- Email: [email protected]
Regulation of food commodities in Australia and New Zealand
Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont
Regulation of food commodities in Australia and New Zealand Jim Gruber *, Simon Brooke-Taylor 1, Julie Goodchap, Dean McCullum Food Standards Australia New Zealand, P.O. Box 7186, Canberra, BC ACT 2610, Australia
Abstract A complete new set of standards for food commodities that apply in both Australia and New Zealand was adopted in December 2000. The policies underpinning these standards aim to protect public health and safety while facilitating industry innovation in the market, and hence improve consumer choice. The aim in reviewing the commodity standards was to develop new food product standards that reduce the regulatory burden, are easier to understand and amend, and reflect the advances in scientific knowledge in areas such as nutrition, toxicology and allergenicity. Provisions that apply to all foods, such as labelling requirements and food additive permissions, were grouped into generic standards that cover all foods. Where specific provisions were required for particular food commodities, based on stated objectives, then commodity-specific regulations were developed. The commodity standards in Chapter 2––Food product standards of the new Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) reflect the move towards a more internationally consistent regime of food regulation. 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Keywords: Commodity standards; Regulatory measures; Food regulation; Food standards
1. Introduction During the last twenty years, an enormous change to the diversity and choice in the food supply has occurred, with this dramatic change attributable to a number of factors. Globalisation of the food supply has increased the diversity of foods available (WHO, 2000), while advances in processing and packaging technologies have changed the way food is produced and presented to consumers. Changes to the food industry have also occurred from within, and this restructuring has permitted extensive product development. The establishment of strong brands that cater for consumer desires is linked with innovative packaging. Modern packaging has enabled an expansion of product ranges and played a key role in building brand identity and loyalty (Speary, 2001). Australian consumers can choose food and drink products from up to 30,000 product lines on supermarket shelves, with the variety of food and drink products on supermarket shelves nearly double that of a
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-62712226; fax: +61-262712278. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Gruber). 1 Present address: Brooke-Taylor & Co Pty Ltd, Joseph Street, Woonona, NSW 2517, Australia. 0956-7135/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00042-2
decade or two ago (Melero, 1999). Whilst innovation is important for the survival of a diversified food industry, a thorough understanding of consumer motivations is also essential as the cost of failed product lines can be extremely expensive. By encouraging innovation in the food industry with more flexible food regulatory requirements for product standards, both food manufacturers and supermarkets will be able to continue to meet the needs of consumers and remain competitive in the market place. Changes to the economy of Australia and New Zealand and to the social and economic status of Australian and New Zealand consumers have influenced the food choices being made and the marketing of food commodities to consumers; even the place of food purchase has shifted from traditional to more innovative methods. The way food is consumed has changed dramatically with take-away outlets and food that can be prepared quickly becoming more popular. The challenge for food producers and manufacturers has been to create products that deliver flavour and nutritional value comparative to traditionally prepared meals. Consumers are demanding and above all discerning and this has led to expanding product lines of convenience foods. Consumers have displayed conflicting expectations of food––that is they want convenience without compromising on taste, they demand nutritional value but not
368
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373
at the expense of taste and texture, and they want quality and safe food that looks good. A major consumer trend has been an increased awareness of nutrition in the diet, with scientific research proving the correlation between certain diseases and various factors in the diet. Almost all (94%) of US consumers agree that certain foods go beyond basic nutrition and may have ancillary benefits such as reducing the risk of disease (IFIC, 2002). Corresponding to this phenomenon has been an increased readiness of food manufacturers to make health claims about their products, together, with the cooperation of supermarkets to augment stocks of health supplement products. Over the past twenty years there has been a constant decline in the size of the traditional Australian family, and as a result the average number of residents per household is declining. This has resulted in generally smaller shopping baskets combined with more frequent shopping. Consumers have benefited from changes in legislation to extend trading hours and weekend shopping. Supermarkets have targeted the one stop shop concept in an attempt to meet total consumer needs, and convenience stores have become more numerous to target time poor consumers. Internet shopping has been a logical progression of this trend and its popularity is increasing exponentially (Ryan, 2000). In this rapidly changing and increasingly sophisticated food market many of the standards in the Australian Food Standards Code (Volume 1) (AFSC) and the New Zealand Food Regulations 1984 (NZFR), which were up to twenty years old, were out of step with the needs of the food industry and consumers. It was generally recognised that most existing Australian and New Zealand standards were highly prescriptive, overly technical, and impeded innovation and development. Some made unreasonable cost demands on producers and manufacturers and reduced the competitiveness of Australia and New Zealand industries in the marketplace. For example, there were compositional requirements in the AFSC for flavoured milk. In the market place, however, there is a range of products that are based on milk or milk analogues that look like flavoured milks but do not meet the strict compositional requirements of the flavoured milk standard. Therefore it is evident that imposing strict regulations for some commodities did not ensure that products in the market place would be manufactured to those specifications. Many of the food standards reflected a traditional Anglo-Celtic diet (e.g. meat and three vegetables) and did not reflect the introduction of foods, more commonly found in indigenous and migrant communities. For example, the AFSC and NZFR have standards for meat pies, but no standards for samosas or spring rolls. Likewise, there are Australian regulations for white bread and wholemeal bread, but not for Turkish, Lebanese or Italian breads.
