€¦ · web viewit is either heat treated or non-heat treated as per codex stan 192. meat...

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED WITH DAFF RESPONSES: THIRD DRAFT REGULATION FOR PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS

[Request for comments: 12 April 2019; Due date: 10 May 2019]

REGULA-TION

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION DAFF COMMENTS

Title REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION, PACKING AND MARKING OF heat treated and/or partially heat treated PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR SALE IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The title of the regulation should clearly indicate what products are in scope.

Noted. However, the title proposed draft regulation state clearly which products are regulated in the draft (i.e. Processed meat products) and regulation 2 provides a clear scope of regarding products covered in the draft. Therefore, the title of the draft regulation will be kept as it is.

Regulation 1Definitions “best before” and “use by”

This is not in-line with Codex Accept Codex definition: date of minimum durability

Noted. The words “minimum durability” is synonymous to the “best before” according to regulation R146 of 01 March 2010. The words “minimum durability” will be included to remove any uncertainty.

“cured”Curing includes salting See Codex STAN 192 Noted. However, the intention of

the definition for cured is to specify or emphasize the use of nitrites or nitrates as a curing agent in these products.

"comminuted processed meat product"Adopt the system described in Codex 192

"comminuted processed meat product" means a product comprising of meat pieces that have been reduced in size by either mincing, grinding, chopping, flaking, dicing or emulsifying, with or without other

The classification of meat products has been done internationally

It is not clear what products are included.

Are meatballs considered ‘comminuted

Noted. However, the class comminuted processed meat product in the SANS885 was adopted from Codex 192-1995 and was redrafted to ensure that it is comprehended by the industry with regards to the classes of processed meat.

Noted. However, meatballs will fall

1

REGULA-TION


ingredients, which is then either filled into a casing, formed into a mould or preformed;

processed meat products’? They are not filled into a casing, formed into a mould or preformed.

If comminuted processed meat products are not filled into a casing, formed into a mould or preformed, are they in scope of the regulation?

within the scope of raw processed meat products.

Stakeholders need to take into cognisant of the definition for “processed meat”, as well as the scope of the draft regulation as stipulated in regulation 2. if the products meet the requirements of the definition for processed meat and fall within the scope they will be covered in the draft regulation regardless of whether the products has not be filled into a casing or moulded or preformed.

“edible offal” for poultryDecide if kidneys belong here.

Suggest to include the wording venison in the definition of edible offal in order to avoid confusion.

Most chicken carcasses and thigh pieces contain kidneys. It is not in the definition of meat, neither in the definition of poultry offal. What is it them?

The clarification provided by the Department confirming that edible offal originating from venison/game meats is included in the definition is greatly appreciated. However, suggest to include the wording venison in the definition in order to avoid confusion with respect to products such as venison boerewors, venison sausages, venison patties etc.

Noted. Kidney will be included in the definition for poultry.

In agreement with the proposal will include venison to remove any uncertainty. The definition will refer to edible offal from wild game as set out in schedule 1 of the Meat Safety, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000) which is safe for human consumption.

“heat treatment” and “partial heat treatment”Follow Codex: Do not define these terms. It is either heat treated or non-heat treated as per CODEX STAN 192

Meat proteins change character at 68 Celsius. Below 68 is raw and above 68 is cooked. With these definitions it is possible to prepared a cooked product (=68C to

Noted. However, the definition for “heat treatment” and “partial heat treatment” were taken from SANS885 as it is. The definitions are intended to differentiate

2

REGULA-TION


<72C) which is classified as raw. This is a false.

between the core temperature reached, during processing and the temperatures (heat treatment and partial heat treatment) are use as part of classifying the categories and classes of processed meat products in draft regulation. It should be further noted that partial heat treatment does not refer to raw products or product at raw state. There are other processed meat products which are manufactured without any heat treatments but undergo other processes that qualifies these products to fall within the scope of processed meat products, hence the wording “no or partial heat treated” is used to describe the classes or categories of processed meat products (e.g. uncured biltong, dry wors, Cabanossi).

"lean meat equivalent (%)" (LME %)the percent protein nitrogen content may be from a plant or animal source or both

Therefore, analogues are included, which are then excluded in 2.2.(c). The regulation contradicts itself and various other regulations and continuing international debates on the subject.

Delete 2.2.(c)

"lean meat content (%)" means mass percent of

Therefore, analogues are included, which are then excluded in 2.2.(c). The regulation contradicts itself and various other regulations and continuing international debates on the subject.

Wording should be amended to explain

Noted. A definition for “analogues” or “meat analogues” will be added to remove any uncertainty. Regulation 2(2)(c) will remain in the draft as it is since meat analogues are not covered in the SANS885.

