· web viewefsa journal 2010; 8(3):1462 we accept that sugars derived from milk will form a...

TEMPLATE FOR COMMENTS

1 2 3 4ORGANISATION /COMPANY NAME (ABBREVIATED NAME WHERE APPLICABLE)

COMMENT

NUMBER

REGULATION OR ANNEXURE OR

GUIDELINE NUMBER

JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

SOUTH AFRICAN

ASSOCIATION FOR FOOD SCIENCE &

TECHNOLOGY (SAAFOST)

1 1. (DEFINITIONS)‘ADDED SUGAR’

Milk and its derivatives are not added to foods for the purposes of sweetening the finished product but rather for functional and often nutritional reasons. As the reason for incorporating the term ’added sugars’ into this regulation is to manage the issue of claims relating to non-addition claims for sugars in general and those relating to sugar free chewing gum, it does not make sense to discourage the addition of milk based ingredients in this manner. Furthermore, sugars derived from milk are rarely if ever found in chewing gum as there is no technical or organoleptic reason for their incorporation in these products.

We note that EFSA does not include milk solids into their definition for added sugars. The term “added sugars” refers to sucrose, fructose, glucose, starch hydrolysates (glucose syrup, high-fructose syrup) and other isolated sugar preparations used as such or added during food preparation and manufacturing.Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for carbohydrates and dietary fibre. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(3):1462

We accept that sugars derived from milk will form a portion of the total sugars as determined for the purpose of preparing nutritional information tables.

SAAFOST 2 1. (DEFINITIONS)‘ANTIOXIDANT AS

ADDITIVE’

Antioxidants are normally used for their functional properties (i.e. prevention of rancidity in fats) and are classified as additives by default. There is thus no need to describe them as such. In those cases where an antioxidant is added as a nutrient (which is far less common), its role is made clear by the use of the term ‘antioxidant as a nutrient’, which we fully accept should be retained.

See also our comments on Regulations 40 and 54(13)(b) belowSAAFOST 3 1. (DEFINITIONS)

‘FAKE FOOD’We do not understand this term and are not aware of any examples of it. There is no provision for it in Codex or in legislation elsewhere in the world. It appears to be only of relevance in terms of


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


prohibition of claims and we suggest that all the other provisions relating to the requirements for making claims are more than adequate without any need for a provision of this sort.

SAAFOST 4 1. (DEFINITIONS)‘FLAVOURING’

It is completely unacceptable that any proposed regulation should refer to other regulations that have not been made available for comment, let alone as final enforceable regulations. This raises significant legal issues.

We reserve our right to request changes to any aspect of these regulations that incorporate issues relating to flavourings once the relevant regulations have been published either for comment or as final enforceable regulations.

SAAFOST 5 1. (DEFINITIONS)GLYCAEMIC

CARBOHYDRATE

While we accept the scientific validity of this term, we have fundamental concerns about its proposed continued use in nutritional labelling. Our comments on this will be dealt with under section 52

SAAFOST 6 1. (DEFINITIONS)GUIDELINES

We wish to point out that this definition raises fundamental legal issues by placing Guidelines outside the scope of the formal legal process of consultation that is applicable to any legislation, by granting the right to arbitrarily change them to the Director General of Health, seemingly without any form of consultation. Any of the current guidelines (and any proposed future amendments to the guidelines) that contain components of a prescriptive rather than advisory nature should thus be incorporated in the regulation itself in order to avoid legal issues.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 7 1. (DEFINITIONS)RECONSTITUTED WHOLE GRAIN

We accept the section of this definition that refers to the physical processes but feel it is unnecessary to refer to potential changes in nutritional properties. If a clause relating to changes in nutritional properties is to be retained, it must be properly quantified as vague statements such as ‘substantial losses in…’ and ‘substantial increase in…’ are insufficiently specific.