The AFSC and NZFR were established at a time when consumer protection laws were not as developed or effective as they are today. Consequently, the food standards were not always in step with current consumer laws and, in places, duplicated or even contradicted these and other laws and regulations.
2. Aims of the review of commodity standards The former Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) (now called Food Standards Australia New Zealand) reviewed the regulations for food commodities as part of the general review of food standards in Australia and New Zealand (Healy, Brooke-Taylor, & Liehne, in press). This review of food standards led to the development of The Food Standards Code, which is comprised of the Australian Food Standards Code (Volume 1) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) (the joint Code). The general policy principles behind the review of food standards were to: • reduce the level of prescriptiveness of standards to provide wider permissions on the use of a range of ingredients and additives to facilitate innovation, where possible, but with attention paid to a possible consequential increase in consumersÕ informational needs; • replacing standards which regulate individual foods with standards which apply across all foods or a range of foods, where appropriate; • developing definitional standards in appropriate cases for foods, describing their main definitional qualities to provide a benchmark for industry and consumers; • retaining standards regulating requirements for individual foods only if consistent with the objectives, and where such standards are retained, redrafting them in a tabular format (rather than the current list format) to provide greater ease in reading and understanding and facilitate simpler amendment as required; and • redrafting standards to facilitate greater ease in reading and understanding, and to make amendment more straightforward. In addition to these broader principles, some specific objectives apply to the review of the food commodity standards. The first of these was to take account of the changes in our food supply over the last twenty years and develop regulatory requirements that reduce the regulatory burden on the food industry. This is intended to encourage greater innovation within the marketplace. A second objective of the review was to reflect the considerable advances in scientific knowledge in areas
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373
such as nutrition, toxicology and allergenicity, and the link between diet and long-term health that is now better understood. Incorporation into the new standards of these advances in scientific knowledge should make our food supply safer and healthier. The final objective was to ensure greater protection for consumers, especially in relation to public health and safety. This was to be achieved through the removal of standards that applied idiosyncratic rules to a limited number of highly controlled foods in favour of standards that applied generic principles to all foods in a diverse and changing market.
369
Chapter 3––Food safety standards, apply to Australia only. These standards specify requirements businesses must follow to ensure the safety and suitability of food. Two of the standards refer to safe food practices and the design and construction of food premises and equipment. Another standard sets out requirements for businesses to implement a hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)-based food safety program (Martin et al., in press). 4. Development of food product standards 4.1. Rationale
3. Structure of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) The AFSC and NZFR focused mainly on individual food standards, whereas in the joint Code, this has changed to a focus on the general standards that apply across classes of food. This change has resulted in structural differences between the AFSC/NZFR and the joint Code (Fig. 1). The joint Code is made up of three chapters. The first chapter contains the general food standards, which include preliminary provisions (application, interpretation and general prohibitions) and definitions, as well as requirements for labelling, substances added to foods (such as food additives, vitamins and minerals, and processing aids), contaminants and residues, foods requiring pre-market clearance (such as novel foods, food produced using gene technology, and irradiated food) microbiological limits, and processing requirements. Chapter 2––Food product standards, addresses commodity or food groups in the food supply that reflect the principal components of the diet (e.g. cereals, meat, eggs, and fish, fruits and vegetables, edible oils, dairy products) or particular foods (e.g. alcoholic beverages, infant foods, foods for special dietary purposes).
AFSC and NZFR
joint Code
General Standards
General Standards
Commodity Standards
Commodity Standards
Fig. 1. Comparison between AFSC, NZFR and the joint Code.
The review of food commodities sought to implement, where possible, ‘‘generic’’ standards, which applied to all foods. Generic standards focused particularly on labeling and information requirements, substances added to foods (such as food additives), contaminants and pesticide residues, and microbiological requirements for foods. However, generic standards alone were not always considered sufficient to meet the objectives of food standards as specified in the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 2 i.e. to protect public health and safety, to provide consumers with adequate information to ensure informed choices, to prevent fraud and deception, to promote fair trading in food, to promote trade and commerce in food, and to promote consistency between domestic and international food standards. Hence, additional regulations were developed in some circumstances. In order to ensure that the review principles were applied consistently and on the basis of evidence, a decision tree was used to determine those circumstances where regulations in addition to the generic standards were necessary (Fig. 2). The decision tree provided a structured and open process for ensuring that standards were justified on the basis of meeting the objectives of food standards by addressing a hierarchy of questions. If the aim of the standard could be met through a generic standard that applied to all food or through other means, such as through other legislation, then the decision tree indicated that a specific standard was not justified. However, if the aims of the standard were still not met, the potential for a minimal definitional standard to meet the objective was considered. If, based on the evidence, a definition alone would not meet the aims, only then was a food product standard developed. The use of the decision tree in this way provided an effective means of ensuring consistent application of the policy principle to effectively minimise the regulatory burden. 2 Now referred to as Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.
