A submission to the
Council of Australian Governments and the Australia and
New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council
In response to:
Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law
and Policy Review
National Foods Ltd
May 2010
National Foods Limited
National Foods Centre,
Research & Development
737 Bourke St
ABN 65 004 486 631
Docklands Victoria
www.natfoods.com.au
Australia 3008
(Personal contact details deleted)
1
Preface
Lion Nathan National Foods brings together two great companies – Lion Nathan,
a leader in the production, distribution and marketing of alcoholic beverages in
Australia and New Zealand, and National Foods, one of Australasia’s largest food and
beverage groups. The company was formed in October 2009, when Kirin Holdings
Company Limited completed its purchase of Lion Nathan and merged the business
with National Foods – which it has owned since 2007.
Today, Lion Nathan National Foods employs more than 8,000 people across Australia
and New Zealand and boasts a portfolio of market-leading, household-name brands
in beer, wine, spirits, milk, fresh dairy foods, juice, cheese and soy beverages. These
include Yoplait, Dairy Farmers, Tooheys, PURA, James Boag, COON, Hahn, Wither Hills,
King Island Dairy, Berri, Speight's and Vitasoy, to name a few.
In addition to direct employment, we make a significant contribution to the Australian
and New Zealand economies. We are one of the region’s largest purchasers of
agricultural goods and an integral component of the retail, hospitality and tourism
industries.
We are committed to doing the right thing for the long term by investing in our core
strategic assets – our people, our brands, and our production facilities – and in the
sustainability of our business. In line with our core purpose – bringing more sociability
and wellbeing to our world – we believe it is our responsibility to play a positive role in
the community and lead by example in the management of our social and
environmental footprint.
While our head office is in Sydney Australia, our footprint stretches far and
wide. National Foods has operations in every Australian state as well as New Zealand,
Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, while Lion Nathan spans Australia and New
Zealand with eight major breweries, one craft brewery, two distilleries, seven wineries
and 46 liquor outlets (NZ only).
National Foods has suppliers in every major dairy region in Australia and also operates
in the soy beverage market through a joint venture with Vitasoy International Holdings
of Hong Kong. A production plant in Wodonga, Victoria supplies ESL and UHT soy
drinks to the Australian and New Zealand markets.
National Foods is committed to investing in local communities and actively supports a
range of sponsorships for sporting groups, sports role models and community services
in Australia and New Zealand.
Since 2001, National Foods under its Pura Milk brand in Australia has been the major
sponsor of the children’s mentoring organisation, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Australia.
National Food’s head office is located at 737 Bourke Street, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
2
Introduction
National Foods is pleased to provide comment to the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation
Ministerial Council (MC), regarding the Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law
and Policy Review.
We have consulted with the Australian Food and Grocery Council, and Dairy
Australia, and our views align where possible.
The submission is written on behalf of National Foods, acknowledging we are a
business unit of Lion Nathan National Foods.
We consent to the author’s name and organisation being included in the summary
report, as well as our submission appearing on the website.
National Foods – Discussion Points
Overarching comments

Support for an overarching Food Labelling Policy
National Foods is supportive of an overarching Food Labelling Policy. There are a
number of labelling items unresolved and this Consultation Paper endeavours to
provide clarity, direction and alignment. Such items include nutrition and health
claims, front of pack labelling (FOPL), minimal labelling requirements, the role of the
food label in consumer education and inturn the responsibility of the food industry
and government in consumer education and health promotion.
We acknowledge this is an Issues Consultation Paper, and will be used to develop the
Policy document. National Foods submission therefore raises a number of key items of
concern when addressing the relevant questions in the Consultation Paper.

Best practice and evidence based information to guide development of the Policy
National Foods emphasises the need for evidence based or fact based information
to guide all aspects of regulatory decisions and recommendations.
International evidence can provide the foundation of labelling issues to be
considered but must be validated within the Australian context. Front of pack
labelling would be an example.
We also caution against the use of inappropriate information for key decisions. For
example, use of the National Heart Foundation tick as evidence to support FOPL is
both misleading and inaccurate, as this is a paid endorsement, with large consumer
awareness and understanding1.
3

Regulatory enforcement aligned to risk of public health and safety, and evidence of
market failure
National Foods is supportive of a well managed, comprehensive regulatory
framework that promotes consumer confidence and trust, maximises consumer
understanding and provides fairness and opportunity for the food industry.
Regulation should only be imposed where there is a risk to public health and safety or
to correct market failure.
This aligns with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) principle for minimum
necessary regulation that recommends regulation should be commensurate with the
level of risk.

Support for self-regulatory industry codes
National Foods supports the continued use of self-regulatory industry codes. There is
good evidence of voluntary industry codes working successfully. For example, the
food industry’s Code of Practice for Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in
Advertisements.
Mandatory regulation should only be imposed where self-regulation has proven to
fail.
This aligns with the National Preventative Health Taskforce report (June 2009), for a
‘responsive regulation’ system that begins with voluntary regulation and moves to
mandatory regulation only as needed/ demonstrated through good evidence 2. From
the Report, ‘responsive regulation’ is recommended as an ideal approach for
managing such areas as food labelling.

Defined role of a food label in public health and safety, and in health promotion
The intent of public health education and promotion is to reduce chronic disease
and promote good health and wellbeing. For successful outcomes, a
comprehensive, multi-level, multi-sector approach is needed. Food labels are but one
medium of many.
Labels can, and do, carry information to protect consumers where there is a risk to
public health and safety or to correct market failure. We do not believe the evidence
supports mandating the use of food labels for the purposes of health education and
promotion.
However, we support the use of current voluntary labelling codes and schemes that
promote broader public health objectives. Greater reliance should also be placed on
other mediums of consumer education – i.e. point of sale, website – as well as greater
government ownership in consumer education on food labels.