The proposed definition for lean

3

REGULA-TION


nitrogen represented by subtracting the nitrogen contribution from non-meat proteinaceous material present in the product, from the total percent nitrogen analyzed, multiplied by a factor of 30;Lean meat shall be meat without any adhering fat visually lean or 100 grams of meat with less than 10 grams of fat

physical meaning rather than analytical composition.The chemical definition cannot distinguish between the potential nitrogen sources present in the product, for example nitrogen from meat and nitrogen from soya.

meat content is not supported due to the fact that it is limited to only meat and it is not clear with regards to non-meat protein whether they are covered or not as part of lean meat content, hence the proposed definition in the draft regulation distinguish between the non-meat proteinaceous material are excluded from lean meat definition.The proposed methods for determination of lean meat content are internationally recognised and were taken from CODEX STAN 234-1999 (titled: Recommended methods of analysis and sampling). It should be further noted that the proposed draft does make provision for any other international recognised alternative methods providing equivalent results to the once listed on table 5 in the draft regulation.

“meat”Codex CAC/RCP 58-2005 Meat: All parts of an animal that are intended for, or have been judged as safe and suitable for, human consumption.

Meat refers to all edible parts of a slaughter animals, including blood. If a distinction in needed, refer to skeletal muscle meats and organ meats. The heart (an organ) is also muscular tissue. The definition attempts to define parts of a bled, decapitated, skinned and eviscerated carcass, which is skeletal muscle meat, with fat, nerves, etc. (incorrectly referred to “intact” in the definition of "whole muscle processed meat product" : it is not intact; it is not

Noted. However, the definition for whole muscles processed meat product was taken as it in from SANS885. The use of the word ‘Intact’ in the definition refers to the muscles structure of the meat that it is still complete/whole and it can be easily identified.

4

REGULA-TION


attached to bone anymore), and excludes organ meats. Yet, plant proteins may be used to substitute muscle meat proteins, but not organ meats. This needs a total rethink. Furthermore, the use of carcass derived proteins are restricted

"mechanically recovered meat" (MRM)Delete the Calcium content requirement

Within the SANS 885 document under the definition of “meat” there is a statement:Note: MRM should not be abbreviated on the packaging.This statement should also be included in the DAFF document.

The definitions as contained in the Regulations makes reference to ‘Mechanically Recovered Meat (MRM)’.

- It is worth noting that the SANS 885 document specifically states that ‘MRM’ should not be abbreviated on the packaging. The rationale behind this is the fact that consumers do not necessarily understand what the acronyms, such as MRM; MSM; MDM or MBM, refer to.

- Accordingly, we propose that the Regulations

At this defined (guessed) level, only 10% MDM can be included to meet to 0.02% level in raw processed meats.

Consumers do not understand what the acronymns MRM /MSM/MDM or MBM mean. By stating e.g. “Mechanically recovered meat”, consumers are being informed of the ingredients being used in the product.

Noted. The proposal to remove calcium content requirement is not supported. The set limit for calcium content is to ensure that the MRM used for manufacturing of processed meat product is not of lower quality or/and does not contain too much bone.

Noted. However, this is a requirement that falls within the scope of regulation R146 of 01 March 2010 administered by the Department of Health which prescribe requirements for indication of ingredient list.

5

REGULA-TION


should include a requirement that the acronyms referred to above should be listed unabbreviated on the packaging, in order to ensure that the consumers are being informed of the ingredients being used in the product.

“pork rind”Delete this definition

It is a part of the carcass as inspected and approved under the Meat Safety act

Noted. The proposal to delete the definition of “pork rind” is not supported as in the proposed draft certain categories and classes of processed meat product prescribe the levels of added pork rind that can be used in these products.

"processed meat"Delete this definition

It is adequately defined inder the FCD Act. Furthermore this does not correspond to Codex.

Noted. The proposal to delete the definition of “processed meat” is not supported. The definition provides clarity with regards to what is meant by “processed meat” and it is used in the title of the draft regulation. However, it should be further noted that Codex Stan 192-1995 does not define processed meat but provides examples of processed meat products of which are in line with the products covered with in the scope of the proposed draft regulation.

"raw (fresh) processed meat product"Delete “cured or uncured”

"raw (fresh) processed meat product" means a raw meat product obtained from any animal or bird species fit

Cured meats are covered elsewhere. This category was created in FCD Act regulations to describe fresh meats sold with foods and/or utensils other than meat, in order to enforce QUID declarations on “the valuable part”

It is not clear what products are

Noted. However, the inclusion of the words “cured or uncured” in the definition for raw (fresh) processed meat product is to cover the product that have been cured (i.e. nitrate or nitrite has been added – e.g. Russian braaiwors) but fall within the description or definition for raw processed meat products.

Noted. However, the definition was

6

REGULA-TION


for human consumption and that resembles a cut, joint, slice, portion or carcass of meat, cured or uncured, or a combination thereof, pre-packaged or not pre-packed, that has not undergone any heat treatment and where any added ingredient and/or additive and added water, including brine, is retained in or on the product as sold and includes such products presented for sale in the frozen state;

included.

What is considered ‘resembling a cut, joint, slice, portion or carcass of meat’?

Are raw burger patties considered to ‘resemble a cut, joint, slice, portion or carcass of meat’?

taken as it is from SANS 885 and regulation R149 of 01 March 2010, and it has been used as it is ever since therefore the definition will be kept as it is. Furthermore, raw burger patties are considered as a customary portioned product which is produced by firstly comminuting (mincing) meat and non-meat ingredients together and secondly, portioning it into various shapes (round or square or shape that resembles a cut such as ribs e.g. “rib burger”).