370
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 Is the aim of the standard to protect public health and safety, prevent fraud and deception, provide adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices or to facilitate trade?
Yes
No
No standard required
Can the aim be met through a generic standard that applies to all foods?
Yes
No Can the aim be achieved by any other means?
No standard required
eg. through other legislation such as Fair Trading laws, code of practice, guidelines etc.
Yes
No standard required
No
Can the aim be met through a minimum definition and generic labelling provisions? No standard required
Yes
No Develop commodity standard
Fig. 2. Decision tree on development of food standards.
4.2. Application of the decision tree Standards for food commodities were only retained where they could be justified as necessary to support the principles for establishing food product standards and the objectives of the review. The decision tree process identified those foods for which comprehensive food product standards were necessary. Application of the decision tree process, using meat and meat products as an example, is illustrated in Fig. 3. As meat is a basic food that makes a significant contribution to the total intake of certain nutrients in the Australian and New Zealand diet, it was considered important to protect its nutritional integrity. Therefore, a standard for meat is justified on public health and safety grounds. Furthermore, definitions were developed to resolve ambiguities and differences in the publicly available definitions. Finally, compositional parameters were established for meat flesh in some meat products with a declaration being required in relation to fat content of minced meat. Both these requirements were to address potential fraud and deception concerns. Thus, definitions, compositional and specific labelling requirements are necessary to achieve the aims of setting food standards.
5. Content of the food product standards Food product standards in Chapter 2 of the joint Code contain requirements that are specific to the food/ commodity group or specific compositional or labelling requirements for specific products. For example, the standards define a wide range of commodities including
bread, meat, egg, fish, fruits and vegetables, milk, cream, yoghurt, beer, honey, etc. Within these food groups, around 30 individual foods are identified and standardised (Table 1). This is less than half the number of compositional standards in the AFSC and considerably less than the NZFR, which covers about 250 foods. For example, within the milk and milk products commodity group, 47 individual and product specific standards for different variants of cream have been replaced with one principal standard for ‘‘cream’’. A further example of reducing the number of individual food standards between the AFSC and NZFR and regulating as a general commodity is Standard 2.3.1––fruit and vegetables in the joint Code (Table 2). In addition to the general labelling provisions, specific labelling provisions are prescribed for a number of foods, including honey, salt, meat products, electrolyte drinks, alcoholic beverages and foods containing alcohol. Compositional requirements are prescribed for many of the aforementioned commodities. Provisions for food additives, processing aids, vitamin and mineral addition, contaminants and natural toxicants, articles and materials in contact with food, and microbiological limits for foods, remain in the general standards. General labelling provisions found in the general standards are also applicable. Food product standards are therefore used in a modular fashion, in conjunction with the general standards rather than in place of them. Where a food product standard does not exist for a food (e.g. a frozen lasagne) the individual components, e.g. meat, cereals, oils, must comply with any provisions in their respective standards and in generic standards. In
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 Level A
Question
Yes
Is the aim of the standard measure to: - protect public health and
Go to B
No
Can the aim be met through a horizontal standard that applies to all foods?
C
Can the aim be achieved by any other means?
D
Define the commodity issue/s being addressed
Justification/Explanation of Decision Meat makes a significant contribution to the total intake of certain nutrients in the Australian diet.
safety - prevent deception - remove impediments to trade
B
It is therefore, necessary to protect the nutritional integrity of meat by providing compositional parameters. Go to D
The food is a basic/primary food. Essential compositional definitions important for adequate nutritional status. (eg bread, milk, fish, meat)
It is a valuable protein food and an important source of B vitamins (especially niacin) and iron.
Ambiguity or insignificant differences exist in the publicly available definitions. Reliance on Fair Trading legislation may not be a practicable option.
It is considered necessary to define the terms meat, meat flesh and offal. Also defined are the minimum compositional requirements for meat flesh present in designated meat processes. A declaration is required where a claim is made about the percentage of fat content for packaged or unpackaged minced meat to prevent fraud and deception.
Other reason (give details)
371
Go to E
E
Can the aim be achieved by other means? (eg fair trading laws)
Go to F
Some existing provisions in the AFSC and the NZFR have been deferred to fair trading laws.
F
Can the aim be best met by a minimum definition
Go to G
Compositional elements necessitate a Food Product Standard.
G
Can the aim be best met by a minimum definition and percentage labelling of defining ingredient(s)?
Standard
Definitions, composition and commodity specific labelling provisions are proposed. These are best suited to a commodity specific Food Product Standard.
Fig. 3. Decision tree process for the development of the standard for meat and meat products.
addition the final food must comply with requirements in the generic standards.