4

Minimum labelling requirement to ensure public health and safety (i.e. allergen
labelling, date marking)
To maximise compliance and consumer understanding, the mandatory information
on a product pack should be simple and consistent, and limited to that which can
directly impact a consumer’s safety.
Food labels should allow for product comparison at the point of purchase.
Information that further informs consumers about product characteristics – i.e. halal,
kosher and natural – can be provided through other mediums such as point of sale
(POS) materials, website, and company information hot-lines.
Any imposed labelling changes to current requirements need to demonstrate
effectiveness, based on robust consumer-based evidence. Cost implications need to
be considered not just for label changes, but for validation and compliance
throughout the supply chain from the farmer, manufacturer/ supplier, to the distributor
and retailer.

Oppose mandatory Front of Pack Labelling
National Foods is opposed to mandatory FOPL without evidence of demonstrated
effectiveness.
There is no solid research National Foods is aware of that clearly demonstrates any
particular FOPL format is more effective than another in assisting consumers construct
balanced diets or secure better health outcomes through food choices.
As mentioned in Attachment 3 to the 2007/2008 FRSC Front of Pack Labelling Working
Group (page 11), “Many factors influence purchasing behaviours including price,
taste, nutrition credentials and promotions. Therefore, the impact of FOPL is hard to
gauge”3.

Support evidence based health claims
National Foods is supportive of allowing evidence based health claims to be
permitted on pack to further facilitate the provision of product information, and
consumer understanding and education. This includes nutrition content claims (e.g.
contains calcium), general level health claims (e.g. calcium is important for bone
health), and high level health claims that describe a disease state (e.g. calcium and
osteoporosis).
Manufacturers should be able to speak truthfully about their product benefits, aligned
to the relevant level of supporting evidence.

Support a Centralised Advisory Service for FSC interpretation
National Foods advocates a centralised advisory service for FSC interpretation to
encourage consistency of advice provided to the food industry, consumer and
health care professionals.
5
Who should fulfil this role needs to be determined, but they should have adequate
authority to ensure the advice provided would be legally binding.
The successful development of a centralised advisory service requires all key
stakeholders, including Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), all state and
territory jurisdictions and the food industry.

Support a Centralised and Single Enforcement Agency for regulation
National Foods supports the development of a centralised and single enforcement
agency.
We believe optimal compliance with food labelling laws and policies rely on
consistent, effective approaches to the interpretation and enforcement of food
regulation and legislation.
There is currently inconsistency across jurisdictions, both in relation to interpretation of
the law and degree of enforcement. Without clear and accurate interpretation it is
impossible for food manufacturers to ensure compliance with legislation and expect
consumers to understand food labelling.
Responses to questions in the Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and
Policy Review
1.
To what extent should the food regulatory system be used to meet broader public
health objectives?
It is important to remember the primary purpose of the food regulation system. Food
regulation is about food safety and enabling consumers to make an informed
product choice at the point of purchase.
The vision of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is to “provide a safe
food supply which supports the health of people in Australia and New Zealand”4.
Whilst COAG has agreed to ‘tackle the burden of chronic disease’, as part of the
prevention stream of work in the health policy arena, the relevance to the food
regulation system remains in question.
The intent of public health education and promotion is to reduce chronic disease
and promote good health and wellbeing. For successful outcomes, a
comprehensive, multi-level, multi-sector approach is needed. Food labels provide
one possible medium of many.
The Issues Consultation Paper defines public health as encompassing two elements:
health safety and health promotion (page 3). We challenge the rationale for
addressing both aspects of public health through a food label.
6
Labels can, and do, carry information to protect consumers where there is a risk to
public health and safety or to correct market failure. We do not believe the
evidence supports mandating the use of food labels for the purposes of health
education and promotion.
However, we support the use of current voluntary labelling codes and schemes that
promote broader public health objectives. Greater reliance should also be placed
on other mediums of consumer education – i.e. point of sale, website – as well as
greater government ownership in consumer education on food labels.
2.
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 (e.g/
education or website)?
To maximise compliance and consumer understanding, product packaging
information should be simple and consistent, and limited to that which can directly
impact consumer safety.
This is consistent with the COAG principle for minimum necessary regulation and
recommends that regulation should be commensurate with the level of consumer
risk.
We believe the minimum requirements are:
– Allergen statements
– Mandatory warning and advisory statements
– Use by/ best before dates
– Directions for use/ storage
– Supplier contact details
– Product name
– Lot identification details
– Net weight
– Country of origin
– Ingredients list
– Nutrition information panel.
National Foods believes that in addition to a product label, the materials in close
proximity (i.e. point of sale material) can serve to inform a consumer, and
consequently minimise the requirements for on pack product information. This
should be considered when defining ‘labelling’ criteria.
Exemptions also need to be considered for products with practical limitations (i.e.
small pack sizes).
Information that further informs consumers about the product characteristics – i.e.
halal, kosher and natural – can be provided through other mediums such as point of
sale (POS) materials, website, and company information hot-lines.
Any imposed labelling changes to current requirements need to demonstrate
effectiveness, based on robust consumer-based evidence. Cost implications need
7
to be considered not just for label changes, but for validation and compliance
throughout the supply chain from the farmer, manufacturer/ supplier, to the
distributor and retailer. It is also more cost-effective to maintain and update POS
material as opposed to product packaging.
3.
How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured?
National Foods recommends that having clear, consistent criteria in either a
voluntary industry code of practice or legislated standard can assist in maximising
awareness, accuracy, consistency and product compliance. The regulations should
be user-friendly, written in a common language, and be non-interpretive.
This should be supported by a centralised advisory service and a centralised
monitoring and enforcement agency.
The labelling criteria needs to be regularly reviewed to ensure it reflects current
industry practices, procedures (i.e. technical) and product opportunities (i.e.
ingredients) – which would need to be actively supported by food industry.
Ongoing education to the food industry, health care professionals and consumers
by the government, is imperative to provide further rigor to the regulatory system.
4.
