Final LM Phase 1 Report for publication 5 Jan 05 · 14. mixed foods. Major food categories were further divided into minor food categories based on the grouping of food products with

FSANZ FOOD LABEL MONITORING SURVEY – PHASE 1 REPORT

Page 21 of 187

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sampling aim

The aims of the sampling plan were to obtain the labels of 2.5% of all retail packaged food

products available in Australia and New Zealand, and to select labels which were a

representative sample of all food products and brand types (see section 3.2.2).

3.2 Sample stratification

3.2.1 Food categories

For the purpose of this survey, foods were grouped into 14 major food categories using a

food classification system similar to that used in Standard 1.3.1 Food Additives of the new

Code as outlined below:

1. dairy products;

2. edible oils & oil emulsions;

3. ice cream & edible ices;

4. fruit & vegetables;

5. confectionery;

6. cereals & cereal products;

7. breads & bakery products;

8. meat & meat products;

9. fish & fish products;

10. egg & egg products;

11. sugar, honey & related products;

12. foods intended for particular dietary uses;

13. non alcoholic beverages; and

14. mixed foods.

Major food categories were further divided into minor food categories based on the grouping

of food products with similar regulatory requirements (e.g. by individual food product

standards within a category or separated by additive permissions):

e.g. Dairy was divided into the following six minor food categories:


Page 22 of 187

1.1 milk;

1.2 cream;

1.3 dried milk products;

1.4 cheese;

1.5 dips; and

1.6 yoghurt.

In order to represent and distinguish between products with different storage and shelf life

requirements, minor food categories were then divided according to their processing

conditions:

e.g. 7.3 Cakes, muffins and pastries were divided into the following sub-minor food

categories:

7.3.1 fresh / ambient;

7.3.2 chilled;

7.3.3 frozen; and

7.3.4 mixes (eg. dry packet mixes).

The categorisation of foods in this manner ensured that all food product groups subject to the

labelling provisions of the new Code were covered by the survey. Sampling within these

categories was by quota sampling per food category.

The categories which were sampled are fully detailed in Table 1.


Page 23 of 187

Table 1 Food product categories used for the survey

Major product

category Minor product category Minor sub category

1. Dairy 1.1 Milk (including flavoured milks) 1.1.1 Fresh - full fat

(excludes butter) Fresh – includes pasteurised & unpasteurised 1.1.2 Fresh - reduced fat/ no fat

1.1.3 Long life - full fat

Long life – includes UHT, canned*, evaporated and

condensed) 1.1.4 Long life - reduced fat/ no fat

1.2 Cream 1.2.1 Fresh

Fresh – includes pasteurised & unpasteurised 1.2.2 Sour cream

Long life - includes UHT and canned* 1.2.3 Long life

1.3 Dried milk products 1.3.1 Full fat milk

1.3.2 Reduced fat/no fat milk

1.3.3 Other (non milk dairy powders e.g. cheese powders)

1.4 Cheese

1.5 Dips (predominately dairy based)

1.6 Yoghurt 1.6.1 Fresh

(including cultured milk drinks) 1.6.2 Powdered mix

2. 2.1 Edible oils

2.2 Butter

2.3 Margarine

Edible oils & oil

emulsions

2.4 Dairy spreads

3. 3.1 Ice cream 3.1.1 Frozen

3.1.2 Powdered mix

3.2 Ice confectionery 3.2.1 Ambient

3.2.2 Chilled

Ice cream & edible

ices

3.3 Frozen yoghurt


Page 24 of 187

Table 1 Food product categories used for the survey (cont’d)

Major Product

Category Minor Product Category Minor Sub Category

4. 4.1 Canned* fruits

4.2 Fresh packaged fruit

(includes peeled, cut, treated fruits and fresh packed

salads)

Fruits & vegetables

(including fungi,

nuts, seeds, herbs

and spices)

4.3 Fresh packaged vegetables

(includes peeled, cut, treated vegetables and fresh

packed salads)

4.4 Canned* vegetables

4.5 Nuts & seeds

4.6 Jams & spreads

(fruit, vegetable including peanut butter, vegetable

extracts and nut-based spreads)

4.7 Herbs & spices 4.7.1 Ambient (dried)

4.7.2 Chilled (fresh)

4.8 Dried/candied fruits

4.9 Dried vegetables

4.10 Pickled fruit

4.11 Pickled vegetables

4.12 Frozen fruit

4.13 Frozen vegetables

5. 5.1 Chocolate & cocoa products 5.1.1 Beverage

5.1.2 Confectionery

5.2 Sugar confectionery – includes candy coated

chocolate

Confectionery

5.3 Chewing gum

6. 6.1 Unprocessed cereals

(whole and broken grains)

6.2 Flours

6.3 Processed cereals

(including breakfast cereals)

6.4 Cereal bars

(including muesli bars, cereal based bars)

Cereal & cereal

products

6.5 Noodles & pasta 6.5.1 Shelf stable

6.5.2 Frozen

6.5.3 Chilled


Page 25 of 187


Major Product


7. 7.1 Breads 7.1.1 Shelf stable

7.1.2 Chilled

Bread & bakery

products (including bread, fruit loaf, English muffins,

crumpets) 7.1.3 Frozen

7.1.4 Bread mix

7.2 Biscuits 7.2.1 Savoury

7.2.2 Sweet

7.2.3 Biscuit mix – ambient

7.2.4 Biscuit mix – chilled

7.2.5 Biscuit mix – frozen

7.3 Cakes/muffins/pastries 7.3.1 Fresh/ambient

7.3.2 Chilled

7.3.3 Frozen

(including cakes, muffins excluding English

style, sweet pastries, iced buns)

