Submission to the Department of Health and Ageing Food Regulation Secretariatmay 2010

SUBMISSION – May 2010

Submission to

Department of Health and Ageing

Food Regulation Secretariat in response to:

Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy

May 2010

1 of 22 Kraft Foods Limited Submission to the Department of Health and Ageing – Food Regulation Secretariat May 2010

Summary

Kraft Foods supports the submission made by the AFGC.

Kraft Foods contends food law and policy as it relates to labelling recognise that:

 the primary purpose of the label is for providing food safety information;

 labels need to provide factual information only to ensure confidence in the safety information;

 many labels are small and what can be must be put on a label be based on what can be put on the smaller labels;

 manufacturers have resolved labelling concerns with consumer groups willing to work co-operatively;

 manufacturers provide extra information when there is space to do so and that information is in response to consumer queries;

 despite best efforts at providing information in readable formats that public education is insufficient to meet their needs for interpretation;

 diet-mediated diseases are appropriately a concern of governments, but foods are not diets. Solutions appropriate to diets and consumer behaviour are needed to address these issues.

 dietary requirements are many and varied and depend on the individual so dietary messages can only be treated as advice rather than fact;

 that attempts to classify foods inevitably show up inconsistencies leading to lack of confidence in them;

 oversimplification leads to misunderstandings rather than better education;

 that ongoing advice as to the requirements of the regulations in new situations as they arise is required to maintain uniformity of application and the confidence of stakeholders

of 22 Kraft Foods Limited Submission to the Department of Health and Ageing – Food Regulation Secretariat May 2010

Introduction

Kraft Foods prides itself on the quality of its products, and fully supports the provision of relevant and meaningful information to consumers so that they can make informed choices.

Kraft Foods Limited (Kraft Foods) fully supports the High Order Principles as laid out for FSANZ in the Blair Report, and recommends that these principles guide the development of both the policy and law which enable them to be achieved. These principles are: – the protection of public health and safety; – the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and – the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct; supported by the need to have regard for – the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence; – the promotion of consistency between domestic and international food standards; – the desirability of an efficient and internationally competitive food industry; – the promotion of fair trading in food

Overarching Comments on the Consultation Paper

In the introduction to the Issues Consultation Paper it states that with respect to labelling “Issues regularly raised include:  Difficulties consumers have in understanding and using information on labels;  The cost to business and consumer of meeting labelling standards;  A lack of or inconsistent enforcement of labelling laws across jurisdictions; and  The accuracy and truthfulness of labelling.”1

These are very general statements. Having details around these issues would enable the key drivers to be discovered and appropriate solutions to be developed. In the absence of such details, Kraft Foods provides the responses and recommendations enclosed in this reply.

Looking at the reasons for food labelling interventions by governments we see that these are assumed to be  Protect the health and safety of consumers;  Respond to consumer demand for food information;  Provide a fair playing field to competitors in the food industry; and  Advance government objectives relevant to food.

1 Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, 5 March 2010

We immediately see here a challenge. The first three points relate to the facts about the food we eat. The last relates to health promotion where “the health benefits are usually indirect, long-term and may be disputed”.2 That this last point does not appear in the current Food Act3, the objectives of which are:  to provide a high degree of consumer confidence in the quality and safety of food produced, processed, sold or exported from Australia and New Zealand  to secure an effective, transparent and accountable regulatory framework within which the food industry can work efficiently; and  to ensure the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices.

Food and Dietary Information

The purpose of the food industry is to deliver safe foods to meet consumer needs. It aims to transport foods from where they are grown and delivered to the consumer when they want it and in the format they want it. Most foods are only available seasonally and regionally, however consumers demand that a variety of foods be available all year round. The success of the food industry has been in finding ways to achieve this.

Some of the areas of public health concern are around the factors which enable the food industry to manage food safety during storage and transport, for example energy density (which is the natural occurrence of drying food), salt (controls spoilage), etc. It is necessary to understand the purpose of these technologies before demonising them.

Considerable effort goes into providing adequate data to enable consumers to make informed choices, especially on labels. What is apparent in surveys and in the public forums held to inform this review is that many people do not understand them. Since data can only become information if there is enough knowledge to interpret it, and much work has gone in to presenting this appropriately, it is becoming more obvious the consumer is insufficiently educated.

