Advanced search

News Room

Information Links

FSANZ Home > News Room > Food Standards News > 

Spring edition Food Standards News #66

full colour version [ pdf ]

In this edition

CEO’s message

Rarely a day goes by without an article or commentary on some aspect of the food supply appearing in the mass media.   It reminds those of us involved in food regulation that food – especially the safety of food – is a universal subject of interest to most of us.

In recent months, two food issues have dominated the media: the use of colours in food and genetically modified foods.

A number of concerned parents and their organisations have drawn attention to action by the United Kingdom (UK) Government to encourage food manufacturers to remove certain colouring chemicals in food linked to intolerance or behavioural problems in children. They ask: if these chemicals are deemed unsuitable in the UK, why not in Australia and New Zealand?

This is a fair question. You may recall that a recent study by Southampton University showed a possible association between some colouring additives and behaviour, but no mechanistic pathway for this association.

After examining the study’s methodology and results, we concluded that the results do not support changing our current approach of limiting the use of the colours and requiring the colours to be identified on the label.   The European Food Safety Authority has reached the same conclusion.   However, if we did find compelling evidence that the colours affected behaviour at permitted levels, we may well decide to reduce permissions.  

This issue highlights a community perception that the only response available to government when faced with a food ingredient to which some people are intolerant is to remove it from the food supply. If this were the case, we would remove nuts, egg and milk products, crustacea and other potential allergens from the food supply because they are life-threatening to a small proportion of the population.

But we don’t. We use other means of managing the risk, including appropriate advisory statements on food packages and education campaigns – and we constantly re-evaluate our processes to take account of new information.

The other issue hitting the headlines is that of GM foods. I acknowledge that some people have strongly held views that GM foods are unsafe and that FSANZ’s processes for assessing the safety of GM foods do not meet their expectations.

FSANZ’s safety evaluations for GM foods follow a methodology that has been recommended by an authoritative international body – the Codex Alimentarius Commission – and adopted by national food regulators around the world. In fact, this year we subjected our approaches to international peer review and received a strong endorsement.

National regulators have been independently assessing the safety of GM foods with this methodology for 15 years. No government regulator, anywhere in the world, has found evidence that the genetic modifications examined so far pose any threat to human health. FSANZ has evaluated and approved more than 35 foods derived from GM crops.

I make the point again that FSANZ is not working in isolation in assessing GM food safety. Other national regulators are also confident that their assessment methodologies are robust and that gene technology is a safe and suitable food production technology.

That is not to say that we should not be vigilant when new genetic modifications are proposed. We should be prepared to adjust our evaluation methodologies in response to changed circumstances. We must remain cautious about all novel foods.

But the weight of scientific evidence is almost totally one-sided in favour of approved GM foods being as safe and as nutritional as their non-GM counterparts.

Steve McCutcheon

Consumer and Social Sciences Unit

FSANZ has long used consumer and social sciences research as an essential part of our work to supplement the evidence base that underpins all our decisions.

The work of our social scientists allows us to understand and predict how changes to the Food Standards Code (the Code) may affect consumers.

Recently there has been increased demand for social research as an aid to valuing the benefits, analysing the risk, and appreciating the social effects of other FSANZ projects.

So, in 2007 we established the Consumer and Social Sciences Unit (CASS) as the dedicated in-house repository of social science experience and expertise.

CASS, with three full time staff in the Canberra office, now has a major role in assessing data and research that food manufacturers and other applicants provide as part of their applications to change the Code.

The social sciences are those disciplines that study the behavioural and social dimensions of humans in groups and individuals. In FSANZ, we are particularly interested in effects at the consumer level and draw upon the disciplines of psychology, consumer studies and sociology. As with other sciences, the social sciences are theoretically driven and collect empirical data to understand and explain phenomena.

The social sciences provide the evidence that gives us greater insights into the risk analysis process. Creating a survey to assess likely changes in consumption behaviour as a consequence, for example, of permitting a food manufacturer to add a particular vitamin to a food, or changing labelling information on food packaging, removes the guesswork and assumptions about human behaviour. Empirical evidence about how consumers use label information tells us whether and why individuals may change their eating habits and is central to effective risk management.