What principles should guide decisions about government intervention on food
labelling?
National Foods recommends the following principles be used to guide food
labelling:
5.
–
Protection of health safety
–
Regulation commensurate with level of consumer risk
–
Evidence-based or fact-based information to guide labelling decisions
–
Labelling criteria relevant to current industry practices and capability
–
Consistency with international regulation.
What criteria should determine the appropriate tools for intervention?
National Foods suggests there is not one tool for intervention but many, and
recommends that intervention be aligned with the level of risk to safety.
Labelling items with a high impact on safety require mandatory intervention and
therefore a prescribed standard. Those with a lower impact on safety would be best
managed by a self-regulated voluntary code with clear objectives, criteria and
explanations.
For example, ‘allergens’ pose a higher risk to health safety versus a nutrition content
claim such as ‘low fat’ health claim, which is associated with a low risk.
8
6.
Is this a satisfactory spectrum for labelling requirements?
Yes, as the current level of intervention is aligned with the perceived risk to health
safety, National Foods believes the spectrum for management of labelling
requirements is sufficient.
7.
In what ways could these misunderstandings and disagreements be overcome?
As stated above, National Foods recommends that misunderstandings or
discrepancies in interpretation of labelling requirements be minimised if criteria and
terminology is consistent, comprehensive and aligned with all aspects of the food
regulatory system where appropriate. Allergen labelling is one example.
The labelling criteria and terminology needs to be regularly reviewed to ensure it
reflects current industry practices, procedures (i.e. technical) and product
opportunities (i.e. ingredients) – which would need to be actively supported by the
food industry.
Education provided to the food industry, health care professionals and consumers
by government, will endeavour to provide further rigor into the food regulatory
system, and encourage consistency.
A centralised advisory and enforcement agency may also help to reduce
misunderstandings and disagreements, as further discussed in questions 29-31.
8.
In what ways can food labelling be used to support health promotion initiatives?
Health promotion has been defined in the Issues Consultation Paper “as activities
designed to inhibit chronic disease by the promotion of healthy eating” (page 3).
As stated above, National Foods believes that mandatory food labelling must meet
the requirements necessary to adequately inform the consumer to ensure food
safety. This is, and should remain, the primary function of a product label. Any
decisions to mandate changes to label requirements should be on the basis of
impact to health safety and not on meeting particular public health objectives –
which should be left to voluntary initiatives.
For successful health promotion outcomes, a comprehensive, multi-level, multisector approach is needed.
Packaging messages supporting health promotion should be optional to include on
a product label, at a manufacturer’s discretion. As quoted from Williams P (2005),
“folate health claims on food alone cannot adequately address the need for
consumer education; they are better thought of as a means of easily identifying
foods rich in folate once the target group is informed of their existence and the
reasons for consuming them”5.
9
Current regulatory restrictions limit manufacturers from freely communicating many
product health benefits. For example, current prohibitions do not permit claims in
relation to any disease state (i.e. osteoporosis; heart disease) or physiological
condition (i.e. cold; constipation). The food industry should be permitted to
communicate product attributes aligned to the level of scientific evidence. The
area of nutrition and health claims is further addressed in question 10.
9.
In what ways can disclosure of ingredients be improved?
National Foods recognises that ingredient labelling can be confusing to the
consumer. Current options permit certain ingredients to be listed via a common
versus scientific name or a food additive number. Consumers may be unaware
ingredients are listed in descending order of ingoing weight.
Suggestion could be to reduce the number of options an ingredient can be
declared on pack, or to adopt a similar approach to ‘compound ingredients’,
whereby ingredients are declared only if they appear as more than 5% in the final
product or are considered ‘characterising’.
We believe, however, the underlying issue to understanding ingredients is consumer
education. The government must commit time and resource to this.
10.
To what extent should health claims that can be objectively supported by
evidence be permitted?
National Foods is supportive of allowing evidence based health claims to be
permitted on pack to further facilitate product information and consumer
understanding and education – be these nutrition content claims (NCC), general
level health claims (GLHC) that describe a nutrient and its health benefit, or a high
level health claim (HLHC) that describes a disease state.
Manufacturers should be able to speak truthfully about their product benefits, aligned
to the level of supporting evidence, on a voluntary basis.
The proposed Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard recommends GLHC be
substantiated at a ‘convincing level of evidence’ – changed from earlier
recommendations for a ‘probable’ level of evidence. Nutrition and health claims
should be substantiated by the ‘weight of scientific evidence’ or ‘consistently agreed
evidence’ (terms adopted to replace ‘probable levels of evidence’ – as per the Final
Assessment Report for Nutrition, Health and Related Claims).
National Foods provided comment to FSANZ in response to Proposal P293 Nutrition,
Health & Related Claims Consultation Paper for First Review, Proposal P234 Issues
Paper in 2002, the Initial and Draft Assessment Reports for Proposal P293 in 2004/ 2006,
and the Consultation Paper in 2008. Refer to Appendix 1 for details on National Foods
position on nutrition and health claims, and specific issues.
10
11.
What are the practical implications and consequences of aligning the regulations
relating to health claims on foods and complementary medicine products?
National Foods notes there are differences in current permissions for food and health
claims in the Food Standards Code versus complementary medicines and the
Therapeutics Good Act (TGA) 1989.
A range of health claims – including reference to ‘serious disease’ – are permitted
under the TGA that are not currently allowed under the Food Standards Code –
despite both foods and complementary medicines being available in similar retail
outlets.
To ensure prohibitions on labelling and promotion of foods are not made any more
restrictive, and to promote a more even playing field amongst foods and
complementary medicines, National Foods recommends the types of claims
permitted on food be expanded and substantiated accordingly to the ‘weight of
scientific evidence’.
The TGA uses risk-based pre-market assessment procedures for ingredients/ claims
on complementary medicines. Efficacy for high risk ingredients/health claims only is
determined by examining data from controlled clinical trials. However, where
adequate information is available on each active ingredient, and it is well
described in standard textbooks/guidelines, this can be used to support efficacy.
