Preamble
Sanitarium recognises that there are many stakeholders with respect to food labelling.
However, the food label is only one method of communication with consumers. Labels
do not have the capacity to provide all the information that every consumer may want.
Therefore requirements must be prioritised toward information crucial to safety,
facilitating commerce and legal compliance. Provision of additional information on labels
should be integrated within a public health policy framework to ensure this information is
displayed efficiently and effective.
Q1. To what extent should the food regulatory system be used to meet broader public
health objectives?
Whilst protection of public health and safety is the highest priority of food labelling,
Sanitarium believes that the point of purchase is an important vehicle of influencing and
educating consumer purchase behaviour. There is a role for both informative and
interpretive advice to be provided for the consumer in order to achieve broader public
health objectives.
In some cases brand images often have more influence on consumers than public
health
messages. If representations are made with respect to healthful content, having both
information and advice available at point of sale is critical to influence dietary behaviour
and lead to more informed choices.
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)?
Food labels must contain the key information with regard to food safety, commercial and
legal requirements. Examples of these include, ingredient list, major allergen labelling,
best before/use by dates, content claims, country of origin statements and barcodes.
Selected interpretive information, that would assist health promotion, should be included
on food labels, preferably if integrated within a public health policy framework. Examples
might include a Front of pack labelling (FOPL) systems designed to enable better
choices, promote better dietary behaviour and reduce the risk of chronic disease.
Ethical concerns and information related to beliefs or advocacy positions, should
generally not be encouraged on labels, but could be placed on a website, but in all
circumstances it is important that claims of this type continue to fall under the jurisdiction
of the Trade Practices Act.
Q3. How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured?
Labelling should be actively enforced by a single body. This single body should be
available to provide assistance or guidance if required by smaller food manufacturers
and the advice provided should be consistent across both Australia and New Zealand.
In addition guidance documents and agreed ‘safe harbours’ for labelling practices should
be established and articulated. An example of this guidance is the ACCC publication on
country of origin labelling.
Q4. What principles should guide decisions about government intervention on food
labelling?
Need, based on:
o Is there a consumer safety or health risk?
o What is the proportion of the population at risk
The cost to implement (by industry) & enforce (by regulators)
The quality of the evidence base, of the beneficial effect of intervention vs.
nonintervention
Ease of interpretation, or in other words, the efficacy for consumers.
Q5. What criteria should determine the appropriate tools for intervention?
The type of intervention depends on the severity of the issue and the simplicity of the
solution. For example if the issue has serious consequences (e.g. presence of
allergens), black letter law is often the best approach.
If the issue is less serious and amenable to a common policy framework, then options
such as self regulation and Codes of practice are likely to be effective, so long as
developed by cross-functional input (industry, health professionals, and consumers) and
with a common policy framework (and outcomes consistent with this framework) in mind.
Q6. Is this a satisfactory spectrum for labelling requirements?
The current labelling system is adequate in protecting public health and safety. However
it
does little to reduce chronic disease risk.
Q7. In what ways could these misunderstandings and disagreements be overcome?
1. A common policy framework controlling health advisory information on packs, aimed
at reducing chronic disease risk.
2. Codes of practice developed with a uniform policy framework in mind, also aimed at
reducing chronic disease risk
3. Centralised interpretive functions where advice can be provided would likely benefit
smaller food companies and provide standardised approaches in areas difficult to
interpret (for example, advertising claims). Development and adoption of ‘guidance
documents’, such as the AFCG guide to allergen labelling.
Q8. In what ways can food labelling be used to support health promotion initiatives?
Allowing foods, assessed as nutrient rich by nutrient profiling, to make appropriate
health
and nutrition claims would give these foods a greater opportunity to promote the benefits
of healthy eating, while allowing such foods to gain a greater share of the consumer’s
plate.
Provided health and nutrition claims were based on sound demonstrable evidence, the
risk to consumers would be negligible.
Currently less healthy options are free to promote themselves on the basis of taste or
convenience, whilst healthier options are constrained from advertising their key benefits.
Front of pack labelling (FOPL) is another method to support health promotion, however
most current FOPL systems simply provide the consumer with more ‘data’ rather than
‘whole of food’ place-in-diet information to allow informed choices and better food usage
patterns. An important aim of the FOPL should be to influence dietary behaviour and
lead to better food choices.
With the Core Foods and Dietary Guidelines, AGHE currently under review – the advice
provided on foods should be consistent with the outcomes of the review. More specific
messages relating to how individual products can support a healthy diet should be
provided by giving frequency and quantity advice on the pack.
Labelling policy guidelines should be designed so that they integrate with each other. A
significant consumer education program would be needed to clarify any potential
misunderstandings.
Q9. In what ways can disclosure of ingredients be improved?
The current labelling requirements ensure adequate disclosure of product content in
decreasing order, the listing of allergenic materials, additive content and components of
composite ingredients.