Our major sources of data come from published studies and existing sources.   In some cases, we commission the collection of new data and use standard social research techniques including computer assisted telephone interviews, on-line surveys, focus groups and in-depth interviews with individuals.

CASS can now help us better understand the answers to a range of questions directly relevant to how we develop food standards, such as:

To ensure the reliability of our research, we seek peer review of our major consumer and social science work before publication. We have also just created a Social Science Expert Advisory Group to provide advice at critical stages in our preparation of such reports (see Food Standards News number 64, the 2008 Autumn Edition).  
 

New and improved food recall protocols

Food recalls are necessary to remove food from the marketplace that may be a risk to public health and safety, such as food containing an undeclared allergen, microbial contamination or foreign matter like metal shavings.

Food recalls are usually initiated by industry and are performed in consultation with State or Territory governments and FSANZ in Australia and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority in New Zealand. The role of FSANZ is to coordinate the food recall and notify all relevant authorities.

To make sure food recalls are performed in the most efficient fashion, we reviewed food recall procedures in 2007. We received positive feedback about how recalls are coordinated, and we used comments from stakeholders to improve the training of our after hours recall officers.

The review also highlighted the need to update the food recall protocols. FSANZ publishes two protocols, the Government Authorities Food Recall Protocol (Government Protocol) and the Food Industry Recall Protocol: A Guide to Conducting a Food Recall and Writing a Food Recall Plan (Food Industry Protocol). The protocols have now been condensed and updated to reflect current practices. They will be available later this year.

The Government Protocol is designed to inform government authorities of their food recall responsibilities. We have re-written this protocol to accommodate the subtle differences in internal procedures between jurisdictions and the varied roles of local government.

We have also revised the Food Industry Protocol to make that document more user-friendly. We removed the ‘example’ recall plan and replaced it with a section that describes the different components of a recall plan.

In addition to the protocols, the FSANZ website will soon have a downloadable press advertisement template to assist industry in drafting press advertisements for food recalls. Press advertisements must be approved by FSANZ before publication. Also, we will soon be conducting a webinar on the Food Industry Protocol, so stay tuned.
 

FSANZ industry visits

In July, a team from FSANZ headed to Brisbane to visit the XXXX Brewery and Parmalat factories for the agency’s fourth Industry Site Visit.  Eleven FSANZ staff visited the XXXX Brewery and Parmalat factory as part of an initiative organised by FSANZ and the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

The idea was for our staff to gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the complexity of the manufacturing environment, and the impacts of changes in regulatory requirements.  They were accompanied by Kim Leighton of the Australian Food and Grocery Council as well as staff from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Safe Food Queensland.

The visits were a great success, with our staff learning much about the brewing and dairy industries and gaining valuable insights into the processes involved in the food supply chain.

XXXX Brewery

Staff spent the first day at the historic XXXX Brewery, which is part of the Lion Nathan group. They heard about the history of the company and toured the factory learning about the brewing and bottling process.  XXXX have been working on the environmental impact of their brewing and packaging processes and they described the changes they’ve made to reduce their water usage and improve the brewery’s efficiency.

Donald Nelson, Technical Director of Lion Nathan, gave an overview of how Lion Nathan integrates the labelling requirements of the Food Standards Code into the development of packaging.  He then ran an interactive activity with FSANZ staff designed to put them in the shoes of Lion Nathan managers making decisions on the claims and text that would be used on beverage labels.  Donald’s examples created a lot of discussion and had staff thinking about how proposed standards will be interpreted by the industry.  Later in the afternoon, staff learnt about Lion Nathan’s product development and marketing processes using the example of Australia’s first carbon neutral beer, Barefoot Radler.  Staff then had an opportunity to sample some of the range of XXXX products in the onsite bar.

Parmalat

The second day was spent at Parmalat, where Parmalat staff delivered presentations about the corporate and operational overview of the Parmalat brand and the market size and strength of the company. There was also an overview of the linkage from marketing and sales to product and packaging innovation. This included learning how product ideas and innovation are created and how Parmalat’s ‘ideas people’ look at other markets, both in Australia and overseas, to develop new projects.