The advertising of therapeutic goods in Australia is also subject to the advertising
requirements of the Act.
Alternatively, for food, the Food Standards Code and the Code of Practice for
Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements (1995) outline current
permissions for nutrition content claims and health claims. Only one high level health
claim is currently is permitted in Australia (i.e. folate and neural tube defects). These
regulations apply to claims both on packaging and in advertising.
Nutrition and health claims on food are also regulated by the Trade Practices Act
(TPA) – enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
The draft Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard has proposed three
categories of claims based on the level of risk, with the level of substantiating
evidence increasing accordingly. It is proposed, GLHC require a ‘convincing’ level
of evidence and HLHC are pre-approved, with only nine suggested to date.
12.
Should specific health warnings (e.g., high level of sodium or saturated fat per
serve) and related health consequences be required?
National Foods is opposed to the inclusion of specific health warnings on product
packaging without evidence of benefit to public health and safety or evidence of
market failure.
Healthy eating patterns should be based around the inclusion of a balanced range
of foods and beverages, as opposed to a focus on less desirable or ‘negative’
11
nutrients. Suggestions to include warning statements could over-ride the positive
nutritional contribution of a product – the population are already facing difficulty in
meeting certain nutrient requirements, such as calcium.
The nutrition information panel is a mandatory requirement on product packaging
once a nutrition or health claim is made. This allows consumers to understand the
nutrition profile of a product, and compare two or more products.
With appropriate consumer tools and consumer education, consumers can learn
how to translate product information into practical eating recommendations. This
should be the primary focus of government, not implemented through restrictions
that impose warning statements on product without evidence of consumer benefit.
13.
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?
The Issues Consultation Paper: Food labelling Law and Policy Review lists ‘additional
consumer-related concerns’ as those items that extend beyond public health and
includes examples such as environmental sustainability, animal welfare (i.e. free
range), and methods of production – genetic modification, irradiation, nanotechnology.
Food labelling must meet the requirements necessary to adequately inform the
consumer to ensure health safety. Such items were listed in the response to question
2.
The benefit of listing ‘additional consumer-related concerns’ on product packaging,
is unsubstantiated. Any imposed labelling changes to current requirements need to
demonstrate effectiveness, based on robust consumer evidence.
National Foods recommends information relating to ‘other’ product characteristics,
or what is being referred to as ‘additional consumer-related concerns’, should be a
voluntary inclusion on a product pack, or provided through other mediums such as
point of sale (POS) materials, website, and company information hot-lines.
14.
What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types of
information?
Any imposed labelling changes to current requirements need to demonstrate
effectiveness, based on robust consumer evidence.
National Foods proposes that inclusions of specific items on a product be aligned to
immediate food safety concerns (i.e. allergens), product identification (i.e.
manufacturer details, lot number) and nutrition information (i.e. nutrition information
panel and ingredients list).
Information beyond this, or what is classified as ‘additional consumer-related
concerns’, should remain optional.
12
Mandatory inclusion of additional consumer-related concerns could lead to a
clutter of information resulting in health-safety messages becoming ‘lost’. Another
consideration is the resultant increase in packaging size to accommodate label
information would be costly and environmentally detrimental.
15.
What criteria should determine which, if any, foods are required to have country
of origin labelling?
The current regulations for country of origin label are sufficient, and no changes
are required.
16.
How can confusion over this terminology in relation to food be resolved?
No comment
17.
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?
As outlined in the Issues Consultation Paper terms such as natural, organic, freerange, kosher or halal would be considered as ‘additional consumer-related
concerns’.
The definition for some of these terms already exists, for example, ‘free-range’ and
‘Lite/ Light’. Other terms, whilst defined, require greater clarity to minimise confusion
and application, for example, ‘natural’ and ‘pure’.
The responsibility for development or revisions of such definitions should involve
expert committees or organisations, and not FSANZ alone.
Definitions for ‘additional consumer-related concerns’ do not need to be included
in the Food Standards Code but included in the respective industry codes – such as
the Code of Practice for Nutrient Claims in Food Labels6 or the Food and beverage
industry Food descriptors guidelines to the Trade Practices Act (TPA)7 [or combined
into a new industry guideline].
Note, such terms are also governed by the TPA/ ACCC to ensure they are not
misleading.
Consumer education needs to accompany product labelling – a government led
initiative.
18.
What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such information
claims for the food label?
No comment
13
19.
In what ways can information disclosure about the use of these technological
developments (i.e. genetic modification, irradiation, nano-technology) in food
production be improved given the available state of scientific knowledge,
manufacturing processes involved and detection levels?
As such technologies are validated through health safety risk assessment,
information is fact-based. Disclosure of information should be aligned to the level of
safety risk.
20.
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?
Please refer to the Lion Nathan submission for a detailed response.
21.
Should minimum font sizes be specified for all wording?
22.
Are there ways of objectively testing legibility and readability? To what extent
should objective testing be required?
23.
How best can the information on food labels be arranged to balance the
presentation of a range of information while minimising information overload?
24.
In what ways can consumers be best informed to maximise their understanding of
the terms and figures used on food labels?
National Foods collectively answers questions 21-24.
We restate the COAG principle for minimum necessary regulation and recommend
that regulation should be commensurate with the level of consumer risk.
Without evidence of impact on health safety or evidence of market failure, National
Foods does not advocate any proposed changes to font size, colour contrast,
readability (font style, quality, line spacing) than currently outlined in the Food
Standards Code.
A food label serves to provide adequate product information to the consumer to
ensure health safety. Only minimum requirements should be mandated only. Both
the product label, as well as materials in close proximity can serve to inform and
educate the consumer.
The Food Standards Code moved away from prescribing font size. Minimum font size
is only prescribed for mandatory warning statements. The Food Standards Code
instead discusses legibility, contrast and product labelling to appear in English.