7.3.4 Mixes

8. 8.1 8.1.1 Chilled

Whole meat products including hams,

bacon, cooked chicken products 8.1.2 Frozen

8.2 Comminuted meat products 8.2.1 Chilled

(including hamburgers, sausages, manufactured

and processed meats, fermented meat products)

8.2.2 Frozen

Meat & meat

products (including

poultry & game)

8.3 Canned* meat

9. Fish & fish products 9.1 Packaged processed fish & fish fillets 9.1.1 Chilled

(including modified atmosphere packed fish

products, fish fingers, fish cakes, fish fillets)

9.1.2 Frozen

9.2 Semi preserved fish & fish fillets

(includes smoked, sugar cured, pickled fish)

9.3 Preserved fish products (canned)*

10. Eggs & egg products

11. 11.1 Sugar

(dry sugars and sugar syrups – e.g. corn syrup)

Sugar, honey &

related products

11.2 Honey (normal liquid & powders)

11.3 Tabletop artificial sweeteners

11.4 Royal jelly

11.5 Icing/frosting mixtures


Page 26 of 187


Major Product


12. 12.1 Infant formula products

12.2 Foods for infants

12.3 Formulated supplementary foods for young children

Foods intended for

particular dietary use

12.4 Formulated meal replacements

12.5 Formulated supplementary foods

12.6 Formulated supplementary sports foods

13. 13.1 Waters

(including packaged water and plain mineral water)

Non alcoholic

beverages

13.2 Fruit & vegetable juices 13.2.1 Shelf stable

(including concentrated fruit/vegetable juice powders and

syrups, coconut milk and plain soy beverage)

13.2.2 Chilled

13.3 Fruit & vegetable juice drinks 13.3.1 Shelf stable

(including flavoured soy drinks) 13.3.2 Chilled

13.4 Soft drinks

13.5 Formulated caffeinated beverages

13.6 Cordials

13.7 Electrolyte drink

13.8 Electrolyte drink base

13.9 Coffee

(including cream/coffee whiteners)

13.10 Tea

13.11 Herbal infusions

14. Mixed foods 14.1 Mixed non alcoholic drinks

(e.g. dry beverage bases and flavourings for milk shakes etc).

14.2 Desserts 14.2.1 Powdered mix

14.2.2 Chilled

14.2.3 Frozen

(including jelly, mousse, artificial cream)

14.2.4 Ambient

14.3 Mayonnaise & salad dressings

14.4 Sauces 14.4.1 Sweet shelf stable - liquid

14.4.2 Sweet shelf stable - powder

Sweet includes sauces, toppings and syrups

14.4.3 Sweet chilled

14.4.4 Savoury shelf stable - liquid

14.4.5 Savoury shelf stable - powder

Savoury includes sauces, salsa, gravy, condiments (e.g.

Mustard, pickle spread, chutney, tomato sauce), stocks

14.4.6 Savoury chilled


Page 27 of 187

Table 1 Food Product Categories Used For The Survey (cont’d)

Major Product


14.5 Soups 14.5.1 Canned

14.5.2 Chilled

14.5.3 Dry packet

14.6 Meat products 14.6.1 Frozen

(includes pies, pasties, sausage rolls, meat filled pasta) 14.6.2 Chilled

14.7 Pre-prepared meals 14.7.1 Frozen

14.7.2 Chilled

14.7.3 Canned

(includes complete breakfast meals and breakfast

drinks, frozen microwave meals, lunch kits)

14.7.4 Dry mix

14.8 Pizza 14.8.1 Chilled

14.8.2 Frozen

(complete pizza or base with sauce/herb coating)

14.8.3 Ambient

14.9 Snack foods 14.9.1 Ambient

(includes potato chips, gems and crisps etc, side dishes – e.g.

vegetable fingers, extruded snacks, corn chips, pretzels, snack

kits )

14.9.2 Frozen

* CANNED is in plastic, metal or pouch hermetic pack

3.2.2 Brand type categories

Retail packaged food products were categorised into four main, mutually exclusive brand

categories:

• nationally branded products – local retail products distributed in three or more

Australian States or Territories or in all regions of New Zealand (e.g. Nestle, Heinz,

Watties, Kraft); or any products imported into Australia or New Zealand;

• generic branded products – home brand, plain label and own brand retail products

(e.g. Farmland, Black and Gold, Pams, Homebrand);

• state specific products – retail products distributed in one or two Australian States or

Territories (e.g. dairy Rev and Big M flavoured milks from Victoria, bread products)

or, in only one region of New Zealand;

• specialty products – special interest products that did not fall into the other three

categories (e.g. special dietary foods such as gluten free foods, boutique products

such as propolis lollies, or specialised ethnic foods such as Kosher products).

Labels were also identified as local (i.e. manufactured in New Zealand or Australia) or

imported (i.e. manufactured outside of New Zealand or Australia), based on label

information.


Page 28 of 187

The purpose of this categorisation was to allow comparison of transition to, and consistency

with, labelling provisions of the new Code between these product categories.