6. Definitions for foods Minimal definitions were included in Standard 1.1.2––supplementary definitions for foods, for some foods where dictionary definitions or generic standards alone were found, on the basis of evidence, to be insufficient to fulfil the objectives of food standards or provide more certainty for industry and enforcement personnel, and ultimately for consumers. Definitions for several food commodities are included in Standard 1.1.2 in the joint Code: • Chocolate is defined broadly as a confectionery product. There is a compositional requirement for 200 g/kg of cocoa bean derivatives in chocolate and not more than 5% fats (other than milkfat or cocoa fats);
• Cocoa is defined as a powdered product prepared from cocoa beans. The definition of cocoa allows for the removal of some fat and addition of salt and spices, as the term cocoa refers to a range of products in international trade that are produced from fermentation of cocoa beans and which contain other foods; • There are also definitions for tea and coffee, instant and soluble tea and coffee and decaffeinated tea and coffee products. The compositional requirements for tea and coffee relate only to caffeine contents of the decaffeinated products; • Gelatine is defined as a protein product prepared from animal skin, bone or other collagenous material, or any combinations of these materials; and • Peanut butter is required to contain a minimum of 85% peanuts. Where a definition is not prescribed by the joint Code, dictionary definitions are relied upon to give the commonly understood meaning of the food.
372
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373
Table 1 List of food product standards developed for commodities Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Food group 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7
Standard 2.6.1 Standard 2.6.2 Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
2.6.3 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.10.1 2.10.2
Cereals and cereal products Meat and meat products Egg and egg products Fish and fish products Fruit and vegetables Edible oils Edible oil spreads Milk Cream Fermented milk products Cheese Butter Ice cream Dried milks, evaporated milks and condensed milks Fruit juice and vegetable juice Non-alcoholic beverages and brewed soft drinks Kava Beer Fruit wine and vegetable wine Wine and wine product Spirits Sugars Honey Vinegar and related products Salt and salt products
7. Guidelines User Guides have been established to help industry and enforcement officers understand the new food standards. These documents are particularly important for small businesses, as they often do not have the resources required to implement some of the changes, and therefore need additional assistance. The user guides aim to explain the labelling requirements, as well as other generic standards such as food additives. The user guides are available from the Food Standards Australia New Zealand website. 3
8. Conclusion Development of food product standards for food commodities as embodied in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) reflects a move towards a more internationally consistent regime of food regulation. The objectives in initiating the review of food regulations were therefore, to provide a regulatory food system that would be both accountable and transparent; provide the consumer with adequate information to make informed choices; and to enable the consumer to buy quality and safe processed food that is
3
www.foodstandards.gov.au.
Table 2 Comparison between AFSC, NZFR and the joint Code regulations for fruits and vegetables NZFRa
AFSCb
Regulation 167––Vegetables
Standard F1––Vegetables and similar foods Standard F2––Tomato products
Regulation 168––Raw vegetables Regulation 169––Dehydrated vegetables or dried vegetables Regulation 170––Canned vegetables Regulation 171––Frozen vegetables Regulation 172––Fried or partially fried potatoes Regulation 173––Tomato concentrate Regulation 176––Fruit Regulation 177––Raw fruit Regulation 178––Fruit pulp Regulation 179A––Candied vegetables and imitation candied fruit Regulation 180––Frozen fruit Regulation 181––Canned fruit
Standard F3––Canned vegetables Standard F4––Soya products Standard J1––Spices Standard M1––Coconut and coconut products Standard M2––Peanut butter or peanut paste Standard M4––Nuts Standard N1––Fruits generally
Joint Codec Standard 2.3.1––Fruits and vegetables
Regulation 193––Nuts Regulation 194––Peanut butter Regulation 195––Coconut and coconut products Regulation 199––Spices Regulation 200––Particular spice standards a
NZFR––New Zealand Food Regulations 1984. AFSC––Australian Food Standards Code (Volume 1) (AFSC). c Joint Code––Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2). b
both safe and adequately labelled to enable them to exercise choice. This has resulted in the replacement of food standards that regulate individual foods with standards that apply across a range of foods, and should also apply to new products as they are developed and become part of the food supply. In turn this has lead to food standards that are easier to understand. The new standards greatly reduce the level of prescriptiveness, thereby promoting innovation in the food industry. This, combined with a number of concurrent changes to the labelling requirements, will facilitate consumer choice. References Healy, M., Brooke-Taylor, S., & Liehne, P. (in press). Reform of food regulation in Australia and New Zealand. Food Control. International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC) (2002). The consumer view on functional foods: yesterday and today. Martin, T., Dean, E., Hardy, B., Johnson, T., Jolly, F., Mathews, F., McKay, I., Souness, R., & Williams, J. (in press). A new era for food regulation in Australia. Food Control.
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 Melero, L. (1999). 30,000 products provide variety to health. www.foodsciencebureau.com.au. Ryan, M. (2000). Convenience drive pressures Big 3. Retail World, 53(10), 8.