The focus should be on consumer education. Various consumer information and
education tools can be effective in maximising consumer awareness and
understanding, and allowing consumers to translate product choice into healthy
eating patterns. Government needs to be at the forefront of consumer education,
supported by the food industry.
14
25.
What is an appropriate role for government in relation to use of pictorial icons on
food labels?
National Foods believes the use of pictorial icons is adequately managed, and no
further intervention is required.
National Foods acknowledges that the use of pictorial icons is currently captured
within the definition of a ‘claim’ as defined by Standard 1.1.1 of the Food Standards
Code. It reads: a claim means any statement, representation, information, design,
words or reference in relation to a food which is mandatory in this Code. Thereby,
from a health claim perspective the pictorial icon must be true and correct.
The TPA, enforced by the ACCC, works to ensure that consumer are not misled by
communication materials – a second avenue to make sure that icons convey
accurate information to the consumer.
Thirdly, registered icons operate within the parameters of the holding organisation,
be it the National Heart Foundation tick or the Glycemic Index symbol.
Finally, voluntary icons – such as Percentage Daily Intake labelling – still have guiding
principles in which to operate.
26.
What objectives should inform decisions relevant to the format of front-of-pack
labelling (FOPL)?
National Foods advocates that any change to FOPL needs to demonstrate
consumer effectiveness. Evidence must be in the Australian context. Care should be
taken not to oversimplify labelling as this can be misleading and misunderstood by
the average consumer.
As stated in Attachment 3 to the 2007/2008 FRSC Front of Pack Labelling Working
Group (page 11), “Many factors influence purchasing behaviours including price,
taste, nutrition credentials and promotions. Therefore, the impact of FOPL is hard to
gauge”.
National Foods supports the provision of adequate product information, to enable
consumers to make informed choices at the point of purchase. The primary purpose
of a food label is to ensure health safety.
We therefore oppose any consideration for mandatory FOPL.
National Foods is unaware of any research in Australia that clearly demonstrates
that FOPL, or any particular FOPL format (i.e. non-interpretive or interpretive) is more
effective than another in assisting consumers construct balanced diets or secure
better health outcomes. This includes research undertaken both in Australia and
overseas.
Front of Pack Labelling often adopts a generalised approach, trying to suit all
genders and age groups. For instance, the ‘traffic light’ system is an interpretative
15
approach to FOPL that can be misunderstood by consumers. Interpretation and
subsequent consumer action can often vary, and may potentially deviate from the
original intent.
Research conducted on the UK traffic light system indicated that the introduction of
a system of four traffic light labels had no discernable effect on the relative
healthiness of consumer purchases, with the recommendation of further research
before this labelling format can be considered a ‘promising public health
intervention’ 8.
Some front of pack labelling research compares ‘four’ traffic lights versus ‘seven’ or
‘eight’ thumbnails9,10. The comparison is not equal and therefore conclusions must
be interpreted with care. In addition, when rating the ‘healthiness’ of a product, the
methodology needs to include a control and keep the number of variables to a
minimum. Without this, it is more difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.
Likewise, care should be taken with consideration of the impact of ‘existing’ front of
pack symbols. For example, use of the National Heart Foundation tick as evidence
to support FOPL is both misleading and inaccurate. The tick symbol has been in the
marketplace since 1989, with over 1100 foods across more than 50 supermarket
categories currently carrying the heart tick11. The National Heart Foundation tick is a
paid endorsement, with large consumer awareness and understanding12. It merely
serves as a point of ‘differentiation’ for manufacturers. Front of pack labelling
research undertaking by the Heart Foundation states:
“the best labelling scheme for Australians is not one they prefer, but one that
drives them consistently to make healthier choices”9.
It found similar effectiveness in all FOPL – where no one scheme worked well for all
types of foods. ‘Consumer preference for a scheme’ does not necessarily mean
that a consumer makes an accurate healthier choice’.
Internationally, FOPL remains in its development stages. A number of labelling
initiatives have been employed to date, often resulting in consumer confusion.
Research has considered the effectiveness of FOPL, consumer awareness and
understanding using single versus multiple FOPL approaches.
For example, Pan-European consumer research from the European Food
Information Council ‘In-store behaviour, Understanding and use of Nutrition
Information on Food labels and Nutrition Knowledge’ found that Colour Coded
Schemes (i.e. ‘at-a-glance’ labelling schemes’) were open to misinterpretation, with
consumers tending to exaggerate the red light as messages to avoid eating the
product, rather than “it’s fine to have this product occasionally as a treat”. Likewise,
‘amber’ could be interpreted as ‘should try not to eat this product’, rather than ‘this
is okay most of the time’. The research also found that ‘calories’ was the information
most frequently sought by shoppers13.
This demonstrates that ‘traffic lights’ may fail to help consumers consider foods in the
context of a healthy diet, and may pose a health risk through misinterpretation.
Focusing on negative nutrients such as saturated fat and sodium, without
16
acknowledging the positive nutrients can skew a product choice. Simplifying to
colour codes and nutrients does not provide context to consumers in how a food fits
within the diet, nor assist with food selection and consumption.
Research from the UK Citizens’ forums on food: Front of Pack (FoP) Nutrition Labelling
(2008) found that respondents had a broad awareness of front of pack (FoP)
labelling schemes. This awareness varied widely in the extent that respondents had
actually engaged with FoP nutritional information. As such, awareness did not
always translate into full understanding or actual usage of FoP nutrition labels.
Usage varied due to a wide range of factors, including: whether the individual was
doing their ‘weekly shop’ or buying food to eat on the go, time pressure, mood, and
the type of products being purchased.
The traffic light colour scheme was popular as this was seen as a way to bypass the
need to make any mathematical calculations. This demonstrates oversimplification
of a labelling device, disempowering consumers to make informed product
decisions.