Within the quota for each food category or sub-category, the appropriate proportion of each

brand type category was determined and convenience sampling used to obtain samples.

3.3 Sample size

To determine the appropriate sample size, stock keeping unit (SKU) lists were obtained from

supermarket and retail outlets across Australia and New Zealand (refer to Appendices 4 and

5). These SKU lists were analysed and grouped according to their inter-company

relationship. From these lists, the total size in terms of the variety of products available in

each pre-determined sub-minor food category was estimated. The cross over between

Australia and New Zealand SKUs (i.e. the number of SKUs available in both countries) was

estimated as 30% of the total number of SKUs available in Australia. In order to account for

this, the number of required samples for Australian food categories were reduced to 70% of

that initially calculated.

Two and a half percent of the total SKUs for any given sub-minor food category was chosen

as a sampling quota. In cases where a sub-minor food category was small (less than 100

SKUs), a minimum of two samples was taken. The total number of samples to be taken was

calculated as 1284: 733 from Australia and 551 from New Zealand. In Stage 1 however, due

to the unavailability of some samples (e.g. royal jelly in New Zealand), the total number of

samples purchased was 1273 (99% of the target). Of these, a total of 1,266 labels were

assessed, as some products with the same product brand and product name were purchased in

both New Zealand and Australia (99% target). In Stage 2, a total of 1,262 labels were

assessed (98% of the target). As with Stage 1, the target sample size was unobtainable due to

the variability of samples and some products being purchased in both Australia and New

Zealand. The quotas for sampling within each food category are detailed in the attached

Australian and New Zealand sampling plans in Appendices 6 and 7.

For products to be sampled within Australia, the most extensive SKU data supplied by any

one chain were used to estimate the proportion of specialty, generic, and state specific brands


Page 29 of 187

available in each sub-minor food category to ensure that a representative sample of brand

type was obtained. The SKU data received for New Zealand were not as extensive as that

from Australia and thus, analysing for brand types proved difficult. Therefore, to ensure the

sampling of a variety of brand types (namely national and generic), sampling was undertaken

in both the North and South Islands and split between the three principle supermarket chains.

SKU data were not comprehensive enough to allow categorisation of products in terms of

specificity to either the North or South Island.

Once the sample quota for each brand type per sub-minor food category had been established

as above, individual foods for inclusion in the survey were chosen by convenience sampling

(non-random). However, samples from as many different manufacturers as possible were

chosen, without consideration for their market share within each category. For example, for

the minor food category of edible oils, it was observed that there are a number of

manufacturers, but the market is dominated by a small number of manufacturers whose brand

name is associated with a variety of SKUs (oil types and pack sizes) that were likely to have

been labelled in the same manner. Sampling products made by a range of manufactures

rather than proportional to the number of SKUs provided a wide range of food labels to

assess for consistency with the new Code in that minor food category.

3.4 Sample collection

Samples within food categories were selected off store shelves, purchased and recorded in

sampling lists. Food products were collected until the quota for any given food category was

filled.

3.4.1 Sample collection in Australia

A large proportion of samples were initially purchased in metropolitan Victoria, the majority

of which were nationally branded and generic branded products.

For state specific products in Australia, samplers purchased products within this brand type

category in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and

Tasmania. All samplers received a state specific product list for their respective state. This

list indicated the number of products the sampler was to purchase within each sub-minor food

category and the state specific brands that were to be chosen from. For example, for the


Page 30 of 187

minor food category of cheese, a single sample of the following state specific brands could be

purchased in South Australia:

• Cosmo Dairy;

• Farmers Union;

• Watsonia Dairy;

• Capel Dairy; and

• Kangaroo Island.

Samplers were asked to purchase those state specific brands/products that were easy to find

within local supermarket/s. Where products were hard to find, supermarkets were contacted,

and asked if any of the listed state specific products were stocked at nearby stores. If state

specific brands were stocked, samplers were asked to purchase a specific state specific brand

at the alternative store.

In addition to a state specific product list, samplers received a sampling list to record

products purchased, and prompt sheets to assist in the purchasing of products considered

difficult or confusing to identify (e.g. formulated supplementary foods).

Specialty products were sought from retail outlets chosen for their ethnic product range, their

specialized product range, their wide range of product lines or their innovative product lines.

In Australia, these types of products were generally purchased within metropolitan Victoria.

The remainder of products (including imported products) to be sampled within Australia,

were primarily purchased from metropolitan Victoria and New South Wales.

3.4.2 Sample collection in New Zealand

Samplers were recruited in both the North and South Island, and a sampling list and prompt

sheet were provided. Sampling was undertaken in metropolitan Auckland and Christchurch,

and in surrounding rural areas of Ashburton, Methven and Timaru. Sampling was split

between the three principle supermarket chains.

Due to the limited information provided for New Zealand SKUs, guidance in terms of ‘state

or regional specific’ products was not given as it was not possible to assess the status of

products for this brand type category for New Zealand.


Page 31 of 187

3.5 Determination of food standard used for product manufacture

The determination of the regulations used for the manufacturing and labelling of a food

product was based on the format of the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) used, as the new

Code differs markedly from previous regulations. This assessment looked at whether the

format was consistent with the new Code or the old Code requirements as of June 2002 (up to

and including Amendment 60). The new Code prescribes that most manufactured foods

should provide a NIP on the label and include the following nutrients:

• Energy;

• Protein;

• Fat;

• Fat, saturated;

• Carbohydrate;

• Sugars; and

• Sodium.

