Proposal P267 - Amendments for the Labelling of Home Brew Kits
2 October 2002
INITIAL/DRAFT ASSESSMENT REPORT (s.36)
DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS to the Authority in relation to this matter: |
Full Report [ pdf 181 kb ]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STATEMENT OF REASONS
Regulatory problem
Under Standard 1.2.8 of Volume 2 of the Food Standards Code (the Code),home brew kits that are designed to produce alcoholic beverages as standardised in Part 2.7 of the Code, are required to include a nutrition information panel (NIP) on the label. Clause 3 (b) of Standard 1.2.8 exempts alcoholic beverages standardised in Part 2.7 of Volume 2 from the requirement to include a NIP on the label. The labelling of home brew kits with a NIP is not consistent with the nutrition labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages.
Objectives
There are three specific objectives of this assessment. To:
1. Examine the extent of possible effects on public health and safety of the proposed variations to the Code to deal with the issue raised;
2. Ensure the changes to the level of information which would result from any variation do not adversely affect the ability of consumers to make informed choices against what they value and understand; and
3. Reduce the potential for misleading information on labels of home brew kits.
Regulatory Options
The issue assessed in this paper is of a minor nature and the range of options is limited.
1. Maintain the status quo (home brew kits are required to be labelled with NIP's); or
2. Amend Standard 1.2.8 of Volume 2 of the Food Standards Code to exempt home brew kits that are designed to be used to produce an alcoholic beverage standardised in Part 2.7 of Volume 2 from the requirement to include a NIP on the label.
Impact
The preferred Option is 2. This option will not have any negative impact on public health and safety but will reduce the possibility of providing misleading information to consumers on the labels of home brew kits. No benefits have been identified for any party with regard to pursuit of the alternative option, and no cost is identified for any party with regard to the recommended approach.
Consultation
FSANZ has opted to undertake one round of public consultation on this matter, being satisfied that this would not have a significant adverse effect on the interests of any person or body. T he World Trade Organization (WTO) will be notified in accordance with Australia and New Zealand's obligations as members of the WTO. All major stakeholders, including submitters to Proposal P167, will be advised through normal FSANZ advice procedures.
Conclusion and Statement of Reasons
It is recommended that Standard 1.2.8 of Volume 2 of the Food Standards Code be amended to exempt home brew kits that are designed to be used to produce an alcoholic beverage standardised in Part 2.7 of the Code, from the requirement to include a NIP on the label. It is concluded that the benefits of this approach far outweigh maintaining the status quo (the only alternative option assessed), where home brew kits are required to include a NIP on the label. No cost has been identified from taking the preferred approach. The benefits of exempting home brew kits from the requirement to be labelled with an NIP include:
- Reducing the labelling costs for manufacturers of home brew kits;
- Creating equity in nutrition labelling across the brewing industry;
- Avoiding the possibility that industry would pass on costs incurred through complying with current nutrition labelling requirements to the consumer;
- Removing the potential for consumers to be exposed to misleading information about the nutritional profile of alcoholic beverages produced for consumption from home brew kits; and
- Provide clearer guidance for enforcement agencies, reducing the possibility of inefficient use of government resources.
Subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision to omit one round of public consultation (under section 36 of the FSANZ Act) by a person whose interests are affected by the decision.
Full Report [ pdf 181 kb ]