Parmalat staff explained the manufacturing process that occurs at the South Brisbane site, beginning with collecting the milk from the farm, the processes that the milk goes through to arrive at the final product and how it is loaded onto the refrigerated transport trucks that distribute the milk. The company has considered many environmental and engineering changes over the past decade, allowing it to improve its rating in energy conservation and climate change issues. Also, our staff learned about supply chain considerations and how the company tracks its products once they leave its factory sites. The occupational health and safety and quality standards that operate internally at Parmalat were also explained, including their compliance, regulatory and food safety issues in terms of environmental sustainability, composition, labelling and advertising.

As with the XXXX Brewery, one of highlights was the factory tour, which allowed FSANZ staff to get very close up to see the manufacturing lines in action. There is something exciting about watching the process working from the moment the milk and yoghurt containers are shaped, through the milk being dispensed and labelled, to the moment when it gets placed in the crates and into the cool rooms. The tour also included how Parmalat cultures yoghurts and seals the packages.

The XXXX and Parmalat visits gave FSANZ staff valuable insights into how our Food Standards are implemented by industry and how they effect businesses. 
 

Seminar on Food Safety Systems and Risk Analysis

In August 2008, nations belonging to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organisation funded a seminar in Peru on Food Safety Control Systems and Risk Analysis under the APEC Forum’s banner. The idea was to help APEC Member Economies understand each other’s food safety control systems, relevant international standards and establish solid ground for future cooperation in the region.

Co-Chairs of the Forum, Dr Lin Wei, Deputy Director General, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China (AQSIQ), and Steve McCutcheon, Chief Executive Officer, FSANZ, welcomed more than 75 delegates from 13 Member Economies to the seminar, which was held in Cusco, the historic capital of the Inca Empire.   The seminar was sponsored by China, and co-sponsored by Australia, the United States and Peru.

The seminar provided an opportunity for APEC Member Economies to exchange their views on national food safety control systems and their experiences in establishing food legislation based on risk analysis. The seminar also heard experts from the World Trade Organization, Codex Alimentarius Commission and the World Organisation for Animal Health introduce and discuss the work of international standard setting bodies regarding food safety and food risk analysis.

As well as attending the seminar, FSANZ Chief Scientist Dr Paul Brent provided a report to the APEC Sub Committee for Standards and Conformance (SCSC), outlining progress made in food safety cooperation and capacity building. He outlined an expanded scope for the work and supplied an Implementation Plan for 2008-2011.

In the 18 months since the first forum, more than 300 people from 16 APEC Economies have participated in 17 different capacity building activities in five cities across the region, working together to target priority areas in need.  

Capacity BuildingActivity-Food Safety Risk Communication for APEC Developing Economies

In June 2008, an APEC funded workshop on food safety risk communication was held under the forum’s banner in Manila, the Philippines. The training was hosted by the Philippines and 13 APEC Member Economies participated in the workshop. The week-long program focused on theoretical aspects of risk communication, how to apply risk communication principles, examination and evaluation of case studies and presentations on each Member Economy’s experiences with food safety risk communication.

Experts in food safety and risk communication from FSANZ, the NSW Food Authority, the US Food and Drug Administration and the University of Maryland were involved in the training. The overall objectives were to help Member Economies develop effective risk communication protocols in relation to food safety issues. Program participants spent the week comparing approaches to risk communication that they could adapt for use within their nations.

The participants from the 13 Member Economies represented people from nations that have hundreds of languages and diverse cultures, living in places ranging from urban to rural and remote settings, and using a variety of approaches to addressing food safety. During the training they discussed specific food safety issues of concern, including avian flu, mercury in fish, pesticide use, GM food crops, listeria advice for at risk populations and E.coli and Salmonella outbreaks in fruits, vegetables and meat.

National approaches to food safety varied widely, with some countries having larger centralised agencies controlling all aspects of the food supply while others shared responsibility with other government departments. The training was successful in achieving its objectives with participants putting theory into practice and presenting case studies on the final day. Participants were also able to build strong networks which will be useful in the future as many countries are dealing with similar communication issues.

Developing Food Laws, Standards and Enforcement Systems

FSANZ is presenting an AusAID-funded capacity building activity entitled Developing Food Laws, Standards and Enforcement Systems as part of the ongoing programs under the APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum. The activity will be held between September 2008 and March 2009 with the first phase of the program being a five-day training workshop held in Hanoi, Viet Nam, from 8-12 September 2008.  The objective is to increase participants’ knowledge and skills in developing food laws and regulations. 
 