Previously, the provision of NIPs was not mandatory however, when provided, NIPs for food

produced in Australia, were to include the following nutrients:

• Energy;

• Protein;

• Fat;

• Carbohydrate;

• Sugars;

• Sodium; and

• Potassium.

In New Zealand, Regulation 13a(12) of the New Zealand Food Regulations 1984 required

energy, protein, fat and carbohydrate to be declared but did not prescribe the order. In both

countries, if a claim was made about an additional nutrient it was also required to be declared

on the NIP. Thus, the point of reference for the Code used when NIPs were provided, was the

presence or absence of saturated fat as potassium could still be used in new Code NIPs when

making salt claims. If the product was exempt under the new Code from carrying an NIP (for


Page 32 of 187

example because of small package size or other specific exemptions within the new Code),

the Code status of the food was considered to be ‘indeterminable’. For the purposes of this

survey, these ‘indeterminable’ labels were assumed to have been produced to the new Code

requirements. If no NIP was provided, but no exemption for the provision of the NIP is

included in the new Code, the food label was assumed to have been produced to meet the old

Code requirements where provision of NIPs was not mandatory.

Figure 1 outlines the process for determining which set of regulations were used.


Page 33 of 187

Figure 1 Process for determination of food code used for product manufacture

NEW CODE LABEL

NO

Is a nutritioninformation panelpresent on food

product label

YES

Is “Fat, Saturated”declared in nutrition

information panel

NO

YES

YES

Is the product exempt fromproviding a nutrition

information panel in thenew Code

INDETERMINABLECODE LABEL

NO

OLD CODE LABEL

ASSUMED TO BE

3.6 Assessment of label elements

Only those labels deemed as being manufactured to the new Code, including indeterminable

labels, were further assessed for the label elements of interest in the survey.

For the purposes of this survey, interpretation of the new Code, including the depth and scope

of label assessments, was determined in consultation with FSANZ Staff and the Project

Team.

Figure 2 details the assessment process for labels.


Page 34 of 187

Figure 2 Assessment process for FSANZ Food Label Monitoring Survey

DETERMINE FOOD CODEUSED AS PER FIGURE 1

NO FURTHER ASSESSMENTCONDUCTED

SAMPLES COLLECTED AS PERSAMPLING PLAN (APPENDICES 6

AND 7)

ASSESS LABEL ELEMENTS FORCONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW

CODE; AND/OR COLLECT OTHERINFORMATION ON LABEL OF

INTEREST

ANALYSE DATA FROMASSESSMENTS OF LABELS

OLD CODE

NEW CODE ORINDETERMINABLE

Two types of further assessment occurred for those labels assessed as new Code labels

(including indeterminable labels), as follows:

• assessment for consistency with new Code labelling requirements; and

• additional data collection on the use of non-mandatory label aspects.


Page 35 of 187

Results for the overall assessment of consistency of food labels with the new Code labelling

provisions were also reported against brand type and the place of production (local or

imported).

3.6.1 Assessment of consistency with mandatory requirements

Where the new Code mandated specific provisions for labelling requirements, labels were

assessed for consistency against the new Code for each label element of interest. A total of 12

label elements were assessed. In some cases, the information on a single label element was

complex and needed to be broken down into sections or sub-sections for assessment

purposes. Definitions of the terms ‘label element’, ‘label element section’ and ‘label element

sub-section’ are provided in the Glossary to this report. For every food label, each label

element sub-section was assessed for consistency and deemed consistent, inconsistent,

indeterminable, exempt or not applicable. Then each label element section was assessed for

consistency based on these results, followed by each label element and finally the whole

label.

Figure 3 provides an example of the hierarchy of assessment.

FSANZ FOOD LABEL MONITORING SURVEY – PHASE 1 PILOT REPORT

Page 36 of 187

Figure 3 Label Assessment Levels

P R O D U C T N A M E IN G R E D IE N T D E C L A R A T IO N

D A T E M A R K IN G

A L L E R G E N IN F O R M A T IO N

S T O R A G E IN S T R U C T IO N S

U S A G E IN S T R U C T IO N S

C H A R A C T E R IS IN G IN G R E D IE N T S

C O M P L E X IN G R E D IE N T S

F o o d C o n ta in s A lle rg e n T y p e S ta te m e n ts

A lle rg e n s D e c la re d In in g re d ie n t L is t

M a y C o n ta in A lle rg e n T y p e S ta te m e n ts

M A N D A T O R Y A D V IS O R Y S T A T E M E N T S

C a ffe in e A d v is o ry S ta te m e n ts

G u a ra n a A d v is o ry S ta te m e n ts

P h y to s te ro l E s te r A d v is o ry S ta te m e n ts

N U T R IT IO N IN F O R M A T IO N P A N E L (N IP )