If the Department insists on retaining a reference to loss of nutritional characteristics in the definition, we suggest referring to the following before finalising the definition:

Food & Nutrition Research 2014, 58:1-8. The HEALTHGRAIN definition of ‘whole grain’. Jan Willem van der Kamp, Kaisa Poutanen, Chris J. Seal and David P. RichardsonInternational Association for Cereal Science and Technology. Wholegrains task force. Whole grains-issues and deliberations from the Whole Grains Task Force. 2008 [cited 2013 Jan 29]. Available from:www.icc.or.at/working-groups/whole_grain.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 8 1. (DEFINITIONS)STARCH

It is accepted that a distinction needs to be made between modified and unmodified starch but we believe an additional definition for starches that have been modified should be provided, and that for these the term ‘modified starch’ rather than ’chemically modified starch’ should be used. A suggested wording for the definition is attached in column 5. Our rationale for this is that a wide range of modified starches are produced by different processes and not solely by chemical treatment. We recommend that the Department seeks the views of suppliers of these products who will be able to provide further inputs on this matter if required.

Please also refer to our comments on Annexure 1


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 9 1. (DEFINITIONS)WHOLE GRAIN

Incorporation of glycaemic response considerations in this definition is irrelevant as the definition should focus on the physical characteristics.

SAAFOST 10 1. (DEFINITIONS)WHOLE GRAIN

FLOUR

Incorporation of shelf life and glycaemic response considerations in this definition is irrelevant as the definition should focus on the physical characteristics. It also limits the scope for technological innovation aimed at potential improvements to the flour milling process with the objective of improving nutritional quality

SAAFOST 11 4. We are extremely concerned by the over-prescriptive nature of this regulation which effectively prohibits any supplier of foods from providing information to consumers other than that required by law. It is neither practical nor reasonable to prohibit food business operators from conveying any information they wish to their customers, providing that this information is legally acceptable, as is already set out in Regulation 2. In practical terms it would prohibit such information as postal addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail and website details being provided. It would also prohibit the supply of recipes and other broad based information on the products concerned to the public.

SAAFOST 12 9. We welcome the Department’s efforts to clarify the very considerable confusion that exists in the area of legal definitions of food and complementary medicine and acknowledge that this is a global problem, particularly in regard to food supplements.

SAAFoST’s position is that any commercial products consumed solely in concentrated form for the purpose of ingesting micronutrients or other beneficial substances that are required in very small quantities for physiological purposes and which do not perform any role in assuaging hunger or thirst should not be considered as foods.

However we do submit that certain substances other than vitamins and minerals that may be sold in concentrated form as complementary medicines may potentially be incorporated in foods and consumed for the purposes of using the foods as carriers while also imparting the benefits of those


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


other components of the food. We believe that a Regulation such as that proposed in Column 6 would ensure that such foods were adequately regulated.

Note that we also raise the issue of the evaluation of claims in our comments relating to Regulation 62

SAAFOST 13 16(1)(b) While this regulation does not relate to scientific issues, it raises major concerns for many of our


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


Custodian and Institution Members in the food industry and it would be highly remiss of us not to highlight this matter. This regulation will result in massive logistical issues for the food industry and significant increases in the cost of producing and distributing foods due to the need to supply more than one variant of every food and beverage product currently carrying religious endorsements to the public. We strongly recommend that the Department engages in a comprehensive consultation process with affected parties and conduct a full regulatory impact assessment (RIA) on this matter using the guidelines for RIA set out by the Office of the Presidency in 2012.

We also submit that this provision is not incorporated in legislation anywhere else in the world and would encourage the Department to engage with regulatory bodies elsewhere in the world as well as international trade bodies before considering any provisions in this area.