"reformed processed meat product" means a product of which the individual visible meat pieces are no smaller than 13 mm, with or without the addition of finely comminuted meat and other permitted ingredients, of which the soluble protein bind the meat pieces together and upon cutting, has the typical appearance of meat muscle;

It is not clear what products are included.

What is considered ‘upon cutting, has the typical appearance of meat muscle’?

These means that the product when it is cut it easily to observe the meat muscle structures.

The word “product name” appears throughout the document, but there is no definition for “product name”.Propose to include a definition and that the wording is as per SANS 885 definition.

The Regulations further makes reference to ‘product name’ at numerous points throughout the document, however there appears to be no definition for this term.

Include a definition to align it with SANS 885, the Standard that covers Processed Meats so that the Regulation and Standard are aligned, and it is clear what “product name” means.

Noted. However, the definition for “product name” will not be included since regulation 9 (1) (a)&(b) deal with the indication of product name in depth, hence including a definition for product name it will be a repetition, since the proposed definition is similar to the requirements prescribed in regulation 9(1) of the draft regulation.

7

REGULA-TION


It is thus proposed that a definition as per the SANS 885 definition is included, as follows:“word or words giving a true description of the nature of the food product concerned, sufficiently precise to avoid misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature, physical condition, type of packing medium, style, condition and type of treatment it has undergone to enable such product to be distinguished from products with which it could be confused.”"whole muscle processed meat product"Adopt the system described in Codex 192

The classification of meat products has been done internationally

Noted. However, the class whole muscle processed meat product in the SANS885 was adopted from Codex 192-1995 and was redrafted to ensure that it is easily comprehended by the industry with regards to the classes of processed meat.

Regulation 2Scope of regulations2. (1) These regulations shall apply only to the categories and classes of heat treated and/or partially heat treated processed meat products referred to in regulation 4 and intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa to which and under circumstances in which a prohibition in terms of section 3 of the Act regarding the sale of processed meat products apply.

(2) These regulations shall not apply to the following foodstuffs:

(a) Canned meat products as defined in the compulsory specification for the manufacture, production, processing and treatment of canned meat products published under the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act, 2008 (Act No. 5 of 2008).

The scope of the regulation is not sufficiently clear.

Need to clearly agree and define scope more precisely – what is in scope and what is excluded – product examples would assist to provide the clarity.

Propose that scope only includes heat or partially heat treated, ready to eat processed meat product.

All products that contain meat as an ingredient, e.g. meat pies, ready meals, sandwiches, etc. must be excluded.

Any processed meat product that contains ingredients such as added vegetables must be excluded from the

Noted. However, the proposal to include the wording in red is not supported as this will create a contradiction and confusion.

Provision for product such as meat pie, ready meals, sandwiches etc. or where processed meat product is used as an ingredient of a foodstuff will be made to be excluded from been regulated. However, For processed meat containing added vegetables provision to exclude such product will not be possible as the added vegetable is regarded as an ingredient of the processed meat

8

REGULA-TION


(b) Raw (fresh) processed meat products.

(c) Analogue products or non-meat based products that in general appearance, presentation and intended use correspond to processed meat products (e.g. vegan or vegetarian type processed products).

(d) Heat treated and/or partially heat treated food products that contain a portion of meat.

regulation as the product will not meet the compositional requirements.

Refer to a limited number of product examples at the end of this document.

product.

(2) (2) (c)Add a definition for analogue products. If using words in the regulation need

give definition.In agreement with the proposal to add a definition for “analogues products”

Regulation 4Rewrite this section in accordance to Codex 192 Already described internationally Noted. Please refer to our above

response to definition for “communited processed meat” and “whole muscle processed meat product”. However, the classes of processed meat products in the SANS885 were adopted from Codex 192-1995. SANS 885 was thus used as the basis for the compilation of the draft regulation for processed meat products.

Regulation 5General standards for processed meat products (2) The percentages indicated in Tables 1, 2 and 3 in

regulation 6 apply to all ingredients that form part of the meat component of the final packaged product. Any sauces, marinades, vegetables, or other similar added ingredients which form part of

Processed meat products themselves may contain sauces, marinades, vegetables and other ingredients.

For example, meatballs with hidden

Noted. However, regulation 5(2) implies that in the case of processed meat product is marinated or deep in a marinate, sauce or vegetables are added

9

REGULA-TION


the final product and/ packaged product shall be excluded when verifying compliance: Provided that if such additions form part of the final packaged product, the principle of QUID (quantitative ingredient declaration) will apply to the ingredient declaration on the labelling of the final packaged product.

veg, marinaded kebabs, butter basted rotisserie chicken

prior to packaging for verification of compliance purposes the marinade or sauce or vegetables will not be considers as part of the processed meat products but it still need to be QUID according in the ingredient list.