Public Health Objectives

The primary public health objective is food safety.

The other public health objectives alluded to in the consultation paper relate to diet which, we stress again, relates to the quantity and variety of foods consumed by an individual. Each person has different dietary needs depending on their physiology and lifestyle. In order for individuals to construct diets suitable for themselves, they need to understand the roles individual foods play in those diets. We have seen that far too many do not understand the current information provided, so it is unlikely that they will understand dietary messages on foods. Education of consumers about diets is difficult when there is so much discussion of food and diets in the media which is ill-informed and not even-handed.

2 Issues Consultation Paper: Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, 5 March 2010

3 Section 2A, Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.

Currently product labels can only carry facts which are applicable to all consumers. Dietary messages are opinion which presupposes personal nutrition status and needs and therefore are not facts.

To meet public health objectives, individuals need to change behaviour in relation to their diets, which requires understanding all the drivers for people adopting their current practices. Experts in change management should be able to offer suggestions about effective strategies and should be engaged if the government is serious about addressing this issue, and food law and regulation are unlikely to be high on the list of recommendations.

Approaches to Regulatory Reform

Whilst much needs to be done outside regulation to address diet-related issues, this review is focussed on the role that regulation and law should play with respect to food regulation. The VCECC report into Food Regulation in Victoria4 is commended as a practical and even-handed approach and recommended as a model for this review. To achieve the policy outcomes, Government and industry need to work together rather than government just being the policeman of regulations it deems are appropriate.

There is often a difference between the intent of regulation and the way it is interpreted. Systems which work to minimise these difference should drive any reforms. One approach is to introduce a Centralised Interpretive Advice Agency as highlighted in the recent Regulatory Impact Statement (however there is still much work to be done to work out how to make this effective)5. Such an agency should also provide centralised real- time data collection to identify where the issues are and to manage them in a timely manner. By resolving issues quickly the confidence of all stakeholders is improved.

Specific Responses to Questions

Q1. To what extent should the food regulatory system be used to meet broader public health objectives?

The focus of this review is Food Labelling, not necessarily the Food Regulatory System. The broader public health objectives are major problems and good problem solving technique requires that the key drivers of the issue be understood so that the appropriate tools can be employed to resolve them. This question presupposes that regulation is an appropriate tool for addressing these broader public health objectives (i.e. reduction of diet-mediated diseases). If it is discovered to be so, then appropriate regulations need to be developed, however broader public health objectives should not take precedence over Food Safety on food labels.

4 Simplifying the Menu: Food Regulation in Victoria, September 2007.

5 Food Regulatory Reforms Centralised Interpretive Advice on Food Standards – Regulatory Impact Statement April 2010

Diets are impacted by many factors (cost, cooking time, availability, cultural, taste, etc.) of which nutritional aspects are just part. Regulation of diet or foods could make changes, but whether the prime goal will be achieved is uncertain.

Q2. What is adequate information and to what extent does such information need to be physically present on the label or be provided through other means (eg education or website)?

Adequate information is dependant on the consumer. Obviously the most important information relates to food safety. Whether any more can be provided depends on the size of the pack, consumer comprehension and legibility on small packs.

Good communication is when the person receiving the information has the same understanding as the person providing it. Education improves the ability to understand. What has been very evident from the public forums relating to this review is that many consumers who have issues about food have little understanding about how to read labels, As such additional education is required. This education should be supported by both industry and Government bodies.

Better information is often provided by direct communication, ie consumer service hotlines – the question being asked is clarified, the data provided and the context of the data (ie information) as well. It does help that the audience in this case is genuinely interested in the information.

It should be noted that many foods are not labelled – for example fruit, vegetables, meat, restaurant meals (although some quick service restaurants are providing this information), and that not everyone has easy access to websites, e.g. the elderly, remote consumers, etc.

Q3. How can accurate and consistent labelling be ensured?