S ta n d a rd N IP

E x p a n d e d N IP

E x p a n d e d N IP - F a t T y p e

E x p a n d e d N IP - C a rb o h y d ra te T y p e

E x p a n d e d N IP - S a lt T y p e

S p e c ia l N IP

F o rm u la te d C a ffe in a te d B e v e ra g e s

F o rm u la te d S u p p le m e n ta ry F o o d s

F o rm u la te d M e a l R e p la c e m e n ts

In fa n t F o rm u la P ro d u c ts

In fa n t F o o d s

E le c tro ly te D rin k s

G E N E T IC A L L Y M O D IF IE D F O O D S /IN G R E D IE N T S

G e n e tic a lly M o d ifie d F o o d

G e n e tic a lly M o d if ie d In g re d ie n t

IR R A D IA T E D F O O D S /IN G R E D IE N T S

Irra d ia te d F o o d s

Irra d ia te d In g re d ie n ts

L A B E L E L E M E N T S A S S E S S E D

P re s e n c e o f N IP

L e g ib ility o f N IP

E X A M P L E O F S E C T IO N S O F L A B E L E L E M E N T A S S E S S E D - S ta n d a rd N IP

G e n e ra l N IP E le m e n ts

N IP B o rd e rs

N IP H e a d in g

S e rv in g In fo rm a tio n

N IP C o lu m n s

N u tr ie n ts

V a lu e s

U n its

O th e r

P re s e n c e

E X A M P L E O F S U B S E C T IO N S O F S E C T IO N S A S S E S S E D - N IP H e a d in g

P o s it io n A lig n m e n t C a s e W o rd in g

FSANZ FOOD LABEL MONITORING SURVEY – STAGE 1 REPORT

Page 37 of 187

3.6.2 Additional data collection on the use of non-mandatory label elements

Additional data were collected for some label elements, which were not mandated by the

labelling provisions of the new Code (e.g. ‘may contain’ allergen statements) or, not deemed

to be able to be objectively judged from a label only (e.g. usage instructions). Data were also

collected on the ways that information was presented and the reasons for label element sub-

section, label element section and label element inconsistencies. This information was

recorded and categorised to provide useful baseline data for future analysis of usage,

provision or approach taken for these label elements.

The label information examined under this component of the survey was not included in the

consistency assessments for label element sub-sections, label element sections, label elements

and overall label consistency.

Appendix 15 details the assessment protocol used for the survey, which includes a list of the

additional data collected. The rationale behind the assessment approach undertaken, and the

reasons for inclusion are detailed below under each label element.

3.6.3 Tools used for assessment

To aid in the assessment of labels, a Standard Check List was designed to conduct label

assessments (refer to Appendix 8). For products with special NIPs, a special NIP Checklist

was developed for each type. These are detailed in Appendices 9 – 14.

A Microsoft Access database was designed to record all data.

3.6.4 Data security and confidentiality

Data were stored in an Access database and Excel spreadsheets on a secure network, and

were accessed only by employees of Silliker Microtech. Whilst it is possible to access brand

names and product names in the database forms, these names do not transfer to the queries

and subsequently the data itself cannot be linked to these brand or product names and thus, to

any manufacturers.

Labels were stored in numerical order in a secure warehouse. Again these labels were only

accessed by employees of Silliker Microtech.


Page 38 of 187

3.6.5 Label legibility

In the new Code, mandatory text font size requirements were removed. As a consequence, it

was considered that legibility is a key label element for assessment, especially given the

additional requirements for information in the new Code. Each label element of a label was

assessed separately for legibility against the guidelines in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Legibility assessment classifications

Classification Definition

Prominent Distinct contrast to background

Indelible Printing has not faded, run or rubbed off

Distinct Decorations and embellishments do not interfere with legibility of words on label

Text not printed on complex/pictorial or multicoloured background

Easy to read Text is easy to read e.g. font size not too small to read

Text case is suitable for ease of reading e.g. font style hard to read

Stand Out Words, statements, expressions and designs are easily seen

Placing Information Related information placed in same field of vision

Information Noticeable Important information highlighted by using contrasting colour, border, larger print size, other

distinctive print, use of line spacing, type justification or segmenting of text

English All information required by new Code is in English

Visibility Visible without opening pack, removing stickers or breaking seams

The legibility classifications were based on the FSANZ User Guide to Standard 1.2.9

Legibility Requirements. The visibility classification was not covered in the user guide but

was added to cover the issue of information not being visible to consumers without opening

or damaging the packaging.

Additional data were collected on the reasons why each label element was not legible and

also, on the reasons why labels were inconsistent for legibility overall.

3.6.6 Product Name

The assessment of consistency of the product name label element with the new Code

labelling provisions was based on legibility only.

Additional data were collected on whether or not the product name was an appropriate

description of the food product in question. Baseline data were also collected on the reasons

for concluding that product names or descriptions did not appear to reflect the food’s true

nature. The product name was assessed to determine if removal of compositional


Page 39 of 187

requirements for a number of products under the new Code had impacted on how well

product names and descriptions reflected the true nature of the food concerned. Whilst the

new Code requires that a product’s name or description is a true reflection of that product, it

was considered difficult to objectively assess this. Field of vision requirements are not

specified in the new Code. For the purposes of this assessment, requirements in the Trade

Measurements Act were used to assess whether information such as the name, description or

weight were in one field of vision.

3.6.7 Date Marking

Date marking was assessed with respect to whether it was provided where required and

whether the date marking statement used matched the requirements of Standard 1.2.5 of the

new Code. Consistency assessment for this label element was therefore conducted on the

basis of provision, legibility and appropriateness of date marking statements used.

Additional data were also collected on the date marking statements chosen, alternative date

marking statements used, and reasons why labels were inconsistent for this label element.