FSANZ invites discussion of our proposed PPP for raw milk products

FSANZ is embarking on a project to assess the current requirements in the Food Standards Code (the Code) for the sale of raw milk products in Australia (Proposal P1007).

With assistance from the dairy industry, consumers and other government agencies, we are assessing the risks and possible safety management issues associated with the production of some raw milk products.

Raw milk means milk that has not been subject to a heat treatment process, such as pasteurisation, to kill pathogenic bacteria.

We released a discussion paper for P1007 for public comment during August and September. This paper, in addition to managing the risks to public health and safety, outlined a number of issues including how to:

The discussion paper proposed a category framework approach to assess the safety of raw milk products, assigning them categories according to their potential to make us unwell. Category One includes products in which pathogens have been eliminated, Category Two includes products where pathogens may survive but do not grow and Category Three covers products where pathogens survive and grow.

We received an overwhelming number of submissions from many different groups and individuals and we will now start the task of examining all of the information provided in the submissions. We will also progress work in undertaking a rigorous scientific assessment to determine the risks posed by these products and the production factors that are essential for determining safety.

FSANZ, through extensive consultation with industry, government and consumers, will determine if the safe production and sale of these products in Australia can be assured through appropriate management measures.

Regulating genetically modified foods

Since New South Wales and Victoria lifted their moratoria on the commercial growing of genetically modified food crops, the whole issue of gene technology has re-emerged in popular debate.

The likelihood that farmers in NSW and Victoria will soon be harvesting GM crops rekindled debate, with previously unaffected or unconcerned people now actively voicing their opinions.

FSANZ has approved 35 different GM foods for Australia and New Zealand. These include different varieties of canola, cotton (used for edible cotton seed oil), corn, lucerne (alfalfa), potato, soybean and sugar beet.

Before we can approve any new GM food, we thoroughly appraise its safety in accordance with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines. As part of the safety assessment, we evaluate the genetic changes, the potential for any new protein in the food to be toxic or allergenic, and also assess the nutritional and compositional characteristics of the GM food. If we find a new GM food is as safe as the conventional variety of food, we list it in Standard 1.5.2 – Foods Produced Using Gene Technology - of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, and allow it to be sold as food.

The same Standard 1.5.2 also requires that approved GM foods must carry labels stating they are GM. This requirement was decided in 2000 by Health Ministers from all Australian States and Territories and the Australian and New Zealand governments. The Ministers insisted that GM foods have labels, which must be practical for enforcement purposes, so consumers can make meaningful and informed choices about the food they buy. Labelling is not imposed for safety reasons – the FSANZ assessment process ensures they are safe.  

The labelling requirements for GM foods are based on whether or not novel DNA or protein is present in the food (that is, DNA or protein that is not in the conventional food), and not on the GM production method itself.   For example, some highly refined GM foods that do not contain novel DNA or protein (which has been processed out) are indistinguishable from the conventional food, and therefore do not require a GM label.

Foods with characteristics altered by the GM process (such as changes in their nutritional content) must also be labelled, regardless of whether or not novel DNA or protein remains in the food.

These requirements apply to GM foods grown in Australia and New Zealand, as well as imported GM foods. No GM food is grown commercially in New Zealand.

We have produced a variety of resources to assist people who would like to learn more about GM foods. These include:

GM Foods on the FSANZ website (includes FAQs)  http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/index.cfm

GM Food – safety assessment of genetically modified foods booklet  http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/GM%20Foods_text_pp_final.pdf

GM labelling user guide  http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/thecode/assistanceforindustry/userguides/labellinggeneticallymodifiedfooduserguide/index.cfm

Work gathers pace to make seed sprouts safer

Aware that seed sprouts are potentially high risk foods, food scientists, seed growers, seed processors and sprout producers gathered together recently ensure a consistently high level of safety is established and maintained across the industry.

The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, FSANZ, the Department of Health and Ageing, in association with Horticultural Australia Limited, South Australia Research & Development Institute, the Australia New Zealand Sprouters Association, the Australian Mungbean Growers Association, and alfalfa seed growers and processors, met in Adelaide in late July to map out a through-chain research and development activity for safe sprout production.