Public education on what additive numbers mean and which ones might be of concern to
some population segments is lacking. Improving the availability of additive number
converters complete with some guidance on typical usage of all additives would assist.
Q10. To what extent should health claims that can be objectively supported by evidence
be permitted?
They should be permitted. The Trade Practices Act (TPA) exists to protect against
misleading claims, and delay of standard 1.2.7 denies foods with a healthful nutrient
profile a trusted voice.
In the interim ‘fast’ food is promoted on taste and convenience without limit.
Substantiated health claims on food products would assist in reinforcing public health
messages to more consumers and provide a basic educative function about nutrient
profiling.
Q11. What are the practical implications and consequences of aligning the regulations
relating to health claims on foods and complementary medicine products?
The TGA already has guidance protocols on the level of evidence required and the
claims that can be made (given that level of evidence) for over the counter
supplements1. If the TGA and proposed health claims standards were aligned along a
regulated continuum with a breakpoint respecting the level of evidence and allowed
claims then the concerns as to whether a product is marketed under the TGA or food
standards code would be less problematic.
Q12. Should specific health warnings (e.g., high level of sodium or saturated fat per
serve) and related health consequences be required?
Many legitimate concerns about nutrition and food come from overly negative
statements about specific nutrients being taken out of context, as if this is all the food
contains.
Specific warnings should only be mandated if a clear need with respect to public health
can be demonstrated.
If an appropriate whole-of-food FOPL system was developed, then ingredient/nutrients
of concern could be identified and given appropriate dietary context, without the need for
emotive warnings.
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?
Information to address general consumer concerns should not be mandated unless a
clear risk is demonstrated in terms of short and/or long term public health and safety.
Additional consumer concerns (not related to health and safety) should be dealt with by
codes of practice or broadly agreed guidelines, integrated with health and safety policy,
and not easily misunderstood by those that use them.
Q14. What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types of
information?
1 http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/tgaccevi.htm
1. Is there an immediate public safety need?
a. Is the information factual, truthful, evidence based, legible and not easily
misunderstood?
2. Is there a significant risk (or benefit) to long term public health?
a. Is the issue relevant to general population, or should a particular at risk group
receive targeted information?
b. Is the information factual, truthful, evidence based, legible and not easily
misunderstood?
3. Are there benefits available from additional advisory information concerning
consumer health that is best made available on packaging?
a. Can this information be included in a clear and concise manner, and in line
with a general health policy framework?
Q15. What criteria should determine which, if any, foods are required to have country of
origin labelling?
Standard 1.2.11 already sets out requirements for Country of Origin Labelling (CoOL),
although the standard applies to Australia only. The standard is not very prescriptive as
to wording and indicates (via Editorial Note) that CoOL statements should be consistent
with fair trading law. Given that the standard acknowledges the need to comply with fair
trading acts, it should not stipulate a particular wording at all. This would ensure that
food manufacturers have only one set of criteria to comply with. CoOL should continue
to remain aligned with CODEX requirements.
As New Zealand opted out of mandatory CoOL, there is scope for inconsistent or absent
CoOL across the Tasman. This needs to be addressed as many products are shared
across the trans-Tasman market.
Q16. How can confusion over this (CoOL) terminology in relation to food be resolved?
Guidelines with respect to CoOL already exist in Australia. Australian government
agenciesmerely need to educate consumers as to what these standardised statements
mean.
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?
If a suitable standard exists then the code should merely reference it and NOT replicate
it.
For example ‘natural’ is controlled by the TPA , ‘lite’ CoPNC, ‘organic’ AS6000-2009,
‘free range’ TPA, ‘virgin’ (as regards olive oil) CODEX, ‘kosher’ or ‘halal’ are governed
by sect specific options which should remain a matter of choice for suppliers as there is
little possibility of uniformity in these claims.
Q18. What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such information
claims for the food label?
Claims should be factual, truthful, evidence based, legible and not easily misunderstood.
The Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading legislation adequately prevent false or
misleading claims.
Standards, such as those mentioned above in Q17 set appropriate minimum standards.
However, the issue is that they are not monitored and enforced consistently. Uniformity
of enforcement is required to reduce claim abuse.
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?
We believe that Standards 1.5.1, 1.5.2 & 1.5.3 already adequately cover this issue.
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?
With respect to all types of content claims alcoholic beverages should be regulated
similar to food, as they form part of the diet of many people. For example, alcoholic
products that make nutrition claims such as low carbohydrate should provide
carbohydrate information so that consumers can make informed judgements as to
whether these products are significantly better than others. For example the consumer
should be able to make the comparison on the basis of at least carbohydrate and
energy.
Q21. Should minimum font sizes be specified for all wording?
Specified sizes for critical information would assist suppliers to know whether text is
‘legally legible’. Standardisation of font size for critical elements (acute health, safety) of
the food label would also ensure a level playing field for manufacturers.
Q22. Are there ways of objectively testing legibility and readability? To what extent
should objective testing be required?