Regulation 66(1) (a) and (e) are contradictory (a) and (e) are contradictory Noted. However, the sub

paragraph 6 (1) (a) refers to added pork rind whereas subparagraph 6(1)(e) refers to rind that is already part of the meat and is not added as an ingredient in the whole muscle processed meat product.

Table 1 Standards for classes of whole muscle processed meats.

Class 2: Whole muscle, heat treated or partial heat-treated products.

Add Cooked Roast beef.Add Cooked roast Pork.

Carpaccio is not a heat-treated product therefore should not be listed under this class of products

The term Roast beef or Roast pork is used for uncooked roast products too, so clarity is needed as the class is for heat treated products.

Noted. However, the example of carpaccio classified as a whole muscle, uncured and heat treated or partial heat treated product was adopted from SANS885.The term roast beef or roast pork may not be used for uncooked roast beef or pork products unless regulation 9 of the draft regulation is complied with.

Class 3, 4 and 5Is it necessary to regulate the fat content of the

biltong or droëwors?

Carcasses are sold with different grades of lean meat to fat ratios, what must be done with the carcasses whose fat content is more than the regulated?

Also, some customers have different preferences to their biltong or droëwors, taking away the customer’s ability to choose.

Noted. Biltong and droëwors are regarded as processed meat products and It will be advisable for producers or manufacturers of biltong product containing high amount of fat to ensure that their products comply with the proposed stipulated compositional parameters concerned.

10

REGULA-TION


The cost implication will also land with the customer as there will be need for product testing.

Table 2Limitation on gelatinDelete the column with heading “gelatin”

Any form of protein nitrogen seems to be acceptable as substitute for animal protein, including allergens such as soya and wheat gluten. There is no reason to limit the use of a carcass derived protein. Gelatin is a foodstuff, as is soya and wheat and must be permitted if soya and wheat is permitted.

Noted. However, the proposed categories, classes and sub-classes of processed meat products were taken as is from the SANS 885 standard. The table will be kept as it is.

STANDARDS FOR CLASSES OF COMMINUTED PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS

Class 4 Standards for classes of commuted processed meat products and heat-treated products Note: Brawn produced from uncured meat is included.

Suggestion that both cured and uncured brawn should have a maximum added gelatin (column 8) of the same ratio because the process is the same.

It does not make sense why the Brawn from cured should have 10% and uncured meat with 0% when the process is the same both involves moulding with gelatine.

Noted. Provision will only be made for uncured brawn produced product to contain a maximum of 10% gelatine.

6(4)(a)

Coated processed meat products shall –Consist of a minimum core of 50 percent of any of the products falling within the categories of whole muscle processed meat products, comminuted processed meat products, reformed processed meat products or unspecified processed meat products of which the surface has been covered with pre-dust, batter or breading (or any combination thereof); and

Tell us what the “core” is as it is not very clear whether it refers to the TME or lean meat content please clarifies on that.

Noted. However, the core refers to all the compositional specifications (i.e. TME, total meat content, lean meat content, fat content, added gelatine, pork rind, defeathered chicken skin.) as specific for all the categories of whole muscle processed meat products, comminuted processed meat products, reformed processed meat products or unspecified

11

REGULA-TION


The term “core” should either gets replaced or be included in the definition.

processed meat products. Therefore it not necessary to include a definition for core.

(5) (a) Unspecified processed meat products shall –

(i) consist of processed meat products which are not defined in subregulations (1), (2), (3) and (4); and

(ii) have a minimum total meat equivalent of 60%, and the fat content (analysed) shall not exceed 30%.

(b) The proposed compositional standards and product name for every ‘unspecified processed meat product’ shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Officer for written approval prior to importing or selling such product in the Republic of South Africa.

(c) The Executive Officer may consult persons with specialised knowledge and experience regarding the proposed compositional standards received: Provide that –

(i) the secrecy provisions set out in section 9 of the Act shall be adhered to;

(ii) the persons consulted shall not have any direct or indirect personal interest in the product concerned; and

(iii) the credentials of the persons consulted may be made available to the seller, manufacturer and/or brand owner on request.

The proposed vetting system for unspecified processed meat products is too onerous. How long will this approval process take?

Compositional requirements cannot be established for unknown products.

If a compositional requirement is specified, the category is no longer ‘unspecified’.

Noted. The department will always strive to make the processes swiftly. The limit set out (TME and fat content) for unspecified processed meat products is to ensure that the quality of these products is not compromised. Therefore, the Executive Officer will need to ensure that any unspecified processed meat product present for sale the at least meets the minimum compositional requirement.

6(5) (b) & (c)For verification purposes and to

12

REGULA-TION


The proposed compositional standards and product name for every ‘unspecified processed meat product’ shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Officer for written approval prior to importing or selling such product in the Republic of South Africa.

The Executive Officer may consult persons with specialised knowledge and experience regarding the proposed compositional standards received: Provide that –

The secrecy provisions set out in section 9 of the Act shall be adhered to; the persons consulted shall not have any direct or indirect personal interest in the product concerned; and

The credentials of the persons consulted may be made available to the

Seller, manufacturer and/or brand owner on request.