There are many hindrances to accuracy on labels:  Accuracy is a relative term. As far as the Nutrition Panel is concerned, this should mean appropriate accuracy taking into consideration that consumer’s needs and the serve size they use rarely coincides with recommendations.  Accuracy as far as an ingredient list is concerned may have a different meaning to relevance. 0.005% salt in a meal has little or no physiological significance.  Nutrition information is subject to the natural and seasonal variability in the foods used. Printed labels therefore can only carry average information at best.  For certain nutrients there is an upper and a lower limit for being able to quote them on a label. When nutrients meet the “cap”, that is what has to be put on the label even though more may be present. Does this support truth in labelling?  Vitamins degrade over time, so labels usually underquote the amount present.  In many instances, nutrition is calculated (as permitted by the Standards) rather than analysed. When this approach is taken, as it will be with most small manufacturers, many assumptions will be made and the result can only be an approximation.

Consistency arises from having agreed, clear guidelines, and clear and consistent interpretation of the guidelines. The current process with the courts ending up as the final arbiter (FSANZ does not provide guidance other than through the official Guides) gives neither confidence to the manufacturer nor consistency of application. The boundaries get pushed until they end up in court provided someone takes the risk of challenging it. This approach tends to hide issues rather than have them addressed.

A forum for centralised interpretive advice would greatly assist consistency. A possible model was presented to COAG in April 20106, although much work needs to be done on this concept to allow it to be really effective.

Consistency in regulatory approach would also assist creating a coherent set of regulations. For example, current nutrient content claims are permitted on a per serve basis, however proposed reporting of nutrients of concern were to be on a per 100g basis.

Q4. What principles should guide decisions about government intervention on food labelling?

The principles that should guide decisions about government intervention on food labelling are already in place. They include:  Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) current objectives for developing and reviewing food standards: o protection of public health and safety; o provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and o the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct, as well as the need for standards o to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence; o the promotion of consistency between domestic and international food standards; o the desirability of an efficient and internationally competitive food industry; o the promotion of fair trading in food.  COAG criteria of good regulatory practice. o The cost-effectiveness of the intervention on behalf of all parties.

Having a “truly” Australia/New Zealand food labelling system in all its aspects is of benefit to both countries. Differences need to challenged and resolved before New Zealand adopts its right to opt out. For example, the National Measurement Institute has recently adopted an Australian system for trade measurement which impacts food labels. The details of the New Zealand system are different.

6 Food Regulatory Reforms Centralised Interpretative Advice on Food Standards – Regulatory Impact Statement April 2010.

Q5. What criteria should determine the appropriate tools for intervention?

As COAG requires of good regulatory practice, the most appropriate tools are those that are going to achieve the desired higher purpose with the minimum cost. To date, government has tended to resort to regulation as the most convenient option rather than search for the most effective option. Other options such as community education which is more difficult to measure and more likely to be effective in the longer term rather than the short term, and hence there is little political mileage.

Q6. Is this a satisfactory spectrum for labelling requirements?

This question relates to which foods require labelling. The key principle is that food safety information is available to those who have to make a decision about the safety of the food for the person who is going to consume it whether it is on the label or not. Where other means of communication are not available, then the label is the most appropriate vehicle for passing on this information. Given that there is no apparent safety issues which have not been addressed from a process point of view, then the list provided is appropriate.

It should be noted that manufacturers provide further information if available in a cost- effective manner.

Q7. In what ways could these misunderstandings and disagreements be overcome?

This question is asked in relation to Health Safety Labelling. Issues of sufficient magnitude need to be raised in an appropriate forum and resolved. The solution will depend on the problem.

As an example, allergen sufferers were concerned that manufacturers were over-declaring allergens in an attempt to avoid litigation. This had the adverse effect of warning sufferers away from foods that might otherwise have been acceptable to them, and given that they are on restricted diets this is a major issue. The AFGC allergen committee brought together representatives of allergy sufferers and manufacturers in order to better understand the issues and to find a way to better communicate with this set of consumers. The issues were put on the table and addressed together with an appropriate outcome.

Similar processes can be used to adequately address other issues.

Q8. In what ways can food labelling be used to support health promotion initiatives?

Industry is required to put only facts relating to the food on labels, whereas common health promotion activities relate more to diets make assumptions about the place of the food in the diet and therefore are not universally applicable.

For example, a fact could be that a food contains 10% fat. Whether this is a suitable food for a person depends on how much they are going to eat, how often they are going to eat it, what other foods they are going to eat as well, what their health status is, what other essential nutrients are in the food and what their energy needs are. This information is not known by the manufacturer or the government and therefore dietary advice can only be opinion. As the discussion paper itself states “health promotion can be a driver for food labelling, but here the health benefits are usually indirect, long-term and may be disputed”. The credibility of the food supply system depends on keeping to the facts.