SAAFOST 14 24 We do not understand the requirement for this regulation, as it is already covered by Regulation 12(a)(ii) and Regulation 34(1). It is not clear in any case how the examples of wordings such as ‘basted, basting, self-basting, marinated or marinating, seasoned or seasoning’, all of which are accepted and fully acceptable descriptors, could be used to ‘hide the fact that additives and/or other ingredients were added into raw meat’. If the Department feels this Regulation needs to be retained, we suggest that examples of acceptable and unacceptable usage of these terms should be incorporated as a Guideline.

SAAFOST 15 36(2) We wish to submit certain concerns in regard to changes to the categories of additives in Annexure 1. Please note our comments for this section below.

SAAFOST 16 37(1) Our comments here are the same as those applicable to the definition of ‘flavouring’ in Regulation 1.

It is completely unacceptable that any proposed regulation should refer to other regulations that have not been made available for comment, let alone as final enforceable regulations. This raises significant legal issues.

We reserve our right to request changes to any aspect of these regulations that incorporate issues relating to flavourings once the relevant regulations have been published both for comment and as


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


final enforceable regulations.

SAAFOST 17 40 Anti-oxidants are normally used for their functional properties (i.e. prevention of rancidity in fats) and are classified as additives by default. There is thus no need to describe them as such.

We submit that it is sufficient to use the same format for declaring the presence of antioxidants in a food as is applicable to preservatives under Regulation 39(1) when the antioxidant is being incorporated for functional rather than nutritional reasons.

In those case where an antioxidant is added as a nutrient (which is far less common), its role is made clear by the use of the term ‘antioxidant as a nutrient’, which we fully accept should be retained.

We refer you to the legislative provisions that are applicable in this area in other countries:

EU – must be indicated by category name followed by either E number or specific name as detailed in Annex II of EU Directive 2000/13/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=2nGJTwhVhp2whrrbNJTp03LChKb16dRXvHljQtxhTkq9nsNpLl1R!637608542?uri=CELEX:02000L0013-20110120)

Australia and New Zealand - declared by the name of that class followed by the additive’s prescribed name or code number in brackets as detailed in Schedule 1 of Standard 1.2.4 – labelling of ingredients

USA - The name of an ingredient shall be a specific name and not a collective (generic) name, except that:

(1) Spices, flavorings, colorings and chemical preservatives shall be declared according to the provisions of 101.22.

Outlined in CFR21 Sec. 101.4 Food; designation of ingredients. So antioxidants are NOT singled


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


out.(http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.4)

SAAFOST 18 47(1)(b) We believe there is a typographical error in this section

SAAFOST 19 52(1) We have given considerable thought to the Department’s proposal to continue incorporating glycaemic carbohydrate in nutritional labelling requirements as we accept that glycaemic carbohydrate is a scientifically valid concept. However in the spirit of assisting consumers to obtain and understand scientific information relating to food, we cannot support the incorporation of glycaemic carbohydrate in nutrition labelling tables and request that the tables should simply incorporate total carbohydrate and total sugars (along with dietary fibre). Our reasons for this are purely practical in nature:1. The concept of glycaemic carbohydrate is entirely foreign to consumers and there has been no attempt by the Department or any other body to educate consumers in this area since the introduction of R146.2. The use of glycaemic carbohydrate in nutritional information tables is unique to South Africa and there is no evidence that any other countries intend introducing it as a component of nutritional information tables. It constitutes a Technical Barrier to Trade, particularly as it does not result in any significant benefit to the consumer.3. There is no mention of glycaemic carbohydrate anywhere in Codex, indicating that it is unlikely to become a significant issue in food regulation globally for the foreseeable future.4. Cost of glycaemic carbohydrate analysis is high5. The requirement for glycaemic carbohydrate in nutrition tables causes major problems for imported foods and we suspect that the labels of many imported foods have simply stated the existing values for total carbohydrate determined by difference as glycaemic carbohydrate as they are simply unwilling to undertake the analysis concerned.6. While we accept that lack of compliance should not in itself be a reason for discontinuing the use of glycaemic carbohydrate in nutritional tables (or for that matter any other component of the regulations), the ability of the authorities to enforce complex regulations that bring no benefit to the consumer should however be a consideration.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