373
Speary, C. (2001). Competitive packaging vital to survival, growth. Packaging (February), 10–11. WHO (2000). Fact Sheet Number 237––Food Safety and Foodborne Illness. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
Regulation of food commodities in Australia and New Zealand Jim Gruber *, Simon Brooke-Taylor 1, Julie Goodchap, Dean McCullum Food Standards Australia New Zealand, P.O. Box 7186, Canberra, BC ACT 2610, Australia
Abstract A complete new set of standards for food commodities that apply in both Australia and New Zealand was adopted in December 2000. The policies underpinning these standards aim to protect public health and safety while facilitating industry innovation in the market, and hence improve consumer choice. The aim in reviewing the commodity standards was to develop new food product standards that reduce the regulatory burden, are easier to understand and amend, and reflect the advances in scientific knowledge in areas such as nutrition, toxicology and allergenicity. Provisions that apply to all foods, such as labelling requirements and food additive permissions, were grouped into generic standards that cover all foods. Where specific provisions were required for particular food commodities, based on stated objectives, then commodity-specific regulations were developed. The commodity standards in Chapter 2––Food product standards of the new Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) reflect the move towards a more internationally consistent regime of food regulation. 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Keywords: Commodity standards; Regulatory measures; Food regulation; Food standards
1. Introduction During the last twenty years, an enormous change to the diversity and choice in the food supply has occurred, with this dramatic change attributable to a number of factors. Globalisation of the food supply has increased the diversity of foods available (WHO, 2000), while advances in processing and packaging technologies have changed the way food is produced and presented to consumers. Changes to the food industry have also occurred from within, and this restructuring has permitted extensive product development. The establishment of strong brands that cater for consumer desires is linked with innovative packaging. Modern packaging has enabled an expansion of product ranges and played a key role in building brand identity and loyalty (Speary, 2001). Australian consumers can choose food and drink products from up to 30,000 product lines on supermarket shelves, with the variety of food and drink products on supermarket shelves nearly double that of a
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-62712226; fax: +61-262712278. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Gruber). 1 Present address: Brooke-Taylor & Co Pty Ltd, Joseph Street, Woonona, NSW 2517, Australia. 0956-7135/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00042-2
decade or two ago (Melero, 1999). Whilst innovation is important for the survival of a diversified food industry, a thorough understanding of consumer motivations is also essential as the cost of failed product lines can be extremely expensive. By encouraging innovation in the food industry with more flexible food regulatory requirements for product standards, both food manufacturers and supermarkets will be able to continue to meet the needs of consumers and remain competitive in the market place. Changes to the economy of Australia and New Zealand and to the social and economic status of Australian and New Zealand consumers have influenced the food choices being made and the marketing of food commodities to consumers; even the place of food purchase has shifted from traditional to more innovative methods. The way food is consumed has changed dramatically with take-away outlets and food that can be prepared quickly becoming more popular. The challenge for food producers and manufacturers has been to create products that deliver flavour and nutritional value comparative to traditionally prepared meals. Consumers are demanding and above all discerning and this has led to expanding product lines of convenience foods. Consumers have displayed conflicting expectations of food––that is they want convenience without compromising on taste, they demand nutritional value but not
368
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373
at the expense of taste and texture, and they want quality and safe food that looks good. A major consumer trend has been an increased awareness of nutrition in the diet, with scientific research proving the correlation between certain diseases and various factors in the diet. Almost all (94%) of US consumers agree that certain foods go beyond basic nutrition and may have ancillary benefits such as reducing the risk of disease (IFIC, 2002). Corresponding to this phenomenon has been an increased readiness of food manufacturers to make health claims about their products, together, with the cooperation of supermarkets to augment stocks of health supplement products. Over the past twenty years there has been a constant decline in the size of the traditional Australian family, and as a result the average number of residents per household is declining. This has resulted in generally smaller shopping baskets combined with more frequent shopping. Consumers have benefited from changes in legislation to extend trading hours and weekend shopping. Supermarkets have targeted the one stop shop concept in an attempt to meet total consumer needs, and convenience stores have become more numerous to target time poor consumers. Internet shopping has been a logical progression of this trend and its popularity is increasing exponentially (Ryan, 2000). In this rapidly changing and increasingly sophisticated food market many of the standards in the Australian Food Standards Code (Volume 1) (AFSC) and the New Zealand Food Regulations 1984 (NZFR), which were up to twenty years old, were out of step with the needs of the food industry and consumers. It was generally recognised that most existing Australian and New Zealand standards were highly prescriptive, overly technical, and impeded innovation and development. Some made unreasonable cost demands on producers and manufacturers and reduced the competitiveness of Australia and New Zealand industries in the marketplace. For example, there were compositional requirements in the AFSC for flavoured milk. In the market place, however, there is a range of products that are based on milk or milk analogues that look like flavoured milks but do not meet the strict compositional requirements of the flavoured milk standard. Therefore it is evident that imposing strict regulations for some commodities did not ensure that products in the market place would be manufactured to those specifications. Many of the food standards reflected a traditional Anglo-Celtic diet (e.g. meat and three vegetables) and did not reflect the introduction of foods, more commonly found in indigenous and migrant communities. For example, the AFSC and NZFR have standards for meat pies, but no standards for samosas or spring rolls. Likewise, there are Australian regulations for white bread and wholemeal bread, but not for Turkish, Lebanese or Italian breads.