The key word in this question is support. For those packages which are large enough, there might be room to carry government endorsed messaging, but this should not be at the expense of facts or safety. Other forms of support need to be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure they are not at odds with the required information.

The food industry is already supporting generic health initiatives by offering alternatives.

Reduced and low fat foods have been on the market for more than 15 years, such that more than 50% of the cheese products from Kraft meet these criteria. We are told that obesity has increased in this period suggesting that there are factors other than the foods themselves which are having greater impact. What it does show is that industry will respond by providing appropriate foods when a nutritional direction is recommended, however market forces dictate whether consumers agree. Kraft No-Added Salt Peanut Butter was withdrawn from the shelves by supermarkets because not enough people were buying it.

Food modification and health messages do not necessarily lead to the desired outcome.

Food labels should not be taking the lead in educating consumers about diet as it needs to be an authoritative voice

Q9. In what ways can disclosure of ingredients be improved?

Note: This question relates to concerns about ingredients such as colourings and flavourings, processing aids, allergens, trans fats, palm oil and the way they are represented (eg code numbers, scientific versus generic names).

These concerns arise through lack of trust in the data which is provided, or disagreeing with the assessment of reputable bodies such as FSANZ in the case of trans fats.

The terms used in ingredient lines are a compromise between providing the data in user- friendly format and space (ie legibility). Code numbers are used in most countries as a means of achieving this; however code books need to be far more readily available than currently.

Improvements have been made in allergen labelling has been developed as a result of AFGC collaboration with representatives of affected consumers. The terminology has been agreed upon, and the recognition of the need to clarify as much as possible the foods

of 22 Kraft Foods Limited Submission to the Department of Health and Ageing – Food Regulation Secretariat May 2010 which may be suitable for this growing portion of the population is being addressed. Other issues can be likewise addressed if of sufficient magnitude and agreed benefit.

Consumer hot-lines are there to provide extra information, explanations and other support as required.

Information enquiries to Kraft over the last 12 months give the following breakdown:

57% relate to gluten

33% relate to religious or vegetarian concerns

8% relate to genetic modification.

Most of the enquiries about genetic modification appear to be from lobby groups or are clarifying misinformation promulgated by lobby groups.

These figures suggest our efforts in communication are directed in the right area.

Q10. To what extent should health claims that can be objectively supported by evidence be permitted?

Health claims which can be supported by evidence should be permitted. Providing information to consumers to allow them to make informed choices is partly about providing them with the facts about food and partly about educating them about how to evaluate whether the food is appropriate for their dietary needs. The food label can provide the first part, but it other means are required to provide enough information to enable consumers to make unbiased decisions.

Appropriate health messages can support Government health initiatives, but these too need to be free of bias.

Q11. What are the practical implications and consequences of aligning the regulations relating to health claims on foods and complementary medicine products?

Q12. Should specific health warnings (e.g., high level of sodium or saturated fat per serve) and related health consequences be required?

The difficulty with health warnings is that the usual simplistic approach do not encourage consumers to balance their overall diet, they may scare consumers off foods which might

of 22 Kraft Foods Limited Submission to the Department of Health and Ageing – Food Regulation Secretariat May 2010 provide other attributes necessary for their diets. Higher fat ingredients may carry fat soluble vitamins, for instance.

These warnings could have unintended consequences. The simplistic messages do not encourage consumers to learn about foods and to make decisions which are right for them

Simplistic criteria for health warnings provide hurdles for manufacturers rather than encouragement for continuous improvement.

Hurdles for application of warnings to date are based on opinion rather than good science, and are therefore more likely to have unintended consequences. The criteria proposed for the FSANZ Health Claims policy had a set of criteria for food and then a different one for high fat foods. If the science was sound, then a continuum would be expected.

Tying the ability to make low fat claims to sodium or sugar levels makes assumptions about the place of the particular food in the diet for individuals.

Regulation is too slow to keep pace with updates in nutrition-related health warnings. Over the last 20 years concern has shifted from fat to cholesterol to saturated fat to trans fat. Science is now suggesting fitness is more important than BMI as far as a predictor of later life health issues. The changing viewpoints confuse consumers. Many learn what little they know from magazines which purport to educate, but, as there is no quality control, are often biased.