Please note that we believe there is a role for glycaemic carbohydrate to play in the calculation of energy values for foods that make certain categories of claims. This is discussed under Regulation 52(13)

SAAFOST 20 52(1) AND POINT 1 OF ANNEXURE 2

The nutritional information format is unaligned with major trading partners which creates a TBT. As a rule, it has been noted that the regulations have been aligned with the EU where possible and we urge the department to also consider doing this for the nutritional information format.1(a) Headings in EU and Australia / NZ are NUTRITION INFORMATION

(3) The text conflicts with the format given in point 1 of Annexure 2. The text reads that the unit of measurement shall appear behind the nutrient or energy values (we understand this to be in columns 2 and 3), while the format shows the unit of measurements directly after the nutrients in column 1. To align we request that the former be adopted

3(a) To accommodate imports please allow the option of indicating calories as KCal in addition to values in kJ

Annexure 2 Point 1 the order of the nutrients is in conflict with that of the EU and Australia / NZ and we request that this be aligned


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 21 52(3)(b) Please note our comments on Regulation 52(13) which require insertion of an additional clause in this section

SAAFOST 22 52(4)(c) We fail to understand why the Department persists in retaining this requirement as it has absolutely no value whatsoever to the consumer. This is not required anywhere else in the world and creates a Technical Barrier to Trade (TBT) We accept that clarity regarding the method used for dietary fibre determination is important scientifically and accept the provisions of Guideline 2 in this regard, however we believe it is entirely pointless to state details of analytical methods on a food label. We would point out that Regulations 52(13)(a) and 52(13)(c) make provision for the use of established analytical methods and require the manufacturer to keep details of the analysis procedures. A further suggestion in this regard is made below in our comments on Regulation 52(13)(c)

SAAFOST 23 52(5)(a) We wish to observe that in some instances the rounding off procedures in this section are in


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


contravention of established globally accepted mathematical principles, namely that any figure less than 5 shall be rounded off to a lower value and any figure of 5 or more shall be rounded off to a higher value. We suggest that the nutritional significance of rounding off nutritional values using established mathematical procedures is negligible and does not justify a frankly petty and unnecessary requirement such as that set out in Regulation 52(5)(a)

We refer you to:Gay, David M. (November 30, 1990). Correctly rounded binary-decimal and decimal-binary conversions. Numerical Analysis Manuscript. Murry Hill, NJ, USA: AT&T Laboratories. 90-10

Please also note the position of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) on this matterFSANZ make it very clear that nutritional information provided on food labels indicates AVERAGE quantities and so specifics are really not significant. However they do provide guidance which is based on sound mathematical principles which could be adopted as shown in column 5. The suggested wordings are derived from the FSANZ guide to food labelling (2012)

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.4049

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.4049


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER



COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 24 52(13)(c) In order to overcome the issue of differing analytical methodologies for determining individual nutrients, we suggest an added clause requiring the analytical method used to specifically be part of the analysis report. This will overcome the issues raised under 52(4)(c) above

SAAFOST 25 52(13) We believe that in a situation where claims are being made that relate to either energy value or carbohydrate content as set out in Regulation 54, there is a case for determining glycaemic carbohydrate by analysis as a means of ensuring accuracy of nutritional information as provided to the consumer, although we still maintain that glycaemic carbohydrate should not be incorporated in nutritional information tables. We therefore propose a specific additional section in 52(13) and an additional Annexure that deals with this issue. The proposed Annexure is set out as a separate


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


document that is enclosed with this submission.

We believe however that for those products which do not contain claims relating to energy and carbohydrate content or do not make any claims, it is sufficient to determine carbohydrate values by difference and energy values for the carbohydrate contribution to total energy by simple application of established energy conversion factors. This is discussed further in the proposed Annexure.