Suggesting that above aforementioned regulation should be removed.

Unspecified processed meat products have already been regulated in 5 (a) (i) (ii)

Why should the composition and product name be submitted if the “unspecified processed meat product has already been formulated to the regulation.

ensure that the product does meet the requirement specified in regulation 6(5).

Regulation 7

Regulation 88(1) (d) Marking of container and outer containers

The date marking (i.e. “best before” or “use by” or “sell by” date) or batch code or bath number.

The wording “…or…”must be replaced with “… and the batch code or batch number”

Please note that in terms of R146 batch identification must be placed on the packaging in addition to date marking:“Batch identification11. A container of a foodstuff

Noted. However, the date marking and batch identification in the proposed draft regulation is for traceability purposes since some manufactures of processed meat product uses date mark as a batch

13

REGULA-TION


shall be clearly marked with a batch number in such a way that the specific batch is easily identifiable and traceable unless otherwise stipulated in terms of regulations published under the Agricultural Products Standards Act, 1990 (Act No. 119 of 1990) and the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act, 2008 (Act No.5 of 2008).Date marking12. (1) No person shall import, manufacture, sell, distribute or donate a foodstuff unless a date marking is clearly indicated on the label or container of such foodstuff, except those foodstuffs indicated in Annexure 4.(2) The date shall be preceded by appropriate words "best before" and/or "use by", and/or "sell by", depending on the nature of the product; Provided that abbreviations shall not be permitted, except "BB" for "best before" but the preceding words shall be written out in full.”

The wording “…or…” must be replaced with “…and…” in order to ensure that the packaging complies with the requirements of R146 and also prevent a perishable product from only indicating the batch code/batch number.Furthermore, the wording “or”

code and are able to trace the products. Stakeholders should take note that product specific regulations published under the Agricultural Products Standards Act, 1990 (Act No. 119 of 1990 –APS Act) take precedence over the general labelling and advertising of foodstuffs regulations (R.146) of the Department of Health.

14

REGULA-TION


gives the option to exclude the “Best before” date which can be dangerous especially with respect to perishable products. A consumer will want to know the “Best before” date and not the sell by/batch code/batch number.

8 (1) (b)The additions to the product name where applicable, prominently on the main panel in letters of the same type, colour and font, and on a contrasting background in a letter size of at least 3 mm in height for lower case vowels: Provided that the difference in letter size between the smallest letter in the product name and smallest letter in the additions to the product name indication shall not exceed 2 mm.

Proposal: Rather use the description for letter sizes as per R146 Regulation 8 that states:

“Words which qualify the name of such foodstuff or which are an essential part of the description thereof shall be in prominent, distinctive, legible letters of the same size, font, colour, prominence and legibility not less than one third of the letter size of the biggest letter of the name, …

The main point is to ensure that the additions to a name are clear to the consumer and R146 has a better description for this and the R146 definition is easier to follow and comply with.

Noted. However, regulation 9 (1) (a)&(b) deal with the indication of product name in depth with regards to how the product name should be indicated on the label to ensure that the consumer is not mislead. It should be further noted that product specific regulations published under the APS Act take precedence over the general labelling and advertising of foodstuffs regulations (R.146 of 01 March 2010) of the Department of Health.

Regulation 8(1)(b) of the Regulations states the following:“The additions to the product name where applicable, prominently on the main panel in letters of the same type, colour and font, and on a contrasting background in a letter size of at least 3 mm in height for lower case vowels: Provided that the difference in letter size between the smallest letter in the product name and smallest letter in the additions to the product name indication shall not

15

REGULA-TION


exceed 2 mm.”It is submitted that the Regulations make use of the parameters for letter size as contained in R146 regulations, which state:“Words which qualify the name of such foodstuff or which are an essential part of the description thereof shall be in prominent, distinctive, legible letters of the same size, font, colour, prominence and legibility not less than one third of the letter size of the biggest letter of the name…”It is submitted that this would be a clearer and more distinct manner in which to ensure that the consumer can distinguish between products, and more particularly would be easily understood and complied with by processors/manufacturers.Draft 2 states:

(e) The ingredients list, where applicable in the manner prescribed in the regulations published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972)

Draft 3 – This statement has been removed and it is a legal requirement to have an ingredients list on a container.

Documents needs to be tracked, i.e. tracking changes must be included to prevent key information from being omitted from the various Drafts that are sent for comment

Noted. The regulation was removed due to the fact that it is not DAFF mandate to regulate or monitor ingredients declaration on labels; however it should be noted that the declaration of the ingredient list need to comply with the requirements in regulation R146 of 1 March 2010.

Draft 2 of the Regulations stated the following:“e) The ingredients list, where applicable in the manner prescribed in the regulations published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972).”We note that Draft 3 of the Regulations has had this regulation removed in its entirety. It must be borne in mind that it is a legal requirement to include an ‘ingredients list’ on a container. It is our submission that the various drafts need to be tracked, i.e. tracking changes must be included to prevent key information from being omitted from the various Drafts that are sent for comment.8(1)(e)The country of origin in a letter size of at least 1

mm in height: Provided that in the case

In 8.2.2 already explains the requirements for the outer container.