Health warnings may be misleading. High sodium levels might trigger a warning despite the presence of mitigating levels of potassium as in Vegemite.

Q13. To what extent should the labelling requirements of the Food Standards Code address additional consumer-related concerns, with no immediate public health and safety impact?

For many products label space is at a premium and therefore should not be wasted attempting to include non-safety related information.

There are many consumer-related concerns about food. Currently the manufacturer assesses which can unambiguously be placed on labels to inform.

Consumer-related concerns not addressed by the Food Standards Code can be used as selling points by the food industry, however care needs to be taken not to fuelling those emotive concerns which may not be fact-based. This can lead to misinformation and distortion of health and safety messages about foods. FSANZ can and does provide the balance and via the Food Standards Code, and can regulate what is and what is not put on labels.

Consumer concerns about terms used should be addressed through media other than labels. If there is sufficient concern about particular terms, then the industry or FSANZ can be approached for resolution.

Q14. What criteria should be used to determine the inclusion of specific types of information?

The information on pack should relate to product safety first and foremost. Other information should be on pack on a voluntary basis so that the safety information is readily seen. On small packs there is little room to put anything else other than information required for safety purposes (ie ingredient, handling and recall information). To provide certain sorts of information on packs of one size and not on others is to raise questions and create uncertainty, and therefore should not be encouraged.

Q15. What criteria should determine which, if any, foods are required to have country of origin labelling?

While Kraft is happy to supply the information, however the information should not be mandatory. Whether a product is Australian made or not gives an indication of freshness, and therefore provides perceived added value.

Q16. How can confusion over this terminology in relation to food be resolved?

Much effort has gone into developing criteria for terms such as Product of Australia, Made in Australia, etc. There are concerns that the terms are too loose; however in practice tightening these terms will mean that very few goods would then carry these claims due to minor ingredients, and hence the terms will lose value.

Q17. Is there a need to establish agreed definitions of terms such as 'natural', 'lite', 'organic', 'free range', 'virgin' (as regards olive oil), 'kosher' or 'halal'? If so, should these definitions be included or referenced in the Food Standards Code?

These are common terms and therefore they need to be understood, however they are mainly controlled by other bodies and do not need endorsement by the Food Standards Code. For example, Halal, Kosher, Organic are determined by authorities who own these terms by setting the rules and policing the use thereof.

“Lite” should have the same meaning as “Light” as in the Code of Practice.

Q18. What criteria should be used to determine the legitimacy of such information claims (environment concerns/ animal welfare concerns) for the food label?

As with all claims, the manufacturer needs to be able to provide scientific justification. Trying to set standards is likely to lead to a lot of issues. Firstly, it will be difficult to come up with criteria that those who are interested in will agree to, and hence this will raise even more issues for those who feel disenfranchised. This can be seen in the Genetic Modification situation. Further, the cost to business of obtaining and maintaining the information in a rapidly changing world will be an extra cost burden to industry. It is not a requirement for our trading partners, and if it were a requirement it could be seen as a technical barrier to trade.

Q19 In what ways can information disclosure about the use of these (GM, nanotechnology, irradiation, etc) technological developments in food production be improved given the available state of scientific knowledge, manufacturing processes involved and detection levels?

These topics tend to be emotive rather than scientific, and so it is likely that no practical disclosure of information will satisfy. The current requirements of the Food Standards Code for GM appear to be a reasonable compromise for dealing with that issue.

With the complex nature of many ingredients of foods and the sources of ingredients

Detection levels of GM are such that a manufacturer using systems to avoid GM can find that cross-contamination from outside his control has occurred. The adverse publicity of instances like this, despite the best of intentions and practices, can ruin a business. Large manufacturers will stick to the requirements to avoid becoming embroiled in the debate, but for small manufacturers the risk of detection is a lot lower and the publicity around the breach not likely to give the anti-GM lobby the profile they would wish.

The scientific knowledge about these technologies is one thing, but the public knowledge, perception and philosophy is another and therefore a rational discussion is very difficult. But even scientific knowledge can be lacking. There is currently no agreement in the scientific, for instance, as to the boundaries of nanotechnology. It is therefore very difficult to discuss it with the public.

