1ST DRAFT REGULATION: EDIBLE VEGETABLE OILS - Summary of Comments Received
[Request for comments: 24 January 2017 - Due date: 30 April 2017]
PAGENO. / REGULATION / STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS / JUSTIFICATION / DAFF COMMENTS
Pg 2 / Definitions
“cold press” / Align definition of “cold-pressed” in R146 once the regulations are in force / The definition of “cold-pressed” differs from the definition provided in R146. / Noted. It will be appreciated if industry can indicate to DAFF whether maximum temperatures should be included in the definition or not.
Pg 2 / “container” / Replace “carton…” with cardboard – preferably revise the definition entirely. There is a definition for “outer container” – use it or refer to it, but do not rewrite the other definition here. / Agree - The word “carton” will be replaced by the word “cardboard”.The definition has also been further revised by adding additional wording to clarify to the example used in brackets at the end.
“flavour” / Refer to the definition under the FCD Act- E.g. See the definition of flavouring in the draft / The definition not in line with that of a food additive under the FCD Act (and Codex). / Do not agree - Definition will be retained as is.
“food additive” / "food additive" means any substance, regardless of its nutritive value, that is not normally consumed as a foodstuff by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the foodstuff, which is added intentionally to a foodstuff for a technological (including organoleptic) purposes in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or storage of the foodstuff, and results, or may reasonably be expected to result (directly or indirectly) in such a substance, or its by-products, becoming a component of, or otherwise affecting the characteristics of, such foodstuffs and excludes any substance added to foodstuffs for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities or any contaminants and sodium chloride; / Align with R146; proposed definition differs from the one in R146
"food additive" means an enrichment substance, supplement or any other substance as permitted for in the regulations published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972), which may be added to a foodstuff to effect its keeping quality, consistency, colour,
taste, flavour, smell or other technical property (these substances include but is not limited to acids, bases, salts, preservatives, antioxidants, anti-caking agents, colourants, flavourings, emulsifiers, stabilisers and thickeners); / Agree- Definition will be aligned with the flavouring definition
“Modified oil” / “Modified” to be defined / Agree - ‘Modified’ will be defined. Also refer to comments under regulation 7(4)(a) below.
Pg 3-4 / Regulation
3 / The prohibition applies to olive oils that are not “graded and presented according to the grades referred to in Part ll, reg 16”, or do not comply with the “relevant standards and additional compositional parameters for each grade referred to” in regs 17 and 18 of Part ll.
That brings the full array of the lab tests e.tc into play for each person wishing to sell olive oil. / Noted. The onus is on every owner/ manufacturer/ packer/ importer to sample and analyse his/herproducts to ensure compliance with the requirements in Part IV of the draft regulation.
Pg4 / 3 (g) / This entire sentence does not make sense – please check what it is meant to say and reword? / Noted.However, the sentence will remain as is since it is a standard sentence used in almost all of the DAFF regulations and it is also directly linked to regulation 13.
3 (4)(a) &(b) / Appear to be confusingly similar, clarity is requested / Noted.However, the scope of paragraph 3(4)(b) goes further than the use of the registered GI name only, and also includes (i) a translation thereof, (ii) where the GI name is accompanied by words such as ‘kind’, ‘style’, ‘type’,‘imitation’, etc., and (iii) where the GI name is imitated or alluded to.
4(1)(c) / Closures – what does “closed properly” mean? Does it
mean air-tight, spill-proof, e.tc? Failure to comply is a
crime. More thought has to go into the formulation. / Noted. The sentence will however remain as is since it is standard and terminology used in DAFF’s regulations, and its intended meaning is in our opinion clear enough.
5(1)(a) / Each container containing edible vegetable oils shall be clearly and legibly marked and at least in English with the following particulars:
(a) The applicable product designation (i.e. grade
designation or type), 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 2 mm
in height for lower case vowels. / The draft requires the product designation to appear in a letter size of at least 2 mm in height for lower case vowels.
This is in conflict with the required letter size for product names in terms of R146. / Noted.However these are product specific regulations drafted by DAFF in terms of APS Act and these regulations get preference over the general labelling and advertising of foodstuffs regulations of the Department of Health (i.e. regulation R.146 dated 1 March 2010).