3.6.8 Storage instructions

The new Code requires the mandatory inclusion of storage instructions where required to

ensure food safety and that a food product will keep for the specified period indicated in the

‘use-by’ or ‘best-before’ date. Where a product requires storage instructions after opening to

meet these requirements, the Code does not specify the types of products to which this

applies. For the purposes of this survey, it was assumed that the storage instructions after

opening applied to all products including single serve products.

This label element was assessed to determine the level of understanding of ‘before’ and

‘after’ opening requirements. Consistency for this section was assessed using Standard 1.2.5

Clause 6, Standard 1.2.6 and Standard 2.9.2 Clause 11 of the new Code and was based on

provision and legibility of storage instructions where these instructions were required under

the new Code.


Page 40 of 187

Additional data were also collected on the voluntary provision of storage instructions. If

storage instructions were voluntarily provided, these were assessed for legibility and included

for the consistency assessment of this label element.

If a product was retailed under frozen, refrigerated or ambient conditions, these were deemed

to be its storage requirements prior to opening. However, the retail storage conditions were

not used for assessment purposes if the retailer had stored the product under conditions other

than:

• those advised on the label; or

• technically accepted storage conditions (e.g. industry codes of practice or industry

standards) for that product type.

3.6.9 Usage instructions

The provision of usage instructions was a new requirement in the new Code under Standard

1.2.6 of the new Code and was therefore assessed to measure the level of adoption by food

manufacturers of this new requirement.

The assessment of consistency of the usage instruction label element with the new Code

labelling provisions was based on legibility only.

Additional data collected related to whether or not usage instructions were provided as the

assessment of the reasons why usage instructions were required was considered to be

subjective.

3.6.10 Allergen labelling

Whilst declaration of allergens on food labels is mandatory, manufacturers have two options

for the declaration:

• ‘food contains allergen’ statements; and/or

• declaration in the ingredients list.


Page 41 of 187

The ingredients list was assessed as a label element in it own right, therefore, the assessment

of allergen labelling consistency with the new Code labelling provisions was based on

legibility of ‘food contains allergen’ statements only.

A statement indicating the potential presence of allergens not directly added to a food product

may have been present on food labels in the form of a ‘may contain allergen’ statement, as a

result of other food products containing the allergen being manufactured in the same facility.

‘May contain’ allergen statements are optional statements not covered by the new Code.

The reasons for assessing this label element were to determine, in addition to the consistency

assessment:

• how allergens were currently declared; and

• the prominence given to allergen statements (e.g. placement, font size and style).

Additional data were therefore collected on the terminology used to name specific allergens

(i.e. common or lay terminology, as opposed to technical ingredient names, such as milk

protein as opposed to whey protein concentrate). Data were also collected on ‘may contain

allergen’ statements, categorised by the approach and format taken. The kinds of allergens

named, using each of the three methods above of providing information about the presence or

potential presence of allergens, were also assessed for data collection.

In summary, data were collected for the following sections for this label element, for each of

the three statement types:

• statement type used;

• terminology used;

• placement of statement;

• font size; and

• font type.


Page 42 of 187

The terminology used to declare allergens in the ingredients list was categorised according to

the following:

• common name; or

• ingredient name.

Placement of allergen statements was grouped into the following categories:

• near ingredient list;

• near NIP;

• between ingredient list and NIP; or

• other.

Font size of allergen statements was compared to the ingredient list and categorised as:

• smaller;

• larger; or

• the same.

Font type of allergens declared in ingredients list or allergen statement was categorised as:

• bold; or

• roman (standard).

3.6.11 Mandatory advisory statements

Mandatory advisory statements were targeted for provision of statements and correctness of

statement intent for three product groups:

• kola beverages with caffeine;

• food containing guarana and guarana extract; and

• foods containing phytosterol esters.

These product groups were selected as examples of mandatory advisory statements under

Standard 1.2.3 Clause 2 of the new Code.


Page 43 of 187

For these three groups the provision, legibility and correct intent of required statements were

assessed for consistency with Standard 1.2.3 Clause 2 of the new Code. Additional data were

collected on the reasons for inconsistency for this label element for each group.

3.6.12 Nutrition information panel

Substantial changes occurred to the required format of the NIP in the new Code. These

changes included mandatory provision of NIPs for most packaged food products and the

inclusion of a statement of saturated fat content within the NIP.

The following is an excerpt from Clause 5 of Standard 1.2.8 Nutrition Information

Requirements providing further details regarding the new requirements.

5 Prescribed declarations in a nutrition information panel

(1) A nutrition information panel must include the following particulars -

(a) the number of servings of the food in the package; and (b) the average quantity of the food in a serving expressed, in the case of a

solid or semi-solid food, in grams or, in the case of a beverage or other liquid food, in millilitres; and

(c) the unit quantity of the food; and (d) the average energy content, expressed in kilojoules or both in kilojoules and

in calories (kilocalories), of a serving of the food and of the unit quantity of the food; and

(e) subject to clause 12, the average quantity, expressed in grams of, protein, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate and sugars, in a serving of the food and in a unit quantity of the food; and

(f) the average quantity, expressed in milligrams or both milligrams and millimoles, of sodium in a serving of the food and in the unit quantity of the food; and

(g) the name and the average quantity of any other nutrient or biologically active substance in respect of which a nutrition claim is made, expressed in grams, milligrams or micrograms or other units as appropriate, that is in a serving of the food and in the unit quantity of the food;

set out, unless otherwise prescribed in this Code, in the following format –

NUTRITION INFORMATION

Servings per package: (insert number of servings) Serving size: g (or mL or other units as appropriate)


Page 44 of 187

Quantity per Serving Quantity per 100g (or 100mL)

Energy kJ (Cal) kJ (Cal)

Protein g g

Fat, total - saturated

g g

g g

Carbohydrate sugars

g g

g g

Sodium mg (mmol) mg (mmol)

(insert any other nutrient or biologically active substance to be declared)

g, mg, µg (or other units as appropriate)

g, mg, µg (or other units as appropriate)

(2) A nutrition information panel must clearly indicate that –

(a) the average quantities set out in the panel are average quantities; and (b) any minimum and maximum quantities set out in the panel are minimum

and maximum quantities.

