None; this work is currently neglected by these agencies due to the more
pressing food safety and hygiene responsibilities.
Q35. If a move to either: self regulation by industry of labelling requirements;
or co-regulation involving industry, government and consumers were to
be considered, how would such an arrangement work and what issues
would need to be addressed?
No opinion.
Q36. In what ways does such split or shared responsibility strengthen or
weaken the interpretation and enforcement of food labelling
requirements?
No opinion.
Q37. What are the strengths and limitations of the current processes that
define a product as a food or a complementary medicine?
Sometimes this is an artificial distinction. The New Zealand Government seems
to have a better solution allowing foods to fall outside the restrictions of the Food
Standards Code. Until recently these were dietary supplements and now
supplemented foods. New Zealand had the middle ground between foods and
therapeutics that is lacking in Australia. However, due to the closer relationship
with the Australian system they have now decided to separate these into two
categories – supplemented foods, once call food-type dietary supplements and
the other dietary supplements more akin to complementary medicines in
Australia. This division makes it more clear which products are foods and subject
to the mutual recognition treaty and which are therapeutics and exempt from the
mutual recognition treaty. As such New Zealand has become a clearing house for
food-like products not able to be made by Australian manufacturers for sale in
Australia, but which may be imported into Australia from or via New Zealand and
then sold legally in the Australian market without any chance of competition from
Australian manufacturers.
The adoption of the NZ Supplemented Food Standard into the Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Code would alleviate the problem and “evel the playing
field” for Australian manufacturers.
Q38. What are the strengths and weaknesses of having different approaches
to the enforcement of food labelling standards for imported versus
domestically produced foods?
Some aspects of this are addressed in the answer to Q 37.
Q39. Should food imported through New Zealand be subject to the same
AQIS inspection requirements?
Some aspects of this are addressed in the answer to Q 37.