Pg5 / 5(1)(c) / …of at least 1 mm in height for lowercase vowels. / Insert lettering in bold for clarification. / Noted. However,we do not agree and the letters will remain as is.
5(1)(g) / …of at least 1 mm in height for lowercase vowels. / Insert lettering in bold for clarification. / Noted. However, we do not agree and the letters will remain as is.
5(2)(a) / The information referred to in sub-regulation (1) (a), (b),
(f) and (g) / Insert (f) as the best before date and batch code is important on the outer carton for traceability. / Agree –Paragraph 5(2)(a) will be amended as proposed.
6(3)(a) / When olive oils or olive-pomace oils are blended with other types of edible vegetable oils, the product designation shall be indicated as follows:
(i)If the oil consists of more than 50% vegetable oil “Blend of (the name/s of the specific types of vegetable oil used) and (the grade of olive or olive-pomace oils used)”
(ii)If the oil consists of more than 50% olive or
olive-pomace oil “Blend of (the grade of olive or
olive-pomace oil used) and (the name/s of the
specific types of vegetable oils used)” / Insert lettering in bold to allow for fair labelling. If the product consists of the majority olive oil, it is fair to allow the olive or olive-pomace oil to be declared first on the main panel, followed by the vegetable oils that are added. / Agree - Regulation 6 will be revised as proposed.
Do not agree – See DAFF comments directly below.
Blend to be included at the beginning of product name. / The word blended shall appear as part of product name as Blend of soya and cotton oil, or Soya and Cotton Oil Blend. Not necessary for blend to be at the beginning of product name.
When olive oil or pomace oils are blended with other
types of edible vegetables oils, the product designation
shall be indicated as “ Blend of (the name/s of the
specific types of vegetable oil used) and (the grade
andpercentage of olive oil pomace oils used). / Olive oils are considers ashealthier oil types. The public/consumers need to be provided with the information to make own, better informed decisions.
This change will be in line with Regulation 6 (3)(b).
Pg 5-6 / 6(3)(a) &(b) / The percentage requirement stipulated in (3)(b) should
also apply to (3)(a) / The consumer should be informed how much of what is in the product they are buying. / Noted. The % requirement will however only be mandatory for blends containing 50% or more olive oil or olive-pomace oil, since DAFF is of the opinion that declaring the presence (%) of olive oil or olive-pomace oilbelow 50% will only be used to l exploit the reputation of olive and olive-pomace oils.
Pg6 / 6(4) / …shall be indicated as “Blend of (the names of the
specific types of vegetable oil used)” or “(the names of
the specific types of vegetable oil used) blend”:
Provided… / Insert lettering in bold to allow for alternate naming that is not misleading (leading with the type of oil). / Agree – The proposed wording will be inserted as proposed.
7(3)(b) / It is not clear if the additions in reg. 7(3)(b) refer to the definitions of positives attributes for olive oils and olive-pomace oils in terms of reg. 15. / Only ‘fruity’ is currently defined under “positive attributes” in regulation 15. The wording was taken from the Australian and SANS 1377 standards, and unless the industry can assist us with definitions for ‘mellow’ and‘robust’ DAFF will have to delete the entire regulation 7(3)(b).
7(4)(a) / When a single type of edible vegetable oil has been
modified by hydrogenation or interesterification, the
applicable product designation shall include the word
interestified or hydrogenated. / Modification is not specific. There is other modification method that can be used for fat modification, i.e. interestification. This is an opportunity to educate and inform consumers. Rather avoid the use of the general word ‘modified’ and use definite words. / Agree - Regulation 7 (4)(a) & (b) will be revised accordingly. New definitions for ‘hydrogenated’, ‘interesterified’ and ‘fractionated’ will also be added.