Without the ability to explain processes in full and to put forward the pros and cons, the public can come away with a misconception or misinterpretation which is then very difficult to correct. FSANZ does a good job of assessing whether a technology is safe, and this authoritative third party assessment is probably the best way we can move forward. Where people have individual concerns they can contact the larger companies have hot-lines which allow questions to be answered in context with the necessary explanation. If sufficient similar questions are asked, manufacturers find a way of providing that information more readily.

Q20. Should alcohol products be regulated as a food? If so, should alcohol products have the same labelling requirements as other foods (i.e., nutrition panels and list of ingredients)? If not, how should alcohol products be regulated?

Kraft Foods does not work with alcohol products, so offers no opinion.

Q21. Should minimum font sizes be specified for all wording?

The key issue here is legibility. See the next question.

Q22. Are there ways of objectively testing legibility and readability? To what extent should objective testing be required?

It is helpful to have specific criteria for manufacturers to measure themselves against.

Consumer requirements for legibility and readability will vary considerably, so it will be necessary to develop an arbitrary but reasonable set of principles. The current guidance is too brief and is not always adhered to. Such criteria could include  Type size  Font characteristics  Background contrast, (catering for colour-blindness), etc.  Objective testing is always helpful as guidance, but being over prescriptive can cause unnecessary disputes.

This is another issue against which the food industry can develop a code of practice.

Q23. How best can the information on food labels be arranged to balance the presentation of a range of information while minimising information overload?

This is a constant struggle with labels on smaller items and different shapes. There is always a struggle between providing all the necessary information in a reasonable font size. The actual presentation depends on the particular size and shape of the pack. It is best not to be prescriptive in this area.

One issue which has not been addressed is small pack size. Currently a small pack is defined by its surface area, however for quite a number of packs there is quite a difference between the surface area and the printable surface area, especially when allowance has to be made for the variations in mechanical wrapping.

It has been noted that those consumers who read labels are only interested in part of the information. As long as they can find the information they are seeking, they are satisfied. If it can be presented in a consistent format, then it is easier to find and read, but consistent formats cause issues with smaller packs as described above.

Q24. In what ways can consumers be best informed to maximise their understanding of the terms and figures used on food labels?

Understanding the terms and figures obviously requires education. This should start as part of the formal curriculum at primary school. It should be noted that children with allergies learn to recognise from an early age what they can and cannot eat. Some of the concepts and calculations such as daily intake may need to wait until the arithmetic skills have developed.

It should be noted that consumers will not be informed if they are not interested; however people do become better educated if they see and hear consistent messages repeated often.

It should also be noted that the FSANZ guide to additive numbers which was first published many years ago does not appear to readily available.

Q25. What is an appropriate role for government in relation to use of pictorial icons on food labels?

 Pictorial icons are an attempt to simplify and codify information. Oversimplification leads to misunderstanding, and it has been stated earlier that more information, not less, is required for good decision-making.  Pictorial icons have been shown some ability to change purchasing behaviour, (such as the Heart Foundation Tick) but they do not necessarily increase knowledge. While there is opportunity to benefit some people, the definitions may no be appropriate or helpful to all.  Despite the good work of the Heart Foundation, concerns about obesity and hypertension are on the increase so the long-term effectiveness has to be questioned.

Q26. What objectives should inform decisions relevant to the format of front-of- pack labelling?

Front-of-pack labelling  Elsewhere in this paper concern was raised about information overload. Front-of pack (FOP) labels distract consumers from reading ALL the information available on the back of pack and therefore may take the front information out of context. With the effort being put into FOP labelling, there should be the expectation that consumers are more informed. It must provide real added value.  It might be relevant for front-of-pack labelling to indicate current wisdom about dietary balance for meal-type solutions, but this is not appropriate for foods which only make small contributions to the diet.  As with all food labelling, the format of the front-of-pack information must not mislead. It needs to be factual, and it needs to be relevant. For instance, values per 100g are of no relevance for a food which is only consumed 5g at a time.

 Schemes which purport to interpret the “healthiness” of a food tend not to take the role of the food in a diet into consideration and therefore can be misleading. Current regulations have the aim of prohibiting misleading information.  Some schemes repeat information already on the pack elsewhere, so the space- effectiveness of this extra information needs to be questioned.  Colour-coded systems mislead as they arbitrarily categorise foods and disadvantage those foods close to criteria cut-offs and which for technical reasons cannot be reformulated.  Requirements under international treaties and agreements does not mean that Australia should make the same mistakes other countries have made.