We suggest that, due to the complexity of this matter, SAAFoST and the Department put together a technical working group during the preparatory phase of the final regulations that will consider our proposals and convert them into a final regulation.

SAAFOST 26 52(14)(c) Our proposal for a specific Annexure dealing with the determination of carbohydrate and energy values refers.

SAAFOST 27 52(14)(d) Our proposal for a specific Annexure dealing with the determination of carbohydrate and energy values refers.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 28 53(11) We object to the prohibition on claims for products containing non-nutritive sweeteners for several reasons:1. The primary reason for incorporating non-nutritive sweeteners in food and beverage products is for the purpose of reducing their levels of carbohydrate sweeteners or removing them entirely and thus reducing their energy values. We do not wish to get involved in the debate as to the role of excessive consumption of carbohydrate sweeteners on public health as this is an issue for the nutrition profession to consider, however we do maintain that in fundamental terms the use of any ingredient that reduces the energy value of a food or beverage is to be encouraged as long as it is safe. We refer you to:American Heart Association & American Diabetes Association: Non-nutritive Sweeteners: Current Use and Health Perspectives. Diabetes Care Vol 35 1798-1808 August 2012We thus find it completely incomprehensible that the Department wishes to prohibit statements designed to encourage the reduction of energy intake by consumers as this will result in the inability of manufacturers to communicate the benefits of these products and potentially the disappearance of many of them from the market, resulting in consumers reverting to products sweetened with carbohydrate sweeteners and an increase in consumption of refined carbohydrate and energy intake, which is completely contrary to the public health objectives of the Department.2. We strongly maintain that there are no safety issues that could be considered grounds for limiting the consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners in foods and beverages. The use of non-nutritive sweeteners is regulated under Regulation R733 which in turn requires compliance with those sections of the Codex General Standard for Food Additives 192-1995 (GSFA) which controls the conditions under which food additives, including non-nutritive sweeteners, may be used. The preamble to GSFA states: ‘Only the food additives listed herein are recognized as suitable for use in foods in conformance with the provisions of this Standard. Only food additives that have been assigned an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)or determined, on the basis of other criteria, to be safe by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on FoodAdditives (JECFA) and an International Numbering System (INS) designation by Codex will be


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


considered for inclusion in this Standard. The use of additives in conformance with this standard is considered to be technologically justified’.3. The intake of non-nutritive sweeteners is extremely low due to their high sweetening power and is thus effectively self-limiting. Maximum addition levels are in any case controlled via the GSFA.4. We thus strongly reject this requirement unless the Department can produce significant credible scientific evidence to justify its inclusion. We have been unable to find any evidence in this regard but can refer you to the comprehensive list of non-nutritive sweetener evaluations published by JECFA dated 11/3/2003 which reiterate the regulatory status of non-nutritive sweeteners as specified in the GSFA. We can also if required provide the Department with numerous peer-reviewed articles relating to the toxicological safety of numerous non-nutritive sweeteners

SAAFOST 29 54(13)(b) We refer to our comments on the definition of antioxidants in Regulation 1 and those on Regulation 40. If the phrase ‘antioxidant as a nutrient’ is to be used, provision for it needs to be made in this regulation.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 30 54(14)(f)(i) We believe there is a typographical error in this sectionSAAFOST 31 55(1)(a) We believe that greater flexibility is required in this area for the benefit of consumers, who need to

be able to compare not only different versions of the same food but also foods that are typically eaten as alternatives to a particular food but are not necessarily highly similar in their physical or organoleptic characteristics. An example of this would be a comparison between a savoury biscuit and a slice of bread, which are not different versions of the same food but are considered as alternatives to one another. We believe provision should be made for this and have proposed a suitable amended wording.