In Australia, FOPL is a new initiative to Australia. The current system is voluntary, with
Percentage Daily Intake (DIG scheme) being a food industry led initiative that was
only introduced in 2006 and therefore is still in its infancy.
The success of the DIG scheme can be seen in the recent reviews that the
Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) have conducted. In Australia, more
than 70 companies have adopted the DIG scheme with over 2000 products
carrying the ‘thumbnail’ icons. In 2008, research undertaken by the AFGC illustrated
that two in three Australian consumers surveyed (66%) say that they believe
Percentage Daily Intake is easy to read and understand, and that more than one in
three Australian consumers surveyed (35%) have used Percentage Daily Intake to
make a purchasing decision.
National Foods proposes that any consideration for label changes, including FOPL:
–
Provide ‘factual’ information to consumers to enable them to understand the
total nutrient profile of a product, as opposed to interpretive and potentially
‘judgemental’ information on select nutrients only
–
Have regard for whole foods and balanced diets, recognising nutrients at risk
of deficiency as identified by National Nutrition Surveys, such as calcium
–
Require validation within the Australian context, including intended consumer
interpretation and action, and has a clear benefit and impact on FOPL
objectives – i.e. a labelling system that leads to consumers purchasing
healthier food choices, and better health outcomes.
–
Adopts a consistent approach
–
Is voluntary (not mandatory)
–
Applies to all food types whether packaged, fresh, retail or institutional/quick
food service
17
–
Considers a range of population sub-groups, including children
–
Is supported by education initiatives driven by government
–
Considers the potential cost impact borne by government, industry, and
ultimately the consumer.
27. 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?
Mandatory health safety information should be included on pack. Refer to the
response for question 2.
28. To what degree should the Food Standards Code address food advertising?
National Foods believes that food advertising is adequately captured in the Food
Standards Code and no further intervention is required.
As stated in the Issues Consultation Paper, ‘food advertising’ is currently captured
within the ‘general prohibitions’ as outlined in Standard 1.1.1 of the Food Standards
Code.
Likewise, a claim is defined in the same Standard as any statement, representation,
information, design, words or reference in relation to a food which is mandatory in
this Code.
The self-regulatory industry Code of Practice for Nutrient Claims6 also addresses
advertisements for foods in section 12, page 7.
Finally, the TPA (enforced by the ACCC), prohibits information in food advertising
that is incorrect or misleading to the consumer.
29. In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the interpretation
and administration of food labelling standards be improved?
30. In what ways can consistency, especially within Australia, in the enforcement of food
labelling standards be improved?
31. 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?
National Foods collectively answers questions 29-31.
18
National Foods supports the development of a centralised advisory service and
centralised enforcement agency. Whether the two services operate through the
same agency needs to be determined.
The rationale is consistency in the information provided, and consistency in advice
and compliance.
Training of jurisdictional enforcement should be as a collective, and not state or
territory-based.
Funding of the central advisory service should be at a federal level. A fee-for-service
structure, as proposed in the ‘Regulatory Impact Statement on food regulatory
reforms: Centralised Interpretive Advice on Food Standards’, may deter use as
responses to (general) enquiries would be made publicly available.
Development of a centralised advisory service should involve all key stakeholders,
including Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), all state and territory
jurisdictions and the food industry.
The key concern in developing a centralised advisory service is the level of legal
enforcement in the information provided. A centralised advisory service would
achieve little in the absence of either ‘enforcement powers’ or ‘the provision of
binding advice’.
Currently FZANZ is wholly owned & controlled by the Commonwealth. In order to
provide a truly centralised approach to the establishment, interpretation and
enforcement of food standards, the States & Territories should be included as joint
owners of FSANZ. Such ownership would facilitate the delegation of enforcement
powers by States and Territories to FSANZ.
A possible model for such a structure is the National Blood Authority (NBA) which is
owned jointly by the Commonwealth and States & Territories. The NBA has a truly
national approach as well as appropriate cost sharing arrangements.
32. 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?
33. If such an approach was adopted, what are appropriate mechanisms to deal with
the constitutional limits to the Commonwealths powers?
34. What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining government’s primary
responsibility for administering food labelling regulations?
35. If a move to either: self regulation by industry of labelling requirements; or coregulation involving industry, government and consumers were to be considered,
how would such an arrangement work and what issues would need to be
addressed?
19
National Foods supports the continued use of self-regulatory industry codes – which as
a company we have adopted and are compliant. There is good evidence of
voluntary industry codes working well. For example, the food industry’s Code of
Practice for Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements.
Mandatory regulation should only be imposed where self-regulation has proven to
fail, in relation to health and safety.
This aligns with the National Preventative Health Taskforce report (June 2009), for a
‘responsive regulation’ system that begins with voluntary regulation and moves to
mandatory regulation only as needed/ demonstrated through good evidence 14. The
Report states that ‘responsive regulation’ should be considered as the ideal
approach for food labelling policy and law.
Responsive regulation is an escalating approach which starts by using non legislative
changes, such as self-regulation, codes of practice and incentive schemes. These are
trialled, measured and assessed first, and only upon their failure to achieve desired
outcomes – based on sound evidence – are more rigorous methods considered. This
may escalate to the trial of co-regulatory approaches before full regulation and
enforcement is used. Such an approach permits enforcement to be focused on
priority areas, and reflects that policy drivers for mandatory laws differ from voluntary
standards. It also aligns with the AFGC ongoing request for the use of Codes of
Practice to deliver food policy outcomes, and past and present use of the:
 Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements
 Responsible Children’s Marketing Initiative of the Australian Food and Beverage
Industry
 Australian Food and Grocery Council, and the food and beverage industry’s
voluntary front of pack labelling scheme ‘Daily Intake Guide Labelling Scheme’.
National Foods has demonstrated successful compliance of voluntary regulation
through the policy adoption and implementation of two important voluntary labelling
codes; the Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims and the above mentioned Daily
Intake Guide Labelling Scheme which we are currently implementing.