Q27. What is the case for food label information to be provided on foods prepared and consumed in commercial (e.g., restaurants, take away shops) or institutional (schools, pre-schools, worksites) premises? If there is a case, what information would be considered essential?

Allergen information should always be available. The means by which it is available needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The current requirements that the information should be available to the consumer even if it is not on a label should prevail.

Q28. To what degree should the Food Standards Code address food advertising?

As is currently the case, food advertising should always be factual and should meet the standards set in the Food Standards Code.

Q29. In what ways can consistency across Australia and New Zealand in the interpretation and administration of food labelling standards be improved?

FSANZ currently create the Standards, and provide guidelines, but they offer no assistance in interpretation, leaving that to the courts. This provides no certainty to either manufacturers or the jurisdictions. A centralised body authorised to interpret standards and to publish their findings would increase confidence in all parties.

Q30. In what ways can consistency, especially within Australia, in the enforcement of food labelling standards be improved?

Consistent enforcement requires consistent philosophy and consistent interpretation. A single body charged with interpretation which is recognised by the jurisdictions will assist.

Enforcement of the labelling standards needs to be commensurate with the issue. The performance standards of the enforcement agency need to be set accordingly. A proportionate approach as is in place in Victoria is recommended.

Q31. What are the strengths and weaknesses of placing the responsibility for the interpretation, administration and enforcement of labelling standards in Australia with a national authority applying Commonwealth law and with compatible arrangements for New Zealand?

Strengths  A single agency means that there can be a single, timely interpretation.  Would allow collation of issues to inform future regulation and prioritisation of review.  Easier promulgation of new interpretations.  All of this should reduce non-compliance due to incorrect advice from non- authoritative bodies.  Enforcement would be easier to codify and promulgate.  A national authority is more likely to be able to drive programs enabling understanding of labels through the other authorities responsible for education of the public.

Weaknesses  A centralised interpretation is likely to mean less opportunity to challenge any rulings. This would need to wait until the standards are reviewed.  Centralised enforcement would require the States and New Zealand to devolve their powers to this new body, which is highly unlikely.  A new enforcement authority is unlikely to have sufficient resources spread across Australia to carry out appropriate surveillance. This means that surveys will be limited, and will depend on other resources to do the fieldwork. Such arrangements are rarely even-handed and efficient.  Depending on funding arrangements, the enforcement arm could drive the agenda beyond the value to the community.

Q32. If such an approach was adopted, what are the strengths and weaknesses of such a national authority being an existing agency; or a specific food labelling agency; or a specific unit within an existing agency?

A specific agency would give the opportunity to explore an ideal agency, whereas creating an agency within a current agency is likely to just draw on current resources without casting the net wider. For instance, including representatives of stakeholders to be part of the review process should be considered.

A specific food labelling agency will focus on this alone and increase the rate of skill development rather than have it diluted by other responsibilities if the resources are shared.

A unit within another agency is more readily subjected to a review of issues vs resources, and therefore a balanced outcome is more likely.

The way the agency is set up, its cost structure, and the processes it develops will inform how much work the agency will need to undertake. Setting it up within another agency will allow resources to be quickly diverted should the workload be greater than expected, with the backfill taking place with the required consideration.

Q33. If such an approach was adopted, what are appropriate mechanisms to deal with the constitutional limits to the Commonwealth's powers?

Kraft Foods has limited knowledge of this issue and offers no comment.

Q34. What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining governments' primary responsibility for administering food labelling regulations?

Advantages

 Government has more credibility with consumers than does the food industry.

 Government has total oversight, whereas other bodies may not command sufficient powers to require all businesses to comply.

 Jurisdictional resources can be prioritised against this or other responsibilities depending on the seriousness of the issues to be resolved.

 Governments are able to set education agendas designed to improve the understanding of label information.

Disadvantages

 Slowness to respond to changes in areas of interest to consumers.

 Provides regulations, but not interpretation leading to uncertainty.

 Tend to lose focus on the policy and concentrate on the letter of the regulation when it comes to enforcement.