Noted. However, the provision is made for bulk processed meat products originating from different

16

REGULA-TION


where processed meat products originating from two or more countries are packed in an outer container, all the countries of origin shall be declared on such outer container.

Delete “outer” in front of container.

countries and are pre-packed in one country, all the countries of origin will need to be declared on the outer-container and the container will have one country of origin.

8.(3)(a)&(b)Notwithstanding the provisions in sub regulation

(1), processed meat products labelled with a scale label only shall be marked at least with the following particulars:

The information referred to in sub regulation (1) (a), (b), (d) and (e) in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height.

The name and telephone number of the manufacturer, packer, importer, seller or person or entity on whose behalf the product has been packed in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height.

Is the above regulation really necessary for deli “e” to be on the scale label?

Not Practical for processed meats to have all the outlined information on the scale label, will add cost to the final product. The information can be available at the counters where processed meats.

Noted. The requested information is necessary in the cases of (a) pre-packed processed meat products labelled with scale label only, to assist the consumer to make an inform decision (b) processed meat products presented for sale in the deli display/ counter the scale label will need to include the information to ensure that the consumer is well aware of the products purchased in case were the product is not immediately consumed. It should be further noted that the information required on the scale label is possible to have it on this type of label as this has been a requirement for Poultry meat labelled with only scale label.

8 (3) (B) The name and telephone number of the manufacturer, packer, importer, seller or person or entity on whose behalf the product has been packed in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height.

Why would a scale label require a phone number?

Due to the limited space in the scale label to indicate the physical address whereas, a telephone number may be accommodated easily in the scale label as it requires less space.

Regulation 9Indicating the appropriate product name Whilst product names must consider Noted. However, the examples of

17

REGULA-TION


9. (1) The product name of a processed meat product shall be –

(a) the most appropriate name for the product considering the class, or where applicable the sub-class, concerned (refer to the examples in the last columns of Tables 1, 2 and 3); or

(b) in the case of the category “unspecified processed meat products” the name and/or description approved by the Executive Officer in terms of regulation 6(5)(b).

the categories and classes or process meat established in this regulation, product names cannot be limited to the regulatory categories and classes.

product name provided in the regulation is to assist stakeholders to easily categories/classify they product in the various categories and classes and they are not limited to only the examples provided in the draft regulation.With regards to 9(1)(b) we are in agreement with the proposal to include the word “name and/or” as indicated in red.

9.1(b)Not necessary for the Executive officer to

approve.Regulation 5(a)(i)(ii) already

specifies the requirements for “Unspecified processed meat products”

Noted. However, the Executive Officer still needs to verify if the unspecified product is not covered under the categories and classes of processed meat products provided for in the draft regulation as well as to ensure that the set standards for unspecified processed meat products are conformed to.

9.2Not practical on foods with scale labels The information can be made

available at the counters where processed meats are sold..

Noted. Please refer to our above response regarding regulation 8(3)(a)&(b) on page 15 relating to scale labels.

Regulation 1010.(1)(2)(3)(4)Additions to the product name Not practical for as the scale label

has limited space, suggestion is to have the required information at the counter.

Note. Please refer to our above response regarding regulation 8(3)(a)&(b) on page 15 relating to scale labels. Furthermore, regulation 10(3) is optional which is the only requirement that may take

18

REGULA-TION


more space and regulation 10(1) (2) & (4) are mandatory if the processed meat is subjected to this condition.

Regulation 11

Regulation 1212(2)Country of Origin The scale is too small; changing of

the scale labels will impact to the cost at the consumer.

Noted. However, it is possible to include the country of origin on scale labels and it is mandatory for scale labels.

Regulation 13

Regulation 14 Restricted particulars on containers and outer containers

Regulation 15Restricted particulars on containers and outer

containers15. (1) (a) No product name other than the name

applicable appropriate to the category and the class or sub-class of processed meat product contained in a container, shall be marked on such a container: Provided that product names of other classes or sub-classes of processed meat products from the same manufacturer indicated for the sole purpose of nutrient content comparative claims and/or promotion shall be allowed on the side panel or back panel of a container and shall be accompanied by wording such as but not limited to “also try these products in our range”, etc.

(6) No claim which compares the total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar, sodium or salt, or energy value of two or more similar processed meat products by using words such as "reduced", "less

15 (6) (b) nutrient comparative claims requires the product used for the comparative claim to be identified.

Noted. However the word “applicable” is a synonym with the word “appropriate”. Provision will be made to only indicate comparative claims on the side panel or back panel of a container.

19

REGULA-TION


than", "fewer", "light" and "lite", or words having a similar meaning, shall be made on the container or outer container thereof, unless the following conditions are complied with:

(a) The processed meat product shall be compared with a different version of the same or similar product.

(b) The processed meat product being compared shall be clearly marked on the container with the following information:

(i) A statement of the amount of difference in the energy value or relevant nutrient content, expressed as a percent.