Where one or more vegetable oils have been modified
or hydrogenated, the ingredients shall include the
words “modified” or “hydrogenated vegetable oil:
hydrogenated canola oil’, ‘modified palm kernel oil. / In terms of clause, 6(4) the draft regulations permit for the types of oils used in a blend to be substituted by the word vegetable oils but provided that the complete ingredients list appears on the container. In light of this, we hereby submit that the same approach is taken on the insertion of the word “modified” or “hydrogenated” in that the words modified or hydrogenated should be indicated in the ingredients list for example “Ingredients: Vegetable oil [hydrogenated canola oil, palm kernel oil] and it should not be required to form part of the product designation. / Noted. However, the ingredients list and how ingredients should be declared fall under mandate of the Department of Health in terms of regulation R.146 dated 1 March 2010.
Pg7 / 8(2) / Remove entirely / Impractical, expensive, out of line with rest of world. / Noted. DAFF does however not agree since it is in line with therequirements in the latest Australian and SANS 1377 standards. The regulation will therefore remain as is.
10 / Align with R146; the regulations include the same provisions for the country of origin indication than R146, but in a different order. / Do not agree since it is aligned with many of the existing DAFF regulations published under the APS Act and will thus remain as is.
Pg8 / 13 (2) / Allow the use of words such as ‘lite’, ‘light’, ‘extra light’
when combined with the word tasting
For example: Extra Light Tasting Olive Oil / The words light are used as a description of the taste and differentiate the olive oils with a lower % of extra virgin olive oil added. Quidding of the extra virgin olive oil and refined olive oil would give customer clear understanding and ensure that they are not being misled. / Do not agree, unless it (extra light tasting)can be clearly defined which in or opinion will be extremely difficult (if not impossible) since the claim is too subjective.
“Restricted Particulars on Containers” of the draft regulations reads:
“The claims “Lite”, “Light”, “Extra Light”, “Reduced”, or any other words having a similar meaning, shall not be marked on a container containing edible vegetable
oils” / The word “claims” in Regulation 13(2) has not been defined in the Regulations and this creates uncertainty as to which elements on a product packaging would constitute a
“claim” under the Regulations. The reference to “shall not be marked on a container containing edible oils” is of
concern.
The Oxford dictionary definition of the word “claim” is: “to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence
or proof” / It is in our opinion not necessary to define “claim” since the word is clearly understood within the context of these regulations as meaning any wording or statement whether used with regard to the production, nature, origin, composition or characteristics of edible vegetable oils.
13 (3) / “No objective of any kind, such as but not limited to “real”, “genuine”, “selected” “pure”, “premium”, “finest”, “super”, etc. shall be used together with the product
designations prescribed for edible vegetable oils” / The Oxford English dictionary defines the word “pure” as:
“not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material”
The reference to the word “pure” in edible oil single ingredient products is factual and informs the consumer that the edible oil product is 100% sunflower oil or 100% soya
bean oil. / Noted. However, we do not agree since the use of the word “pure” creates the impression that the oil concerned is of a --
(a) different or better qualitythan other similar products in the market; and
(b) differentgrade than those grades already provided for in the regulation.
13 (4) / This sub-regulation to include provision for:
“Trademarks or brand names which have been in use on containers or outer containers containing edible vegetable oils prior to insertdate of this regulation, shall not be subject to these restrictions:
Provided that the owner of such trade mark or brand
name shall, on request, provide the Executive Officer
with the necessary written proof in this regard.” / Existing registered trademarks, e.g. “OlivePride”, may possibly be construed to be misleading or create a false impression in relation to an established product “category”, e.g. “BLEND OF CANOLA &/OR MAIZE &/OR SUNFLOWERSEED OILS AND EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE
OIL”. / Agree –The wording will be changed as proposed.
If a trade name which may contain a product designation, or a word that may create a misleading impression of the contents of a container of edible vegetable oils but has been in use before the publication date of these regulations and/or the 1st of January 2007, such trade mark may be marked on the container containing edible vegetable oils blend if:
(a) The registered trade mark is framed clearly on the container; and
(b) An abbreviation of the trade mark symbol that is
permissible under the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993is
marked within such a frame. / Where a certain trademark has been used, with time it becomes synonymous with a particular range of products. Therefore to take on a blanket application of this clause on all tradenames/ trademarks that may be seen to contain a misleading word would be prejudicial to long standing brands. Tradename have been in the trade for a long period of time and consumer have become accustomed and familiar to a particular product and the tradename/trademark, therefore the requirements of clause 13(4) are unreasonable to long standing brands. The regulator is hereby requested to veto the application of clause 13(4) on registered tradenames or trademarks, as per the proposed changes. / Agree – The wording will be changed as proposed, including the indication of the trade mark symbol.
