New labelling rules confuse food producers

New regulations on labelling and advertising of foods were recently introduced as part of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, which was implemented on March 1 2012. They aim to create a specific standard for informing consumers about the ingredients in foodstuffs.

All labels and advertising will have to be presented in the same format, which will hopefully stop misleading claims. For example, the regulations will curb statements relating to sugar where manufacturers label a product as "no sugar added" but it still contains sugars – just not in the form of added table sugar. This statement alone has caused considerable confusion amongst consumers, who often interpret the statement as meaning the product is sugar free.

This is also intended to make it easier for consumers to compare different products and the new labelling will make it easier for consumers to identify nutritional information of products as well as allergens.

Broadly, the regulations state that food labels and adverts may no longer contain items on their labels that create the impression that the food is endorsed by a health practitioner, or manufactured by or in accordance with recommendations by an organisation, or in some way provides nutrition.

However, many manufacturers are expressing frustration with the new laws. This includes the nutritional information format, specifically the inclusion of a dietary fibre method of analysis and the scientific determination of serving size, which cannot simply be the capacity of the packaging. In addition, many products need to accommodate other legislation, such as the Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries regulations.

Manufacturers are also finding ingredient statements and the requirements they need to meet confusing, as well as what claims can be made about foodstuffs and what criteria need to be taken into account when using words such as 'pure', 'natural', 'hand-made', 'fresh', 'original' 'finest' and so forth.

Furthermore, in the past two similar products may have differentiated themselves by focusing on different strengths inherent in both products. This can no longer be done. A product may not tout the fact that, for instance, additional nutritional elements have been added to it. Consumers will actively have to compare products to see which is higher in content of the nutritional ingredients they want.

This also means that manufacturers of a product such as milk will no longer be able to claim that it may strengthen bones, but may simply state that it naturally contains calcium. Manufacturers will also not be able to disclose whether a product contains microorganisms or compounds such as probiotics.

Additionally, from the manufacturers point of view, it will not be compulsory for food manufacturers to publish a typical nutritional information table and for those that do, they must be able to substantiate any labelling info within 48 hours of being requested to do so, which may lead to manufacturers leaving off important information regarding their ingredients.

The regulations are however a step in the right direction towards creating a better and healthier purchasing environment for consumers. Even though the regulations will undoubtedly cause some confusion and frustration initially, the right legal advice should make it easier.

Herman Blignaut