(ii) The identity of the processed meat product to which it is being compared in close proximity to or as part of the comparative claim.

(c) The comparison shall be based on a relative difference of at least 25% in the energy value or nutrient content of an equivalent mass or volume.

(d) The processed meat product shall be marked with the prescribed nutritional information declaration required in terms of the regulations published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972).

15 (6)(b)(c)(d)Suggestion:

Remove from restricted particulars and add on marking requirements

These are marking requirement and should be included on Regulation 8 marking requirements.

Noted. However, the restricted particular (i.e. comparative claims) were taken as it from regulation R.146 of 1 March 2010 and are part of restricted particulars. The comparative claims will remain in the draft regulation under restricted claims.

20

REGULA-TION


Regulation 16Suggestion:

Add (f) Sample integrity shall be retained from the point of collection till tested.

E.g. Chilled products need to be placed in a clean cooler box with ice inside.

Noted, however, including the proposed subparagraph will result in a repetition of subparagraph 16 (1) (c).

Obtaining a Primary Sample

(1) The following procedure shall be followed when a sample is taken by an inspector in terms of the powers conferred on inspectors under the Act:

(a) The owner or his manager or agent or other person under whose care the relative article is shall, as soon as practicable after the sample has been obtained, be notified by the inspector of the sampling and of the purpose thereof. If the sample is not paid for, this notification shall be in writing.

(b) In the case of an article where the opening of the package would not hamper analysis or examination, the inspector shall, if the person referred to in (a) is present, offer to divide the sample into three approximately equal portions and to furnish him with one portion.

(i) If the offer is accepted, the sample shall be divided and each portion packed separately, sealed and labelled to indicate its nature and to identify it as a portion of the original sample. One of the portions shall be handed to the person referred to in (a), one sent to an analyst for analysis or examination and one carefully kept by the inspector until the case has been finalised. If the contents of one package are not sufficient for analysis or examination if divided as aforesaid, additional packages, the property of the same person, similarly labelled and purporting to contain a similar article, shall be obtained and the contents of two or more such packages shall then and there be mixed by the inspector and the

Sampling should include notification that a sample has

been taken splitting a sample to provide a

sample for the product owner, and a retention sample for potential future reference

transporting the sample under appropriate conditions, e.g. maintaining cold chain

Noted. However, Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with the designated Assignee (i.e. the Agency For Food Safety) as soon as the draft regulation has been promulgated with regards to development of a more detailed process/procedure for inspections which will outline SOP for inspection, fees, inspection frequencies etc.

21

REGULA-TION


mixture divided and dealt with as provided.(ii) If the offer is not accepted, the undivided sample shall be packed, sealed, labelled with a special label to indicate its nature and to identify it and sent to an analyst for analysis or examination.

(c) In the case of a perishable article in a sealed package or where no person referred to in (a) is present or where the opening of the package would hamper analysis or examination, a similar procedure to that described in (b) (ii) shall be followed.

(d) The label of every sample submitted for analysis shall indicate whether or not the sample was divided.

(e) The original label of the package, if any, or a copy thereof shall accompany the sample sent to the analyst.

(f) In the case of milk or cream, the preservative tricresol, issued by the Department of Health in sealed packets each containing three tubes of the preservative may be added. Where the addition of a preservative is considered advisable and the sample is not divided the contents of all three tubes shall be added to the sample; where the sample is divided the contents of one tube shall be added to each portion of the divided sample. If a person referred to in (a) is present, the preservative shall be taken out of the sealed package and added to the sample in his presence and he shall be informed of the nature of the preservative.

(h) Samples for bacteriological analysis shall be taken with sterilised equipment and transferred to sterile sample containers taking precautions to prevent the contamination of the samples. The sample container shall be stoppered and, within 15 minutes of the sample being taken, shall be

22

REGULA-TION


surrounded by crushed ice or other suitable refrigerant which comes into contact with the container and is capable of reducing the temperature of the sample to and maintaining it until delivered to an analyst at a temperature not exceeding 7 °C. On arrival at the laboratory the temperature shall not be above 7 °C. At no time shall the sample be frozen.

(GNR.2162 of 16 November 1973: Duties of inspectors and analysts, Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, Act 54 of 1972))

ADDITIONALCOMMENTS

We do not agree with the regulation of processed meat product nor the compositional standards.

The SANS 885 should remain a voluntary standard.R.146 allows for clear labeling and QUID which enables the customer to make informed decisions.This proposed regulation limits innovation, add cost to industry and ultimately negatively impact the customer.

Noted. The association representing the processed meat product producers (i.e. SAMPA) approached DAFF to request that the voluntary compositional standards in SANS 885 be made mandatory. SANS 885 was thus used as the basis for the compilation of the draft regulation for processed meat products.

The proposed draft regulation does make provision for new or innovative processed meat products under the category “unspecified processed meat products” if they do not fit into any of the other categories and classes or sub-classes of processed meat products.