The Code of Practice for Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements
(CoPoNC) was developed by an extensive and consultative process involving
stakeholders from food industry, regulatory, health professional and consumer interest
groups.
At that time, and still today, the CoPoNC remains a major cooperative achievement
in gaining consensus on the criteria, guidelines acceptance and adherence to
nutrition content claims.
National Foods has supported and complied with CoPoNC since its inception in 1995.
National Foods submits that CoPoNC is minimum effective self-regulation, which is
working.
As noted by FSANZ on page 18 of the P293 (Initial Assessment Report) that:
20
“The majority of manufacturers abide by the criteria in CoPoNC; therefore the
nutrition claims on most products have a sound basis and help consumers
make informed choices”15.
Independent research of over 6500 labels (with 4401 claims) of packaged foods sold
in supermarkets, in August-September 2001, found 87% of label claims were compliant
with either CoPoNC or with the (old) Food Standards Code 16. The rate of non
compliance for all CoPoNC claims was 14.7%, and 13.3% for Food Standards Code
claims. This indicates that manufacturers comply similarly with both regulated and
voluntary provisions.
In conjunction with the use of sound evidence to establish food labelling law and
policy, ‘responsive regulation’ should help avoid the imposition of unjustifiable
regulatory burdens on business. This is important as there are many practical
considerations to implementing food labelling law, such as the cost to the whole of
industry of label changes, practicalities of space on labels and packages, and the
difficulties for ‘fresh’, food service and the restaurant sector.
36. In what ways does such split or shared responsibility strengthen or weaken the
interpretation and enforcement of food labelling requirements?
37. What are the strengths and limitations of the current processes that define a product
as a food or a complementary medicine?
Refer to question 11
38. What are the strengths and weaknesses of having different approaches to the
enforcement of food labelling standards for imported versus domestically produced
foods?
39. Should food imported through New Zealand be subject to the same AQIS inspection
requirements?
Questions 36, 38-39 – Nil comment
21
Appendix 1
National Foods comments on the proposed Nutrition, Health and Related Claims
Standard
National Foods supports the Ministerial Council Policy Guideline on Nutrition, Health
and Related Claims. However, the draft Standard is significantly different from the
framework described by the Policy Guideline, and in its proposed form National
Foods does not support the introduction of the Standard for Nutrition, Health and
Related Claims. It is overly prescriptive, difficult to enforce, and fails to deliver obvious
benefits to the consumer. It has digressed from a focus on ‘whole of diet’, to
individual nutrients.
We raise particular concern with the proposed Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criteria
(NPSC) for GLHC, [and potentially NCC]. Under the proposed NPSC certain cheese,
flavoured milk and white milks would not meet the scoring criteria and qualify to
make general level health claims. These are core foods that add valuable nutrients to
the Australian diet, and would severely restrict their communication potential to
consumers.
We support retaining the claims and criteria currently in the Code of Practice on
Nutrient Claims and the Food Standards Code – updated to reflect new scientific
evidence and international scientific consensus.
The proposed Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard should be amended to
allow HLHCs. This would reflect the principle of minimum necessary regulation.
Substantiation of health claims should be commensurate with the ‘level’ of risk for the
claim17. National Foods proposes that health claims should require a ‘weight of
scientific evidence’ or ‘consistently agreed evidence’ (terms used to replace
‘probable levels of evidence’), as opposed to a ‘convincing level of evidence’ – a
position FSANZ has changed to despite earlier recommendations for a ‘probable
level of evidence’.
As extracted from the Ministerial Policy Guideline on Nutrient, Health and Related
Claims (2004)18:
The Policy Guideline explains that the level of evidence should be commensurate
with the ‘level’ of the claim and Policy Principle 6 states:
“…contain a process of substantiation which aligns levels of scientific evidence
with the level of claims along the theoretical continuum of claims, and at
minimum costs to the community”.
That is HLHCs should require pre-market approval and be substantiated with
convincing evidence.
22
GLHCs should be industry self-substantiated whereby manufacturers should be
required to hold a dossier of evidence based on ‘consistently agreed’ or the
‘weight of the evidence’ criteria. This is described clearly by the Policy Guidelines:
“The level of a claim, as determined by the claims classification framework,
will determine to what degree the claim is regulated, including the nature
of the evidence required for substantiation. Only high level claims will be
pre-approved, with approved claims being listed in the Standard.”
“General level claims are claims where the manufacturer has to make an
assessment of the evidence supporting the claim prior to the product
going to market, and to hold the evidence (to be produced at the request
of enforcement agencies)”.
“For simple nutrient content claims, the manufacturer needs to hold
evidence that the product contains the relevant component(s) in the
amount(s) being claimed, and to meet any qualifying or disqualifying
criteria specified in the Standard. For other general level claims, there are
two alternative requirements: where the evidence is ‘consistently agreed’
or where there is ‘weight of evidence”.
“‘Consistently agreed’ evidence for a claim refers to the conclusion that
there is a sufficient body of sound, relevant scientific evidence that shows
consistency across different studies and among different researchers. This
body of evidence permits the key determination of whether a change in
the dietary intake of the substance will result in an outcome consistent with
the claim being made. For ‘consistently agreed’ evidence the
manufacturer is required to hold appropriate scientific evidence of why
and where the claim is substantiated, as well as evidence that the product
contains an adequate amount of the relevant component(s)”.
“‘Weight of evidence’ applies when the accepted scientific evidence for
the claim outweighs any opposing evidence. Manufacturers will be
required to hold this evidence in the form of a dossier consisting of:
 copies of the relevant studies;
 an outline of all the evidence available and a summary evaluation of the
totality of evidence;
 together with evidence that the product contains an adequate amount
of the relevant component(s)”.
FSANZ have previously conceded that it is not necessary to have ‘convincing’
levels of evidence for GLHCs and that the level of evidence should be
commensurate with the ‘level’ of claim.