Editorial note: ‘Average quantity’ is determined in accordance with the definition set out in clause 2 of Standard 1.1.1. Average quantities may be indicated, for example, by inserting the word ‘Average’ or an abbreviation for average at the beginning of ‘Quantity per Serving’ and the ‘Quantity per 100 g (or 100 mL)’ columns, or including a note at the end of the panel stating that all specified values are averages. No format is prescribed for the indication of minimum and maximum quantities. They may be indicated, for example, by inserting the bracketed abbreviations ‘(min)’ and ‘(max)’ immediately after the relevant quantities in the Quantity per Serving column and the Quantity per 100 g (or 100 ml) column. Clause 12 explains when minimum and maximum quantities may be indicated.

(3) The word ‘serving’ may be replaced in the nutrition information panel by -

(a) the word ‘slice’, ‘pack’ or ‘package’; or (b) the words ‘metric cup’ or ‘metric tablespoon’ or other appropriate word or

words expressing a unit or common measure.

Because of the detailed nature of NIPs, the consistency of each different section of the NIP

was assessed. The level of severity of inconsistencies was also assessed in terms of their


Page 45 of 187

impact on consumer understanding. Severity was categorised as one of the following three

levels:

• minor;

• intermediate; or

• major.

The severity rating was based on the assessment criteria detailed in Appendix 16. These

assessment criteria were developed in consultation with FSANZ staff and the Project Team.

These criteria were used for standard NIPs (which contain data on the seven nutrients that

must be included in all NIPs), expanded NIPs (those NIPs where additional nutrients or

biologically active substances are included) and special NIPs (such as those required on

packages of infant formula).

Assessment of the NIP was split into the following label element sections:

• presence;

• legibility;

• general reasons;

• borders;

• panel heading;

• serving information;

• columns;

• nutrients;

• values;

• units; and

• other (anything not coverable under these label element sections and that deems the

NIP format as inconsistent with that prescribed in the new Code).


Page 46 of 187

The label element sub-sections within the label element section were assessed for

consistency. Consistencies for standard NIPs and the expanded NIP section, were assessed

using Standard 1.2.8 of the new Code.

Expanded NIP sections were assessed separately as three categories:

• expanded due to inclusion of information on types of fat (e.g. omega fatty acids);

• expanded due to inclusion of information on types of carbohydrate (e.g.lactose); and

• expanded due to a label claim about salt or sodium content.

Overall consistency of expanded type NIP sections was based on the consistency assessment

of these three expanded type NIPs. Specific claims about added vitamins and minerals were

not assessed separately.

For products with special NIP requirements, the following standards in the new Code were

used for consistency assessment:

• electrolyte drinks/bases Standard 2.6.2 Clause 7;

• formulated caffeinated beverages Standard 2.6.4 Clause 3 (2);

• infant formula Standard 2.9.1 and the Transitional Standard;

• infant foods Standard 2.9.2 Clause 9;

• formulated meal replacements Standard 2.9.3 Clause 3; and

• formulated supplementary foods Standard 2.9.3 Clauses 5 & 7.

For the overall label assessment, the NIP was assessed as consistent if all the requirements

for a standard or special NIP were met and, where appropriate, if those for the expanded NIP

section were also met. Additional data were collected on the voluntary provision of NIPs on

products exempt from the mandatory provision of NIPs and the nature of the inconsistency

for label element sub-sections, label element sections and for each NIP.


Page 47 of 187

3.6.13 Percentage daily intake information

Additional data were collected for provision of percentage daily intake information and usage

of the daily intake information column within NIPs. Reference was made to Standard 1.2.8

of the new Code.

Claims about biologically active substances that may have referred to recommended daily

intakes were considered outside the scope of this survey.

3.6.14 Ingredient declaration

The ingredient declaration was assessed against Standard 1.2.4 of the new Code (FSANZ

2002) to determine that it was provided where required.

Consistency for this label element was assessed for provision and legibility of the ingredient

declaration.

3.6.15 Characterising Ingredients

The declaration of percentages of characterising ingredients is a new provision in the new

Code. This label element was assessed to determine whether or not these declarations were

consistent with Standard 1.2.10 of the new Code, whether the appropriate characterising

ingredient was selected for declaration and the extent of declarations given.

Determining what is a characterising ingredient on a food label is subjective. Three sources

of information were considered to determine the presence of a characterising ingredient in a

food product:

• product name;

• product description; and

• ingredients in pictures or graphics.

Consistency with this label element was assessed for these three sources.