The AFSC and NZFR were established at a time when consumer protection laws were not as developed or effective as they are today. Consequently, the food standards were not always in step with current consumer laws and, in places, duplicated or even contradicted these and other laws and regulations.
2. Aims of the review of commodity standards The former Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) (now called Food Standards Australia New Zealand) reviewed the regulations for food commodities as part of the general review of food standards in Australia and New Zealand (Healy, Brooke-Taylor, & Liehne, in press). This review of food standards led to the development of The Food Standards Code, which is comprised of the Australian Food Standards Code (Volume 1) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) (the joint Code). The general policy principles behind the review of food standards were to: • reduce the level of prescriptiveness of standards to provide wider permissions on the use of a range of ingredients and additives to facilitate innovation, where possible, but with attention paid to a possible consequential increase in consumersÕ informational needs; • replacing standards which regulate individual foods with standards which apply across all foods or a range of foods, where appropriate; • developing definitional standards in appropriate cases for foods, describing their main definitional qualities to provide a benchmark for industry and consumers; • retaining standards regulating requirements for individual foods only if consistent with the objectives, and where such standards are retained, redrafting them in a tabular format (rather than the current list format) to provide greater ease in reading and understanding and facilitate simpler amendment as required; and • redrafting standards to facilitate greater ease in reading and understanding, and to make amendment more straightforward. In addition to these broader principles, some specific objectives apply to the review of the food commodity standards. The first of these was to take account of the changes in our food supply over the last twenty years and develop regulatory requirements that reduce the regulatory burden on the food industry. This is intended to encourage greater innovation within the marketplace. A second objective of the review was to reflect the considerable advances in scientific knowledge in areas
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373
such as nutrition, toxicology and allergenicity, and the link between diet and long-term health that is now better understood. Incorporation into the new standards of these advances in scientific knowledge should make our food supply safer and healthier. The final objective was to ensure greater protection for consumers, especially in relation to public health and safety. This was to be achieved through the removal of standards that applied idiosyncratic rules to a limited number of highly controlled foods in favour of standards that applied generic principles to all foods in a diverse and changing market.
369
Chapter 3––Food safety standards, apply to Australia only. These standards specify requirements businesses must follow to ensure the safety and suitability of food. Two of the standards refer to safe food practices and the design and construction of food premises and equipment. Another standard sets out requirements for businesses to implement a hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)-based food safety program (Martin et al., in press). 4. Development of food product standards 4.1. Rationale
3. Structure of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) The AFSC and NZFR focused mainly on individual food standards, whereas in the joint Code, this has changed to a focus on the general standards that apply across classes of food. This change has resulted in structural differences between the AFSC/NZFR and the joint Code (Fig. 1). The joint Code is made up of three chapters. The first chapter contains the general food standards, which include preliminary provisions (application, interpretation and general prohibitions) and definitions, as well as requirements for labelling, substances added to foods (such as food additives, vitamins and minerals, and processing aids), contaminants and residues, foods requiring pre-market clearance (such as novel foods, food produced using gene technology, and irradiated food) microbiological limits, and processing requirements. Chapter 2––Food product standards, addresses commodity or food groups in the food supply that reflect the principal components of the diet (e.g. cereals, meat, eggs, and fish, fruits and vegetables, edible oils, dairy products) or particular foods (e.g. alcoholic beverages, infant foods, foods for special dietary purposes).
AFSC and NZFR
joint Code
General Standards
General Standards
Commodity Standards
Commodity Standards
Fig. 1. Comparison between AFSC, NZFR and the joint Code.
The review of food commodities sought to implement, where possible, ‘‘generic’’ standards, which applied to all foods. Generic standards focused particularly on labeling and information requirements, substances added to foods (such as food additives), contaminants and pesticide residues, and microbiological requirements for foods. However, generic standards alone were not always considered sufficient to meet the objectives of food standards as specified in the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 2 i.e. to protect public health and safety, to provide consumers with adequate information to ensure informed choices, to prevent fraud and deception, to promote fair trading in food, to promote trade and commerce in food, and to promote consistency between domestic and international food standards. Hence, additional regulations were developed in some circumstances. In order to ensure that the review principles were applied consistently and on the basis of evidence, a decision tree was used to determine those circumstances where regulations in addition to the generic standards were necessary (Fig. 2). The decision tree provided a structured and open process for ensuring that standards were justified on the basis of meeting the objectives of food standards by addressing a hierarchy of questions. If the aim of the standard could be met through a generic standard that applied to all food or through other means, such as through other legislation, then the decision tree indicated that a specific standard was not justified. However, if the aims of the standard were still not met, the potential for a minimal definitional standard to meet the objective was considered. If, based on the evidence, a definition alone would not meet the aims, only then was a food product standard developed. The use of the decision tree in this way provided an effective means of ensuring consistent application of the policy principle to effectively minimise the regulatory burden. 2 Now referred to as Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.