SAAFOST 32 55(2) We fail to understand the retention of this clause and the Department’s rationale in doing so. Our position is that it is desirable for consumers to be able to compare all aspects of different foods providing the relevant criteria are met. We specifically support regulation 55(1)(c) relating to relative differences in nutrient content in order that consumers may only be assisted in selecting specific foods with significantly enhanced nutritional characteristics, but believe this should also be applicable to foods with significant physiological benefits due to their content of beneficial nutrients.

SAAFOST 33 60 Our comments on Regulation 53(11) apply here in regard to the proposed prohibition on claims for products containing non-nutritive sweeteners.

SAAFOST 34 62(2) We consider that it is extremely difficult from a technical perspective to reduce the energy content of a food by 40%. While we understand the need for a significant difference in energy value


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


between one version of a food or beverage and another version with a lower energy value, we feel a difference of 25% as prescribed in regulation 55(1) (c) is acceptable for this purpose. A difference of 40%, however desirable it may be in nutritional terms, is not realistic and will result in companies simply failing to produce any products offering potential slimming or weight loss benefits. We will be happy to engage with the Department in terms of the practical technical issues relating to energy reduction in food formulations.

SAAFOST 35 PROPOSED NEW REGULATION 64

We find it unacceptable that no provision is made in R429 for the assessment of any potential new claims relating to nutrition and health related claims for foods. There was considerable expectation from the food science and technology community that provisions of this sort would be made, however it appears that the Department is only considering the approval of potential claims relating to weight management substances.

We wish to point out that weight management claims are only a small portion of the potential future claims for health and nutrition benefits relating to foods and that a wide range of other claims that do not fall under the provisions of R429 have either been approved or are being considered in other parts of the world by bodies such as EFSA, FDA and FSANZ. (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/article13-5.htm). We accept that the Department is unlikely to have sufficient resources at present to assess claims using the protocols adopted by these and similar bodies however this should not be a reason for effectively prohibiting the submission of potential new claims, particularly those that have been approved by other credible regulatory bodies. The onus should be on the Department to source suitable resources for claim assessments from local academic and professional bodies.

We therefore propose the addition of an additional regulation 64 with appropriate adjustment of the numbering of the remaining regulations.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/article13-5.htm


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER



COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 36 65 Our comments in this area will be covered under Guideline 14SAAFOST 37 68 The timeframes for a number of the provisions of this section are completely unrealistic in terms of

practicality. Due to the nature of food industry supply chain systems, it is completely impossible for food companies to instantly alter any aspects of their labelling and advertising immediately after the introduction of revised regulatory requirements without prior knowledge of what the exact wording of the regulations will be. Even a 3 month option is unrealistic due to lead times on amending artwork, printing revised packaging material and running out existing packaging.

Notwithstanding the above, we feel that the general requirement for a 36 month implementation time is excessively generous and would prescribe a 24 month implementation period for all aspects of the regulations, in line with the procedure successfully adopted for regulation R146.

SAAFOST 38 ANNEXURE 1 We note the changes in the categories of additives that may be identified by their category names in a list of ingredients. We wish to comment as follows:1. We do not understand the rationale behind the removal of chewing gum base from the list. The chemical names of chewing gum base material are highly technical and irrelevant to the consumer. It is customary global practice to declare these substances as ‘chewing gum base’’2. We do not understand the rationale behind the removal of chemically modified starch from the list. The chemical names of modified starches are highly technical and irrelevant to the consumer.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


Furthermore native starches undergo modification by means of a number of different mechanisms including physical processing, chemical treatment and enzymatic treatment or a combination of these. We would rather suggest that the term ‘chemically modified starch’ be replaced by ‘modified starch’ as a generic term for all products of this sort and have included a suggested wording for this term in our comments on regulation 1 above. We recommend that the Department seeks the views of suppliers of these products who will be able to provide further inputs on this matter if required.3. We do not understand the rationale behind the removal of enzymes from the list. The names of individual enzymes are often highly technical and irrelevant to the consumer.4. We do not understand the reasons for the removal of herbs, mixed herbs, spices and mixed spices from the list. If this results in a requirement for the names of all the individual herbs and spices in a product to be declared in an ingredient statement, we point out that this is not in line with global practice and will result in lengthy and confusing ingredient statements for products containing herbs and spices.