Specific issues in relation to the draft Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard
(provided as examples):
–
National Foods submits that ‘free’ claims should continue to be permitted to allow
for minute residuals of nutrients that are physiologically, clinically and nutritionally
23
insignificantly different to a zero percentage content of that nutrient. Allowing
these minimal residual limits is consistent with international food standards and
complementary to the objectives of food regulation.
–
FSANZ has been selective in which ‘free’ claims should remain with criteria. For
example, ‘cholesterol free’ and ‘fat free’ claims have been omitted but ‘gluten
free’ and ‘lactose free’ claims are included because they pose public health and
safety concerns.
National Foods proposes that the criteria for all ‘free’ claims currently in the market
be included in the draft standard, not selective ones.
National Foods submits that both fat and cholesterol can also pose public health
and safety concerns. Whilst saturated fat may be more detrimental to cholesterol
levels, the National Heart Foundation of Australia still recommends that people
with high cholesterol should restrict their intake of cholesterol rich foods 19,20. The
impact of high cholesterol accounts for more than 10% of all heart disease deaths,
or more than 15,000 deaths in 200321. National Foods submits that dietary
cholesterol can pose a public health and safety issue for people with high blood
cholesterol levels. Dietary fat may also pose a public health issue with almost 60%
of the adult population in Australia being overweight or obese 22. For these people
‘fat free’ claims may assist them with monitoring their fat and energy intakes.
–
‘Light/Lite’ claims should also operate within the current CoPoNC criteria, with
both ‘reduced’ and ‘low’ criteria permitted under this claim.
–
National Foods strongly opposes limiting glycaemic index and glycaemic load
claims to numeric values only. Both numeric values and ratings (i.e. low, medium
and high) should be available for use.
–
The Company submits that all levels of content claims for biologically active
substances be permitted (i.e. ‘source’; ‘good source’), if scientifically
substantiated. This promotes consistency and harmonisation of regulation.
–
National Foods strongly opposes the introduction of disqualifying criteria to health
claims. This opposes the COAG principles of ‘reducing the regulatory
environment’. It has the potential to negatively influence dietary choices by
precluding core foods such as milk, cheese, bread and fruits from making health
claims.
–
National Foods has provided market data to FSANZ to demonstrate the impact if
the current claims criteria is changed. Based on data from 2006, we estimated this
to be $3,000,000. Costs for redundant materials, education and resources, would
be additional.
–
National Foods advocates the introduction of scientifically substantiated HLHC,
but raises concerns with the limited application and lack of consideration of
scientific evidence. Only nine HLHC have been proposed to date.
–
Related health claims, i.e. endorsements and trademarks, fall outside of the
jurisdiction of FSANZ and should be excluded from this Standard.
24
References
National Heart Foundation of Australia (2009) Heart Foundation Tick – Two decades
of helping Australians choose healthier foods
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/sites/tick/SiteCollectionDocuments/Credentials_
A4_LowResForWeb_2009_FINAL.pdf
1
National Preventative Health Taskforce (June 2009). Australia: the healthiest country
by 2020. National Preventative Health Strategy – Overview.
2
Attachment 3 2007/2008 FRSC Front of Pack labelling Working Group
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/FF1FA0AAD23A3173
CA2574E3001238A0/$File/Consultation%20Paper%20-%20Att%203%20%20Information%20from%202007-2008%20FRSC%20FOPL%20Working%20Group.pdf
3
FSANZ Vision, May 2010
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/scienceinfsanz/
4
Williams P. (2005). Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods.
Nutrition Review. Jul; 63(7): 256-64.
5
National Food Authority (1995). Code of Practice for Nutrient Claims in Food Labels
and in Advertisements, Commonwealth of Australia.
6
ACCC (2006). Food and beverage industry – food descriptor guideline to the Trade
Practices Act, Commonwealth of Australia.
7
Sacks G et al. (2009). Impact of front-of-pack ‘traffic-light’ nutrition labelling on
consumer food purchases in the UK. Health Promotion Int. 2009 Dec; 24(4):344-52.
8
Heart Foundation (2008). Australians and front of pack labelling – what we want,
what we need.
9
Kelly B et al on behalf of a Collaboration of Public Health and Consumer Research
Groups (2008). Front-of-Pack Food Labelling: Traffic light labelling gets the green light.
Cancer Council: Sydney 2008.
10
National Heart Foundation of Australia (Jan 2010) National Heart Foundation Tick in
the Supermarket.
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/sites/tick/consumers/Pages/Tickinthesupermarket
.aspx
11
National Heart Foundation of Australia (2009) Heart Foundation Tick – Two decades
of helping Australians choose healthier foods
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/sites/tick/SiteCollectionDocuments/Credentials_
A4_LowResForWeb_2009_FINAL.pdf
12
European Food Information Council (2008). Pan-European consumer research on
in-store observation, understanding & use of nutrition information on food labels,
combined with assign nutrition knowledge.
13
National Preventative Health Taskforce (June 2009). Australia: the healthiest country
by 2020. National Preventative Health Strategy – Overview.
14
15
Proposal 293 Initial Assessment Report 11 August 2004:
25
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/proposals/proposalp293nutritionhe
althandrelatedclaims/p293initialassessmen3500.cfm
Williams P et al (2003). Nutrition and related claims used on packaged Australian
foods – implications for regulation. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 12(2): 138150.
16
ANZFRMC, 2004. Ministerial Policy Guidelines on Nutrient, Health and Related
Claims.
17
ANZFRMC (2004). Ministerial Policy Guidelines on Nutrient, Health and Related
Claims. Pg 4.
18
19
Heart Foundation (1999). Dietary Fats Position Statement.
20
Heart Foundation (2004). Dietary Fats and Heart Disease.
Heart Foundation (2007). The burden of cardiovascular disease in Australia for the
year 2003.
21
22
The Australian New Zealand Obesity Society (2009).
26