370
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 Is the aim of the standard to protect public health and safety, prevent fraud and deception, provide adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices or to facilitate trade?
Yes
No
No standard required
Can the aim be met through a generic standard that applies to all foods?
Yes
No Can the aim be achieved by any other means?
No standard required
eg. through other legislation such as Fair Trading laws, code of practice, guidelines etc.
Yes
No standard required
No
Can the aim be met through a minimum definition and generic labelling provisions? No standard required
Yes
No Develop commodity standard
Fig. 2. Decision tree on development of food standards.
4.2. Application of the decision tree Standards for food commodities were only retained where they could be justified as necessary to support the principles for establishing food product standards and the objectives of the review. The decision tree process identified those foods for which comprehensive food product standards were necessary. Application of the decision tree process, using meat and meat products as an example, is illustrated in Fig. 3. As meat is a basic food that makes a significant contribution to the total intake of certain nutrients in the Australian and New Zealand diet, it was considered important to protect its nutritional integrity. Therefore, a standard for meat is justified on public health and safety grounds. Furthermore, definitions were developed to resolve ambiguities and differences in the publicly available definitions. Finally, compositional parameters were established for meat flesh in some meat products with a declaration being required in relation to fat content of minced meat. Both these requirements were to address potential fraud and deception concerns. Thus, definitions, compositional and specific labelling requirements are necessary to achieve the aims of setting food standards.
5. Content of the food product standards Food product standards in Chapter 2 of the joint Code contain requirements that are specific to the food/ commodity group or specific compositional or labelling requirements for specific products. For example, the standards define a wide range of commodities including
bread, meat, egg, fish, fruits and vegetables, milk, cream, yoghurt, beer, honey, etc. Within these food groups, around 30 individual foods are identified and standardised (Table 1). This is less than half the number of compositional standards in the AFSC and considerably less than the NZFR, which covers about 250 foods. For example, within the milk and milk products commodity group, 47 individual and product specific standards for different variants of cream have been replaced with one principal standard for ‘‘cream’’. A further example of reducing the number of individual food standards between the AFSC and NZFR and regulating as a general commodity is Standard 2.3.1––fruit and vegetables in the joint Code (Table 2). In addition to the general labelling provisions, specific labelling provisions are prescribed for a number of foods, including honey, salt, meat products, electrolyte drinks, alcoholic beverages and foods containing alcohol. Compositional requirements are prescribed for many of the aforementioned commodities. Provisions for food additives, processing aids, vitamin and mineral addition, contaminants and natural toxicants, articles and materials in contact with food, and microbiological limits for foods, remain in the general standards. General labelling provisions found in the general standards are also applicable. Food product standards are therefore used in a modular fashion, in conjunction with the general standards rather than in place of them. Where a food product standard does not exist for a food (e.g. a frozen lasagne) the individual components, e.g. meat, cereals, oils, must comply with any provisions in their respective standards and in generic standards. In
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 Level A
Question
Yes
Is the aim of the standard measure to: - protect public health and
Go to B
No
Can the aim be met through a horizontal standard that applies to all foods?
C
Can the aim be achieved by any other means?
D
Define the commodity issue/s being addressed
Justification/Explanation of Decision Meat makes a significant contribution to the total intake of certain nutrients in the Australian diet.
safety - prevent deception - remove impediments to trade
B
It is therefore, necessary to protect the nutritional integrity of meat by providing compositional parameters. Go to D
The food is a basic/primary food. Essential compositional definitions important for adequate nutritional status. (eg bread, milk, fish, meat)
It is a valuable protein food and an important source of B vitamins (especially niacin) and iron.
Ambiguity or insignificant differences exist in the publicly available definitions. Reliance on Fair Trading legislation may not be a practicable option.
It is considered necessary to define the terms meat, meat flesh and offal. Also defined are the minimum compositional requirements for meat flesh present in designated meat processes. A declaration is required where a claim is made about the percentage of fat content for packaged or unpackaged minced meat to prevent fraud and deception.
Other reason (give details)
371
Go to E
E
Can the aim be achieved by other means? (eg fair trading laws)
Go to F
Some existing provisions in the AFSC and the NZFR have been deferred to fair trading laws.
F
Can the aim be best met by a minimum definition
Go to G
Compositional elements necessitate a Food Product Standard.
G
Can the aim be best met by a minimum definition and percentage labelling of defining ingredient(s)?
Standard
Definitions, composition and commodity specific labelling provisions are proposed. These are best suited to a commodity specific Food Product Standard.
Fig. 3. Decision tree process for the development of the standard for meat and meat products.
addition the final food must comply with requirements in the generic standards.