Q35. If a move to either: self regulation by industry of labelling requirements; or co-regulation involving industry, government and consumers were to be considered, how would such an arrangement work and what issues would need to be addressed?

Any reasonable system needs clear definition of roles and responsibilities, with a review system to address any anomalies. Regulations must dictate that the body responsible has

of 22 Kraft Foods Limited Submission to the Department of Health and Ageing – Food Regulation Secretariat May 2010 total responsibility for all labelled foods, including imports. For efficiency, it will need to involve other agencies such as local government and AQIS for identification of issues.

The body responsible must be able to provide binding interpretation and be responsible for having interpretations made available to all involved in labelling. Certainty and perceived balance of judgement will provide the necessary credibility for users to seek and implement the guidance.

Capability of effectively and appropriately dealing with those that refuse to comply needs to be built into the system. The hierarchy of management tools as outline in the VCECC report7 is recommended.

Any arrangement needs to have appropriate performance standards and capabilities including financial support to meet the desired level of performance.

Q36. In what ways does such split or shared responsibility strengthen or weaken the interpretation and enforcement of food labelling requirements?

Shared responsibility provides for differences of opinion which creates uncertainty for manufacturers and hence inconsistency between manufacturers and confusion for consumer. Different viewpoints are valued when developing requirements as they challenge the robustness of the decisions, but they become an issue once the requirements are in place. Consistency of interpretation will permit easier calibration of enforcement standards.

Split responsibilities clarifies for all stakeholders where decisions are made. When there are shared responsibilities not all decisions are as transparent and credibility and clarity of interpretation diminishes.

Q37. What are the strengths and limitations of the current processes that define a product as a food or a complementary medicine?

There is a continuum between foods and complementary medicines. As always there are exceptions which do not fit. Current processes allow a manufacturer to place the item under whichever jurisdiction they feel will benefit them the most. This obviously leads to inconsistencies as far as the consumer is concerned as they do not care which jurisdiction they fall under. The products sit beside each other on supermarket shelves anyway so are similarly accessible to all.

Q38. What are the strengths and weaknesses of having different approaches to the enforcement of food labelling standards for imported versus domestically produced foods?

7 Simplifying the Menu: Food Regulation in Victoria, September 2007.p xii.

Provided food labelling standards relate to food safety, then local and imported products should be treated the same way. Leniency towards one or the other indicates that the standards do not efficiently address food safety issues and therefore need revision. Further, there is the opportunity to cause confusion to the consumer if two standards are used.

In practice, many labels, even domestically produced labels do not meet the exacting requirements in the Food Standards of the Nutrition Information panel with no ill effect in the marketplace. If clear principles were in the Standard, then this would facilitate sharing labels in more countries with consequent reduced costs.

Q39. Should food imported through New Zealand be subject to the same AQIS inspection requirements?

Food imported through New Zealand should meet the same criteria as that coming into Australia directly, otherwise food import into Australia is working to two standards. Any issues this raises obviously need to be resolved.

Key Points  Labelling should relate to facts about the food so labelled. Diets (ie the quantity and frequency of the consumption of foods) are so varied and are driven by many factors and opinions rather than facts. They are therefore beyond the scope or control of manufacturers and so should not be permitted.  Classifications of foods inevitably throw up inconsistencies to the detriment of the classification and the purpose for introducing it.  Diet-mediated diseases are appropriately a concern of governments, but foods are not diets. Solutions appropriate to diets and consumer behaviour are needed to address these issues. Overgeneralisation can generate misunderstanding rather than inform.  The lack of understanding of food labels may relate more to lack of relevant education or lack of interest rather than issues with the data provided. A serious look at the provision of education about food is required.  Strident demands for information about food are more often about food supply systems or broader environmental issues and should be dealt with elsewhere than on labels.  Improvements to labels have occurred through the interested parties wanting to work together to develop a common agreed language. Other issues can be resolved this way.  Having an agency with the ready ability to provide binding clarification about label requirements will provide certainty for businesses and regulators with reduced costs for both and consistency for the consumer. It will also provide data for improvement to the Standards.  Review of the issues caused by some pedantic parts of the current Standards will ease some import/export restrictions without compromising quality, safety or label information.

Contact Details

Dr Allan J Poynton

Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Scientific Affairs

Kraft Foods Ltd

162 Salmon St

Port Melbourne 3207

(Personal contact details deleted)