While the research planning is in its infancy and funding is uncertain, the outcome of this research and development activity will help improve the supply of safe sprouts to Australians.

Across the Australian jurisdictions and the sprout industry, there is considerable momentum to develop controls to ensure the supply of safe seed sprouts to Australian consumers. The Adelaide meeting builds on previous work conducted by the Implementation Sub Committee, FSANZ and the Australia New Zealand Sprouters Association on sprout safety.

This R&D initiative coincides with FSANZ’s preparations for the development of a Primary Production and Processing (PPP) Standard for seed sprouts. The FSANZ sprout project is sponsored by the FSANZ General Manager (Australia), Melanie Fisher.

Outbreaks of human illness attributable to contaminated fresh produce have taken centre stage among food borne incidents in recent years. This is reflected by large scale North American outbreaks involving spinach and lettuce in 2006 and tomatoes and jalapeño and Serrano peppers in 2008. Relatively recently, Australia has had its share of outbreaks caused by contaminated fresh produce, particularly alfalfa sprouts infected with SalmonellaOranienberg in Western Australia and Victoria in 2005/2006. 

Cost of labelling changes to the food industry

FSANZ considers changes to food labelling on a regular basis in response to government policy, applications from the food industry and our own ongoing reviews of labelling best practice.

But how much does it cost those people in the industry who have to pay for new labels? To find out we commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to study and report on the cost of labelling changes for packagers in the food industry.   

PwC’s primary objective with this study, which was carried out between June 2007 and March 2008, was to develop a generic cost schedule, which takes into account various factors that affect the costs of food labelling changes.  

We expect to be able to use the report’s benchmark cost estimates during the early risk management stages of food regulatory proposals and applications.

We view the estimates as a valuable source of information that will help us establish the broad costings for our early consideration of specific projects.   However, we will treat the costings as first estimates and expect further verification during the development of new standards.

The study applies to both Australia and New Zealand and, as well as informing FSANZ, it should help small to medium scale enterprises establish the broad costs of food labelling changes.

A FSANZ working group provided feedback for PwC, helped develop the survey questionnaire for companies and facilitated input from the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC).

PwC initially contacted 30 companies, some independently and others through the AFGC, receiving responses from 12 Australian and New Zealand companies whose product ranges include dairy, bakery, beverages, confectionery, condiments and sauces.

Key Findings

The cost ranges illustrated here indicate costs arising from minor through to major changes in labelling required of products packed in differing formats.   Detailed costs are provided in the report available on the FSANZ website. Click Here to obtain a copy

Glass packaging        

Metal packaging        

Plastic packaging

Fibre packaging

Flexible packaging

Plastic pouch/bag approximately $ 3,200 - $ 19,400 per SKU

Total costs computed are direct costs and are inclusive of label design, label production, proofing, packaging redesign (if any) and labour associated with a labelling change.

The cost estimates provided in the report should be regarded as indicative, since they depend on a number of factors, which will vary with each relabelling exercise. They will therefore serve only as an initial guide when estimating the cost burden of regulatory labelling changes.

New policy guideline for addition to food of substances other than vitamins and minerals

In May 2004, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (the Ministerial Council) agreed to develop a Policy Guideline for theAddition to food of substances other than vitamins and minerals. 

The final Policy Guideline was notified to FSANZ on 16 May 2008.   In developing food regulatory measures, FSANZ is obliged to give regard to any applicable policy guidelines. We are therefore considering the effects of this guideline on standards development.  

The policy guideline sets out policy principles for substances added for technological purposes and those added for other purposes. It states thatf  or the purpose of this policy guideline a substance other than a vitamin and mineral is a substance which is:

The Policy Guideline does not apply to vitamins and minerals; special purpose foods; substances regulated as therapeutic goods; and substances introduced during primary production process in order to enhance the properties of the food.

  For substances added for purposes other than for technological reasons the following policy principles apply:

FSANZ is considering the impact of the new Policy Guideline on the Food Standards Code, the requirements for making an application to amend the Code as set out in the Handbook for Applicants, and on applications and proposals we are working on now.   We will keep stakeholders informed of the outcome of these considerations.

Workshops to benchmark FSANZ risk analysis with our international counterparts

Dr. Charles Yoe, an international expert in Risk Analysis, visited FSANZ between August 19 and 22 and conducted several workshops with our staff on risk analysis for food standards setting.