6. Definitions for foods Minimal definitions were included in Standard 1.1.2––supplementary definitions for foods, for some foods where dictionary definitions or generic standards alone were found, on the basis of evidence, to be insufficient to fulfil the objectives of food standards or provide more certainty for industry and enforcement personnel, and ultimately for consumers. Definitions for several food commodities are included in Standard 1.1.2 in the joint Code: • Chocolate is defined broadly as a confectionery product. There is a compositional requirement for 200 g/kg of cocoa bean derivatives in chocolate and not more than 5% fats (other than milkfat or cocoa fats);
• Cocoa is defined as a powdered product prepared from cocoa beans. The definition of cocoa allows for the removal of some fat and addition of salt and spices, as the term cocoa refers to a range of products in international trade that are produced from fermentation of cocoa beans and which contain other foods; • There are also definitions for tea and coffee, instant and soluble tea and coffee and decaffeinated tea and coffee products. The compositional requirements for tea and coffee relate only to caffeine contents of the decaffeinated products; • Gelatine is defined as a protein product prepared from animal skin, bone or other collagenous material, or any combinations of these materials; and • Peanut butter is required to contain a minimum of 85% peanuts. Where a definition is not prescribed by the joint Code, dictionary definitions are relied upon to give the commonly understood meaning of the food.
372
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373
Table 1 List of food product standards developed for commodities Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Food group 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7
Standard 2.6.1 Standard 2.6.2 Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
2.6.3 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.10.1 2.10.2
Cereals and cereal products Meat and meat products Egg and egg products Fish and fish products Fruit and vegetables Edible oils Edible oil spreads Milk Cream Fermented milk products Cheese Butter Ice cream Dried milks, evaporated milks and condensed milks Fruit juice and vegetable juice Non-alcoholic beverages and brewed soft drinks Kava Beer Fruit wine and vegetable wine Wine and wine product Spirits Sugars Honey Vinegar and related products Salt and salt products
7. Guidelines User Guides have been established to help industry and enforcement officers understand the new food standards. These documents are particularly important for small businesses, as they often do not have the resources required to implement some of the changes, and therefore need additional assistance. The user guides aim to explain the labelling requirements, as well as other generic standards such as food additives. The user guides are available from the Food Standards Australia New Zealand website. 3
8. Conclusion Development of food product standards for food commodities as embodied in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2) reflects a move towards a more internationally consistent regime of food regulation. The objectives in initiating the review of food regulations were therefore, to provide a regulatory food system that would be both accountable and transparent; provide the consumer with adequate information to make informed choices; and to enable the consumer to buy quality and safe processed food that is
3
www.foodstandards.gov.au.
Table 2 Comparison between AFSC, NZFR and the joint Code regulations for fruits and vegetables NZFRa
AFSCb
Regulation 167––Vegetables
Standard F1––Vegetables and similar foods Standard F2––Tomato products
Regulation 168––Raw vegetables Regulation 169––Dehydrated vegetables or dried vegetables Regulation 170––Canned vegetables Regulation 171––Frozen vegetables Regulation 172––Fried or partially fried potatoes Regulation 173––Tomato concentrate Regulation 176––Fruit Regulation 177––Raw fruit Regulation 178––Fruit pulp Regulation 179A––Candied vegetables and imitation candied fruit Regulation 180––Frozen fruit Regulation 181––Canned fruit
Standard F3––Canned vegetables Standard F4––Soya products Standard J1––Spices Standard M1––Coconut and coconut products Standard M2––Peanut butter or peanut paste Standard M4––Nuts Standard N1––Fruits generally
Joint Codec Standard 2.3.1––Fruits and vegetables
Regulation 193––Nuts Regulation 194––Peanut butter Regulation 195––Coconut and coconut products Regulation 199––Spices Regulation 200––Particular spice standards a
NZFR––New Zealand Food Regulations 1984. AFSC––Australian Food Standards Code (Volume 1) (AFSC). c Joint Code––Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Volume 2). b
both safe and adequately labelled to enable them to exercise choice. This has resulted in the replacement of food standards that regulate individual foods with standards that apply across a range of foods, and should also apply to new products as they are developed and become part of the food supply. In turn this has lead to food standards that are easier to understand. The new standards greatly reduce the level of prescriptiveness, thereby promoting innovation in the food industry. This, combined with a number of concurrent changes to the labelling requirements, will facilitate consumer choice. References Healy, M., Brooke-Taylor, S., & Liehne, P. (in press). Reform of food regulation in Australia and New Zealand. Food Control. International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC) (2002). The consumer view on functional foods: yesterday and today. Martin, T., Dean, E., Hardy, B., Johnson, T., Jolly, F., Mathews, F., McKay, I., Souness, R., & Williams, J. (in press). A new era for food regulation in Australia. Food Control.
J. Gruber et al. / Food Control 14 (2003) 367–373 Melero, L. (1999). 30,000 products provide variety to health. www.foodsciencebureau.com.au. Ryan, M. (2000). Convenience drive pressures Big 3. Retail World, 53(10), 8.
373
Speary, C. (2001). Competitive packaging vital to survival, growth. Packaging (February), 10–11. WHO (2000). Fact Sheet Number 237––Food Safety and Foodborne Illness. World Health Organisation, Geneva.