Single ingredient products and products where the characterising ingredient was a flavour

were assessed as exempt. Foods with primarily one ingredient and only low-level additives

(e.g. less than one percent), were deemed consistent if the product was declared to contain


Page 48 of 187

100% of the primary ingredient, or exempt if nothing was declared (e.g. orange juice with

only Vitamin C added). If products had no characterising ingredients, the label was deemed

to be not applicable for this label element (e.g. cheddar cheese).

If the words ‘flavoured’ were used in conjunction with the product name or description then

the label was deemed as exempt (e.g. product name of ‘strawberry flavoured cake bars’).

The assessment of consistency of the characterising ingredients label element with the new

Code labelling provisions, was based on provision of information on the percentage content

of all characterising ingredients present in the food.

Additional data were collected for voluntary provision of ingredient percentages, where no

characterising ingredient was explicitly implied or, where the product was assessed as having

no characterising ingredients (e.g. brown sugar). Data were also collected on the reasons

why labels were inconsistent for the characterising ingredient label element.

3.6.16 Compound ingredients

Compound ingredients are those ingredients that are themselves comprised of two or more

ingredients (e.g. yoghurt in yoghurt coated muesli bars). Compound ingredients were

assessed as Standard 1.2.4 Clause 6 of the new Code introduced labelling requirements

relating to the situations under which the components of these compound ingredients must be

declared.

Declaration of all ingredients or, only food additives and allergens (as applicable based on

level of compound ingredient present), was assessed for consistency under Standard 1.2.4

Clause 6 of the new Code.

Additional data were also collected on the reasons for assessing labels as being inconsistent

for this label element.

3.6.17 Genetically modified foods and ingredients

The labelling provisions for genetically modified (GM) foods and ingredients are

requirements of the new Code. Therefore, statement provision and intent were of interest.


Page 49 of 187

Consistency assessment, using Standard 1.5.2 of the new Code, was based on provision,

legibility and intent of the statement required for genetically modified foods. For genetically

modified ingredients, the consistency assessment was based on provision and legibility of the

wording ‘genetically modified’, in conjunction with the genetically modified ingredient in the

ingredient declaration.

Additional data were also collected on the usage of ‘genetically modified (GM) free’ claims

and the types of ‘GM free’ statements made.

3.6.18 Irradiated foods and ingredients

The irradiated food and ingredient labelling provisions are new requirements of the new

Code. Therefore, provision of required statements and correctness of intent were of interest.

Consistency assessment was based on statement provision, intent and legibility for irradiated

foods. For irradiated ingredients, the consistency assessment was based on provision of

wording, in conjunction with the irradiated ingredient in the ingredient declaration.

Only those product labels for herbs, spices or herbal infusions, or those foods containing any

of these ingredients, were assessed for this label element as these were the only food types

permitted to be irradiated under Standard 1.5.3 (FSANZ 2002) for the period July 2002 –

December 2003. All other foods were categorised as not applicable.

3.7 Limitations of this survey

As the Code is a living document, with amendments being made on a regular basis, one of the

limitations of a survey of this kind is that the assessment of the consistency of food labels

against labelling provisions can be reported against a given point in time only. In this case,

all labels were assessed against labelling provisions in the Code as at June 2002, up to and

including Amendment 60. At the time of writing this report, some of these provisions have

been further amended, for example; Standard 1.2.3 Mandatory Warning and Advisory

Statements and Declarations.

Two main sources of bias have been identified in this survey:


Page 50 of 187

• retail packaged food product sampling; and

• measurement of label elements.

The non-random selection of retail packaged food products in this survey was intended to

increase the likelihood of sampling as many brand types and different products as possible

within a given food category or sub-category, as well as including as large a number of

manufacturers as practical. However, this sampling method also introduced the chance of

sample bias, as products were not sampled proportionally to the number of SKUs a

manufacturer had. Therefore, data obtained from this survey may not be a true representation

of foods available in the mainstream market place.

The measurement of label elements in this survey was undertaken by more than one person.

Given the subjectiveness of some aspects of label assessment, this may have resulted in

assessor bias (i.e. inconsistencies may have occurred in the way in which labels were

assessed).

Other limitations encountered in this survey included the sample size. Two and a half percent

is a small proportion of the Australian and New Zealand market place and thus, samples and

results gathered in this survey may not be a true representation of consistency with the new

Code in the wider market place in these countries. The small sample size also meant that it

was difficult for food products to be purchased from all types of retail outlets and ethnic

shops. Lastly, not all labels were produced to the new Code requirements so the number of

samples within food categories which were fully assessed was reduced further.

The methods used to minimise these bias are discussed in section 3.8 Quality assurance.

3.8 Quality assurance

Quality assurance measures were put in place to minimise data collection and recording

errors, and to reduce the chance of bias in this survey.

In order to ensure the reliability of label assessment, all assessors undertook a training

session run by the Project Co-ordinator. In addition to this, the initial assessments made by


Page 51 of 187

each assessor using the checklists were crosschecked by the project co-ordinator before being

entered into the database.

After assessments were entered into the database, data obtained were checked for any results

that appeared abnormal (e.g. the provision of storage instructions being entered as not

applicable for fresh full cream milk). When abnormal results were present, results were

traced back to the involved food categories and subsequent food product labels for

verification of correct assessment and data entry. If required, appropriate changes were made

to the database.

Final LM Phase 1 Report for publication 5 Jan 05 · 14. mixed foods. Major food categories were further divided into minor food categories based on the grouping of food products with

Documents