The three day workshops brought to FSANZ the latest international development in food safety risk management, risk assessment, communication and stakeholder engagement for food standards setting.

The workshops introduced risk analysis as a paradigm shift in food regulation; demonstrated probabilistic modelling and Monte Carlo simulation using software @RISK 5; articulated the process and key steps to engage stakeholders; presented a process to communicate complex risk assessment outcomes; and the process of generating the right questions for risk assessment activities.

One of the most significant things we learnt from these workshops was the meticulous process involved in developing a Problem and Opportunity Statement and Goal and Constraint Statement when FSANZ is being challenged with a standard development activity.

On the last day, a FSANZ project team worked together with Dr. Charles Yoe and applied the principles and practices gained from the workshops on a standard development activity for seed sprouts.

The workshops provided an excellent opportunity for FSANZ staff to develop skills in international best practice in risk analysis for food standards setting.

Dr. Yoe is a Professor of Economics at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Maryland. His current areas of primary research include food safety risk analysis, food defence, watershed planning, and risks of engineering systems. Dr. Yoe has developed and taught courses in Risk Analysis, Risk Assessment and Risk Management for several agencies of the U.S. federal government, private industry and academia. Dr Yoe has undertaken the provision of Risk Analysis, Risk Assessment, and Risk Management training for the Joint Institute for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN) for the last 11 years, with around 1000 participants, both face to face and 'on-line' learning.

Update for Proposal P293 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims

The FSANZ Board approved the Final Assessment Report for Proposal P293 in March 2008 and the Ministerial Council considered it in May 2008. As noted i n its communiqué, the Ministerial Council requested that we review draft Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related claims.

We have now begun considering the issues raised. Many of the issues are not new but reflect divergent views on some aspects of draft Standard 1.2.7, including the substantiation of general level health claims, enforcement issues and the regulatory approach for nutrition content claims (related to meeting the nutrient profiling scoring criteria).

The Ministerial Council has agreed to extend the time for the completion of the review of draft Standard 1.2.7 until 8 April 2009. We propose to complete the review and then notify the Ministerial Council early in the second quarter of 2009. The Ministerial Council meets in May 2009.

You can see the criteria for the review on the Department of Health and Ageing’s website at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-request-reviews

Health advisory labels on alcoholic beverages

FSANZ is working on two projects that involve the labelling of alcoholic beverages.  The first concerns an Application to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to require health advisory statements on the labels of packaged alcoholic beverages. These will advise of the risks of consuming alcohol when planning to become pregnant and during pregnancy.

The second project is a consideration of mandatory health advisory statements on packaged alcohol to help curb alcohol misuse and binge drinking.

The two projects are connected. We received the Application for mandatory pregnancy health advisory statements from the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand in 2006 and released a discussion paper for an eight-week period of public comment in December 2007 (A576 – Initial Assessment Report).

In May 2008, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council asked us to consider mandatory health warnings on packaged alcohol in the context of the Council of Australian Government’s concerted approach to reduce binge drinking. We have been asked to take into account the work of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, relevant guidelines in New Zealand, and recommendations of the soon-to-be-released National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian Alcohol Guidelines for Low Risk Drinking.

Because of the commonality of evidence required to progress both these projects, we decided to align the timelines for the two projects.  We are currently conducting a review of the effectiveness of health advisory statements on the labels of alcoholic beverages as a strategy for alerting the community to the dangers of drinking when pregnant and high risk (binge) drinking. This review is being undertaken in the context of other risk-reduction measures and will incorporate a cost-effectiveness analysis.

As part of this review, we have commissioned an independent comprehensive study into how effective health advisory statements on the labels of packaged alcohol products are in enhancing public awareness of the issue, and in the context of other risk-reduction measures..

The United States has required health advisory statements in relation to pregnancy and general harm from excess alcohol consumption on alcoholic beverages since 1989. Other countries have done the same, including Russia, South Korea, South Africa and France.  Some countries, notably Canada and Finland, have considered the need for advisory statements about the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy, and have decided not to make these mandatory. A number of other countries, including Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Brazil, Columbia and Mexico, require more general health advisory statements, such as ‘excess alcohol is damaging to your health’.