SAAFOST 39 ANNEXURE 2 See motivation for removal of glycaemic carbohydrate from nutritional information tables under comments relating to regulations 52(13), 52(14)(c) and 52(14)(d) and proposed new annexure

SAAFOST 40 ANNEXURE 2 There is a contradiction between the requirements of regulation 52(4)(b) and the designated layout of the table in sections 1 & 2 of Annexure 2 in terms of the statement of the product as packed or ready-to-consume. We suggest the retention of the statement as a footnote

SAAFOST 41 ANNEXURE 2 See comments relating regulation 52(4)(c) in regard to removal of the method of analysis for dietary fibre from nutritional tables


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


SAAFOST 42 GUIDELINE 7SECTION 4.2.4

There is an error in the reference for the Supplier Information Files as these constitute Guideline 1 and not Guideline 6

SAAFOST 43 GUIDELINE 13PAGE 67

We reiterate our concerns regarding references to the as-yet unpublished Regulations Relating to Flavourings. We reserve our right to request changes to any aspect of these regulations that incorporate issues relating to flavourings once the relevant regulations have been published either for comment or as final enforceable regulations.

SAAFOST 44 GUIDELINE 13PAGES 67, 69

There is a contradiction in the requirements for ‘natural’ as listed on these pages. Section (a)(iv)(aa) prohibits the use of solvent extraction and non-traditional distillation for the production of products to be described as ‘natural’ however in the table on page 69, these processes are specifically permitted for additives.

SAAFOST 45 GUIDELINE 14 While much of this Guideline deals with commercial rather than scientific issues and it is not SAAFoST’s role to become directly involved in commercial matters, we feel that it raises major issues which require comment. These are as follows:1. We object to the tone of much of the introductory section of the Guideline as it is inappropriate to incorporate statements of the type made in pages 76-82 in regulatory proposals. The 2 points listed under ‘Rationale’ on page 82 should constitute sufficient simple scientifically motivated background.2. The lack of definitions of ‘commercial marketing’ and ‘children’ in the Guideline will result in a lack of clarity. The lack of clearly defined age groups for ‘children’ and the use of the term ‘school going age’ are unacceptable.3. We question the addition of further quantitative criteria on pages 83-84 over and above those laid down in the nutrient profiling model. While we will leave detailed commentary in this area to


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


the nutrition and dietetics professions, we wish to observe that many fruits and fruit juices, as well as full cream milk will fail to meet the criteria and yet these are advocated as being preferred choices. Nor can we establish on what basis these additional criteria were determined, as there does not appear to be any quantitative data in this regard in the document from the UK FSA quoted as a reference.4. Much of the text relating to terms such as ‘settings where children gather’ is vague and confusing. If these sorts of terms are to be used, far more detail and removal of ambiguity will be required.

While we hold no mandate for any particular food manufacturer or group of food manufacturers, we feel that the proposals as set out in their current form have major weaknesses and will simply result in confusion coupled with an inability to adequately enforce them. We feel the whole issue of commercial activities in regard to foods for children need to be addressed by a group of suitably qualified persons with a view to introducing measures that are clear, unambiguous and enforceable. This would not necessarily result in any significant reduction in the extent of the proposed regulatory controls but rather in greater clarity and proper substantiation where appropriate.

SAAFOST 46 GUIDELINE 16 We refer to our comments above relating to a proposed new Regulation 64. The provisions of Guideline 16 should be applicable to any proposed new claim submitted to the Department for consideration.


COMMENT

NUMBER


GUIDELINE NUMBER


· web viewefsa journal 2010; 8(3):1462 we accept that sugars derived from milk will form a...

Documents