Template for Comments

Template for comments

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
oRGANISATION/COMPANY NAME (aBBREVIATED NAME WHERE APPLICABLE) / COMMENT NUMBER / rEGULATION or ANNEXURE or GUIDELINE NUMBER / jUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE / PROPOSED WORDING OF 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. / Remove ‘…whey powder, milk solids or any derivative thereof’. Add ‘It does not include any monosaccharides or disaccharides derived from milk that are added to a foodstuff either directly or via an ingredient derived from milk’
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) below / Delete ‘as an additive’
SAAFoST / 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 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. / Delete entirely
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. / No suggestions for wording change but period for comment for these regulations should be extended until such time as the Regulations for Flavouring have been published, if only for comment.
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. / Either:
Add after ‘…by the Director General’ the words ‘after the appropriate legal process of consultation’
Or:
add the sentence: ‘Guidelines do not have formal legal status and are used for advisory purposes only’
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 definitionof ‘whole grain’. Jan Willem van der Kamp, KaisaPoutanen, Chris J. Seal and David P. Richardson
International Association for Cereal Science and Technology. Wholegrains task force. Whole grains-issues and deliberations from theWhole Grains Task Force. 2008 [cited 2013 Jan 29]. Available from:
/ Either: Delete the section ‘with substantial losses in essential minerals, vitamins and phytonutrients and a substantial increase in the Glycaemic Index value, when compared to the intact whole grain kernel’
Or: replace the section with relevant wording from the Healthgrain definition where allowances are permitted as follows:
‘Small losses of components - that is, less than 2% of the grain / 10% of the bran - that occur through processing methods consistent with safety
and quality’
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 wordingfor 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 / Remove the word ‘chemically’
We suggest the following definition for ‘modified starch’ should be inserted in the appropriate position in Regulation 1:
‘Modified starch’ is an edible starch that no longer possesses the functional characteristics of the native starch from which it is derived due to any physical, enzymatic, chemical or other process that has been used to modify its properties.
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. / Remove the words ‘…and inherently have a low glycaemic response’
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 / Remove all the words from ‘usually having a short shelf life…’ onwards
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. / Delete in its entirety
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 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 / Delete ‘or special ingredient’ from 9(b)
Add an additional section:
‘A special ingredient with beneficial properties which may also be separately marketed as a complementary medicine in its pure or concentrated form shall be permitted for use in foods provided that the efficacy of the ingredient and any claims related to it when incorporated at appropriate levels in the food or foods concerned have been evaluated and approved either by means of the procedures set out in Guidelines 15, 16 & 17 or by an approved international regulatory body, and that the foods concerned comply with all other requirements of these regulations’
SAAFoST / 13 / 16(1)(b) / While this regulation does not relate to scientific issues, it raises major concerns for many of our 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. / Delete in its entirety
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. / Delete in its entirety or provide examples of acceptable and unacceptable usage of these terms in 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. / See comments on Annexure 1
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 final enforceable regulations. / No suggestions for wording change but period for comment for these regulations should be extended until such time as the Regulations for Flavouring have been published, if only for comment.
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 (
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 out.
( / Remove the words ‘as an additive’
SAAFoST / 18 / 47(1)(b) / We believe there is a typographical error in this section / Amend the first line to read ‘equal to or more than…’
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 high
5. 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.
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) / Replace ‘glycaemic carbohydrate’ with ‘total carbohydrate’
Replace all statements of ‘glycaemic carbohydrate’ in Table 1 with ‘Total carbohydrate’
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 / 1(a) The heading shall be “(Typical) Nutrition(al) Information, where the word ‘typical’ and omission of the “al” in the word nutritional are optional
3 The unit of measurement shall follow the numerical values of the nutrient or energy in columns 2 and 3 of Annexure 2, point 1
3(a) The energy value must always be indicated in kilojoules (kJ). Indication of calories is optional. Indicate this in the table in Annexure 2 as kJ (Cal).
Annexure 2 – order of nutrients in table:
Energy
Protein
Fat
Carbohydrates
Sodium
SAAFoST / 21 / 52(3)(b) / Please note our comments on Regulation 52(13) which require insertion of an additional clause in this section / Insert ‘subject to the conditions of regulation 52(13)(d) and related Annexure (number to be inserted ‘ before the existing text
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) / Delete in its entirety