In the case of a food service outlet, e.g. a Restaurant or Take-away facility that has purchased Processed Meat products (e.g. a

Please clarify. The proposed draft regulation will not monitor only the final product presented for sale also the

23

REGULA-TION


partially heat-treated product like a Crumbed Chicken Burger) from a food company, will this product be sampled/tested at the outlet in the uncooked (raw) state, or Ready to eat/fully cooked state.This is an important question because SANS 885 was designed to evaluate the product in the raw state. Therefore, the inspection of a “reformed product” for example would determine whether it contained pieces bigger than 13 mm in the raw state. Such checks cannot be made on the product in the cooked state because the protein would be coagulated into one mass and it would be impossible to determine if the original product had pieces bigger than 13 mm present.

processing stage may be monitored depending on the manufacturing process of the processed meat product, since the draft regulation uses the manufacturing processes of processed meat products to classify and categories processed meat products. Hence, at any stage of production of processing meat products (raw or cooked state) inspection may be performed for example in the case of reformed processed meat products the inspection will be conducted on the raw state of the product to determine whether the products complies with the definition for reformed processed meat products.

Sampling of processed meat product will be subjected to the nature of the processed meat product as classified and categorised in the draft regulation for processed meat product sold at outlets such as restaurants or take-away facilities. The assignee inspector will determine how inspection is done for such products obtained from the above-mentioned outlets. Hence, Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with the designated Assignee (i.e. the Agency For Food Safety) as soon as the draft regulation has been promulgated.

Assignees - Who is the Assignee that will be Please clarify. The designated Assignee is the

24

REGULA-TION


mandated to monitor the enforcement of this Regulation. What is the fee structure and frequency of sampling and testing? What is the skill level of the Assignees appointed to inspect the products? Will there be meetings between the Assignees and relevant stakeholders to discuss these concerns? Where is the inspection of products going to take place? Production facility or at point of sale? Is product sampled/evaluated in the uncooked/raw or cooked state?

Agency For Food Safety and the industry is encouraged to engage with the Assignee with regards to inspection fees and inspection frequencies and the skill level of the Assignee etc. In this way costs for enforcement of the proposed regulations could be reduced to the minimum.Once the draft regulation has been promulgated the assignee inspector will engage with all affected stakeholders/industry to discuss the enforcement of the proposed regulations.With regards to where inspection of products is going to take place and sampling of products in raw or cooked state – please refer to our response above.

4.1 Our previous submission to the Department, dated 29th November 2018, made reference (at paragraph 5.8 thereof) to the fact that there was no indication of what point at which the Regulations would be applicable to products manufactured for the Food Service Industry.4.1.1 The responses to our comment stated that the monitoring will be of the final product presented for sale (however inspectors may visit and inspect any point in the production of such products).4.1.2 The point which we seek clarity on can best be described as follows: In the case of a food service outlet, e.g. a restaurant or take-away facility that has purchased processed meat products (e.g. a partially heat treated product like a crumbed chicken burger) from a food company - will this product be sampled/tested at the outlet in the uncooked (raw) state, or ready to eat/fully cooked state?4.1.3 This is an important consideration because SANS 885 was designed to evaluate the product in the raw state. Therefore the inspection of a “reformed product”, for

Noted. Please refer to the two above responses which provided clarity regarding the issues raised in your comments.

25

REGULA-TION


example, would determine whether it contained pieces bigger than 13 mm in the raw state. Such checks cannot be made on the product in the cooked state because the protein would be coagulated into one mass and it would be impossible to determine if the original product had pieces bigger than 13 mm present.Our previous submission to the Department made reference (at paragraph 5.7 thereof) to the fact that there was no clarity regarding the proposed competent authority who will be mandated to enforce these Regulations.4.2.1 The responses to our comment stated that a specific government department or such entity designated by such government department will be appointed as the competent authority.4.2.2 It is still unclear as to who the competent authority (i.e. Assignee) will be. Further questions arise as to the following:(i) What is the fee structure and frequency of sampling and testing?(ii) What is the skill level of the Assignees appointed to inspect the products?(iii) Will there be meetings between the Assignees and relevant stakeholders to discuss these concerns?(iv) Where is the inspection of products going to take place (Production facility or at point of sale)?(v) Is product sampled/evaluated in the uncooked/raw or cooked state?

Noted. Please refer to our response above.

PRODUCTS IN OR OUT OF SCOPE?HEAT TREATED MEATBALLS WITH 29 % HIDDEN VEG

READY TO HEAT MEAL WITH HEAT TREATED MEATBALLS

Heat treated meatballs with 29% hidden veg – Falls within the scope of processed meat products under category and class comminuted processed meat products

Ready to heat meal with heat treated meatballs – Does not fall within the scope of processed meat product due to the fact that cooked meat balls are used as an ingredient in the manufacturing of the foodstuff.

26

REGULA-TION


ROTISSERIE CHICKEN

READY TO EAT HEAT TREATED MEAT PIES

READY TO EAT (HEAT TREATED) KEBABS

Rotisserie chicken and heat treated kebabs – Falls within the scope of processed meat products under category and class whole muscle processed meat products

Meat pie – Does not fall within the scope of processed meat product.

27