Pg9 / 13 (6) / It is suggested that a narrative should be permissible in respect of “Natural Olive oils” as defined herein, as follows;
“Contains no refined olive oil, and free of additives”. / The producer would, in terms of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, be required to be able to substantiate such a claim. / Noted, however we concur with the last part of the sentence which state that it is allowed in regulations published under the FCD Act.
13 (12) / “…mutatis mutandis…” / Request to use plain and understandable language for the latin words “mutatis mutandis”.
Suggest to include a definition for “advertisement” as per the Consumer Protection Act. / This phrase is consistently used in all DAFF’s regulations published under the APS Act and will remain as is.
The APS Act already defines ‘advertisement’ hence it is not necessary to again include it in the draft regulation.
Remove entirely / Impractical, expensive, out of line with rest of world. Also contradicts SA Olive’s own guidelines / Do not agree and the sub-regulation will remain as is.
Pg 10 / Part II
DEFINITIONS / “free fatty acid content” (FFA) / “free acidity” / “Free acidity” is also a recognizable international term for “free fatty acid content”. / Agree – The definition will be changed as proposed.
“olive oil” / Should say that it is obtained “by mechanical means only’”. / Agree – The definition will be changed as proposed and to bring it in line with regulation 16(1).
“peroxide value” (PV) / Consistency with the addition of the common abbreviation “FFA” for “free fatty acid content”. Suggest doing the same for “peroxide value”. / Agree –The definition will be changed as proposed to ensure consistency.
“pyropheophytin a” (PPP) / Consistency with other definitions including the common abbreviation thereof, e.g. DAG, TAG, etc. / Agree –The definition will be changed as proposed to ensure consistency
15 / “Stigmastadiene” means a steroid hydrocarbon
produced by thermal dehydration of beta-sitosterol
found at low levels in virgin olive oil and crude
olive-pomace oil / Insert definition after the definition for “refining” / Agree - The definition will be inserted as proposed.
Pg 13-14 / 17(1)(c) / Should contain a statement that it shall be refined
before it can be used for human consumption (like
stated in 16 (1) (b). / Even though it is stated in 16 (1) b it should be stated again, just to be clear. / Agree – The statement as proposed will be included for clarification purpose.
17 (1)(2) &(3) / Wording should be ‘where’ instead of ‘shall have’
e.g “where the FFA content is more than 2” should
replace ‘shall have a FFA content of more than 2” / ‘Shall have’ implies positive attributes which is not the case here. / Noted. However do not agree since the wording used is in line with the latest Codexstandards for olive and olive-pomace oils.
17(3)(b)(ii) / …, of not more than 0.3 g/100 g; … / Error / Agree – Values will be amendedas indicated.
…of not more than 0.3 g/100 g / Amend 3.0 g to 0.3 g, to comply with table 4 as well as Codex and SANS1377
(b)(ii) shall have a free acidity, expressed as free oleic
acid, of not more than 3.0 g/100 g; and / Verify if the value is correct. The definition of refined olive-pomace oil in the Codex Alimentarius Standard refers to 0.3 grams per 100g.
Pg 16 / TABLE 1 / For “Content of 2-glyceryl monopalmitate (%), the content values for Edible natural olive oils, Lampante olive oil, Refined olive oil, and Olive oil – Composed of a blend of refined and virgin (or extra virgin) olive oils should be ≤1.5, ≤1.5, ≤1.8, and ≤1.8 respectively. / Error / Agree –The highlighted errors will be amended as indicated.
Stigmastadienes content (mg/kg) for edible natural olive oils to read ≤0.15 / Amend from ≤0.10 to ≤0.15 to bring in line with Codex
Content of 2-glycerol monopalmitate (%) for edible