A guidance document to objectively test legibility and readability could be developed to
compare a product label against criteria such as minimum ‘grey scale’ contrast. This
would assist individuals with colour blindness.
State Regulations with respect to packet weight declarations could be a good starting
point for setting appropriate minimum font sizes, for example, depending on the pack
size.
Q23. How best can the information on food labels be arranged to balance the
presentation of a range of information while minimising information overload?
As indicated in question 2, labelling requirements should focus on consumer safety and
then commercial needs. Legibility and positioning (if applicable) of mandated information
(required by ANZFSC) should be regulated, with allowance for some flexibility in
positioning, and the rest left up to suppliers. Provision of other information is of a lower
priority on the label and could be provided elsewhere (e.g. on the internet). There may
be value in commissioning a scientific study – e.g. degree, Masters or PhD on this to get
some objective evidence on this issue.
Q24. In what ways can consumers be best informed to maximise their understanding of
the terms and figures used on food labels?
By promoting existing food labelling information guides.
For example “Food Labels What do they Mean”
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Food%20Labels%20Posterfinal%20.pdf
Major retailers could voluntarily display this poster at point of sale. Agreement on a
coordinated approach by manufacturers (most have websites), health educators and
retailers would maximise consumer understanding
Q25. What is an appropriate role for government in relation to use of pictorial icons on
food labels?
Regulators should establish defined standards for non-trademarked icons, where
confusion as to their meaning is clarified. For example the ACCC guidance document on
different classes of icons.
Q26. What objectives should inform decisions relevant to the format of front-of-pack
labelling?
If labelling requirements are to be built around an integrated public health policy then a
single FOPL system should be constructed and mandated, to be aligned with the
broader public health framework.
We do not agree that existing systems (such as %DI thumbnails and Traffic lights)
integrate well with a general health policy framework, such that they incorporate the
recommendations of Dietary Guidelines or with a health claims system based on nutrient
profiling.
FOPL systems should positively informs consumers about overall food value in a
simple and compelling way, to help make better food choices, but also improve
consumption patterns, in line with other public health initiatives:
FOPL should not only be about the food itself, but aim to influence dietary
behaviours, linking food selection to the quantity and frequency of use, and thereby
become an active rather than passive participant in broader policy initiatives.
FOPL should not falsify other on-pack policy initiatives based on nutrient profiling,
such as health or other claims and the provision of more extensive nutrition
information for those who need it. FOPL can indeed make use of the same
information.
The guidance FOPL provides can and should be readily understood, and not ignored
because too complex or difficult to apply in a dietary context.
FOPL systems should not co-exist as multiple, competing systems, adding to
consumer confusion.
FOPL systems should not inhibit the competition that drives an efficient food supply,
by depicting foods as good or bad. Most foods have a place if used wisely.
FOPL should not be so difficult to understand that they discriminate on the basis of
social advantage or level of education.
FOPL should reflect the positive, holistic aspects of foods, including information
about desirable macro components (such as fruit and vegetable content) as well as
individual nutrients, and not focus on harmful components alone. Whole-of-food
nutrient profiling is a useful starting point, if simplified and understood.
In summary, FOPL should assist people to understand food and how to use it, and be
part of educating people about food. This is consistent with many existing policy
initiatives.
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?
Major Allergens, and macro nutrition information is the most important to have available.
The provision of an ordered ingredient list and micro nutrients etc. would be less
important.
We would also recommend FOPL systems as a constructive food value guide, where
they can be included on canteen or take-away packaging.
Q28. To what degree should the Food Standards Code address food advertising?
ACCC covers TPA issues (false and or misleading etc) advertising and the food
standards code already acknowledges the Trade Practices Act as being a higher
authority (see standard 1.2.11) on these matters.
Standard 1.2.7 may also provide input on this issue if adopted.
On all other aspects of advertising, existing Codes of Practice might best be required in
future to demonstrate integration with top level public health policy, such as Dietary
Guidelines and other health framework policies. An integrated approach is key, involving
all relevant interests.
Q29. In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the
interpretation and administration of food labelling standards be improved?
A single enforcement body would help align interpretation, along with the ability to seek
definitive advice on difficult or contentious issues.
Such a body should have as a mandate the development and dissemination of guidance
on all contentious labelling issues, develop basic documentation around this (similar to
ACCC guide to CoOL) and publicly promote compliance.
Q30. In what ways can consistency, especially within Australia, in the enforcement of
food labelling standards be improved?
Government should develop guidance documents on enforcement (differentiate between
public health and safety vs. general compliance) and make them publically available.
If a single enforcement agency were not adopted, then clearly defined reporting
agencies
e.g. local council for small business, State Health dept for large business, and ACCC
solely for Trade Practices issues, would minimise confusion as to which part of
government enforces an issue.
All label enforcement issues that cross State boundaries should be subject to uniform
legal interpretation regardless of the particular State involved.
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?
One would hope that it would result in increased uniformity and conformity of all
interpretable and enforceable aspects, a very positive move.